This is topic Is Pet Ownership Ethical? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=030426

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
A couple of threads lately have really got me thinking about the ethics of keeping a pet. (The ones on euthanasia and spaying/neutering)

Is it really a good thing to have pets or encourage the keeping of pets? What benefits does it bring? What effect does it have on the Balance of things? What position does it put you in?

For instance, we make the decisions of life or death for our pets. We confine them into small spaces and determine when they may feed. We "fix" them so that their reproductive organs are broken. We inbreed them until they are not capable of surviving without our influence. We use them for our entertainment. Sometimes we abuse them. We call them our friends, but do we really treat them as such?

I'm wondering what human relationships with animals really say about our species.
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 
Despite our very short engagement, the one thing we agreed on is that we wouldn't have pets. For my husband, his parents would sometimes breed their pedigree German Shepherd and he was acutely aware of the hard work/cuteness ratio. For me, it was the pain of going through one pet dying after another (though mine were hamsters). The idea is that we don't see pet ownership as something to be taken lightly.

The thing is that I do love pets. I'm fascinated by animals and have a huge drive to be nurturing. I think if my husband passed away I would get a dog, both as a companion and for security. It's trite, but I really think of cats as owning people and not the other way around.

P.S. I guess I'm saying that pet ownership can be ethical, if you have a real relationship with the animal, if they have a purpose besides looking good or whatever.

[ January 02, 2005, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
I don't think its intrinsically ethical, or not. It depends on the owner/animal relationship.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
Can you have a "relationship" with an animal without considering yourself its owner?

Can you have a pet that you don't treat as a child or a slave or a prisoner?

I believe you can, but it is rare to find people who relate to animals with the same respect and honor they extend to other humans.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Yes, but animals AREN'T other humans, and as such, our relationship with them should be different then the relationship we have with other people.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
I agree! Animals are NOT people. So, does that mean we should take them into our homes? Why or why not?

And can we shift our perspective from that of Dominators of Creation to something else? Are we not animals ourselves?
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
In our case, we only adopt pets from the Humane Society or from local rescue organizations, animals that would have been destroyed otherwise. We get companionship, they get a safe habitat and life. Works for me.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I see dog ownership, specifically, as a sort of symbiotic relationship. You give the dog food and love that it needs, and you feed off of the love it gives back. Kids who grow up with dogs are better for it, in my opinion. Are dogs better off for their relationship with us? Maybe not as a species, but as individuals, I believe they are, if we treat them right.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Nathan and I are completely owned by Pepper and Smokey. Two fascinating, loving, loveable, sometimes infuriating family members - I, for one, look on the their presence as a blessing and a gift. I do wish that there were such as a thing as a pet translator and pet health insurance . . .

Nathan gets the opportunity to learn skills in sharing and caring - which he is relly good at, but practice is important, and as an only child, I think Pepper (and now Smokey) fill some empty places for him.

I get to have lowered blood pressure due to some really good laughs watching Pepper and Smokey antics. I get to have higher blood pressure worrying about any health problems - and I get to practice problem solving, like: how to keep Smokey out of Pepper's food since adult food does not do a kitten well . . . and vice versa . . .

Pepper gets a friend to keep her company, rather than being alone all day while Nathan is in school and I am at work. Pepper also got a good home to live in, proper medical care, good diet, safety and comfort - which is not what she had when Nathan and I rescued her from the shelter.

Before we adopted Pepper, Nathan and I had some very serious talks about pet care, and ensured that everything was ready to go (food, water, litter box, safe spaces, vet, carrier, books read and to be read on cats) . . .

Smokey might have done better in the barn he lived in - but I don't know . . . he is now vaccinated, dewormed, de-flea'd . . . safe, warm, fed, and has adjusted very well to being here in this home.

We have goldfish, too - but I can't seem to get the hang of them. *Sigh* I did better with fish before becoming a mother.

The church Nathan and I have attended for the last decade have a pet blessing ceremony every year -

I dunno - pets are a wonderful part of our life. Life does come with it's hassles and heartbreaks - euthanasia being one.

However, after finding a family member dead of suicide several years ago (very ill and in great pain) - I wish we as people could somehow figure a way through the morass of helping our loved ones to die with dignity if they so choose. I would far prefer that to finding them with their brains blown across the room.

Which is another way pets are blessings - they love us unconditionally - and seem to know when we need comfort, support and love - I remember sitting at my table sick with vertigo and head/neck/back pain (after Grammy used me as a speed bump) waiting for my ride to the emergency room, crying and scared. Obviously, I was not going to wake up my son - but Pepper (who knows not to get on the table) had no such inhibition that night and got right up there with me, purring and rubbing her head against me until help arrived. She also keeps a good eye on Nathan - I can tell if he's sick sick, because she will stay next to him and watch his face without moving.

I dunno - it's a good question, this one of "pets".

I am grateful for the friends we have in my family . . .
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I don't think that the relationship between animal and human is one sided. I think that they gain a lot as well, from meals to warm places to sleep, to somone who loves them and pampers them.

I don't think animals deserve the same rights and treatment as humans though, although I would turn a person in for abuse in a second. We are naimals, but that isn't all we are.

Dogs are my favorite, and I know form experience that dogs love human interaction. My Penney loves being around people, to the point that she freaks non-dog people out a bit.

I think that having a dog is a MUST, adn my wife agrees. I play with my dog as much as I can, and I believe that she is better off with me than in the wild....she is 11, and in the wild she would be dead.

I think that as long as an owner accepts responsibility for the animal, not just when they want to play with them but for good, as long as the animal is with them, then the relationship for both of them is good.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Shan, there IS such a thing as pet health insurance.

Here is a web page on it....try a google search for your area.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
I love Jatraquero's . . . they have information about everything!


 

---

Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
 
I think pets are important for folks. Especially for city folks, I think that pets are a good way for us to connect with other animals. (Yep they're domesticated, but still, they do still have that element of "other.")

I've got major problems with people who spend too much money on their pets though (fancy food, expensive vet care, etc.) I value life, but I value human life the most, and when I hear of someone spending thousands of dollars on vet bills to get a few more years of life for their dog, I have a hard time not thinking about all the good that money could have done if it had been given instead to tsunami relief, Physicians Without Borders, Planned Parenthood, etc.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Paul is right, it depends entirely on the particular human/pet relationship being discussed.

quote:

---

Can you have a "relationship" with an animal without considering yourself its owner?

---

quote:

---

When I was outside at my last house she'd frequently come over and just kind of hang out with me.

---

quote:

---

Animals are NOT people. So, does that mean we should take them into our homes?

---

quote:

---

To us, it's a papasan chair.
To the Labs, it's a dog bed on a nice bamboo frame up off the floor.

---

quote:

---

Can you have a pet that you don't treat as a child or a slave or a prisoner?

I believe you can, but it is rare to find people who relate to animals with the same respect and honor they extend to other humans.

---

quote:

---

And can we shift our perspective from that of Dominators of Creation to something else? Are we not animals ourselves?

---

quote:

---

In my own opinion, it's wrong to get a large dog who needs to run and then expect him/her to sit outside on a chain all day

---

quote:

---

I like most dogs, but I will never own one unless I have 5 acres in the country for the dog to run around in.

---

quote:

---

I distrust people who treat animals as though they were human.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you're criticizing those people who spend tons of money on designer doggie outfits and expensive toys. I'll agree with you. I don't think dogs like to wear clothes anyway. (Mishka allows us to dress her in jingle bells and reindeer horns sometimes, but only because she realized after the first time it happened that "reindeer costume"="attention and admiration from a crowd of children.") And as for expensive toys, our critters are just fine with tattered plush animals from Goodwill, tennis balls, and sticks found out in the yard.

