Supremacy of Humans as a species.

[Corgan Sow]

There's this question which I have yet to get an answer. This is the excuse often used by Judeo religions to justify the existence of God and Man created in His image. Humans, as my candy cranium knows, are the only advanced species I know of. We do not have dolphins having their own Atlantis, colonial ants have recorded history of their kind, and so on and so on. This even bugs that confirmation of evolution. Why since we evolved from the apes, we are much more advanced while other species are so inferior?

Forgive me for being naive, I'm just not enlightened enough.

[jdawg2]

my (admittedly uneducated) answer:

all of that stuff is a side effect of having these nice brains. Obviously if you measure "advanced" by intelligence, writing, building stuff, etc., then of course we probably come out on top. If we measured "advanced" by the ability to manuever in water, we would lose. If we measured "advanced" by some other factor we might lose.

*shrug* we humans are biased (and lucky, lol). And considering all "advanced stuff" didn't pop out of nowhere...we're constantly building on the knowledge of our ancestors.

[Doubting Didymus]

First, we have defined intelligence as the sole criteria of greatness. Humans lose in all other stakes. We are not faster, stronger, longer-lived or equipped with better senses.

Second, the differences in our intelligence are only of degree, not kind. So all we can really claim is that we are have developed intelligence to a larger degree than most.

[GeoTheo]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
<strong>
Second, the differences in our intelligence are only of degree, not kind. So all we can really claim is that we are have developed intelligence to a larger degree than most.</strong>

I totally disagree. Human intelligence is of another kind altogether. Non-human animals have only perceptual intelligence. Humans are capable of conceptual intelligence. Animals are sentient to a degree but are they self aware? I don't think so. Be glad to see some proof if you have it.
Maybe you can start by listing some conceptual thoughts expressed by chimps or dolphins or somthing.

[bluefugue]

Great apes are capable of communication, tool usage, social organization etc. Heck, there was even recently that crow who showed a remarkable ability to shape a tool for a specific purpose. Whether the difference in intellect between a human and a chimp is qualitative or quantitative does not seem to me to be settled. Our language does seem to be far more advanced than other apes' communication, though, and this is a fairly specific adaptation that required not only an increase in brain processing power (quantitative?) but also specific physiological characteristics to make speech possible, and maybe Chomsky's Universal Grammar to boot (qualitative?). As for whether chimps are self-aware, they do seem to be able to recognize themselves in mirrors, IIRC. I also recall seeing some interesting footage of Koko the gorilla, who was depressed after her cat died and kept making the sign for "crying." Koko seemed self-aware to me, though I think some have argued her behavior amounts to little more than "circus training" to get the results the scientists want, etc.

As to the question of why there are no other species that have this degree of intelligence, I look at it from a different perspective. Evolutionarily speaking, some species has got to get high intelligence first. It could in theory evolve more than once in separate lineages (as wings have), but it's got to happen for a *first* time somewhere. Our branch of the primate lineage happened to be the first ones to hit upon this sort of intelligence, and so naturally we are the first ones *capable* of asking "why are we the only ones"? The "problem" is not really a problem because it is inevitable that whichever lineage first achieved high intelligence would also be the first to ask the question of why.

(Also, based on the one example we have, highly intelligent species tend to have a large and rapid impact on their ecosystem, potentially changing the situation for many other species. Does our presence prevent other megafauna from evolving in certain directions, as we will end up trapping them all in nature preserves, the ones that are lucky enough not to be domesticated for food or driven to extinction? Or will our own existence be so fleeting as to be a mere blip on the evolutionary timescale anyway? And if we create intelligent robots, where would they fit in the evolutionary lineage?)

I am not worried about the lack of Dolphin and Ant civilizations, although I do wonder how it is that only this one particular hominid species managed to thrive; did we kill off the Neandertals? Why did they die out? What about other Homo and Australopithecene cousins in our bushy lineage? Of course, most of the species that have ever lived have gone extinct...

By the way, it's not clear that humans are "supreme" on Earth. Ants are doing rather well too. Bacteria continue to be spectacularly successful. And wherever we go, there will be cockroaches to accompany us. :D

Privileging intelligence is, IMO, mainly an artifact of our anthropocentric chauvinism. But intelligence does give us one edge that humans seem to have over (say) bacteria, adaptively speaking. We have the capacity to go into outer space and (theoretically) survive there. So our range of survival is not limited to this biosphere. Bacteria do not have this versatility, at least not by any mechanism we know of (though perhaps they could hitch a ride on a rock blasted into space by an asteroid collision?). (And, come to think of it, they will most certainly hitch a ride on *humans* in their spaceships...)

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]</p>

[nogods4me]

IIRC, there have been several tests showing that some few other animals are "self-aware" if I have some time later I'll do a Google search and report back if someone hasn't beat me to it.
Several species of animal apparently communicate with one another to varying degrees, whales and their songs come to mind. And I recall reading a recent post concerning the problem-solving, tool using ability of a bird.
So while we may have made the most of our intelligence, it seems we are hardly the only animals that think.

[Undercurrent]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
<strong>First, we have defined intelligence as the sole criteria of greatness. Humans lose in all other stakes. We are not faster, stronger, longer-lived or equipped with better senses.
</strong>

I disagree. The fastest animal in the world is a human in a fighter jet. The strongest animal in the world is a human in a tank. The animal with the best senses is a human in the operations centre for a constellation of spy satellites. The longest-lived animal in the world is... well, we're working on it. :)

The reason high intelligence is so great is that it allows us to compensate for our biological faults.

m.

[pz]

Originally posted by Undercurrent:
<strong>

I disagree. The fastest animal in the world is a human in a fighter jet.
</strong>
What about the E. coli in the gut of the pilot?
<strong>
The strongest animal in the world is a human in a tank.
</strong>
What about the cockroach hiding in the undercarriage?
<strong>
The animal with the best senses is a human in the operations centre for a constellation of spy satellites. The longest-lived animal in the world is... well, we're working on it. :)
</strong>
What about things like rate of reproduction, absolute numbers, adaptability, etc.?
<strong>
The reason high intelligence is so great is that it allows us to compensate for our biological faults.</strong>

We'll still all be dead someday, and there will be a nematode chowing down on our corpse, smirking and saying, "Where's your tank and your jet plane now, Brain Boy?". Or at least, he would say that if he had a brain to think of it, but he has developed some other features instead.

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
<strong>First, we have defined intelligence as the sole criteria of greatness. Humans lose in all other stakes. We are not faster, stronger, longer-lived or equipped with better senses.</strong>

True enough, but we are on the higher end of many of these - we are among the fastest, we are among the longest-lived, we are among those with the best comprehensive senses (i.e. all of our senses are pretty good, as opposed to one that is keen and others that are near useless).

Iesus Domini:
(though perhaps they could hitch a ride on a rock blasted into space by an asteroid collision?).

I was thinking this when reading your post. Funny that you should mention it.

