Abstract thought in animals

[lucaspa]

This discussion was started by SamCogar in the thread "Evidence of Human Common Ancestry". It doesn't belong there because it has nothing to do with human ancestry.

 

Hypertilly stated "But like djmacarro I believe that all animals have souls. my question to him was how do we know that they do not possess the intelligience to understand their own souls. "

 

My response to this was:

"By noting that the required intelligence requires a large and complex brain in order to contemplate abstract thought. Dogs don't have the required brain.

 

AND

 

"You don't know dogs have souls, because the only reason we think humans have souls is because humans can discuss the subject with other humans. As you stated "I believe that all animals have souls." That's fine. You have stated a belief. But you can't go from that belief to taking it as a factual premise without the data. And, as you admit, you can't get the data!"

 

" Dogs certainly don't have the ability to verbalize. If the ability to have abstract thoughts is dependent on brain size (and much evidence suggests it is), then dogs don't have large enough brains. "

 

 

2. My point wasn't only about "verbalizing thought", but having the ability to form abstract thoughts to begin with."

 

So, Hypertilly had 2 hypotheses:

1. Animals have souls.

2. Animals may or may not have the intelligence to understand that they have souls.

 

Obviously I am questioning both hypotheses. As far as I can see, there is no way science can test for the presence of a "soul". The characteristics of souls are such that they are not amenable to scientific testing.

 

However, the whole concept of soul falls under "abstract thought" and I question whether dogs in particular and most animals in general have the cognitive ability to do abstract thinking.

 

Now enter SamCogar. Sam posted a definition of "abstract thought" obtained from wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn "abstract thought - thinking that is coherent and logical"

 

Several people disagreed with this definition as applied to cognition and stated it is inappropriate. This is not how "abstract thought" is used in cognitive studies.

 

The reason has to do with necessary and sufficient. When describing a term or phenomenon, or stating causes, necessity and sufficiency refer to 1) what you have to have (necessity) and 2) all that you have to have (sufficiency) to cover the subject. The definition you used is necessary to have "abstract thought" but it is not "sufficient". IOW, yes, abstract thought is coherent and logical, BUT it is also necessary that abstract thought apply to abstract ideas or concepts. And "abstract" is "1 a: disassociated from any specific instance "

 

So, now onto the most recent of Sam's posts and my response:

And I didn’t “read into it” that he/she was implying that dogs “have souls” or “thought that dogs have souls”,

 

Back to the original statement by Hypertilly: "I believe that all animals have souls." How can you not read that as saying explicitly that dogs have souls? Unless you consider dogs not an animal?

 

I went on to say "Part of our discussion of soul is based upon the ability to conceive and verbalize abstract thoughts. Dogs certainly don't have the ability to verbalize. If the ability to have abstract thoughts is dependent on brain size (and much evidence suggests it is), then dogs don't have large enough brains. "

 

By "our" I meant human beings. Notice I said "conceive and verbalize abstract thoughts". And not just "verbalize" as in making sounds. But putting those sounds into words and strings of words that are sentences.

 

But I do know they “think”, ……. and with “reasoning” that is coherent and logical.

 

Where are the peer-reviewed scientific papers to back this up? There aren't any. Instead, we get anecdotes of Sam's personal experiences. For every one of which I can provide anecdotes where dogs and animals did NOT evidence coherent and logical thinking.

 

Sam also used a different definition of "verbalize": "And dogs also have the ability to “verbalize” (express: articulate; either verbally or with a cry, shout, or noise;), "

 

However, Sam's source for "verbalize" states: "talk: express in speech;" NOT, "express: articulate; either verbally or with a cry, shout, or noise". http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Averbalize&btnG=Search

 

Sayonara, I guess it just “concerned me” that Lucas cited two (2), ….. in my learned opinion, …. untruths, ….. regardless of what his “intent” for doing said was.

 

To me, that was akin to ….. “citing the Bible ….. to prove the literal truth of the Bible”.

 

1. Where is the scientific data to back up Sam's "learned opinion"? I did allude to scientific studies when I said "as evidence suggests" and I can provide the citations if required.

 

2. I find Sam's complaint of "untruths" ironic since he stated a verifiable untruth about the definition of "verbalize".

 

3. Citing the Bible to prove the literal truth of the Bible is using a source to prove the accuracy of the source. That isn't what I did at all. I used independent lines of evidence to test hypotheses that 1) animals have souls and 2) have the intelligence to contemplate their souls.

 

So yes, Sam disagrees about my statement that dogs do not have the ability to have abstract thought. Fine. Post scientific evidence that this is so.

 

lucaspa: "3. You can't use wikipedia as a source in a serious discussion. It is not referreed and people can put into it whatever they like. There is no way to ensure that what is in Wiki is accurate. That's why I used Merriam-Webster."

 

The hell you say. Trying to “pull rank on me”, huh, … Lucas, there is no problem citing a Wiki source as long as it agrees with other sources, and especially as long as one agree with it them self. Bottom line is, they damn well better be able to support and/or justify their claim.

 

Irony again, since Sam is trying to pull rank on me and claim Wiki is an "authority". As I stated, since Wiki is free for anyone to post, posters do NOT have to support and/or justify their claims! And claims can be changed as new people change what has been written. Some hot topics in Wiki have the entries changed hourly!

 

IF a Wiki article uses a citation, then the next step is to look at the citation and see what it says. IF it says what the Wiki article says it says (and that is not guaranteed), then you quote the original source, not the Wiki article.

