Animal language (Animals)
A fascinating article in today's Sunday Times concerns research on gibbon language. Scientists believe that they and many other animals “use a system that is similar to early human language”. They also think they may be able to “construct a Rosetta Stone of animal communication because some animals not only have sounds for specific things, such as food, but also build these into sentences with rudimentary grammatical rules.”-By observing the behaviour of the animals after their conversations, the researchers are able to work out what must have been said. “They seem to comment on all sorts of events. It's not just warning calls.” The gibbons even sing songs.-The researchers are also working on the languages used by rats, whales, dolphins, bats and songbirds. For those of us who believe that we are descended from earlier organisms, this can hardly be surprising. Communication is essential to survival, but clearly it is also used for matters which humans in their arrogance assume are exclusive to themselves, including love, parental guidance, education, and in the case of the gibbons, even a fair division of the domestic chores! Our language and our range of thought have clearly evolved far beyond theirs, but they have enough for their needs. This is not anthropomorphizing animals. We ARE animals. They got there before us, and we have merely developed what they passed on to us.
Animal language
by Balance_Maintained 
, U.S.A., Sunday, January 11, 2015, 21:12 (3602 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: .. They also think they may be able to “construct a Rosetta Stone of animal communication because some animals not only have sounds for specific things, such as food, but also build these into sentences with rudimentary grammatical rules.” > - > By observing the behaviour of the animals after their conversations, the researchers are able to work out what must have been said. “They seem to comment on all sorts of events. It's not just warning calls.” The gibbons even sing songs. > > For those of us who believe that we are descended from earlier organisms, this can hardly be surprising. Communication is essential to survival, but clearly it is also used for matters which humans in their arrogance assume are exclusive to themselves, including love, parental guidance, education, and in the case of the gibbons, even a fair division of the domestic chores! Our language and our range of thought have clearly evolved far beyond theirs, but they have enough for their needs. This is not anthropomorphizing animals. We ARE animals. They got there before us, and we have merely developed what they passed on to us.-As someone that grew up on a farm, this is all quite obvious. Well, all of it accept that last bit. Information is the cornerstone of existence. Information without communication is meaningless. All living things communicate, and they all do so in manners FAR more complex and complicated than speech. My question is, what does this have to do with common descent? -ALL living things communicate, all the way down to the single cell. Many animals show affection, loyalty, even love. If you've ever seen one animal pine to death over the loss of a loved one their can be no doubt over the extent of their emotional range. If you've ever had a pet that pooped in your shoes because you upset it, you will quickly realize that they are capable of the less desirable emotions too. None of that really emphasizes common descent to me as much as the fact that it is only getting wide spread attention after being announced by scientists emphasizes human arrogance.-Perhaps that is what happens when people get too far removed from nature; they start to believe that other life forms are not as valid, precious, or complex as our own.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Animal language
Dhw: For those of us who believe that we are descended from earlier organisms, this can hardly be surprising. Communication is essential to survival, but clearly it is also used for matters which humans in their arrogance assume are exclusive to themselves, including love, parental guidance, education, and in the case of the gibbons, even a fair division of the domestic chores! Our language and our range of thought have clearly evolved far beyond theirs, but they have enough for their needs. This is not anthropomorphizing animals. We ARE animals. They got there before us, and we have merely developed what they passed on to us.-TONY: As someone that grew up on a farm, this is all quite obvious. Well, all of it accept that last bit. Information is the cornerstone of existence. Information without communication is meaningless. All living things communicate, and they all do so in manners FAR more complex and complicated than speech. My question is, what does this have to do with common descent?-It was a sly dig at David, who believes in common descent, but - as you can see from his comment below - sort of...um...doesn't. -DAVID: You want us to believe our brain and its enormous intellectual capacities are a 'mere development'. Yes, we have animal bodies, but NOT animal brains. Animal communication by sounds or other signals are a tiny beginning for what we have ended up with. So?-Before responding to both of you, let me quote Tony's admirable sentiments, which echo my own:-TONY: ALL living things communicate, all the way down to the single cell. Many animals show affection, loyalty, even love. If you've ever seen one animal pine to death over the loss of a loved one their can be no doubt over the extent of their emotional range. [...] None of that really emphasizes common descent to me as much as the fact that it is only getting wide spread attention after being announced by scientists emphasizes human arrogance. Perhaps that is what happens when people get too far removed from nature; they start to believe that other life forms are not as valid, precious, or complex as our own.-I think our language and range of thought and technology have far exceeded those of our fellow animals, and in that sense I'd qualify the term “complex”, but the crucial point for me is that they set the patterns which we have developed. I see no evidence that our brains are not animal brains and are different in “kind”. We share all the instincts, emotions and needs that underlie the languages of our fellow animals, and the fact that we have extended their scope does not make us any more “special” than they are.-Donning my theist hat, I can accept your point, Tony, that this has nothing to do with common descent. If your God made all the species separately, he would still have used the same patterns. Different process, same result: as I see it, humans are a development, not a new invention.
