Seriously thoughtful What is it that makes us human?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by tirsales

How would it possible to do this without prior analysis of the situation?
Crow A: Has some food and wants to hide it
Crow B: watching A

IF A sees B watching her - she will either hide the food, then chase B away, then rehide the food. Or she will hide something else (speculating that B tries to get to this deposit) and then (when B is away) hide the food.

If A does not see B watching her - she will hide the food directly.

This is interpreted as A speculating about the knowledge of B - and the impact her action has on B prior to doing so.

I have to read the article of the experiment you are referring to to answer this in a good way. But from your description it seems that learned behavior would explain the observation.

[GeoffC]

what makes us human -

the ability to pose the question on MR ....

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by tompe

I have to read the article of the experiment you are referring to to answer this in a good way. But from your description it seems that learned behavior would explain the observation.

I have not found the article in question - need to ask my sis about it - but it was not learned "automatic" behaviour. The crow reacted to the (known) presence or absence of other crows. The original paper used this example to tell that crows could (to a certain degree) form abstract knowledge or think "from the position of another crow".
Apart from that it was only meant as a reaction to

Only a human could take in a situation, come up with a reaction, and then analyze that reaction before acting on it. Everything else can only analyze (if they analyze at all) the incoming stimulus that results from their reaction, whether good or bad.

And this crow is thinking about a situation prior to doing something - whether this is learned behaviour (which btw would speak volumes PRO crow intelligence) or not is not important (for this part).
In fact, it would be even more astounding if the crow was able to learn a behaviour as complex as this without specific training for it.

[Daithi]

The Singularity Is Near (2005) by Raymond Kurzweil asks a similar question. The book itself describes a future technological world where man and machine are indistinguishable (and far more advanced), but Kurzweil's position is that we would still be human. His arguement is that humankind is more than just flesh and bone and DNA.

Some people may disagree. They may maintain that a machine can never be human. Well then what about someone with an artificial heart? What about the returning soldier that comes back with artificial legs? Or someone living in an iron lung? What percentage of being a machine is exceptable? Is it the human brain that makes a human?

Kurzweil believes that it isn't even the human brain that makes us human. He argues that through advancements in biotechnology (or through nanotechnology and artificial intelligence) that humankind will evolve and become far more intelligent than today's human. He maintains that today's humankind contemplating tomorrows humankind is like an earthworm contemplating opera. Nevertheless, we would still be human -- just evolved.

I don't have an answer for what makes us human, and I don't think Kurzweil does either, but I do believe it is more than just a taxonomy (or biological classification) and DNA. I may not be able to put the details into words, but I believe being human is more about a shared culture, a belief system, and a group dynamic that sets us apart from every other living creature.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by tirsales

And this crow is thinking about a situation prior to doing something - whether this is learned behaviour (which btw would speak volumes PRO crow intelligence) or not is not important (for this part).
In fact, it would be even more astounding if the crow was able to learn a behaviour as complex as this without specific training for it.

The thing I did not believe was "analyze the reaction" because this seems to require a model of time and ability to extrapolate into the future and having preferences about the future.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by tompe

The thing I did not believe was "analyze the reaction" because this seems to require a model of time and ability to extrapolate into the future and having preferences about the future.

Actually many animals have at least some ability to extrapolate into the future - e.g. take a leash from its place and your dog will happily jump to attention, awaiting to get out. Another thing: Dogs doing something they know they are not allowed to do (e.g. eating out of the fridge). Many dogs will betray themselves by acting shameful and apologizing.
Granted - its a simple model, but its a model.
There is evidence suggesting that animals can analyze reactions and build models of the future - not only for some seconds, but over the course of hours or days (e.g. animals building food deposits, crows gathering tools that came useful, etc).
Most "animals can do xy stuff"-models are far too simple to really grasp what an animal can or cannot do - they are not humans, but some of them can do quite complex stuff.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by tompe

The highest probability is that the one with correct reasoning and the best evidence is correct. Just because somebody express an opinion does not mean that it is an opinion worth listening to.

From my point of view asserting the existing of a soul is most often example of bad philosophy so theologians should not be trusted in this question.

Opinion?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by tirsales

There is evidence suggesting that animals can analyze reactions and build models of the future - not only for some seconds, but over the course of hours or days (e.g. animals building food deposits, crows gathering tools that came useful, etc).
Most "animals can do xy stuff"-models are far too simple to really grasp what an animal can or cannot do - they are not humans, but some of them can do quite complex stuff.

Well I have read a bit about this question and if you look carefully at most examples given you see that there are alternative explanations that is as good or better than the explanation that the animal have a mental model of the world including the concept of time.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well I have read a bit about this question and if you look carefully at most examples given you see that there are alternative explanations that is as good or better than the explanation that the animal have a mental model of the world including the concept of time.