 

Wiki is about democracy, but accurate knowledge is not democratic. Something is either true or it isn't. Wiki often is a forum for people to argue their own points of view in the guise of "knowledge". That's why, in a serious discussion, it can't be used to pull "rank".

 

A Merriam-Webster source is not “cast in stone” ya know, ….. they add, revise and modify said definitions bout every year.

 

Yes, they do. But they are responsible. They are held to be accurate, otherwise they don't sell dictionaries if they make many mistakes! Also, the reason tehy add, revise, and modify is because definitions change with usage. However, that is completely different from Wiki changing because someone puts up a different opinion as "fact".

 

because I just might be the “only source”.

 

If you do that, and it hasn't undergone peer-review, then you really are "using the Bible to prove the Bible". You are using you to prove your own claims. That isn't acceptable in science.

 

I will apologize for not using quote marks, to wit, “REM sleep” or including the word “during”, to wit: “REM during sleep”.

 

That wasn't my argument, Sam. My argument was: "If that is the case, then you have destroyed the only basis for your claim that dogs dream! Sam, you need to remember what the claims were. It was your claim that dogs dream: "GEEEZE, dogs even have dreams ya know." " My statement was that REM supported that dogs do indeed dream, since dreams do not occur in the absence of REM sleep. You, however, said that REM has nothing to do with dreams. If that is the case, then you ruined the only scientific evidence you had of dog intelligence!

 

lucaspa "Now you have just destroyed 1) your own claim and with it 2) a major basis for your claim of canine intelligence!"

 

You wish, Lucas, you wish, ….. but those wishes are only in your wildest dreams.

 

Denial isn't either evidence or argument. Denial without evidence or argument is worthless. You provided neither evidence nor argument.

 

Sam, I'm taking this time with you because serious scientific discussion is different from either debate or common arguments. You can't "win" a scientific discussion with either rhetoric or ad hominem. You need data and sound logical arguments for a scientific discussion. I'm hoping you will become a serious discussant in these forums. However, in order to do so you must discuss in a scientific manner. Therefore I'm taking the time to try to teach you what that manner is and what it consists of:

1. Use the specific definitions of the field. Don't try to change them or lie about them.

2. Post data. And by data I mean peer-reviewed scientific papers whenever possible. If it's not a peer-reviewed paper but a secondary source, at least try to make it a .edu source or a publication that refers back to primary sources. Sources of people who have studied in the field (and are therefore knowledgable about it) are preferred. Wiki can't be relied upon to meet any of these criteria. Wiki is a place to start, but you can't use it as a reliable source.

3. Personal anecdotes don't count and evidence that is available only to you doesn't count. Science works on evidence that is available to everyone under approximately the same situation.

4. Denial without evidence doesn't work. You need to show WHY you are denying a claim.

 

(Post# 110) They appear to in that they have REM sleep. However, without the ability to communicate, you don't know whether those dreams involve concrete sense impressions or the more symbolic, abstract dreams that humans have.

 

Lucas, in that you agree dogs “appear to” have REM during sleep, ……. why do you discredit their ability to have “abstract dreams” when all the “observational data” suggests that they do?

 

There are 2 different claims here:

1. Dogs dream.

2. Those dreams are "abstract" like humans have.

 

Now, when you say “REM sleep is nothing more that a “normal reaction” by the eyes as a result of receiving “repositioning instructions” from the subconscious mind.” , this means that REM sleep has nothing to do with dreams. The subconscious mind could give "repositioning instructions" to the eyes without dreams! Of course, one falsification of your statement is that REM does not occur during any other part of sleep except dreaming.

 

Now, there is no "observational data" to suggest that dogs have abstract dreams! None. The reason we know that humans have abstract dreams is that we describe them to one another using language. Since dogs do not have a complex language and do not tell us about their dreams, there is no observational data.

 

What this amounts to is that I agree, based on REM sleep, that dogs dream. What I question is whether those dreams are "abstract". Please provide the data that they are.

 

In terms of "verbalize", humans have an allele of the FOXP2 gene that allows complex speech sounds. This allele is missing from every other species. Humans born with a mutation of the gene that restores FOXP2 to the allele found in animals are not capable of speech. 32. Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language. Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo Nature 418, 869 - 872 (22 Aug 2002)

 

do ya pose they knew there was a reason that fence was there, ….. or that they knew that none of those cows would jump the fence and/or charge right through it? Most cows can do both, ya know, …. iffen they decide to.

 

Do you realize you just made an argument against deer having abstract thoughts? According to what you stated, the deer were unable to make the abstract idea that the cows could charge thru the fence and only looked at the specific instances that the cows did not charge the fence. Therefore the deer did not (because they could not) make the abstract idea that they were not safe on the other side of the fence.

 

And I did not state the above to impress you, …….. but only to remind you to …… “criticize or attack the message, …… but not the messenger”, …. and we will probably get along just fine. ... You sure don’t know much about animals, do you.

 

You might want to follow your own advice. I find it ironic that these two statements were made separated only by a quote from me.

[bombus]

It depends on the exact meaning of abstract thought, as definitions can often be rather arbitrary and humancentric (for obvious reasons).

 

However, I think it's been proven that chimps, gorillas and orangutans possess the ability to produce abstract thought. Also, pigs, elephants and certainly dolphins.

 

I suppose, therefore, that dogs are capable of a degree of abstract thought. I find it hard to believe that abstract thought occurs at a certain intelligence threshold. I'd guess it occurs on a gradient, although lower intelligences (e.g. ants) would have only a tiny level of the ability, but still maybe some.