Animal language
by David Turell , Monday, January 12, 2015, 21:59 (3601 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Donning my theist hat, I can accept your point, Tony, that this has nothing to do with common descent. If your God made all the species separately, he would still have used the same patterns. Different process, same result: as I see it, humans are a development, not a new invention.-I can accept most of your summary involving the use of patterns, but as usual I think our brain is an unusual intervention.
Animal language
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, January 12, 2015, 22:26 (3601 days ago) @ David Turell
> > dhw: Donning my theist hat, I can accept your point, Tony, that this has nothing to do with common descent. If your God made all the species separately, he would still have used the same patterns. Different process, same result: as I see it, humans are a development, not a new invention. > > David: I can accept most of your summary involving the use of patterns, but as usual I think our brain is an unusual intervention.-The difference in our brains is in our ability to create, and in particular to create in abstract. That is the one thing animals do not do. If we are made in God's image, as none of the other animals were, then the ability to create is an apt differentiator coming from someone titled the "Grand Creator".
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Animal language
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 13, 2015, 00:36 (3601 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > > dhw: Donning my theist hat, I can accept your point, Tony, that this has nothing to do with common descent. If your God made all the species separately, he would still have used the same patterns. Different process, same result: as I see it, humans are a development, not a new invention. > > > > David: I can accept most of your summary involving the use of patterns, but as usual I think our brain is an unusual intervention. > > Tony: The difference in our brains is in our ability to create, and in particular to create in abstract. That is the one thing animals do not do. If we are made in God's image, as none of the other animals were, then the ability to create is an apt differentiator coming from someone titled the "Grand Creator".-Right on the money. Great way to put it. Planning for a universe, planning for life requires abstract thought. Different in kind.
Animal language
Tony: The difference in our brains is in our ability to create, and in particular to create in abstract. That is the one thing animals do not do. If we are made in God's image, as none of the other animals were, then the ability to create is an apt differentiator coming from someone titled the "Grand Creator".-DAVID: Right on the money. Great way to put it. Planning for a universe, planning for life requires abstract thought. Different in kind.-I have no quarrel with the argument that our creative abilities and abstract thinking far exceed those of our fellow animals. But the suggestion that only we have the ability to create and think abstractly once again carries human self-aggrandisement to the point of absurdity. You (David) are always on about origins. How do you think the first birds made their nests, the first beavers their dams, the first bees their honeycombs, the first ants their great cities etc. etc.? Did they just happen to put all the elements together without knowing what they were doing? Or do you think God came down and gave them engineering lessons? Over and over again you have offered us articles demonstrating the abstract reasoning powers of animals, birds and even insects. Here's another for you: •	Bees Have Small Brains But Big Ideas - Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bees-have-small-brains-but-big-ideas/-The Sunday Times article mentions the songs sung by gibbons, whales etc. Sometimes such activities are for the sake of attracting a mate (ditto certain modes of display). Do you think the prospective mates have no sense of aesthetics? Once upon a time, people in the West dismissed African art, because it was associated with primitive religions. Same problem: a refusal to acknowledge that there may be other modes of thinking that are abstract and creative in different ways from our own.
Animal language
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, January 13, 2015, 20:44 (3600 days ago) @ dhw
Tony: The difference in our brains is in our ability to create, and in particular to create in abstract. That is the one thing animals do not do. If we are made in God's image, as none of the other animals were, then the ability to create is an apt differentiator coming from someone titled the "Grand Creator". > > DAVID: Right on the money. Great way to put it. Planning for a universe, planning for life requires abstract thought. Different in kind. > >DHW: I have no quarrel with the argument that our creative abilities and abstract thinking far exceed those of our fellow animals. But the suggestion that only we have the ability to create and think abstractly once again carries human self-aggrandisement to the point of absurdity. You (David) are always on about origins. How do you think the first birds made their nests, the first beavers their dams, the first bees their honeycombs, the first ants their great cities etc. etc.? Did they just happen to put all the elements together without knowing what they were doing? Or do you think God came down and gave them engineering lessons? Over and over again you have offered us articles demonstrating the abstract reasoning powers of animals, birds and even insects. -Not a problem for pre-programming. I'm working on code right now that can create seemingly random stuff from a template. At the end of the day though, it will never go beyond what it is programmed to do.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Animal language
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 13, 2015, 21:43 (3600 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DHW: I have no quarrel with the argument that our creative abilities and abstract thinking far exceed those of our fellow animals. But the suggestion that only we have the ability to create and think abstractly once again carries human self-aggrandisement to the point of absurdity. You (David) are always on about origins. How do you think the first birds made their nests,-> > Tony: Not a problem for pre-programming. I'm working on code right now that can create seemingly random stuff from a template. At the end of the day though, it will never go beyond what it is programmed to do.-Instinct could be God's programming, but there is no evidence here, only faith, just as dhw has faith in how much design and planning birds can do with their nests. Why do all weaver bird's intricate nests look so much alike? Set plans for the species. DHW seems to want the weaverbirds to have worked this out bit by bit until they got it right. Where did they keep their eggs until the plans got properly developed? That is a great Darwinian just-so proposal.
