Animal cognition - do we underestimate our furry friends?

reply to post by lampsalot


Your thoughts on animal morals reminded me of a passage from the Mark Twain novel
The Mysterious Stranger.

"No, it was a human thing. You should not insult the brutes by such a misuse of that word; they have not deserved it," and he went on talking like that. "It is like your paltry race—always lying, always claiming virtues which it hasn't got, always denying them to the higher animals, which alone possess them. No brute ever does a cruel thing—that is the monopoly of those with the Moral Sense. When a brute inflicts pain he does it innocently; it is not wrong; for him there is no such thing as wrong. And he does not inflict pain for the pleasure of inflicting it—only man does that. Inspired by that mongrel Moral Sense of his! A sense whose function is to distinguish between right and wrong, with liberty to choose which of them he will do. Now what advantage can he get out of that? He is always choosing, and in nine cases out of ten he prefers the wrong. There shouldn't be any wrong; and without the Moral Sense there couldn't be any. And yet he is such an unreasoning creature that he is not able to perceive that the Moral Sense degrades him to the bottom layer of animated beings and is a shameful possession. Are you feeling better? Let me show you something."

You can read the entire story here The Mysterious Stranger it is excellent.

Either way, I think he makes a good point.

Animals do hold grudges ....

With a cat if you bring in another pet into the home, they wont even look at you for a while... wont respond to you and so on lol.. and their silence speaks volumes.

I think they are less likely to take revenge because they percieve reality much differently than us. For them its about living in the " moment" animals are great at being really rather peaceful.

As for this idea that animals are as bad as humans in behaviour. Id agree.
However, they have alot of peaceful traits. You might say its due to the fact that they dont have weapons and so on, but honestly. I just dont think they arent inclined toward it.

We bully/torture/pester others FOR LIFE at times.. I dont see any animals doing this to other animals on a mass scale as we do,

reply to post by FreedomEntered


Actually, there was just recently a case in my country, Denmark, where a rhino in a safari-Zoo killed a pregnant zebra. The animal keeper said, that the zebra had bullied the rhino back when it was a child.

Usually I would have agreed that animals aren't inherently vindictive, unless they are traumatized by humans, but this case gave me doubt.

reply to post by Mads1987


Yes, but its one incident they dont do this on a mass scale and I am saying thats where we differ.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


They don't really have the means to do it on the same scale as us. But yeah.. I think they can be cruel, maybe even intentionally. But what do I know. The rhino and the zebras were in captivity, they might have been traumatized anyway.

reply to post by Mads1987


Yeah well, if you watch animals they get up to everything we do. Have similar emotions anger, jealousy, hate,love and so on. Just without the technology and abilities we do. I think however, due to the fact that they do not mass slaughter for plots of land as we do or over resources they can be considered to be more peaceful.

I have seen dogs in packs , free without owners. And they really are very peaceful you can see this. By how they lead their lives.

Yet , when humans come in they start doing nutcase things like " dog fighting" them.

Humans are just pathetic...in my view.

Just wanted to add my personal experience with my dog. She seems to psychically know when I want to take her for a walk. I have tested the theory and when I am about to take her, I hide the leash and try to give no indication we are going, no excitement, body language or movements. I just think "lets go walking" and she starts anticipating it. I think there is some psychic or molecular bond going on personally. I have seen her react to other animals that are hurt too, and she offered comfort and attention, to another dog, a cat and an injured squirrel at different times. It was pretty cool.

Originally posted by lampsalot
I love animals as much as the next person, but don't be fooled. Many animals kill for fun, eat their children, go to war, rape, and do just about everything we consider criminal and evil. The difference I think is that (most?) animals do not dwell on grudges and take revenge, they simply live life as it is.

They are indeed smart but they aren't morally better or worse than we are.

edit on 17-5-2013 by lampsalot because: (no reason given)

what you call "morals" is essentially a combination of two factors:

- your observance of the Golden Rule
- thousands of years of social, cultural, and religious dogma that you carry around your neck like a yoke so that you can pass it on to your progeny.

It is silly to argue the morality of animals. You can't really even debate what they see as moral. I would bet that we would find that we aren't quite as moral as you would seem to think.

reply to post by Mads1987



FWIW, Ingo Swann attempted to explain some of the biological processes behind "psi". I believe he was more correct than incorrect, as well.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


Are you familiar with primates such as chimps?

They are known to have a very rigid social structure. Lions are the same. The lower you are on the pole, the longer till you get your share of food, or mating rights.

