>The core difference between humans and animals is that humans can reason
So there's a body of research suggesting beyond reasonable doubt that no animal - except us - is capable of reason? Do you have a link?
So there's a body of research suggesting beyond reasonable doubt that no animal - except us - is capable of reason? Do you have a link?
Animals may end indecision, but ending a state of indecision is not the same as choosing something for this or that reason. The limits of thought are the behavioral expression of thought. With the absence of language, it is nonsense to apply rational thought to animals. That's even in the article itself when they discuss how animals displaying complex behaviours can fall a part when presented new problems. That doesn't mean they don't think. Far from it. It means they do not have the same cogitative powers that we have.
Analytic philosophy has touched on these ideas at length starting with Ludwig Wittgenstein. Two good books on the subject are PMS Hacker's series, which, coincidentally, often use dogs as an example:
1. Human Nature: The Categorical Framework 2. The Intellectual Powers: A study of human nature
(I should add that PMS Hacker's series heavily interacts with cognitive neuroscience.)
Do you have anything in particular in mind with the somewhat arbitrary sounding "3 days ord 4"? Otherwise my answer is a definite yes. I have seen cats, dogs, pigs, ferrets, rodents, and corvids perform well thought out, planned, and by all appearencies deliberate and conscious strategies.
The "arbitrariness" of "3 or 4 days" is to emphasize that language is the means we have of expressing our cogitative powers. We have language, an ability to express our reasoning. Animals don't. We are introspective, ruminative, hopeful, and fearful, we can be those things because we have the language and the cogitative and conceptual depth to express them. Animals think, and animals are intelligent. They can plan. But that is no reason to assign any amount of the depth of our cogitative powers to animals. Because they can't express that cogitative depth because they lack language.
As much as this is an appeal to authority, I'll refer back to the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness [0]:
"The neural substrates of emotions do not appear to be confined to cortical structures. In fact, subcortical neural networks aroused during affective states in humans are also critically important for generating emotional behaviors in animals. Artificial arousal of the same brain regions generates corresponding behavior and feeling states in both humans and non-human animals. Wherever in the brain one evokes instinctual emotional behaviors in non-human animals, many of the ensuing behaviors are consistent with experienced feeling states, including those internal states that are rewarding and punishing. Deep brain stimulation of these systems in humans can also generate similar affective states. Systems associated with affect are concentrated in subcortical regions where neural homologies abound. Young humanand non-human animals without neocortices retain these brain-mind functions. Furthermore, neural circuits supporting behavioral/electrophysiological states of attentiveness, sleep and decision making appear to have arisen in evolution as early as the invertebrate radiation, being evident in insects and cephalopod mollusks (e.g., octopus)."
[0] http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious...
EDIT: I'd like to point out that human language does, as far as we know, have some very unique features which have not been entirely duplicated by any animal. However, that very fact is also what makes it extremely limiting and self-serving as a "barrier of entry".
I'll put a similar quote, for my argument, from the philosopher PMS Hacker who has written extensively on this topic:
"Animal life is full of fear; human life is also full of hope. Only human beings are aware of their mortality, can be occupied or preoccupied with their death and the dead. We are unique among animals in being able to strive to understand our lives and the place of death in life....
The horizon of possible thought is determined by the limits of the expression of thought; but with us, unlike other animals, those limits are set by the linguistic expression of thought. If one has mastered the use of tenses and of temporal referring expressions, one can think of the past and the future. One can remember not only where – as exhibited in an animal’s seeking or homing behaviour – but also when. Non-human animals may prepare for the future – bury food for later consumption, build dams or dig burrows, but only man can plan for the future.
If a creature has mastered a language with logical connectives and quantifiers, then and only then is it possible for it to conceive of general truths, to think both of how things are and how they are not, to think both of what exists and of what does not exist, to think conditional thoughts, and with the aid of tensed verbs and modal expressions, counterfactual thoughts."
This is from Human Nature: The Categorical Framework, pg.238, published 2007. I had to pull the book out to get the quote right lol.
Disagree. There's plenty of documentation of dogs understanding dangerous situations and assisting humans in exiting them. If they only had "fear", this would not be possible. They obviously have enough agency overcome such basic instinct.