Animal language
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 13, 2015, 21:35 (3600 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: But the suggestion that only we have the ability to create and think abstractly once again carries human self-aggrandisement to the point of absurdity. You (David) are always on about origins. How do you think the first birds made their nests, the first beavers their dams, the first bees their honeycombs, the first ants their great cities etc. etc.? Did they just happen to put all the elements together without knowing what they were doing? Or do you think God came down and gave them engineering lessons?-We don't know the origin of insect, bird or other animal planning. The fact that for a given species the nests or hives all look the same, means to me that the plans are solidly placed in the genome. How the plans got there is your question, and I don't know the origin. I can say that it is instinct, but I really don't know how that instinct developed. You want to assume the birds or some other animal did it on their own. You don't know that and neither do I. Did God give them the plans? I have no evidence for that anymore than you have evidence that the birds did it on their own. >dhw: 	Bees Have Small Brains But Big Ideas - Scientific American: -> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bees-have-small-brains-but-big-ideas/-The fact that bees have search scouts who come home and dance the direction to good pollen is well known. I view this study as an extension of that instinctual ability. > > dhw; The Sunday Times article mentions the songs sung by gibbons, whales etc. Sometimes such activities are for the sake of attracting a mate (ditto certain modes of display). Do you think the prospective mates have no sense of aesthetics?-I know the sounds appeal to our aesthetics, but you don't know if that is the level at which the animals respond. I think you anthoropomorphizing about animals, and that is not logical. Animals are not little less-advanced humans. You cannot apply you aesthetic feelings to them, but you do that because you are trying to deny the huge gap.
Animal language
DHW: I have no quarrel with the argument that our creative abilities and abstract thinking far exceed those of our fellow animals. But the suggestion that only we have the ability to create and think abstractly once again carries human self-aggrandisement to the point of absurdity. You (David) are always on about origins. How do you think the first birds made their nests [...] TONY: Not a problem for pre-programming. [...]-DAVID: Instinct could be God's programming, but there is no evidence here, only faith, just as dhw has faith in how much design and planning birds can do with their nests. Why do all weaver bird's intricate nests look so much alike? Set plans for the species. DHW seems to want the weaverbirds to have worked this out bit by bit until they got it right. Where did they keep their eggs until the plans got properly developed? That is a great Darwinian just-so proposal.-I wrote, and you quoted: "How do you think the first birds made their nests?" The first weavers must have had the ability to design them, and “bit by bit” is your invention, not mine. I am against Darwinian gradualism. Once the pattern is established, others follow suit, and that is why I'm focusing on origins. Your alternative is that God, whose purpose you say was to produce human beings, preprogrammed the first living cells to pass on a specific programme for weaver bird nests. As well as the four-generations-and-away-we-go lifestyle of monarch butterflies. As well as umpteen billion other innovations and lifestyles - all contained within and passed on by the first cells, and essential for the creation of humans! That is your faith. My alternative suggestion (not faith - it's just a hypothesis) is that the first cells passed on an autonomous inventive mechanism (possibly God-given) which would - just like the human brain - ultimately lead to billions of innovations, including weaver birds working out for themselves how to build a nest. DAVID: [...] How the plans got there is your question, and I don't know the origin. I can say that it is instinct, but I really don't know how that instinct developed. You want to assume the birds or some other animal did it on their own. You don't know that and neither do I. Did God give them the plans? I have no evidence for that anymore than you have evidence that the birds did it on their own. -This is a welcome step towards a more balanced approach to the question. In the past you have insisted that it was all preprogrammed by your God, the only alternative being divine dabbling. Of course none of us know. That's why we are still looking for explanations. dhw: Bees Have Small Brains But Big Ideas - Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bees-have-small-brains-but-big-ideas/-DAVID: The fact that bees have search scouts who come home and dance the direction to good pollen is well known. I view this study as an extension of that instinctual ability.-That is because you are resolutely opposed to the idea that our fellow creatures are able to think for themselves, although you frequently quote articles which prove they can.-dhw; The Sunday Times article mentions the songs sung by gibbons, whales etc. Sometimes such activities are for the sake of attracting a mate (ditto certain modes of display). Do you think the prospective mates have no sense of aesthetics?-DAVID: I know the sounds appeal to our aesthetics, but you don't know if that is the level at which the animals respond.-You have missed the point. We don't understand their aesthetics, just as once we in the West failed to understand the aesthetics of African art because they differed from ours. In my example, the prospective mate will choose between the songs/displays of the suitors. One will seem to her/him more attractive than the others. That = animal aesthetics. You and I wouldn't have a clue which warble struck the winning note. DAVID: I think you anthoropomorphizing about animals, and that is not logical. Animals are not little less-advanced humans. You cannot apply you aesthetic feelings to them, but you do that because you are trying to deny the huge gap.-You misunderstood the above because you are trying to deny that our fellow creatures can reason, create, think, love, aestheticize, plan etc. etc. You believe that the attribution of human-type feelings and faculties to animals is anthropomorphization because you see this as a threat to your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution. I am not imposing human attributes on our fellow animals; we have inherited those attributes from them. Animals are not less advanced humans. Humans are more advanced animals.