On the other hand, if you regard a dog as an object to be used in whatever way you wish, and then thrown away, I've got a problem with that.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I hate it when people keep a tiger as a pet then get suprised when it tries to eat them...
Falconry would be interesting... there are times in which I had my own unkindness of ravens because that would be interesting.
Other than that, most wild animals should not be kept as pets and people should never, ever put clothes on animals...
Simply because most of the time it's more stupid than funny.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I'm saying I distrust people that act as though dogs were people.

But I also think that it's wrong to treat them as though they were pencils.

They are animals. Closer to us than pencils, but still not people.

edit: because duh

[ January 04, 2005, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
MPH, I thionk you meant people there in the first line.

But I could be wrong.


 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
They're all our close cousins, though. I mean the common ancestor of a dog and a human was alive less than 65 million years ago. People talk about "anthropomorphizing" animals, but in large part, they actually ARE anthropomorphic. For instance, cats understand the mapping of corresponding body parts the way a human baby does. A human baby will sometimes stick out their tongue in response to you sticking out yours, which shows that they understand how your tongue corresponds to their tongue. In a similar way, cats that aren't accustomed to human interaction reveal their knowledge of this mapping by interpreting a raised hand as a threat. Among cats, a raised paw means "come closer and I will swat you with my claws". It takes them a while to understand that humans stroke with their "paws", basically using their hands like a cat mother would use her tongue. I've seen wildish kittens go through this learning process many times, shying, at first, from the threat implied in a raised hand, then gradually learning that human hands are sort of prosthetic tongues.

Also, cats rarely distinguish hands from feet. To them a paw is a paw. So if I stretch my foot toward Felicity, she will come and rub her head against it just as she would my hand. Again, she maps her own body onto mine in the correct fashion.

I am glad cats don't warn each other against felimorphizing humans. We get along so well largely because we are a lot alike, because in fact we are cousins. Hunger, fear, affection, pain, surprise, warmth, comfort, peace, they experience much of great importance in life exactly as we do. The relative dominance of smell over vision is a real difference between us, and the feline sense of dignity and utter lack of a sense of humor are another. <laughs> They don't get a lot of our monkey games. The human ability to throw objects seems astonishing and magical to them. But really in most every way, to them we are nothing but large rather clumsy cats.

[ January 04, 2005, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
This topic makes me want to get a cat.
Perhaps one will adopt me once I get around to straightening my apartment.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
They do prefer things to be clean and neat. However, my sloppy housekeeping hasn't kept many cats from adopting me over the years, so fear not.

I wanted to comment on treating animals as children. I do treat my cats as children, and they are children that will never be adults, in that sense. However, I respect their autonomy and their person-ness. Treating someone as a child doesn't mean treating them as less than a person, to me. They get to make all the decisions about their own selves (other than medical care). I don't force them to accept affection if they don't feel like it right now, for instance. I don't make them wear clothes or function as toys for small children. I don't specify where they must sleep or sit. Many of the arrangements in our home are specifically chosen with their needs and tastes in mind. So while they are my children, they are also equal to me in personhood. I wouldn't shoo a cat out of a chair so I could sit there, for instance.

They freely give up some of their choices to us, because they know we love them and know best. Even though my cats hate taking medicine, yet they still come to me and tell me whenever they aren't feeling good. In many ways, the relationship that I have with my cats informs my understanding of God's relationship to me. It awes and humbles me to think of it that way.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I just would not want a cat or a rabbit to eat these papers or get lost in a box or a plastic bag or something.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

hey're all our close cousins, though. I mean the common ancestor of a dog and a human was alive less than 65 million years ago.

---

65 million years does not make close cousins.

My cousin that I grew up friends with and introduced me to my wife -- that's a close cousin.

[ January 04, 2005, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
The one place in my life that I knew I had unconditional love was from my dog.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I'm sorry.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
We have domesticated animals that are no longer capable of caring for themselves without human support.

I own guinea pigs. These things wouldn't last in the wild! They are slow, stupid, delicate, and tasty. I am doing them an enormous favor by protecting them, housing them, feeding them, changing their cage, etc. But do they thank me? Nope.

But they are awfully cute, warm, fuzzy, and they "purr". They are basically tribbles with feet. I love having them around. I think it is a pretty good trade off, and they are getting the better end of the deal.

If one of them had a stroke, would I take them to the ER and spend thousands to make sure they got through it? No. I would for my child, but not them. I would, however give them all my TLC to help them to be as comfortable as possible as they suffered death. After all, if they didn't have mankind, they wouldn't be alive at all.

So basically, I don't think animals have the same rights as people, and it bothers me when people treat them that way. Or worse, treat animals better than people. "'Cause people are evil and they hurt other people. Not like my cutsie wootsie little schnookums who wouldn't hurt a fly...."

Now, if I knew that a species of animal were sentient, I would be all for them having equal rights. What was that word OSC used in Speaker for the Dead? I can't remember. But in my mind a non-sentient creature does not have the same rights as a sentient one.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Varlese? I think?
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
What are your criteria for sentience bev? If we were to encounter a sentient species, how would we know that we had done so?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Hey Jenny, checked your email lately?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Noemon: I dunno. Communication would be important, and understanding. I am pretty confident that none of the animals people routinely hold as pets are sentient. I don't know about dolphins or apes though.

I do think that erring on the side of being compassionate to animals is a good idea.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Yeah, it's a hard thing to define. Anybody else have any thoughts on it?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
NO!
It's Ramen!
I think...
Varelse is something that is hostile and dangerous.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yes, yes! Ramen!

*thinks of noodles*
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
*and is reminded of her love for the "Planet of the Apes" movies*
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
Bev and Noemon, I've actually thought about that sentience question before. How *would* we know if we encountered a sentient species? Communication can't be the answer, because it might be impossible to tell that an animal is communicating. Of course, all animals communicate - they just speak a language that we don't always understand. And who's to say that simply because our language is different that it's better?

I don't have any answers, but the question itself is both fascinating and scary. If we do have sentient animals on this planet how much do we have to be ashamed of? I look forward to continued research with dolphins and parrots, just to name a few.

space opera
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I don't see how there can be any answer besides communication.

Imagine a human being with no method of communication. How can we tell if they are sentient or not? We can't. We might be able to tell that they are pretty bright by solving puzzles we put in its path, but that's not the same thing.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
Sorry, mph. I suppose I meant that the answer can't be *only* communication.

space opera

edit: Now I'm really interested. Bev said that her idea of sentience might be communication and understanding. Apes (which she mentioned) have proven that they can learn and understand ASL. Parrots have not only learned speech, but are able to identify colors and shapes. Is this sentience, close to sentience, or nada?

[ January 05, 2005, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
The first thing to do, I suppose, is define what we mean by sentient.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Having studied and being fascinated by language, I am very interested in animal communication. I know that apes have shown limits to the concepts they are able to put into "words", but they are still pretty darn clever.

I am curious about the intelligence of certain birds. It was only a few years ago that I became aware of their high intelligence. But might their "high intelligence" be more about expert mimickry and association rather than communication?

But I also think that many animal-lovers make the mistake of over-anthropomorphizing animals. We assign motives and emotions like our own to our pets. I tend to think that the mind of animals is more "alien" than that, but that it comforts us to think of them that way. (Note, "alien" does not necessarily mean "lesser".)

Guinea pigs will almost always run away from you skitterishly when you try to pick them up. People who see this assume that guinea pigs don't like to be held. But when held, they appear to enjoy the comfort and warmth of a secure embrace. I am of the opinion that their instinct to run away from "claws from above" is so strong that they aren't "thinking" about whether or not they'd like to be held when someone reaches out to them. But since we don't have that instinct, we are more likely to assume motives that make more sense to us.

But I am aware that many animals have complex emotions, particularly social animals that need society to survive. Certainly we are social beings. So social animals are more likely to have emotional make-ups similar our own. That doesn't mean their motives and emotions are like our own.

I find it endlessly amusing how cats appear to have such arrogance. The cat I had as a teenager would fall ridiculously from a high perch, and act really annoyed, but "pretend" like nothing happened. We assume it is arrogance, because that is what it looks like to us. Is it really? I don't know.

