# Do you think animals are as smart as humans, just don't understand us?



## NoahGryphon (Nov 1, 2013)

i personally believe that most animals are as smart as humans its just that they dont understand out inventions or culture so thats why they seem...dumb. yeah its far-fetched (lol pun) but its what i think.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Nov 1, 2013)

Animals don't have thought processes, so there is no capacity, ever, to understand anything. They live their lives based on instincts, memory and conditioning.

But some animals are thought to be, on average, smarter than humans. Would I be right in saying dolphins are an example of this?


----------



## Hinalle K. (Nov 1, 2013)

naw

dey b dumb, yo
were d tp rase 4 a reson LOL


----------



## BRN (Nov 1, 2013)

It's a cool opinion, it'd be nice if it was true.

But brain complexity is pretty much the only thing that decides intelligence, and brain complexity is pretty much limited by size. 

That's not to say that some animals aren't ridiculously smart:

- 'Corvids' (a certain group of birds) are exceptional problem solvers, and can do things like use keys in locks. 
- Rats are exceptionally social, and if given the choice between freeing another rat or being given food, will always choose to free the rat.
- Dolphins have a spoken language and have been officially designated 'non-human persons' (giving them legal rights to life and freedom) in India.


Believing that animals can understand the human language and such is far-fetched, since most of the things that language is based off were invented by humans aswell. For example, the word "and" refers to nothing that exists.

Animals are generally far smarter and more complicated than they're given credit for, but they're not quite The Rescuers Down Under.


----------



## NoahGryphon (Nov 1, 2013)

AlexxxLupo said:


> Animals don't have thought processes, so there is no capacity, ever, to understand anything. They live their lives based on instincts, memory and conditioning.
> 
> But some animals are thought to be, on average, smarter than humans. Would I be right in saying dolphins are an example of this?



what about parrots? they can talk to people and do pretty good conversations


----------



## BRN (Nov 1, 2013)

NoahGryphon said:


> what about parrots? they can talk to people and do pretty good conversations



Parrots are an example of not-very-intelligent species, unfortunately.

They have very complicated 'vocal chords' that allow them to make a variety of sounds, and can be trained to make patterns of sounds in exchange for food. But it's unlikely that parrots understand 'words' - to them, they're just making a pattern of sounds.

Social species like chimpanzees, whales and dolphins do have languages, though.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Nov 1, 2013)

BRN said:


> Parrots are an example of not-very-intelligent species, unfortunately.
> 
> They have very complicated 'vocal chords' that allow them to make a variety of sounds, and can be trained to make patterns of sounds in exchange for food. But it's unlikely that parrots understand 'words' - to them, they're just making a pattern of sounds.
> 
> Social species like chimpanzees, whales and dolphins do have languages, though.



If you sit down and listen to them, chickens also have a language of sorts.


----------



## CaptainCool (Nov 1, 2013)

Before we talk about this we first have to define what you mean with "smart".

For example, many animals don't have self-awareness. Is that part of being smart?
Then there are differences in the structure of the brain. The prefrontal cortex seems to be one of those structures that are linked to self-awareness and there are many species that do not have that part.

In my opinion most animals are most definitely *not* as smart as humans. They are incapable of advanced problem solving and only act based on instincts. This has nothing to do with culture or understanding our inventions. They simply aren't able to be as advanced as we are.


----------



## CaptainCool (Nov 1, 2013)

NoahGryphon said:


> what about parrots? they can talk to people and do pretty good conversations



Parrots just mimick sounds that they hear. This has nothing to do with inteligence.


----------



## NoahGryphon (Nov 1, 2013)

AlexxxLupo said:


> If you sit down and listen to them, chickens also have a language of sorts.



they must be talking about the evil humans stealing their eggs :V


----------



## Judge Spear (Nov 1, 2013)

I used to always think this growing up. Like they speak among themselves when we're not looking.


----------



## BRN (Nov 1, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> Before we talk about this we first have to define what you mean with "smart".
> 
> For example, many animals don't have self-awareness. Is that part of being smart?
> Then there are differences in the structure of the brain. The prefrontal cortex seems to be one of those structures that are linked to self-awareness and there are many species that do not have that part.
> ...



For the most part, I agree with this.

I'd like to suggest that we stop suggesting animals "only act on instinct", though. 

For one thing, instinct isn't the only thing that guides animals -- they're just not as capable of calculating that instinct is irrational as we are, and therefore have no reasons to resist instinct. But also us _humans_ act mostly on instinct - you're hungry (instinct) so you eat (action); you're scared of heights (instinct), so you avoid taking the quickest straight-line route off a mountain (action), you're horny (instinct) so you flirt (action).

There's no difference between instinct and impulse, it's just that more complicated species like us have complex and contradictory instincts. We want to have fun (instinct), but we need resources (instinct), so we sacrifice fun to work instead (action).

Animals don't have the idea of work, so we can hardly fault 'em for not having to make that sacrifice.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Nov 1, 2013)

NoahGryphon said:


> they must be talking about the evil humans stealing their eggs :V



I know you're kidding but because I find this interesting I'm gonna give some examples c:

The rooster has a specific click for when he's found a worm or something in the ground, and he wants his hens to come over and eat it. And the hens make different sounds while/after laying eggs


----------



## BRN (Nov 1, 2013)

AlexxxLupo said:


> I know you're kidding but because I find this interesting I'm gonna give some examples c:
> 
> The rooster has a specific click for when he's found a worm or something in the ground, and he wants his hens to come over and eat it. And the hens make different sounds while/after laying eggs



Ooh, calls like that are interesting. :3

I don't know if you've ever seen Meerkat Manor, but if you're noticing things like that, then I'm sure you'd love the show?

Meerkats are camoflauged like the deserts they live in, but keeping track of each other is deathly important while foraging for food and avoiding rival tribes. So each tribe has developed its own call-sign -- a constant, quiet, rumbling melody that lets each of them know where every other member is while they forage. The kids use different melodies to 'ask' for food if they aren't good enough at foraging to find their own, and when any of them strikes gold to find food, they change the melody to let the others know. Kickass.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Nov 1, 2013)

BRN said:


> Animals don't have the idea of work, so we can hardly fault 'em for not having to make that sacrifice.


I'm sure somewhere out there in the world, a bee or an ant has cursed your name :v


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 1, 2013)

As much as I like chickens, they are pretty dumb creatures. They're not examples of human intelligence levels of smart.
There are many different species of animals, but most people only think mammals.

Birds, where certain ones have rather interesting intelligence are successful as a species due to their evolutionary patterns from evolving from dinosaurs, but successful doesn't mean smart. If that was the case, insects would be supercomputers


----------



## Judge Spear (Nov 1, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> I like chickens



Do you now?


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Nov 1, 2013)

Well, lets see:

-Humans have opposable thumbs.
-Humans can retain short and long-term memory.
-Humans are able to bridge the language and cultural barriers.
-From what we understand about ourselves, we are able to experience complex emotions that rivals and supersedes that of the animal kingdom.
-Humans are able to adapt to almost any situation and environment.

And a whole lot of other things I have missed out.


I personally like the idea myself that animals are as smart, or smarter than humans, but until we are able to bridge the gaps that separates us more. Then I just don't see it.

I would like to know what they are actually saying, though, and be able to actually have a conversation.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Nov 1, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> As much as I like chickens, they are pretty dumb creatures. They're not examples of human intelligence levels of smart.



Ooohh, I dunno about that: Chickens: smarter than a four-year-old


Maybe they just play dumb.


----------



## Gnarl (Nov 1, 2013)

BRN said:


> It's a cool opinion, it'd be nice if it was true.
> 
> But brain complexity is pretty much the only thing that decides intelligence, and brain complexity is pretty much limited by size.
> 
> ...


If brain size matters, then what about whales. You would think that with a brain ten times the size of an adult human they would at least figure out a way to tell us to go to hell and leave them alone!


----------



## NoahGryphon (Nov 1, 2013)

Mr. Fox said:


> Well, lets see:
> 
> 
> -From what we understand about ourselves, we are able to experience complex emotions that rivals and supersedes that of the animal kingdom.




i know alot of animals that can express themselves ALOT!


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Nov 1, 2013)

NoahGryphon said:


> i know alot of animals that can express themselves ALOT!



So do I. My point is, is we use ourselves as a comparison to them since we are the dominant species?


----------



## BRN (Nov 1, 2013)

Gnarl said:


> If brain size matters, then what about whales. You would think that with a brain ten times the size of an adult human they would at least figure out a way to tell us to go to hell and leave them alone!



Easy analogue, that.

If you want something with no arms or legs that's about ten times as smart as us that won't be able to find a way to tell us to go to hell... well, take away his computer and wheelchair, and Stephen Hawking might struggle too. ;P



Mr. Fox said:


> So do I. My point is, is we use ourselves as a comparison to them since we are the dominant species?



Er, critter... opposable thumbs, the ability to 'express ourselves', and unsustainable population growth... they have nothing to do with intellect.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Nov 1, 2013)

BRN said:


> Er, critter... opposable thumbs, the ability to 'express ourselves', and unsustainable population growth... they have nothing to do with intellect.



Nope, just extra abilities to help advance us.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Nov 1, 2013)

Well, God says we're the superior beings on this Earth. We were crafted in His image.
So we are! End of discussion.


----------



## BRN (Nov 1, 2013)

Mr. Fox said:


> Nope, just extra abilities to help advance us.



Well, kinda. It's contextual - opposable thumbs wouldn't help a fish, yet chimpanzees use them for sign language and tree-swinging. Things like this aren't 'extra abilties', like levelling up in an RPG or anything.

Every trait of every animal has been chiseled into form over millenia to make that animal species the most efficient survivor it can possibly be. A very intelligent, camp and expressive zebra with good fashion taste is still a bit fucked if it can't run fast from predators.

You can't look at intellect from an anthropological viewpoint ("what helped _us_ survive, so that animals can copy us?"), it supersedes anthropology (the right question is, "what does the creature need to survive more effectively?" - 'cos sometimes, intellect isn't the answer.)


----------



## thoughtmaster (Nov 1, 2013)

My question is what animal has figured out how to remove the restrictions of food supply by growing and/or creating an environment where the animals they eat will prosper?


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Nov 1, 2013)

Sometimes I think about this, some animals learn to do stuff but seems they don't teach others so no general improve in the species, also there are some species more smart than others, like cats, cats are fucking awesome :3


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Nov 1, 2013)

Depends on the animal. They each have a different level of intelligence.


