242 replies to this topic

[Selena]

From your article on reason:

The concept of reason as a type of thought that is "especially human" has been somewhat blurred, since animals (and computers -- see artificial intelligence) are capable of some forms of logical operations.

So not a humans-only feature after all. Just not to the same extent as us.

The only time I saw animals be called inferior to humans in that article was from the dictionary description from 1913.

Please, read the Baldawin Effect. According to it, an ape could have seen that it's useful to use the stick. Anyway, the ape wasn't conscious about that. It became an instinct, and then, it's descendants knew how to use the stcik without being taught. This is different from humans, since what we learn in life aren't instincts because they aren't heritated.

I read the article. Nowhere did it state that humans do not have this feature.

[Doopliss]

Animals are intelligent, but they can't think. It's like computers, they're more intelligent than humans, but can't think nor reason ("Reason is a term used in philosophy and other human sciences to refer to the higher cognitive faculties of the human mind. It describes a type of thought or aspect of thought, especially abstract thought, and the ability to think abstractly, which is felt to be especially human."). That's what the article was refering to.

And, since the dictionary's definition is being taken into account, it means that the one who wrote the article knows that definition is still correct. Do you think Wikipedia would publish inaccurate information, being so obvoius?

My Oxford Avanced Learner's Dictionary (2000) states as well only humans are capable of reasoning. Could anyone check in a recet Encyclopedia Britannica?

Edited by Doopliss, 21 December 2005 - 04:52 PM.

[Fyxe]

Please, read the Baldawin Effect. According to it, an ape could have seen that it's useful to use the stick. Anyway, the ape wasn't conscious about that. It became an instinct, and then, it's descendants knew how to use the stcik without being taught. This is different from humans, since what we learn in life aren't instincts because they aren't heritated

I read it. Firstly, it's a theory, secondly, it does not mention apes, it's more relevant to insects and suchforth, and finally, APES DO NOT KNOW TO USE THE STICK WITHOUT LEARNING IT. They are never BORN with that knowledge. They learn it through observation. That is a known fact.

Edited by Fyxe, 21 December 2005 - 05:03 PM.

[Selena]

And, since the dictionary's definition is being taken into account, it means that the one who wrote the article knows that definition is still correct. Do you think Wikipedia would publish inaccurate information, being so obvoius?

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. I could go to the article about Earth, delete everything, and then state that it's a square that was invaded by Martians in the year 1495.


The classic 'reason and logic' descriptions are going to focus more on philosophy and guys like Plato and his buddies. But like the article itself said, animals are capable of basic reason. They aren't going to be asking each other what the meaning of life is and then debate over it. We're more advanced. This does not mean that animals are incapable of rationality and thought.

A dog does not instinctively want to perform tricks on command. However, I can teach my labs how to sit, heel, speak, and even words in the English language. Yup. When I tell them to go find a ball, they ignore their other toys, and go bring me a ball. When I tell them to go get another specific toy, they go get that one and ignore the others. Likewise, a human is also taught how to behave. It's just not often we get to see how humans behave apart from society in a completely animal environment.

Wait, yes we can.


http://en.wikipedia..../Feral_children


Humans. Raised outside of our culture. With no education or exposure to our culture, they rely only on instincts and observations.

I don't know how you can tell an animal cannot 'think'. Actually, I'm wondering what you're considering 'thought' since that's generally associated with reasoning and logic, of which that article has said animals possess. Imagination, then? Laz referenced animal dreams (my dog runs in his sleep and howls, too). Curiosity? Look at a dog around an animal they've never seen. They'll approach it slowly, examine it, and try to play with it while keeping their distance. Being able to invent? Once again, we go to the apes and their ant fetching sticks. So what is 'thought' then?

Edited by Selena, 21 December 2005 - 05:13 PM.