 

However, humans may only be able to 'test' for abstract thought above a certain threshold, but that's not quite the same thing.

[Mr Skeptic]

I agree with bombus that at least some abstract thought has been demonstrated in animals (as well as capability to plan, communicate, teach, socialize, make compound tools, etc.). What humans have is a unique combination of mental skills at sufficient levels to have a technological society.

 

Also, there is evidence that brain size is not the whole story. There were many brilliant people who had very few braincells. Also, H. florensis is thought to have been very smart despite their tiny brain.

[SamCogar]

Lucaspa, now that was quite a rant, but you see, I got a “tough hide” for fending off such critiques involving protocol and irrelevant accusations …….. because I learned from an “expert”.

 

Now I only selected two (2) parts of your post to comment on, which should be enough to cover it all and define my position on said. To wit:

 

(SamC) because I just might be the “only source”.

 

If you do that, and it hasn't undergone peer-review, then you really are "using the Bible to prove the Bible". You are using you to prove your own claims. That isn't acceptable in science.

 

The hell you say. Me thinks you are trying to force me into "your box" and that ain't gonna happen ..... anymore than you could convince me to start arguing/discussing sports with you. I would rather watch paint dry.

 

Lucas, I do not like being confined “within a box”, …… it is extremely unproductive you know.

 

 

Sam, I'm taking this time with you because serious scientific discussion is different from either debate or common arguments. You can't "win" a scientific discussion with either rhetoric or ad hominem. You need data and sound logical arguments for a scientific discussion. I'm hoping you will become a serious discussant in these forums. However, in order to do so you must discuss in a scientific manner. Therefore I'm taking the time to try to teach you what that manner is and what it consists of:

 

1. Use the specific definitions of the field. Don't try to change them or lie about them.

 

2. Post data. And by data I mean peer-reviewed scientific papers whenever possible. If it's not a peer-reviewed paper but a secondary source, at least try to make it a .edu source or a publication that refers back to primary sources. Sources of people who have studied in the field (and are therefore knowledgable about it) are preferred. Wiki can't be relied upon to meet any of these criteria. Wiki is a place to start, but you can't use it as a reliable source.

 

3. Personal anecdotes don't count and evidence that is available only to you doesn't count. Science works on evidence that is available to everyone under approximately the same situation.

 

4. Denial without evidence doesn't work. You need to show WHY you are denying a claim.

 

Now Lucas, I sure appreciate you taking that time, but it appears to me you are fixated (hung up) on “teaching n’ lecturing” students of Science ….. based solely on what you were taught and/or how you were taught to teach it. Regardless of which, that is not good. And neither is that above that you are attempting to teach me.

 

Lucas, me thinks your above “rules” are telling me that I must first serve an apprenticeship, doing exactly as I am told, ……. or you all will ignore and discredit any and all things that I propose or suggest. DUH, it is no wonder that America is now “sucking hind tit in the Sciences”. Our Colleges and Universities are not teaching the younger generation to be “thinkers, imaginers and curiosity seekers”, ……… they are teaching them to do only what they are told to do, ….. and if they don’t, …. they will never be accepted in any profession.

 

Lucaspa, if the following people had “adhered to your Rules”, ….. what then? What would they have accomplished in life? That is, other than being an educated “flunkie” incapable of thinking for themselves.

 

Lucas, that “expert” I was telling you about was my biology teacher at a little ole non-famous College in Glenville, WV.

 

Now Dr. Max Ward (magna cum laude) was telling us that when he was studying mosses at Harvard he discovered that they “reproduced sexually”, but when he told his Professor what he had observed, ……. his Professor laughed and jeered, saying no way in hell ….. because there was “no supporting literature confirming any such thing.” Dr. Ward said he had to borrow an 8mm movie camera, jury rig it to a microscope and film said “sexual act”, then show it to his Professor before that “in-the-box thinker” (my description) would even consider that it was possible. Dr. Ward also showed us students that “movie”.

 

And another such example, … for 7 years, starting in 1964, every one you “in-the-box thinkers” gave Brian Harland the same “objection treatment” you are now laying on me and it wasn’t until the ”first of these objections began to fade in the late 1970s” that his “ideas” were given serious thought. And here it is, 44 years later, and instead of all you “in-the-box thinkers” laughing at and publicly criticizing Harland for his “snowball idea”, ….. apparently because he could not cite an “approved, peer reviewed, published, scientific, authorized, accepted, etc., etc. source” , ……. the pendulum has swung and now there are a few who are doing their damnest to prove Harland wrong.

 

And another of the many that have suffered a similar wrath is Eugene N. Parker who everyone thought was “just blowing wind” instead of describing it.

 

Lucaspa, I am not an “in-the-box thinker” (mimic) because it limits one to ONLY CONSIDERING that which another person has previously presented as factual or possible. And thus any discussions are limited to “dueling” with quotes, references, citations, etc., …… which in the end really accomplishes nothing other than maybe “converting” one’s opponent to a different “box” to do their mimicking in.

 

Lucaspa, do I need to provide you "evidence" or a "reference" to prove you can "see" what is happening in your dreams ..... even though you know damn well those "images" are not being transmitted via your eyes?

 

But after today, ..... it wouldn't surprse me if you requested said just so you wouldn't be violating your own "rules".

 

Cheers

 

And ps: My statement still stands "that REM has nothing to do with dreams".

 

Lucas, my statement was to "deny cause" and not to "deny association".

 

REM does not cause one to dream. Dreaming causes REM.