I think one advantage we have over bacteria and roaches, etc. is our ability to treat the one, or adapt individually. As a species, bacteria are pretty robust. But as individuals, they cannot adapt or be remedied as can individual humans.

[Vesica]

I think the evolution of animal langauge projects and the ever increasing complexity of 'language' indicates that animals can do many of the things we consider 'human'.

To paraphrase Douglas Adams:
People think dolphins are stupid because all they do is swim around, play and eat fish. Dolphins think people are stupid for the same reason.

[bluefugue]

I think Undercurrent has a point though, pz. Intelligence can be more versatile than other adaptive traits. It has allowed us to mimic the biological traits of other species (flight, fast land-speed, night vision, radar, etc.). And to create yet others that seem to elude other species (i.e. space flight).

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]</p>

[Dr S]

(I) Koko seemed self-aware to me, though I think some have argued her behavior amounts to little more than "circus training" to get the results the scientists want, etc.
(S) Since I'm one of her "circus trainers" I can say without reservation that she is completely selfaware.

On July 4 she turned 31. Dr Patterson asked her 'what does she get on her birthday?" She answered juice, cake, nuts, toys. Then she got this sad look on her face and she wouldn't talk. Finally she said that she "got old!" And she mopped around for hours feeling sad that she was getting old.

When Michael the gorilla was only eight he awoke one night screaming. He had had a nightmare. He kept signing "blood, blood, blood". When he calmed down he told the night caretaker what he had dreamed. When he was two, in the Congo, he was on his mother's back while she was crashing through the forest running from poachers. She was shot and the poachers grabbed him. They held on to their valuable prize as they cut off his mother's head in front of him.
He was up till dawn, on the night of the dream in Northern California, crying for his mother.

[Vesica]

Our intelligence, ceativity and adaptability have given us a much better foothold on survival as humans but I question some of the examples used:

How does air travel, tanks, or space flight contribute to improving a single human's chance of survival or reproduction??

When it comes to ourselves we completly reframe the question of useful adaptations or degree of development. Animals we define in terms of survival and long term good of the species....We rarely view our own development in such a light because it seems insulting or degrading to judge ourselves on these terms.

I say Hurrah for our technology and development...without it we would be much fewer in number considering the pathetic state we enter this world in, our stunning lack of defenses against cold, heat, sun exposure etc., and our reproductive rate vs. infant mortality rate....

[Tom Sawyer]

As Undercurrent mentioned in his post, although other animals have natural advantages that outdo us in some areas our use of technology outdoes their natural advantages. Our use of technology is due to our level of intelligence.

Some species developed claws to attack prey and stop themselves from becoming prey; we developed the long, pointy stick to overcome this - ours worked better. Some species developed wings to be able to stay out of the reach of predators; we developed the ability to throw our pointy stick into the air to overcome this - ours worked better.

So, yes, we are a more advanced species than anything else because the major evolutionary advantage that has developed in humans - heightened intelligence and the ability to use that intelligence to develop tools - is a superior evolutionary advantage than anything had by any other species.

[Starboy]

Perhaps we are advanced, or maybe we are full of it. It is hard to tell. Ask me a hundred million years from now.

[pz]

Originally posted by IesusDomini:
<strong>I think Undercurrent has a point though, pz. Intelligence can be more versatile than other adaptive traits. It has allowed us to mimic the biological traits of other species (flight, fast land-speed, night vision, radar, etc.). And to create yet others that seem to elude other species (i.e. space flight).</strong>

However, and this is a big however, if brains and technology are such great and powerful solutions, how come no other species has evolved them?

Take a look at <a href="http://www.jayhosler.com/world.jpg" target="_blank">this cartoon</a>. It illustrates another point: being big and strong and fast and perceptive aren't the be-all and end-all of evolution. Surviving is. We're too young a species to be beating our chests with pride and boasting about our evolutionary success, because we could very well be extinct tomorrow (on an evolutionary scale). The fact that we're changing our environment so fast and so catastrophically does not bode well for our ability to adapt to those changes.

[Dr S]

It seems to keep coming around to humans are the best because, judged on a human scale, we are the most human-like of any animal.

Sounds good, think I'll try my hand at the same tactic.
As far as humans go I am the absolute very tip-top best. Because I have more of the attributes that make me like me than any of you do.
The Supremacy of Humans...er, make that Dr S as a species. Has a nice ring to it, don't ya think? :D

[GeoTheo]

Just out of curiosity do you have really big head and do chicks dig it?

[Dr S]

XXL
I have to keep a stout stick nearby at all times in case they start getting unruly

[Undercurrent]

Originally posted by Dr S:
<strong>It seems to keep coming around to humans are the best because, judged on a human scale, we are the most human-like of any animal.
</strong>

That's terribly false. There are quite obviously things that we value in an organism that we don't already have. We would like to not have to worry about disease, but we can't. The "not worrying about disease metric" could hardly be said to be us looking at ourselves and saying, "x% of humans die of some kind of disease, so that must be ideal."

The reality of the matter is that we, as a species, are terribly effective at obtaining those things that we value. That's not arrogance, and it's not an implication that we are perfect and don't have any challenges ahead of us, or "chest beating", but a realistic assesment of reality.

Of course, what we value is coloured by a human perspective, and you might expect that other species might have different values, but I'm sure a wolf would love to be as fast as a car when hunting prey, or binghorn sheep as strong as a tank when butting heads for mates.

m.

[pz]

Originally posted by Undercurrent:
<strong>
The reality of the matter is that we, as a species, are terribly effective at obtaining those things that we value. That's not arrogance, and it's not an implication that we are perfect and don't have any challenges ahead of us, or "chest beating", but a realistic assesment of reality.</strong>
Except that every species is terribly effective at obtaining the things that it values. The ones that aren't are extinct.
<strong>Of course, what we value is coloured by a human perspective, and you might expect that other species might have different values, but I'm sure a wolf would love to be as fast as a car when hunting prey, or binghorn sheep as strong as a tank when butting heads for mates.</strong>
Again, you are imposing human values on other organisms. I suspect that wolves would not want to be that fast if it required climbing into a big metal box, or worse, building the technological infrastructure necessary to build the big metal box. Likewise, sheep might think that climbing into an even bigger, bulkier metal box destroys the thrill and the point of a sexual competition.

[GeoTheo]

Originally posted by Undercurrent:
<strong>


Of course, what we value is coloured by a human perspective, and you might expect that other species might have different values, but I'm sure a wolf would love to be as fast as a car when hunting prey, or binghorn sheep as strong as a tank when butting heads for mates.

m.</strong>

I doubt animals have values or make value judgements. They go from perception to perception.
It is very easy to anthropomorphize because are reasoning skills are so taken for granted.
I remain unconvinced that animals can make any kind of comparison about anything. This is very high order thinking. We are debating basically subjective vs. the objective. No animal has any concpt of this topic. Wolves know they must hunt. that's it. I doubt they have a way of rating themselves, because that involves stepping outside oneself.