[Khuffie]

First, how can you say animals don't think or perform reason? Have you actually been inside the brain of an animal and monitored its thought processes? Just because you don't necessarily understand the rational behind the animals thinking doesn't mean it doesn't think. I mean, you can just as easily assume that someone who doesn't speak your language is stupid if you can't get what you're trying to say across to them with signs and gestures (and believe me, it happens). All animals are different, it doesn't mean they don't think. Another case of humans thinking they're superior .

Take a cat. I recently got a cat, as many may know. What does a new kitten do when its taken to its new home? Probably spend the next few hours hiding behind a couch. Why? By instinct, cats are by default scared of whatever comes there way. What do you notice after a day or two? The cat stops hiding as often. It comes out. It gets close to its owner. What's it using here to overcome its instinct of being scared? Logic and reason that if this person hasn't tried to hurt me, he most likely isn't. Dogs don't automatically come house-trained, do they? They need to learn that peeing on the carpet is a bad thing, and that they should wait till they go outside. To learn something, some thought process is involved.

Now, the main difference between animals and humans, which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned here, is that humans have the capability of passing on their knowledge to their offspring. If a human figured out how to start a fire, they can show it to their offspring. We have language and writings now, that let us do such things easily. Think about it, when we're born, we have so much back-knowledge to build up on before we can learn new things. That makes it easier for newer technologies to evolve, rather than constantly reinventing the wheel.

What do animals do? If an ape discovered that using a stick makes things easier, he has no way of telling other apes. Some may imitate him, but thats about it. Young apes must discover this on their own eventually.



Also, I just wanted to mention while most things have been kept to an acceptable level, I'm noticing tensions rise in this thread. Keep it calm people. Breathe deeply. Don't take offense if people don't see your point of view.

[Kwicky Koala]

Okay, so the handful of people who can afford to not eat meat do so.

I don't know about this, I don't think it's that great a difference in cost. Before this I've never heard about not eating meat being expensive. It's much more than a handful of people anyway.

[spunky-monkey]

1. By LEARNING. Humans LEARNT that wood FLOATS, by observation. They learnt that large amounts of wood would support a person's weight. They put two and two together. This knowledge isn't something any person could just... Come up with. They'd have to learn it through accident and observation.

2. An example of what you're talking about would be nice. And you learn things constantly. The very basic piece of knowledge about existence is learning. You're just adding things together to try and work things out.

3. It's fairly simple. Can you think of a truely random number? Something you have come up utterly randomly? It's technically impossible, because there's always a reason your brain will choose a number, based on subconscious thought.

1. Not true, many things were discovered quite by accident, you yourself said that earlier on. EDIT: hang on accident and observation aren't the same thing...one is random the other is controlled.

2. I thought I made it obvious? Oh well...I don't know...messing around with programming languages, trying out new things, lessons and tutorials, trial and error...anymore and we'll start talking about my personal life which is not supposed to be in Controversial...

3. Not fair, you can't answer a question meant for someone else.

Dogs don't automatically come house-trained, do they? They need to learn that peeing on the carpet is a bad thing, and that they should wait till they go outside. To learn something, some thought process is involved

Interesting point Khuffie, provided that instinct is not present the animal can show the ability to adapt to its surroundings. If animals could override their instincts altogether they'd virtually be as clever as us. Cool.

Edited by RICKY, 21 December 2005 - 06:51 PM.

[Doopliss]

Take a cat. I recently got a cat, as many may know. What does a new kitten do when its taken to its new home? Probably spend the next few hours hiding behind a couch. Why? By instinct, cats are by default scared of whatever comes there way. What do you notice after a day or two? The cat stops hiding as often. It comes out. It gets close to its owner. What's it using here to overcome its instinct of being scared? Logic and reason that if this person hasn't tried to hurt me, he most likely isn't. Dogs don't automatically come house-trained, do they? They need to learn that peeing on the carpet is a bad thing, and that they should wait till they go outside. To learn something, some thought process is involved.

