Sentient Animals - Fact or Myth?

[Hellis]

"Koko is one of the few non-humans known to keep a pet. Researchers at The Gorilla Foundation said that Koko asked for a cat for Christmas in 1983. Ron Cohn, a biologist with the foundation, explained to the Los Angeles Times that when she was given a lifelike stuffed animal, she was less than satisfied. She did not play with it and continued to sign "sad." So on her birthday in July 1984, she was able to choose a kitten from a litter of abandoned kittens. Koko selected a gray male Manx and named him "All Ball". Penny Patterson, who had custody of Koko and who had organized The Gorilla Foundation, wrote that Koko cared for the kitten as if it were a baby gorilla. Researchers said that she tried to nurse All Ball and was very gentle and loving. They believed that Koko's nurturing of the kitten and the skills she gained through playing with dolls would be helpful in Koko's learning how to nurture an offspring.[31]​[32]​
In December of that same year, All Ball ran away from Koko's cage and was hit and killed by a car. She was sad
Later, Patterson said that when she signed to Koko that All Ball had been killed, Koko signed "Bad, sad, bad" and "Frown, cry, frown, sad". Patterson also reported later hearing Koko making a sound similar to human weeping.[32]​

In 1985, Koko was allowed to pick out two new kittens from a litter to be her companions. The animals she chose, she named "Lipstick" and "Smokey," were also Manxes.[33]​ Koko picked the name after seeing the tiny orange Manx for the first time. When her trainer asked the meaning of the name, Koko answered, Lips lipstick. Dr. Patterson was confused until she realized that Lips had a pink nose and mouth, unlike All Ball's gray markings. Koko picked Smoky's name because the kitten looks like a cat in one of the gorilla's books."


Koko (gorilla) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Marchosias]

@Marchosias

I'm a little confused. How would the trainer have trained the gorilla that the cat was dead before the cat actually died? I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you somehow, but your ideal test scenario sounds like what actually happened.

Simple. He culd have implanted a mental sugestion to "trigger" on certain conditions, like the cat's death. Not so dis-similar to the technikues used in hypnosis. After all, even us, as highly-sapient humans, are susceptible to mental sugestion, how much easyer wuld it be to condition a animal?

 

[Astaroth]

@Marchosias

Ah, okay. You're claiming it's all being made up. Gotcha.

 

[Marchosias]

"Koko is one of the few non-humans known to keep a pet. Researchers at The Gorilla Foundation said that Koko asked for a cat for Christmas in 1983. Ron Cohn, a biologist with the foundation, explained to the Los Angeles Times that when she was given a lifelike stuffed animal, she was less than satisfied. She did not play with it and continued to sign "sad." So on her birthday in July 1984, she was able to choose a kitten from a litter of abandoned kittens. Koko selected a gray male Manx and named him "All Ball". Penny Patterson, who had custody of Koko and who had organized The Gorilla Foundation, wrote that Koko cared for the kitten as if it were a baby gorilla. Researchers said that she tried to nurse All Ball and was very gentle and loving. They believed that Koko's nurturing of the kitten and the skills she gained through playing with dolls would be helpful in Koko's learning how to nurture an offspring.[31][32]
In December of that same year, All Ball ran away from Koko's cage and was hit and killed by a car. She was sad
Later, Patterson said that when she signed to Koko that All Ball had been killed, Koko signed "Bad, sad, bad" and "Frown, cry, frown, sad". Patterson also reported later hearing Koko making a sound similar to human weeping.[32]

In 1985, Koko was allowed to pick out two new kittens from a litter to be her companions. The animals she chose, she named "Lipstick" and "Smokey," were also Manxes.[33] Koko picked the name after seeing the tiny orange Manx for the first time. When her trainer asked the meaning of the name, Koko answered, Lips lipstick. Dr. Patterson was confused until she realized that Lips had a pink nose and mouth, unlike All Ball's gray markings. Koko picked Smoky's name because the kitten looks like a cat in one of the gorilla's books."

Ok that story, if true, lends some pretty convincing evidence. But it still looks more like adopted maternal-instinct reaction, then sapience. Especialy since the gorilla vas female, and she tryed to nurse the kitten. I'v also heard storys about cats, for instanse, adopting young of other animals and care for it like their own kittens.

Ah, okay. You're claiming it's all being made up. Gotcha.

Not exacly. I'm contending that the gorilla may have simply been conditioned to respond to the phraze. Or in light of Hellis' post, vas simply responding to maternal instincts.

 

[Hellis]

Ok that story, if true, lends some pretty convincing evidence. But it still looks more like adopted maternal-instinct reaction, then sapience. Especialy since the gorilla vas female, and she tryed to nurse the kitten. I'v also heard storys about cats, for instanse, adopting young of other animals and care for it like their own kittens.

Only. She ASKED for a kitten based on pictures. She knew LANGUAGE. She assigned NAMES based on characteristics. Another hallmark of sapience.

And what do you mean "if it is true". They are well respected, peer reviewed and tested scientists who's done a long study on the subject.