 

The same as "farting does not cause digestion of food" ...... nor does "the hair on one's head cause the brain to generate heat energy".

 

.

[Paralith]

Sam, there is a rather large difference between the people you mentioned and yourself. These are practicing research scientists who were working in the field to gather knowledge that was not, at the time, known. From all your examples, once solid supporting evidence for these theories came to light, they were accepted as they should have been. It's only natural to show some skepticism when confronted with a lack of evidence. I agree that complete and utter condemnation of such theories is inappropriate until they have been proven false, and that Dr. Ward's professor's reaction was ill done.

 

However, what you and lucaspa are doing here is very different from the above. You're not out there in the field working on gathering previously unknown evidence and analysis to support something relatively new to science. You are discussing current, known knowledge in a forum, and any new ideas that you may have, unless you're out there scientifically gathering new evidence yourself (as the people you mentioned above most certainly did), must be based on data that is already well supported. If you are making pure conjecture, then you must concede that it is pure conjecture and not try to support your claims beyond all doubt.

 

Some people have difficulty in opening to new ideas. Science itself is merely the process by which new ideas are either supported or disproved, and it doesn't put people "in a box" with it's rules. What lucaspa posted is good scientific method and nothing else.

 

And on a more specific note, if dreaming causes REM, then REM does have something to do with dreams. If one is caused by the other then I think it's safe to say that they have something to do with each other.

[SamCogar]

Sam, there is a rather large difference between the people you mentioned and yourself. These are practicing research scientists who were working in the field to gather knowledge that was not, at the time, known. From all your examples, once solid supporting evidence for these theories came to light, they were accepted as they should have been. It's only natural to show some skepticism when confronted with a lack of evidence. I agree that complete and utter condemnation of such theories is inappropriate until they have been proven false, and that Dr. Ward's professor's reaction was ill done.

 

Paralith, now you done bruised my ego by making such a judgment call when you know very little about me, but as you stated, it's only natural to show some skepticism when confronted with someone who “popped in” off the street a mouthing a lot of weird claims and radical ideas.

 

OK, if I must “toot my own horn” I will, to wit:

 

Now I am retired now, but after graduating from College with an AB in Physical and Biological Science, a short 4 month stint of High School teaching, I spent the next 20 years at what you might call a “practicing research scientists who was working in the field to gather knowledge that was not, at the time, known”. That began, I believe, in February 63’ and that field was computers. Research and Development of new computers and their associated peripherals.

 

Those years were spent in Design Engineering of new products, ….. firmware/software development including loader ROMS, system programs and application programs. I also worked with Manufacturing Engineering and Manufacturing itself to assist and improve their processes. Now I never became famous like my older brother George but I did kinda follow behind him a couple steps a doing “my thing” and I like to think I helped a little bit in his success. (Now that was a Wikii reference but I will attest to its accuracy if that helps.)

 

Some of the “First Evers” that I like to think of myself as being a “party to” their creation are as follows (with included hyperlinks and url’s for verification if required by the reader):

 

The “1st Ever” commercially available key-to-tape device (MDS 1100 Data Recorder) that literally “killed” the punched card business.

 

Probably the “1st Ever” stand-alone word processor that was designed for Frieden Corp. by Cogar Corp. but never became commercially available. (Frieden Corp. was bought by Singer Corp.)

 

The “1st Ever” stand-alone mini-computer (Intelligent Terminal), the Cogar C4, that was commercially available. It was in size and looks of a typewriter, had a keyboard, 4” CRT, 2 mini-cassette tape drives expandable to 8, a 128 Address Coaxial I/O Interface, 100K of MOS programmable memory supplied by the Technology Division of Cogar Corp.

 

I designed and programmed the “1st Ever” manufacturing Materials Requirement Planning (MRP) program that ever ran on a mini-computer, the Cogar C4. I also designed and programmed an Engineering Bill-of-Materials/Costing Processor program that ran on said.

 

The “1st Ever” Point of Sale (POS) terminal (electronic cash register) that was built by Singer Corp. (The Engineering & Development Division of Cogar Corp. was bought by Singer Corp.) To wit:

 

Retail technology was in its infancy in the '70s and vendors began featuring equipment with the latest technology. Target began testing Singer-Frieden Modular Data Transaction Systems electronic point of sale terminals--cutting-edge technology -- in two Milwaukee stores in 1971, extending tests …… (ps: Sears also used these POS’s in all their stores) reference SOURCE

 

Singer Corp. then sold the old Cogar division to ICL (International Computers Limited). To wit:

 

ICL regrouped its North American operations that year, putting together a larger firm out of a merger with the Singer company. ICL acquired Singer's Cogar Corp. subsidiary and some of the manufacturing facilities of Singer's Business Machines division. Cogar had a line of intelligent data entry systems, and manufactured "point-of-sale" (POS) terminals, which were computers for use by retailers. reference SOURCE

 

Now I am tired of looking up and citing references so I will cease with “tooting my horn”. Now I realize my “tooting” doesn’t prove a damn thing relative to what I have been “spouting off” about in these Forums, ….. but it should prove that ”I have been there and done that” which some of you seem to think that I have no frigging idea in the world about how things are done or work.