----------



## BRN (Nov 1, 2013)

thoughtmaster said:


> My question is what animal has figured out how to remove the restrictions of food supply by growing and/or creating an environment where the animals they eat will prosper?



Termites - the creatures responsible for those strange mounds in _Indiana Jones: The Crystal Skull_ - create moist warm environments for the purpose of farming mushrooms. The Damselfish gathers stones to farm algae, and several different ant species farm and cultivate aphid populations - hell, the Farmer Ants were named for that propensity; they clip off the wings of aphids to keep them from flying away. Farmer snails cut grooves in the dirt, populate them with mushroom spores and fertilise them with waste. And the last one I know of is that there's a type of jellyfish which grows algae on its own limbs.



Kitsune Cross said:


> Sometimes I think about this, some animals learn to do stuff but seems they don't teach others so no general improve in the species, also there are some species more smart than others, like cats, cats are fucking awesome :3


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_transmission_in_animals


----------



## Lobar (Nov 1, 2013)

BRN said:


> Termites - the creatures responsible for those strange mounds in _Indiana Jones: The Crystal Skull_ - create moist warm environments for the purpose of farming mushrooms. The Damselfish gathers stones to farm algae, and several different ant species farm and cultivate aphid populations - hell, the Farmer Ants were named for that propensity; they clip off the wings of aphids to keep them from flying away. Farmer snails cut grooves in the dirt, populate them with mushroom spores and fertilise them with waste. And the last one I know of is that there's a type of jellyfish which grows algae on its own limbs.



Which, it should be noted, doesn't imply intelligence.  Evolution has favored these behaviors, so now they are driven to perform these tasks instinctively without any actual understanding of what they are doing.


----------



## NoahGryphon (Nov 1, 2013)

.


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 1, 2013)

NoahGryphon said:


> i personally believe that most animals are as smart as humans its just that they dont understand out inventions or culture so thats why they seem...dumb. yeah its far-fetched (lol pun) but its what i think.


Nope. There are levels of complexity (mental and physical) at play here.

For example: Humans are more complex than dogs, who are more complex than geckos, who are more complex than termites, who are more complex than worms.
Humans have very active brains. We need stimulation, challenge, and the company of others. Other primates, dolphins, elephants, etc. are similar. -> Dogs are a bit simpler. They still have emotional lives and require companionship, but as long as they are fed and loved they'll be reasonably happy. -> Geckos just want to find a dank place to eat and not get eaten. -> And termites just mill about doing their thing. Simple. I want to note though that our higher complexity says nothing about our worth. Every living thing is just trying to get by. That our species can fly to the moon and make Mona Lisas doesn't make us better than any other sentient animal.



			
				AlexxxLupo said:
			
		

> Animals don't have thought processes, so there is no capacity, ever, to understand anything


Simply untrue. I've read about a dog who, after its long time mate died, became morose, stopped eating, and soon after died. Elephants will go well out of their way, or slow the group down, to let an injured or slow family member keep up. Dolphins will fuck anything that moves at any time (IE: recreational sex). Birds sometimes have what look amazingly like funerals. Gathering around the dead body for a while before parting ways. And there are more examples.

The Emotional Lives of Animals is a great book on this topic.


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Nov 1, 2013)

I'd say that in the vast majority of cases, humans are smarter than animals.


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Nov 1, 2013)

Sorry, double post.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 1, 2013)

Mr. Fox said:


> Ooohh, I dunno about that: Chickens: smarter than a four-year-old
> 
> 
> Maybe they just play dumb.



Nah, there are different levels of animal morality. I've posted that video from TED before.

Usually when we do comparison studies against 4 year old, it's the skills they posses at the time due to how we develop on a species. 

[yt]GcJxRqTs5nk[/yt]


----------



## BRN (Nov 1, 2013)

benignBiotic said:


> Nope. There are levels of complexity (mental and physical) at play here.
> 
> -snip-
> 
> The Emotional Lives of Animals is a great book on this topic.



Buying that; thanks for the share.

There's going to come a time when this random association of 'instinctive' with 'meaningless' is dropped. It's true that both complex actions like building and maintaining a hive have nothing to do with intellect, and it's also true that creatures of limited intellect are very driven by instinct. 

But anybody who understands the word 'instinctive' to mean 'like a simple computer program', somehow devoid of understanding, emotion or sentimentality is just wholly incorrect - a statement backed up not only by multiple sociological studies of animals, but also simply refuted by self-examination. We, as humans, are driven by instinct; it is not unique to animals, and our ability to examine the world around us and decide whether or not to follow this instinct is a function of our complexity; the complexity isn't unique to us, either.

The discussion and examination of to what degree animals have intellect should really be unmarred by statements of how functionalistic and machine-like animals are, because they simply aren't. *Ascribing emotions and mental complexity to animals isn't irrational anthropomorphication unless anthropomorphic ideas are a part of what is being ascribed*, because emotions and mental complexity are not what we evolved to possess, they are merely something which we have attained a higher quality of than most through evolution... these slender differences are the most important part of this debate.


----------



## Jags (Nov 1, 2013)

'Intelligence' really means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Any species are driven to survive and reproduce, and while some manage to do so in spectacular fashion it's hardly fair to say we have the high ground on nature for inventing things that are almost as good as something evolution already created, and in animals that use it far better than we ever could. And, as a species, humans are both astoundingly brilliant and dumb in almost equal measure.


----------



## Troj (Nov 1, 2013)

The difference between humans and other animals is not one of kind, but of degree, because humans _are_ animals. Our intelligence is just an evolved, refined form of _their_ intelligence.

Many animals can solve the same problems we can, but to a different degree, and in many cases, for a different purpose.

Many animals have a rudimentary understanding of numbers, have a basic language, and grok social skills like reciprocity, empathy, and cooperation.

And, there are things animals can do that we can't, because the adaptive demands on them are different from the demands on us.


----------



## Harbinger (Nov 1, 2013)

"Hoomans are teh smarterest"

-Humans.

Pretty biased if you ask me...


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 1, 2013)

NoahGryphon said:


> i personally believe that most animals are as smart as humans its just that they dont understand out inventions or culture so thats why they seem...dumb. yeah its far-fetched (lol pun) but its what i think.



Well you are wrong.

We aren't just assuming they are less intelligent than us. They really are, and scientists have been able to prove this by actually studying the brains.

That's how science works. We figure out why shit is the way it is.

Also, I don't think you've ever had a pet in your life. They really are that dumb, no matter how smart they are relative to other animals.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Nov 1, 2013)

Heliophobic said:


> Well you are wrong.



Nah, I'm pretty sure many animals are as intelligent as the OP.


----------



## NoahGryphon (Nov 1, 2013)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Nah, I'm pretty sure many animals are as intelligent as the OP.



thanks ...... i think


----------



## Willow (Nov 1, 2013)

Mr. Fox said:


> Ooohh, I dunno about that: Chickens: smarter than a four-year-old
> 
> 
> Maybe they just play dumb.


A four year old's intelligence really isn't comparable to an adult human's though.

A Great Dane is probably smarter than a four year old but they're really dumb dogs.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 1, 2013)

^^HA HA HOLY SHIT


----------



## Leon (Nov 1, 2013)

This thread... Just, so many luls. Op, thank you for the laughs. I'm gonna go try to teach my dog how to use the stove, that bitch is now my slave :V


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 1, 2013)

Leon said:


> This thread... Just, so many luls. Op, thank you for the laughs. I'm gonna go try to teach my dog how to use the stove, that bitch is now my slave :V


It would be cool if dogs could do complex chores. You could 'pay' them with treats and belly rubs


----------



## Leon (Nov 1, 2013)

benignBiotic said:


> It would be cool if dogs could do complex chores. You could 'pay' them with treats and belly rubs



Best slaves ever!


----------



## Attaman (Nov 1, 2013)

Harbinger said:


> "Hoomans are teh smarterest"
> 
> -Humans.
> 
> Pretty biased if you ask me...


Pretty biased but also pretty factual, at least to our current understanding of things. Some animals practice agriculture, but hell if they even grasp the concept of what agriculture is versus basic "I do this AND SUDDENLY THERE'S MORE FOOD LATER THIS IS AWESOME I'LL KEEP DOING IT".

Mind, part of this may also deal with societal factors. History, even when only of the oral variety, allows for some _major_ advantages when it comes to learning and applying knowledge. Hell, language itself (of which we have (one of / the) more complex languages, thus allowing for more complex information and concepts to be shared) is a pretty major advantage. Then there's the fact that intelligence means a number of things depending on who you ask, ranging from "Can you answer geometry problems" for some to "Are you capable of learning" for others (and many other questions for many other people).

Basically: Humans are the most intelligent animals around at the moment, but it helps that we've been able to set down an infrastructure to sustain and further our intellectual capabilities. If humanity were drug all the way back down to "simple oral communication mixed with body language" the average person's lead over other animals would drop like a lead balloon. Still exist, but nowhere near as impressive.


----------



## NoahGryphon (Nov 1, 2013)

Leon said:


> This thread... Just, so many luls. Op, thank you for the laughs. I'm gonna go try to teach my dog how to use the stove, that bitch is now my slave :V





:///3 your welcome pony


----------



## Conker (Nov 1, 2013)

The opening post reads like a youtube comment.

No. Animals aren't smarter or as smart as humans. Some animals are pretty smart, and I think most animals are probably smarter than we give them credit for, but nothing that reaches human intellect.


----------



## DrDingo (Nov 1, 2013)

Humans feel boredom. Humans feel curiosity. Humans feel lonely.
It's complex emotions like these that push humans further. Motivate us to achieve. The part of our brain that responds to things that give immediate satisfaction is buried deep near the middle, and is primitive. Only some of the more advanced animals, such as monkeys, have developed the ability to have advanced thoughts and feelings.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Nov 1, 2013)

AlexxxLupo said:


> Animals don't have thought processes, so there is no capacity, ever, to understand anything. They live their lives based on instincts, memory and conditioning.
> 
> But some animals are thought to be, on average, smarter than humans. Would I be right in saying dolphins are an example of this?



Nope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0yezN6VKz8


----------



## Dire Newt (Nov 2, 2013)

> Do you think animals are as smart as humans, just don't understand us?



No.

...


----------



## Rilvor (Nov 2, 2013)

What in the world is this?

