5 ms·

A lot of people refuse to believe that animals (or birds) can show any kind of advanced thinking. "Oh, the crow was probably carrying something in its beak; it

A lot of people refuse to believe that animals (or birds) can show any kind of advanced thinking. "Oh, the crow was probably carrying something in its beak; it saw the peanut, and dropped the thing in its beak" is their explanation. I'm sorry, but animals are far more perceptive than they're given credit for. Also, how do you explain this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5NuBk5_Izc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5NuBk5_Izc

Varcht 12y ago
I blame this on the "DreamWorks Effect", animators have done such a good job giving animals human traits and emotions that millinials+ really can't help but be animists.
- tbrake 12y ago
  I used to have a similar theory but personification of animals has been a part of human storytelling since the beginning of time. I'm just unsure if modern CGI is any more compelling in forming lasting notions of animism than, say, Bambi was.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Seems like a reversal of cause and effect. We don't see human traits in animals because our stories have them, our stories have them because we often see human traits in animals.
  - Varcht 12y ago
    Even with all the down votes I wouldn't write it off. These generations spent huge amounts of time watching real looking animals behave as humans while their brains were still developing.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    By the way, I think that you and Varcht may be misusing the term 'animism' here. Belief systems like Shinto are animist, where you think things like rivers and trees and rocks and the different winds are conscious and have souls.
  - notahacker 12y ago
    Indeed at the beginning of the 20th century animals with human characteristics were attracting so much literary criticism even Theodore Roosevelt felt tempted to join the debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_fakers_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_fakers_controversy
- nsxwolf 12y ago
  Confused... you're saying that the crow in the video is not playing with the object? What other interpretation is there? It's not an instinctual nest building activity to go sledding on a foreign object, is it? I'm a Gen-Xer, and I think that crow is sledding for fun.
  - trendroid 12y ago
    If you look closely its trying to pick at something that it finds curious. Sledding could possibly be an accidental outcome of it being sitting on a thin edge, not the original purpose.
    - filoeleven 12y ago
      It could have been an accidental outcome the first time. But when the crow then picks up the disc and flies back up to the peak, fails to get any distance on an area with no snow, flies over to a snowy section, and sleds again...
      - trendroid 12y ago
        Are you saying it figured out there was less friction with snow in matter of few seconds? All the while it's mind was occupied by something it had in its claws? It could be a genius crow(there has to be variation in intelligence amongst crows too), we will never know. I thought it got irritated with that thin edge quite quickly(being not able to stand comfortably) and hence flew away to look for a thicker one.
        filoeleven 12y ago
        No, I think it's unlikely that the person filming caught the crow the first time it began to sled, and what we see in the video is a crow enjoying playing with physics the same way that we do. By "the first time" I meant "the first time the crow slid on something it was standing on, regardless of when that was", although I wasn't very clear about it.
      - deleted 12y ago
- discardorama 12y ago
  Conversely, I think Christians (for one) do not like the idea of animals having "human traits", because it goes against their core mythology, which says that God created man in His image. If animals also started showing human traits, then Man isn't so special anymore, is he? Edited: I'm being downvoted, but this was the exact reasoning given to me by a rather devout Christian; and it seemed to make sense. I'm agnostic, btw.
  - amalag 12y ago
    Yes it is true. They have a particular concept of a "soul". The ancient dharmic traditions (Hindu thought) always said being alive means having a soul. Advanced features such as intelligence are just part of the advanced body, not a litmus test of a soul's presence. The only litmus test is the symptoms of life.
