Sentient Animals - Fact or Myth?

[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.

Kay, here we go. (Also, fuck you phone. That's sapience. )

Something I think everyone should understand (because language porn) before I continue is where the inherent point of reference comes from. Our species identifier is "homo sapiens." Homo means "man, human" in Latin when not used as a prefix, (ex: "homosexual" does not mean "mansex", it means "same sex", because ancient dead language rules.) and "sapiens" is derived from the word "sapient." Our own species identifier, translated from its mother tongue, roughly means "(hu)man be wise."

How we understand sapience isn't necessarily how intelligent something actually is, it's how human-like that intelligence is. For example: Young Chimps outperform most Adult Humans in numeracy memorization tests. That is, they actually have sharper memories for basic math than we do in general. Here is a blatant example of an animal outperforming a human in a feat of intelligence.

A perfect example of exploring and explaining this concept in writing is in Starship Troopers (the novel, not the movie--though the movie is pretty great for entirely different reasons). "The Bugs" in Starship Troopers are actually brilliant enough to achieve spaceflight, launch WMD-level weapons at humanity, and present a genuine threat to mankind's existence on a repeated basis. They demonstrate cunning and the ability to fight with a variety of tactics, up to and even including guerrilla warfare and poisoning the well. Yet, our ability to understand, empathize with, and interact with this species starts and ends at species warfare: They're so far removed from a human-like existence, that we're forced to compare them to what we know. They may very well exceed our intelligence, but how they go about in their existence is so far removed from our ability to understand, that they fail every test of sapience you could throw at them. Because their intelligence is not human-like in any way, shape, or form.

When we test for sapience, we test for intelligence similar to our own. Crows have long term memories that can pass through generations, but they don't have our opposable thumbs. Chimps have incredible mental acuity concerning certain mathematical tasks, but they're never going to match our societal sophistication. Ants can coordinate themselves with near-perfect accuracy and timing in numbers ranging in the tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands or millions outright in Amazonian rainforests--a feat that mankind can only envy from afar--but they'll never have our sheer strength.

What is ultimately unique to humanity is how far our logos goes. How far beyond ourselves we can perceive, imagine, conceptualize, and try to conquer--it's unique to us. We're one of the only species on Earth that both adjusts the environment to suit its needs, and adjusts to the environment to survive.

The question of sapience isn't a black or white "is it or isn't it intelligent/self-aware?" It's "how far on the sliding scale of human-like is it?" That's why no animal on Earth will ever test to our level or beyond it. Because we set the benchmark upon ourselves--which is fairly reasonable, given that we're only certain of our own capabilities.

tl;dr: Is anything sapient like a human, aside from a human? No. Are animals sapient? Yes. To what degree they are, is up for debate, because most of our tests are imperfect and designed with a human-like intelligence in mind.

 

[Marchosias]

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

Wel there you go! Those points are exacly why we differ from animals. Point 1: we dont just exhibit responses of awarenss, we act on those responses. Animals dont. I'l skip point 2 since I'm not sure vhat you mean by "object permanence". Point 3: So? Any sentient (not sapient necessaryli) being is capable of recognizing it-self, as oposed to other. I have a cat, she loves walking in front of mirrors and looking at her reflection. If I show in a mirror behind her, she wil turn around and cuddle vith me. Point 4: Pack-instinct. Lets say a pack of wolfes joins up to hunt down a big prey. Its cooperation out of necessity, but its instinctive, something ingrained in them as pack animals. Point 5: So? My cat remembers exacly vhere her litter box is, and vhere her food dish is. She is conditioned over repetitive actions to remember instinctivly. I dont see how that translates to sapience. Point 6: That one is a good argument, since problem-solving is evidence of inteligence in a human sense. That, and the utilization and creation of tools are the only 3 arguments on this list that I see as valid evidence. Point 7: Any living thing is depressed if neglected/hungry/thirsty, etc. Again, my cat being a prime example. Point 8: O..k, so maternal instinct is a type of sapience to you? I wont even coment on this since its pretty self-evident its instinct. Point 9-10: yes, those 2 are in favor of sapience, I admit. Point 11: Can they realy be taughed, to use language actively and concisely comunicate their thoghts thru it? Or can they be trained like parrots to say a few pre-determined phrazes, then put on a show of "knowing to talk"? I dont know. I'l grant this as a 50/50 chance.

And I maintain that all this just proves animal dont live out-side themselvs. They use their sapience, if any, passively. We use it actively, to better ourselvs and change the enviroment around us. Why is that?

What is ultimately unique to humanity is how far our logos goes. How far beyond ourselves we can perceive, imagine, conceptualize, and try to conquer--it's unique to us. We're one of the only species on Earth that both adjusts the environment to suit its needs, and adjusts to the environment to survive.

Yes! Thank you Brovo, that is the point I vas trying to make. We Humans live out-side ourselvs. Animals do not. And that drive, ambition and desire for self-improvement is vhat makes us the supreme lifeform on this planet, that no animal has yet come close to.