 

But, as I stated above, my Degree is in Biology and which is my “first love” and which I have always held a deep affection for. Reading, researching, observing, learning, thinking, contemplating and keeping “in touch” with all the advancements and discoveries that interested me over the past 45 years. The primary one being “evolution” and specifically human evolution relative to “which way they went” when our ape ancestors first came down out of the trees. And also of equal importance and interest to me is the human mind (brain, brain stem and spinal cord) and their relationship to our Input/Output Sense Organs (eyes, ears, nose). How these I/O devices program the mind and how then said programmed mind controls said I/O devices. In short: the learning, the remembering and the functioning of one’s mind. I can visualize a “parallel” between a Personal Computer (PC) and the human body relative to “components and functions”. Of course the big difference is, a PC is “programmed” in one fell swoop when it is “born”, whereas a human requires years and years to be “programmed” after it is born. And that is because each human is “self programmed”.

 

Having said the above, I do not think it is a prerequisite or necessary to be “out there somewhere in a designated field or laboratory somewhere” working on gathering information ….. because said information is everywhere …… if you know what to look for and recognize what it is when you see it. And all one needs are “the tools” and test subjects to gather evidence and analyze said. And my “tools” are: my education, my learned experiences, my intelligence, the Internet and my above average ability of recall, reasoning and logical deduction.

 

In the past couple years I have read published reports of researchers using the results of MRI scans of the brain as their basis for determining “how a body part works”.

 

I do not require an MRI scan of a test subject’s brain activity to tell me what I need to look for because the only thing that MRI scan will tell you is what region of the brain is active. As I stated before, if one has no inkling how their own mind works relative to their own sense organs, …. then a CT or MRI scan, or observation of a test subject is not going to tell them what they are looking for. Using an MRI scan to determine how the mind processes information is akin to using a volt/amp meter to test the current flow in the AC wiring in your house to determine how all your appliances work.

 

You are discussing current, known knowledge in a forum, and any new ideas that you may have, unless you're out there scientifically gathering new evidence yourself (as the people you mentioned above most certainly did), must be based on data that is already well supported.

 

GEEEZE, I betcha you wouldn’t be telling Stephen Hawking that. And he is less capable than I am in the “gathering” part of it. But we are alike in one respect in that we both just sit around and “think about things”.

 

If you are making pure conjecture, then you must concede that it is pure conjecture and not try to support your claims beyond all doubt.

 

Now wait a minute, only the ignorant, liars and deceivers make claims they are not willing to support. I do not demand that anyone believe my claims, I post them because I believe them to be true and factual ……. and request and welcome any rebuttal that proves my ideas are wrong. And telling me they are wrong ……. just because I am not in the right place or doing it right …… won’t get it.

 

But now, it appears that two Forum members sorta kinda supported my claim about “abstract thinking”. Were they being honest or just being nice?

 

Would it benefit my stature on this Forum if I prefaced all of my “weird claims and radical ideas” with a disclaimer of “My theory is, … ta dah ta dah” so that they will not be looked upon with complete and utter condemnation?

 

Some people have difficulty in opening to new ideas. Science itself is merely the process by which new ideas are either supported or disproved, and it doesn't put people "in a box" with it's rules.

 

Paralith, I was not implying that it was “Science” that was pulling that “box trick”. And I understand the difficulty about accepting new ideas. To cite one example, it was back in bout 71’ or 72’ that I fought long and hard to get the “video boys” to design the electronics for a 15” CRT monitor that permitted “full color graphics” to be displayed. My boss didn’t laugh, he just kept saying “too expensive”. But it wouldn’t have been because it would have been almost 10 years ahead of any competition. I was a wanting to “revive” that word processor, ya know.

 

And on a more specific note, if dreaming causes REM, then REM does have something to do with dreams. If one is caused by the other then I think it's safe to say that they have something to do with each other.

 

OK, I apologize, …. and will try to be more specific as to how I word things. I type way too slow with one (1) finger to be explaining my actions via these long posts.

 

That is if I am not to “gun shy” to be posting any more of my radical unapproved ideas. And some that are even more radical and weirder.

 

Cheers, Sam C

[Sayonara]

Considering yourself to be an "outside the box" thinker is not a means of bypassing conventions when you are debating matters of scientific enquiry with scientists. If half of what you have told us about your past is true (and I don't have any reason to think that it isn't) then I'd have thought you would understand that.

 

By all means Sam, be as radical as you see fit - in that direction lies innovation as you clearly know. Just don't be surprised that people here are unlikely to take a given idea on faith alone, because most of us are primed to ask "...what is the evidence?" when we meet a novel explanation. Personally I quite like weird ideas, as many here do, but it does of course help to present them on a science site in a scientific manner. Horses for courses, as they say.

 

I would respectfully suggest that comparing yourself to Stephen Hawking is perhaps not realistic. You may perceive that, like you, he "just sits around and thinks about things", but the fact of the matter is that he backs up his insights with spectacular feats of mathematics, and presents his evidence according to sound scientific practices.

[vampares]

When you say "verbalize" you are drawing a distinction distinguish between blurting out what ever is on ones mind, and statements that are logically structured -- as in linguistics.

 

Some languages are terse; express single thought words. The more phonetic capability, the shorter expression becomes. Some animals simply lack the phonetic ability required for language as a sum of phonetics. Other animals lack the ability or desire to express themselves in an abstract mannor.

 

Blue-jays will call their offspring when they find food. They teach their young to find food in this way. "Get over here" is abstract. Not very abstract.

 

"Soul" is a word. It is less abstract than you think. It's you. Confuss this and it become a complication. We don't usually make note of our fleeting existence every time we express "you" or "me". So if I say "soul be comming here" that is the same thing.

 

Combination of phonetics into words is complicated but this is a product of necessity in part.

[recursive]

Wow that was a long post.

 

Here's my answer:

 

PANPSYCHISM!