But learning and reasoning are different. Your cat knows it won't be hurt, thought it doesn't understand why. It just has the capability to remember and use the information for its benefit. Its brain takes care of that, but can't consciously reason it, since it instincticely gets confidence when it sees you're not hurting it. To make this clearer, take into account apes who can make fires. Thet know how to do it, and they know how they can use it, but they do it unconsciously, and don't care about why it works. Animals can't experiment new things. Now, apes can teach this to their children, but according to the Baldawin Effect, it's because it has become an instinct to teach this. Another good example, would be a computer, it can process information, and it knows what to do, but it doesn't do it consciously, nor has an idea of what it's doing.

Reason allows us to disobvey our instincts, while animals can't. Note that I'm not saying animals can't learn, and each individual may reaction differently because of its own experiences, but while not all the animal behavior is influenced by instincts, when they receive the appropriate stimuli they can't control it. A dog can't decide not to have sexual relationships if both the male and female are in the suitable conditions, while we can decide not to.

Another thing I'd like to point is that I don't believe animals to be as worthy as humans (which is what this thread is about) because they don't seem to have personality, so an animal can't like or dislike something.

[Selena]

If you think animals don't have a personality, I'd question whether you actually own a pet or not.


Although I question the teaching thing, Khufu. I seem to remember watching lions (or some other big cat) 'instructing' their cubs how to make a kill by letting them play with a half wounded animal. While mama cat can't exactly tell her kids what to do, they watch her and then experiment with their claws when she lets them.

Your cat knows it won't be hurt, thought it doesn't understand why.

They can't talk or communicate at the level we can. They can't know what someone else is thinking, as they can't ask them. If I didn't punch my friend, and if we were both illiterate mutes, would they know WHY I didn't go out of my way to hit them? They can't ask and I can't explain.

A dog can't decide not to have sexual relationships if both the male and female are in the suitable conditions, while we can decide not to.

Tell that to a horny teenaged boy.

Edited by Selena, 21 December 2005 - 07:57 PM.

[Doopliss]

Well, I believe neuronal activity has been registered, and animals' brain has been studied. So it's proved they aren't conscious of what they're doing. Though, some animals may be self-aware, but many scientists consider there aren't enough proves.

Tell that to a horny teenaged boy.

lol

[Fyxe]

1. Not true, many things were discovered quite by accident, you yourself said that earlier on. EDIT: hang on accident and observation aren't the same thing...one is random the other is controlled.

Um, not true. If a large log falls into water, and an ape observes that it floats, is that controlled? Of course not. I have no idea what you're talking about.

2. I thought I made it obvious? Oh well...I don't know...messing around with programming languages, trying out new things, lessons and tutorials, trial and error...anymore and we'll start talking about my personal life which is not supposed to be in Controversial...

Without any details, I cannot explain to you how that is learned and instinctual behavior. But it is.

but while not all the animal behavior is influenced by instincts, when they receive the appropriate stimuli they can't control it. A dog can't decide not to have sexual relationships if both the male and female are in the suitable conditions, while we can decide not to.

How is that any different from humans? If you put a human in the exact same situation with the exact same stimuli, with the exact same things it has experienced and learnt, it will always make the same choice. Just like an animal.

Another thing I'd like to point is that I don't believe animals to be as worthy as humans (which is what this thread is about) because they don't seem to have personality, so an animal can't like or dislike something.

Ha!! Buy a pet. And please don't talk about things you know nothing about, seriously...

[Doopliss]

You're right about your example, but what I'm refering to is that, for example, if an heterosexual couple gets sexually exitated, they are capable of not having sex. (Some people won't control, but some will, while all animals wouldn't).

Stop saying I know anything. That's a serious statement. Have you got any proof?

I own a pet. Now that I'm more mature, I wish I hadn't bought it. But of course I would never mistreat it and I'll wait until it dies of natural death. It's just that I don't let myself go and act according to reason.

Edited by Doopliss, 21 December 2005 - 10:04 PM.