 

[Marchosias]

Only. She ASKED for a kitten based on pictures. She knew LANGUAGE. She assigned NAMES based on characteristics. Another hallmark of sapience.

And what do you mean "if it is true". They are well respected, peer reviewed and tested scientists who's done a long study on the subject.

Wel like I sayed. Its a pretty good evidence, but hardly conclusive, in my mind, given the other factors involved. I remain on the fence about it, though I'm more leaning in "sapient" direction now.

 

[Hellis]

Eh. I'll take it. Lol.

 

[Kestrel]

I wish I still had PubMed access. That'd make this topic so much less frustrating to watch.

Apes, particularly gorillas, showcase use of tools, self-awareness, humour, deductive reasoning, etcetera, in the wild. Then there is, as mentioned by others, Koko the gorilla who could communicate with ASL. Bonobo apes, in particular, might interest you, as they use sexual acts to pacify others and form groups and relations as a taught, rather than instinctive behaviour.

So. Have at it.

 

[Marchosias]

I wish I still had PubMed access. That'd make this topic so much less frustrating to watch.

Apes, particularly gorillas, showcase use of tools, self-awareness, humour, deductive reasoning, etcetera, in the wild. Then there is, as mentioned by others, Koko the gorilla who could communicate with ASL. Bonobo apes, in particular, might interest you, as they use sexual acts to pacify others and form groups and relations as a taught, rather than instinctive behaviour.

So. Have at it.

So far, the use of tools (implying deductive reasoning) strikes me as the only point in favor of sapience. Strong one, to be sure. Wel, that and Koko reacting to pictures to choose her "pet" (vhich I stil think wuld be more apt to call a adoptive young). The rest of it can all be explained as evolved instinct. Especialy using sexual acts as "taught" behavior, that just makes no sense. I mean, I cant think of anything MORE instinctive and spontaneus then sex, and its beneficial efect on a individual's mood.

 

[Kehvarl]

Marchosias,
It sounds like what you're actually asking is: Why do we not see any non-human civilizations (or precursor civilizations). And the answer to that is: We don't know. There are animals that make tools, animals that learn to make tools from watching others, and animals that we can teach to communicate in sign language. Just what will cause the jump from that to human-level abilities we don't know. We literally don't have words for what makes us different than the most clever animals.

Who knows, in a few thousand years maybe we'll find lions that use poison darts, orangutans that build libraries in the treetops, crows that wear hats, or dolphins that tell us to get out of their ocean. Or maybe we will see them tomorrow. Or maybe we saw them 25,000 years ago. One thing we do know: aside from luck, there seems to be nothing "special" about H.Sapiens that give us the intellectual advantage we're sure we have.

 

[Marchosias]

Marchosias,
It sounds like what you're actually asking is: Why do we not see any non-human civilizations (or precursor civilizations). And the answer to that is: We don't know. There are animals that make tools, animals that learn to make tools from watching others, and animals that we can teach to communicate in sign language. Just what will cause the jump from that to human-level abilities we don't know. We literally don't have words for what makes us different than the most clever animals.

Who knows, in a few thousand years maybe we'll find lions that use poison darts, orangutans that build libraries in the treetops, crows that wear hats, or dolphins that tell us to get out of their ocean. Or maybe we will see them tomorrow. Or maybe we saw them 25,000 years ago. One thing we do know: aside from luck, there seems to be nothing "special" about H.Sapiens that give us the intellectual advantage we're sure we have.

In a nut-shell, that is the question I'm asking. But I disagree that "luck" is the only thing separating us from inteligent animals. There has to be more then that. Ambition, relentless drive, aspiration for self-improvement - you dont see ANY of that in even the most "sapient" animals. We humans have that special ***something*** that makes us unique, aside from mundane inteligence/sapience.

 

[Kestrel]

So far, the use of tools (implying deductive reasoning) strikes me as the only point in favor of sapience. Strong one, to be sure. Wel, that and Koko reacting to pictures to choose her "pet" (vhich I stil think wuld be more apt to call a adoptive young). The rest of it can all be explained as evolved instinct. Especialy using sexual acts as "taught" behavior, that just makes no sense. I mean, I cant think of anything MORE instinctive and spontaneus then sex, and its beneficial efect on a individual's mood.

Bonobo give handjobs to others with the explicit purpose of avoiding conflict or calming them down. It's not reciprocate. They learn this by copying behaviour rather than instinctively indulging in it. I'm really not sure how much I have to explain about that to make it a point for sapience.

 

[Hecatoncheires]

And the answer to that is: We don't know.

You can look at meme theory as a possible explanation as to why we evolved the way we have but no other species seems to be following suit. Other animals learn to use tools, yes, but they don't have a way to impart and adapt that knowledge onto subsequent generations: this is one of the crucial aspects of the development and advancement of ideas.

My background's in history rather than science, so I can't really outline it much better than that, but if this is a topic people are interested in go read 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins. Yes, that Richard Dawkins. Back when he did science.