[ January 05, 2005, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Apes (which she mentioned) have proven that they can learn and understand ASL. Parrots have not only learned speech, but are able to identify colors and shapes.

---

This isn't true. While apes (and the rare parrot) *have* been able to learn some vocabulary words, none of them have ever been able to grasp syntax. ASL is a full-fledged language, and one that no animal has ever learned.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Are you arguing that they haven't been able to grasp syntax of any kind, Porter, or just that they haven't been able to grasp the full complexity of ASL?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
My understanding is that they have been unable to grasp any syntax.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
I'm fairly sure that that isn't the case, but I'll have to dig up some articles on the subject to confirm it. I'm thinking specifically of Kanzi, the Bonobo chimp who has proven to be something of a linguistic prodigy.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Bev -- help me out here?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
If any ape has been shown to grasp syntax, I have never heard of it. And I would certainly like to know about it too.

Edit: But if it is true, and there is some prodigy out there, and he/she were bred for his/her ability to communicate expertly, we very well might find ourselves approaching "The Planet of the Apes" situation--Apes as common servants or slaves. I would hope humanity would be better than that, though.

[ January 05, 2005, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
Hmm. I'll have to go the route of Noemon and do some research as well. In particular I remember a documentary that showed a parrot being quizzed about shapes and colors.

space opera
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
I'll see what I can turn up. I could be mistaken, but I don't *think* I am. Anybody else familiar with the research done on Kanzi? It may be a little while before I have the time to dig up anything.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
The parrot you're thinking of, Space Opera, is likely the African grey parrot Alex. He is able to identify color and shape, but that isn't necessarily the same thing as have a grasp of syntax.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
linky
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Bev, Kanzi wasn't bred for his linguistic abilities. In fact, he wasn't even to focus of the researcher's studies, initially. When he was an infant the researchers were trying to teach his mother to communicate (with very little success), and he was simply alowed to be in the room with her. He began communicating spontaneously, much to the researchers' surprise.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I didn't think he was bred for it. But *he* could be bred in order to pass on his genes to a new race of "prodigy apes". That was what I was referring to.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
*thinks out loud*

So the emphasis seems to be on symbol to symbol recognition. What about humans without a written language? Obviously humans have the capacity to learn written language...but picture them first beginning to learn. To me that would be very much like observing Kanzi.

space opera
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Kanzi is a prodigy among apes. His most amazing feat was to comprehend words spoken. (I assume other apes require humans to use guestures or symbols to get meaning across? I dunno.) But even he appears to have his limits when it comes to language comprehension.

The human brain does indeed appear to be hard-wired for language. A human child soaks it up like a sponge. Takes to it like a duck to water, you might say.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
It just rolls off their back?
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Ah.

Here is a good site that focuses on him.

From near the bottom of the page:

quote:

---

In addition to single words, Kanzi has demonstrated unequivocal understanding of thousands of novel spoken sentences with syntactically complex structures including embedded phrases, pronouns, case markers, and absent referents. His comprehension of spoken language is at least equivalent to that of a 2-1/2 year old child. Examples below illustrate test sentences given to Kanzi in a formal test (monograph). His comprehension of these different sentences illustrates his understanding of complex grammatical issues.

---

The "examples below" referred to in that quote are:

Contrastive Sentence Structure
Word Order
Role of Grammar
Use of Case Markers and Possessive Indicators

Also of interest is the fact that he has apparently learned on his own to knapp flint.

[ January 05, 2005, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Cool, according to this article, Kanzi does have some syntactical understanding. In all seriousness, if Kanzi's descendents are similarly gifted, this could lead to a race of language-comprehending apes.

Edit: Noemon, I linked to that sight just above.

[ January 05, 2005, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
How did I not see that?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I probably should have said something beyond "linky".
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 


Sure, but even so, missing an entire post in a thread I'm actively participating in? Not like me.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Planet of the Apes, here we come.

[ January 05, 2005, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
We never have nailed down what we mean when we use the word "sentient" in this context though. Obviously we don't just mean "responsive to or conscious of sense impressions"--by that definition virtually any animal could be said to be sentient. Are we talking about self awareness? The understanding of one's self as distinct from the other beings around them? Is possessing the ability to model the minds of others a necessary element of sentience?
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 

quote:

---

Planet of the Apes, here we come

---

Except that it would seem that breeding isn't necessary. Based on the information on this page, it would seem that Kanzi's early exposure was the key. His species, given the proper childhood environment, seems to pick up rudimentary language skills fairly effortlessly.

I'm curious about his manufacture of stone tools. Do other bonobos exhibit this behavior? If not, I wonder what the relationship between language and tool use might be? This is just idle speculation, by the way--it just popped into my head.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
I've also defined sentience as self-awareness and the knowledge that one is a distinct being. I like how you put that, Noemon. Of course, by that definition, babies aren't sentient, are they? I remember reading that for awhile babies believe they and their mother are the same person.

space opera
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
(Nothing to add, just reading along intently.)
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think one of the reasons it is so hard to define sentience is that there is no "line" between sentience and non-sentience. One could argue that there are humans among us that are non-sentient due to disease, defect, or injury. Some apes may be sentient or near-sentient.

I do think that an understanding of self is an important part of sentience--the ability to analyze oneself. It is about age 2 that human children begin to be able to do this. And this is about the level that some apes reach in their development.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Early exposure is the key? Hmmm. But many chimps have been exposed to human language in captivity from a very early age, if not from birth, right? Why wouldn't we have seen this elsewhere?

Edit: You know what I would *really* like to see is an ape parent teach language to an ape child. That would be wicked cool.

[ January 05, 2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 

quote:

---

I think one of the reasons it is so hard to define sentience is that there is no "line" between sentience and non-sentience.

---

quote:

---

Of course, by that definition, babies aren't sentient, are they?

---

It is my opinion that babies are *not* sentient. Not at all. They are animal bundles of instincts and sponges that soak up input and stimulation. But they have the "birthright" of sentience. It is their destiny.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Babies are *sooooo* not sentient.

With our kids, we get excited when we can say "our kid is finally as smart as a dog!" or "our kid is finally as smart as a monkey!" or "our kid is finally becoming a person!".
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I do think that considering the sentience or near-sentience that certain apes show, we as humans should deeply respect that.

I thought it was interesting in OSC's "Homecoming" series the people talked of eating the local apes as being tantamount to cannabalism. They showed a higher respect for the sentience of these creatures. It made me think.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh, BTW, the monkey that ripped a chunk of my hair out in the Philippines was *not* sentient.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
Maybe he was Bev. Just think - he could have been attempting to make a wig....

space opera
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
I know! I would *love* to observe that (or read about others observing it). Panbanisha, Kanzi's step sister (who according to the article I linked to above is apparently more linguistically able than Kanzi, much to my surprise) has given birth to Nyota (by the way, Sara, you may be interested to read about Panbanisha's experiences with ultrasound and with the delivery itself on the page I just linked to--fascinating stuff), so it's possible that we'll get to see exactly that, although it is also possible that Nyota may have some brain damage given the circumstances of his birth. I wasn't able to find more information about him by googling his name--everything else seemed to be about Lt. Uhura from the original Star Trek.
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 
While not understanding language on the same level as a great ape, our older Lab does recognize over 80 words/phrases. (Most of them have to do with familiar foods, places, objects, and people.) We didn't teach most of them to her -- she taught herself. She recognizes them regardless of our tone of voice -- my husband and I can be discussing, for example, going to the store, and she immediately starts jumping and squealing to let us know that she would like to go along.

Once we were talking about an ear infection, and she got very excited. We weren't sure why, until we realized that to her, "ear" means "pig ear," her favorite treat.