Animal language
by David Turell , Thursday, January 15, 2015, 00:06 (3599 days ago) @ dhw
> I wrote, and you quoted: "How do you think the first birds made their nests?" The first weavers must have had the ability to design them, and “bit by bit” is your invention, not mine. I am against Darwinian gradualism...... My alternative suggestion ...is that the first cells passed on an autonomous inventive mechanism (possibly God-given) which would -...- ultimately lead to billions of innovations, including weaver birds working out for themselves how to build a nest.-But you do believe in gradualism: did the weaverbirds spend time 'working out' the whole nest at first or a little bit at a time?-> > dhw: That is because you are resolutely opposed to the idea that our fellow creatures are able to think for themselves, although you frequently quote articles which prove they can.-Of course they can work out very simple mental issues. You just won't recognize the giant leap to us doesn't fit any orderly form of evolution.-> > dhw: You have missed the point. We don't understand their [bird, animal] aesthetics, .... In my example, the prospective mate will choose between the songs/displays of the suitors. One will seem to her/him more attractive than the others. That = animal aesthetics.-It is you who is using the aesthetic term 'attractive'. We don't know that the response is not an automatic response to a certain note. And you can't claim you know it is 'attraction'. Neither you or I know which is correct.-> > dhw:I am not imposing human attributes on our fellow animals; we have inherited those attributes from them. Animals are not less advanced humans. Humans are more advanced animals.-I accept your point. The attributes started before we evolved. But I view the gap as a difference in kind, and you don't. At no other point in evolution do we see such a gap, except at the Cambrian.
Animal language
dhw: I wrote, and you quoted: "How do you think the first birds made their nests?" The first weavers must have had the ability to design them, and “bit by bit” is your invention, not mine. I am against Darwinian gradualism...... DAVID: But you do believe in gradualism: did the weaverbirds spend time 'working out' the whole nest at first or a little bit at a time?-I was replying to your comment: “DHW seems to want the weaverbirds to have worked this out bit by bit until they got it right. Where did they keep their eggs until the plans got properly developed? That is a great Darwinian just-so proposal.” How gradual is gradual? I wasn't around at the time, so I can't answer your mischievous question. I'm suggesting that they worked it all out for themselves. Maybe each generation improved on the initial design, but they must have designed something - you can't live in a bit of a nest. Were you around to see your God's preprogrammed perfect nests suddenly emerge from nowhere? And why the heck would he preprogramme weavers' nests if his aim was to produce humans? Do you honestly believe we could not have existed without them?-dhw: ...you are resolutely opposed to the idea that our fellow creatures are able to think for themselves, although you frequently quote articles which prove they can. DAVID: Of course they can work out very simple mental issues. You just won't recognize the giant leap to us doesn't fit any orderly form of evolution.-What do you mean by “orderly”? You've posted a thread on Neanderthal tools. Our fellow animals also use tools. Once you have an extra degree of intelligence, each generation builds on the discoveries of its predecessors. Of course there's a gulf between us and our fellow animals - but you're considering humanity as it is now. Our ancestors lived in caves like animals. Now we have skyscrapers. Our ancestors communicated vocally like animals. Now we have books, telephones, the Internet. Our ancestors hunted like animals. Now we have farms, factories, supermarkets...All this because we have an extra degree of intelligence which has enabled our species to develop the resources offered by Nature. As in general evolution, each innovation may have been a giant leap, but the progression from the “primitive” (animal and early human) to the “civilized” (homo sapiens ‘modernus') has been an orderly development as our more advanced intelligence provides each improvement. dhw: .... In my example, the prospective mate will choose between the songs/displays of the suitors. One will seem to her/him more attractive than the others. That = animal aesthetics. DAVID: It is you who is using the aesthetic term 'attractive'. We don't know that the response is not an automatic response to a certain note. And you can't claim you know it is 'attraction'. Neither you or I know which is correct.-You're right: on a certain epistemological level, we know nothing. Maybe all our fellow creatures are clockwork toys carrying out God's instructions. Indeed, we may be the same. And naturalists who have spent their lives studying animal behaviour are deluded. Strangely, I don't share your agnosticism on this subject. I believe that our fellow animals are intelligent, sentient, creative etc., though generally to a much smaller degree than ourselves. dhw: I am not imposing human attributes on our fellow animals; we have inherited those attributes from them. Animals are not less advanced humans. Humans are more advanced animals. DAVID: I accept your point. The attributes started before we evolved. But I view the gap as a difference in kind, and you don't. At no other point in evolution do we see such a gap, except at the Cambrian.-The gap is enormous, but as above I see an “orderly” development from animal to so-called primitive to so-called civilized society/technology/emotion/communication/ education/aesthetics etc. Tony wrote that the surprise expressed by some in relation to the complexities of animal language “emphasizes human arrogance”. He went on: “perhaps that is what happens when people get too far removed from nature; they start to believe that other life forms are not as valid, precious, or complex as our own.” I would add that they start to believe the gap is so great that humans are different in “kind” to the animals from which they have descended.