[Psyber]

In practical terms I have found animals can and do initiate interaction. Where we live there are many wild parrots and we have a bird-feeder to dispense seed and attract them. If we forget to top it up we get different responses from different varieties of parrot.

 

Sulphur-crested Parrots come, look and go away. Rosellas sit on the feeder and whistle.

 

King Parrots come round to the other side of the house to the kitchen or study, find you, light on the window sill and whistle at you and even tap on the glass with their beaks if you don't respond to the whistles. When you get up they meet you at the feeder - yes I can recognise individual birds by their markings.

 

That behaviour seems to imply a certain awareness and intent.

[vampares]

I had a bunch of gerbils some years ago. Vocally gerbils can only squeek, which they do only as juveniles. They can beat their feet on the ground and they do this to warn others of danger. When one gerbil beats his feet they all run for cover. The beat pattern and intensity is very important. Sometimes it is means something else like "let's go back out".

 

At night they would "chatter", gnawing and beating their feet, like the Irish or the Spanish (or the Irish and the Spanish). What they were saying was not philosophical or of interdependancy (parent/child) or argumentative or all that informative -- it is more of a union of workers or a party with seporate groups, each having its own leader. It's almost as if they have a music going on in their heads.

[Orbital]

Regarding souls, I don't believe that they are a physical tangable thing. They a meerly an abstract human construct which makes us once again feel like we are superior to all other life forms. It's also a nice way to face the fear of death. Unfortinately, I don't believe they exist. Somebody once said to me that they believed humans were not animals because we have soulds. I asked them to explain what exactly they thought a soul was. They told me that it was "ones personality". Can't all behaviors and personality traits be explained by biological concepts? As in, personality forms as a result of things experienced in life, which are in themselves affecting the make up of the brain. Not sure what my point is exactly lol, but I have one somewhere in there.

[foodchain]

Regarding souls, I don't believe that they are a physical tangable thing. They a meerly an abstract human construct which makes us once again feel like we are superior to all other life forms. It's also a nice way to face the fear of death. Unfortinately, I don't believe they exist. Somebody once said to me that they believed humans were not animals because we have soulds. I asked them to explain what exactly they thought a soul was. They told me that it was "ones personality". Can't all behaviors and personality traits be explained by biological concepts? As in, personality forms as a result of things experienced in life, which are in themselves affecting the make up of the brain. Not sure what my point is exactly lol, but I have one somewhere in there.

 

Lol, reading this thread makes me think no one has ever had a pet. I have had lots of pets and or interaction with mere animals to know that you can find personality in rats. Yes, it is all ultimately a biological thing though, but that can mean a whole lot more then even a B.S in the field on average I would say would reveal about just that word really in application to life.

 

A sould is a bs comment that cant exist outside of subjectivity, there is no need to debate that and yes I care a great deal about people in my life and people in general.

[SamCogar]

In practical terms I have found animals can and do initiate interaction. Where we live there are many .......

 

Psyber, where I now live my neighbors, long dead now, were a frugal couple who raised a big garden, etc. Now leftover edibles they did not throw into the trash but instead carried them way down to the back of their property and throw them over the fence and down on the river bank to feed a large group of Mallard ducks that resided there on the river.

 

If said neighbor lady forgot to feed them for a day or two, I would hear this gawd awful quacking and upon looking out my window there would be upwards of 25 head of ducks, ….. which had walked 150 yards up the alleyway from the river, ….. huddled there in a group at the neighbor’s fence. And they would stay there “a quacking” until she came outside and headed toward the river with a pail of food.

 

And those ducks could not see that house from there on the river but somehow they knew which house she lived in.

 

But now my best “actual event” story is about a horse I once took care of when I was living in the Utica area of Upstate New York. It belonged to the daughter but you know how that is when it comes to feeding. Anyway, I had a herd of about 25 beef cattle and them and said horse, a small Pinto mare, all shared the same pasture and a small barn where they could get in out of the weather. The barn had a wide open doorway where they all could come n’ go at their pleasure, a watering tank and two rows of feeding troughs with about 6 stanchions on one of said rows which I used for “locking-up” a cow when necessary. I would only feed and water them during the winter months.

 

Now that Pinto mare hated men …. and I mean that literally. Now the wife and daughter could walk up and pet her, bridle her, ….. anytime, anywhere. But me or any other males could not get within 20 yards of her unless she was being held. Now whenever the Pinto and the cows were in the barn when I enter through my doorway, …… WHOOOSH, ….. out the big doorway that Pinto would go like a flash. No exceptions, winter or summer, she would do it every time.

 

Except one morning I went down to feed them and when I opened the door I could see that Pinto right there in front of me, ….. with her head through one of those stanchions ….. and a looking straight back at me. Well now, I expected her to go “WHOOOSH”, … but she didn’t. So I ignored her and began filling those troughs with hay, …. not once looking directly at her ….. but I could see she was watching every move I made. Finally, I said out loud, …. “What’s the matter bitch, ….. get yourself locked-in that stanchion, huh.” And to my surprise she replied with a soft sounding but pleading like “snort” ……. and it was only then that I looked directly at her and seen ………. about seven (7) porcupine quills of about 8” in length embedded in the end of her nose. Damn, they must have hurt, …. and she must have been hungry also because she couldn’t eat with them stuck there.

 

It was then I said something like ….. “So bitch, you got nosey and now you got big troubles don’t you, and now you want to be friends. Just wait there until I get a pair of pliers and I will help you out.” And she gave me another little snort and I did. ….. I got the pliers and as I snipped each quill off at the center …….. and then “jerked” the rest of it out of her nose, ….. she gave out with a loud snort and the quivers and shakes started at her ears and went clear to her tail …….. but she stood right there with her nose out and looking me right in the eyes.