She understands the difference between "bring my sneakers" and "bring my slippers." If I tell her to bring an object, she will search for it, unless I tell her which room it is in -- then she will head straight for that room. If I tell her "bring your [food] dish," she does, unless she can't find it, in which case she has been known to bring one of our plates instead, although we never taught her that our plates are "dishes."

If she wants something, she will come up to us and whimper. We then go through a list of things she is likely to want ("water," "to go out," "to play"--we don't mention food because she always wants that). She barks when we guess correctly.

I'm not sure why she understands so much speech, although I think it's because we've been talking to her since she was a puppy. She somehow made the conceptual leap that the noises humans make have very particular meanings, of which she can understand some if she tries.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 


Noemon: Cool!

*goes off to read more*
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Noemon, wow. Vivid.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
That was absolutely fascinating. I loved the description of the use of ultrasound. It really sounds as though Mama at least somewhat understood that it was a picture of her baby.

space opera
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
I completely agree with you guys that babies are not sentient at birth, using the definition of sentience we're going with here. They have the potential for sentience, but are not there yet.

On the question of testing for sentience, Porter said

quote:

---

I don't see how there can be any answer besides communication.

Imagine a human being with no method of communication. How can we tell if they are sentient or not? We can't.

---

quote:

---

Is there a way to communicate with animals using their own language?

---

Well, one way dogs communicate is through body language, which we can decipher and emulate to some degree. For example, dogs invite other dogs to play through a body posture known as a play-bow. By imitating this posture (except for the tail position, since I don't have a tail), I've often reassured strange dogs that I am friendly.
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 
Mish just brought her dish outside to the DHL delivery guy. I think she confused his van with that of Giovanni's Pizza. Silly dog, can't read.

 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
There is no doubt that animals communicate with each other. But I do have my doubts about the complexity of the information they are able to pass to each other through sound, chemicals, and visual clues. Though I do think that they pick up on signals that we are generally unaware of.

For example, can animals smell fear? Is there an actual smell that beings give off when afraid? Can they sense by vibration the change in speed of heartrate? They very well might. These are things we generally cannot do.

We send visual signals in our posture, how tensed/relaxed we are, tone of voice, etc., that I think many animals are more sensitive to than the average person.

If you watch the ears of a cat, horse, dog, you can learn a lot about their mood. Their eyes show expression also. But in general their facial expressions do not communicate in such a detailed way as ours do. But when you are sensitive enough to pick up on someone's heartrate or amount of tension, perhaps that is not necessary.

I was taught in my language classes that language shapes our minds. By having multiple vocabulary words and syntax/grammar, we are able to *think* more abstract ideas then we ever could without them. Language is like a step ladder for our thoughts. From what we have observed, it seems that without language, a human is not able to have very specific thoughts either--thus causing their minds to work more like that of an animal.

If bonobos have a "learning window" for language as do humans, and they can take advantage of that and pass language onto their children.... The implications are fascinating. The adults that were raised with language would have been given a tool for abstract thought--perhaps the language-tool link Noemon hinted at.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Is there a way to communicate with animals using their own language?

---

quote:

---

But, since I believe that animal communication is not specific in nature ...

---

Why do you believe this, bev? *interested
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I believe this because I believe that animals do not possess specific language. I believe that without specific language, we cannot think specific thoughts. I don't know if this belief is considered scientific fact or not, or even if it is provable, but it is what I believe, and it seems consistent with everything I have observed in animals.

I do consider myself an animal-lover, BTW. Actually, I come from a long and proud line of animal-lovers.

Edit: I would add to the word specific the word "representative" also.

[ January 05, 2005, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I realize the above post doesn't really answer your question. Let me just say that I have not seen any evidence of specific communication in animals that I have observed. I don't think they have much need for specific communication, and therefore never developed it.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I'm still not sure I understand what grounds this belief, but thanks for replying so quickly. I was just curious about the assumption.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I guess it is like an atheist looking at the world and seeing no evidence for God. They don't think God makes sense. I see no evidence of specific communication in animals. Specific communication in animals doesn't make sense to me.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Okay, that helps. Thanks!
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 

quote:

---

For example, can animals smell fear? Is there an actual smell that beings give off when afraid?

---

I have had occasion to notice, after a particularly frightening (read: downright terrifying) event, that I was sweating heavily and the sweat smelled distinctly different than the way sweat smells after exercising. Since then I’ve paid attention, and I can smell the difference between “nervous sweat” and “workout sweat,” even when it’s not so dramatic. So I’m sure that animals can. I don’t doubt that animals with a more developed sense of smell can “smell fear” even if the person isn’t sweating enough that they’d notice it themselves.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I was just thinking, honeybees have a bit of representativeness to their communication that we have deciphered. But it is pretty limited.

I just would be very very surprised that dogs have a "word" for "tree".
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
Dogs can often smell/sense the electrochemical changes that occur in the body when one has a seizure - or even before the seizure happens. I know that some people have an "aura" before a seizure, but a lot of times they strike people unaware.

Things like that really make me wonder. Being able to smell/sense a seizure before it happens is pretty sophisticated sniffer technology.

Bev, could you continue to elaborate on animal communication not being specific? I don't think I'm still quite getting it.

space opera
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
If I understand you correctly, bev, you would be more of an atheist than an agnostic (to continue the analogy). That is, you have an active belief about the non-existence of something, rather that just a skeptical stance about something for which you have not yet seen any demonstrated evidence. Yes?

[Arrgh! I'm not trying to be inflammatory. This is coming across all wrong, I'm afraid. I was just struck by your wording of the assertion, and it piqued my interest. Didn't mean to challenge you. ]

[ January 05, 2005, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
There is some evidence that elephants convey information to each other ultrasonically, and are able to do so over relatively long distances. My impression is that all three types of elephants do this. I haven't read of any attempts to decipher the communications, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised to learn that they were able to convey fairly detailed information this way. Anybody read of any work being done on this one?

[ January 05, 2005, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
IIRC, whale songs can convey quite specific information. I will look for a link.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sara, yeah, you could relate me to an atheist. But I don't necessarily think this is true of all animals. I recognize that some animals are more complex than others, and perhaps even reach sentience. Whales and elephants could be on the list too.

*remembers OSC's short story about elephants succeeding humanity as the primary sentient race on earth*
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
(Thanks for being so even-keeled about the questions, bev. I've got three windows open for multi-tasking, and I find myself rather abrupt on re-read. )
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Space Opera: I don't think that a dog is capable of giving another dog specific instructions or telling them about what a bad day they had. I just don't think they do that or are capable of it. I don't think they possess a language complex enough to support those kinds of abstract thoughts.

First: I have seen no evidence of a language that complex

Second: I have never seen evidence of one dog transferring such complex information to another dog.

Edit: I love the Far Side cartoon where the translation of a dog's bark is: "Hey! Hey, hey, hey, hey! Hey! Hey!"

That is the sort of thing I am talking about.

But the possibility of some animals having complex communications that approach language or even are language is fascinating to me. Whales/dolphins/elephants--maybe. Jury is out on that one.

Apes? I don't think so. It seems that some bonobos and perhaps other apes have a "language window" similar to that of a human child where in if they are exposed to language, they can pick it up far better than if they tried when older. The fact that adult apes cannot pick up on language that these infant apes can seems to be very strong evidence for this.

Because it doesn't matter *what* language you speak, as long as you learn *a* language in that window of time, your mind develops the complexity to grasp other languages also. If you miss that window, you just can't make up for it.

[ January 05, 2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sara, I appreciate your concern about coming across offensively. I honestly didn't even detect a hint of that in your tone. And I love answering questions, especially hard ones.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 

quote:

---

a dog is capable of giving another dog specific instructions

---

quote:

---

Are these specific enough needs?

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure these are any more sophisticated than a human communicating with nothing but grunts and gestures.

---

A language is a sophisticated system of grunts and/or gestures. What matters is that an abstract sound stands for a particular thing or action.