Animal language
by David Turell , Friday, January 16, 2015, 00:34 (3598 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: And why the heck would he preprogramme weavers' nests if his aim was to produce humans? Do you honestly believe we could not have existed without them?-I don't know why. I just know we need an enormous variety of life, because that is the result we see. You seem to expect a straight line from protocells of first life to humans with very little branching out in-between. > > dhw: What do you mean by “orderly”?-A fairly gradual step forward. Both the Cambrian and our brain were giant leaps compared to evolutionary time from 3.8 billion years ago. Ten million for the Cambrian and six million for our brain.-> dhw: Of course there's a gulf between us and our fellow animals - but you're considering humanity as it is now.....All this because we have an extra degree of intelligence which has enabled our species to develop the resources offered by Nature. -There is no evidence that our brain which appeared about 250,000 years ago was not equal to the one we have now. We simply needed time to learn to use it. Viewed that way we are definitely different in kind.-> > dhw: You're right: on a certain epistemological level, we know nothing. Maybe all our fellow creatures are clockwork toys carrying out God's instructions. Indeed, we may be the same. And naturalists who have spent their lives studying animal behaviour are deluded. Strangely, I don't share your agnosticism on this subject. I believe that our fellow animals are intelligent, sentient, creative etc., though generally to a much smaller degree than ourselves.-I would say immensely smaller. The real problem is we are not they. When my dog decides to circle to table to the left instead of the right, to reach me, when both paths are clearly equal and open to him, I can't tell you how or why his brain (mind) made the decision. This is the source of my agnosticism. Is the thinking all veneer or can it be slightly deeper? > > dhw: The gap is enormous, but as above I see an “orderly” development from animal to so-called primitive to so-called civilized society...[Tony] went on: “perhaps that is what happens when people get too far removed from nature; they start to believe that other life forms are not as valid, precious, or complex as our own.-As an animal owner I agree to a point, but I watch the instinctual behaviors and recognize that Tony's view is also over-humanizing them.-> dhw: I would add that they start to believe the gap is so great that humans are different in “kind” to the animals from which they have descended.-Yes we do.
Animal language
dhw: And why the heck would he preprogramme weavers' nests if his aim was to produce humans? Do you honestly believe we could not have existed without them?-DAVID: I don't know why. I just know we need an enormous variety of life, because that is the result we see. You seem to expect a straight line from protocells of first life to humans with very little branching out in-between.-I don't expect a straight line from protocells to humans because I'm challenging two of your beliefs. Two questions will suffice: 1) Do you believe your God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on his design for the weaverbird's nest? 2) Do you believe that the weaverbird's nest was essential for the production of humans? -DAVID: You just don't recognize the giant leap to us doesn't fit any orderly form of evolution. dhw: What do you mean by “orderly”? DAVID: A fairly gradual step forward. Both the Cambrian and our brain were giant leaps compared to evolutionary time from 3.8 billion years ago. Ten million for the Cambrian and six million for our brain.-Can you or can you not see an orderly progression from animals and early humans living in caves to modern humans living in huts, houses, skyscrapers; from animals and early humans communicating by sounds to communication by writing, telephone, Internet?-dhw: ...we have an extra degree of intelligence which has enabled our species to develop the resources offered by Nature. DAVID: There is no evidence that our brain which appeared about 250,000 years ago was not equal to the one we have now. We simply needed time to learn to use it. Viewed that way we are definitely different in kind.-So once the intelligence is there (perhaps God-given), it builds on each generation's experiences, knowledge, memories and inventions to create more and more improvements. Exactly the same process for intelligent humans as for other intelligent cell communities, except that the latter appear to stop innovating when they reach a certain point of efficiency, whereas humans go on. DAVID: When my dog decides to circle to table to the left instead of the right, to reach me, when both paths are clearly equal and open to him, I can't tell you how or why his brain (mind) made the decision. This is the source of my agnosticism. Is the thinking all veneer or can it be slightly deeper?-Nobody is pretending that your dog might have philosophical thoughts about God and the universe, but I think the source of your agnosticism runs much deeper. That will become clearer when you answer my two questions above. dhw: [Tony] went on: “perhaps that is what happens when people get too far removed from nature; they start to believe that other life forms are not as valid, precious, or complex as our own. DAVID: As an animal owner I agree to a point, but I watch the instinctual behaviors and recognize that Tony's view is also over-humanizing them.-So do you think our fellow animals are capable or incapable of emotion (including love), reason, design, planning, communication, learning, organization, invention?