Good grief people, we don't even give _humans_ enough credit for how intelligent they actually are. We're all quite happy to look from a cynical, self-absorbed view and decide others are "stupid" for whatever reason happens to be plucking our grumpy chords that day; But in all seriousness there are few humans in a first-world nation that aren't very intelligent. We like to forget that having a keen knowledge of a handful of subjects does not automatically equate more intelligence. Case in point, an engineering student dying from eating raw cinnamon.

That all being said, really? REALLY? The species that found ways to eradicate Polio, build skyscrapers, build crafts to take him anywhere _including off of this very planet_, create weapons that rivals the powers deities wielded in stories, and literally send our constructions out of our own solar system into a region of space no creature on Earth could hope to reach?

You think any animal on this planet measures up to us?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 2, 2013)

DrDingo said:


> Humans feel boredom. Humans feel curiosity. Humans feel lonely.


You've never had pets before, have you?


----------



## BRN (Nov 2, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> What in the world is this?
> 
> Good grief people, we don't even give _humans_ enough credit for how intelligent they actually are. We're all quite happy to look from a cynical, self-absorbed view and decide others are "stupid" for whatever reason happens to be plucking our grumpy chords that day; But in all seriousness there are few humans in a first-world nation that aren't very intelligent. We like to forget that having a keen knowledge of a handful of subjects does not automatically equate more intelligence. Case in point, an engineering student dying from eating raw cinnamon.
> 
> ...



Mankind is wonderful, but whether the collective efforts of a species ranks against other species is a different question to whether one animal has comparable mental faculties as another, surely?

Not to say you didn't just sound wonderfully like the marvellous Mr Sagan.~


----------



## Rilvor (Nov 2, 2013)

BRN said:


> Mankind is wonderful, but whether the collective efforts of a species ranks against other species is a different question to whether one animal has comparable mental faculties as another, surely?
> 
> Not to say you didn't just sound wonderfully like the marvellous Mr Sagan.~



I suppose I like to imagine that all of mankind's achievements began with one single entity who had a dream, the mind that generated the impossible, and through his own made it reality.

I measure up to someone like that in no way, but I am glad I can at least be eloquent. Thank you. (Though in retrospect I could have worded it better, there is a reason for it being like it was at the time.)


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 2, 2013)

DrDingo said:


> Humans feel boredom. Humans feel curiosity. Humans feel lonely.



Um...

Are you implying animals don't feel these as well?

Because...

they...

like...

do.


----------



## Reaginicwolf (Nov 2, 2013)

probably, just wait a few millions of years for evolution.


----------



## DrDingo (Nov 2, 2013)

Heliophobic said:


> Um...
> 
> Are you implying animals don't feel these as well?
> 
> ...


Not to the same extent.
For example, people find cat videos on the internet hilarious because it looks like they are displaying human-like emotions, but we know that in truth it's just a funny coincidence that they make weird faces and all that.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 2, 2013)

DrDingo said:


> Not to the same extent.
> For example, people find cat videos on the internet hilarious because it looks like they are displaying human-like emotions, but we know that in truth it's just a funny coincidence that they make weird faces and all that.



What pets have you owned throughout your life?


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 2, 2013)

Heliophobic said:


> What pets have you owned throughout your life?


I think DrDingo is right (and wrong). I'm under the belief that humans actually do 'feel things' more than other animals because our minds are so geared around the mental. Religion (an abstract concept) can drive people to do atrocious things. There's depression. Suicides. Humans feel a huge breadth of emotions tied to our ability to think abstractly.

As for the second part of his post. There are repeatable, common mammal signs. Wide eyes and small pupils denote fear (or anger). If a dog, or mountain lion, or rat, etc. is crouching with its tail tucked and its ears flat we can assume it's scared. Bright eyes and an increase in energy denote happiness/ excitement.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Nov 2, 2013)

Ah, dogs and emotions.

"But many of the same things that activate the human caudate, which are  associated with positive emotions, also activate the dog caudate.  Neuroscientists call this a functional homology, and it may be an  indication of canine emotions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/o...too.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=general&src=me


----------



## Machine (Nov 3, 2013)

_Homo sapiens_ master race.


----------



## Sketchy-Mouse (Nov 3, 2013)

Is this thread actually happening?
I mean this can't be real, can it? Am I being rused?


----------



## wolven6262 (Nov 3, 2013)

I like the idea...like maybe they have a different comprehension of the world, and so are intelligent in a different way.

It reminds me of the question of whether we would know alien life if we were to ever come across it, because it might be so different from what qualifies as 'life' to us humans that we wouldn't even recognize it for what it is.

If you define intelligence as intelligence related to the human comprehension of the world, then no. Animals aren't smart in the way that humans are.

However if you want to be generous, humans can't be smart in the ways that dogs are, either.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 3, 2013)

wolven6262 said:


> I like the idea...like maybe they have a different comprehension of the world, and so are intelligent in a different way.
> 
> It reminds me of the question of whether we would know alien life if we were to ever come across it, because it might be so different from what qualifies as 'life' to us humans that we wouldn't even recognize it for what it is.
> 
> ...



That's fucking retarded.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 3, 2013)

No I don't, for many reasons.

Animals live mostly off of fight-or-flight, or behaviours that are ingrained in them since before they were born. Some of the smartest animals out there aren't nearly as intelligent as we are (because we're using human intelligence as a scale to rate non-human animal intelligence), and don't have any sort of complex thought process like we do. I'd say the smartest non-human animal out there would be a chimpanzee, but they still do not compare to Homo sapiens.

Most animals can't contemplate life, they do not have the ability to form any real opinions based on anything that stray from very primitive fight-or-flight responses. Animals can't reason, either, and I think a perfect example of how we can tell the intelligence of average animals is by looking at how we train dogs.
You want your dog to come to you when you call him:
- He runs off
- You call him back, and he ignores you
- You keep calling, and he eventually comes back
- You're an idiot and start hitting the dog.
The dog does not think about anything further than "this person is hitting me when I came to him", he does not understand and can't ask himself WHY he is being hit. Of course, he's being hit because he did not come immediately when called - dogs live in the moment.

Yesterday I was giving my cat eye drops for an eye infection and he kept squirming, this was really irritating me because I need to keep the dropper sterile (can't touch his eye with it), and he squirms at the last possible second. In order to keep him still, I scruffed him and wrapped him in a towel. Despite being scruffed, he continued to pull against me.
If the cat were as intelligent as a human, he would be able to link pulling away with being scruffed, and immediately realize that he is being scruffed because I need him to sit still, and he would comply because being scruffed is generally unpleasant for an adult cat.
The cat does not think this way, he says "ouch, I'm being scruffed, I will pull away from this undesirable feeling", that's all he does - that basic, primitive thinking, he does not think about anything further than "this is hurting me, I must escape" (fight or flight). 

We as humans are able to look at ourselves in a mirror and immediately recognize that is our own image - that is extraordinary to do, it's so complex to be able to see a reflection and just automatically know it is yourself, it is a form of being self-aware.
Show a cat or a dog a mirror and it will usually freak out and try to attack the other creature - shit, birds will _fall in love with their reflection!!_. Dolphins and chimps are able to recognize themselves in a mirror, and they are amongst the smartest animals out there.
Another example of less intelligent animals not having the ability to be self-aware is by watching a dog or cat chase it's tail. Surely the animal realizes that this is a fruitless attempt, they can see that their tail is attached to their ass that they lick every day... but they don't, they go fucking nuts, they try to catch that other animal as hard as they can because they don't realize it's their own fucking tail!








Mr. Fox said:


> Ooohh, I dunno about that: Chickens: smarter than a four-year-old


Chickens will also peck the eyes out of their chicks purely because eyes are very interesting and peckable to them.



BRN said:


> Parrots are an example of not-very-intelligent species, unfortunately.
> 
> They have very complicated 'vocal chords' that allow them to make a variety of sounds, and can be trained to make patterns of sounds in exchange for food. But it's unlikely that parrots understand 'words' - to them, they're just making a pattern of sounds.
> 
> Social species like chimpanzees, whales and dolphins do have languages, though.



Parrots "understand" words like a dog understands words, they associate a word with a desired action. The only difference is that the dog is being told the word to result in a desired action, and the parrot is telling the word to result in a desired action.
Parrots will also gurble complete nonsense compiled of the random words that they say - so they don't truly understand the English language. Not much more than a dog does.

I'm sorry that this is so all over the place, I haven't slept for days


----------



## LadyToorima (Nov 3, 2013)

DrDingo said:


> Not to the same extent.
> For example, people find cat videos on the internet hilarious because it looks like they are displaying human-like emotions, but we know that in truth it's just a funny coincidence that they make weird faces and all that.



I'm not agreeing with anything or disagreeing with anything, I'm just saying this is a fairly poor example to help your case. 
The fact that they can't make complicated facial expressions doesn't mean that they do or do not feel like us, it just means their faces lack the ability to express said emotions. They have other ways to express their feelings that people don't such as hissing, or growling, or flattening their ears to their heads, or their tails puff up, or they purr, etc.


----------



## Pantheros (Nov 3, 2013)

no, animals do not think like humans. animals think wery differently from us, they might even have emotions, moods and thoughts that are imposible for us to imagine. its something like parrots being able to see 2 more colours than us, its imposible to imagine those colours and the parrots live with it casualy, and like the wolf only being able to see 1 colour besides black and white, its imposible for him to imagine any of our colours, or in this case- thoughts. you can say that our mind structures differ just like our body structures. trying to imagine what an animal is thinking you might think you know, but the truth is you're just unknowingly staying in your natural cage of imagination, known emotions and commonly enough- the three main colours you can never escape from.


----------



## Troj (Nov 3, 2013)

LadyToorima said:


> I'm not agreeing with anything or disagreeing with anything, I'm just saying this is a fairly poor example to help your case.
> The fact that they can't make complicated facial expressions doesn't mean that they do or do not feel like us, it just means their faces lack the ability to express said emotions. They have other ways to express their feelings that people don't such as hissing, or growling, or flattening their ears to their heads, or their tails puff up, or they purr, etc.



Recent research has indicated that the direction of a dog's tail wag signals its mood and intentions, that prairie dogs have a basic language, and that marmosets engage in back-and-forth chatter, almost like a conversation.

This is what I mean when I say that the difference between humans and other animals is one of degree, and not kind. Everything we do is an evolved or adapted form of something they already do.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Nov 3, 2013)

Lobar said:


> Which, it should be noted, doesn't imply intelligence.  Evolution has favored these behaviors, so now they are driven to perform these tasks instinctively without any actual understanding of what they are doing.