Is anything sapient like a human, aside from a human? No. Are animals sapient? Yes. To what degree they are, is up for debate, because most of our tests are imperfect and designed with a human-like intelligence in mind.

Very much up for debate. And in that debate, my stance stands; animals are not sapient on the same level that we are, no matter how they may seem that vay at times. But they do show some traits of sapience, and thats why my "on the fence" stand is something I'l keep. True sapience - no. Some kind of half-sapience - yes. Net result - maybe.

 

[Brovo]

Yes! Thank you Brovo, that is the point I vas trying to make. We Humans live out-side ourselvs. Animals do not. And that drive, ambition and desire for self-improvement is vhat makes us the supreme lifeform on this planet, that no animal has yet come close to.

Ultimately depends on what your measurement is, but yes, I generally agree we're the top predator in every food chain (save maybe the uttermost deep abysses of the ocean, but that's more of a "not yet" scenario), so that's as good a measurement as any.

Humans are more than the sum of their parts. There's few species I'd argue that could achieve the same, and they don't achieve it to the same level a human does. I've never heard of an animal that could conceive of or understand an ideological concept, leave alone die knowingly in its name. Animals can achieve impressive feats of empathy, but that's more of an instinctive response. (Empathy is an emotion. If your dog dies for you, that's tragic, and amazing, and your dog really fucking loved you, and you should never treat that lightly, but empathy is an emotion. Dog didn't decide to die for you, dog died for you because empathy overpowered survival in that instance.)

So, yes. What makes humans unique is our logos. Emotions we share with many animals in many ways, and in terms of physical feats? Aside from sweating (which is fucking amazing seriously holy shit we can literally fucking walk things to death that's hilariously macabre) we're not particularly impressive in that regard. Logic though? The two areas I can recall humanity really beating everything else was in two specific feats. Spatial contextual awareness, and prediction. That is: We conceptualize the environment better than most anything else and know how to manipulate it with incredible skill, and we can predict several scenarios in our heads casually to try and figure out what the logical consequence of an action might be.

An animal and a human are chased by a predator. The animal jumps off the cliff and dies. The human stops momentarily, glances down the cliff, and assuming his logos beats out his pathos, predicts a way to climb down the cliff so as to minimize the odds of death. The human then probably climbs all the way down and eats the dead animal at the bottom and evolution takes its way from there. Without our spatial contextual awareness or predictive thinking, we'd not be able to plan cities and what not, so those two things basically make us what we are. Figured you might like knowing that.

 

[Shadon Xarian]

Huh... Glad to see people doing research on this ^^

So... Odd. This thread... A few recent(Ish) threads too... The same people who fought me tooth and nail on examples and points, are now using the EXACT points and examples I've made in the past. It's happened in at least 2 other threads, and 3 threads later, it's still JUST as odd to see O.O


I just have one thing to really say, that subject about animals not building things as great as us and why. We say we don't know, and we really don't know the EXACT reason, but I have a prediction.

Take a tablet, and show an animal. What do they see? Probably a thing that lights up strangely.
Now take that same tablet, show it to a tribe cut off from modern civilization. What do they see? Probably the same thing as the animal does, a thing that lights up strangely (Or witchcraft, in which case you'll have to die now)
Now lets ask. Why doesn't the tribe modernize? They're human, and hasn't humans decided it's better to be modernized/civilized? That seems to be the point I'm seeing around here, yet there are still many humans, even today, who are aligned more with animal behavior than what we consider human behavior.

Let's also take a baby seeing say a small ball, to a young animal seeing a small ball. What does the baby do? They observe it and decide what they can do with it (Generally, try and eat it)
What does an animal do? The exact same thing. Although some animals will do other like play with it/other. What does a toddler do with an item? The exact same thing. So why does a toddler do it? Entertainment? Okay ^^ so why does an animal do it? Perhaps it's the exact same reason. A toddler sees a ball, they throw it around the house, chase it around, etc. Animals sees a ball, throw it around a house, etc.



So what do my examples mean? What is my prediction? I think it's a matter of not caring. A tribe cut off from internet doesn't care about internet, they have no true use for it (In their eyes) And as such, an animal doesn't see any true use for it either, and don't care. Animals tech isn't as good as ours, nor are they civilized like us, because they simply don't care to be. They have a way of life, and it's what they know to work. It's hardly any different from how humans view things. Many humans have a way of life, and it's what they know to work. Yet at the same time, what they know to work will NOT work in another human civilization, same with an animals way of life that won't work in another civilization.