Animal language
by David Turell , Saturday, January 17, 2015, 01:36 (3597 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I don't expect a straight line from protocells to humans because I'm challenging two of your beliefs. Two questions will suffice: 1) Do you believe your God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on his design for the weaverbird's nest? 2) Do you believe that the weaverbird's nest was essential for the production of humans?-1) God played a role in part or in whole.-2) Yes, to provide a balance in nature. I see no other explanation. Does it have to be that specific nest? Of course not. But obviously since life exists in such a huge variety, it must exist that way with many oddball things on exhibit. > > DAVID: You just don't recognize the giant leap to us doesn't fit any orderly form of evolution. > dhw: What do you mean by “orderly”? > DAVID: A fairly gradual step forward. Both the Cambrian and our brain were giant leaps compared to evolutionary time from 3.8 billion years ago. Ten million for the Cambrian and six million for our brain. > > dhw: Can you or can you not see an orderly progression from animals and early humans living in caves to modern humans living in huts, houses, skyscrapers; from animals and early humans communicating by sounds to communication by writing, telephone, Internet?-You neatly skipped my point, which is the size of the gaps. Of course, I see the progression, but I concentrate on the unexplained gaps, and I have my own explanation. > > dhw: So once the intelligence is there (perhaps God-given), it builds on each generation's experiences, knowledge, memories and inventions to create more and more improvements. Exactly the same process for intelligent humans as for other intelligent cell communities, except that the latter appear to stop innovating when they reach a certain point of efficiency, whereas humans go on.-Our complex brain, which we barely understand at present, must first develop before all the steps you describe can happen. Cell communities, in my view, are given their small capacities in the original instructions for life.-> dhw: So do you think our fellow animals are capable or incapable of emotion (including love), reason, design, planning, communication, learning, organization, invention?-Yes, to a much lesser degree than humans in the areas of reason, design, planning, communication and invention. With emotion they can show more love than we deserve, can show disappointment, depression, excitement, etc. All of this is quite clear with my poodle and his healing broken toe: he shows disappointment that I have greatly toned down our play and is slightly depressed.
Animal language
dhw: I don't expect a straight line from protocells to humans because I'm challenging two of your beliefs. Two questions will suffice: 1) Do you believe your God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on his design for the weaverbird's nest? -David: God played a role in part or in whole.-Same problem as under “Epigenetics”. If God had provided the first cells with an autonomous inventive mechanism, that would be “in part”. “In whole” would be either preprogrammed or the result of a dabble. I can't see any theistic alternatives, so are you now giving these hypotheses equal ranking? Dhw: 2) Do you believe that the weaverbird's nest was essential for the production of humans? DAVID: Yes, to provide a balance in nature. I see no other explanation. Does it have to be that specific nest? Of course not. But obviously since life exists in such a huge variety, it must exist that way with many oddball things on exhibit.-Do you think nature would have been unbalanced without the specifically, divinely planned weaverbird's nest, and thus unable to produce humans? dhw: Can you or can you not see an orderly progression from animals and early humans living in caves to modern humans living in huts, houses, skyscrapers; from animals and early humans communicating by sounds to communication by writing, telephone, Internet? DAVID: You neatly skipped my point, which is the size of the gaps. Of course, I see the progression, but I concentrate on the unexplained gaps, and I have my own explanation. -You have claimed that humans are different in kind from our fellow animals because ”the giant leap to us doesn't fit any orderly form of evolution.” I am trying to show that the gap we now see is the result of an orderly progression, which can be traced as I've described above. Please explain what you see as the giant leap in the examples I have given.-dhw: So once the intelligence is there (perhaps God-given), it builds on each generation's experiences, knowledge, memories and inventions to create more and more improvements. Exactly the same process for intelligent humans as for other intelligent cell communities, except that the latter appear to stop innovating when they reach a certain point of efficiency, whereas humans go on.-DAVID: Our complex brain, which we barely understand at present, must first develop before all the steps you describe can happen. Cell communities, in my view, are given their small capacities in the original instructions for life.-You wrote that “there is no evidence that our brain which appeared about 250,000 years ago was not equal to the one we have now. We simply needed time to learn to use it.” Do you disagree with my description of how we learned to use it? Your second sentence suggests that the original instructions for life contained an inventive mechanism (= God's role “in part”) rather than detailed instructions on how to build a weaver's nest (= “in whole”). We too are a community of cell communities, but with larger capacities. And so we too could be the product of the same inventive mechanism.-dhw: So do you think our fellow animals are capable or incapable of emotion (including love), reason, design, planning, communication, learning, organization, invention? DAVID: Yes, to a much lesser degree than humans in the areas of reason, design, planning, communication and invention. With emotion they can show more love than we deserve, can show disappointment, depression, excitement etc.-Thank you for using the word “degree”. Much more appropriate than the word “kind”.
