7 ms·

I wonder whether they feel some kind of enjoyment from these kinds of actions

diegolas 2y ago
i can guarantee you horses can and do annoy people for fun
frostburg 2y ago
Anectodally elephants do things like hiding and revaling objects for no apparent reason other than comical effect. One could build elaborate evolutionary fitness reasons for this, but I mean...
- deadbabe 2y ago
  Elephants that make other elephants laugh get laid more often.
HPsquared 2y ago
Of course, animals are conscious and enjoy things and feel pain too. Just less intelligent and with less language ability than humans. Chimps and dogs certainly understand humour. I wouldn't be surprised if elephants do too, being social creatures.
- thanksgiving 2y ago
  I think it is also important to note here that apparently not all humans understand humor either or understand it differently or something.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Humour often involves saying something that isn't true (why don't ants catch colds? Because of they have anty bodies - great joke but not true on a number of levels). A surprising number of humans don't have the mental cycles available to consider counterfactuals, hypotheticals or entertain ideas that aren't directly rooted in reality. I suspect that means they can't process humour and they just laugh if the crowd is. It goes beyond humour, you can see it in a lot of scenarios and it ruins politics. There are people who appear literally unable to consider hypothetical scenarios. Not in a nasty way, they're sometimes wonderful people to have on hand. They simply only deal in reality as they see it. You can walk them slowly through a "and what if ... happens?" and they can't do it.
    - berkes 2y ago
      (Human) Humor is a far broader spectrum than you describe here too. It can range from "ROFTL because someone accidentally stepped in poop" to deeply layered liguistic jokes like you describe.
      - leftbit 2y ago
        One aspect of humor depends on cognitive flexibility. Puns work that way. So if you're not able to make the right mental context switch at the right moment, you won't get the joke.
        berkes 2y ago
        > One aspect of humor depends on cognitive flexibility All humor? (Honest question) I was under the presumption that e.g. slapstick or schadenfreude humor doesn't need linguistics, and is therefore seen in many animals. Animals that don't have any form of language but do have rather intricate social systems or even ranks and caste systems. but do have humor. E.g. where breaking or pushing those systems is the humor. E.g. "boss gorilla slips on a banana peel haha".
    - bongodongobob 2y ago
      I once dated someone who couldn't consider hypotheticals or how they could be used as a reasoning tool. Disagreements were the most frustrating thing ever because I couldn't play devils advocate or steelman. She thought I was agreeing with her intermittently to make her mad. She had no concept of walking in someone else's shoes or arguing a position you don't actually hold. It blew my mind.
      - hackable_sand 2y ago
        So you were playing games with her instead of developing a solution together? Yeah. I don't blame her for getting mad.
        2y ago
  - socksy 2y ago
    Just because you don’t understand the Germans’ humour doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist ;)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- leftbit 2y ago
  It's difficult to reason about intelligence in this context. Human intelligence is defined by behavior we humans value. Intelligence tests are geared to measuring these aspects. Intelligence tests devised by animals would look totally different - and it's quite thinkable humans wouldn't do too well taking them. Wouldn't assume that animals have less language ability than we humans, unless we totally figured out what other species are really talking about. Unless we do this is just an assumption.
Etheryte 2y ago
Humans are fundamentally not that different from other animals really. Any emotion you have, they have. It's a Victorian era misconception that humans are somehow a unique species with all these wonderful properties and animals are dumb.
- gwd 2y ago
  > Victorian era misnomer Isn't this exactly the opposite? Read Aristotle or Aquinas and they have all kinds of definitions about why humans are fundamentally different in nature than animals; and Darwin, whose work made it much more palpable to believe that humans were just another kind of animal, did his work smack in the middle of the Victorian era.
  - Etheryte 2y ago
    I think that largely depends on how you look at it. As with any topic, Greek philosophers had widely different opinions across schools of thought and generations. Many highlighted rational thinking as the line between humans and animals, while still thinking animals intelligent and emotional. I do agree with your point on Darwin, but why that point works is exactly because his work contrasted with the rest of his peers. His work was also far from being widely accepted at first, and was met with heavy skepticism on many, if not most fronts. It was only later that this became a widely accepted part of science.
    - gwd 2y ago
      OK, I think I see what you meant: Not that the "misnomer" arose in the Victorian era, but that the Victorian era was the last era in which you would expect to encounter this "misnomer". As a counterpoint, I recommend reading Everlasting Man, by G. K. Chesterton. If humans are just animals, they're the most bizarre animal we've ever seen.
- randomcarbloke 2y ago
  a misnomer is a failure in naming ie peanuts, koala bear, etc. I think you mean misconception.
autoexec 2y ago
