3 ms·

> or communicate with each other in a manner more complex than what we hear as a bark or a chirp. If you're suggesting the supernatural, that's just silly. If

by req2 17y ago

> or communicate with each other in a manner more complex than what we hear as a bark or a chirp. If you're suggesting the supernatural, that's just silly. If you're suggesting linguists have been missing the bit between the formants all this time, I'm pretty sure the literature stands in opposibtion. > How do we know they aren't communicating concepts as complicated as "Be careful there is a human approaching and it looks dangerous." with one syllable? Because we already understand the difference between various and sundry monkey calls. In one group, one shriek means a particular ground based predator, and a doubled shriek means a particular air/tree based predator. There's no (physical) room for the nuance you seek to impute. > If you look at trends in human communication, across all languages, then you'll find syllable reduction increases as the word frequency increases. And yet, all those other words stick around, and we don't fall into monosyllabic speech. And yet, from monosyllabic "speech" of animals, you jump into advanced consciousness. It's not the case that we don't understand animal communication. Very simple hypotheses explain a great deal of animal communication. Compare this to quantum physics, some bit of it that we don't yet understand, and see where the difference is found. > I don't know any animal, other than humans, that will kill another animal just for the sheer pleasure of it. How do you measure animal pleasure? Have you studied the motivations for chimps killing other chimps? Have you examined why bulldogs attack children, or perhaps, why dingos eat babies? Aside from the fact that you stacked the question to favor your presupposed answer, the "I don't know" defense doesn't hold when you don't seem to have done any research. (Ever watch a cat play with a mouse? Seems pretty fun. This is not an argument for an advanced cat consciousness.)

pj 17y ago
I'm not suggesting "supernatural" but rather, "superobservational." For example, due to our use of human range sound recordings, we had studied elephants for a very long time before understanding that they use low frequency communication through the ground over distances of many miles. With those monkey calls, how do you know that an increasing freqency through the life of the monkey call doesn't mean something different from a decreasing freqency? Perhaps the length of the call indicates the size of the predator? The trend I have noticed is that as we study them more and more, some of the ideas we thought in the past incorrectly assumed that communications between animals is less complex than recent ideas. The impression of the complexity of nonhuman communication and, according to the linked article spawning this debate, even moral decision making, is increasing over time. How do you measure human pleasure? A smile? A wink? A laugh. These same outward expressions of emotions are found in other species as well.
- req2 17y ago
  > With those monkey calls, how do you know that an increasing freqency through the life of the monkey call doesn't mean something different from a decreasing freqency? Perhaps the length of the call indicates the size of the predator? Perhaps the bit where they react the same to calls that differ in the ways you are trying to suggest. There is no reason to impute a greater meaning when the more parsimonious explanation fits the observations. > How do you measure human pleasure? A smile? A wink? A laugh. These same outward expressions of emotions are found in other species as well. What I'm afraid of is that you don't think this is a facetious answer. (As a hint, in case you are trying to be serious: http://www.ehow.com/how_2070118_fake-laughter.html http://www.ehow.com/how_2070118_fake-laughter.html and additionally a note that happiness data is generally gained by self-report questions.)
  - pj 17y ago
    Self-reporting is notoriously bad. Also, through my studies of autism, I am keenly aware of the problems of associating physical gestures with internal emotions. If it weren't possible, there'd be no actors. But no, it wasn't facetious. All humans use these cues to gauge the emotions of others. Sometimes, yes, the measurements are inaccurate. Humans lie, but so do other animals. To your first point, the reason to suggest that there may be more information contained in the monkey calls is because as a trend over time, as observe more, we are finding that the communication between animals, does in fact, contain more information than we believed in the past. Are you denying this trend? For example, in the past, our understanding of chimpanzee communication didn't lead us to believe that they could conspire with others and plot against other chimpanizees, but since then, we have observed that groups of chimps would lie to a target chimp, then isolate that chimp, then murder that chimp. I suspect it takes quite a bit of complex communication skills to pull off pre-meditated murder of a fellow clansman.
    - anigbrowl 17y ago
      Your chimpanzee murder examlpe seems at variance3 with your first comment above: I don't know any animal, other than humans, that will kill another animal just for the sheer pleasure of it. That seems quite morally corrupt. Animals kill other animals for what appear to be rationalizable reasons, food, competition, self-preservation. Obviously this is only a casual conversation, but you argue that unknowns in animal communication may obscure a greater moral sensibility (than that of humans), then provide an example of apparent immorality, which seems to refute your original contention. You make interesting points throughout, but they don't seem very coherent. Can you back up and clarify your thesis a little?

by req2 17y ago

pj 17y ago

I'm not suggesting "supernatural" but rather, "superobservational." For example, due to our use of human range sound recordings, we had studied elephants for a very long time before understanding that they use low frequency communication through the ground over distances of many miles. With those monkey calls, how do you know that an increasing freqency through the life of the monkey call doesn't mean something different from a decreasing freqency? Perhaps the length of the call indicates the size of the predator? The trend I have noticed is that as we study them more and more, some of the ideas we thought in the past incorrectly assumed that communications between animals is less complex than recent ideas. The impression of the complexity of nonhuman communication and, according to the linked article spawning this debate, even moral decision making, is increasing over time. How do you measure human pleasure? A smile? A wink? A laugh. These same outward expressions of emotions are found in other species as well.

req2 17y ago
> With those monkey calls, how do you know that an increasing freqency through the life of the monkey call doesn't mean something different from a decreasing freqency? Perhaps the length of the call indicates the size of the predator? Perhaps the bit where they react the same to calls that differ in the ways you are trying to suggest. There is no reason to impute a greater meaning when the more parsimonious explanation fits the observations. > How do you measure human pleasure? A smile? A wink? A laugh. These same outward expressions of emotions are found in other species as well. What I'm afraid of is that you don't think this is a facetious answer. (As a hint, in case you are trying to be serious: http://www.ehow.com/how_2070118_fake-laughter.html http://www.ehow.com/how_2070118_fake-laughter.html and additionally a note that happiness data is generally gained by self-report questions.)
- pj 17y ago
  Self-reporting is notoriously bad. Also, through my studies of autism, I am keenly aware of the problems of associating physical gestures with internal emotions. If it weren't possible, there'd be no actors. But no, it wasn't facetious. All humans use these cues to gauge the emotions of others. Sometimes, yes, the measurements are inaccurate. Humans lie, but so do other animals. To your first point, the reason to suggest that there may be more information contained in the monkey calls is because as a trend over time, as observe more, we are finding that the communication between animals, does in fact, contain more information than we believed in the past. Are you denying this trend? For example, in the past, our understanding of chimpanzee communication didn't lead us to believe that they could conspire with others and plot against other chimpanizees, but since then, we have observed that groups of chimps would lie to a target chimp, then isolate that chimp, then murder that chimp. I suspect it takes quite a bit of complex communication skills to pull off pre-meditated murder of a fellow clansman.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    Your chimpanzee murder examlpe seems at variance3 with your first comment above: I don't know any animal, other than humans, that will kill another animal just for the sheer pleasure of it. That seems quite morally corrupt. Animals kill other animals for what appear to be rationalizable reasons, food, competition, self-preservation. Obviously this is only a casual conversation, but you argue that unknowns in animal communication may obscure a greater moral sensibility (than that of humans), then provide an example of apparent immorality, which seems to refute your original contention. You make interesting points throughout, but they don't seem very coherent. Can you back up and clarify your thesis a little?