But the animal had to be smart enough to first start doing this, and doing this gives more time to think. When an animal switches from hunter-gatherer, to agrarian society, you have more time to work in improving your standard of living, look at humanity for example, hunter-gatherers often have little technology compared to agrarian society, because those who are agrarian have more time to invent than those who need to expend so much energy to survive.


----------



## Calemeyr (Nov 3, 2013)

No, I don't. This thread hurts my brain.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 3, 2013)

Honestly, no, most animal species do not have the level of complexity of mental development to be on par with humans. This does not mean animals are the painless, soulless, automatons that our victorian counterparts believed, but it does mean that there's more to it than "they just don't understand English"

There's a massive amount of truth to the idea that our culture and structure are what has pushed us to continue to be the most developed, adapting, and generally intelligent species on the planet. There's significant proof that the complexities of language have an effect on mental development and more importantly HOW you think. This is what Dawkins called memes. 

Basically when left to our own devices, human beings are not particularly smart, not by the apparent leaps and bounds you often see in regards to language and understanding of abstract concepts. If left alone, or in an area absent of these concepts you get what is referred to as "feral children". Kids that were "raised by wolves" fail to develop an understanding of complex grammar and syntax later "me talk like tarzan at best" and fail to understand abstract ideas like math. Anything more than two fingers is "two" is a bit of a stretch. Which means that without this development in the beginning humans are much like apes. 

So why are we smarter? we develop complex grammar and syntax earlier, abstract concepts and pattern recognition. With these memes, these ideas that permeate culture we have "evolved" in a manner that is more developed than our base physical possibility. That's why is there's a zombie apocalypse people aren't going back to the stone age. dark ages maybe, but not the stone age. 

The point is other animals are more developed than we used to give credit for, but due to our cultural evolution we are still on the next level. Where once we assumed they were just automatic, operating on instict, and in many cases not even capable of feeling, we know that is not true now .We know that pets can feel love even if it is not the complex love of a 50 year old marriage, it is love none the less. We know animals are able to communicate with one another through various calls. 
Not only that but animals are capable of learning to communicate with other species. For instance cats rarely meow at one another, however they have an extensive vocal range, and anyone who has had a cat knows they learn to inform you of "i am hungry, I am lonely, or I am bored and your hand is about to be my playtoy"

With more research we are finding animals are more capable of what we considered impossible for them. Not only do dolphins and crows display the basic ability for calls to one another to get across information, but they have displayed basic understanding of grammar and syntax. A method of communication which is able to give information even when the subject is not present to a member that was not present. (crows teach baby crows things to avoid even if the baby crows never saw the initial incident) 
chimps and seals are much better and faster at certain pattern recognition tests than humans. etcetera and so forth. 

There are still animals that are not closer to the human analogue. Still species that lack object permanence and the idea of self, but there's enough species that show human like intelligence to be interesting. 

No, there is no current species that is just a intelligent and just can not understand the language, because in the end the understanding of the concepts behind the language are what has developed our intelligence to the point of supremacy. It is why you can take two people, from two different sides of the earth, put them in a room with no translator, and they will manage to work out how to communicate and solve a problem. Animals currently are not so able to do this with another person because there are some concepts they are simply not yet able to understand.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 3, 2013)

Fay V said:


> Honestly, no, most animal species do not have the level of complexity of mental development to be on par with humans. This does not mean animals are the painless, soulless, automatons that our victorian counterparts believed, but it does mean that there's more to it than "they just don't understand English"
> 
> There's a massive amount of truth to the idea that our culture and structure are what has pushed us to continue to be the most developed, adapting, and generally intelligent species on the planet. There's significant proof that the complexities of language have an effect on mental development and more importantly HOW you think. This is what Dawkins called memes.
> 
> ...



lolnerd


----------



## Dire Newt (Nov 3, 2013)

Fay V said:


> Honestly, no



Edited for time.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 3, 2013)

I don't believe that animals can feel love. I believe that for an animal to be able to feel love (an extreme form of prejudice), they must also be able to feel hatred, and I don't believe that an animal is able to comprehend hatred.
I believe an animal is able to find similarities between people and base their reactions off of past experience with those similarities, but I don't believe this is hatred.
Example: Men in hats
A dog may have had a terrifying experience with a man in a hat when he was a puppy, and becomes fearful and aggressive towards men in hats while he is an adult dog. I don't believe he "hates" men in hats, I believe that he associates men in hats with a fearful, traumatizing experience, and reacts based out of pure fear.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 3, 2013)

Did the first result really claim 'animals don't have thought processes'?

I don't think the hypothesis in the OP is at all plausible, but it's because you can't expect a randomly selected animal brain that is, say, one eighth the volume of another with a markedly less complex higher structure to exhibit the same intellectual exuberance. 

The idea of what 'smartness' or 'intelligence' is is poorly defined. Someone suggested defining it by self awareness...which also has a terrible lax definition that has largely been bastardised in order to separate us from the animals and explain our intellectual differences. 

Clearly, however, a species which has split the atom, let alone realised the world is made of atoms, is orders of magnitude 'smarter' than anything which has not.



Clayton said:


> I don't believe that animals can feel love. I  believe that for an animal to be able to feel love (an extreme form of  prejudice), they must also be able to feel hatred, and I don't believe  that an animal is able to comprehend hatred.
> I believe an animal is able to find similarities between people and base  their reactions off of past experience with those similarities, but I  don't believe this is hatred.
> Example: Men in hats
> A dog may have had a terrifying experience with a man in a hat when he  was a puppy, and becomes fearful and aggressive towards men in hats  while he is an adult dog. I don't believe he "hates" men in hats, I  believe that he associates men in hats with a fearful, traumatizing  experience, and reacts based out of pure fear.




I don't believe it's possible for animals to feel arousal, because they also need to be able to feel disgust at their own sexual luridness and obviously they can't comprehend that. :V

Therefore all animals reproduce by accident, not because they ever feel aroused.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 3, 2013)

Clayton said:


> I don't believe that animals can feel love. I believe that for an animal to be able to feel love (an extreme form of prejudice), they must also be able to feel hatred, and I don't believe that an animal is able to comprehend hatred.
> I believe an animal is able to find similarities between people and base their reactions off of past experience with those similarities, but I don't believe this is hatred.
> Example: Men in hats
> A dog may have had a terrifying experience with a man in a hat when he was a puppy, and becomes fearful and aggressive towards men in hats while he is an adult dog. I don't believe he "hates" men in hats, I believe that he associates men in hats with a fearful, traumatizing experience, and reacts based out of pure fear.



Now we're playing off what the definition of love and hatred is I suppose. 

I think basic concepts of love in pets (cats and dogs) can exist, but perhaps I am defining it a bit too loosely. 
To me feeling safe and put at ease in the presence of someone in a stressful situation is love when it is only a select person and other people in the area could serve the same purpose. 

For instance with my old cat, she was often scared and stressed by going to the vet. Just having me in the same room put her at ease. Even if the other members of the family that fed her, cared for her, and all that were present. One might call it instinct sure, but there is a least some level of complexity to recognize a long standing pattern and recognize comfort in one person to supersede the instincts and fear of the situation. 

Also, higher animals can feel hatred. Elephants turn rogue when they are witness to tragedy, they get PTSD and will go out of their way to kill humans. You might say instinct, but the level in which they recognize the other makes that question. 
Chimps go to war. It is not a matter of fighting for territory but thoughtful planning, ambushes, and destruction of the other. 

Dolphins are just speciesist for whatever reason. 

What is hatred but fear? A reaction to learned fear. Other animals can hate, they can fear abstract concepts with sophistication that far exceeds simple experience, and not only that but the fear can be passed from one generation to the next.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Nov 3, 2013)

Ok, we have gone from science to philosophy, asking questions that there are no answers to.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 4, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't believe it's possible for animals to feel arousal, because they also need to be able to feel disgust at their own sexual luridness and obviously they can't comprehend that. :V
> 
> Therefore all animals reproduce by accident, not because they ever feel aroused.



Arousal in animals is completely due to instinct and not due to any actual contemplation or rationalizing or anything. An animal can't think about how many strays it sees on the street and say "hey.. maybe having kittens isn't a good idea" - they do it because they have to, it's solidified in their brains.
Did you know, wolf testicles atrophy when out of breeding season? Yes, they literally shrink right up and disappear like a slug covered in salt.



Fay V said:


> Also, higher animals can feel hatred. Elephants turn rogue when they are witness to tragedy, they get PTSD and will go out of their way to kill humans. You might say instinct, but the level in which they recognize the other makes that question.
> Chimps go to war. It is not a matter of fighting for territory but thoughtful planning, ambushes, and destruction of the other.


I don't believe these are a result of hatred, though. I believe that it's territorial disputes/killing to rid another predator/killing a perceived threat against oneself.
Just like a group of buffalos will relentlessly attack a lion corpse - surely they know there is nothing to gain from that, but they will still do it until they feel the threat has been taken care of. 
Lions and hyenas will take any chance that they can to kill one anothers offspring, and this is due to them being rival predators and they are taking out the competition. 



Fay V said:


> What is hatred but fear? A reaction to learned fear. Other animals can hate, they can fear abstract concepts with sophistication that far exceeds simple experience, and not only that but the fear can be passed from one generation to the next.


Hatred can stem from fear, but it is not always fear itself. Hatred is an extreme form of prejudice, what it is based off of can vary, but it is not always fear.
Example 1: I hate Joe because he wears a stupid fucking Skrillex shirt to work. What a douchebag
I don't fear Joe, but his taste in music is appauling.
Example 2: I hate moths because they send me into panic attacks.
I fear moths, they are a phobia of mine.


----------



## NoahGryphon (Nov 4, 2013)

I still think they just REALLY REALLY dont understand our culture and stuff >3<


----------



## BRN (Nov 4, 2013)

Of course they don't! 

But... that doesn't mean that they're all as intelligent as us. Only very few are.


----------



## Machine (Nov 4, 2013)

NoahGryphon said:


> I still think they just REALLY REALLY dont understand our culture and stuff >3<


Of course they fucking don't, they're animals.


----------



## wolven6262 (Nov 4, 2013)

> Clearly, however, a species which has split the atom, let alone realised the world is made of atoms, is orders of magnitude 'smarter' than anything which has not.



The value of intelligence and development is a value which humans have. We value intelligence and development and we superimpose those values on other species. So in our terms, animals aren't that smart because they don't have intelligence and they have not developed much over time.