  - gaius 12y ago
    Counter-argument: The popularity of the Narnia books.
    - adamnemecek 12y ago
      That's not a counter argument
      - pyre 12y ago
        I'm guessing that the parent was referring to a story about talking animals with heavy Christian undertones.
      - gaius 12y ago
        Of course it is. It is evidence that many if not most Christians are perfectly happy with the notion of animals with souls, free will etc.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Conversely, I think Christians (for one) do not like the idea of animals having "human traits", because it goes against their core mythology Lots of Christians, including fairly devout ones, have no problems with recognizing human traits in animals; sometimes, this is in part because of a core theology that distinguishes between traits in the material universe and spiritual essences (cf., Catholic doctrines related to transubstantiation.) > I'm being downvoted, but this was the exact reasoning given to me by a rather devout Christian Christians are a rather diverse group, even when it comes to religious beliefs. The explanation given by a rather devout Christian on just about any issue is not particularly likely to be valid as a generalization of Christian belief.
- quadrangle 12y ago
  bullshit. Perhaps you don't understand that crows use tools. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtmLVP0HvDg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtmLVP0HvDg and that they also are social and communicate with each other. They do give gifts to each other as part of courtship. We don't need to anthropomorphize to recognize plain facts about crows being intelligent and intentional and social.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  The idea that humans do not share emotive traits with other animals would seem very unlikely, given what we know of the theory of evolution, observed animal behavior and neurology. Also, you may want to have a look at The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness that was published for the Francis Crick memorial conference at Cambridge University. “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.” http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious... http://fcmconference.org/ http://fcmconference.org/
- aaron695 12y ago
  It is funny that the OP, with a good point, gives an example of exactly why people are stupid and anthropomorphize animals, sure that crow is skiing..... Which is a shame since the opposite is also true, animals can have emotions and intelligence. Just it's doesn't necessarily look the same as humans characteristics. "DreamWorks Effect" millinials+ sorry but I don't think you could be more wrong. Disney has being doing this since the 40/50's. Bambi, Dumbo, Disney nature docos were awful, even David Attenborough who improved the situation vastly is also guilty. It is at least the post WW2 generation.
  - aaron695 12y ago
    [edit] Science -http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/2012/01/16/snowboarding-crows-the-plot-thickens/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/2012/0...
okasaki 12y ago
>He thought, he judged, as animals can be seen to do, if observed without prejudice. I must say here, since it has to be said somewhere about Hugo, that I think the series of comments automatically evoked by this kind of statement, the ticker-tape remarks to do with anthropomorphism’ are beside the point. Our emotional life is shared with the animals; we flatter ourselves that human emotions are so much more complicated than theirs. Perhaps the only emotion not known to a cat or a dog is -romantic love. And even then, we have to wonder. What is the emotional devotion of a dog for his master or mistress but something like that sort of love, all pining and yearning and ‘give me, give me’. What was Hugo’s love for Emily but that? As for our thoughts, our intellectual apparatus, our rationalisms and our logics and our deductions and so on, it can be said with absolute certainty that dogs and cats and monkeys cannot make a rocket to fly to the moon or weave artificial dress materials out of the by-products of petroleum, but as we sit in the ruins of this variety of intelligence, it is hard to give it much value: I suppose we are undervaluing it now as we over-valued it then. It will have to find its place: I believe a pretty low place, at that. - Doris Lessing