Which reminds me of another bizarre case of dog-dog communication I've observed, initiated by our younger dog this time:

The older dog likes to lick the insides of other dogs' ears. The vet said that some dogs do this to dogs with ear infections, but Mishka does it to healthy dogs. I have no clue why. Perhaps it's a maternal grooming behavior, or maybe she likes the taste of ear wax.

When we first got Seven, she did not want to have Mishka wash out her ears. Mishka did not care, and, being forty pounds heavier than the new arrival, she simply sat on Seven to hold her down during the ear grooming.

Seven decided that she enjoyed it. So now, whenever she wants Mishka to wash her ears, she goes over to her and starts gently gnawing on one of Mishka's front legs.. Mishka starts washing Seven's ears, and Seven turns her head to make sure that both ears get washed.

i have no idea how they worked out that "leg gnawing" = "clean my ears". It seems to be a completely arbitrary signal that they have worked out. It works for them.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

A language is a sophisticated system of grunts and/or gestures. What matters is that an abstract sound stands for a particular thing or action.

---

quote:

---

"leg gnawing" = "clean my ears".

---

quote:

---

Yozik's younger dog, is willingly acknowledging this

---

quote:

---

Getting licked becomes a positive experience because of the removal of the negative stimulus (the being sat on). If one is conditioned to a negative stimulus, the removal of it becomes a reward.

---

Or maybe getting licked feels good?
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
It could... it is remniscent of a mother grooming puppies so theoretically there could be positive neural stimulus if one isn't wriggling and fighting it.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
 
I admit, and I am sorry, that i do not have the patience nor the time to read through all 3 pages, but there is something i am burning to say:

WHY DO PEOPLE THINK ANIMALS ARE SAD IN ZOOS?

May i direct you to a passage from Life of Pi by Yann Martel: (excellent book, btw)

I have heard nearly as much nonsense about zoos as i have about God and religion. Well-meaning but misinformed people think animals in the wild are "happy" because they are "free." These people usually have a large, handsome predator in mind, a lion or a cheetah (the life of a gnu or of an aardvark is rarely exalted). They imagine this wild animal roaming about the savannah on disgestive walks after eating a prey that accepted its lot piously, or going for callistenic runs to stay slim after overindulging. They imagine this animal overseeing its offspring proudly and tenderly, the whole family watching the setting of the sun from the limbs of trees with sighs of pleasure. The life of the animal is simple, noble and meaningful, they imagine. Then it is captured by wicked men and thrown into tiny jails. Its "happiness" is dashed. It yearns mightily for "freedom" and does all it can to escape. Being denied its freedom for too long, the animal becomes a shadow of itself, its spirit broken. So some people imagine.
That is not the way it is.
Animals in the wild lead lives of compulsion and necessity within an unforgiving social hierarchy in an enviroment where the supply of fear is high and the supply of food low and where territory must constantly be defended and parasites forever endured. What is the meaning of freedom in such a context? Animals in the wild are, in practice, free neither in space nor in time, nor in their personal relations. In theory-- that is, as a simple physical possibility-- an animal could pick up and go, flaunting all the social conventions and boundaries proper to its species. But such an event is less likely to happen than for a member of our own species, say a shopkeeper with all the usual ties-- to friends, to family, to society-- to drop everything and walk away from his life with only the spare change in his pockets and the clothes on his frame. If a man, boldest and most intelligent of creatures, won't wander from place to place, a stranger to all, beholden to none, why would an animal, which is by temperament far more conservative?
[................]
Don't we say, "There's no place like home"? That's certainly what animals feel. Animals are territorial. That is the key to their minds. Only a familiar territory will allow them to fulfill the two relentless imperatives of the wild: the advoidance of enemies and the getting of food and water. A biologically sound zoo enclosure--[....]--is just another territory, peculiar only in its size and in its proximity to human territory. [.....]
In a zoo, we do for animals what we have done for ourselves with houses: we bring together in a small space what in the wild is spread out. Whereas before us the cave was here, the river was over there, the hunting grounds were a mile away, the lookout next to it, the berries somewhere else--all of them infested with lions, snakes, ants, leeches, and poison ivy...[....]
A house is a compressed territory where our basic needs can be fulfilled close by and safely. A sound zoo enclousure is the equivilant for an animal. [.......]and finding that there is no need to go hunting, food appearing six days a week, an animal will take posession of its zoo space [......] ...it will not feel like a nervous tennet, and even less like a prisoner, but rather like a landholder...[.............]
Think about it yourself. Would you rather be put up at the Ritz with free room service and unlimited access to a doctor, or be homeless without a soul to care for you?
 

---

Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
I dunno, do I get internet access at the Ritz?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
While I see where you are coming from, I imagine they do feel some negative effects of their limited space. I imagine animals held in captivity get bored. But I appeal to my own feelings in those circumstances--I don't really know how animals feel.

Your description of a hotel where it's really posh and you have everything you need reminds me of "the Hotel California". "You can check out anytime you like but you can never leave." No thanks.

Is the desire to roam free a uniquely human characteristic? I am thinking no.
 

---

Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
 
See, I knew this thread would go multiple pages!

As an insect advocate, I am utterly fascinated by the subtle world of chemical and electrical signals. Most humans are completely unaware of how much communication occurs between animals, and even plants! I've begun trying to speak to insects, albeit rather clumsily, through the deliberate use of chemicals. Since I know that ants communicate through chemicals, I interrupt their scent trails with vinegar and then I lay down essential oils I know they dislike. In this way, I am saying "You are not welcome here". In mosquito season, I change my blood chemistry by eating garlic. Mostly, I just know how to say "Go away". However, my family is going to a beekeeping "school" soon, and I hope to learn more about communicating with insects.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Cool, Jen. This is making me think of OSC's novelization of The Abyss. A sentient race that lived deep in the high pressure waters of the ocean, trying to communicate with humans through their native language--chemicals.

I was young when I read it, but the idea stuck with me. I didn't even know it was an OSC book at the time!

Come to think of it, it might have been my first OSC book without realizing it. I don't remember.
 

---

Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
 
Well, I have plenty of "puppy buds" aka friends that are of the doggie kind. Rob has his Penney...and I think she pretty much has him and me..and his parents wrapped around her tail. (not to mention the neighbors). I know that my puppy ( who is 14 years old and still going..without expensive vets and meds.) Dominique, has always known when something is wrong. She stayed by my father's side when he was sick and wouldn't leave him ...turned out he'd had a minor heart attack. She curled up next to me whenever I had a migraine, and she barked at my sister to let her know that her youngest child had something wrong with her the week before Christmas... she had a fever of 103.4. Since no one else in my family had any idea about these problems I 'd say she was pretty in tune with what was going on. She also knew that just being there helped to calm my father. I don't know how, but she did. She gets to do pretty much whatever she wants within reason. So does Penney....she eats her dinner, then goes outside (where she has plenty of room to roam) and over to the neighbor's house because his daughters give her "cookies" (dog biscuits), and she is well aware that she will get them whenever she visits them.

Kwea should put up the pic of miss Penney... if you see it you would know that there is no way she could ever survive in the wild...she is too used to her humans... and she keeps her humans just the way she wants to!
When Dominique was acting funny last year and my dad called me (she stays with him all the time now so he's not alone) I was devastated and could barely function when I took her to the vet. Luckily it was nothing serious... I had imagined everything from a stroke to a brain tumor. It turned out to be something she had eaten that apparently didn't like her and made her dizzy (and she's blonde enough!). I have felt the same way when one of my friends was seriously ill...it was scary and sad to think that they might not be there to spend time with, play with, share my candy corn with. (Dominique loves to have a piece every once in a while) So, while I would not go to extreme lengths to prolong my animals lives....they will go to extreme lengths to prolong their humans..... I think they enjoy being with us...I know I enjoy being with them. Dogs rule Cats drool!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Dogs rule Cats drool! [Taunt]

---

Um, not to nitpik, but technically I think it is the other way around.
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 
I've never been able to figure out why one is supposed to like either cats or dogs, but not both. They both rule. We almost adopted one from a shelter once, but our landlord found out and squelched that. (We hadn't even thought to ask--we figured that if we were allowed to have an 85-lb. dog, a cat would be no problem--but the humane society called the landlord.)