Animals may or may not have values which they can impose in us, like we impose our values upon them...they may value pleasure over a lack thereof, or they may not be able to think to a high enough degree to recognize values at all. The scientific consensus clearly seems to be that most animals cannot do this, although I haven't done any research myself so I'm just going off of what I have read here.

I have to wonder though, how intelligent are we, really? Yes, categorizing and explaining and manipulating our world is impressive when we compare it to what other species of the planet have done. But how impressive is it if we grow so populous that our world can no longer support our species or any other, and we pollute ourselves into our own graves? If intelligence is measured in an ability to survive, and we guarantee our own extinction, that would make us pretty damn stupid.

We are anomalies in evolution, but does that really makes us more intelligent than anything else that's ever lived on this earth?


----------



## Attaman (Nov 5, 2013)

wolven6262 said:


> If intelligence is measured in an ability to survive, and we guarantee our own extinction, that would make us pretty damn stupid.


 I will point out that, if we're basing intelligence off "long-term planning", _effectively every animal in existence would ping as "pretty damn stupid"._ There's a reason practically any species of animal, with even minor ecological changes, can potentially suffer from overpopulation. Furthermore, I will point out that there's remarkably little research at the moment that points to humanity rendering Earth lifeless and inhospitable outside _purposefully_ attempting to screw everyone over (Ex: Maximum nuclear saturation of the surface). Can we trigger mass-extinctions and major ecological changes? Yes. Can we get locked in a path that will trigger a societal collapse and cause a huge death-toll as people no longer have sufficient food or energy or whatnot? Yes. Are we at a risk of _suffering over seven billion casualties and rendering the planet inhospitable _to the point that _none of the survivors would be able to form even a crude hunter-gatherer society or agricultural system that prevents complete extinction_? Again, not unless we fuck up something awful.



wolven6262 said:


> We are anomalies in evolution, but does that really makes us more intelligent than anything else that's ever lived on this earth?


Yes, at least as far as we're aware. In theory something may have existed that was smarter than us, but if so it would have been long enough ago that any signs of their society (since they most probably would have had at least some form of society, even if a crude tribal one) have ceased to exist.


----------



## Saga (Nov 5, 2013)

Animals lack the ability to form ideas and think creatively. They can only imitate what they've seen before.

The smartest animal I know of was an extensively trained ape, who can communicate through sign language, can answer many questions, but never asks them (no matter how hard we try to get him to).


----------



## Willow (Nov 5, 2013)

wolven6262 said:


> The value of intelligence and development is a value which humans have. We value intelligence and development and we superimpose those values on other species. So in our terms, animals aren't that smart because they don't have intelligence and they have not developed much over time.


Animals lack sapience. They typically lack the complex thought processes humans appear to have and can only truly act on instinct or at the very least mimic human behaviours. 

Intelligence is based pretty much on that.


----------



## BRN (Nov 5, 2013)

Willow said:


> They appear to lack the complex thought processes humans typically have



FTFY - the claim about 'only acting on instinct' has been discussed and refuted in several places in this thread, it's a far more complex situation than that.


----------



## Jax (Nov 5, 2013)

AS smart as? Well that is a matter of perspective. Safe to say the majority of humans in the world do not have the smarts to stay alive outside of society as we know it. Yes, a few could live off the land and prosper, most would likely not do so well. We've lost much of the survival intelligence needed and replaced it with a great deal of useless knowledge. Sounds more cynical than intended. I like our useless knowledge, which is why we are here. We entertain. We are also animals, in every seance of the word. 

There is no lack of examples of animals going outside of instinct. Instinct is a rather convenient word to try to explain curiosity or any chain of thoughts. Even in the wild the wolf and the elephant morn. No instinctual value in that. 

I think it is safe to say some animals are indeed smarter than some humans. Question is, why does that bother some humans?


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 5, 2013)

NoahGryphon said:


> I still think they just REALLY REALLY dont understand our culture and stuff >3<



That's because their brains aren't advanced enough to even grasp the concept of culture.

Because they're fucking animals.

You loon.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 5, 2013)

I wish people would quit projecting themselves and actually do research on animal behavior.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 6, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> I wish people would quit projecting themselves and actually do research on animal behavior.


And vomiting primitive philosophical claims conceived by our lessers.


----------



## Saiko (Nov 6, 2013)

I swear, the next person whose rebuttal requires any form of "I believe" is going to have a Bad Dragon dildo shoved down his urethra. Scientific research has repeatedly demonstrated that various species are capable of various degrees of intellectual complexity. This includes basic emotions of love, pattern recognition, use of tools, recognition of symbols, the ability to teach, and more. Additionally this neither means any are equivalent to humans (though there is evidence of this being possible for some), nor is their intelligence wholly null (although some are pretty damn stupid). Sources have been repeatedly posted in this thread to support this, and unless you are a doctor in the field doing current research, I highly doubt your personal thoughts on the matter are of any relevance. And yes, _this includes anecdotes._


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 6, 2013)

Clayton said:


> Arousal in animals is completely due to instinct and not due to any actual contemplation or rationalizing or anything. An animal can't think about how many strays it sees on the street and say "hey.. maybe having kittens isn't a good idea" - they do it because they have to, it's solidified in their brains.
> Did you know, wolf testicles atrophy when out of breeding season? Yes, they literally shrink right up and disappear like a slug covered in salt.
> 
> 
> ...



This is presumptuous. Your idea of what love was was incredibly convoluted and had unnecessary caveats such as 'in order to feel love you must also feel hatred'. 

Some creatures clearly do exhibit love for one another and there is no physical reason to presume only humans benefit from this emotion; a variety of other creatures have selection pressures which promote that kind of behaviour, such as monogamous pairs of birds. 

Saying 'it's just instinct in animals' misses the point; emotions are instinctual in us. We inherit their essence in our genetic code.



wolven6262 said:


> The value of intelligence and development is a  value which humans have. We value intelligence and development and we  superimpose those values on other species. So in our terms, animals  aren't that smart because they don't have intelligence and they have not  developed much over time.
> 
> Animals may or may not have values which they can impose in us, like we  impose our values upon them...they may value pleasure over a lack  thereof, or they may not be able to think to a high enough degree to  recognize values at all. The scientific consensus clearly seems to be  that most animals cannot do this, although I haven't done any research  myself so I'm just going off of what I have read here.
> 
> ...



Cyanobacteria consumed so much atmospheric carbondioxide that they plunged the earth into a global ice age. Trees have since precipitated milder ice house conditions that killed off their forests once or twice in the Geological past. 

Blundering over evolutionary cliffs seems to be the way of things so I don't think survival is necessarily the be all and end all with intelligence.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 6, 2013)

TL;DR This ain't Parappa so "I gotta believe" isn't going to cut it in this discussion if you don't have scientific research.


----------



## Inpw (Nov 6, 2013)

Just went through this thread now because the title itself was durrrr. Not to mention we are also animals, just more intelligent than any other animal on earth at least.

Interesting science (Bigger is better)

Itâ€™s funny cause research has shown that a very large animal such as the blue whale has a much bigger brain with more activity going on inside than a human. Due to the immensely huge nervous system the whaleâ€™s brain has to control and react to more cells in the body than a human being. Humans have the largest brains proportional to our body weight is also untrue as a mouse has the same ratio of brain to body mass than that of a human. The thing with bigger is better I think has to do with the actual cerebral cortexâ€™s ratio to the size of the brain. This is the thing that controls higher functions such as memory, reasoning and communication. Mammals have large cerebral cortexes while a humanâ€™s cerebral cortex is the largest of all animals relative to the size of the brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/10-brain-myths5.htm


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 6, 2013)

Love is a man-made construct.
Monogamous relationships in the animal kingdom is a very good survival strategy. Why spend time looking for another mate to pass on your genes when you can stick with one and be guaranteed to pass on MULTIPLE offspring throughout your entire life, with no difficulty in traveling to find another animal of the same species?

Monogamous relationships are beneficial in animals who must travel long distances to find mates, polyamorous relationships are beneficial in animals that form large groups.
Think about it for a second. 
Monogamous - (mostly) birds, who have to travel and migrate.
Polyamorous - lions, primates, deer, rams, etc who travel in groups or herds.

They both have benefits, but the sole reason is survival and being able to pass on offspring. I don't believe love has anything to do with it.

and yes, "I believe" has a place in a fucking topic titled "DO YOU THINK ANIMALS ARE AS SMART AS HUMANS"


----------



## Bambi (Nov 6, 2013)

Clayton said:


> Love is a man-made construct.
> Monogamous relationships in the animal kingdom is a very good survival strategy. Why spend time looking for another mate to pass on your genes when you can stick with one and be guaranteed to pass on MULTIPLE offspring throughout your entire life, with no difficulty in traveling to find another animal of the same species?
> 
> Monogamous relationships are beneficial in animals who must travel long distances to find mates, polyamorous relationships are beneficial in animals that form large groups.
> ...


I do.

And love is a credible emotion, best explained as bonding. Everything you've posted here is evolutionarily correct. Each choice of sexual relationship reveals distinct advantages to different animals in different environments. Good post.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 7, 2013)

Bambi said:


> I do.
> 
> And love is a credible emotion, best explained as bonding. Everything you've posted here is evolutionarily correct. Each choice of sexual relationship reveals distinct advantages to different animals in different environments. Good post.



Exactly. Like I mean look at Giant Pandas, they are so extremely endangered that many of them go their entire lives without seeing another panda or finding a mate. A monagamous relationship for a panda would be beneficial because of this, because there simply aren't enough pandas to form groups (even if they DID live in large groups), so being able to hang out with one Panda your entire life could ensure that you pass on your genes multiple times.

Rabbits, for example, are polyamorous, they live in large colonies and breed like.. well.. rabbits. They have the benefit of being polyamorous because they live in large colonies.



Fallowfox said:


> This is presumptuous. Your idea of what love was was incredibly convoluted and had unnecessary caveats such as 'in order to feel love you must also feel hatred'.
> 
> Some creatures clearly do exhibit love for one another and there is no physical reason to presume only humans benefit from this emotion; a variety of other creatures have selection pressures which promote that kind of behaviour, such as monogamous pairs of birds.
> 
> Saying 'it's just instinct in animals' misses the point; emotions are instinctual in us. We inherit their essence in our genetic code.


