Look, Blake and I basicly agree!
While I am not sure if we can say that no animal has *anything *that can be called a language, no “animal language” comes anywhere close to what we humans use. Parrots may understand a word or two, but mostly they just “parrot”.
And, I may extend “a rudimentary concept of death” to a few more species (the other higher apes, whales, dolphins, etc), but that’s about it. No “life” or “mortality”- even “morality” is a stretch.
The case of Alex the parrot at MIT< Harvard and University of Arizona. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)
I very much appreciate Bill Door’s comments.
Yes, it is very debatable. The general trend in research is increasing our evaluation of animal intelligence. Historically we have underestimated it, and we may still be doing so. (Or not.) While parrots speak human languages poorly, they do speak more clearly than we can speak any of their languages. Our windows into their minds are still quite limited.
Take for example your comments about elephants. When I was in school, science did not admit any animal had a concept of death. Now we have reconsidered that idea. Darwin (maybe in The Earthworm Book, I forget) pointed out the clear signs of an active emotional life amongst animals.
This is an area begging for more study. In matters of morality it is better to err on the side of caution.
I hope we are not moving in to Great Debates territory here.
My uncle, who’s a farmer, had three dogs. One was old and sick so he decided to take it out in the woods and shoot it. This wasn’t a problem because the dogs loved to go out in the woods with him. The problem was all three of them loved it and the other two didn’t want to get left behind. So he figured “why not?” and took all three. Then when he got out in the woods, he pulled out his gun and shot the old dog and buried it.
He said the other two haven’t gone into the woods with him since.
Nope.
No we haven’t. We are however overestimating it, especially when we claim that any animal can speak any human language.
No they don’t. They don’t speak human languages at all. They parrot human vocalisations.
Oh FFS, there is no clear evidence that any animals have languages. In those cases where animals may have a rudimentary langauge, such as prairie dogs, we have humans who can speak those languages flawlessly. Your claims to the contrary are not in any way based in fact.
But just to make this clear: cite for humans being unable to speak animal languages.
No, they aren’t. They are extremely broad.
Unless you went to school prior to 1920 (at latest) you are talking nonsense.
So are we to take from this that you went to school prior to 1880?
No more or less so than any other area.
More like MPSIMS than GD. I’m not seeing anything factual in anyhting that you have posted.
If laughing at this is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.
I worked in a slaughterhouse for two years.
What I was told was that;
Sheep are too thick to care. I saw an old ewe who’d got past the stunner, standing in a tray containing her flockmate’s dismembered remains - quite unconcerned.
Cattle will only get upset if they can see the killing - and the beef chain was set up so they couldn’t, but the one time a heifer got into the place alive, she wasn’t much more visibly upset than the sheep had been.
Pigs will scream as they enter they yards. Didn’t happen the one time we killed pigs. They went through as trouble free as the others, though none escaped onto the processing floor so I don’t know if they’d have reacted differently in that case.
What I witnessed may have been the result of good planning making calm beasts. They were definitely set up so that the pigs saw nothing beyond the ramp in front of them, the cows saw no blood and the sheep got a good eyeful of the whole process.
The idea that pigs know/understand more than the others was certainly well established - enough to have dictated the layout of each area.
Thanks to ** maggenpye** and all the others with first-hand experience. Your posts have done much to calm my We-Are-the_World cityboy sensibilities.
Well, you know what this means, don’t you?
Some animals are more see-kill than others.
What’s your definition of speak? If a parrot learns to say “I’m hungry” when they are indeed hungry, is that speaking a language? They associate a certain vocalization with a concept. Research birds (like Alex) can understand and express more complex ideas like shape, material, or color. It’s certainly not a fluent and full understanding of the language - but it’s also often not the unknowing mimicry of popular belief.
It’s not that they don’t understand death and so fail to panic. It’s that WE don’t properly understand death as the gateway to the presence of Almighty God.
Ya okay I got nothing.
Are you explicitly rejecting Dr. Pepperberg’s Alex Studies?
Aw, well crafted pun, mate!
I’ve been staring at that pun for awhile now, and it’s flying over my head. Anyone care to help?
George Orwell (aw well) wrote the line ‘more equal (see kill) than others’
Damn, I thought I’d done a clever thing.
Shit. I was just referring to the pun you quoted. Didn’t realize you were punning yourself. Must be an off day for me.
Remarkably, saying what you believe to be true, with no evidence to show it to be true will not convince other people. Please provide a cite that no animal can speak a human language. Please provide a cite that animal do not express the most basic thoughts through language. Please provide a cite that animals cannot understand the concept of death.
If you cannot, you are simply expressing the commonly-held position, but doing it without proof.
Not really. It’s more applying Occam’s Razor. Human capabilities should not be attributed to animals with positive evidence in its favor. You might as well demand a cite that an ant is incapable of writing Shakespeare. The default position should be that animals, and humans, have only those capabilities that can be demonstrated.
I agree. Animals know nothing about death. Pain? Yes, but not death.
Except that I think that most people would agree that Alex the Parrot is demonstrating that animals can use language. I certainly agree. Blake is in his rights to disagree, but he does more than disagree, he states it as an absolute fact with no apparent attempt to justify it. In fact, Blake clearly attempts to make the argument that our evaluation of animal intelligence has not gone up, but as far as I know, we never knew parrots could do math. I’m sure Blake would then argue that Alex isn’t doing math, but just responding to rewards and cues given by the trainer. Once again, he would be in his rights to disagree, but I suspect he would state it as fact without demonstrating it.
I will:
*Clever Hans (in German, der Kluge Hans) was a horse that was claimed to have been able to perform arithmetic and other intellectual tasks.
After formal investigation in 1907, psychologist Oskar Pfungst demonstrated that the horse was not actually performing these mental tasks, but was watching the reaction of his human observers. Pfungst discovered this artifact in the research methodology, wherein the horse was responding directly to involuntary cues in the body language of the human trainer, who had the faculties to solve each problem. The trainer was entirely unaware that he was providing such cues.[1]
In honour of Pfungst’s study, the anomalous artifact has since been referred to as the Clever Hans effect and has continued to be important knowledge in the observer-expectancy effect and later studies in animal cognition.*
"