Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Krellnus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Than why have I never seen them in space? Or speaking a language and writing things down? Or mining ore and making actual tools that are more advanced than a stick? No animal even comes close to doing those things.

What a ridiculous movement of the goalposts here, you asked specifically for examples of tool use, not making tools, examples of which were provided, hell its even been stated that chimps 'mine' ant hills for food. Writing things down isn't a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of incredibly fone motor skills and hands adapted for such small movements.
Closeness is relative, Doplphins can be taught basic mathematics and primates can communicate after being taught sign language.

It is not moving the goalpost. I don't consider a simple stick to be a tool, and I never did in the first place. For me, for an object to be a tool, it needs to have been modified in a substantial way. Otherwise it is still just a mere stick.
If you do consider a stick or stone to be a tool, than yes, some animals can use tools. I never disputed that.
Furthermore, your notion about about language is incorrect. You do not need fine motor skills to write. You can have a writing system with very easy to make and large markings. Inventing a writing system does take a very high intelligence and is of paramount importance to the development of a species.
Dolphins can do mathematics, that is known, but it still doesn't take them anywhere near human levels. Primates can learn a primitve sign language, yes, but that sign language is more a form of biocommunication rather than an actual language and it is invented by humans. Primates themselves have no language.
I have yet to see a good argument for there not being a clear distinction between humans and animals.

 Jimsolo wrote:

Daemonhammer wrote:
I find that life is too dull to allow someting like a soul to exist, and in extention an afterlife.

Does the presence of a soul also require the existence of an afterlife? As opposed to some kind of natural cycle? (à la some form of reincarnation?)

That is an interesting question.
Even if there is a form of reincarnation, there still needs to be a place 'where souls come from', because the amount of people (and thus souls) on Earth has increased over time.
It could be of course that the number of souls is unchangeable, but that the number of souls on Earth at the same time is variable. That would necessiate (new word learned ) a "afterlife" where the souls are "stored" while they wait for their turn on Earth.

 Frazzled wrote:
Not lawyers. We sell ours to the highest bidder.

thats right!




thats also why I know for a fact I have, at LEAST, three souls.. because three people have sold me theirs, and signed a legally binding contract to that effect.

So i either have 3, or 4, depending on how you look at it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Than why have I never seen them in space? Or speaking a language and writing things down? Or mining ore and making actual tools that are more advanced than a stick? No animal even comes close to doing those things.

What a ridiculous movement of the goalposts here, you asked specifically for examples of tool use, not making tools, examples of which were provided, hell its even been stated that chimps 'mine' ant hills for food. Writing things down isn't a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of incredibly fone motor skills and hands adapted for such small movements.
Closeness is relative, Doplphins can be taught basic mathematics and primates can communicate after being taught sign language.

It is not moving the goalpost. I don't consider a simple stick to be a tool, and I never did in the first place. For me, for an object to be a tool, it needs to have been modified in a substantial way. Otherwise it is still just a mere stick.
If you do consider a stick or stone to be a tool, than yes, some animals can use tools. I never disputed that.
Furthermore, your notion about about language is incorrect. You do not need fine motor skills to write. You can have a writing system with very easy to make and large markings. Inventing a writing system does take a very high intelligence and is of paramount importance to the development of a species.
Dolphins can do mathematics, that is known, but it still doesn't take them anywhere near human levels. Primates can learn a primitve sign language, yes, but that sign language is more a form of biocommunication rather than an actual language and it is invented by humans. Primates themselves have no language.

you are very much moving the goal posts....

if tools are only things that you have modified, then if I hand you a wrench, and you use it, you have not employed the use of a tool by your own definition, as you have not modified the wrench....

also, plenty of animals can be taught to use tools from pencils, to painbrushes, to rifles....

again, you cant just spout unproven claims like animals have no language, that have mountains of scientific evidence to contradict them.

well, you can, but you sound just as rediculous stating "primates have no language" as you would stating "the world is only 4 thousand years old, and was made by a giant taco"

 easysauce wrote:

if tools are only things that you have modified, then if I hand you a wrench, and you use it, you have not employed the use of a tool by your own definition, as you have not modified the wrench....

The wrench is a tool because it has been modified. Wrenches are not natural objects, you won't find them in nature (unless left there by humans). The wrench does not need to have been modified by me specifically, the wrench needs to have been modified in general.

 easysauce wrote:

also, plenty of animals can be taught to use tools from pencils, to painbrushes, to rifles....