[Undercurrent]

Originally posted by pz:
<strong>
Except that every species is terribly effective at obtaining the things that it values. The ones that aren't are extinct.</strong>

Are you suggesting that since a lion loses some substantial percentage of its offspring that it wouldn't value* a lower infant mortality rate? We used to be in the lion's position and had the same value. Nowadays (at least in the western world) we do have a much lower infant mortality rate, as a result of medicine, clean water, &c. In the same period, the IM rate for the lion stayed the same.

Low infant mortality is something that both we and the lion value. We're just better at attaining it, thanks to our technology, and thus, our intelligence.

m.

* As GeoTheo points out, you start to strain assumptions when you refer to animals as having "values". I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that at least a mother lioness experiences something homologous to "sadness" when one of its infants dies, and in that sense, would value not having infants die.

[pz]

Originally posted by Undercurrent:
<strong>Are you suggesting that since a lion loses some substantial percentage of its offspring that it wouldn't value* a lower infant mortality rate? We used to be in the lion's position and had the same value. Nowadays (at least in the western world) we do have a much lower infant mortality rate, as a result of medicine, clean water, &c. In the same period, the IM rate for the lion stayed the same.</strong>
Like I said, a species that is ineffective at obtaining something that it values, such as achieving a satisfactory replacement rate in its population, goes extinct.

Even among humans, babies still die. Does every dead baby mean we are ineffective at obtaining things we value?

Does the inescapable fact that our species will someday be extinct mean that we must be failures?

[ksagnostic]

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
<strong>

I totally disagree. Human intelligence is of another kind altogether. Non-human animals have only perceptual intelligence. Humans are capable of conceptual intelligence. Animals are sentient to a degree but are they self aware? I don't think so. Be glad to see some proof if you have it.
Maybe you can start by listing some conceptual thoughts expressed by chimps or dolphins or somthing.</strong>

I'll let Dr. S speak for Koko and the late Michael, but sure, there is plenty of evidence that non-human animals show conceptual intelligence.

Mathematics

Chimpanzees:
Boysen ST, Berntson GG, Shreyer TA, Hannan MB (1995).Indicating acts during counting by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 109, 47-51

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7705060&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7705060&dopt=Ab stract</a>

Orangutans:
Shumaker RW, Palkovich AM, Beck BB, Guagnano GA, Morowitz H (2001).Spontaneous use of magnitude discrimination and ordination by the orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115, 385-91.

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11824901&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11824901&dopt= Abstract</a>

"Language"
Savage-Rumbaugh, S and Lewin, R (1994). KANZI: THE APE AT THE BRINK OF THE HUMAN MIND. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Pepperberg, I (1999). THE ALEX STUDIES: COGNITIVE AND COMMUNICATIVE ABILITIES OF GREY PARROTS. Harvard University Press.

The above is just the beginning. Language projects have been done, and success has been claimed, with every species of great ape. Insightful learning has been observed in chimpanzees since the teens and twenties (the pioneering work of Wolfgang Kohler and Nadia Kohts). Zookeepers have to be on guard for insightful learning all the time (especially with orangutans).

As for self awareness, I myself have seen orangutans easily pass the Gallup test (the mirror test first made famous with chimpanzees). We were the study site for Ethel Tobach's self recognition study with orangutans.

Recent neurological evidence is pointing to the conclusion that great apes are different in degree, rather than in kind, from us.

Plus, my own personal experience with great apes certainly has suggested to me, even on a subjective basis, that they are quite aware of themselves and others.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

[Undercurrent]

Originally posted by pz:
<strong>
Like I said, a species that is ineffective at obtaining something that it values, such as achieving a satisfactory replacement rate in its population, goes extinct.
</strong>

But the lions do have a satisfactory replacement rate. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't prefer
to have a lower infant mortality rate.

<strong>
Even among humans, babies still die. Does every dead baby mean we are ineffective at obtaining things we value?
</strong>

Yes. We are not perfectly effective that obtaining things that we value. We are still quite a bit more effective than the lion, though. Both us and the lion would like out IM rates to be zero. Both us and the lion fall short of that goal. We, however, are a lot closer to it than they are.

<strong>
Does the inescapable fact that our species will someday be extinct mean that we must be failures?</strong>

1) I contest that this "fact" is not inescapable.
2) Is the immortality of our species something that we, as a species, value?

m.

[ksagnostic]

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
<strong>


I remain unconvinced that animals can make any kind of comparison about anything. </strong>

Then you haven't looked in the right places. Sure, we may not be talking about philosophical comparisons, but the ability of some nonhumans to make comparisons has been so well documented that the debate is essentially over. I particularly recommend the works of Irene Pepperberg with African Grey Parrots (particularly Alex) and Sarah Boysen with chimpanzees.

[pz]

Originally posted by Undercurrent:
<strong>

1) I contest that this "fact" is not inescapable.
</strong>
Get used to it. Like your own personal mortality, the eventual death of our species is inevitable, and I would argue, desirable. The alternative is stagnation. Life is a process of change, not stasis, and death is part of it.
<strong>
2) Is the immortality of our species something that we, as a species, value?</strong>
If it is, then it is something we don't have and can't achieve.

Personally, I don't value it.

[Doubting Didymus]

I think a good analogy would be wings. Possibly you could compare the difference in 'kind' between human and chimp thoughts to the difference in 'kind' between dinosaur proto wings used for gliding and breif, flapping jumps and modern albatross wings, able to soar at high altitudes for extended timespans.

Certainly, if both specimens were alive today, we might consider the difference in flight ability to be differences in 'kind'. One can traverse continents, while the other flaps around vigorously just to get off the ground for a minute.

I think this is a good analogy for chimp and human brains. One comes close to comprehending space and time themselves, while the other can only be considered rudimentary by comparison.

Nonetheless, as archeoraptor ascends into albatross, so chimplikle brains may ascend into humanlike brains.

[Undercurrent]

Originally posted by pz:
(Regarding the extinction of the human species)
<strong>
Get used to it. Like your own personal mortality, the eventual death of our species is inevitable, and I would argue, desirable. The alternative is stagnation. Life is a process of change, not stasis, and death is part of it.</strong>

Is there some reason why we couldn't send ourselves off into space, populate this entire galaxy and others, and be sitting pretty until the heat death of the universe? I've heard people assert that all species have life spans and eventually we'll be gone before, and certainly it is possible that we will all go extinct, but I've never heard any reason why it should be inescapable.

(Of course, I don't see any reason why individual personal immortality is unattainable with approprate technology either.)

As for the stagnation bit, I know several people who would be completely happy with stagnation. We're not all conquerers and explorers.

m.

[Marduk]

Why since we evolved from the apes, we are much more advanced while other species are so inferior?”