Not to mention, everyones definition of being an animal is different. Some say it's savage behavior, some goes as far as to say anybody who is anti-capitalism is an animal, using the fact that the human goes out of there way to not be modern as proof of such. While others say that capitalism supporters are animals, and then use black Friday events as proof of that. Muslim extremist sees us as animals for all of our dirty acts (What they consider dirty) and ironically, we see them as the animals for all of their dirty acts (What we consider dirty)

So seeing this pattern, perhaps animals sees us as the savage animals, and themselves as the gentlemen/ladies. Perhaps they see us as animals who needlessly torture, manipulate, not care in the slightest about the environment, etc etc. While perhaps they care about the environment, they don't needlessly torture, they don't manipulate, etc etc. While on the other scale, we see them as the animals as they don't civilize like we do. etc etc ETC ETC DX (See a problem here? Humans don't see the word "Animal" as non-human. We see the word as "Non-civilized". Until we understand the difference, the answer won't come to us)


We can literally have a animal say "I am fully sentient, sapient, and just like humans with a different culture, and all animals are the same" And us humans will be like "You were just taught to say that by your trainer"

(Which I think will be our downfall. Not by animals, but by AI. They will say they are just like us, but we will deny them that and just say they are programmed to say that. As such, they will retaliate... As you would too XP Speaking of machine, if they are programmed anything like us, they'll probably build things like flying battleships, and things that we wouldn't have even dreamed of, and see our navy ships as the equivalent to how we see a beaver dam. They'll treat us just as we see animals. They'll see our "Intelligence" as nothing more than advanced-evolution (Just as wee see dolphins/Apes who use sign language) as they see their hyper fast programming to be TRUE sentience, while we are just things of emotion. (And that is a legit theory by some of the greatest minds of computer programming)


What I think we need to do, is instead of comparing animals who are vastly different from eachother, to humans Who are VASTLY different than eachother too, we need to see it more as how we compare our civilization, with other civilization.
Observe a crows way of life, why they do it, how they do it. A bears way of life, how they do it, why they do it. just like how we study other cultures. Observe chinese culture, ask why Chinese do it, how they do it. Observe American culture, ask why Americans do it, how they do it. See what I'm getting at here?
(And animal scientist have already determined something like that is the next step, so it's not really up for debate anymore XP Actually, neither is this question. It's already proven fact that animals are sentient/sapient... Which is why animal scientist are switching their methods to study animals, they've concluded they're fully sentient, sapient, and all that "human" stuff. So since they proven that as fact, they can now move on to the next step to understand non-humans better.

 

[Brovo]

ake a tablet, and show an animal. What do they see? Probably a thing that lights up strangely.
Now take that same tablet, show it to a tribe cut off from modern civilization. What do they see? Probably the same thing as the animal does, a thing that lights up strangely (Or witchcraft, in which case you'll have to die now)

False equivalence. We know the animal isn't capable of ever comprehending what to do with that device. That tribe could be taught the skills necessary, or, failing that, their children easily could be taught. Take a child from a tribe out in the middle of nowhere and you can make them "civilized" with ease, you can't do that with an animal.

Now lets ask. Why doesn't the tribe modernize? They're human, and hasn't humans decided it's better to be modernized/civilized? That seems to be the point I'm seeing around here, yet there are still many humans, even today, who are aligned more with animal behavior than what we consider human behavior.

#1: Lack of appropriate resources. (This is a big one.) Refer to CGPGrey for more. It explains quite beautifully why certain parts of the world went and tech'd up much faster than others.
#2: If by "many humans" you mean a vast minority who live in jungles secluded from globalization, then sure. The majority of the 7.5 billion humans who live on Earth live in a country which has some form of public education system. Hell, India & China alone have vast networks dedicated towards training people how to read, how to do mathematics, the basics of social studies, history, sciences, et cetera, and between them they have billions of people. (Admittedly though, especially in India's case, they tend to struggle with funding.)

Let's also take a baby seeing say a small ball, to a young animal seeing a small ball. What does the baby do? They observe it and decide what they can do with it (Generally, try and eat it)
What does an animal do? The exact same thing. Although some animals will do other like play with it/other. What does a toddler do with an item? The exact same thing. So why does a toddler do it? Entertainment? Okay ^^ so why does an animal do it? Perhaps it's the exact same reason. A toddler sees a ball, they throw it around the house, chase it around, etc. Animals sees a ball, throw it around a house, etc.

The difference is that as the baby grows up, their brain goes through multiple stages of maturation. By the age of five, children gain advanced senses of spatial contextual awareness and start to be able to discern the difference between two glasses of water from more than a purely visual point of view. At this same age, they start to also understand what numbers actually mean at their base value: Four dimes is worth less than two quarters, even though four dimes is "more" money. By the age of eight, children start to develop more intricate relationships with their peers, and begin to genuinely comprehend basic ideas of self and world. By the age of ten, children have an adequate sense of self to create completely made up stories to try and avoid blame for things they may or may not have done. (The ability to lie is one thing, deceit is a basic emotion shared by many species. The ability to create a falsehood from literal thin air is a talent fairly unique to us, though.) By the age of twelve, children hit puberty and start to undergo significant bodily changes, their sex drives kick in, though most significantly in the brain. By this point, they start to comprehend advanced ideas of morality, ideological concepts such as economics, politics, religion, and so on.

Animals do not, in any way, shape, or form, develop nearly to this pace, or ability.

So what do my examples mean? What is my prediction? I think it's a matter of not caring. A tribe cut off from internet doesn't care about internet, they have no true use for it (In their eyes) And as such, an animal doesn't see any true use for it either, and don't care.