[Selena]

She's referring to the animal personality bit. When you say they don't have personality, you're veeery, very wrong. And that's coming from someone who lives out in the boonies near farm animals, and as someone who's owned a gazillion pets in her lifetime. Trust me, animals have personality, and by saying they don't, it sounds like you don't own any.

edit: Okay, you edited. You own a pet? And it has no personality? What is it, a rock?

Edited by Selena, 21 December 2005 - 10:05 PM.

[Fyxe]

You're right about your example, but what I'm refering to is that, for example, if an heterosexual couple gets sexually exitated, they are capable of not having sex. (Some people won't control, but some will, while all animals wouldn't).

Stop saying I know anything. That's a serious statement. Have you got any proof?

I own a pet. Now that I'm more mature, I wish I hadn't bought it. But of course I would never mistreat it and I'll wait until it dies of natural death. It's just that I don't let myself go and act according to reason.

Firstly, some animals DO resist having sex. For example, in a group of merecats, if a merecat from another group shows up during the mating season, the females from the group will only have sex with them if they are not likely to get shunned by their own group. That's a very bad example you've come up with.

In fact, I'm kind of fed up of arguing with you. You are extremely close minded, and I find it insulting that you suggest owning a pet and caring about it is somehow 'immature'. I personally think you are very misguided and hugely immature to treat animals like unthinking objects.

Not only is it very stupid, it also reeks of a huge ego, in that you somehow think your existence is more worthy than anything else on this planet. It is a very narrow-minded and simplistic belief to think that only humans have the abilities of reason, and to be honest I think we have clearly shown that animals have ALL the intellectual abilities of any human. They are merely less complex, because they do not NEED to be more complex. Humans require complex brains to survive, because it's pretty much all we've got going for us.

And even then, look at how useless we are at utilising this ability.

[Doopliss]

I want to point something important: let's stop posting bullshit. You two aren't backing up anything you write while what I say is based on real life conversations I've had with psychologists and philosphers, and articles I've read in encyclopedias. Animals DO NOT have a personality. Every biologist would laugh at that idea. If you don't believe me, look it up in any decent book.

Fyxe, you don't have the authority to make those statements about me. I believe I'm an equal to all human beings, and I'd sacrifice my life for others in most cases.

[Overconfidence]

I don't know about this, I don't think it's that great a difference in cost. Before this I've never heard about not eating meat being expensive. It's much more than a handful of people anyway.

Not so much cost as availability. (Of protein)

[Selena]

I want to point something important: let's stop posting bullshit. You two aren't backing up anything you write while what I say is based on real life conversations I've had with psychologists and philosphers, and articles I've read in encyclopedias. Animals DO NOT have a personality. Every biologist would laugh at that idea. If you don't believe me, look it up in any decent book.

To be fair, most of the links you've posted containing the supposed information that proves animals have no personality/thought/whatever haven't proven a thing. In fact, Wiki's articles all seemed to indicate that animals are capable of reason and that humans aren't that different from them other than they can reason at a higher level. The article on the Baldwin effect you keep mentioning did not mention, at all, that humans were exempt from it and it was an effect reserved only for animals. Saying that you've had conversations with psychologists and philosophers doesn't cut it, either (especially since they don't exactly study animal behavior in the first place). I could claim I've talked with a rocket scientist, but I wouldn't know how to land something on the moon. Having read stuff in the past is not directly backing up your argument.

Biologists would not laugh at the idea, or they'd be poor biologists. Like with any theory, there's biologists in favor and not in favor of the idea, but to dismiss it entirely would be folly. Especially since the studies have been fairly recent, but hotly contested simply due to the fact that it's difficult to prove/disprove.

http://en.wikipedia....nimal_cognition
http://en.wikipedia....al_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia..../Theory_of_mind

The greatest cognition and the more human-like behavior is found within the great apes, as expected, but less advanced animals are still capable of memory, thought, tool use, and reasoning. But again, true animal 'intelligence' as you see it, is still contested due to the difficulty of detecting it.

If you want to get into the 'fact' debate, I've yet to see you post something that disproves it. I'd like to see the study you keep mentioning that disproves that animals have no thought or personality, because I keep checking around and I've yet to see any solid evidence for that point.