Animals have to get their enjoyment where they can. It's always fun to watch them play. You can start to think that animals are always optimizing the time they spend being active and are carefully preserving their energy in order to survive, but then you see some birds going sledding (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn0OjCneVUg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn0OjCneVUg) and it's clear that they're just in it for the fun.
- Jarmsy 2y ago
  This summer I spent an hour watching a pair of magpies harass a fox. The fox was trying to sunbathe, but the magpies kept dive-bombing it, pecking its tail, and landing in front of it then flying away just as the fox went for them, all while making a chattering sound that seemed a lot like laughter. I've heard theories that they do this as revenge for stolen eggs, or to chase foxes away from their nests, but this was in an open patch of ground far from where they nest and it really looked to me that they were just teasing it for fun.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    They may know that particular fox. Crows can identify singular persons, hold grudge against them and disseminate the information around to make sure that particular person has a hard time [0]. Magpies are also very smart birds, aggressively protecting their nests and offspring from cats and other threats. So they may have identified that fox somewhere else. Also, IIRC, magpies and crows are somewhat related. [0]: https://urban.uw.edu/news/crows-hold-grudges-against-individual-humans-for-up-to-17-years/ https://urban.uw.edu/news/crows-hold-grudges-against-individ...
    - vidarh 2y ago
      > Also, IIRC, magpies and crows are somewhat related. They are both corvids (members of the family Corvidae) along with ravens, rooks, jackdaws, jays and others. Most corvids are fairly smart.
  - rolandog 2y ago
puzzledobserver 2y ago
There's an interesting article by David Graeber on how we characterize play and fun among animals: https://davidgraeber.org/articles/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-have-fun/ https://davidgraeber.org/articles/whats-the-point-if-we-cant.... I can't say that I've understood it all, but he appears to criticize scientists for not thinking about play seriously, and instead reducing most aspects of animal behavior to things like survival, fitness, and evolutionary pressure.
- gpderetta 2y ago
  > fun [...] survival, fitness, and evolutionary pressure. This has to be both right? Animals (and humans) evolved play because it has evolutionary benefits, but the immediate reward for play must be fun.
  - pineaux 2y ago
    Or it could be an unintended consequence...
  - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
    > Animals (and humans) evolved play because it has evolutionary benefits I know the turn of phrase is popular even amongst biologists but I still think it’s weird to put it this way. Evolution is a dynamic feedback loop on a multi-generational time scale. Plenty of neutral things can be transmitted for a long time without being culled out by evolutionary pressure and social behaviour can remain for a long time without being genetic at all.
    - b112 2y ago
      Play has a purpose, it hones reflexes, teaches youth about concealment, traps, ambushes, what their bodies can do, whether running away works in a scenario or fighting is better. It also shows who is best to lead a fight. Play much like curiosity, makes you able to navigate your environment. It very much has extreme usefulness.
      - 2y ago
polytely 2y ago
there is this study that shows bumblebees exhibit behaviour that looks a lot like what we would call playing, seems to serve no purpose except being enjoyable. My sorta crank belief is that we are massively underestimating the intelligence and consciousness of animals (and possibly even plants?) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347222002366 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000334722...
- FeepingCreature 2y ago
  Plants do not have consciousness. Reacting to stimuli does not require conscious processing. Like, I'm all for "we're underestimating animal brains" but they do have to have brains.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    Why do they have to have brains? Is it impossible that another structure could serve a similar purpose? Like, how long did it take us to figure out what brains are for?
    - FeepingCreature 2y ago
      They don't need to have "brains" in the sense that humans do, ie. discrete neurons and axons, but they do need to have "neural networks" - networks of nonlinear operators with a training mechanism. I'm aware of zero evidence that trees perform computation on a larger-than-single-cell basis.
      - slavik81 2y ago
        You cannot direct growth at the scale of a single cell. There are many computations (based on hormonal gradients and other mechanisms) that occur at the scale of larger structures, such as leaves or branches. Of course, those mechanicisms are not going to create consciousness.
        2y ago
forinti 2y ago
So my brother was in a zoo somewhere in Europe (I forget which one) and he was watching the penguins. The enclosure had various levels and one penquin was throwing stones at a fellow penguin down below. It would throw a stone and then hide behind the ledge and the penguin it was taunting would look up to try to find out what was going on.
- mmooss 2y ago
  How do penguins throw?
  - defrost 2y ago
    The deeper darker question is what will they do to get a stone to throw: https://www.penguinworld.com/features/prostitution.html https://www.penguinworld.com/features/prostitution.html

i can guarantee you horses can and do annoy people for fun

Anectodally elephants do things like hiding and revaling objects for no apparent reason other than comical effect. One could build elaborate evolutionary fitness reasons for this, but I mean...

deadbabe 2y ago
Elephants that make other elephants laugh get laid more often.

