Is Our Knowledge of our Mortality What Sets Us Apart From Other Animals?

If I had access to a time machine, I’d love to go back and beat the shit out of Rene Descartes.

[quote=“MrDibble, post:20, topic:541652”]

[quote=“Blake, post:18, topic:541652”]

Consider me unimpressed. A mother carries her infant’s corpse around with her, treating it eaxactly as she did when it was alive. Then at some point she tosses it in the garbage.

To me this is the prefect evidence that chimps are incapable of even comprehending death, much less grieving. The mother doesn’t even understand that the infant has died. When that finally sinks in she tosses the corpse away.

I have only one question to ask: If chips didn’t comprehend death, what reactions would you expect to see? Because to me this is precisely the reaction I’d expect from an animal that doesn’t comprehend death at all. It treats a dead individual exactly as it treats a live one, and then when the lack of response finally sinks in it abandons the corpse. How is that not perfect evidence that they don’t comprehend death or grieve?

If these animals comprehend death and grieve then I would expect to see unique behaviours that are only associated with dead individuals. Behaviours that make it clear that they comprehend that the individual is indeed deceased. The fact that the behaviours consist of feeding and grooming identical to that provided to the individual when it was alive is compelling evidence of a complete lack of understanding of the individual is now a corpse.

What did you want her to do, dial a paramedic? Start making funeral arrangements?

Stand over or hold the baby and show signs pain?

Take the corpse aside and be alone with it?

Hold the corpse and not try to do things that obviously don’t work for the dead such as feeding and grooming?

She could urinate on the corpse for all I care.

I don’t expect a burial ceremony. All I expect is some sort of activity that is different to the activities carried out with a living individual. Anything at all to indicate that she realises the infant *is *no longer living. Any of those things are activities that aren’t done with live individuals. They would all indicate that the mother knew that the infant was now a corpse and no longer a chimpanzee.

Instead we see the mother carrying out activities exactly as she would if she didn’t know the baby was a corpse. I can’t see any evidence at all that the behaviour changed one iota after the baby died. And that to me seems like perfect evidence that the mother didn’t comprehend that it *was *a corpse.

Even dogs show more comprehension of death than this. At least they eat dead offspring, which they rarely do with live ones. Chimpanzees don’t seem to show any indication at all that they see any difference between a live infant and a dead one.

Yes, humans have never treated the deceased as though they were still alive. It just wouldn’t happen.

You really don’t see the difference between “Sometimes treat the deceased as though they were still alive” and “Only ever treat the deceased as though they were still alive”?

A tiny number of humans do strange things for short times, of course they do. The point is that the vast majority of times the vast majority of humans treat corpses in ways that we would never treat a living person, eg crying over the body, oiling or other wise embalming the body, wrapping them in sheets or special clothes, eating parts of the body, setting them on fire, burying them etc. That is evidence that we understand that the dead are not the same as the living. That we comprehend that they are somehow different and that they are not going to magically start moving.

No chimp ever exhibits behaviour that they do not also show to living individuals. There is simply no evidence at all that don;t expect the corpse to get up and start moving. Once the corpse starts to stink or in some case actually disintegrate they simply discard it as though it were no longer a chimpanzee at all. There is no evidence that they comprehend that the corpse was a chimpanzee but is no longer.

I’ve explained why this indicates alack of understanding of death. I’ve explained what behaviours I would expect if they did understand death. Could you possibly do the same, ie explain how this behaviour indicates an understanding of death and explain what behaviour you would expect to see in an animal that didn’t understand death at all?

They have primitive minds. Their actions aren’t as ritualised as a human’s. I’m not seeing how this precludes them feeling some sort of loss, but if they didn’t feel any, I’d expect them to just leave the dead creature the moment it stopped moving. If they can form attachments, they can experience loss, imo.

It’s not a case of less ritualised, The problem is that you have given no evidence that they are ritualised at all. In fact I can’t see any evidence that the action are any different at all than they would be if the individual were still alive.

And if they act no differently towards a dead individual than they do towards a live one, then how can you use that to argue that they understand that there is a difference between a dead individual and alive one.