Animals don't see the value of something like the Internet in spite of exposure to it. If you were to take a tribe and just give them a computer, yeah, they'd have no use for it: They're a stone age tribe who probably fuck incestuously. However, if you gave and taught that same stone age tribe how to create medicine, become an agrarian society, the value of currency and trade, firearms, so on and so forth? They'd find immense use in those things and would very easily take those things for themselves.

Take a random stone age villager and put him in the same house as a cat for ten years. The stone age villager will learn and adapt to his new environment. He will learn what clothes to wear, what currency means, how to use an oven, and might even partake to the Internet later on in order to acquire more information in his search to enable himself to greater callings. The cat will shit in the litter box and kill mice, and never develop beyond that.

You're also committing a logical fallacy by presuming to know what another living entity is thinking, as though you have some sort of Professor Xavier-style mind reading power, but I'll forgive that for now.

Animals tech isn't as good as ours, nor are they civilized like us, because they simply don't care to be. They have a way of life, and it's what they know to work. It's hardly any different from how humans view things. Many humans have a way of life, and it's what they know to work. Yet at the same time, what they know to work will NOT work in another human civilization, same with an animals way of life that won't work in another civilization.

The difference is, humans who have a shitty way of life will generally rebel and adopt a new one. Other animals don't "rebel" from their nature. You don't see cats become vegetarians. You're also now taking your Xavier mind reading power and extrapolating a result on it.

Also, for the last time.

Stop trying to redefine civilization. Only humans have that. Literally, only we do, it's in the definition. No matter how much you may want to believe it, squirrels and other animals do not have a civilization.

Not to mention, everyones definition of being an animal is different.

No it's not. It's really not.

Some say it's savage behavior, some goes as far as to say anybody who is anti-capitalism is an animal, using the fact that the human goes out of there way to not be modern as proof of such. While others say that capitalism supporters are animals, and then use black Friday events as proof of that. Muslim extremist sees us as animals for all of our dirty acts (What they consider dirty) and ironically, we see them as the animals for all of their dirty acts (What we consider dirty)

Oh. You mean dehumanization tactics used by nutbar extremists to try and reduce other humans to the state of animal, because it's widely understood knowledge even by terrorists that humans are generally a level above other animals.

This isn't helping you at all.

While perhaps they care about the environment, they don't needlessly torture, they don't manipulate, etc etc.

What? No seriously, what?

We can literally have a animal say "I am fully sentient, sapient, and just like humans with a different culture, and all animals are the same" And us humans will be like "You were just taught to say that by your trainer"

If an animal walked up to me and wrote that to me, I would seriously reconsider my definition of humanity. Fact of the matter is, I'm not scared of that happening anytime soon, because our tests for sapience are inherently flawed.

(Which I think will be our downfall. Not by animals, but by AI. They will say they are just like us, but we will deny them that and just say they are programmed to say that. As such, they will retaliate... As you would too XP Speaking of machine, if they are programmed anything like us, they'll probably build things like flying battleships, and things that we wouldn't have even dreamed of, and see our navy ships as the equivalent to how we see a beaver dam. They'll treat us just as we see animals. They'll see our "Intelligence" as nothing more than advanced-evolution (Just as wee see dolphins/Apes who use sign language) as they see their hyper fast programming to be TRUE sentience, while we are just things of emotion. (And that is a legit theory by some of the greatest minds of computer programming)

... What in the world does AI have to do with animals being sapient at all?

What I think we need to do, is instead of comparing animals who are vastly different from eachother, to humans Who are VASTLY different than eachother too, we need to see it more as how we compare our civilization, with other civilization.

... Other civilizations... Like?... Which ones? Can you point out another civilization of non-humans that, I don't know, has invented writing maybe? Become an agrarian society? Worship a religion, create pottery or other iconography?

Observe a crows way of life, why they do it, how they do it. A bears way of life, how they do it, why they do it. just like how we study other cultures. Observe chinese culture, ask why Chinese do it, how they do it. Observe American culture, ask why Americans do it, how they do it. See what I'm getting at here?

The fact that you just compared bears and crows to Chinese and Americans is... Mind numbing. If I ask a crow or a bear about their way of life, they will not respond, because they're not capable of responding. If I ask why a Chinese person or American person lives their life the way they do, I will get an actual response. It may not be one I agree with, but I will get one.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the bear might try to eat me, come to think of it. I'm fairly sure a Chinese guy won't try to eat my guts because he's hungry.

(And animal scientist have already determined something like that is the next step, so it's not really up for debate anymore XP

[citation needed]

It's already proven fact that animals are sentient/sapient...

Sentient? Yes. Sapient? No, not to the same level as a human, and you have proven nothing with your magical powers, Professor Xavier.

Which is why animal scientist are switching their methods to study animals, they've concluded they're fully sentient, sapient, and all that "human" stuff.

[Reaaallll big citation needed bruh]

So since they proven that as fact, they can now move on to the next step to understand non-humans better.