An in many cases we either dont know or there are facts that hint into one of both directions. I agree that we dont have any evidence regarding mental capacities of animals - but nor do we have any for human (at least not if you state that "pure reactions" on input is not a mental capacity). We dont even know whether there is something called "free will" (not that there is any significance to this question - whether you "have to" decide in the way that you do - and only believe that you decided freely - or you really decide freely changes not a single outcome).

[tompe]

Originally Posted by tirsales

but nor do we have any for human (at least not if you state that "pure reactions" on input is not a mental capacity).

I think I disagree. Self reporting using language and observing what people say and how they behave seems to me to give real and good evidence that we have mental models that include a concept of time and that we have the concept of preference.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by tompe

I think I disagree. Self reporting using language and observing what people say and how they behave seems to me to give real and good evidence that we have mental models that include a concept of time and that we have the concept of preference.

It does not - because there is no evidence (nor can there be one) that we can actually decide what we are doing - perhaps we simply believe that we can but are really only steered by our body? There is no way of knowing this.
What I mean with this: We dont know many things - among those how *we* are working or thinking, much less the cognitive features of animals. So I think we should stop trying to differentiate ourselves from animals via those cognitive features.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by tirsales

It does not - because there is no evidence (nor can there be one) that we can actually decide what we are doing - perhaps we simply believe that we can but are really only steered by our body?

I have not assumed that as a requirement. So I do not get your point. The brain and it states are part if the body. I just said something about the mental models we seem to have. Of course there are alternative explanations to behavior but you have to evaluate the evidence and see what theory is for now reasonable to hold for true (if any).

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by tompe

I have not assumed that as a requirement. So I do not get your point. The brain and it states are part if the body. I just said something about the mental models we seem to have. Of course there are alternative explanations to behavior but you have to evaluate the evidence and see what theory is for now reasonable to hold for true (if any).

There are points that hint towards "we have no real way of deciding" and points that hint towards "we can decide" - actually more points for the first one. In the end those two models are identical and we will never know - still it tells something about "reflecting prior to acting", because if we cannot decide what we are doing, then we cannot reflect prior to acting. Of course it is an irrelevant point - we will not know this, thus it is unimportant - and it does not differ us (in any way) from animals. NTL we simply dont know enough to really tell how decisicions or cognition works - neither for human nor for animals - and we most assuredly cannot decide what mental capacities an animal has. As I said - some are surprisingly intelligent (e.g. recognition of oneself in mirrors (basic abstraction), some sense of time, ability to reflect about the knowledge of others, ability to react to the beat in music, etc) and we still haven't found the limits. Thus stating "animals have no sense of time and cannot reflect prior to acting" is simplifying.

Then you said that crows reacting to others can simply be a learned reaction - of course it is. Nearly all behaviour (including reflection, human behaviour and mental processes) is a learned behaviour. This does not change the needed mental capacities in any way, nor does it negate a possible ability to reflect about abstracts (knowledge of others) or time.
And animals sure have some kinds of languages and react to the statements of others. Whether they are self reporting or not? We dont know.

--edit: I do not want to state that animals have the same mental capacities as human - because I cannot state such a thing because we simply dont know. Current research hints that some animals have (at least) the mental capacities of small children - they only lack hands.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by tirsales

As I said - some are surprisingly intelligent (e.g. recognition of oneself in mirrors (basic abstraction), some sense of time, ability to reflect about the knowledge of others, ability to react to the beat in music, etc) and we still haven't found the limits.

I really do not believe the evidence shows this. Of course it might be true but there is not enough evidence for holding this as true. How do you test that "oneself" is recognized?

Just one experiment that seems to show something is not enough. Remember all the experiment that seemed to show that an ape had a language with abstract concepts.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by tompe

I really do not believe the evidence shows this. Of course it might be true but there is not enough evidence for holding this as true. How do you test that "oneself" is recognized?

Google it - there are a couple of widely accepted tests (e.g. placing a dot on an animal and presenting it with a mirror. Most animals will react as they would to a different animal, but they will not react to the dot. Some kinds of animals recognize themselves and "search for the dot" or try to move around to get a better look at it.)

Just one experiment that seems to show something is not enough. Remember all the experiment that seemed to show that an ape had a language with abstract concepts.

I stated one experiment, I never said there was only one. I am currently too lazy and too occupied to really search for every experiment done to show this and I dont think anybody would value the amount of papers they would have to read. Apart from that I believe that you would never agree with me - no matter what kind of experiments I showed you.
You might start considering that animals are more complex then one believes - or start pulling evidence showing the opposite. You stated that animals had no sense of time and could not reflect about something prior to doing it - well: Where is your experiment? And remember: Just one experiment that shows "yes, at least one animal is able to do this" is neglecting your theory. (Yes, I will research the experiment I quoted. Yes, I will add an experiment that shows that some Corvidae can build tools out of wire w/o prior knowledge or training. Then it's your turn.)
(Oh and apart from that I do not state that animals have human intelligence or superpowers or whatever else - I simply stated that they are (sometimes far) more intelligent then many people believe and that we simply dont have enough evidence to really state "they cannot do this or cannot do that").