Moral standards amongst animals

[Wowbagger]

         Dogs have a sense of fair play |
            Science |
            guardian.co.uk
   

Interesting findings by scientists, which any dog owner could have told them. Knocks a bit of a hole in Descartes, though.

[Notsototalnewbie]

I saw that the other day, it made perfect sense to me.

They also learn from each other. Cam wasn't 'getting' the 'down' command  (ie, lay down - she has a habit of bouncing all over the place in an overenthusiastic manner) but when Bernie came over and she saw him doing it, first time every time, for a treat, she caught on at the speed of lightning. Funny that.

[Wowbagger]

My son included the idea that dogs have morals in an essay for his BA just over a year ago, based upon observing our hound, and putting him at odds with Descartes (it's morals, according to old René, which are evidence of the existence of a soul and distinguish humans from animals. This evidence clearly demonstrates that heaven must therefore be liberally doused in dog poo).

[pcolbeck]

I saw a bit of a program last night where a couple had two parrots. The guy dies and although his wife coped well one of the parrots went into mourning and became very depressed. Started all sorts of strange behaviour. Very intelligent creatures parrots. Read some where once that they are about as bright as a 4 year old child.

[Wowbagger]

I've taught chess to 4-year-olds quite successfully but I've never tried teaching Mrs. Wow's sister's parrot. However, her husband is a much better chess player than I am, so I think I'll leave it to him.

[pcolbeck]

Go on give it a go you know you want to. A parrot is even physically equiped to move the pieces.

[Wowbagger]

Do you think I could teach it on-line? It lives just outside Burnley.

[border-rider]

Sorry to bring the thread back OT - I look forward to more news of the eParrot

I find this stuff really fascinating.  I've long been suspicious of the idea of a discrete boundary between people and animals with respect to just about any mental process.  I'd guess that there's a spectrum, with higher primates closer to humans than they are to gerbils.

It chimes nicely with the ideas we've discussed elsewhere on the forum about theories of consciousness.  The idea that our thoughts are actually post hoc, and that responses happen autonomously and only afterwards are justified internally

I've  seen what appear to be very like human responses in cats, and they're certainly capable of emotions and sometimes even a bit of low-level humour.  I think.

[Wowbagger]

I agree, Mal. I even heard of an elephant that enjoyed trampolining.

I'm sure our dog has a great sense of humour, and my daughter is forever regaling me with tales of her cat and his antics.

[pcolbeck]

There are tests for self awareness in animals. Thinking we are unique is silly, we are just at one end of the spectrum of intelligence / conciousness amongst animals. Being clever is simply our speciality as is being fast with cheetahs. The basic test usually involves putting an object that the animal cant really feel on it (a small stick on label for example) then showing it itself in a mirror. If the animal the tries to remove or touch the object on itself its certainly self aware if it tries to touch the object in the mirror then its probably not. Being self aware implies that the animal can think about itself in the abstract and then we come on to what else that might mean and how much abstract thought they might have. Quite a few animals are definately self aware, elephants, higher primates, dolphins and magpies all pass the mirror test. Not passing it doesn't mean they aren't self aware though as some may simply not get the idea of mirror.

[Wowbagger]

I don't necessarily agree that humans are at one end of the "intelligence" spectrum. Intelligence has been defined as "an ability to adapt oneself to a changing environment" and I'm not sure that I see a lot of that in many of the humans I know! I think we flatter ourselves because we have mastered a complex system of sounds that we call language and "dumb" animals haven't. That doesn't stop lots of communication between my dog and me. If he wants something, he's very good at letting me know that and when I get out of my chair to see what it is, he will point to the place where the object of his desire resides. If it's a piece of liver cake, he stands by the fridge. A chew, he points at the shelf. If his water bowl is empty, he points at that. If he wants a game with his ball, he comes and plonks the slimy, muddy artefact straight in the middle of my keyboard.

I expect he thinks I'm very dim because I can't get immediately from his thoughts what it is.

[Jasper the surreal cyclist]

This has been a subject for debate in relation to `wave theory'. To cut to the chase something is only called into reality (a point in time coupled with the aqusition of mass) by observation. The problem was `who' could observe. A suggestion was that only something with `speech' could do this, for then they could confirm to others the observation. This dismissed animals and the very young. But all creatures `communicate' which belies this theory as another human arrogance. Also what about a person who has no voice?




By the way, I reckon sheep are really really thick. they make chickens look clever.

[border-rider]

This has been a subject for debate in relation to `wave theory'. To cut to the chase something is only called into reality (a point in time coupled with the aqusition of mass) by observation.

But that's confusing the quantum mechanical model of the world with any underlying reality.  QM is about statistical distributions.  That cat isn't really alive and/or dead, just that in terms of information available that's the outcome.

Otherwise there could have been no physical universe before anyone was around to observe it, and if no-one is looking the world isn't really there (which may be true in a way, but for other reasons)

[Jasper the surreal cyclist]

Good point, but the detail is in the bit that said `theory'. It was an extrapolation of Shrodinger's work.

It does not confuse as such, but counters aspects of the QM model.

Is there a universal scale for sheep stupidity?

[andygates]

The OP's nothing new, and is adequately explained by game theory in social animals.  No need to invoke morality.

Mind you, I say the same thing about humans. 

[border-rider]

It was an extrapolation of Shrodinger's work.

Which becomes tricky when you try to extrapolate to the macroscopic, and to move from probability to event.

It does not confuse as such,

It's confused me

[Jasper the surreal cyclist]

Probably a sheep gene at work 

[border-rider]

Indeed.  Ydw i'n byw yng Nghymru

[Kathy]

Ydw i'n byw yng Nghymru

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn?

[Wowbagger]

Woof!

[border-rider]

Fi m 'n chwith namyn gwisga t areithia Cthulhu

[Jasper the surreal cyclist]

I cannot find half of those words on a Welsh English lexicon.

[border-rider]

Kathy's isn't Welsh

Some of mine is mutated eg rather than yn Cymru you'd write yng Nghymru

That makes it a bit hard to translate directly...

But I'm only a beginner, so there's likely mistakes too.

[Kathy]

I cannot find half of those words on a Welsh English lexicon.

JFCI

[Jasper the surreal cyclist]

Good grief.........