Indeed that is true. I hadn't thought of that.
Very well, I concede this point. Some animal species are indeed capable of using actual tools.
Still, my original point of animals not having technology still stands. Technology is more than just the use of tools

 easysauce wrote:

again, you cant just spout unproven claims like animals have no language, that have mountains of scientific evidence to contradict them.
well, you can, but you sound just as rediculous stating "primates have no language" as you would stating "the world is only 4 thousand years old, and was made by a giant taco"

Again, it is important to take the definition of language into account:

noun

1 [mass noun] The method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.

Science makes the important distinction between language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language
And biocommunication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocommunication_%28science%29
Don't be confused by the technically incorrect but common usage of the word 'language' to denote all systems of communication.

the fact that some animals can be taught to use human nouns and communicate in our language, proves they are capable of language.

the fact that we cannot recognize, nor learn their "nouns" and so on, proves they might actually be "smarter" then us in some ways,

and proves that we have a unique talent as humans for thinking we are better then everything else...

humans may have the best pattern recognition, but we also have the best "false pattern recognition" where we make up patterns that do not actually exist,

so while animals may not as easily talk about the more abstract things, (even though they are capable of it) they will also not make up signifiers that dont have referents in actual fact.

 easysauce wrote:
the fact that some animals can be taught to use human nouns and communicate in our language, proves they are capable of language.

the fact that we cannot recognize, nor learn their "nouns" and so on, proves they might actually be "smarter" then us in some ways,

No, we can't learn their ''nouns'', because they do not have any.
I have yet to see an animal speaking English or Russian or any other human language (actually speaking, not just 'I make this sound for a reward' biocommunication), and I yet have to see evidence for animals being able to discuss abstract matters (or even animals being capable of discussing something at all). Animals use biocommunication, they very much lack the necessary intelligence and higher cognitive functions required for the use of something so extremely complex as language.

 easysauce wrote:
and proves that we have a unique talent as humans for thinking we are better then everything else...

I don't know about that...
Humans certainly have that talent, but I have also always suspected cats of feeling themselves superior to all others

 easysauce wrote:
humans may have the best pattern recognition, but we also have the best "false pattern recognition" where we make up patterns that do not actually exist,

so while animals may not as easily talk about the more abstract things, (even though they are capable of it) they will also not make up signifiers that dont have referents in actual fact.

That is a very doubtable claim...

 Iron_Captain wrote:
No, we can't learn their ''nouns'', because they do not have any.

I recall a person researching one of the American rodents (not sure which one - looks kind of like a beaver but lives in arid areas) which can communicate size, colour and species in its "native" language, as well as other things. And those are just the sounds we have been able to determine.

Hell, we have even discovered about 3 words in the language of a species of frog.

I have yet to see an animal speaking English or Russian or any other human language (actually speaking, not just 'I make this sound for a reward' biocommunication)

Animals have very different anatomy for the most part, making direct human speech difficult. Not being involved in that kind of researcj with animals I could not comment on the limitations of teaching animals to communicate. However, communication is communication, no matter the format it takes.

and I yet have to see evidence for animals being able to discuss abstract matters (or even animals being capable of discussing something at all). Animals use biocommunication, they very much lack the necessary intelligence and higher cognitive functions required for the use of something so extremely complex as language.

I think the science is still very early days but animals do indeed communicate, which means they have language, however primitive.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I think the science is still very early days but animals do indeed communicate, which means they have language, however primitive.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Again, it is important to take the definition of language into account:

noun

1 [mass noun] The method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.

Science makes the important distinction between language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language
And biocommunication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocommunication_%28science%29
Don't be confused by the technically incorrect but common usage of the word 'language' to denote all systems of communication.

Communication ≠ language.

How would you explain whale "song" then? Each pod of whales speak their own language, and the stuff is too complex to simply call "biocommunication"... yet, because we cant understand it, it's not "language"??


Seems more like someone sitting at the top of the food chain not wanting to admit that something else may have some of the same "skills" that he does.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

the fact that we cannot recognize, nor learn their "nouns" and so on, proves they might actually be "smarter" then us in some ways,

No, we can't learn their ''nouns'', because they do not have any.
I have yet to see an animal speaking English or Russian or any other human language (actually speaking, not just 'I make this sound for a reward' biocommunication),

Lets hope so - oblivion seems such a waste..............