Explain to me why you feel that an animal can only feel one extreme type of prejudice?
I believe that an animal can be attached to a person (this can be be because of something as simple as "this person gives me food"), but I don't believe that an animal can feel love. Why is it that we bellieve animals can feel love, but throw the idea of having to feel hatred as well out the window?
What makes it so that an animal can only feel one side of extreme prejudice, but not the other that goes hand-in-hand with it? Does that make any sense to you?
It would be like saying that you can like people but never hate them.. how? Do you just go about your entire life in a complete neutral stance, and the only feeling you can have towards other people is liking, but not disliking? Does that make any sense to you?
How can one form an opinion of "I like this person" but not be able to comprehend "I don't like this person"?

"Love" in animals (as most people would see it as, in pets) is feeling attachment or enjoyment of being around a person. I would enjoy being around someone who fed me every day and scratched my back whenever I wanted - this benefits me, hanging out with that person benefits me. Based off of past experiences, being around this person generally means good things are about to happen, whether that be food, treats, petting, or going for a walk. I get excited when I see this person because it usually means that I will go for a walk, which is something that I enjoy and benefits me.
"Love" in animals in a wild standpoint is often "having a single mate".. which.. as I've already pointed out - is an evolutionary tactic to pass on genes.
"Love" in animals is about survival, it is a man-made construct. It really is "just instinct". The difference between "love" in animals and "love" in humans is because we applied that word and concept to it, we understand it, and we are evolved enough to know that we do not need to stick with one partner forever to pass on our genes.

I think I also need to point out that the form of acceptable "love" in society is one-man-and-one-woman, when from an evolutionary and survival standpoint, it would be one-man-and-many-woman, because we lived in groups, not monagamous pairs.
Love is a social, man-made construct that is bound by what is morally acceptable or "right", and cannot be applied to animals.


----------



## Saiko (Nov 7, 2013)

Clayton said:


> and yes, "I believe" has a place in a fucking topic titled "DO YOU THINK ANIMALS ARE AS SMART AS HUMANS"


No, no it does not. Do know why? Because abstractly thinking so has been scientifically proven wrong. It is a subject that has been assimilated into science, and therefore your personal thoughts on the matter are merely a hypothesis.

"Do you think animals are as smart as humans?"
"Yes, I believe so. They all are capable of the full range of cognitive abilities we possess."
"No, I believe they are not. They all purely act on instinct, and know nothing of the world or themselves."

"Do you think heat transfer functions via the transfer of a physical substance?"
"Yes, I believe so; and that substance is called 'caloric.' "

Every one of those conclusions has been proven false. If you continue to "believe" them, the burden of proof falls on you; and your proof has to counter documented research.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 8, 2013)

I've not received any solid evidence to go against what I've said. So far the only evidence I've been given is "well my dog wags his tail when he sees me" and "birds pair up in single pairs"... which.. both are easily explained like I've already done so.
My opinion/belief is that no, they're not, and I've not received any scientific evidence to go against that.
Other users' opinion/belief is that yes, they are, but they've not provided the scientific evidence to prove it.

Bottom line is, this is a thread with no linked evidence to support either side, and is based purely on what we THINK or BELIEVE and is based on our OPINION
What is our OPINION on this topic.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 9, 2013)

Clayton said:


> I've not received any solid evidence to go against what I've said. So far the only evidence I've been given is "well my dog wags his tail when he sees me" and "birds pair up in single pairs"... which.. both are easily explained like I've already done so.
> My opinion/belief is that no, they're not, and I've not received any scientific evidence to go against that.
> Other users' opinion/belief is that yes, they are, but they've not provided the scientific evidence to prove it.
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals

You're making a claim that is bold, that animal and human emotions are distinct from one another [at least those which our current culture deems valuable anyway] despite humans being animals. 

In our modern age we understand that humans were not created distinct from animals, but are just another species evolving from a radiation of a preexisting species. 
This is reflected by the scientific stance on the issue *

"In recent years, the scientific community has become increasingly  supportive of the idea of emotions in animals. Scientific research has  provided insight into similarities of physiological changes between  human and non-human animals when experiencing emotion"*

Which is what one would expect if humans were just another animal in the zoo. Our legs might be very different to a whales flippers, but if you understand evolution you see that the skeletal structure is essentially the same and has been adapted for different uses in the two species.



Clayton said:


> Love is a man-made construct.
> Monogamous relationships in the animal kingdom is a very good survival  strategy. Why spend time looking for another mate to pass on your genes  when you can stick with one and be guaranteed to pass on MULTIPLE  offspring throughout your entire life, with no difficulty in traveling  to find another animal of the same species?
> 
> Monogamous relationships are beneficial in animals who must travel long  distances to find mates, polyamorous relationships are beneficial in  animals that form large groups.
> ...




Unfortunately Humans are also at the mercy of natural selection. Survival is also the sculptor of which humans will form the next generation. So the volatile mixture of emotions we brand as love could not exist if they weren't just as 'vapid' and 'mechanical' as animal emotions. 

But vapid and mechanical feelings wouldn't work. Feelings have to feel real to brains, no matter whether you view them as empty instincts about increasing one's chances of reproduction.


----------



## kv195 (Nov 9, 2013)

From what I learned in psychology, animals usually have smaller association areas the brain for intellectual thinking.  Although some do have more motor and sensory areas which could make them more "smart" in survival instincts.  I'm guessing you were referring to the intellectual part, so then no, they're usually not as smart as human beings in terms of creativity, learning, etc.  Emotional intelligence might be about the same, maybe i'm not sure.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 9, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals
> 
> You're making a claim that is bold, that animal and human emotions are distinct from one another [at least those which our current culture deems valuable anyway] despite humans being animals.


I don't believe that non-human animals have the capacity to have the same emotions as us. I believe they experience SOME of the emotions that we do, but I don't believe they have the ability to experience complex emotions like love, hatred, etc.

This used to be part of the Emotion article on Wikipedia but it must have been removed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion#The_neurocircuitry_of_emotion

_"[...]The neurobiological explanation of human emotion is that emotion is a pleasant or unpleasant mental state organized in the limbic system of the mammalian brain."_
So we can basically conclude that "emotion" is varying levels of either pleasant (happy, excitement, etc), or unpleasant (aggression, anger, fear) mental states in a mammal.

_"If distinguished from reactive responses of reptiles, emotions would then be mammalian elaborations of general vertebrate arousal patterns, in which neurochemicals (for example, dopamine, noradrenaline, and serotonin) step-up or step-down the brain's activity level, as visible in body movements, gestures, and postures."_
Explaining that reptiles emotions are even more basic. Basically, almost just fight-or-flight, resulting from certain levels of dopamine, adrenaline, or serotonin.

_"For example, the emotion of love is proposed to be the expression of paleocircuits of the mammalian brain (specifically, modules of the cingulate gyrus) which facilitate the care, feeding, and grooming of offspring."_
The section of the brain that deals with feeding, grooming, caring for offpsring is what people believe is "love". It's a man-made application of our explanation as to what we believe keeps animals doing this with their offspring. If we look at lion prides.. most people would consider a lion/lioness taking care of it's offspring as a symbol of love... but then there's really no explanation for the more dominant males beating up and kicking out the younger males in the pride. Surely that's not a symbol of love, in my opinion... but a means of ensuring that the lesser males don't try and usurp the dominant male and take over his pride. It's a matter of survival. The top male lion knows that he's a goner should he be kicked out of the pride, so he kicks out any and all threat to his throne.
Love in that case would surely wreak havoc upon the pride.

_"With the arrival of night-active mammals, smell replaced vision as the dominant sense, and a different way of responding arose from the olfactory sense, which is proposed to have developed into mammalian emotion and emotional memory."_
Here, it's explaining that the olfactory sense contributes to memory. For example, if a mouse smells a cat, he may be triggered to run, because of the connection between smell and emotion (fear).

You're acting as if I don't believe animals can experience emotions - I do, I just don't believe they can experience love.
I believe animals can have emotions.. but very basic emotions. I don't believe animals are capable of feeling the emotion called "love". I feel that such an emotion would be detrimental to the evolutionary process in species.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 9, 2013)

What if we're all being rused?


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 9, 2013)

Heliophobic said:


> What if we're all being rused?


Nobody can possibly disagree with me! Anyone who does must be trying to trick me!


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 9, 2013)

Clayton said:


> I don't believe that non-human animals have the capacity to have the same emotions as us. I believe they experience SOME of the emotions that we do, but I don't believe they have the ability to experience complex emotions like love, hatred, etc.
> 
> This used to be part of the Emotion article on Wikipedia but it must have been removed:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion#The_neurocircuitry_of_emotion
> ...



I think your lion example is poor. Just because a female lion loves her genetic investment does not mean that a male lion with no genetic investment must also love her offspring.

Humans are capable of feeling love, despite the fact that many cultures commit[ted] infanticide, for instance. So proof by counter-example isn't valid. We might even say, much to your annoyance, that a lion killing off competitors is an act of hatred.

Love and hatred have poor definitions, but in their essence a lot of creatures do exhibit them: feelings of affection and compassion for your genetic investment obviously have a selection benefit for many creatures. Feelings of intense dislike for competitors have an advantage too. 

I think you're viewing the emotions 'love' and 'hatred' too poetically. Love is just 'like something [usually another organism] a lot' whereas hatred is just 'dislike something a lot'.

Introducing definitions such as 'love doesn't exist without hatred' as you did earlier illustrates this poetry. I would still have feelings of strong affection for my family even if I didn't hate intestinal worms, so it's clear you're bullshitting definitions based on what sounds arty and profound.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 9, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I think your lion example is poor. Just because a female lion loves her genetic investment does not mean that a male lion with no genetic investment must also love her offspring.


I thought it was pretty dang clear that it was the cub of a lioness and a lion, and the male lion kicked the sons out. I thought that was pretty clear but I guess not.



Fallowfox said:


> We might even say, much to your annoyance, that a lion killing off competitors is an act of hatred.


Male lions commit infanticide, even to the cubs of the lionesses that they "love". I think it's pretty obvious why this is done, and is not involved in hatred. Why would a lion feel hatred to an animal that can do it no harm, that is a fraction of it's size?



Fallowfox said:


> feelings of affection and compassion for your genetic investment obviously have a selection benefit for many creatures. Feelings of intense dislike for competitors have an advantage too.


I don't believe this is "love" or "hatred", I think such emotions would be useless in an animal. I believe that the dislike of others is based off of survival, plain and simple. Love holds animals back from surviving and moving on.



Fallowfox said:


> I think you're viewing the emotions 'love' and 'hatred' too poetically. Love is just 'like something [usually another organism] a lot' whereas hatred is just 'dislike something a lot'.