Animal language
by David Turell , Saturday, January 17, 2015, 15:07 (3597 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Do you think nature would have been unbalanced without the specifically, divinely planned weaverbird's nest, and thus unable to produce humans?-This is an extreme twisting of my thought. I simply believe there is an enormous diversity in life's branching outcomes, and that this bush of life is part of the plan. Balance of nature is the only concept I see that explains it, if an explanation is warranted. Humans arrived. That is enough for me to accept that God's evolutionary process was successful Remember, I think our presence is enough explanation. I repeat, I accept atheist Gould's thought that we are here against all odds, I don't accept chance as a mechanism , so it must be God's design. > DAVID: You neatly skipped my point, which is the size of the gaps. Of course, I see the progression, but I concentrate on the unexplained gaps, and I have my own explanation. > > dhw: You have claimed that humans are different in kind from our fellow animals because ”the giant leap to us doesn't fit any orderly form of evolution.” I am trying to show that the gap we now see is the result of an orderly progression, which can be traced as I've described above. Please explain what you see as the giant leap in the examples I have given.-The point is I don't see a giant leap in your 'progression'. Our sudden development of a giant brain is a giant leap, to me comparable to the Cambrian. Based on the existing challenges of nature 8 million years ago, it was an unnecessary change. Current apes prove that to me.-> dhw: You wrote that “there is no evidence that our brain which appeared about 250,000 years ago was not equal to the one we have now. We simply needed time to learn to use it.” Do you disagree with my description of how we learned to use it?-No. -> dhw:Your second sentence suggests that the original instructions for life contained an inventive mechanism (= God's role “in part”) rather than detailed instructions on how to build a weaver's nest (= “in whole”).-That is a possible solution to my dilemma.-> dhw: We too are a community of cell communities, but with larger capacities. And so we too could be the product of the same inventive mechanism.-The obvious extreme complexities of our brain makes your suggestion very far-fetched. > > dhw: So do you think our fellow animals are capable or incapable of emotion (including love), reason, design, planning, communication, learning, organization, invention? > > DAVID: Yes, to a much lesser degree than humans in the areas of reason, design, planning, communication and invention. With emotion they can show more love than we deserve, can show disappointment, depression, excitement etc. > > dhw: Thank you for using the word “degree”. Much more appropriate than the word “kind”.-Appropriate for your views. Just a slip of the typing fingers. On reflection, in the area of emotion it is degree, in all other areas it is kind.
Animal language
dhw: Do you think nature would have been unbalanced without the specifically, divinely planned weaverbird's nest, and thus unable to produce humans? DAVID: This is an extreme twisting of my thought.-Taking the nest as one example out of millions, I asked if you thought it was essential for the production of humans, and you answered: “Yes, to provide a balance in nature.” If your God specifically preprogrammed the nest or designed it with a dabble in order to balance nature, why is it a twist to say that otherwise nature would have been unbalanced? But perhaps you can now see that it doesn't sound very convincing!-DAVID: I simply believe there is an enormous diversity in life's branching outcomes, and that this bush of life is part of the plan. Balance of nature is the only concept I see that explains it, if an explanation is warranted. Humans arrived. That is enough for me to accept that God's evolutionary process was successful.-We agree that there is enormous diversity. And with my theist hat on, I have no trouble agreeing that God planned diversity. However, if the plan was diversity, it was successful without humans. If you don't know why God had to design the nest in order to balance nature for the sake of humans, perhaps you should consider very seriously the possibility that he didn't design the nest and it has nothing to do with the balance of nature and the production of humans, i.e. the weaverbird designed it, and diversity is an end in itself. dhw: You have claimed that humans are different in kind from our fellow animals because ”the giant leap to us doesn't fit any orderly form of evolution.” I am trying to show that the gap we now see is the result of an orderly progression, which can be traced as I've described above. Please explain what you see as the giant leap in the examples I have given.-DAVID: The point is I don't see a giant leap in your 'progression'. Our sudden development of a giant brain is a giant leap, to me comparable to the Cambrian. Based on the existing challenges of nature 8 million years ago, it was an unnecessary change. Current apes prove that to me.-As has been pointed out many times, ALL changes were “unnecessary”, since bacteria have survived unchanged. As for our giant brain, it weighs about a quarter of an elephant's and a fifth of a sperm whale's, so size is hardly the issue. If there is no giant leap between cave-dwelling vocalizing animals, cave-dwelling vocalizing humans, and all subsequent phases from them to us in our houses and with our Internet, how does the difference in kind (not degree) manifest itself? dhw:Your second sentence suggests that the original instructions for life contained an inventive mechanism (= God's role “in part”) rather than detailed instructions on how to build a weaver's nest (= “in whole”). David: That is a possible solution to my dilemma.-Then my probing has not been in vain. dhw: We too are a community of cell communities, but with larger capacities. And so we too could be the product of the same inventive mechanism. DAVID: The obvious extreme complexities of our brain makes your suggestion very far-fetched.-So the extraordinary complexities of other animals' brains might have come about through the combined inventive mechanisms of cell communities, and only our even more complex brains couldn't have done, although our other organs presumably did. dhw: So do you think our fellow animals are capable or incapable of emotion (including love), reason, design, planning, communication, learning, organization, invention? DAVID: Yes, to a much lesser degree than humans in the areas of reason, design, planning, communication and invention. With emotion they can show more love than we deserve, can show disappointment, depression, excitement etc. dhw: Thank you for using the word “degree”. Much more appropriate than the word “kind”. DAVID: Appropriate for your views. Just a slip of the typing fingers. On reflection, in the area of emotion it is degree, in all other areas it is kind.-One step forward, two steps back. You'll never get to the end of the track.-*************************-I shall be away for two or three days, which should give you time for further reflection! My thanks as always for your patience.