Inferior in what way? I agree this is an ‘aren’t we just special’ human value judgement, crocodiles, sharks, crabs, roaches whatever have been around for almost a half a billion years, why haven’t they evolved? Because they don’t have to, they are perfect surviving machines. Modern humans have been around a few short millennia and with no surprise to me will no doubt cause their own extinction relatively quickly, I hope, then things can get back to normal, the aberrant error of nature corrected.


"I remain unconvinced that animals can make any kind of comparison about anything."

Studies on Rhesus Monkeys (Sagan gave the reference in his book Broca’s Brain but I can’t remember where it was done) showed they displayed what we would call compassion; A monkey could get something to eat but the food lever when pulled would also shock another monkey, when the monkeys learned that they were causing there friends pain they stopped eating.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
<strong>First, we have defined intelligence as the sole criteria of greatness. Humans lose in all other stakes. We are not faster, stronger, longer-lived or equipped with better senses.
</strong>

We build bigger bombs. What other criteria is needed?

[DireStraits]

First, we have defined intelligence as the sole criteria of greatness.

DS: Yeah I've often wondered why it is that superiority is though to reside infallibly in intelligence. Because we have it in greater abundance than any other creature? If so, then then we are doing nothing more than having a beauty contest to see who is most like Man. Surprise! We come out on top!

Humans lose in all other stakes. We are not faster, stronger, longer-lived or equipped with better senses.

DS: Right. But our adaptability is superior to all other species. Humans can adapt to any environment on earth that any other species can - albeit with special equipment. We can even live outside of earth's atmosphere for short periods, and even on other celestial bodies. No other animal or plant species can match that.

Second, the differences in our intelligence are only of degree, not kind. So all we can really claim is that we are have developed intelligence to a larger degree than most.

DS: Yes.

[Doubting Didymus]

I would quickly like to address the various posts about our use of intelligence to overcome all of our shortcomings.

I am aware of this, but my point is that these are directly derived from our intelligence. Intelligence is still our sole strong point. If you took it away we would not be superior in any other feature. So it really is still true to say that we have defined superiority as either 'most intelligent' or more realistically, that superiority is measured by things that we rely on intelligence to do. No surprise that we come out on top, if we define the criteria.

[DireStraits]

I totally disagree. Human intelligence is of another kind altogether. Non-human animals have only perceptual intelligence. Humans are capable of conceptual intelligence.

DS: Well, most are. But you may be surprised to find out how badly so many rate in this respect. The other animals are always called upon the match the best of human intellectual achievements.

Animals are sentient to a degree but are they self aware? I don't think so.

DS: Why not? Have you ever owned a dog? Have you ever seen a shepherd handling four different sheepdogs at a time? How could the dogs possibly react correctly if they did not know that a certain sound referred to them specifically?

Be glad to see some proof if you have it.

DS: It's difficult to know what would constitute proof here. Can you prove to me that you are self-aware?


Maybe you can start by listing some conceptual thoughts expressed by chimps or dolphins or somthing.

DS: I don't have any refs for this since I read it years ago, but studies attempting to teach chimps sign language overturned the idea that they were dumb animals decades ago. One signing chimp was asked to sort photographs of other non-signing chimps and humans. She sorted all the other chimps away from the human pile but placed her own picture in the human pile. When a (human) friend left, she signed to herself - thinking she was alone - "Jane gone, me sad." I don't think that sort of emotion arose through sign language, I think it was already there, but now simply feeling it was not enough.

There is an excellent book called "Beast and Man" by Mary Midgley that I highly recommend.

[Ought Naught]

Originally posted by DireStraits:
<strong>DS: Right. But our adaptability is superior to all other species.</strong>I think that archaebacteria might have something to say about that...erm...well, maybe not "say", but...dammit, you know what I mean.

[pz]

Originally posted by Undercurrent:
<strong>

Is there some reason why we couldn't send ourselves off into space, populate this entire galaxy and others, and be sitting pretty until the heat death of the universe? I've heard people assert that all species have life spans and eventually we'll be gone before, and certainly it is possible that we will all go extinct, but I've never heard any reason why it should be inescapable.</strong>Do you really think humanity could spread that far over so much time and change environments so completely, yet still remain unchanged? That's like Star Trek-style science fiction: it's 20th Century America In Space.
<strong>(Of course, I don't see any reason why individual personal immortality is unattainable with approprate technology either.)

As for the stagnation bit, I know several people who would be completely happy with stagnation. We're not all conquerers and explorers.</strong>
Personal immortality sounds disastrously catastrophic, and the surest thing to lead to the end of the species that I can think of.

But I don't believe it's possible, anyway.

[Dr S]

Originally posted by ksagnostic:
<strong>
Sure, we may not be talking about philosophical comparisons, but the ability of some nonhumans to make comparisons has been so well documented that the debate is essentially over. </strong>

Koko, who spent most of today wearing make up and lipstick, which she applied herself (thickly) while looking in her Barbie mirror, advised me that when I went to see a major donor I should wear my blue shirt and a big red cowboy hat we have hanging around.
Animals make comparisons with no problem; but their fashion sense is somewhat lacking.

[ksagnostic]

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
<strong>

I remain unconvinced that animals can make any kind of comparison about anything. </strong>

After replying to your post, I remembered this incident.

About ten years ago, two events occurred about a week apart. First, our dominant male chimpanzee was injured in a fight with another adult male. His right middle finger was injured, and the fingernail came off. Second, a person served in the adult life skills program where I worked at the time slammed my office door shut, not realizing that my hand was in the door. My right middle finger took the brunt of it, and I also lost my fingernail (twice).

At any rate, when his finger was first injured, this chimpanzee would come up to people he recognized, including me, and show us his injured finger. When I first saw him after my finger got hurt, I showed him mine. His eyes went extremely wide as he looked at my finger (I took off the bandage and showed him the loose nail, it hadn't come off yet). After that, long after his own finger healed, and he stopped showing off his injured finger to others, he would still come up to me and raise his hand and show me his finger. However, he was clearly looking at my hand as he did so, and would not leave until I showed him my hand. He did this for about a year. While this is a subjective impression, there is little question in my mind that he was "comparing" our injuries.

And that probably is not nearly as obvious as the stuff Dr. S sees from Koko all the time.

[ksagnostic]

Originally posted by Dr S:
<strong>

Koko, who spent most of today wearing make up and lipstick, which she applied herself (thickly) while looking in her Barbie mirror, advised me that when I went to see a major donor I should wear my blue shirt and a big red cowboy hat we have hanging around.
Animals make comparisons with no problem; but their fashion sense is somewhat lacking.</strong>

LOL!

If you were to ask her who dresses the best, would she answer?

psst! Geo. Assessing one's appearance in the mirror while applying makeup is a comparative behavior.

On a serious note, I realized I should probably offer my condolences with regards to Michael (I guess it's been a year and a half now?).

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

[Happy Wonderer]

I just thought of an interesting effect that might skew our perceptions of animal intelligence. I do not believe that we test the intelligence of our predators very frequently...