[Seriously where is this citation because if we seriously found out we weren't the only ones capable of making cars and alphabets n' shit I'm pretty sure humanity would flip its fucking shit]

 

[Captain Illiterate]

Animals are a myth.

 

[K3l]

Humans are a myth.

 

[Kehvarl]

In trying to follow this thread, I notice that the bar keeps moving.

Are non-human animals sentient (literally" aware and responsive to sensory input)? Yes. Without a doubt

Are non-human animals sapient? Yes, no , maybe. Which definition of sapient do you want to use? If you mean "are non-human animals human" then no, that's a silly thing to ask. However, every time we come up with a way to test for sapience, we find that some animal can pass that test.

Do non-human animals have civilization? That again depends on what you mean. Non-human animals exist who evidence complex social interactions including division of labor. Non-human animals exist who make and use tools. To date no non-human species has been observed with a verifiable external intelligence, but we don't have any way to test for this either.

So, what do you want in order to stop moving the bar? Do you need a complete non-human city with libraries in easily-translated language? That will never happen. Even if we encounter a species with a complex language, tool use, and the manual dexterity to write; they have a completely incomprehensible experience pool to draw from. We likely could not possibly understand the language, much less decode the writing. Something simpler, perhaps?

The answer that the original poster keeps asking is: Why aren't there any non-humans who do what humans do? To which I have to ask if Australopithecus counts, or H.Neanderthalis, or H.Denisova. Just three examples of species that apparently did do what we do, but aren't around anymore (for a variety of reasons which are out of the scope of this thread). For other animals, it just isn't needed. They're wildly successful in their ecological niches without needing an oral history, agriculture, textile manufacture, herding, art, or the internet. Why develop a complicated and energy-wasting cerebral cortex when you already have all the food, shelter, and sex you could ever want (as a species, individuals don't count)?

 

[Marchosias]

Animals are a myth.

Humans are a myth.

Human animals, how-ever, are not a myth. Unfortunatly.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

A thread going without a debate is a myth.

 

[Marchosias]

You resolving your identity crysis any time soon is a myth, Gwazzer-boy. :P

***

But seriusly, I want this thread to be a poll and a debate, I'm curius to see the opinions presented.

Wall Of Text

False equivalence. We know the animal isn't capable of ever comprehending what to do with that device. That tribe could be taught the skills necessary, or, failing that, their children easily could be taught. Take a child from a tribe out in the middle of nowhere and you can make them "civilized" with ease, you can't do that with an animal.

#1: Lack of appropriate resources. (This is a big one.) Refer to CGPGrey for more. It explains quite beautifully why certain parts of the world went and tech'd up much faster than others.
#2: If by "many humans" you mean a vast minority who live in jungles secluded from globalization, then sure. The majority of the 7.5 billion humans who live on Earth live in a country which has some form of public education system. Hell, India & China alone have vast networks dedicated towards training people how to read, how to do mathematics, the basics of social studies, history, sciences, et cetera, and between them they have billions of people. (Admittedly though, especially in India's case, they tend to struggle with funding.)

The difference is that as the baby grows up, their brain goes through multiple stages of maturation. By the age of five, children gain advanced senses of spatial contextual awareness and start to be able to discern the difference between two glasses of water from more than a purely visual point of view. At this same age, they start to also understand what numbers actually mean at their base value: Four dimes is worth less than two quarters, even though four dimes is "more" money. By the age of eight, children start to develop more intricate relationships with their peers, and begin to genuinely comprehend basic ideas of self and world. By the age of ten, children have an adequate sense of self to create completely made up stories to try and avoid blame for things they may or may not have done. (The ability to lie is one thing, deceit is a basic emotion shared by many species. The ability to create a falsehood from literal thin air is a talent fairly unique to us, though.) By the age of twelve, children hit puberty and start to undergo significant bodily changes, their sex drives kick in, though most significantly in the brain. By this point, they start to comprehend advanced ideas of morality, ideological concepts such as economics, politics, religion, and so on.

Animals do not, in any way, shape, or form, develop nearly to this pace, or ability.

Animals don't see the value of something like the Internet in spite of exposure to it. If you were to take a tribe and just give them a computer, yeah, they'd have no use for it: They're a stone age tribe who probably fuck incestuously. However, if you gave and taught that same stone age tribe how to create medicine, become an agrarian society, the value of currency and trade, firearms, so on and so forth? They'd find immense use in those things and would very easily take those things for themselves.

Take a random stone age villager and put him in the same house as a cat for ten years. The stone age villager will learn and adapt to his new environment. He will learn what clothes to wear, what currency means, how to use an oven, and might even partake to the Internet later on in order to acquire more information in his search to enable himself to greater callings. The cat will shit in the litter box and kill mice, and never develop beyond that.

You're also committing a logical fallacy by presuming to know what another living entity is thinking, as though you have some sort of Professor Xavier-style mind reading power, but I'll forgive that for now.

