Do animals have coherent thought essay

[bouma]

Just wrote an essay on this topic just wondering what people thought? Only a rough copy but seeing of there may be any other ideas or evidence to suggest?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coherent Thought

 

co·her·ent (kō hir′ənt, -her′-)

adjective

sticking together; having cohesion

having coherence; logically connected; consistent; clearly articulated

capable of logical, intelligible speech, thought, etc.

Physics exhibiting coherence

 

 

 

Many believe that what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is coherent thought, simply we got it and they ain’t! Yet without coherence in its basic form I fail to see how animals would survive. The list of antonyms for coherent would suggest that of animal behaviour to many, disorganized, incomprehensible, irrational, not understandable, unintelligible, irrational, unsystematic however so many of these words can also be attributed to humans. If this is the case then it is not simply coherence that separates us but maybe just the level of intelligence at which are able process and the depth at which information is processed.

 

Upon watching a documentary, a dog was able to understand when it chose a positive symbol ‘+’ as opposed to a negative symbol ‘-’ it was rewarded by being given a treat. The symbols were then replaced by images; one which would mean being given a treat and one which wouldn’t. Needless to say the dog was soon able to learn which one meant which! The dog was then shown a negative image (one which it had never been given a treat from) to a brand new image, the dog as I believe most humans would also have chose went for the brand new image in the knowledge that the other image had never given it a treat before. This to me suggests that this dog had basic reasoning yet it was put it to me that it was just training. If these images were replayed for a second time, but this time the brand new image did not give it a treat on the third time of being shown the images what would the dog do? Would it make an irrational, disorganized and unsystematic choice? Of course it would, faced with the same problem a human would! Ask yourself the question, which one would you choose? Yet given a 50-50 problem humans would probably decide after a period of time that they may as well try the other image as they are not receiving anything from the other. Is this coherent thought, is this what separates us?

 

Should, hypothetically speaking, the dog carry on selecting the brand new image (which wouldn’t be quite so new now) does this show incoherence? It is of my belief that it doesn’t, in fact it is probably more coherent to go to the image that has worked once, than to go for the one which has never worked. Although to a human we can understand the reasons why to go to the one that has never worked after a period of time, an animal may not. There is still a logical explanation as to why the animal would keep on selecting that same image, look at the second line of the definition given at the top of the write-up; having coherence; logically connected; consistent; clearly articulated. It is the third line of the definition however in particularly intelligible speech, which could be the only thing that separates us from being coherent.

 

Intelligible Speech

The percentage of speech units understood correctly by a listener in a communications system; customarily used for regular messages where the context aids the listener, in distinction to articulation. Also known as speech intelligibility.

 

 

Above is a definition of intelligible speech. Humans unlike animals are able speak, parrots can say words but not sentences but speech only accounts for 10% of all communication. Do animals need intelligible speech on order for them to be labelled as coherent? Sticking rigidly to the definition of coherent then yes. In order for animals to be labelled as coherent all you would need to do is take out the word speech from the above definition. I say this because only 10% of all communication is done through what is actually being said. The rest is consistent of mainly physical gestures and importantly tone of voice. A dolphins communications system is extremely complex, from sonar to friendly clicks even the ability to seem as if they are laughing! In the ocean they will use these clicks to tell other dolphins where there may be danger or where there next meal is, all of which is 100% understood to other dolphins. Is this there form of intelligible clicks? In which case for dolphins to made as coherent…

 

Intelligible Clicks

The percentage of click units understood correctly by a listener in a communications system; customarily used for regular messages where the context aids the listener, in distinction to articulation. Also known as click

intelligibility.

 

 

Another possible avenue to explore is that animals are simply trained or go by animal instinct. Humans are driven by even the most primeval of all animal instincts and that is to mate. So animal instincts are not what separates us and surely it is only through training as a child we learn to be able to realize what we should and shouldn’t do. It was put to me that if a ball was thrown into the middle of a busy a dog would chase after it. Given the training however it possibly wouldn’t. Yet in order for it to be labelled is incoherent the dog must not realize why it is chasing the ball, not the possible dangers it faces. The very basics of it are is that dog wants the ball and there is nothing disorganized, incomprehensible, irrational, not understandable, unintelligible, irrational, unsystematic about that from the dogs perceptive.