 

[Marchosias]

Bonobo give handjobs to others with the explicit purpose of avoiding conflict or calming them down. It's not reciprocate. They learn this by copying behaviour rather than instinctively indulging in it. I'm really not sure how much I have to explain about that to make it a point for sapience.

That seems contradictory. They jerk each-other off to get on each-others good side (vhich frankly is a awesome habit IMO, nothing like easing latent tension, sexual or othervise, to make ppl relax and not be stressed-out and get along better vith one-another :) ), but its not suposed to be instinctive? I dont see how it cant be. I mean, the principle is the same as some animals rubbing each-others noses or mutual grooming (monkeys do that alot). Its a instinctive social habit, to form stronger bonds in a pack (bonobos are pack-animals, I assume). I stil dont see how that translates to creative sapience.

So, I'm sory Kestrel, but I dont see the conection there, or it to be a point for sapience. Highly evolved pack-instinct, yes, but not sapience.

 

[Brovo]

So, I'm sory Kestrel, but I dont see the conection there, or it to be a point for sapience. Highly evolved pack-instinct, yes, but not sapience

At that point, our own capacity for learning is nothing more than "highly developed pack instinct."

 

[Marchosias]

At that point, our own capacity for learning is nothing more than "highly developed pack instinct."

Not realy. Our capacity for learning is motivated by ambition and desire to be more then we are. Animals dont have that desire. I think thats the main diference betwen us and any animal that shows semi-sapience. They dont want to live out-side of themselvs. They dont aspire to anything. We do.

Ambition, relentless drive, aspiration for self-improvement - you dont see ANY of that in even the most "sapient" animals. We humans have that special ***something*** that makes us unique, aside from mundane inteligence/sapience.

 

[Brovo]

When I get home, I will share my full opinion then. I actually don't entirely disagree with you, but I think we define salience differently.

 

[Kehvarl]

You say they "don't want to live outside themselves" and "don't aspire". Unfortunately, these are two assertions you've made without providing supporting evidence.

What we know:

• There are many animals that exhibit responses of awareness
• There are animals that exhibit object permanence
• There are animals that exhibit self-awareness (they are capable of recognizing when something is "self" and when it is "other". See Mirror Test for more)
• There are animals that exhibit cooperative behaviors
• There are animals that exhibit memory
• There are animals that exhibit problem solving
• There are animals that exhibit depression
• There are animals that exhibit nurturing behaviors
• There are animals that utilize found tools
• There are animals that create tools
• There are animals that can be taught language

Simply dismissing any of that as "instinct", or "pack behavior" is disingenuous. You're not actually providing a counter argument, just saying that examples don't count.

Your question was: Do sentient (meaning sapient) non-human animals exist? The answer is almost without a doubt: yes. We modified the question slightly to "Why are there no non-human civilizations". The answer to that is: no one knows. Until recently no one really cared to ask that question scientifically. The assumption has always been "humans are special", but that really doesn't tell us anything. In fact, the fossil record shows that H.Sapiens isn't all that special, we had a large number of precursors and early contemporaries that could easily have flourished instead of us. We even have examples from them of careful stonecrafting and what appears to be artwork. Moving from stone tools took H.Sapiens an incredible length of time, and we don't know how many coincidences. Moving from the first metal working to reliable tools took another unknown interval. Developing agriculture which allowed us to not be small packs of hunters took an unknown interval. Congregating in cities took an unknown interval. We have no idea when the first proto-languages came into being.

I said before that the thing that sets us apart from other animals is luck. Here are a few instances of that luck:

• We have opposable thumbs that make for a good grip, and high dexterity
• We have incredibly long vocal folds that make the sort of speech we use possible
• We have a bipedal gait, which frees up the hands for things other than walking
• We have relative hairlessness which allows us to sweat, which means we can cool efficiently, which means we can run animals into exhaustion.
• We don't have claws, meaning our fingertips are incredibly accurate sensors
• We survived a number of catastrophes that opened up ecological niches to us.

None of those are anything we "strive" for, but they're all necessary components to the sort of advancement we've performed as a species. Take any one away and we would be asking very different questions.


So the question isn't: "Why aren't there non-human civilizations (that look like ours)." The question is "What would a non-human sapience develop in place of what we call civilization? What would it look like? How could we tell?"

 

[Hecatoncheires]

The answer to that is: no one knows.

Got the answer right here, bruh.

 

[Dervish]

Got the answer right here, bruh.

I also want to point out in the cases of dolphins and anything else lacking opposible thumbs can hardly be faulted for not building anything, plus it may be foolhardy to place human sentiment on animals; just because we found it advantageous to go from hunter/ gather societies may not be a universal thing for sapient life. Hell, there are still isolated indiginous groups around the world that reject anything past what we would consider stone aged. Even when Rome was expanding, there's evidence a lot of people actually left to join the barbarian tribes because they saw it as a preferential way of life over that big civilization thing. Even many European settlers joined native American settlements because they saw it as a bettet quality of life.

Point is, barring the ability to make tools and farm, maybe we were the only species that saw the need to go that way. Might make us super unique, but it doesn't automatically invalidate other species' potential for sapience.