"Oh Mr. Grizzly Bear, which card is the most similar to the card on the...AAAAIIIGHHH!"

HW

[Undercurrent]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
<strong>I am aware of this, but my point is that these are directly derived from our intelligence. Intelligence is still our sole strong point. If you took it away we would not be superior in any other feature. So it really is still true to say that we have defined superiority as either 'most intelligent' or more realistically, that superiority is measured by things that we rely on intelligence to do. No surprise that we come out on top, if we define the criteria.</strong>

We do, in fact, (in talking about compensating for physical defects through intelligence,) define superiority as things we do through intelligence. But that doesn't mean that we can't compare our abilities that we gain through intelligence with the equivalent ability in animals that don't acquire it through intelligence.

Consider comparing flying ability between four groups:

Insects: Flight through thin wings extending from thorax. Birds: Flight through feathers extending from modified arms. Bats: Flight through skin streched between elongated fingers. Humans: Flight through mechanical devices crafted through intelligence.


Just because the groups fly based on different mechanisms, doesn't mean that you can't compare based on standard metrics of flying (speed, distance, &c).

Of course a human couldn't do any flying without intelligence, but that's hardly saying that intelligence is the metric. None of these species could fly without mitochondria, but that doesn't make "having mitochondria" the metric.

m.

P.S. I contend, however, that intelligence does deserve a special priority amoung abilities, but I contend that that belief is due to the fact that intelligence is so useful in acquring other abilities, not just because humanity is looking for a reason to think of itself as "special".

[Undercurrent]

Originally posted by pz:
<strong>Do you really think humanity could spread that far over so much time and change environments so completely, yet still remain unchanged? That's like Star Trek-style science fiction: it's 20th Century America In Space.</strong>

Why not. I believe Scientific American conservatively estimated the time it would take to colonize the galaxy as something like a million years. That's not a terribly long amount of time for a species to remain the same. Especially if colonies were specifically trying to maintain genetic diversity.


<strong>
Personal immortality sounds disastrously catastrophic, and the surest thing to lead to the end of the species that I can think of.

But I don't believe it's possible, anyway.</strong>

Why not? I certainly see no particlar physical barriers to creating nanomachines that would revert my body's cells to the way they were 5 years ago, and just keeping repeating this process every 5 years.

The only true, unsurpassable end I could see is when the usable energy in the universe dries up, which is far enough off (10^100 years, estimated by sci. am., provided we can find ways to extract energy from evapourating black holes) that I would call living until then "immortal".

m.

[Dr S]

Originally posted by ksagnostic:
<strong>

I should probably offer my condolences with regards to Michael </strong>

Thank you. Somehow it has gotten to be over two years. April 19, 2000, he was only 27.

[Quetzal]

Interesting topic. I read through the thread, but haven't really seen an operational definition of "supremacy". Is there one? We seem to be arguing about the criteria used, but has anyone actually defined what we're attempting to measure?

IMO, the only thing that can be unequivocally stated is that the human species is unique in the sense it is the only species in the history of life on Earth that has the capability to effect environmental change on a global scale (although those cyanobacteria back in the Pre-Cambrian that pooped O2 did a pretty fair job at that). I get concerned when I hear about human supremacy, because if we are simply applying subjective - often anthropocentric - criteria to the analysis, we risk forgetting that a belief in the supremacy of man can become a fairly destructive mindset. I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone that if the global environment is changed enough, we might even bring about our own extinction. I guess we would be pretty unique in that, as well...

[echidna]

Are those Pre-Cambrian cyanobacteria still around ?

[Quetzal]

Originally posted by echidna:
<strong>Are those Pre-Cambrian cyanobacteria still around ?</strong>You're kidding, right? Identifiable cyanobacterial microfossils first appear around 2.5 gya. They were preceeded by stromatolites (to about 3.5 gya) and chemical traces that appear to be bacterial in origin (3.8 gya). There are still lots of cyanobacteria "families" today, but I don't think they're the same species that existed way back when.

[echidna]

Originally posted by Morpho:
<strong>I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone that if the global environment is changed enough, we might even bring about our own extinction. I guess we would be pretty unique in that, as well...</strong>

Sorry, it was a tongue-in-cheek reply to the above ...

[Quetzal]

Originally posted by echidna:
<strong>

Sorry, it was a tongue-in-cheek reply to the above ...</strong>Oookaaay.

Interesting that you seem to feel the statement was in error. You might want to look up a bit about the oxygen holocaust in the Proterozoic that occurred around 2.5-1.9 gya. A whole lot of prokaryotes went extinct. In fact, the cyanobacteria nearly wiped themselves out as well - it was only the fortuitous evolution of superoxide dismutase in some families of cyanobacteria that allowed them to survive themselves. Certain archaea and other anaerobic prokaryotes survived in locations/conditions where oxygen didn't penetrate. I even read somewhere (I can't find the reference) that it was the oxygen poisoning that created the selection pressure that led to eukaryotes in the first place - someone may be able to find it (and I don't know how valid the hypothesis is).

OTOH, humans rely on a whole pile of other organisms for survival. In spite of our adaptability and technical savvy, if we screw things up badly enough, it's quite possible we can render the planet uninhabitable for humans. Note: I didn't say all life - life is incredibly persistent. Humans are very likely to write themselves out of the equation, however.

Anyway, I'm not a tree hugger (I hate it when the bark gets stuck in my teeth). Nor do I subscribe to the metaphysics of the Gaia hypothesis. OTOH, my argument revolves around the common Xian view that humans are somehow special and not subject to their environment (the whole gawd gave dominion over the cattle and beasts, etc thing). To an extent our technology and adaptability has mitigated direct environmental selection pressures on the species as a whole. However, there IS a point of no return where the cumulative effects of continual environmental degradation produce irreversible negative effects on our own survival. I consider the Xian view to be potentially dangerous because it ignores this basic fact. Fine for a Bronze Age tribe of goat herders with no environmental impact beyond their tiny local region. Potentially lethal for a modern society.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

[pz]

Originally posted by Undercurrent:
<strong>I believe Scientific American conservatively estimated the time it would take to colonize the galaxy as something like a million years.</strong>"Conservatively"? What is a conservative estimate for how long it would take us to reach the nearest star, 4 light years away? Compare that to your million year estimate to expand outwards about 100,000 light years.
<strong>I certainly see no particlar physical barriers to creating nanomachines that would revert my body's cells to the way they were 5 years ago, and just keeping repeating this process every 5 years.</strong>
Your body is full of "nanomachines" right now: we usually call the simpler ones "enzymes" and the bigger, more elaborate ones "cells". They are much, much more sophisticated than the ones nanotechnologists dream of, and they haven't led us to virtual immortality yet.