 

That is until the last quill came out and …….. “WHOOSH”, ….. out of the stanchion and out the big door like a flash.

 

HA, ….. just like a female, …… she still hated my arse even though I was really nice to her.

 

Intelligent reasoning, logical deducting, abstract thinking, ……… you tell me.

 

One thing I do know for sure, that Pinto mare was standing there patiently waiting for me to come to the barn that morning.

[foodchain]

 

Intelligent reasoning, logical deducting, abstract thinking, ……… you tell me.

 

One thing I do know for sure, that Pinto mare was standing there patiently waiting for me to come to the barn that morning.

 

Its not just that but for what it worth life is more then trying to find anti-knock agents going from chemical behavior. Yet on that note its still just the same chemical compounds if you will in general that makes up a fly compared to a human, sure no one will say a fly is anything like a human but that’s not really saying a fly does not have a thought. Last time I checked science cannot create a movie that would describe perfectly how a fly brain works, yet without that knowledge its easy to say a fly is just some pointless organic automaton, how is that again?

 

My dog likes to watch t.v sometimes. I have two dogs currently, both of the same breed, along with a few cats. They all act differently in regards to similar or different stimulus, that can further be changed depending on other variables, such as the environment or some other local events. Lastly if they were just stupid rocks incapable of thought, how could they ever get along with people. It just seems like common sense really, though I know that does not mean much.

[Sayonara]

Lol, reading this thread makes me think no one has ever had a pet. I have had lots of pets and or interaction with mere animals to know that you can find personality in rats.

But the question with animals is: Could this be the same phenomenon that we term "personality" in humans, or is it simply a unique set of particular learned responses which is unique to that specific animal due to the environment we give it (sort of a behavioural signature, if you will)?

[Paralith]

To Sam: Perhaps I should have clarified. Whether or not you were ever a practicing research scientist was not my point. In the current subject under discussion, you are not a research scientist. Work on fMRI's is all well and good but unless that work can offer some support of statements you made about the dreams of animals and whether or not they are abstract and conscious the way they are in humans, that work is irrelevant to the subject at hand. And because you are not actively out there gathering support for this subject, any arguments you make in this subject have to be based on existing data. And as Sayonara nicely pointed out for me, even Stephen Hawking does this, as well as a lot of actual mathematic proofs.

 

For your example with the horse, as well as many other anecdotal examples of animal behavior that seems similar to human behavior, it is possible that this does indeed represent conscious, abstract thought. But it is also very possible that it does not. The alternate explanation could be given that, the horse had learned an association with humans and its care - with humans and feeding (in the winter), humans and grooming, etc. She may not like every human that cares for her, but care for her they do. So when injured and in need of care, she simply knew that if she waited for a human to come, care for her injuries would shortly follow. As you were the first human to find her, she waited for you to care for her, and you did. Association fulfilled, she left. This is logical of course, but not very abstract. Whether or not she thought to herself, "Dammit this hurts, I hate that human but I know he'll see me in pain with these quills in my nose and then he'll take them out, so I'll let him near me. After that, though, I'm outta here," is doubtful. This requires a level of self reflection that most animals probably can't accomplish; but at the very least, until we have better methods of understanding the mental thought processes of animals and comparing them our own, we can't be 100% ure either way.

[bascule]

I personally believe that the richness of our (i.e. human) conscious experience is to no small degree rooted in our capacity for natural language.

[Sayonara]

I personally believe that the richness of our (i.e. human) conscious experience is to no small degree rooted in our capacity for natural language.

 

I have to say I agree. Moreover, I suspect that the door swings both ways.

[SamCogar]

To Sam: Perhaps I should have clarified. Whether or not you were ever a practicing research scientist was not my point. In the current subject under discussion, you are not a research scientist.

 

We both know what your point was.

 

Paralith, and your requirements and parameters that defines what a “research scientist is”, ….. are what? Please list “said”, …….. if you please.

 

Work on fMRI's is all well and good but unless that work can offer some support of statements you made about the dreams of animals and whether or not they are abstract and conscious the way they are in humans, that work is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

 

Paralith, I do not believe I stated so, or even inferred, that any results from fMRI work supported the statements I made about animals dreaming, other than maybe an MRI scan would confirm that “dreaming causes REM”.

 

Paralith, please tell me, ….. about the work that was performed, where it was performed, what scientific teniques, procedures, instruments, etc. were used/required ……. to support the currently accepted belief that humans are capable of abstract and conscious thought? I mean like what your next statement states, to wit:

 

And because you are not actively out there gathering support for this subject, any arguments you make in this subject have to be based on existing data.

 

Paralith, ……. where is “out there”, …….. and why are you gathering “support” instead of “data”, are you having an “election” or what. Is it because there really is no data to gather other than …….. one’s own conscious and subconscious thoughts. Now you can gather your own thoughts, but not someone else’s, …… because they only exist in each person’s mind unto them self. And that person is the only one that can “present them, define them, make them known” to other individuals, …….. and then and only then, can the “gathering of support” commence and the “voting” begin.

 

And as Sayonara nicely pointed out for me, even Stephen Hawking does this, as well as a lot of actual mathematic proofs.

 

Yup, Hawkins uses the observed data and resolves what it means and uses mathmatics to prove his results are possible.