"The horizon of possible thought is determined by the limits of the expression of thought; but with us, unlike other animals, those limits are set by the linguistic expression of thought. If one has mastered the use of tenses and of temporal referring expressions, one can think of the past and the future."
Also disagree. Genie [0] was raised without language. When discovered, she could not use language to describe her experiences. Later, after learning language, she could retroactively describe these situations. That means that her experience was not limited by not having known language. This also includes emotive elements of the experiences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_%28feral_child%29#Recall...
there is some evidence. [1] depends on what exactly you mean by reason. This demonstrates planning via self control.
[1] http://portal.research.lu.se/portal/en/publications/ravens-n...
Animals are able to spontaneously develop a motive toward a goal, analyze situations and solve problems in order to get to that goal.
For instance, chimpanzees are able to use simple tools.
However, substantially less intelligent animals are also capable of problem solving.
If someone attacks you, and your dog turns on them, perceiving that you are in danger, that is obvious reasoning.
What is the definition of "reasoning"? A vending machine performs reasoning when it decides that a can of pop should be dispensed when a button is pressed and sufficient money has been put in, and that change should also be paid out.
The problem with your argument is computers and animals are not cogitative, in any way similar to humans. There might be instances when animals come close, but that is no reason to imply all animals can. That means some come close.
Animals can solve puzzles. Solving puzzles, however, doesn't mean you can reason in the same way humans can. For instance, humans can ask why they are solving the puzzle. That's an expression of cogitative ability that animals don't have.
And we are fully capable of investigating that reason, that why, to find out whether it is reasonable or whether a better why can be provided. Animals cannot assign a reason, nor can we "investigate an animal's reason", because that's nonsense. Animals don't give why's.
Monkeys, crows, ravens, octopuses and other animals have been shown to be able to do stuff like this.
> but that is no reason to imply all animals can
I don't think anyone was making the claim that all animals can. (In case you're not a native english speaker, GP said "all sorts of animals", which means "many different kinds of animals" and not "all animals")
Furthermore, I'd say that your over-focus on reasoning is misguided. There are many aspects of cognition and consciousness, and reasoning is just one of them. (And, as others have mentioned, there's plenty of evidence for various forms of abstract reasoning in studied animals.) Wikipedia's article on Animal Cognition has a convenient listing of different aspects that have been studied:
"The core difference between humans and animals is that humans can reason; we possess cogitative powers." (I have emphasized the point that was missed.)
A core difference between humans and animals is the cogitative powers of humans. Animals simply do not show the same cogitative powers. Animals do have cognition. I don't question that at all. I'm saying, in regards to cogitation (introspection), animals pale to humans.
For instance, your invocation of "introspection" is covered in the linked article by "theory of mind". And maybe in the second paragraph covering metacognition in "consciousness". I think this quote covers the ideas succinctly:
"Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates." [0]
We've found evidence in some animal or another for pretty much everything we've ever thought was unique about human cognitive abilities. So far, the only unique thing about humans is how broad and powerful our cognition is. Which is maybe what you mean, and are having a hard time expressing.
[0] http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious...
Meanwhile, anyone who has a dog knows they have both dreams and nightmares, which is certainly some form of internal contemplation.
with us, unlike other animals, those limits are set by the linguistic expression of thought. If one has mastered the use of tenses and of temporal referring expressions, one can think of the past and the future. One can remember not only where – as exhibited in an animal’s seeking or homing behaviour – but also when. Non-human animals may prepare for the future – bury food for later consumption, build dams or dig burrows, but only man can plan for the future."
What particularly defines an "internally rich contemplative life" besides what is possible for humans, and not assigned to animals by humans?
Animals have an internal life. They are conscious. But by what means do we have to understand them as self-conscious? Can they distinguish between myself and my self? There is considerable debate about this. You end up in philosophy. You end up in conceptual analysis.
Eventually, it comes down to principles of sense and nonsense in language. What does it make sense to say of animals? Does it make sense to say a dog is planning for the next walk on August 30th? Or does it make more sense to say I think he is planning? The two say imply different things about the dog's capabilities.
Obviously yes. There's nothing special to reason that requires a human.
Clearly there are some differences between humans and other animals, even other primates. But it's hard to quantify those exactly. If humans have reasoning score of 10, do dogs have reasoning of 1 or 5? Even the variability among people and measurable differences between individual dogs or breed of dog further complicates that.