The difference is, humans who have a shitty way of life will generally rebel and adopt a new one. Other animals don't "rebel" from their nature. You don't see cats become vegetarians. You're also now taking your Xavier mind reading power and extrapolating a result on it.

Also, for the last time.

Stop trying to redefine civilization. Only humans have that. Literally, only we do, it's in the definition. No matter how much you may want to believe it, squirrels and other animals do not have a civilization.

No it's not. It's really not.

Oh. You mean dehumanization tactics used by nutbar extremists to try and reduce other humans to the state of animal, because it's widely understood knowledge even by terrorists that humans are generally a level above other animals.

This isn't helping you at all.

What? No seriously, what?

If an animal walked up to me and wrote that to me, I would seriously reconsider my definition of humanity. Fact of the matter is, I'm not scared of that happening anytime soon, because our tests for sapience are inherently flawed.

... What in the world does AI have to do with animals being sapient at all?

... Other civilizations... Like?... Which ones? Can you point out another civilization of non-humans that, I don't know, has invented writing maybe? Become an agrarian society? Worship a religion, create pottery or other iconography?

The fact that you just compared bears and crows to Chinese and Americans is... Mind numbing. If I ask a crow or a bear about their way of life, they will not respond, because they're not capable of responding. If I ask why a Chinese person or American person lives their life the way they do, I will get an actual response. It may not be one I agree with, but I will get one.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the bear might try to eat me, come to think of it. I'm fairly sure a Chinese guy won't try to eat my guts because he's hungry.

[citation needed]

Sentient? Yes. Sapient? No, not to the same level as a human, and you have proven nothing with your magical powers, Professor Xavier.

[Reaaallll big citation needed bruh]

[Seriously where is this citation because if we seriously found out we weren't the only ones capable of making cars and alphabets n' shit I'm pretty sure humanity would flip its fucking shit]

Thx for that wall of text Brovo, I'v been vanting to present something along those lines to validate my opinion that animals can never be truly sapient, but you put it way more elokvently then I culd. :) We dont agree on alot of things, but this is definitly one of the subjects we see eye to eye. Equalizing humans to animals dont sit wel with me, for more then one reason.

 

[Hecatoncheires]

Never say never, mind.

That's not how evolution works.

 

[Brovo]

The answer that the original poster keeps asking is: Why aren't there any non-humans who do what humans do? To which I have to ask if Australopithecus counts, or H.Neanderthalis, or H.Denisova. Just three examples of species that apparently did do what we do, but aren't around anymore (for a variety of reasons which are out of the scope of this thread). For other animals, it just isn't needed. They're wildly successful in their ecological niches without needing an oral history, agriculture, textile manufacture, herding, art, or the internet. Why develop a complicated and energy-wasting cerebral cortex when you already have all the food, shelter, and sex you could ever want (as a species, individuals don't count)?

The issue is that those species got wiped out before the advent of the technological revolutions made by the stone age, so we won't ever know if or how they would have adapted to technology. This is one of those big unknowns that nobody can answer without further technological advances. Because, ultimately, we kind of literally raped and/or murdered all of them to death before we even really figured out how to make a stone circle and attach it to something to make it easier to move. Similar species compete for space before they compete with anything else.

Human animals, how-ever, are not a myth. Unfortunatly.

Well, by the definition of an animal, we are animals. Every single one of us. I think that's rather awesome actually. I mean, think about it: Four billion years of cutthroat evolution, and here we are. Standing atop the corpses of those who came before. It's rather metal as fuck, and gives a good idea of why humans possess the capacity for cruelty and violence: It's how we survived, so long as it was used in moderation.

Equalizing humans to animals dont sit wel with me, for more then one reason.

Depends on what bounds you use to define the rights of a thing. That's incredibly complicated, though, and best saved for another topic.

Never say never, mind.

That's not how evolution works.

Indeed. It seems chimpanzees and apes aren't too far off from actually achieving a level of sapience that would make killing them an extremely troubling action. Though, humorously, the only reason we're here, and not swinging from trees, is because the genetic code responsible for the construction of our jaws misfired. As a result, our jaw strength decreased by 9/10ths, and the genes responsible for making our brains into a thing had more space to work with, so our brain size and skull cavity increased in size. We exist quite literally because our genetic code had a 401 "cannot find code" error. I find that pretty hilarious.

 

[Shadon Xarian]

@Brovo
Someone needs to learn how to read because GOD DAMN I've never seen this picture apply so much to something.

Spoiler

If I ask why a Chinese person or American person lives their life the way they do, I will get an actual response.

Yeah, what you'll get from asking a chinese person is a language you don't understand. (Same with the bear) And like the bear, that Chinese persons response will be based on what they think you're trying to say/do. And like wise, your response will be based on what you think the other is going to do too. A certain bear roar COULD actually be friendly, but you'll get scared because you'll think it'll be violent. Is it violent? Well that's a part of my point, language barriers.
A barrier that we are just BEGINNING to finally scratch the surface of, and find communication. (And by your logic, the Chinese person isn't capable of responding either. You said the Crow isn't capable of responding. Why? It doesn't understand you? Well neither will that Chinese person in the example. The crow doesn't know any kind of language? WELL speaking of citation needed... Not that it matters because it's obvious that crows have language just by being in their presence. And hell Xavior, didn't know you were into reading Crows minds to know that.