Edited by Selena, 22 December 2005 - 12:20 AM.

[Fyxe]

Excuse me. I have owned three different cats, I have known many cats, and dogs, and I'll let you know, from personal experience, they all behave differently in different situations, and ALL had a distinct personality.

I don't need any scientific proof to recognise what a personality is. I don't think anybody does.

I should also point out that ALL my information comes from a lifetime of watching wildlife documentaries (and over here in England we have the best wildlife documentaries in the world, recognisably so), a basic interest in animals and any information about animals, experience with owning animals, and information I have picked up from various sources based on psychology and books I have read.

Also, I base a lot of the things I have said on PLAIN COMMON SENSE. You argue for concepts you can't even define. 'Choice' and 'reason', you have yet to explain what these things exactly are and WHY, in psycological terms, only humans can do them.

I know all the arguements surrounding 'free will', right down to a quantum level of discussion. You have yet to explain what makes humans more able to make choices than any animal. We have explained to you that dogs and other animals DO make 'choices', and DO reason. If they could not perform these basic cranial functions, they would cease to survive.

Oh, and as much as I like philosophy, it has about as much place in this debate as a freakin' brick to the head.

[Khuffie]

Doopliss and Fyxe: again, please keep it calm.

To make this clearer, take into account apes who can make fires. Thet know how to do it, and they know how they can use it, but they do it unconsciously, and don't care about why it works.

The same example applies to most people. They know how to use a computer, but they don't care how it works. Same with TVs, cars, etc etc.

And I still don't understand how you can say animals dont have personalities. Have you ever been to a house with multiple pets? Why do all the pets behave differently? YOu'll find some cats love to be cuddled, others are more cowardly and scared, yet others are just grumpy all the time? Wouldn't you call those personalities?

[spunky-monkey]

If you think animals don't have a personality, I'd question whether you actually own a pet or not.

Sorry but you can't be basis towards animals when collecting information, otherwise there's no point trying to find out if animals have personalities or not. To make observations of their characters its important to control your own emotions about them first.

Um, not true. If a large log falls into water, and an ape observes that it floats, is that controlled? Of course not. I have no idea what you're talking about.

I've lost you now, we were talking about instincts. Your argument was we learn only by observation which simply isn't true I'm afraid. Animals can only learn by observation enough to understand what is a threat and what isn't and where to get food and water. If you drop a log to see what happens then that is a controlled observation...if some tanker explodes a mile from here then that is an accident. The things that were discovered by accident like 'stainless steel' are not observations. Thanks to good old common sense we come to conclusions of what happened and why - it's called deductive reasoning, and last time I checked, animals can't do that.

[Showsni]

How can you know, though? And how can you know humans are any different?

[Selena]

Sorry but you can't be basis towards animals when collecting information, otherwise there's no point trying to find out if animals have personalities or not. To make observations of their characters its important to control your own emotions about them first.

I'm Lenabot, the girl with no emotions. I don't argue when I don't have a level head. Whether you believe that or not is up to you, but I ask the same question. How many pets do you have/have had and how much exposure do you have to animals? Because having spent my entire life around them, I can't begin to fathom how they wouldn't have a personality. If you'd like me to list all the quirks and personalities of my own five pets and the ones that predated them...? While it's good to keep your emotions in check, actually having contact with animals is kind of vital.

The things that were discovered by accident like 'stainless steel' are not observations. Thanks to good old common sense we come to conclusions of what happened and why - it's called deductive reasoning, and last time I checked, animals can't do that.

Because an animal isn't advanced enough to invent computers, new metals, debate the meaning of life, or experiment with their own genome does not mean they do not have reasoning at all. As I've said many times in the thread, they aren't capable of advanced human-like reasoning, but they do have the ability to reason and think. Just not to the extent that we can.

Accident: The discovery of fire. You have to sort of try and think back to humanity's early days to truly compare them with animals in terms of discoveries and inventions. We're the same creature, just without the delusions of grandeur and ultra-advanced civilization.