Mishka has a love-hate relationship with cats: she loves them, they hate her. It's her approach; she runs up to them, wagging happily, and they're terrified, so they hiss at her and scratch her.

Seven approaches them more hesitantly, and so she gets better results, although she's still wary. She doesn't understand cat body language, so she jumps back when the cat tries to rub its face up against her: "Ohmigawd! It's attacking!"
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
It's not about what I like. Cats think they rule all they see. Dogs slobber.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
Yozhik, your dogs sound like an absolute blast. You've got me thinking, and I think our 8 month-old lab mix Max knows a little over 10 words so far. We do talk to him quite a bit, so hopefully he will continue to pick up more as he grows.

On zoos - I love some elements of zoos. I adore sea lions. They are beautiful and graceful, and I'd never get to see them naturally.

Tigers and lions make me want to cry, though. The Indianapolis Zoo in particular has their lion and lioness in a very small enclosure. It's not large enough for them to run very far at all. This is why my husband will no longer visit zoos. It's actually heartbreaking - you watch them pace and if you catch a glimpse in their eyes, they just look...defeated.

space opera
 

---

Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
 

quote:

---

It's not large enough for them to run very far at all.

---

Why are you assuming running is particuarly important to the animals?
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Because left to their own devices it's something that they engage in, and because exercise in general is as important for them as it is for us?
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 
Animals having no language is another of the tenets of the Secret Order of Linguists. So let it be written. So let it be done.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
And why assume that any given human would mind being confined with all their physical needs being met? Because they can tell you so? But why is that? Would it bother you, and why?

Why assume that an animal wouldn't feel that way too? We may be more complex in our mental workings and therefore have different motives, but our needs are still very congruous.

That is like assuming that animals don't feel elation or pain. We can't *prove* that they do or don't because they can't tell us so. But I choose to believe they do feel these things. I also choose to feel that they would prefer being free to being confined.

I am a pet owner of creatures that are confined. (My precious guinea pigs.) I freely acknowledge that they would be happier unconfined. But being unconfined would result in their death, because mankind has domesticated them beyond all hope of survival in the wild. So to make up for that, I have provided them as large a habitat as I feel I reasonably can.

But when an animal *is* capable of caring for themselves in the wild, I say leave them there. Our cat years back was so unhappy being confined in our house. If I had my way, he would have been an outdoor-cat. But my Mom had him declawed and felt it was just too dangerous for him to be outside. There was truth to that--but if only you could have seen how miserable it made him! When we moved, we gave him to the care of a family that lived on several acres. He disappeared shortly afterwards. I don't know how he fared, but I believe he was so much happier.
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
I think animals are capable of communication, some of it vocal. We have a cat that often greets people vocally. He has a specific sound he makes just for this purpose. He has another sound he makes when he thinks he is alone in the house and wants someone to play with/reassure him. One of our other cats, when I tell her "No!" (tone of voice doesn't make a difference, it's the word itself she's reacting to) cries at me. She is rather well behaved, so it doesn't happen often, but I always have to stifle a laugh when it happens (I must admit I think of a kid who's just been scolded whining "But mom!"). I often wonder what she is trying to communicate to me when this happens. Our youngest kitten, who is new to our household, hasn't learned any English yet, nor have we learned her specific sounds yet, which makes things a little challenging sometimes. When I was a child, we had a cat that actually would say "No" and he meant it.

Our oldest cat lived as an outdoor cat before I got him when he was 7 months old (at which point I moved him to another state to be an indoor cat). He seems to me to prefer being indoors. He only once has gone outside when he had the opportunity. It wasn't long before he was crying at the door howling loudly to come back in. He enjoys sitting near open doors and windows (I think he likes the smells), but doesn't seem to actually want to be out there.

[ January 06, 2005, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Just so everyone is clear, communication != language and of course sometimes language != communication.

I remember our cat being very vocally expressive also. Guinea pigs are also very vocal, and I joked all growing up that one of my fluent languages was guinea pig. I am pretty good at deciphering every squeak and purr.

Trisha: It does seem that way. I am willing to keep an open mind about it. It is my belief that no known animal species possesses anything that would qualify as "true language" and that "true sentience" cannot exist in the absence of "true language". (Though some very complex creatures may possess a sort of "quasi-language" and therefore "quasi-sentience"?) But I find it a fascinating idea that some apes might have a "language learning window" similar to that of humans, if to a lesser extent. We won't know unless we continue observing. I, for one, am very interested in what we might find there.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Of course, the presence of a language learning window in humans is still debated in academic circles, or was still being debated in the late 90s.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I must admit absolute and complete ignorance as to the arguments refuting it. And thus far no one has been willing to mention anything specific.

I was also taught in my audiology classes that there are specific areas in the brain corresponding to certain frequencies of sound. I was taught that if for some reason the brain did not receive the input of certain frequencies with in a similar "window" of time, the function of those nerves would be given over to other things, and that person would have lost the opportunity to be able to perceive those vibrations later. Supposedly this is one of the reasons why early intervention is so important.

If the inner ear is damaged or deformed beyond our ability to help, the child can be given a cochlear implant which will artificially stimulate the nerves in question at the proper frequencies, thus allowing the brain to develop the ability to perceive them.

I don't know how much of the "science" I was taught in these college classes is proven and how much is extrapolation and theory. But these things were taught to me as fact.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
Soara, I think Noemon and Bev answered your question about running quite sufficiently, so I won't add to their replies.

As far as zoos go we shall have to agree to disagree. As far as choosing between the Ritz and the wild, I'd go with the wild everytime. If I had huge groups of people standing in front of my room, peering in at me, and small children screaming and yelling at me, I'd do the same thing the lion did to the huge crowd in front of his cage the last time we visited the zoo - piss on them.

space opera

edit: verb tense

[ January 06, 2005, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Cats have one gesture that they use just like a word: shaking a front paw means "ew, gross!". The shaking would fling off an offending substance if the cat happened to step in something revolting, but this gesture is also used frequently to communicate distaste even when their front paws have not been anywhere near the stuff that's gross.

Example, Brando wants to sniff what is in my glass, in case it's chocolate milk or something that he likes. This time it turns out to be orange juice. Only his nose got anywhere even close to the juice, but then one front paw shakes rapidly, denoting, "ew, how can you DRINK that stuff?" Citrus flavors are apparently too acidic for cats to appreciate.

I've seen many cats make this same gesture in a variety of situations, always indicating distaste. To me it's just as though they said the words.
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 
People in one thread are amazed ASL is a real language, but in another insist that their cats talk to them. Maybe not the same people, but

There is no open and shut evidence that language or any other behavior has a critical window. But the fact that children form creoles and adults do not points to it. Also, the imprinting of an accent which generally happens by 6 or 7 is another evidence.

Adults are actually more efficient at learning language than children- they just don't learn some of the little details. I don't know if anyone has tried an experiment where a foreign language is learned by an adult from watching tapes of a mother playing with her baby. Who knows if this could result in overcoming the accent thing. Of course, it would take 3 or 4 years. But if you spent months and months just mastering a consonant, who knows?

Then there are the "wild child" cases, one that occured in Napoleonic France and one that occured in Southern California in the 60's. (Genie). For me, it has always seemed that there were probably reasons these children were isolated in the first place. In the French wild child case, did he run away from his parents or otherwise fail to seek out humans? In the Genie case, her father thought she was retarded and so locked her up. Not speaking was not among her greatest challenges. Also, the team that studied her was both heavily agendized and the team leader failed to keep accurate records. There is a Nova episode. Oh, and I found an interesting site: Feralchildren.com They lean heavily toward the critical period hypothesis.