"Poetically" is how love is, that is what we made it to be. 



Fallowfox said:


> I would still have feelings of strong affection for my family even if I didn't hate intestinal worms, so it's clear you're bullshitting definitions based on what sounds arty and profound.


I don't understand what intestinal worms has anything to do with it, so I feel that you're misunderstanding my example of opposites.
You cannot experience one form of prejudice without being capable of experiencing the other.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 9, 2013)

Clayton said:


> I thought it was pretty dang clear that it was the cub of a lioness and a lion, and the male lion kicked the sons out. I thought that was pretty clear but I guess not.
> 
> 
> Male lions commit infanticide, even to the cubs of the lionesses that they "love". I think it's pretty obvious why this is done, and is not involved in hatred. Why would a lion feel hatred to an animal that can do it no harm, that is a fraction of it's size?
> ...



I thought you meant a competing lion from noman's land. For a lion who is the father of the offspring killing the sons is advantageous
-It eliminated genetic competition with lions who only share half your genes
-If the sons do not die they may be kicked out to join another pride, which would distribute dad's genes further than an incestuous pride. 

So dad doesn't have a reason to love his sons. Hatred would be an appropriate description because dad obviously doesn't like his sons, and that's all hate is. Hatred does not demand that whatever you hate is a current threat, or the same size as you, only that you feel an intense dislike for it. If dad doesn't feel an intense dislike for his sons what is motivating him to murder them? 

Love is not inherently poetic. Poetry is an excuse for people to bastardise definitions to agree with their presumptions.  

It is not mandatory that one must hate in order to love, although a great deal of species will have both of these emotions the definitions of love and hatred make no such demand. 'No love without hate' sounds profound, but it's not fact. It makes good poetry, but not good argument.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 9, 2013)

Clayton said:


> Nobody can possibly disagree with me! Anyone who does must be trying to trick me!



Nobody can possibly trick me! Anyone who does must be trying to disagree with me!


ur stuped


----------



## Wither (Nov 9, 2013)

Me: "Oh! This thread looks more interesting than the rest of boring ass fuckery."
*clicks thread*
*reads the last 4 posts*
Me: "Oh... just Clayton and Fallow locked in an endless internet argument. Oh, and of course like all internet arguments one person uses sites, documents, and facts to back up their claim and the other spouts their theory, whether wrong or right, without anything but their only opinions"

Thanks FaF.
Thanks for ruining what could be a good conversational topic.
Bollocks. I vote that they have the ability to be as smart as us.

*ability* not that they necessarily do


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 9, 2013)

Wither said:


> Thanks for ruining what could be a good conversational topic.



PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT

This thread was fucked from the start.


----------



## Wither (Nov 9, 2013)

Heliophobic said:


> PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT
> 
> This thread was fucked from the start.


Because it's on FaF.
I /knew/ it was fucked from the start being here, I just wanted to prove a fucking point.

Off of FaF and away from all the other internet stupidity this is actually a very interesting topic.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 9, 2013)

Wither said:


> Off of FaF and away from all the other internet stupidity this is actually a very interesting topic.



No it isn't.


----------



## Wither (Nov 9, 2013)

Heliophobic said:


> No it isn't.


But this is opinionated.
I don't give a fuck if you think it's awful.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 9, 2013)

Wither said:


> But this is opinionated.
> I don't give a fuck if you think it's awful.



Consider this...

Nobody cares about how you think this "good conversational topic" has been ruined.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 9, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Hatred would be an appropriate description because dad obviously doesn't like his sons, and that's all hate is.


That's the thing though, why would he hate his sons? You imply that the male lion kicking his adolescent sons out is a form of hatred, I see it as a method of survival and passing on genes. The male lion kicks the sons out because they are a challenge to his throne, and kicking them out forces them to pass on his genes and take over more prides - this is proven, this is a fact. How is what he did hatred? I believe that it supports what I've been saying this whole time - actions that we humans would consider "hatred" are in actuality, a form of survival for animals.



Fallowfox said:


> If dad doesn't feel an intense dislike for his sons what is motivating him to murder them?


If the male lion felt hatred towards his sons, why would he allow them to grow up before kicking them out? Not killing them, but kicking them out of the pride? We already know that male lions perform infanticide against cubs of a pride that they take over, so killing cubs is not a problem for a male lion.. why would he allow his sons to grow old, when he has the ability to kill them out of "hatred" when they're still small cubs?



Wither said:


> I /knew/ it was fucked from the start being here, I just wanted to prove a fucking point.





Wither said:


> Thanks for ruining what could be a good conversational topic.



Hey bud thanks for the insight, it was great to hear your position on the debate.


----------



## Wither (Nov 9, 2013)

Heliophobic said:


> Consider this...
> 
> Nobody cares about how you think this "good conversational topic" has been ruined.


No one cares about anyone's opinion.
Again.
That's the point.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 9, 2013)

Wither said:


> No one cares about anyone's opinion.
> Again.
> That's the point.



That's...

That's just okay.


----------



## Wither (Nov 9, 2013)

Heliophobic said:


> That's...
> 
> That's just okay.


http://puu.sh/5dGUC.jpg
I like to stick to 1 dick.

Most of the reasonable folk (right OR wrong) post their opinion with reasons why. That is beautiful. 
Then there's people that just wanna post "You're wrong, this is why.." . It's still opinions, but thanks for the input.
lastly we just have the "You're wrong. >:c" people. These people drown the rest of the people out. Awful.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 9, 2013)

I don't understand why opinions are being turned into something horrible and unholy in a thread that is based on opinions.
Look at every religion debate ever - if we were to say "PROOF OR SHUT UP", it would end every religion debate damn quick ahahah
hehehe


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 9, 2013)

Wither said:


> Thanks FaF.
> Thanks for ruining what could be a good conversational topic.
> Bollocks. I vote that they have the ability to be as smart as us.
> 
> *ability* not that they necessarily do



Neanderthals were (biologically) more intelligent than we are, but it was their limited communication abilities and crappy breeding rate that fucked them over.

The fact that we can communicate in a complex manner and accumulate our knowledge is what puts us waaaay up there.

So it's quite possible that there are animals more intelligent than us.

They just won't be able to do shit with it.


----------



## Wither (Nov 9, 2013)

Clayton said:


> I don't understand why opinions are being turned into something horrible and unholy in a thread that is based on opinions.
> Look at every religion debate ever - if we were to say "PROOF OR SHUT UP", it would end every religion debate damn quick ahahah
> hehehe


... I just... I don't... What even...



Clayton said:


> I don't understand why opinions are being turned into something horrible and unholy in a thread that is based on opinions.



I dunno, you fucking tell me. You seem to do it in every post.



Clayton said:


> Look at every religion debate ever - if we were to say "PROOF OR SHUT UP", it would end every religion debate damn quick ahahah
> hehehe


*à² _**à² *


Gibby said:


> Neanderthals were (biologically) more intelligent than we are, but it was their limited communication abilities and crappy breeding rate that fucked them over.


No shit? That's interesting... Learn something new everyday. I find it odd that we're one of so few species that are capable speech. Evolution shoulda got on that shit for those other animals.


----------



## Shinwa no Kitsune (Nov 9, 2013)

I do think animals are smart like us, but they dont understand out speech. My dog can actualy sense when I'm mad or stressed and tries to cheer me up or when I'm already cheery he jumps around to get me to spend some time with him. Aniamls are cute, caring, and clever. The three C's that make up an animal.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 10, 2013)

Wither said:


> I dunno, you fucking tell me. You seem to do it in every post.



I do what?
I'm the one saying opinions are valid in this discussion.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 10, 2013)

http://www.fnqwildliferescue.org.au/a/Stories-and-Pictures

7. Females wallabies have been known to "throw" their Joeys from the pouch if they are being pursued     or feel threatened. This is a defence mechanism designed to ensure their own survival by sacrificing a Joey. 


Love has no place in the lives of animals.


----------



## Cocobanana (Nov 10, 2013)

I think animals are cute and that we shouldn't torture them, and that we shouldn't kill them for no reason. However, my parents got me hooked on eating meat, when we don't hunt for deer then they kill more motorists, etc. I don't think animals should be killed just for monetary gain though (like elephants for their tusks or other animals just for their fur). Though I'm a non-violent person, if I had to kill my own meat to get some to eat, I would. I also believe that if animals were smart enough to understand humans then they would have already tried to kill us off.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 10, 2013)

Clayton said:


> http://www.fnqwildliferescue.org.au/a/Stories-and-Pictures
> 
> 7. Females wallabies have been known to "throw" their Joeys from the pouch if they are being pursued     or feel threatened. This is a defence mechanism designed to ensure their own survival by sacrificing a Joey.
> 
> ...



oh god that's horrible why am I laughing


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 10, 2013)

Animals aren't killed "just for their fur", animals that are killed "for their fur" are in actuality, killed for conservation, pest control, and their entire body is used, not just the fur.


----------



## Saiko (Nov 10, 2013)

Clayton said:


> I don't understand why opinions are being turned into something horrible and unholy in a thread that is based on opinions.
> Look at every religion debate ever - if we were to say "PROOF OR SHUT UP", it would end every religion debate damn quick ahahah
> hehehe


As I recall, religion threads on FAF end up being quite similar to this one.


----------



## Antronach (Nov 10, 2013)

Saiko said:


> As I recall, religion threads on FAF end up being quite similar to this one.



Generic 'animals are people' threads?


----------



## Wither (Nov 10, 2013)

Clayton said:


> I do what?
> I'm the one saying opinions are valid in this discussion.


i am snerking
snerk
snerking so hard.

this sandwich is fucking delicious btw


----------



## Saiko (Nov 10, 2013)

Antronach said:


> Generic 'animals are people' threads?


No, generic 'my opinion is better' threads. Just a never-ending loop of rage from people with preconceived notions of reality and definitions.
I do believe I just contradicted myself. I'm gonna shut up now. lol


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 10, 2013)

Cocobanana said:


> I think animals are cute and that we shouldn't torture them, and that we shouldn't kill them for no reason. However, my parents got me hooked on eating meat, when we don't hunt for deer then they kill more motorists, etc. I don't think animals should be killed just for monetary gain though (like elephants for their tusks or other animals just for their fur). Though I'm a non-violent person, if I had to kill my own meat to get some to eat, I would. I also believe that if animals were smart enough to understand humans then they would have already tried to kill us off.



Tell us more about the price of Tea in China ...and other nonsense that doesn't belong to this topic.