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
How would you explain whale "song" then? Each pod of whales speak their own language, and the stuff is too complex to simply call "biocommunication"... yet, because we cant understand it, it's not "language"??


Seems more like someone sitting at the top of the food chain not wanting to admit that something else may have some of the same "skills" that he does.

So do whales discuss philosophy and other abstract concepts? As far as I know, whale songs are still primarily used for sexual selection. A Whale's song is more similiar to the singing of birds than to a human's language. It is still a form of biocommunication, not language. A whale's song is very complex, but biocommunication is not necessarily simple. A whale's song however, is not anywhere near as complex as the English language, let alone all those other languages. Human language is really extremely complex.

 easysauce wrote:


ummm, sounds like you dont realize that they do not have human vocal chords... and cannot make the same sounds as us...

also you are equivocating the sounds waves producable by vocal chords as a requirement for language, again, totally false, as your interpretation also means mute people do not know language, as they cannot pronounce any words in english or russian, they must substitute a different set of symbols (signifiers) for the "stuff" (referents).

because that is the claim you keep making... you claim because animals cannot pronounce the sound for the word "hello" they cannot speak language... despite them having a sound they can pronouce that means "hello"


again, does the fact that human ears cannot hear the same fequencies a dog hears, mean we humans literally CANNOT HEAR?!?!

of course not... same as how animals not being able to say "hello" in the english language, does not mean they are incapable of language... they just cant pronouce the particular symbols of the "english" language.

it in no way shape or form prevents them from using different symbols (signifiers) to represent the exact same referants in our language.

I never said (human) vocal chords were necessary for language. In fact, I am communicating right now using language without using vocal chords.
Do you even know what 'language' means? A simple test to establish whether a system of communication is a language or not would be to determine whether it would be possible to define the meaning of 'language' using that system of communications. Are animals able to argue semantics? I think not.
I suggest you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language

Daemonhammer wrote:
I find that life is too dull to allow someting like a soul to exist, and in extention an afterlife.

But maybe that is why there is an afterlife? To make up for the dulness of life? ;P

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I never said (human) vocal chords were necessary for language.

you claimed animals must be speaking english or russian ect before you will accept that they can communicate, using language

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I have yet to see an animal speaking English or Russian or any other human language (actually speaking, not just 'I make this sound for a reward' biocommunication),

so more goal post moving after you are proven wrong? sounds about right...

first its "they dont have nouns, so no language"

then when shown they do use nouns, and can even learn OUR nouns, it changes to "dogs dont speak english or russian, they dont have language"

then when shown that there are far more "languages" then the human ones, its

"you dont know anything, wikipedia has a definition here, and the first two sentences say its human language, so no other language exists!"

now, as I point out to you, that wiki is a horrible HORRIBLE reference, and still doesnt say what you think it says,
I expect the goal posts to just move to

"well, I just meant that animals have inferior language, not that they totally lacked language"

at least I would hope you make that move... as its the correct one,

animals very much have language, by the scientific definition of language, its not as good as OUR language, but it has all the requirments of language.

 easysauce wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) Depends on your definition of language - as a means to discuss abstract thought and concepts such as higher-order mathematics and love, humans have the only true language. If you simply mean "the transfer of information" then bacteria have language as DNA.

2) Tool creation and usage I will grant, but doesn't mean much to me. Until they build a rifle or launch an exploration vehicle to space, I will consider them to be of inferior thought patterns.

3) The fact that you can teach dogs human commands but not humans dog commands probably has a lot to do with the complete absence of concrete commands in 'doggish'.

1) so prior to circa 3,000-4,000 BC, humans had no language because they coudnt talk about math? also, certain animals can do math and discuss abstract concepts as well as being self aware.

2) so prior to circa 1400-1500 ad when the first rifles were produced, humans were inferior thought patterns? or is it prior to circa the 1960's when we were all having these inferior thought patterns?
plenty of organisms have traveled much farther in space then we have, despite being simpler organisms.

3)thats a farcical assumption, it has far more to do with humans not bothering to listen, and humans like you making incorrect assumtions that dogs cant talk.. they quite often issue commands to other dogs, and even humans in "dogganese"

1) According to some definitions, no, that was not language. Also, [CITATION NEEDED] for the claims that other animals can do higher-order mathematics (like I specified in my first post - not just addition, for example) and [CITATION NEEDED] that they think abstractly. Self-awareness has been verified for some animals, but that by itself I do not consider special (precisely because animals can do it).