[GeoTheo]

1. animals can't make choices in the same sense we can. We can choose to do that which we don't want to do and want to do what we do not choose to do.
These has been called "second order desires".
Animals do not posess them. An example would be the desire to quit smoking, while still smoking.
Or the disire to cheat on ones spouse while remaining faithful. Because of this humans can engage in moral or ethical discussions with each other on what is the "right" thing to do ignoring our own first order desires.
2.Animals cannot engage in long term planning. they are restricted to the present world of perception.
3. This relates to number 1. Since animals do not posess second order desires, they do not relate to each other as we do. They do not recognize "rights" in others and therefore do not have a sense of "justice" as we do. People are social but we are different than social animals like chimps because of this.
We negotiate with each other. This requires a set of assumptions animals cannot make.
1. Both parties in the dialogue must be "rational"
able to give and accept reasons for action and and recognize the the distinction between good and bad reasons, between justified reasons and mere excuses.
2.Both parties must be free (capable of second order desires) able to make choices, intentionally able to persue their goals and accept responsibility for the outcome.
3.Each party must desire the others consent and be prepared to make concessions in order to obtain it.
4.Life saftey and freedom must be accpted as being ivoliable in order for this negotiation to take place otherwise you can only have war.
5. Each party must understand and accept obligations, for example the obligation to accept agreements.

Is this the type of interaction seen among social primates, among themselves and among competing groups?
Do they have a sense of property rights or does might always make right?
I know they occasionally kill each other and others in the group seem saddened by this. But is their a sense of "moral indignation"?
Do they believe the murderer was "wrong" Are there plans for revenge? No. because they do not posess the ability to consider the abstract concepts involved.

[Dr S]

(GT) 1. animals can't make choices in the same sense we can. We can choose to do that which we don't want to do and want to do what we do not choose to do.
(S) A few weeks back Koko hurt a tooth on a piece of frozen fruit. It hurt her for the longest time.
Ndume, our male, having seen this took his favorite treat-a fruit juice mix we use- and even though it was really hot, and he really wanted it, he gave it to her.

(GT) 2.Animals cannot engage in long term planning. they are restricted to the present world of perception.
(S) Squirrels bury nuts, dogs bury bones. Ants work only for the future, bees don't live to eat their own honey. Bears gorge themselves to prepare for hibernation. It just goes on and on.
(GT) 3…They do not recognize "rights" in others and therefore do not have a sense of "justice" as we do.
(S) All animals that live in groups have a group dynamic. The individual has a certain ranking in the pack and their rights and responsibilities reflect that rank
(GT) We negotiate with each other. This requires a set of assumptions animals cannot make.
(S) Chimps and gorillas negotiate all the time. I know one who trades nuts for kisses.
Visit a dog park sometime and you can watch the pets negotiate with each other fulfilling every one of your 5 qualifiers.
(GT) Is this the type of interaction seen among social primates, among themselves and among competing groups?
(S) Yes.
(GT) Do they have a sense of property rights
(S) Ever try to take a dogs bone away from him?
(GT) or does might always make right?
(S) The good of the pack is what dictates what is "right"
In dogs and fish we call it "animal behavior" in humans the same thing is called "morals."
(GT) But is their a sense of "moral indignation"?
(S) Yes. Animals that are not have behavior that is supportive of the pack (moral) are driven from it.
(GT) Do they believe the murderer was "wrong" Are there plans for revenge?
(S) All of the great apes, all of the larger toothed Cetaceans, dogs, wolves, bears, some of the big cats and African elephants have been known to seek revenge.

Face it GT you are just another animal on a planet filled with animals. You should learn more about them and not assume so much. The subject is really interesting.

[GeoTheo]

Dr. S
Let me put this as delicately as possible:
ARE YOU FOR REAL?!?!!????
If you think squirrels and ants (ants for crying out loud!) engage in long term concious planning I really have to doubt your credentials as an animal behaviorist. Are you a real scientist?
I learned about the difference between concious reasoning and instincts in my general biology class. You really thinks squirrels have any choice in the matter of gathering nuts?
Ants?
Why do you think moths fly into light bulbs and bug zappers?
Do you think they do it because they are depressed?
I realize primates may approach humans in many capacities and if you really are a scientist working in that feild, you should be qualified to speak on that. But you really don't sound like a scientist to me. You seem to have less scientific knowledge than many of the forum participants here. Not that I claim to have any qualifications, but I smell a rat. Your dialogue with DoubtingDidymous on the other thread seemed to reveal a lack of knowledge of primatology on your part.

[Dr S]

(GT) ARE YOU FOR REAL?!?!!????
If you think squirrels and ants (ants for crying out loud!) engage in long term concious planning
(S) You said, "long term planing" now you've changed it to "conscious" because you want to make it exclusively human. Do you think a bird builds a nest because it wants to sit down that very minute? How much of it is "conscious" is debatable but it is long term planning none the less.
(GT)I really have to doubt your credentials as an animal behaviorist. Are you a real scientist?
(S) I'm not an animal behaviorist, and yes I am a scientist. Why would you prefer my writing to be more technical and dryer?

(GT) I learned about the difference between concious reasoning and instincts in my general biology class. You really thinks squirrels have any choice in the matter of gathering nuts?
(S) Then it's time to take a new bio class. Instincts ain't what they used to be, they haven't been since the 80's.
Yes squirrels have choices when they gather nuts. How many to get, where to put them, how to find them in the future all comes down to reasoning. The animals of this world are not a bunch of automatons.

(GT) I realize primates may approach humans in many capacities and if you really are a scientist working in that feild, you should be qualified to speak on that. But you really don't sound like a scientist to me.
(S) If I'm writing papers I can be as boring as you please. At the moment I'm trying to get gorilla shit out of the sole of my Rockports. So I'm not going to take offense, I'm too distracted. As long as the major donors are convinced that I'm a scientist you can think what you want.
(GT) You seem to have less scientific knowledge than many of the forum participants here. Not that I claim to have any qualifications, but I smell a rat.
(S) Not that you claim any qualifications but you claim qualifications.
What do you think that humans are completely unique? Created by God in his image to have dominion over the beasts of the field?
Humans are a species of primate. We are simply mammals. The qualities that we posses are unique to us only in the matter of degree to which we posses them-not in the possession. This same is true of every other animal on the sphere. We are all related.
Your notion that animals are completely instinctual is something left over from the past. Of course animals can think. Even little ones like squirrels have enough mental capacity to learn mazes and solve pretty complicated logistical problems. (Try putting up a squirrel-proof bird feeder sometime.) Any animal that stores food is planning for the future. The degree to which such planning is the end product of conscious thought would vary from species to species. And frankly we have no way of measuring it.
This is something that is coming to light in zoos across the world -the need for mental stimulation in captive animals.