Edited by Selena, 22 December 2005 - 03:17 PM.

[Dryth]

How many pets do you have/have had and how much exposure do you have to animals? Because having spent my entire life around them, I can't begin to fathom how they wouldn't have a personality.

I'm going to play devil's advocate again. Note that I've owned four cats in my life, so I'm not one to genuinely question their intelligence.

The problem with judging in such matters from the perspective of a pet owner is that there's a lot of emotional bias involved. Children develop emotional attachment to their dolls, and adults develop emotional attachment to their Roombas.

Point being, we as humans naturally come to accept that sufficiently random things are in fact operating intelligently once we spend enough time around them. It's part of the same ball of illogical-yet-sanifying thinking that has people playing the lottery, convinced deep down inside that eventually the law of averages, karma, and lady luck will all show up and throw a pity part just for them. Even look at the ancient Greek and Roman gods: Intelligent beings credited for even the most mundane of occurences.

Again, a case of something I personally have a problem with as a cat lover. But despite my love of cats I can't say with absolute certainty that there's intelligence behind those eyes or just the drive for food, warmth, and something comfortable to sleep on.

[spunky-monkey]

Because an animal isn't advanced enough to invent computers, new metals, debate the meaning of life, or experiment with their own genome does not mean they do not have reasoning at all. As I've said many times in the thread, they aren't capable of advanced human-like reasoning, but they do have the ability to reason and think. Just not to the extent that we can.

Some good points there, however you do reach a point in a living being when it is no longer "thinking" and it starts running on pure impulse alone. To be honest its far from perfect but that is the 'most suitable' design for animals living in the wild. A pack of wolves can't afford to think about the best methods of hunting prey whilst on the hunt otherwise it will distract them and they'll lose their kill. Plants, bacteria and viruses are in a different class again where there is no need for instincts or choice or reasoning because their design(s) are as good as they are ever going to be.
This is the same reason why a dumb bear will often attack camp sites even though it should know there will be trouble, because the bear is running on impulse i.e. find food. It will do it again and again whenever the urge arises at any given moment it happens to be near a camp site.

People sometimes run on pure impulse just like animals, example, ever had a terrible fight with someone? All you feel is rage and anger...then afterwards you say "My God...why did I do that?". The good news for animals is, unlike humans, they are not responsible for their actions.

The problem with judging in such matters from the perspective of a pet owner is that there's a lot of emotional bias involved. Children develop emotional attachment to their dolls, and adults develop emotional attachment to their Roombas.

Exactly my point.

Edited by RICKY, 22 December 2005 - 04:33 PM.

[Doopliss]

Doopliss and Fyxe: again, please keep it calm.
The same example applies to most people. They know how to use a computer, but they don't care how it works. Same with TVs, cars, etc etc.

And I still don't understand how you can say animals dont have personalities. Have you ever been to a house with multiple pets? Why do all the pets behave differently? YOu'll find some cats love to be cuddled, others are more cowardly and scared, yet others are just grumpy all the time? Wouldn't you call those personalities?

Most people don't care because they are lazy, but they have the capability to question about it.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/PersonalityThe article says that personality is a collection of emotion, thought and behavior patterns unique to a person. Animals may present different kinds of behavior because of their enviornment and their life style. Anyway, that doesn't make a personality, but mere behavioral differences. Animals don't have a personality since they aren't capable of having different opinions about something. An animal may like certain foods, for example, but that isn't a choice made by reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
Here it's clearly stated that reasoning is what makes humans different from animals.

I talked about this with my psychologist today. He told me that it was true, that, since animals don't have a tongue, and can't think abstractly, they can't reason. Animals can think and solve problems, but that doesn't make them able to reason or have thogughts. A computer may, as well, solve problems, but can't reason what it's doing.

I'm trying to keep it as calm as possible.

I agree with Dryth. He found the best way to express what he said.