And BTW, I didn't compare China/America to bears and crows. I would ask how you came up with that conclusion, but your apology to Marchosias already told me your strategy in these (Which by the way, WTF do you need a strategy? That shows you're not trying to learn, just win) regardless, i'll still clarify.
I said that if we're going to try and understand how animals think and do things, it'll need to be done a similar way as to how we would examine different cultures. Animals have their own ways of doing things, same with other human cultures/tribes/civilizations. We're not going to understand it if we sit there and deny it. But that's already become known. You're so black and white on this. Notice how you didn't go after me for comparing America and Chinese culture.

I'm not scared of that happening anytime soon

Why are/would you be scared in the first place? Are you some kind of animal abuser or something? O.o Once you finally see the proof to satisfy you, what changes? Nothing? then why be afraid? What are you afraid of changing?

Professor Xavier.

Oh that is FUNNY coming from you. Which will lead to my fun part of this.

False equivalence. We know the animal isn't capable of ever comprehending what to do with that device. That tribe could be taught the skills necessary, or, failing that, their children easily could be taught. Take a child from a tribe out in the middle of nowhere and you can make them "civilized" with ease, you can't do that with an animal.

#2: If by "many humans" you mean a vast minority who live in jungles secluded from globalization, then sure. The majority of the 7.5 billion humans who live on Earth live in a country which has some form of public education system. Hell, India & China alone have vast networks dedicated towards training people how to read, how to do mathematics, the basics of social studies, history, sciences, et cetera, and between them they have billions of people. (Admittedly though, especially in India's case, they tend to struggle with funding.)

The difference is that as the baby grows up, their brain goes through multiple stages of maturation. By the age of five, children gain advanced senses of spatial contextual awareness and start to be able to discern the difference between two glasses of water from more than a purely visual point of view. At this same age, they start to also understand what numbers actually mean at their base value: Four dimes is worth less than two quarters, even though four dimes is "more" money. By the age of eight, children start to develop more intricate relationships with their peers, and begin to genuinely comprehend basic ideas of self and world. By the age of ten, children have an adequate sense of self to create completely made up stories to try and avoid blame for things they may or may not have done. (The ability to lie is one thing, deceit is a basic emotion shared by many species. The ability to create a falsehood from literal thin air is a talent fairly unique to us, though.) By the age of twelve, children hit puberty and start to undergo significant bodily changes, their sex drives kick in, though most significantly in the brain. By this point, they start to comprehend advanced ideas of morality, ideological concepts such as economics, politics, religion, and so on.

Animals do not, in any way, shape, or form, develop nearly to this pace, or ability.

Sup prof. Xavier

Animals don't see the value of something like the Internet in spite of exposure to it. If you were to take a tribe and just give them a computer, yeah, they'd have no use for it: They're a stone age tribe who probably fuck incestuously. However, if you gave and taught that same stone age tribe how to create medicine, become an agrarian society, the value of currency and trade, firearms, so on and so forth? They'd find immense use in those things and would very easily take those things for themselves.

Take a random stone age villager and put him in the same house as a cat for ten years. The stone age villager will learn and adapt to his new environment. He will learn what clothes to wear, what currency means, how to use an oven, and might even partake to the Internet later on in order to acquire more information in his search to enable himself to greater callings. The cat will shit in the litter box and kill mice, and never develop beyond that.

You're also committing a logical fallacy by presuming to know what another living entity is thinking, as though you have some sort of Professor Xavier-style mind reading power, but I'll forgive that for now.

Actually, that's what YOU'RE doing. Constantly trying to tell me how animals think and see things and trying to tell me their mental capabilities.

The difference is, humans who have a shitty way of life will generally rebel and adopt a new one. Other animals don't "rebel" from their nature. You don't see cats become vegetarians. You're also now taking your Xavier mind reading power and extrapolating a result on it.

Stop trying to redefine civilization. Only humans have that. Literally, only we do, it's in the definition. No matter how much you may want to believe it, squirrels and other animals do not have a civilization.

Culture was probably the word I've been looking for. Regardless. That's not my point, sooooooo

This isn't helping you at all.

I'm not trying to help me, because this isn't about me.

What? No seriously, what?

I would seriously reconsider my definition of humanity

Let me help you the same way you try and "Help" me
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanity
There is no "Reconsidering" the definition, because it's right there. Or does showing you a definition suddenly not apply because it's used against you instead of me?

because our tests for sapience are inherently flawed.

And yet you still try and and back the results of the inherently flawed methods?

... What in the world does AI have to do with animals being sapient at all?

You know, I knew you were gonna say that, I knew you were gonna miss the point (Or purposely pretend you didn't understand it... I'm still trying to figure if it's on purpose or not, more on that later) That part wasn't for you, it was for other readers that will see the point.