Last July I was at Columbia U in NYC taking a look at their ideas for "enrichment." They had put them to the test at the "Congo" exhibit in the Bronx Zoo and were working on a new project for the dolphins at the out dated Brooklyn Aquarium. There is still in the planning stage a construction project called the Maui Ape Project. A combination study center and sanctuary. It will be built (fingers crossed) where the Maui Tropical Plantation is now in Waikapu. It will house chimps, orangutans and gorillas rescued from the bush meat trade. U of H will be behind it and hopefully CU will help (which is why I was there).
Why you need enrichment is if you decide that animals are purely instinctual, as they did at the beginning of the last century, then there is no problem at all with sticking them is a small cage. But they do think, and therefore they suffer when put in sterile environments. I remember eons ago when I first got into this business a female white rhino who was kept in a concrete enclosure with a dry moat at one end that had been built by the WPA. She rubbed her horn against the concrete wall so long that she wore the whole thing off till it bled. We all told ourselves that it was instinctual. She just did that because she had no need of it in captivity.
Thinking back I can't believe we were so blind. She had no mental stimulation, living alone in a concrete box and she had become a neurotic mess. She was compulsively doing herself harm.

I find this idea of "Supremacy of Humans as a species" ridiculous.
What insecurities could prompt the need to feel you were "better" than all the other species? We are different from them only because our bodies are slightly different in shape. It can do some things better-like think and talk because of its morphology. It can do some things worse for the same reason.
You think that gives you "Supremacy" over the other animals? Ha! That gives you responsibility for their wellbeing. If you're the best animal there is then it is up to you to take care of the rest.

[DireStraits]

DrS. said: Why you need enrichment is if you decide that animals are purely instinctual, as they did at the beginning of the last century, then there is no problem at all with sticking them is a small cage.

DS OR worse. When a newbie in a drug research lab saw what was being done to chimps there, making them suffer unnecessarily, he asked the director why he was testing the drugs on chimps.

"Because they are so much like us biochemically and in so many other ways."

"Well if they are so similar to us, why are we treating them like this?"

There are many, and I thing GeoTheo is one of them, that far from being stuck in the 1980's, have not moved much out of the Certesian view of animals that they are not much more than machines because they do not have souls. I think a lot of it comes from certain readings of Genesis I as well. God gave dominion over all the animals, and there are some that think that since Man was created last that that fact alone means Man is obviously the pinnacle of creation.

For a long time the tree of evolution depicted Man at the top. Nowadays, scientists think more in terms of the evolutionary bush, with each branch reaching out to a occupiable niche, none more exalted than any others.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: DireStraits ]</p>

[Doubting Didymus]

Your dialogue with DoubtingDidymous on the other thread seemed to reveal a lack of knowledge of primatology on your part.

I would like to point out that that discussion was not about primatology (which I know next to nothing about), but about hominid evolutionary history and selection theory, which are areas I am greatly interested in.

It is not neccesary that Dr S have a comprehensive knowledge of evolutionary selection theory in order to work in what seems to be a highly practical area of the scientific enterprise. You should not discount his expertise in primatology based on any small misunderstandings in other (almost unrelated) fields.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

[ksagnostic]

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
<strong>1. animals can't make choices in the same sense we can. We can choose to do that which we don't want to do and want to do what we do not choose to do. </strong>

Funny you should say this. As a volunteer, I ran an enrichment peogram for five years based on developing enrichment preference profiles for individual chimpanzees and orangutans. We also tried to discern group preferences. They definitely make choices, and their choices were consistent as individuals. Group preferences were much more difficult to determine. In other words, just what you would expect of a group of intelligent beings making their own choices as individuals.

<strong>These has been called "second order desires".
Animals do not posess them. An example would be the desire to quit smoking, while still smoking.
Or the disire to cheat on ones spouse while remaining faithful. Because of this humans can engage in moral or ethical discussions with each other on what is the "right" thing to do ignoring our own first order desires.</strong>

First of all, your examples all related to idiosyncratic human cultural issues. Non-human animals do not, for the most part, live in human societies, so how do you compare a human who desires to quit smoking with a non-human animal for whom smoking is as relevant as walking on the moon? The same for marriage.

Secondly, animals have shown the ability to defer immediate preferences for longer term gain. Interestingly, in the case of chimps, according to some of Sarah Boysen's research results, they do much better if such a choice is expressed in symbols. For example, a chimpanzee can learn the rule that if I choose more, somebody else gets more, and I get less. However, the chimpanzees in question are able to do this with arabic numbers, but not the actual items. Which brings us to point number three.

Non-human animals can not generally tell us what they are thinking. Dr. S and those few people who work with language trained animals may have the experience of asking their subjects questions about what they are thinking, and having those questions answered, at least to some degree. But that, of course, is very rare. How can an ape or any other intelligent creature tell us when they are doing something when they'd rather be doing something else? You probably thought I missed the point when I discussed the patterns of choice making among chimps, but the point was that that pattern of choice making was discovered simply by observing their behavior. But that's all we can do. We can't read their minds. Therefore, for anyone to definitely say that chimps or other non-human animals don't have second order desires, or act contrary to their own internal desires or wishes, is at least premature. Have I seen chimps share preferred items with others? Yes I have (but admittedly very, very infrequently), but I have no way of knowing why they do so.
<strong>
2.Animals cannot engage in long term planning. they are restricted to the present world of perception.</strong>

So why do chimpanzees in the Tai forest pick up rocks and carry them several miles to crack nuts? Similar apparently planful behavior is seen in a number of bird species, particularly corvids. I have myself seen chimpanzees make circular patterns (including linked circles) on the exhibit floor with straw, and restore them when someone else messes it up (as invariably happens). They are gathering straw from all over the exhibit (and since we have linked indoor/outdoor exhibits) that includes some traveling.

<strong>
3. This relates to number 1. Since animals do not posess second order desires, they do not relate to each other as we do. They do not recognize "rights" in others and therefore do not have a sense of "justice" as we do. People are social but we are different than social animals like chimps because of this.
We negotiate with each other. This requires a set of assumptions animals cannot make.</strong>

One name, two books. The name, Frans deWaal. The books, CHIMPANZEE POLITICS and GOOD NATURED. I have been observing chimpanzee behavior according to the guidelines of the ChimpanZoo program for 13 years. I have seen a lot of behavior that indicates that chimpanzees have definite behavioral expectations for one another. Is it full blown morality? No, but again, the question in these discussions usually comes down to "are humans different in kind, or only in degree?" I think it's in degree. And again, how can we expect chimpanzees to encode their expectations for one another in detail without language? But, the relationships between chimpanzees are definitely complex (and incidentally, chimps have definitely been observed to inhibit behavior depending on who is around, which would at least be on the continuum with "second order desires").