[Fyxe]

The problem with judging in such matters from the perspective of a pet owner is that there's a lot of emotional bias involved. Children develop emotional attachment to their dolls, and adults develop emotional attachment to their Roombas.

Ok.

A dog is alive. A doll is NOT.

I'm sorry, but that's just a bloody rediculous comparison. You might as well compare an infant to a rock. Devil's advocate or not, you can't make such bizarre statements. I could argue that a human is no different from any other random collection of particles in the universe, if I wanted.

A pack of wolves can't afford to think about the best methods of hunting prey whilst on the hunt otherwise it will distract them and they'll lose their kill.

Except, they do. They carefully single out the weakest members of the herd by looking for telltale signs. They make choices dependant on how fit their target is. If it's too strong, and there are not enough wolves close enough to take it down, the wolf will break off the attack. This is a high level of careful deduction, and inexperienced wolves may make mistakes.

Another example is cheetahs. Young cheetahs learn how to hunt by practice and observing their parent hunting. When they first try hunting, they do not instinctually get it right. They regularly make mistakes. Cheetahs also have to learn things like that lions are dangerous. A cheetah who has not learnt that lions are something to avoid will make the mistake of getting too close to them.

This is the same reason why a dumb bear will often attack camp sites even though it should know there will be trouble, because the bear is running on impulse i.e. find food. It will do it again and again whenever the urge arises at any given moment it happens to be near a camp site.

How is a bear meant to learn that attacking a camp site is bad? What, until it gets a bullet in it's head? A bit late by then, isn't it?

People sometimes run on pure impulse just like animals, example, ever had a terrible fight with someone? All you feel is rage and anger...then afterwards you say "My God...why did I do that?". The good news for animals is, unlike humans, they are not responsible for their actions.

But this is the same reason why young children cannot be held resonsible for some of their behavior. You would not think of a young child as not thinking just because it does not 'reason' in the same way as an adult does.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/PersonalityThe article says that personality is a collection of emotion, thought and behavior patterns unique to a person. Animals may present different kinds of behavior because of their enviornment and their life style. Anyway, that doesn't make a personality, but mere behavioral differences. Animals don't have a personality since they aren't capable of having different opinions about something. An animal may like certain foods, for example, but that isn't a choice made by reasoning.

Again, for the thousandth time, define 'reasoning'. How does a human make a choice any differently than what you call 'behavioral differences'? Humans make all their choices based on past experience (memory), it's enviroment (including the hormonal and chemical makeup of it's body at the time of the decision), instinct, and nothing else.

Oh, and I seriously doubt your psychologist has any knowledge about animal psychology. And I wouldn't base my knowledge on one person's views, anyway.

EDIT: One more thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
Here it's clearly stated that reasoning is what makes humans different from animals.

If you actually READ the article, it goes on to say that this definition of reasoning is highly disputed. Also, again, the concept of 'reason' you are putting forth is a PHILOSOPHICAL matter, you might as well argue that humans have souls and animals do not.

Edited by Fyxe, 22 December 2005 - 05:12 PM.

[spunky-monkey]

Animals can think and solve problems, but that doesn't make them able to reason or have thogughts. A computer may, as well, solve problems, but can't reason what it's doing.

To be fair animals are way more complex than mere machines, they are just advanced switches, except for my computer, it is so awesome it worked out a long time ago it was just an expensive paper-weight in comparison.

They carefully single out the weakest members of the herd by looking for telltale signs. They make choices dependant on how fit their target is. If it's too strong, and there are not enough wolves close enough to take it down, the wolf will break off the attack. This is a high level of careful deduction, and inexperienced wolves may make mistakes.

I see where you are coming from, however observation is not quite the same thing as reasoning, bearing in mind animals don't 'think' about their kill, its pure impulse for the animal to hunt because it needs food, therefore it will hunt...whether it succeeds (or fails) depends...but that's not the best example that the animal is actually "thinking" as we do.