Animal language
by David Turell , Monday, January 19, 2015, 01:04 (3595 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: We agree that there is enormous diversity. And with my theist hat on, I have no trouble agreeing that God planned diversity. However, if the plan was diversity, it was successful without humans. If you don't know why God had to design the nest in order to balance nature for the sake of humans, perhaps you should consider very seriously the possibility that he didn't design the nest and it has nothing to do with the balance of nature and the production of humans, i.e. the weaverbird designed it, and diversity is an end in itself.-It is not that I don't know why the nest appeared, the issue is that as you admit, there is great diversity, and since it is present, it must have been planned. Remember I think God ran the process of evolution. As for your point about success without humans, that is exactly my argument you are attempting to turn back on me. There was no reason for humans to appear, but they did anyway. That implies purpose to me. -> > dhw: As has been pointed out many times, ALL changes were “unnecessary”, since bacteria have survived unchanged. As for our giant brain, it weighs about a quarter of an elephant's and a fifth of a sperm whale's, so size is hardly the issue. If there is no giant leap between cave-dwelling vocalizing animals, cave-dwelling vocalizing humans, and all subsequent phases from them to us in our houses and with our Internet, how does the difference in kind (not degree) manifest itself?-Our 'large brain' is my way of pointing out our consciousness and complex intellect, our abstract thought. True size is of no issue. It is our consciousness that makes us different in kind. > > dhw:Your second sentence suggests that the original instructions for life contained an inventive mechanism (= God's role “in part”) rather than detailed instructions on how to build a weaver's nest (= “in whole”). > David: That is a possible solution to my dilemma. > > dhw: Then my probing has not been in vain.-I given thought to your probing's in this area of our discussion. Life is inventive. The bush of life is a strong reason to conclude that there is an IM given by God to allow some of this diverse inventiveness. Again I think it is semi-autonomous, since I think evolution is guided toward producing humans as a goal. I think an IM would be adjusted to control the drive to complexity and end up with humans as a result. > > dhw: We too are a community of cell communities, but with larger capacities. And so we too could be the product of the same inventive mechanism. > DAVID: The obvious extreme complexities of our brain makes your suggestion very far-fetched. > > dhw: So the extraordinary complexities of other animals' brains might have come about through the combined inventive mechanisms of cell communities, and only our even more complex brains couldn't have done, although our other organs presumably did.-Animal brains and our brains have many of the same complexity at the basic levels to run the body semi-automatically. You know full well that when I mention the extreme complexities of our brain's function I am referring to our consciousness which is enormously different than that of lesser animals. That is why we are different in kind. > > dhw: I shall be away for two or three days, which should give you time for further reflection! My thanks as always for your patience.-Have a successful trip.
Animal language: sneeze voting by wild dogs
by David Turell , Wednesday, September 06, 2017, 14:49 (2634 days ago) @ dhw
It seems when wild African dogs gather to decide about pack hunting the vote is by sneezes:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/social-sciences/african-wild-dogs-make-democratic-decisions-...
"Next time you cast a vote, consider the unlikely company you are keeping as a participant in a democratic process: the African wild dog. Scientists studying packs of this endangered species have found that the canines use sneezes to vote on whether or not it’s time to move off and start hunting.
"In research published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, an international team led by Neil Jordan of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, studied what African wild dogs in Botswana did after a period of rest. The dogs in a pack greet each other in highly energetic ceremonies called social rallies, before they move off together.
“'I wanted to better understand this collective behaviour, and noticed the dogs were sneezing while preparing to go,” says Jordan.
"A detailed analysis of 68 social rallies among 5 dog packs in the Okavango Delta showed that the more sneezes that occurred, the more likely the pack was to start moving.
“'The sneeze acts like a type of voting system,” according to Jordan.
"Similar quorum behaviour is also observed among meerkats, but the researchers found an added twist in the dogs’ voting process that may also be familiar – in practice, if not in principle – from human democracies: not all votes are equal.
"When the pack’s dominant male or dominant female is involved in the rally, only a few sneezes are required to instigate movement. When no high-status pack member is involved the weight of numbers must be greater, and around 10 sneezes are needed.
"It may not be perfectly fair, but it seems to work for the African wild dog. As Winston Churchill famously said, democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others that have been tried."
Comment: Certainly a learned behaviour. Alternatively, can hunger cause sneezing? Not likely.
Animal language
by David Turell , Sunday, January 11, 2015, 22:52 (3602 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The researchers are also working on the languages used by rats, whales, dolphins, bats and songbirds. For those of us who believe that we are descended from earlier organisms, this can hardly be surprising..... We ARE animals. They got there before us, and we have merely developed what they passed on to us.-You want us to believe our brain and its enormous intellectual capacities are a 'mere development'. Yes, we have animal bodies, but NOT animal brains. Animal communication by sounds or other signals are a tiny beginning for what we have ended up with. So?