<strong>1. Both parties in the dialogue must be "rational"
able to give and accept reasons for action and and recognize the the distinction between good and bad reasons, between justified reasons and mere excuses.
2.Both parties must be free (capable of second order desires) able to make choices, intentionally able to persue their goals and accept responsibility for the outcome.
3.Each party must desire the others consent and be prepared to make concessions in order to obtain it.
4.Life saftey and freedom must be accpted as being ivoliable in order for this negotiation to take place otherwise you can only have war.
5. Each party must understand and accept obligations, for example the obligation to accept agreements.</strong>

All of the behaviors you report above require fairly detailed linguistic communication, which other species lack. I would agree that language is a species specific human behavior (which, incidentally, does not mean that the behavior is entirely inaccessible to other species), but by your line of argument most of the people I work with as a speech-language pathologist working in augmentative/alternative communication also would fail to qualify as human. However, some of them are perfectly capable of doing the sort of definition and negotiation you are talking about if they are given the tools to do so! Such is also probably true of non-human animals with sufficent brain development, slow maturation, and long lifespan.

<strong>Is this the type of interaction seen among social primates, among themselves and among competing groups?
Do they have a sense of property rights or does might always make right?
I know they occasionally kill each other and others in the group seem saddened by this. But is their a sense of "moral indignation"?
Do they believe the murderer was "wrong" Are there plans for revenge? No. because they do not posess the ability to consider the abstract concepts involved.</strong>

Begging the question a little bit here? Again, such expectations on the part of other species would have to occur on an individual basis, and unless they had an accessible method of expressing such expectations symbolically to one another, they could not go into much detail between individuals. But, that does not mean that the ability is not there! That is a seperate question.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

[GeoTheo]

Originally posted by Dr S:
<strong>(I) Koko seemed self-aware to me, though I think some have argued her behavior amounts to little more than "circus training" to get the results the scientists want, etc.
(S) Since I'm one of her "circus trainers" I can say without reservation that she is completely selfaware.

On July 4 she turned 31. Dr Patterson asked her 'what does she get on her birthday?" She answered juice, cake, nuts, toys. Then she got this sad look on her face and she wouldn't talk. Finally she said that she "got old!" And she mopped around for hours feeling sad that she was getting old.

When Michael the gorilla was only eight he awoke one night screaming. He had had a nightmare. He kept signing "blood, blood, blood". When he calmed down he told the night caretaker what he had dreamed. When he was two, in the Congo, he was on his mother's back while she was crashing through the forest running from poachers. She was shot and the poachers grabbed him. They held on to their valuable prize as they cut off his mother's head in front of him.
He was up till dawn, on the night of the dream in Northern California, crying for his mother.</strong>

Here is a sample of some conversations between Penny and Michael and Koko.
<a href="http://www.freecitymedia.com/KokoText.html" target="_blank">http://www.freecitymedia.com/KokoText.html</a>
They seem a lot more ambiguous than you portray.
How could Michael possibly sign:
"When I was an young gorilla in the congo. I was riding on my mother's back while crashing through the forest.My mother was killed by some poachers. They cut her head off in front of me."

But then years later when he obviously knew more signs, Penny asks him about a dream and he says.
things that barely make sense.

[GeoTheo]

Here's some of Kokos brilliant dialogue on dreams:
FCM Question to Koko: What do you dream about? Do you dream of other jungles?

PP: What do you dream about? Do you dream of other jungles?
Koko does not respond.
PP: What kind of dreams does Koko have?
K: Know dream good.
PP: Koko has good dreams.
K: Nipple.
PP: Do you dream about jungles, forests, trees?
K: Nipple.

These trainers seem to show a lot of interpretation in very hard to decipher dialogue, always giving the interpretation that would make the gorilla look the most like a genius.
No mention of Michaels nightmare
just a very simplistic dream of somthing about squash. That no one seemed to be able to figure out. They seem to ask very leading questions also.

[GeoTheo]

This article reminds me of someone talking about a mentally handicapped child. They obviously love the child and see him or her in a very positive light. They often attribute intelligence that may not be there. I know this because I work with the developmentally disabled. I'm talking about the profoundly retarded that cannot speak or even walk. I think it is a positive thing for the parents to see then this way and talk to them as if they can understand, but on the other hand I think they are projecting.
Obviously Penny is very close to Koko but seems to project a lot. Even existential thought. Her explanation would be that existential thought is hard to express so it comes out non-sensical.
A simpler explanation is that the gorilla did not understand the question.

[echidna]

In terms of syntax & grammar, Koko’s sign language is very comparable to Makaton which is one of the many sign languages over here for the intellectually disabled (you’d maybe be familiar, I volunteer with the mildly intellectually disabled & occasionally use Makaton for some of the non-verbal kids).

I’d agree that a degree of over-anthropomophisation does appear likely in Koko’s case, and discussion of dreams is somewhat abstract. Basic languages like Makaton have little syntax and hence often very open to subjective interpretation when it comes to meaning. Dialogue is often far from clear. But at more basic levels of conversation, genuine linguistic understanding does seem present with Koko, as with a sense of self.

[Corgan Sow]

originally posted by Dr S:

I find this idea of "Supremacy of Humans as a species" ridiculous.
What insecurities could prompt the need to feel you were "better" than all the other species? We are different from them only because our bodies are slightly different in shape. It can do some things better-like think and talk because of its morphology. It can do some things worse for the same reason.



I just want answers, not rebukes, dude. I didn't make an assumption, that was just a suggestion of topic. I'm not making sides between creationism and evolutionism because I need answers first.

[Corgan Sow]

originally posted by GeoTheo:

A simpler explanation is that the gorilla did not understand the question.


Wow. It is like that Christian transcendal argument. So, if we can't understand primates, we are definetely smarter than them?

How utterly amusing.

[GeoTheo]

Originally posted by Corgan Sow:
<strong>

Wow. It is like that Christian transcendal argument. So, if we can't understand primates, we are definetely smarter than them?

How utterly amusing.</strong>

Actually no. When we train apes verbal language that they never develop in the wild and they garble it up we should always just categorically assume that they are way smarter than us and have a much better grasp of this language we taught them than we do.

[DireStraits]

GeoTheo said:

Actually no. When we train apes verbal language that they never develop in the wild and they garble it up we should always just categorically assume that they are way smarter than us and have a much better grasp of this language we taught them than we do.

DireStraits: Well I suppose we can say the same of kids who "garble up" langiage as well. And all the peoples who speak the various pidgin languages in the world. And just look how much Latin has been "garbled up" in French, Italian and Spanish.

You have not addressed the points made about your statements that animals are not self-aware. I think you now see that you over-reached in your first shots.

As for the matter of animals dreaming, I ask you again, have you ever owned a dog? Ever seen it asleep then suddenly start breathing irregularly and yipping and even barking, and even moving its legs? What do you think is going on there if it is not dreaming?

If a chimp can recognise a photo of itself, does that count as self-awareness? What about if a chimp sees a human whose face is in profile open his mouth and seemingly push a pencil all the way in even though the pencil only seems to go in because the person has it a few inches from his head? What about if the chimp immediately picks up another pencil and does the same thing in front of a mirror? Does that indicate self-awareness?

If not, what would you count as evidence of self-awareness? Writing a poem called "Song of Myself"?