HPsquared 2y ago

Of course, animals are conscious and enjoy things and feel pain too. Just less intelligent and with less language ability than humans. Chimps and dogs certainly understand humour. I wouldn't be surprised if elephants do too, being social creatures.

thanksgiving 2y ago
I think it is also important to note here that apparently not all humans understand humor either or understand it differently or something.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Humour often involves saying something that isn't true (why don't ants catch colds? Because of they have anty bodies - great joke but not true on a number of levels). A surprising number of humans don't have the mental cycles available to consider counterfactuals, hypotheticals or entertain ideas that aren't directly rooted in reality. I suspect that means they can't process humour and they just laugh if the crowd is. It goes beyond humour, you can see it in a lot of scenarios and it ruins politics. There are people who appear literally unable to consider hypothetical scenarios. Not in a nasty way, they're sometimes wonderful people to have on hand. They simply only deal in reality as they see it. You can walk them slowly through a "and what if ... happens?" and they can't do it.
  - berkes 2y ago
    (Human) Humor is a far broader spectrum than you describe here too. It can range from "ROFTL because someone accidentally stepped in poop" to deeply layered liguistic jokes like you describe.
    - leftbit 2y ago
      One aspect of humor depends on cognitive flexibility. Puns work that way. So if you're not able to make the right mental context switch at the right moment, you won't get the joke.
      - berkes 2y ago
        > One aspect of humor depends on cognitive flexibility All humor? (Honest question) I was under the presumption that e.g. slapstick or schadenfreude humor doesn't need linguistics, and is therefore seen in many animals. Animals that don't have any form of language but do have rather intricate social systems or even ranks and caste systems. but do have humor. E.g. where breaking or pushing those systems is the humor. E.g. "boss gorilla slips on a banana peel haha".
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    I once dated someone who couldn't consider hypotheticals or how they could be used as a reasoning tool. Disagreements were the most frustrating thing ever because I couldn't play devils advocate or steelman. She thought I was agreeing with her intermittently to make her mad. She had no concept of walking in someone else's shoes or arguing a position you don't actually hold. It blew my mind.
    - hackable_sand 2y ago
      So you were playing games with her instead of developing a solution together? Yeah. I don't blame her for getting mad.
      - 2y ago
- socksy 2y ago
  Just because you don’t understand the Germans’ humour doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist ;)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
leftbit 2y ago
It's difficult to reason about intelligence in this context. Human intelligence is defined by behavior we humans value. Intelligence tests are geared to measuring these aspects. Intelligence tests devised by animals would look totally different - and it's quite thinkable humans wouldn't do too well taking them. Wouldn't assume that animals have less language ability than we humans, unless we totally figured out what other species are really talking about. Unless we do this is just an assumption.

Etheryte 2y ago

Humans are fundamentally not that different from other animals really. Any emotion you have, they have. It's a Victorian era misconception that humans are somehow a unique species with all these wonderful properties and animals are dumb.

gwd 2y ago
> Victorian era misnomer Isn't this exactly the opposite? Read Aristotle or Aquinas and they have all kinds of definitions about why humans are fundamentally different in nature than animals; and Darwin, whose work made it much more palpable to believe that humans were just another kind of animal, did his work smack in the middle of the Victorian era.
- Etheryte 2y ago
  I think that largely depends on how you look at it. As with any topic, Greek philosophers had widely different opinions across schools of thought and generations. Many highlighted rational thinking as the line between humans and animals, while still thinking animals intelligent and emotional. I do agree with your point on Darwin, but why that point works is exactly because his work contrasted with the rest of his peers. His work was also far from being widely accepted at first, and was met with heavy skepticism on many, if not most fronts. It was only later that this became a widely accepted part of science.
  - gwd 2y ago
    OK, I think I see what you meant: Not that the "misnomer" arose in the Victorian era, but that the Victorian era was the last era in which you would expect to encounter this "misnomer". As a counterpoint, I recommend reading Everlasting Man, by G. K. Chesterton. If humans are just animals, they're the most bizarre animal we've ever seen.
randomcarbloke 2y ago
a misnomer is a failure in naming ie peanuts, koala bear, etc. I think you mean misconception.

autoexec 2y ago

Animals have to get their enjoyment where they can. It's always fun to watch them play. You can start to think that animals are always optimizing the time they spend being active and are carefully preserving their energy in order to survive, but then you see some birds going sledding (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn0OjCneVUg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn0OjCneVUg) and it's clear that they're just in it for the fun.