Is this persecutory behavior? I am unsure. But the fact that the child inherits the social status of the parent.....this isn't just random behaviors acquired by idiots. Is is a social structure.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


You seem like a bright guy, and I generelly enjoy your post. So I checked out that guy you mentioned.

He sounds like an interesting fellow. Just did a quick wiki search - granted not the best source for this kind of stuff. But it does sound like he did try to prove his abilities. But there seem to be a lot of cases where reports weren't fully documented, or data was lost.

So I am curious to know, why it is that you think he was on to something? At least then I'll have a sense of what I should be looking for, when reading about this guy.

Also if the case is that stuff like 'psi' is real. Do you think there are people who are deliberately trying to supres it, or is it just that we aren't aware of this, and just like any other new knowledge it takes a long time to reach acceptance in society?

Originally posted by Mads1987
reply to post by FreedomEntered

 

Actually, there was just recently a case in my country, Denmark, where a rhino in a safari-Zoo killed a pregnant zebra. The animal keeper said, that the zebra had bullied the rhino back when it was a child.

Usually I would have agreed that animals aren't inherently vindictive, unless they are traumatized by humans, but this case gave me doubt.

edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)

Ah, it could have just been a coincidence.

reply to post by Mads1987



I read Ingo's database. It is extremely long and contains a lot of info. The fact that Hal Puthoff headed the research, and has stated on several occasions that he supports what Ingo says, is of importance.

Yes, I think "psi" is hidden. At least, what is known officially. The reason being, reportedly, because it has the potential to subvert attempts at lying. What else would the CIA have going for it if it couldn't lie (the CIA funded the Hal Puthoff research).

What Ingo was able to do was explain that everyone is capable of this to varying degrees. We all have various strengths and weakneses. For example, I would never get close to beating Usain Bolt in a footrace. He also went on to explain how the "psi" ability was actually more related to quite sublime physical processes that often were lost in the noise of our major senses (sight, smell, hearing, etc).

Specific examples can include the VNO as a sensory input for phermones. Or the tissues in the hands and feet that are more sensitive to magnetic fields (possibly a source for diviners, like my dad, who can consistently detect water underground?)

In any event, he wrote volumes on the matter, albeit often in such technical detail that it was hard to read.

reply to post by Mads1987

I am pretty sure that of all the things I've read about apes/monkeys that somewhere they asked a question. I think your post is not in anyway comprehensive and not convincing to me.

Nonetheless, apes/monkeys are still hte approx eqvuivalent of 1-4 year old human child. But this is not saying they're the same. It's just the closest equivalence.

what a load of rubbish.
humans have had a Very long time to come up with a lot of big words.

and you think animals can do it in a couple of generation?

Here's a nice recounting of an experience with Washoe, a chimpanzee trained in ASL;
www.psychologytoday.com - 'My Best Friend is a Chimp'...

Maybe no direct evidence of human-like questions, but shows many human similarities.

reply to post by jonnywhite


I am sorry if I wrote something wrong, english isn't my first language. I read most of the stuff about the apes not being able to ask questions on the wikipedia link I shared. You're welcome to check it out.

- and as I said I had I felt that the people who did this research might have drawn their conclusions too hastily. It was never my intention to give the impression that I had made up my mind either way - and if you know of examples where apes have asked questions, then great.

I think animals communicate in much more advanced ways than we humans do...Come to think of it,they do everything better and more natural than us, but we still need to feel superior to all of them.in order to be able to justify this fabricated delusional drama we call life...Would you have had any motivation to go to work everyday if you really believed that a bugs life is more fulfilling than yours,,or you are actually beneath a plant!...There are a lot we can learn from the nature....we haven't even scratched the surface yet.

reply to post by Mads1987


For what its worth, my dogs both ask questions frequently. When they want something of me they will get kind of wound up, and then stop to look at me. Then they go again, then stop to look at me. This means they want me to do something (sometimes outside, sometimes let the other dog out of a bedroom).

While there is no verbalization, it is clear that they are wanting me to do something. One of them even starts snorting and sneezing until I do what is wanted. Is this not essentially a question, "Will you do this"?

Perhaps they are commanding. But given my alpha position, i am unsure that commanding would be the proper term.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I think there is a fine line between animals stating what they want, and asking a question. In the case of the dogs I am not sure which one it is. But wouldn't surprise me if it was a question.

Reminds me of the scene in 'Rise of the planet of the apes' where the ape ask for permission to do different things, by bowing its head, and raising it's hand forward. I wonder if that is based on reality.