The idea is not that children are better at learning language than adults (Secret order of Linguists Tenet 666) but that if a child hasn't learned a human language during childhood, they will lack the tools to pick it up later.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Cats have one gesture that they use just like a word: shaking a front paw means "ew, gross!".

---

You are *so* right about the shaking the paw thing. I have seen it numerous times. That cracks me up! Though I seriously doubt this is a "word" that is passed down from parent cat to child cat. Rather, I think it is part of the instinctual "script" that is carried in their genes.

Similarly, guinea pigs have a "set" way of washing themselves. The go through the exact same motions in the exact same order every time. And if they get interrupted, they will continue from exactly where they left off. It is like running a computer program. And they *all* do it exactly the same way. This is not a tradition passed from parent to child. There are not "cultural differences" in the way California guinea pigs wash themselves. It is genetic instructions written into every cell of their body, inherited from birth.

Trisha, you are absolutely correct that children do not learn "faster" than adults. Adults, having already learned one language, use that mapping and awareness and the intelligent effort they make to learn other languages. I picked up Tagalog on my mission faster than a child would. And as I learned it, I learned to understand my own language better. I used my knowledge and experience with English to build upon. While eventually I no longer needed to translate in my head, in the beginning it was a necessity. But while at first that was a handicap, my mind was perhaps filing away the new vocabulary words mapping out a similar pattern that already existed from my first language.

I agree that all the available evidence points to a "learning window". Not that they learn better than adults, but that mapping out is happening for the very first time. If it doesn't happen then, some of the ability for it to ever happen is lost. I believe that some ability for sentience is lost with it.

As an interesting side note, in Tarzan, he learned English and was fairly successful at integrating into society. But IIRC, he was raised by a group of unusual apes that possessed language. Am I remembering correctly?

*remebers that she needs to read Tarzan*
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Ooohh, you speak Tagalog? Very cool.

I agree with you on the learning window business--I was just pointing out that its existence isn't universally agreed upon.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yeah, but I am getting pretty rusty these days. Not enough opportunities to study and practice.

I would be very interested in hearing some of the arguments against the "learning window". I want to know if there is any merit to them, or if they are a misunderstanding of what is meant by the theory.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Humans have a genetic capacity for language, too, of course. I'm not sure that because it's NOT cultural, that means it doesn't count as language. It's still an abstract representation of a concept.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
We have the genetic capacity for it, but if we are raised in the isolation of language we will not spontaneously generate language.

A cat raised without ever seeing another cat will probably still do the "paw shake". I could be wrong though. And guinea pigs for sure would wash in exactly the same manner even if they never saw another of their species.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Your definition of what you will call language seems so narrow and anthropocentric. You seem to me to be be searching for reasons to rule out anything animals do as being language. It's almost as if your very definition of language has built into it the idea that it's something humans do that animals can't do.

If it's a detailed representation, if it's abstract, if it maps easily onto a word or sentence that humans might use, in what way is it inferior to human language? I just don't get that.

I guess I see the samenesses far more than the differences. 65 million years really is close, on a galactic scale. Alien life forms, that have evolved from photosynthetic bacteria (assuming panspermia) on a different planet in our galaxy are likely to be very, VERY alien to us. Yet still related (they should have a similar genetic code, as do prokarotes and eukarotes). I guess the overall size of my scale of proximity is just astronomically larger than most people's?

[ January 07, 2005, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
 

---

Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
 
The very large cat family has many 'proofs' of communication:

• Alpha Male
• Challenging Alpha Male
• Hunting

Bev: Animals that are domesticated have no reason to further develop skills they need for thier packs. Furthermore, why would they communicate if they don't need to communicate to survive?
Are humans really sentient? Think of the population at large, what do they do? The things they 'want' to do: sex, eat, sleep. No one has to be a poet, or an artist, (maybe there is a poet, or an artist cat) yet most humans don't have to be creative to procreate, eat, sleep, and stay warm.

Maybe because at one time it was a social rule or exception that if you were an artist, you were above a gatherer (in the eyes of a female).

Mere observation will never allow us to actually know what is going on in another person's brain, why is it any different for an animal's brain?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I came back to this thread because I was thinking about something as a result of it that I wanted to put into a post.

I had no idea that there were posts to respond to.

quote:

---

Your definition of what you will call language seems so narrow and anthropocentric. You seem to me to be be searching for reasons to rule out anything animals do as being language. It's almost as if your very definition of language has built into it the idea that it's something humans do that animals can't do.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, why would they communicate if they don't need to communicate to survive?

---

quote:

---

Read my lips

Lectures on ape habitat conservation and ape language skills will be at 7 p.m. March 16 and March 30 at Fernbank.

Lisa Parr will close out the lecture series April 13 with a discussion of chimp facial expression and emotions, under the theory that humans and chimps inherited some of the same faces and feelings from a common ancestor.

When a chimpanzee smiles or pouts, it often means the same thing as when a person makes those faces, said Parr, a research scientist at Yerkes Primate Center in Atlanta.

A chimp's toothy grin has a lot in common with the human smile, Parr said.

"In general, the expression as a whole is a friendly type expression," Parr said.

But sometimes when chimps grin, it is because they are afraid, she said. Parr said the expression originated as a display of submission, upon meeting a stranger, to avoid a fight. Over time, the expression may have evolved into a simple greeting, though it still shows up in moments of fear.

"We smile when we're nervous sometimes," Parr said. "It doesn't mean we are happy all the time."

Chimps also have a play face they use when goofing around. It's a silly face made by opening the mouth while hiding the top teeth under the upper lip. "It's accompanied by a very distinct vocalization," Parr said. "We call it laughter."

Chimps laugh for some of the same reasons that people laugh, she said.

"When you tickle them, they laugh," Parr said.

Another facial expression chimps commonly use is the pout. They push out their lower lip and make a sad face. Parr said when a chimp pouts, it means the same thing as when a toddler pouts: I want something, and I can't have it.

"They use that one when they're sad," Parr said.

No scowly faces

Like children, chimps also use the pouty face because it works. When a chimp pouts, Parr said, "another member of the group will go over and put an arm around them."
...
For example, chimps have no mean face. The shape of their brow makes it impossible for them to scowl.

So when chimps gets mad, it doesn't show in their faces. Instead, their hair stands on end, they stand up on two legs, and then they charge at the offending party or some other target in a display of aggression.

---

Incidentally, there is generally thought to be both a "reflexive smile" and a "social smile" in infants. The former is attributed to reflex, whereas the latter is a learned behavior. Feral children do not show a social smile.

[ January 08, 2005, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Interesting. I was under the impression that whenever a chimp "smiled" or showed teeth, it was the fear-expression, or even agression.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I agree with beverly that language is not necessary for communication.

Think of the game charades. The entire point of the game is to communicate without language. Charades even has a limited vocabulary: there are words ore signs that mean book, movie, etc..

And yet, there is no language in the game charades. If there were, it wouldn't be much of a game -- it would be a contest to see who could understand this language the best.

Sometimes Mary and I play a game where I try to communicate without language (a character with intelligence 3 knows no language, but may communicate through grunts and guestures). I am pretty good at it, and am able to communicate quite a lot through grunts and guestures. But I am not able to communicate anything abstract, which is what beverly has been talking about.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Maybe it is so for the great apes, or for baboons? Or perhaps the journalist got the quotes wrong.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I don't know much about the behavior of various apes. I actually would really like to know more. I have been fascinated with primates ever since I can remember. Fascinated because of how similar they are to us. Maybe I should pick up some books on the subject.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Just a quick parusal on the internet about chimpanzee facial expressions, it seems to me that the above article may be a bit of a stretch.

Not that I think we don't have a common ancestor, I think we may and that our facial expressions may bear *some* similarity because of it.

But at the same time, the meaning of the expressions seems substantially different also.