As I said above, I don’t care how ritualised the actions are. I wouldn’t care if they urinated on the corpse, and it doesn’t come less ritualised than that. I just need to see them performing an action with the dead individual that they would not perform if the individual were still alive.

Neither do I. It seems obvious that they feel loss/distress. That’s obvious in dogs and birds too.

The issue at hand is totally unrelated to whether they feel loss. It is whether they comprehend death and can grieve for the dead. And since they treat a dead individual exactly as they would treat a live individual that is pretty compelling evidence that they don’t comprehend death. It strongly indicates that to them a dead individual is just an individual that isn’t moving.

When they do comprehend a change, it appears to be a change from individual to object, which is then promptly discarded. There’s no indication of grieving for the dead.

Why? Isn’t that exactly what you wouldn’t expect? Humans comprehend death, and we certainly don’t leave the moment they stop moving, do we? It seems odd to expect a creature that comprehends death to act diametrically opposite to how we know other creatures that comprehend death act.

Chimps seem to treat dead individual exactly the way they would treat a sick individual, eg grooming it, trying to feed it etc. Doesn’t that indicate that they *don’t *understand that the dead individual isn’t going to get better?

No argument here. Birds can form attachments and experience loss too. But that’s hugely different to grieving for the dead.

People feel a loss when their house burns down, or when they lose their wallet with $50 in it. That doesn’t equate in any way with grieving for the dead. All mammals, at least, can comprehend the loss of something they found comforting or valuable.

To the OP, yes, imho.

I’ve posted this elsewhere but it’s worth a look and relevant here.
http://www.theonion.com/video/scientists-successfully-teach-gorilla-it-will-die,17165/

You know The Onion is a satirical publication, right?

Given the range of conjecture encouraged in the OP, this “satire” seems the most likely outcome to me.:wink:

But what about elephants?

Hand me the soap, please.

Having settled that, we can move on to the question of whether threads have knowledge that they are dead.

Your putative answer?

I still can’t do that. Oh well, guess I’ll pack my stuff and head for the monkey house.

…lounges on my dads Lazy Boy(sp?) leather recliner that he got for his lobectomy recover alone, only when he sees all the cars gone in the driveway. But i don’t own my own vehicle, which i suppose has not occurred to him because some mornings, i wake up and float down my stairway, effortlessly in the ritual, and he quickly dismisses himself from my fathers’ armchair.

why does he do this?

Why does he do this when he sits with me on the couch, and cuddles in my lap like a puppy(my full grown goldendoodle, that is)

And like i said…it is my dad’s armchair,* he’s* the one to sit in it.
My sister and I don’t sit in it very often ourselves, although it’s not forbidden.

So does my dog feel bad?
Or is it that he knows his place in the family and pushes his luck only when he feels the coast is clear? For nobody likes being spoken to harshly…and would avoid it while we were home…just in case.

If so, i would assume that he tries what he can get away with.
Could that, in any way, pertain to ethics?

What about humans? Who pull the same antics?

It’s insane and destructive to think that anything “sets us apart” from other animals. We have a suite of adaptations that makes us a species, just like every other species on the face of the planet. Human exceptionalism is an artifact. It’s what’s going to end up driving H. sapiens to extinction eventually. Hubris is encoded in our genes.

Other species are at least somewhat aware of their mortality, so no. Whale protect their young from orcas. Many primates get depressed after the loss of a family member. As do lions, elephants, and more.

So what if anything DOES set us apart? Impulse control or simply higher brain function. Most species react, their behavior therefore is usually predictable if your knowledge is sufficient. With humans this not the case, why? Because humans defy their impulses. In combat, Marines, soldiers, sailors, etc. get scared, but they continue to move forward, function under high stress, and complete extremely complicated tasks.

In ratio to most other species our young develop very slow, especially their brains. An adult primate can be a young as 3-5 years. Humans would never consider a 5 year old let alone a 15 year and adult. One of the primary responsibilities as a parent to to set restrictions on their children because they have not properly developed the ability to control their impulsivity.

Funniest line on the interwebs!

Who knows what animals are talking about? WTF are all thsoe whales singing about.

What seperates us from animals is the size of our intellect but we are not seperate as such.