 

To our minds it is, we understand the danger involved where as the dog wouldn’t. But why is that? How many times were you told as a child by your parents to stop at the curb side before crossing the road because of the danger. I myself was on the receiving of an ear lashing when ran out into the middle of the road after the ice cream van in my youth, but did that make me incoherent? And wasn’t my parent telling me off training? So this cannot separate us from the animal kingdom as we do it ourselves.

 

In conclusion, animals have a reason for all of their actions. Whether it be running in the middle of a road to get a ball (the reason simply being to get the ball) or more complex, all of their actions can be described as articulate, comprehensible, consistent, identified, intelligible, logical, lucid, meaningful, orderly, organized, rational, reasoned, sound, and systematic. To a human however running into a road just to get a ball would be disorganized, incomprehensible, irrational, not understandable, unintelligible, irrational and unsystematic as we know the inherent danger but the animal does not. So yes animals do have coherent thought but not the intelligence and depth as us humans.

[dr.syntax]

I think your conclusions are correct. There is not that much difference between us and other animals, at least the more highly developed ones. After all we are animals also. I wish you well with your work. ...Dr.Syntax

[Capita]

This may not fit all of your descriptions of coherent thought but I find some example of animals very interesting as they are very human like, for example in apes (or guerrillas or both not 100% sure) when the mate dies there have been cases of the spouse experiencing depression displaying cohesion, also another good example is their use tools like sticks to gather bugs which to us is not very advanced but in the animal world such use of a tool is extraordinary. Dolphins as well as humans have casual sex as well casually and not for mating purposes, not sure exactly how that one would fit into coherent thought but could possibly show intimacy between animals much like humans.

 

"Upon watching a documentary, a dog was able to understand when it chose a positive symbol ‘+’ as opposed to a negative symbol ‘-’ it was rewarded by being given a treat. The symbols were then replaced by images; one which would mean being given a treat and one which wouldn’t. Needless to say the dog was soon able to learn which one meant which! The dog was then shown a negative image (one which it had never been given a treat from) to a brand new image, the dog as I believe most humans would also have chose went for the brand new image in the knowledge that the other image had never given it a treat before. This to me suggests that this dog had basic reasoning yet it was put it to me that it was just training. If these images were replayed for a second time, but this time the brand new image did not give it a treat on the third time of being shown the images what would the dog do?"

 

The only thing I could think to argue against this is possibly that the - sign eventually evoked a Pavlovian response but that really is of a reaction than a thought

[dirtyamerica]

lots of long posts here (well, ok, 2) so forgive me it this is repeated in all that text..

 

Another example of coherent thought is when lions hunt. They use teamwork and have a specific pattern not unlike a football team. It's not just "run and chase after whatever is closest" but instead well planned.

[dr.syntax]

lots of long posts here (well, ok, 2) so forgive me it this is repeated in all that text..

 

Another example of coherent thought is when lions hunt. They use teamwork and have a specific pattern not unlike a football team. It's not just "run and chase after whatever is closest" but instead well planned.

 

A long list of such animals : dogs,baboons,hippos,elephants,beavers,praire dogs, all of the primates to at least some degree, many birds warn each other when danger is near,porposes,whales,seals,walruses, all of the hearding animals. When you stop and think about it there appears to be a very many animals that co-operate with each other in different ways to avoid and evade enemies and to prey on others as a group. ...Dr.Syntax

[bouma]

Thanks for all your thoughts. My housemate has put forward that coherent thought is the ability to assess, evaluate and act upon a situation. He believes that due to animals not being able to evaluate situations such as 'i won't chase after the ball in the middle of the road as there may be a car coming' makes them incoherent and that animals react soully on instinct and training. Yet to me instinct and training is coherence?!