I guess people didn't go through that search video of TED talks on Animals and morality I posted earlier. Empathy is part of love. Certain animals display this. The word love has levels of complexity anyways. That still doesn't mean they're as smart as humans, but there is definitely more complex emotions in social groups than just "survival" 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...cuddle-each-other-when-upset-like-humans.html


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 12, 2013)

Why do wallabies throw their young from their pouch as sacrifice when being pursued? A human mother would not throw her baby on the ground for an attacker if she was being pursued.
What seperates us? What is the difference here? Why is a wallaby able to sacrifice her young, but not a human?


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Nov 12, 2013)

Are we going on the "Can animals love?" thing? 

I think Humans may be the only ones who truly can...although dogs reeeeally make me wonder.


----------



## Rilvor (Nov 12, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> Are we going on the "Can animals love?" thing?
> 
> I think Humans may be the only ones who truly can...although dogs reeeeally make me wonder.



Love is a concept perceived by humanity. It's a very real thing for us, but for others? Good question.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2013)

I think animals are smart but not on the same level as humans. 

Humans have invented many things, animals haven't. But animals are capable of learning and solving problems such as how to get food out of specific containers. However animals do not understand the dangers of roads and motor vehicles, nor do they understand what a mirror is or a window.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 12, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> Love is a concept perceived by humanity. It's a very real thing for us, but for others? Good question.



You guys are looking at the video on Animal Morality right? It's good research.



Butterflygoddess said:


> Are we going on the "Can animals love?" thing?
> 
> I think Humans may be the only ones who truly can...although dogs reeeeally make me wonder.



Love is a multifauceted concept created by us for sure. 

But furthering this, dogs have been by design by us to read our emotions. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/dogs-decoded.html

They may not have a high understanding of various human emotions but they do certainly detect them.

Empathy in rats. If it was just survival, why would a rat need to free the other rat before sharing chocolate?

[yt]WzE0liAzr-8[/yt]

There are social behaviors that do show that animals have a certain level of morals, and while not as complex as human society's and understanding fairness. 

http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html

[yt]b_Lm49XVkGQ[/yt]


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 12, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> Love is a concept perceived by humanity.



Everything is a concept perceived by humanity, though.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 12, 2013)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I think animals are smart but not on the same level as humans.
> 
> Humans have invented many things, animals haven't. But animals are capable of learning and solving problems such as how to get food out of specific containers. However animals do not understand the dangers of roads and motor vehicles, nor do they understand what a mirror is or a window.



I think the only animals that I've witness that show an actual understanding about the dangers of cars are squirrels, sometimes feral cats, and mmaayybe birds. I say "maybe" for birds because they don't feel any fear until the car is like 5 feet from hitting them lol.



Heliophobic said:


> Everything is a concept perceived by humanity, though.



Love, as we've already explained, is a man-made concept and it doesn't make sense to apply it to animals and anthropomorphise them like that. It doesn't make sense.
What is love in animals? Is it a strong attachment? Is it unconditional? Why do animals put their babies at risk by sacrificing them, boot them out of the safe family group, or in some cases like the Cuckoo bird, lay their eggs in other birds nests? Birds are intelligent, I've seen users throw up the example of crows already... what makes a cuckoo bird different? Surely it loves it's chicks.. but why would it willingly lay it's eggs in another birds nest?
Survival. Passing on genes. Ensuring continuation of a lineage.
That is the entire reason. Animals care about survival first and foremost, a man-made concept like love has no place in the lives of animals, they don't need it.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 12, 2013)

Clayton said:


> Love, as we've already explained, is a man-made concept and it doesn't make sense to apply it to animals and anthropomorphise them like that. It doesn't make sense.
> What is love in animals? Is it a strong attachment? Is it unconditional? Why do animals put their babies at risk by sacrificing them, boot them out of the safe family group, or in some cases like the Cuckoo bird, lay their eggs in other birds nests? Birds are intelligent, I've seen users throw up the example of crows already... what makes a cuckoo bird different? Surely it loves it's chicks.. but why would it willingly lay it's eggs in another birds nest?
> Survival. Passing on genes. Ensuring continuation of a lineage.
> That is the entire reason. Animals care about survival first and foremost, a man-made concept like love has no place in the lives of animals, they don't need it.



I was just trying to be deep and intellectual GOSH.


----------



## LegitWaterfall (Nov 12, 2013)

I'd say just as, but they have trouble understanding us as we do them.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Nov 13, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Info



Oh, thank you for all this wonderful info. I cannot believe how much research has been done in this dept. The rat vid was especially heartwarming. I'm also reminded of dolphins who will help sick members of their family reach the top of the water so they can breathe. 

Love those things.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 13, 2013)

Butterflygoddess said:


> Oh, thank you for all this wonderful info. I cannot believe how much research has been done in this dept. The rat vid was especially heartwarming. I'm also reminded of dolphins who will help sick members of their family reach the top of the water so they can breathe.
> 
> Love those things.



It's really easy to dismiss all of it as "survival" and animals are cruel by nature, but it's actually been proven otherwise. Not all animals do things to be heartless or just survival mode. They do have some sense of morality. I just don't find them as complex as humans go in terms of emotions. That's why I think they do feel love because there's many definitions of love created by us. It may not be the "Big love" of a partner, but if they have empathy, it means there is some love.


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 13, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> It's really easy to dismiss all of it as "survival" and animals are cruel by nature, but it's actually been proven otherwise. Not all animals do things to be heartless or just survival mode. They do have some sense of morality. I just don't find them as complex as humans go in terms of emotions. That's why I think they do feel love because there's many definitions of love created by us. It may not be the "Big love" of a partner, but if they have empathy, it means there is some love.


Right. Humans are bound to feel more complex emotions and feel them more strongly than other animals.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Nov 13, 2013)

Clayton said:


> Why do wallabies throw their young from their pouch as sacrifice when being pursued? A human mother would not throw her baby on the ground for an attacker if she was being pursued.
> What seperates us? What is the difference here? Why is a wallaby able to sacrifice her young, but not a human?



You are kidding right? Here are people that have children just for the sake of getting money off the goverment and then leave the kids alone in the street asking for money and don't even send them to school or give them food, they use the money collected by children to buy alcohol, cigars and drugs, and it's something totally normal.

Humans are not that different from animals


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 13, 2013)

Kitsune Cross said:


> You are kidding right? Here are people that have children just for the sake of getting money off the goverment and then leave the kids alone in the street asking for money and don't even send them to school or give them food, they use the money collected by children to buy alcohol, cigars and drugs, and it's something totally normal.
> 
> Humans are not that different from animals



Or the fact women flush their children down the toilet, get rid of them in dumpsters and have been getting rid of children for quite a long time before "civilized society" for the sake of survival. You get those stories where dead babies were left in jars, old trunks in homes from the 20's on. 

The pillars of morality by Waal is particularly interesting because as you've seen in the Monkeys and fairness tests they do understand concept of reciprocity. So they obviously understand another animals emotions more than "what can I get out of this to survive" I mean why even bother worrying about a grape when they're all getting food anyways? 

If you watch the full video, even when the other monkey knew he/she was getting the grape, they would refrain from receiving the reward of the better item so the teammate can also have a grape. This didn't happen with all of the monkeys in test, but the fact a few have different levels of empathy for their fellow kind made it more interesting.

Just like the pro-social test where a monkey could choose a token that fed one or both, certain behaviors not required for utmost survival were displayed. There's obviously more aggressive monkeys that wanted the item, but the other one refused if they got bullied too much, vs the one that was more encouraging about wanting the share of food. 

The elephant one was most amusing since they also knew how to game the system to benefit oneself.

The one with the monkeys pulling the crate, even you can see the other was encouraging, not abusive to the other monkey who wasn't hungry. 

Sure you can say "Well these animals are more social" but so are we. The evolution of our species was dependent upon cooperation and whether or not we lived in groups. Because we have evolved higher, we evolved more complex emotions based from what seemed like "simple survival" but obviously there's something more there...


----------



## Jax (Nov 13, 2013)

After careful review it is clear that most do not have a clue what smart is. The pile of knowledge some humans have can be great, but how much of that is actually essential. Smart is a human concept. Intelligence? We can blow our selves up...and big chunks of the world with us. We can kill off the very things we need to survive. Are we smart or just lucky? Not diminishing what humans can conceive, but the sum of the results of our "smarts" is an incomplete equation. If you judge smart by how successful a species is, well the majority of humans on this planet don't give us much hope. Everything about the question is driven by the desire to think we are better than the other life we share the planet with. In the end, every species is likely better than any other in the view of that species. No good answers so far. We'll check back


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 14, 2013)

Kitsune Cross said:


> You are kidding right? Here are people that have children just for the sake of getting money off the goverment and then leave the kids alone in the street asking for money and don't even send them to school or give them food, they use the money collected by children to buy alcohol, cigars and drugs, and it's something totally normal.
> 
> Humans are not that different from animals



Humans do not have to live based purely on survival. We have contraceptives, we have the ability to choose/plan/think about having kids, we have the ability to put kids up for adoption, etc. Humans are VERY different from animals, we're leaps and bounds away from our survival-based non-human animal friends.
While there are people having babies for cheques, they can sit and think and plan about having kids - they know their survival is not based on having children, or giving children away, or using children as cheques. They know there are clean ways to survive without scamming off of welfare.
Humans don't NEED to have kids, we can choose not to - an animal can't.


----------



## Mullerornis (Nov 14, 2013)

Corvids are proven to have theory of mind. Therefore, they probably are aware of our technology. Therefore, they are a civilisation that wilfully remained as it is.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 15, 2013)

I'm not sure that do not to live for survival is a valid argument, since that's essentially what we do. Just because we made it a lot easier on ourselves doesn't mean that's not part of our core functions. If you want to complain about breeding and overpopulation, we're also not the sole species that has this issue anyways.


----------



## Arianna Dragoness (Nov 24, 2013)

*Grins* I know a dog is an animal that is smart enough to realize that a human is incapable of learning to understand his language so he goes out of his way to learn to understand ours.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 24, 2013)

Arianna Dragoness said:


> *Grins* I know a dog is an animal that is smart enough to realize that a human is incapable of learning to understand his language so he goes out of his way to learn to understand ours.



Dogs only understand what we "train" them to do.


----------



## Troj (Nov 24, 2013)

Uh, dogs understand quite a bit even before they've been trained.

If everything had to be learned through active teaching or training, then most organisms would be fucked.


----------

