Programmer said:
Well, it's quite clear that animals can remember. Therefore, they can
"sense" the past, presumably in a similar way to us. (Evidence: maze
experiments on rodents; dogs recognising their so-called "masters"; cats
being able to find their way home; and so on.)
It's also quite clear that animals can predict what /might/ happen. This is
especially true in predator/prey relationships. A less dramatic (but more
intriguing) example has been posted elsethread w.r.t. the cat that checked
its food supply before letting its owner head off for the day.
In one sense, you're right. Memories are adjustments of our NN, so
merely remembering something is not proof of a time sense. But the
ability to *order* those memories in sequence probably is. And I'd
think the ability to order expected *future* events would clearly
demonstrate it.
Sure. But proving the absence of that ability in all animals everywhere
sounds impossible to me.
No, but animal behaviorists do study and test these matters. MY
evidence is purely anecdotal, but theirs is more rigorous. All
I've read equates such behavior with instinct.
Perhaps "human behaviourist" squirrels form similar theories about humans.
Perhaps they misguidedly attribute our behaviour to instinct, in the same
way that we (perhaps) misguidedly fail to understand their own complex
behavioural dynamics.
Of course. SO FAR, all evidence suggests one thing. When that
changes, so will my point of view.
Well, that's the trouble. You say "all evidence suggests one thing", but I
haven't seen any evidence of the kind that looks even remotely convincing.
How can we know whether animals are conscious? Self-aware? Intelligent?
Reasoning? The only even remotely plausible way to answer these questions
is to /ask/ the animals. And even if we found a way to do that, we could
never be sure - if they didn't answer us - whether they were incapable of
answering, or merely unwilling.
Sure, but curiosity is not necessarily abstract behavior. Babies
are curious.
Please give me an example of an observation of an animal that would lead you
to deduce abstract thought. I can think of no particular reason why animals
would feel obliged to play our research games for us, unless there's
something in it for them. (And when there /is/ something in it for them,
some animals show dizzying ability to solve relatively abstract problems.
This can make for very entertaining TV documentaries.)
Yes! Delightful cartoon (from a favorite cartoonist)!!
Absolutely. As I said, when there's useful evidence to consider,
I will consider it.
I don't think we'll ever get any useful evidence in either direction.
Right. But again, the evidence strongly suggests one thing.
Please demonstrate this.
From my window, I can see lots of [animals...]. I've spent a fair
amount of time observing them. [Their] behaviour reminds me /so
much/ of people. There is much about them that is curious, amusing,
playful, caring, weak, strong, cruel, and deadly.
Animals often tend to act as a Rorschach test. We see ourselves
in them very, very easily (witness this thread).
Very true. But we are also very quick to shun the idea that they might be
"like us". Why?
Sure, but... I've owned and loved dogs all my life. My dog is a
member of my family in many ways, and we're very closly bonded.
Given all that, if she had higher brain functions, I'm *quite*
sure she'd have made some attempt to communicate with me ON that
higher level (rather than the simplistic communication we do
enjoy). Likewise those who've studied animals all their lives.
I lack your confidence. The most intelligent thing an intelligent animal
could do would be to hide its intelligence from human beings.
If the higher functions existed, don't you think we'd have found
them by now? Our history with animals is longer than our history
(so to speak).
No, I don't think we would. We are blind to the possibility. Well, some of
us are, anyway.
Instead we have what we have. Even sign language with apes is
controversial and (according to some) debunked as wishful thinking
on the part of loving owner/handlers.
I have, of course, read about humans teaching apes to use sign language.
What I have read seems reasonably solid, especially since the apes were
able to create sentences of their own, according to the grammatical "rules"
of the language they had been taught, and were able to hold meaningful
conversations with their teachers. There is a limit to how meaningful a
conversation you can have with a random number generator. Therefore, I am
inclined to believe the research you've cited until overwhelming evidence
to the contrary comes to light.
to