[Fyxe]

Why should it think about it's kill? Does a baby wonder what its milk is? Does it care? Of course it doesn't. It just knows it's food. I don't see how that is relevant, and how that has to do with 'reasoning'.

I should also point out that humans are ALSO advanced switches, if you're going to go down that road. There's just a HELL of a lot of switches.

[Selena]

Again, a case of something I personally have a problem with as a cat lover. But despite my love of cats I can't say with absolute certainty that there's intelligence behind those eyes or just the drive for food, warmth, and something comfortable to sleep on.

I'm not saying anything with absolutely certainty either - I know better than that. However, I've got the ability to argue without letting my emotions get in the way. While I care for my pets, I know better than to let my adoration for them get in the way. But, like I said, after spending so much time around animals of all kinds, it's a tad bit hard to believe that animals are incapable of a personality. I'm trying to look at this objectively while taking into account human behavior as well. Not to 'illogically put myself at ease', but because we're animals as well, and thus we should theoretically behave in a comparable way.

btw- that roomba thing scares the bajeezus outta me.


As for Doopliss, your articles again do not prove nor disprove that animals do not have a personality. Because the article doesn't make reference to animal behavior doesn't necessarily mean they aren't included. Thought, reason and emotion are required for personality, eh? We've already been debating about those very things for the past couple pages. And, continuing to hold true to my stance that animals do have such things, then I too believe animals have a personality.

What defines OUR personality? We tend to act an awful lot like our parents, and our personality is further shaped by the events that go on in our life, wouldn't you agree?

Same essentially applies to dogs. One dog raised in a nice home, after being properly socialized, with good training, will more or less be a kind and friendly dog. A dog left on the street, with no food, and minimal human contact, will probably be the kind that growls and bites at people who get too close. Aren't those two very different personalities?

But you'd probably reply with 'they are taught to behave that way.' In which case, who's to say that humans aren't the same way? If you've led a bad life, have been doublecrossed many times, and had to fend for yourself, you'd probably have a distrusting and almost paranoid personality. Whereas if you've been raised in a mansion with etiquette lesson and taught to be charitable, you might very well have a refined and friendly personality.

From the Personality article:

1. Extraversion (i.e., "extraversion vs. introversion" above; outgoing and physical-stimulation-oriented vs. quiet and physical-stimulation-averse)
2. Neuroticism (i.e., emotional stability; calm, unperturbable, optimistic vs. emotionally reactive, prone to negative emotions)
3. Agreeableness (i.e., affable, friendly, conciliatory vs. aggressive, dominant, disagreeable)
4. Conscientiousness (i.e., dutiful, planful, and orderly vs. spontaneous, flexible, and unreliable)
5. Openness to experience (i.e., open to new ideas and change vs. traditional and staid)

All supposedly in just humans, Doopliss? I'll use my own animals as examples, although some of you may frown upon that.

1. Extraversion. Outgoing vs. Calm, basically. Sounds an awful lot like my two labs. The elder loves people, activity, and socializing, while the younger is shy around people and lethargic.

2. Neuroticism. One of my cats reacts negatively towards just about everything. Rather paranoid about any and all movement and sound. Afraid of her own shadow.

3. Agreeableness. Again, back to the two dogs. The elder is friendly and playful. The younger is aggressive and has dominence issues (at least towards other dogs and people).

4. Conscientiousness. Dogs again. The younger obeys almost too well, but the elder constantly tries to push the boundaries and get away with things she shouldn't. Very spontaneous.

5. Open to experience. The younger finds it difficult to adapt to new places or learning new tricks (traditional), while the elder one is always open for adventure and new experiences.


There is it. You may debate my emotional attachment to these creatures all you want, but that's how they behave. But from the way it looks, animals can apply to "The Big Five", as it is called. Personality?

[Fyxe]

Selena, thank goodness for you, else I would have lost some faith in humanity arguing all this on my own, as if I am the only one who understands that animals are not unthinking objects. O.o''

Maybe it's cos they're guys. So they're incapible of empathy. ^-~