Humans spontaneously smile out of pleasure or delight. Just think of any child you have ever met. This is far more than *just* communication. It is a reflex as much as crying is. That it *does* communicate is secondary. There doesn't seem to be an ape facial expression that is quite like that.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I remember being utterly astounded here in Madison when I first visited the primates at the zoo. I think that before this time, I'd only been to zoos as a young child, and I wasn't really paying attention. This time, I made eye contact with one of the chimps, and it was amazing.

There's always the risk of inappropriately anthropomorphizing, though. Easy to read into interactions more than is there. But wow -- what a memorable moment.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 

quote:

---

Humans spontaneously smile out of pleasure or delight. Just think of any child you have ever met. This is far more than *just* communication. It is a reflex as much as crying is. That it *does* communicate is secondary. There doesn't seem to be an ape facial expression that is quite like that.

---

quote:

---

Just a quick parusal on the internet about chimpanzee facial expressions, it seems to me that the above article may be a bit of a stretch.

---

Any links in particular look especially helpful?

[ January 08, 2005, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Interesting about ferral children. I was thinking it was probably true that children raised with a lack of smiles would eventually stop smiling as they got older. I didn't know about ferral children though.

The link I was looking at was a PDF file. It contained a series of pictures of chimpanzee facial expressions and then a table that contained their meanings. I hate bothering with PDF files if I can help it. I can't do a cashed search, and they take so long to load up. I will see if I can find a better one.

An odd thought: if our smile looks to them most like their "fear face" displaying submissiveness, what must they think of us silly humans always acting so obsequious?

Edit: here is the PDF file I was looking at first, and another link, though not as specific or helpful.

Edit 2: Another great link

[ January 08, 2005, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I have no idea. I remember during one of my childhood trips to a zoo that the group I was with was laughing at the bright red bottom of a baboon. (Kids are coarse and cruel sometimes. ) He charged the barrier, and the guide told us it was because we bared our teeth. But that was a baboon, and he was a (AFAIK) just a zoo guide.

Lisa Parr, the woman quoted above, is a research scientist at the Yerkes primate Center, the oldest and largest primate research center in the US. I'd tend to assume she knows her stuff, although she could have been misquoted.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
When I say I think it is a bit of a stretch, I mean to say that the above article includes her opinion that the facial expressions are quite similar. And while I agree that there are some similarities, I personally don't fine them to be all that remarkable.

It would be like me saying that the expression in cats and horses of throwing their ears back to show disapproval or agression is similar to one of our expressions--maybe the lowering of eyebrows? I could conceivably draw such a similarity, but most people would think I was stretching a bit to make it.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
bev, I'm having trouble opening your first link. It seems to be a link to a paper by Fernandez-Carriba, and I've found one online in PDF format, but I'm not sure it is relevant. It is about lateralization of hand gestures, not about a social smile. Does the content here look familiar?

If not, then perhaps if you tell me the steps you took to find the link, I could translate it into html.

[going to go work for a bit, will be back later. I've been struck with the need for winter cleaning. ]

[ January 08, 2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
The subject of the article has nothing to do with what we are talking about, but if you page down a bit, it contains information pertinent to the discussion.

Edit: Hmmm, that link you provided is an entirely different article. Sorry my link isn't working. I will see if I can change it.

[ January 08, 2005, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Testing...

Edit: This link seems to work. But maybe that is because I also have the PDF file open. I don't know much about how that works.

[ January 08, 2005, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Ah! It is a different paper of his. Let me see if I can pull it up in html.

Here is the PubMed abstract and reference. I'll see if I can track it down via our online journals after I clean. Thanks!

[ January 09, 2005, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
 
I can't put together my thoughts on this coherently, but you guys are certainly giving me things to think of.

Ni!
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
This thread is inspiring me to go and reread the Ursula K LeGuin short story "Mazes".
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Okay, after posting a bit more, and watching some guy relieve himself on my lawn, I finally grabbed my copy of The Compass Rose and read "Mazes". I always find that story so painfully beautiful, and it definitely does pertain to the discussion we're having. Sara, bev, have either of you read it? I tried to find a copy of it online for you, but wasn't able to do so.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I can't find it online either.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
An interesting story.

I wonder, was the narrator supposed to be a rat? I assume not, since it has such troubles with the atmosphere, and the comment about the wearing of clothing being like an "old widower who has taken the Vow of Silence." I assume the narrator is a being not native to this planet. Though it was pretty clear that the "alien" was for all intents and purposes a human.

If a human were observing an alien animal, you'd think they would be very, very careful in their observation--taking into account the different needs (like food) and looking for any unusual behavior.

Just as the narrator was able to eventually tell that there was no "language" in the human's body movement, but that the communication was from the mouth (the narrator appears to be completely deaf, since there is *no* mention of sound) you would think that a human observing an alien animal would be observant enough to notice similar complexities of movement. The only reason they would not is if they assumed they were dealing with a regular earthling rat and had already drawn conclusions so as not to look for it. Though, even then I would like to think that an observant, intelligent human would notice something unusual there, since movement is something that we can easily perceive. This is not the case of communication through ESP where humans would be hopeless to sense what was going on.

So, my guess is that this story is about a deaf, sentient alien that looks just like a rat, but it's physiology is different enough that it cannot eat the food given it.

That's a bit hard to swallow.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Bev, thanks for directing me to your post about "Mazes".

I think that we got very different things from the story--it's a short story that I find both breathtaking and heart wrenching, and one that I don't have any real trouble "swallowing". I found this story to have quite a bit of insight into the difficulties that one species has in determining another's ability to communicate, since differrent species would likely have different base assumptions about the nature of "speech".

What we can gather about the protagonist's species from this story:
They're quite small compared to humans.
They have four legs
They are capable of bipedal locomotion
They do not possess auditory sense organs
They are likely tunnel dwellers
They have eyes similar to our own
The opening of their mouths is vertical
They probably form pair-bonds
They communicate through bodily movement, especially that of the limbs.

I didn't find myself thinking that the aliens looked exactly like rats. I pictured them as being vaguely rodent-like, but I don't see anything in the story that made me think that the scientist thought that they actually were terran rats or mice. I imagined the scientist being part of a survey team checking out a new world, and simply examining an interesting seeming species to see how bright they are. One of the primary reasons why the scientist wouldn't assume that the protagonist's movements were a form of speech is that he wouldn't have been looking for it--he was doing basic tests to see if the protagonist was as smart as a rat, not to see if it could comprehend language. The protagonist, on the other hand, had no doubt of the human's intelligence, seeing evidence of it in all of the manufactured things in the lab. He is straining to communicate, and closely observing the human to try to see how it communicates. Even with that close observation, when he stumbles onto the correct idea--labial communication--he rejects it, because he does not possess the ability to perceive sound, and so doesn't have all the pieces to the puzzle.

[ January 14, 2005, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I didn't pick up on all of the conclusions that you listed there. But the problem lies with my reading comprehension.

Cool insight into the story, Noemon. I can see how in this circumstance the alien animal could appear to be very stupid to the human, an illusion caused by the creature's complexity and intelligence.

Certainly an organism can communicate through means that we aren't capable of sensing. I understand that much of elephant communication is outside our hearing range. But of course, we can pick up on all of it with instruments. That might not be the case with ESP or physical movements to fast or subtle for us to see.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Of course, you have to keep in mind that I transcribed the story--when you do that your attention to its smaller details increases quite a bit, I find.

I was actually surprised at just how much more I got out of the story as a result of transcribing it. I'm thinking about doing that with a few of my other favorites, just to see what further insights I glean from them. It was also really interesting to pick up on some of LeGuin's stylistic choices that I hadn't been aware of previously. Her use of semicolons, for example, is incredibly heavy in that story, and she often uses them to link an independent clause with a subordinate clause, rather than using them to link two independent clauses.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
O_o Wow, that is an up-close and personal look at her style!
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
It was also very interesting for me when I transcribed C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce.
 

---