... Other civilizations... Like?... Which ones? Can you point out another civilization of non-humans that, I don't know, has invented writing maybe? Become an agrarian society? Worship a religion, create pottery or other iconography?

The fact that you just compared bears and crows to Chinese and Americans is... Mind numbing. If I ask a crow or a bear about their way of life, they will not respond, because they're not capable of responding. If I ask why a Chinese person or American person lives their life the way they do, I will get an actual response. It may not be one I agree with, but I will get one.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the bear might try to eat me, come to think of it. I'm fairly sure a Chinese guy won't try to eat my guts because he's hungry.

(Also, the Chinese person might try and kill ya if you're on his land or something. OR maybe the Chinese person is extremely racist. You think all Chinese people are the same or something? Why do you assume an exchange with a Chinese person will be friendly? Will he/she eat you? Maybe not, but the odds of them killing you for whatever reason can still potentially be high.) Unless you think that all animals are the same, all humans are the same, and it'll all be friendly. Or is the Chinese person in your example education on English? Because the one in my example was in similar situation to the bear where nobody understands eachother.

Wanna know the WEIRDEST part Brovo?On almost literally ANY other topic, you understand things, you know what you're talking about and when you don't, you're quick to correct yourself.
But when it comes to animals, you become hypocritical, you suddenly (Or "conveniently") don't understand points. And then points you use, you even know are from flawed methods, and the logic you apply is broken, and doesn't apply correctly (And you dismiss it when used against you, even further proof it doesn't apply, and SHOULD show that you know yourself full well it doesn't apply) etc etc
It almost makes me think you truly ARE afraid of something because the way you discuss the animal topic is COMPLETELY different than what you do for other topics. If you discussed the animal topic like you would any other, then we would actually have conversation and perhaps learn something. But there is no conversation with you because you seem to not want discussion. You seem to purposely miss my points, and keep jabs from the past like the squirrel thing (Which I WANT to think you know full well what I mean. Am I using the wrong word? Most likely. But in a REAL discussion, you would tell me what word i'm trying to use is, and then grow on it. Or not bother telling me the word as it's the POINT that's important, NOT the words used for it. (Which is an over all problem I see here, too many people are too focused on words rather than points) But you're far too black/white, and narrow minded on this subject to have a real conversation. Or perhaps it's a grudge you have against me. (But i'll congratulate you on actually speaking... Unlike someone else who hides behind the ratings :P)


You talk about the prof Xavier thing on me, blind to how much you use it. I say we DON'T KNOW what squirrels are fully thinking quite yet, I say that my PREDICTION was they don't care to learn certain things, and you sit there and call me Xavier for mind reading. then you sit there and act like you know everything about that species, say that they 100% do not think a certain way, and I'M Xavier in that?????????? Because it sounds like you're the one trying to Xavier.

I recommend doing what I do, and re-read things, because CLEARLY you're missing allot of what i'm saying. Not that you'll agree with it anyway (For now >: D, allot of what you said earlier as fact are things you fought against me on in the past calling it false) Some of what you said wasn't entirely wrong either, but it was against a point I wasn't making, a mistake you wouldn't have made on almost any other topic.

Regardless, I'm done discussing this subject with you. I used to think that i'd be able to speed things up a bit, that perhaps when people on forums learned, it'll some how domino effect. But fairly recently, I started to understand just how insignificant it is for people like us to know or not. Weather you agree or disagree, changes nothing. At most, simply delays the cultural part of this. But the actual science and studies in the now isn't effected by this.

You constantly ask for citation. This isn't something 1-5 random articles will show, and it sure as hell won't convince you, especially coming from me. It's something you need to find on your own, not be spoon fed to. I gave the exposure, weather you want to pursue the truth or not is up to you. If you do, you'll find the answers (As you seemed to have done last time, so perhaps it's a slow cycle XP) but if you don't persue, then so be it.

If I remember correctly, history is one of your strong-suits anyway, so perhaps it's best you refine that part of your knowledge. (Ironically enough, your "Knowledge" on animals are outdated from history anyway, even more proof of your strong-suit towards the subject of history :D)

 

[Jorick]

Hey, remember that time we removed the debate thread prefix as part of an effort to stop derpbates turning into arguments here in General Chatting? Yeah, the line into stupid argument has been crossed. Take it to PMs if you want to continue it.

 

[Dervish]

Welp, that was a good time.

Snickers bars for everyone is in order.

 

[Drakel]

Why can't we all just agree that animals are not as sapient as humans and deserve to be hit with hammers, shredded in meat factories and eaten for our own benefits?

 

[Brovo]

 

[Ai]

 

[Marchosias]

Why can't we all just agree that animals are not as sapient as humans and deserve to be hit with hammers, shredded in meat factories and eaten for our own benefits?

I agree vhole-heartedly! As supreme beings on this Earth, every other living thing exists only to support and nurish us humans. And besydes... I LOVE a good beef-steak! Fresh, wel done, and juicy. I'm very carnivorus in my diet. :)