2) I don't really understand the questions - but yes, largely. Prior generations of humans did not have the understanding required of the physical universe to conceive of an explosive propelling a projectile out of a metal tube. Since they lacked that (relatively basic) physical understanding of the universe, they were inferior. For example, I RIGHT NOW am inferior to the humans that will come after me, because I'm sure there's something relatively simple that I'm completely clueless about. [CITATION NEEDED] about organisms that have traveled further in space - to my knowledge, that's only a theory. Also, can it be said that they're 'exploring' it? Can a single-celled bacterium 'explore' anything?

3) [CITATION NEEDED] for this entire series of claims.

 easysauce wrote:

language is not restricted to quote unquote "higher" thoughts..

you may as well make the claim that dogs are blind because they cannot see colours...

or state that humans have no sense of smell because they cannot do that as well as dogs.

1) According to some interpretations within linguistic philosophy it is. What do you mean when you say language? You may be devaluing the word rather than empowering animals.

2) I would not claim that they are blind, just that they are color-blind; in the same manner, I do not claim that dogs cannot communicate, merely that they do not possess language.

3) I would not claim that we do not smell, I would claim that we smell less well than dogs do.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
the fact that some animals can be taught to use human nouns and communicate in our language, proves they are capable of language.

the fact that we cannot recognize, nor learn their "nouns" and so on, proves they might actually be "smarter" then us in some ways,

No, we can't learn their ''nouns'', because they do not have any.
I have yet to see an animal speaking English or Russian or any other human language (actually speaking, not just 'I make this sound for a reward' biocommunication), and I yet have to see evidence for animals being able to discuss abstract matters (or even animals being capable of discussing something at all). Animals use biocommunication, they very much lack the necessary intelligence and higher cognitive functions required for the use of something so extremely complex as language.

There's a species of monkey (forget specifically which one, it's been a while since I took a primatology course) that has a variety of calls that signify specific threats.

Similarly, Ravens are able to express abstract ideas to one another (such as the location of something after the fact).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) I would not claim that we do not smell, I would claim that we smell less well than dogs do.

right, just as you should claim that animals utilize language as a method to convey concrete and abstract ideas, just not as well as humans do.

Why some people in this thread (not ness you) think that a monkey has to be able to talk about calculus before they are considered to be utilizing "language" is beyond me...

all they have to do is use language for abstract and concrete thoughts, not "the most difficult abstract thought known to man"...

as thats a pretty high bar for defining "language" that 95% of humans cannot meet, but those humans we dont hand waive off as not using language.

this video shows off just how proficient animals can be at using language, even one of a different species.

 easysauce wrote:


all they have to do is use language for abstract and concrete thoughts, not "the most difficult abstract thought known to man"...

Some of the more recent scientific research that I've seen/read up on has shown that Orca "calls" are not simply a "here I am, come feth me!" call as some here have purported.... They have calls for search and distress, as well as, in the wild they have vocal ways to train their young how to hunt/feed. They use some songs as a means of knowing where another pod is, etc.

Blue/Grey whales are also known to "talk with their hands"... as in, their body positioning in the water helps convey their message to those within visual range. Recent studies on humans have shown that upwards of 95% of how we communicate is not actually through our verbal skills, but rather our body language. By some ITT, that means we don't have language either, but rather, "biocommunication"

I'm not a religous person but I believe there is more to a person than a bunch of molecules glued together; so yes.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I'm not a religous person but I believe there is more to a person than a bunch of molecules glued together; so yes.

By this, you're not really intending an "afterlife" sort of thing... but more something that can't quite be named, but yet differentiates someone like Data from the rest of the Enterprise Crew on TNG?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I'm not a religous person but I believe there is more to a person than a bunch of molecules glued together; so yes.

By this, you're not really intending an "afterlife" sort of thing... but more something that can't quite be named, but yet differentiates someone like Data from the rest of the Enterprise Crew on TNG?

Yes. In fact, I think all life has some sort of underlying energy or "something" striving to organize itself. If you want to call that a soul or spirit or whatever then that's fine with me.

As for Data, you kind of threw me a curveball there. I'm not sure; I think he may be a special case. He sort of has his own version of a soul.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:


As for Data, you kind of threw me a curveball there. I'm not sure; I think he may be a special case. He sort of has his own version of a soul.