 

For your example with the horse, as well as many other anecdotal examples of animal behavior that seems similar to human behavior, it is possible that this does indeed represent conscious, abstract thought. But it is also very possible that it does not. …………………………………………….This requires a level of self reflection that most animals probably can't accomplish; but at the very least, until we have better methods of understanding the mental thought processes of animals and comparing them our own, we can't be 100% ure either way.

 

Paralith, ya can’t have good thinkers trying to resolve things if they are biased against that which they are attempting to resolve …….. and if they don’t understand their own thought processes they can’t very well compare them to the thought processes of other animals.

 

Paralith, pick say a food item that you truly dislike or hate the taste/smell of with a passion, …….. and then tell me why you dislike or hate it. Can you do that? Have you ever thought about it?

 

Or, pick one that you really like or love the taste/smell of and then tell me why you like or love it.

 

And Paralith, to prove to yourself that your conscious mind is in control of what you do, ……. whichever one of those foods you selected, whether it is one you love the taste of, or one you hate the taste of, ……. you tell yourself that tomorrow you are going to “love the one you hated today” and/or are going to “hate the one you loved today”.

 

Then you be sure to tell me how it worked out when you took a "bite" of that food the next day.

 

.

[Paralith]

All I'm trying to say, Sam, is that you are not a currently researching scientist in this particular field. I'm not trying to insult you or what you may have done in other fields at other times. As neither you nor I nor Lucaspa nor anyone else in this thread (so far as I know) are currently researching scientists in this particular field we all have to look to the work of people who are.

 

I not sure what you mean by suggesting that I'm biased against the very thing I'm trying to resolve; nor am I trying to say that human thoughts are that much more well understood than animals' thoughts, when it comes down to the nitty gritty of brain function and what exactly is going on in there. If my statements seemed to suggest otherwise, that was my mistake and I apologize. To rephrase: until we have increased knowledge and better understanding of how thought processes work and how to compare them between us and other animals, we can't be 100% sure either way.

 

We do, however, have a greater (though still incomplete) understanding of our own thoughts than of animal thoughts, because we humans have language with which we can explain our more conscious thoughts to each other. Even with animals, though, certain behavioral tests can be done to test various theories about their mental processes. I'm more familiar with these, as I have read about several of them recently. And beyond this, advances in neurobiology are slowly unwinding the very basis of thought.

[SamCogar]

All I'm trying to say, Sam, is that you are not a currently researching scientist in this particular field.

 

And thus you discredit any and all things that I present ...... based solely on that premise. And I betcha you don't watch Fox "Fair & Balanced" News, either.

 

I not sure what you mean by suggesting that I'm biased against the very thing I'm trying to resolve; nor am I trying to say that human thoughts are that much more well understood than animals' thoughts, when it comes down to the nitty gritty of brain function and what exactly is going on in there. If my statements seemed to suggest otherwise, that was my mistake and I apologize. To rephrase: until we have increased knowledge and better understanding of how thought processes work and how to compare them between us and other animals, we can't be 100% sure either way.

 

Paralith, the ones you are partial to have been working long, hard and furiously for years n' years n' years to increase their knowledge and understanding how thought processes work ....... and they haven't figured out much of anything yet. And they never will with their NIH mindset. (Not Invented Here)

 

The Class hierarchy structure of the Scientific Community will prevent it from happening. Like Dr. Ward told us, Jonas Salk didn’t discover anything, the two researchers working under him did, Salk just took credit for it.

 

We do, however, have a greater (though still incomplete) understanding of our own thoughts than of animal thoughts, because we humans have language with which we can explain our more conscious thoughts to each other. Even with animals, though, certain behavioral tests can be done to test various theories about their mental processes. I'm more familiar with these, as I have read about several of them recently. And beyond this, advances in neurobiology are slowly unwinding the very basis of thought.

 

HA, are you serious, ..... very few people actually tell another "what they are thinking", ....... they tell them ONLY what they want them to hear. Except in the case of some drunks, aka:..... "A drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts".

 

Paralith, I can guarantee you that there are THOUSANDS of your own "thoughts and dream content" that you would never tell another living soul. No one will. Dreams are the only "window" into one's subconscious mind and people will not tell you what "all" they see happening there.

 

And that "window" is the key to "unlock" the mystery of our "conscious thoughts" ........ because it is our subconscious mind that controls and directs all of our conscious thoughts.

 

Paralith, one's dreams are "assembled" from bits n' pieces of stored memories .... just like a Video Editor creates a "sports flashback" by extracting "bits n' pieces" from various old videos that are stored in their Video Library archives.

 

DUH, how else could it be possible for say, that your spouse, your father or your "wannabe lover" ....... could appear in one of your dreams with you in a place (at work, fishing, in a motel) .... that you absolutely know for sure that that person had never ever been there with you.

 

GEEEZE, even long dead "friends" walk around talking to you ....... in your "dreams". Even in "places" that didn't exist when they were alive.

 

Ask one of your "expert in the field" researchers to explain that to you. Or better yet, you might better first ask if they have ever considered or pondered that part of "brain activity".

 

We know that it occurs as I described it, ...... so someone must be investigating it other than me, ....... right? :-p

 

.

[iNow]

Troll.

[SamCogar]

Someone has to be, ……. otherwise some individuals will continue “down the same path they are on” forever and ever ……. without ever considering any alternatives.

 

I guess a really good Teacher or Professor would be labeled a Classroom Troll, …… right?

 

 

:D

 

.

[iNow]

I guess a really good Teacher or Professor would be labeled a Classroom Troll, …… right?

Uhhmmm... No.