4 ms·
> Couldn't you argue that instinct doesn't "intend" anything - it's just adaptive, because evolution selected for it? You can argue that if you want. I'll argu
by ctrl-j 8y ago
> Couldn't you argue that instinct doesn't "intend" anything - it's just adaptive, because evolution selected for it?
You can argue that if you want. I'll argue the opposite: If a dog growls at me when I reach for his steak - but doesn't bite - I take that as him intending to inform me that he doesn't want me to take his steak.
It may be instinct, it may be adaptive, but it sure as hell was intended to get a message across to me.
Communication is about sending and receiving messages. A car tire cannot send or receive - it cannot communicate.
- perl4ever 8y agoIt's not adaptive for anger to be communication though. For instance, a small dog may not be willing to fight to the death against a much larger creature. But the visceral response of anger comes automatically, and the reason it's useful is because it doesn't convey information, but conceals it. You snarl so that people think you might be combative, but you are quite definitely not communicating that you are combative. A world where a growl really was communication would be a world where anyone who didn't growl could be abused.