Lol, I basically meant that age old SF theme of "does a machine have a soul" or "what differentiates organic man from mechanical man"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:


As for Data, you kind of threw me a curveball there. I'm not sure; I think he may be a special case. He sort of has his own version of a soul.

Lol, I basically meant that age old SF theme of "does a machine have a soul" or "what differentiates organic man from mechanical man"

There's not much to differentiate Data from a biological man. I believe he had a whole trial about that and won that overall argument.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If you do consider a stick or stone to be a tool, than yes, some animals can use tools. I never disputed that.

A tool is any physical item that can be used to achieve a goal, especially if the item is not consumed in the process. Informally the word is also used to describe a procedure or process with a specific purpose. Tool use by humans dates back millions of years, and other animals are also known to employ simple tools.

Tools that are used in particular fields or activities may have different designations such as "instrument", "utensil", "implement", "machine", or "apparatus". The set of tools needed to achieve a goal is "equipment". The knowledge of constructing, obtaining and using tools is technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool

we don't have souls. people are welcome to believe that we do, as long as that belief doesn't cause anyone any harm. if anyone can produce peer-reviewed and replicable science to demonstrate that the human consciousness can be separated from the body i will happily change my mind.

dogs have souls though. that's obvious.

For anyone who thinks there is a soul, please give us your definition of it and how it interacts with the meatsuit you're claiming it is connected to. And by that I mean a *useful* definition- not one the defines the soul as something so hidden and mysterious it can be dismissed as nothing more than a hunch or wishful thinking.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

If you do consider a stick or stone to be a tool, than yes, some animals can use tools. I never disputed that.

A tool is any physical item that can be used to achieve a goal, especially if the item is not consumed in the process. Informally the word is also used to describe a procedure or process with a specific purpose. Tool use by humans dates back millions of years, and other animals are also known to employ simple tools.

Tools that are used in particular fields or activities may have different designations such as "instrument", "utensil", "implement", "machine", or "apparatus". The set of tools needed to achieve a goal is "equipment". The knowledge of constructing, obtaining and using tools is technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool

Underlined another helpful bit.

 Kojiro wrote:
For anyone who thinks there is a soul, please give us your definition of it and how it interacts with the meatsuit you're claiming it is connected to.

It is the thing that allows you to dance or play the blues well.

I don't believe that humans have souls in the classical sense. I think the brain is most likely an organic computer type system. It is easy to think of the brain as 'magic' because it is so complex, but that is just typical human laziness.

One of the things I find most interesting about religion is that the explanations are always ALWAYS lazy. Ask 'how' or 'why' about something real like the economy, the government, or even a car engine, and you'll find the explanations are incredibly involved with layer upon layer of complexity that could fill volumes. These systems are nowhere near as complex as things like physics or biology. Yet when religion answers questions on the nature of life or the universe suddenly all the complexity that you would expect is missing, replaced with dirt and magic. I think this is because religion has evolved to appeal to the masses, which is why it is so pervasive. It provides answers that can be easily grasped by children and the uneducated. Regardless of what is true, the real answers are often too complicated and difficult to be appealing.

When I see religious people argue against science I often notice this fundamental lack of understanding in the processes involved. Without any prior knowledge of life, you could look at a system like sexual reproduction and predict "this will lead to diversity". Which is what we see, yet somehow the point eludes them? Billions upon billions or organisms, billions of generations, over billions of years... And yet, these people don't understand how a million to one mutation can happen? The real question is: how can it not happen?

I'm pretty sure that if we weren't able to show how computers are made, we would be forced to endure unending philosophical debates with people claiming they are 'magic' too. To most people computers are complex enough that they might as well be magic. However, one day (apocalypse permitting) we will probably slowly replace all of our organic parts, including the parts of our brains, with superior technology. It's really just a matter of time. I think that will then lay the matter to rest once an for all.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
A tool is a tool, that is true. But there is a large difference between the mere sticks used by animals, and the highly sophisticated tools used by humans. Personally, I don't even consider them to be in the same category, but that is just me.

"Oh sure, if you define a criminal as someone who's committed a crime then you have a point."

The way I read it, humans don't "have" a soul. They "are" a soul.

Having a soul implies some level of immortality. Only God is immortal.

Smacks, you really didn't need to start implying that religious people are either children or uneducated, and that they rely on "dirt and magic" to explain things, in order to answer the OP.

Your very first sentence would have sufficed, unless you came here with the intention of turning this thread into a religious debate that will ultimately end in suspensions, bans, and tears before bedtime.