Varcht 12y ago

I blame this on the "DreamWorks Effect", animators have done such a good job giving animals human traits and emotions that millinials+ really can't help but be animists.

tbrake 12y ago
I used to have a similar theory but personification of animals has been a part of human storytelling since the beginning of time. I'm just unsure if modern CGI is any more compelling in forming lasting notions of animism than, say, Bambi was.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Seems like a reversal of cause and effect. We don't see human traits in animals because our stories have them, our stories have them because we often see human traits in animals.
- Varcht 12y ago
  Even with all the down votes I wouldn't write it off. These generations spent huge amounts of time watching real looking animals behave as humans while their brains were still developing.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  By the way, I think that you and Varcht may be misusing the term 'animism' here. Belief systems like Shinto are animist, where you think things like rivers and trees and rocks and the different winds are conscious and have souls.
- notahacker 12y ago
  Indeed at the beginning of the 20th century animals with human characteristics were attracting so much literary criticism even Theodore Roosevelt felt tempted to join the debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_fakers_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_fakers_controversy
nsxwolf 12y ago
Confused... you're saying that the crow in the video is not playing with the object? What other interpretation is there? It's not an instinctual nest building activity to go sledding on a foreign object, is it? I'm a Gen-Xer, and I think that crow is sledding for fun.
- trendroid 12y ago
  If you look closely its trying to pick at something that it finds curious. Sledding could possibly be an accidental outcome of it being sitting on a thin edge, not the original purpose.
  - filoeleven 12y ago
    It could have been an accidental outcome the first time. But when the crow then picks up the disc and flies back up to the peak, fails to get any distance on an area with no snow, flies over to a snowy section, and sleds again...
    - trendroid 12y ago
      Are you saying it figured out there was less friction with snow in matter of few seconds? All the while it's mind was occupied by something it had in its claws? It could be a genius crow(there has to be variation in intelligence amongst crows too), we will never know. I thought it got irritated with that thin edge quite quickly(being not able to stand comfortably) and hence flew away to look for a thicker one.
      - filoeleven 12y ago
        No, I think it's unlikely that the person filming caught the crow the first time it began to sled, and what we see in the video is a crow enjoying playing with physics the same way that we do. By "the first time" I meant "the first time the crow slid on something it was standing on, regardless of when that was", although I wasn't very clear about it.
    - deleted 12y ago
discardorama 12y ago
Conversely, I think Christians (for one) do not like the idea of animals having "human traits", because it goes against their core mythology, which says that God created man in His image. If animals also started showing human traits, then Man isn't so special anymore, is he? Edited: I'm being downvoted, but this was the exact reasoning given to me by a rather devout Christian; and it seemed to make sense. I'm agnostic, btw.
- amalag 12y ago
  Yes it is true. They have a particular concept of a "soul". The ancient dharmic traditions (Hindu thought) always said being alive means having a soul. Advanced features such as intelligence are just part of the advanced body, not a litmus test of a soul's presence. The only litmus test is the symptoms of life.
- gaius 12y ago
  Counter-argument: The popularity of the Narnia books.
  - adamnemecek 12y ago
    That's not a counter argument
    - pyre 12y ago
      I'm guessing that the parent was referring to a story about talking animals with heavy Christian undertones.
    - gaius 12y ago
      Of course it is. It is evidence that many if not most Christians are perfectly happy with the notion of animals with souls, free will etc.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Conversely, I think Christians (for one) do not like the idea of animals having "human traits", because it goes against their core mythology Lots of Christians, including fairly devout ones, have no problems with recognizing human traits in animals; sometimes, this is in part because of a core theology that distinguishes between traits in the material universe and spiritual essences (cf., Catholic doctrines related to transubstantiation.) > I'm being downvoted, but this was the exact reasoning given to me by a rather devout Christian Christians are a rather diverse group, even when it comes to religious beliefs. The explanation given by a rather devout Christian on just about any issue is not particularly likely to be valid as a generalization of Christian belief.
quadrangle 12y ago
bullshit. Perhaps you don't understand that crows use tools. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtmLVP0HvDg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtmLVP0HvDg and that they also are social and communicate with each other. They do give gifts to each other as part of courtship. We don't need to anthropomorphize to recognize plain facts about crows being intelligent and intentional and social.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
The idea that humans do not share emotive traits with other animals would seem very unlikely, given what we know of the theory of evolution, observed animal behavior and neurology. Also, you may want to have a look at The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness that was published for the Francis Crick memorial conference at Cambridge University. “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.” http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious... http://fcmconference.org/ http://fcmconference.org/
aaron695 12y ago
It is funny that the OP, with a good point, gives an example of exactly why people are stupid and anthropomorphize animals, sure that crow is skiing..... Which is a shame since the opposite is also true, animals can have emotions and intelligence. Just it's doesn't necessarily look the same as humans characteristics. "DreamWorks Effect" millinials+ sorry but I don't think you could be more wrong. Disney has being doing this since the 40/50's. Bambi, Dumbo, Disney nature docos were awful, even David Attenborough who improved the situation vastly is also guilty. It is at least the post WW2 generation.
- aaron695 12y ago
  [edit] Science -http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/2012/01/16/snowboarding-crows-the-plot-thickens/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/2012/0...

okasaki 12y ago

>He thought, he judged, as animals can be seen to do, if observed without prejudice. I must say here, since it has to be said somewhere about Hugo, that I think the series of comments automatically evoked by this kind of statement, the ticker-tape remarks to do with anthropomorphism’ are beside the point. Our emotional life is shared with the animals; we flatter ourselves that human emotions are so much more complicated than theirs. Perhaps the only emotion not known to a cat or a dog is -romantic love. And even then, we have to wonder. What is the emotional devotion of a dog for his master or mistress but something like that sort of love, all pining and yearning and ‘give me, give me’. What was Hugo’s love for Emily but that? As for our thoughts, our intellectual apparatus, our rationalisms and our logics and our deductions and so on, it can be said with absolute certainty that dogs and cats and monkeys cannot make a rocket to fly to the moon or weave artificial dress materials out of the by-products of petroleum, but as we sit in the ruins of this variety of intelligence, it is hard to give it much value: I suppose we are undervaluing it now as we over-valued it then. It will have to find its place: I believe a pretty low place, at that. - Doris Lessing