Jarmsy 2y ago
This summer I spent an hour watching a pair of magpies harass a fox. The fox was trying to sunbathe, but the magpies kept dive-bombing it, pecking its tail, and landing in front of it then flying away just as the fox went for them, all while making a chattering sound that seemed a lot like laughter. I've heard theories that they do this as revenge for stolen eggs, or to chase foxes away from their nests, but this was in an open patch of ground far from where they nest and it really looked to me that they were just teasing it for fun.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  They may know that particular fox. Crows can identify singular persons, hold grudge against them and disseminate the information around to make sure that particular person has a hard time [0]. Magpies are also very smart birds, aggressively protecting their nests and offspring from cats and other threats. So they may have identified that fox somewhere else. Also, IIRC, magpies and crows are somewhat related. [0]: https://urban.uw.edu/news/crows-hold-grudges-against-individual-humans-for-up-to-17-years/ https://urban.uw.edu/news/crows-hold-grudges-against-individ...
  - vidarh 2y ago
    > Also, IIRC, magpies and crows are somewhat related. They are both corvids (members of the family Corvidae) along with ravens, rooks, jackdaws, jays and others. Most corvids are fairly smart.
- rolandog 2y ago

puzzledobserver 2y ago

There's an interesting article by David Graeber on how we characterize play and fun among animals: https://davidgraeber.org/articles/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-have-fun/ https://davidgraeber.org/articles/whats-the-point-if-we-cant.... I can't say that I've understood it all, but he appears to criticize scientists for not thinking about play seriously, and instead reducing most aspects of animal behavior to things like survival, fitness, and evolutionary pressure.

gpderetta 2y ago
> fun [...] survival, fitness, and evolutionary pressure. This has to be both right? Animals (and humans) evolved play because it has evolutionary benefits, but the immediate reward for play must be fun.
- pineaux 2y ago
  Or it could be an unintended consequence...
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  > Animals (and humans) evolved play because it has evolutionary benefits I know the turn of phrase is popular even amongst biologists but I still think it’s weird to put it this way. Evolution is a dynamic feedback loop on a multi-generational time scale. Plenty of neutral things can be transmitted for a long time without being culled out by evolutionary pressure and social behaviour can remain for a long time without being genetic at all.
  - b112 2y ago
    Play has a purpose, it hones reflexes, teaches youth about concealment, traps, ambushes, what their bodies can do, whether running away works in a scenario or fighting is better. It also shows who is best to lead a fight. Play much like curiosity, makes you able to navigate your environment. It very much has extreme usefulness.
    - 2y ago

polytely 2y ago

there is this study that shows bumblebees exhibit behaviour that looks a lot like what we would call playing, seems to serve no purpose except being enjoyable. My sorta crank belief is that we are massively underestimating the intelligence and consciousness of animals (and possibly even plants?) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347222002366 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000334722...

FeepingCreature 2y ago
Plants do not have consciousness. Reacting to stimuli does not require conscious processing. Like, I'm all for "we're underestimating animal brains" but they do have to have brains.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  Why do they have to have brains? Is it impossible that another structure could serve a similar purpose? Like, how long did it take us to figure out what brains are for?
  - FeepingCreature 2y ago
    They don't need to have "brains" in the sense that humans do, ie. discrete neurons and axons, but they do need to have "neural networks" - networks of nonlinear operators with a training mechanism. I'm aware of zero evidence that trees perform computation on a larger-than-single-cell basis.
    - slavik81 2y ago
      You cannot direct growth at the scale of a single cell. There are many computations (based on hormonal gradients and other mechanisms) that occur at the scale of larger structures, such as leaves or branches. Of course, those mechanicisms are not going to create consciousness.
      - 2y ago

forinti 2y ago

So my brother was in a zoo somewhere in Europe (I forget which one) and he was watching the penguins. The enclosure had various levels and one penquin was throwing stones at a fellow penguin down below. It would throw a stone and then hide behind the ledge and the penguin it was taunting would look up to try to find out what was going on.

mmooss 2y ago
How do penguins throw?
- defrost 2y ago
  The deeper darker question is what will they do to get a stone to throw: https://www.penguinworld.com/features/prostitution.html https://www.penguinworld.com/features/prostitution.html