Do Animals Believe In Supernatural Beings?

Again, that is simply another irrelevancy. The question is "How can we know what some other species is thinking or believes?"So far you have offered no method that would allow us to determine what other critters believe.If and when you actually present such evidence I will happily consider it.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I question how much abstract thought belief in supernatural entities requires and defy your assertion that "abstract thought requires language".I'll start with the second of these two disagreements. Let us remind ourselves of the Eureka moment in the case study already considered: Now with the benefit of language you or I might express his moment of realisation in something like the following terms: "Aha! That particular hand gesture means the big glass transparent thing in the wall. If I use that same hand gesture I too can refer to any big glass transparent thing to other people. In fact if we both know the same hand gesture for lots of different things we can communicate about all of those things. What a clever idea!" But how the hell can someone without language (and thus supposedly incapable of abstract thought) come to that same realisation?What would you call it?If god(s) exist why would sentient apes not expereince them in much the same way that humans purport to?Apes use of tools and ability to solve puzzles shows a reasonably sophisticated intuitive understanding of cause and effect. Surely you cannot deny this?

As (again) AdminMod put it this thread poses the question: "What evidence might look like and try to resolve one way or another what we can say we know about this topic." No. The question posed in this thread has been clearly stated to you multiple times. Comparative behaviour and other common methods of animal psychology. As (again) AdminMod put it this thread poses the question: "What evidence might look like and try to resolve one way or another what we can say we know about this topic."When you overcome your obvious inability to consider what such evidence "might look like" rather than go through the standard "where is your evidence - oh no it's not" routine let me know.

If and when you present some such evidence I will happily consider it.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I give up on you.Your ever increasing pointless post count alone is enough to beat even me into submission.Have the last word if you will.

Unless one can grasp the concept of "physical representations of reality" and the need to share these for purposes of communication no language is possible. And "physical representations of reality" (as Oni calls them) are (practically by definition) abstractions.There is a reason that a languageless Helen Keller could acquire language but that your dog cannot. And that reason is the ability of the human brain to make logical connections and entertain abstract concepts with or without language already being present.The question here is whether or not other species (e.g. chimpanzees) have the same (if more basic) ability to abstract without the use of language.Simply asserting that language is required for abstract thought of any kind is to miss the entire point.

But I didn't say "words," I said sounds and signs. Words would be a much more complex representation of reality. I'm sure a lemur would like to yell out, "Holy shit! A leopard is coming our way. Everyone run!" - but all he manages to do is make a loud sound to warn others. He is using a sound as his physcial represention reality. That is his language.But do you think he can grasp the idea of physical representations of reality?When a cricket makes that mating sound, which would be a physical representation of him wanting to get laid, do think he is grasping the idea of physical representations of reality?---------------------------------I read your links and I don't see how it proves that thoughts and language (remember, not words, but language as in sounds and signs) aren't one and the same.I wait for you to further elaborate on your point.- Oni

What makes you think any of that is true? I don't see any reason why someone must 'grasp the concept of language itself' in order to use language, or 'grasp the concept of "physical representations of reality"' in order to utilize physical representations of reality. Is there a reason why all your 'evidence' is just anecdotal? Do we know of any creature that possesses human-like abstract thought capabilities without also possessing human-like language abilities?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

I dunno. I'm doubting his realization was as complex as you've made it. I'd lean more towards it being a simple: "This is that."Anyways, in this case, the man had been around a society and had seen people communicating n'stuff, so he was already a lot farther along. I suppose its not totally impossible for there to be a person who has had abstract thoughts in the absence of a language.But this isn't really about individuals... And one person seemingly having abstract thoughts without language doesn't mean that animals are capable of abstract thought without language. I kind of like: ""religious-like" thoughts and/or experiences" Well, for one, they don't have a language No, but wondering about the cause of a thunderstorm just seems out of the range of ther abilities... especially with all the poo-flinging. If you're going to reduce the requirement to that which includes animals without language, then I think you're going to far to have anything that you can meaningfully compare to modern human religions. Its not so absolute. If we're talking about what kinds of non-humans might have religious beliefs, I think its far to say that the animals would have a language with which to express the abstact thoughts that the religion is composed of.

Don’t conflate the abstraction that is language with ALL behaviours used for communication. When you start releasing pheromones in the presence of hot women you are communicating with them in exactly the same way that a cricket is communicating with female crickets in your above example. But nobody sensible would call this language in this context.Why don’t we consider some real examples of grasping the abstract concept that is language itself?Consider the deaf blind Helen KellerOr the Languageless man case study I provided to CS. Question: Bearing in mind the linguistic inability of the people in these Eureka moment examples how would you describe what was going through their minds as the realisation of language as a concept dawned upon them?Do you think it was even remotely akin to the reasoning deployed by a horny cricket? Call them whatever you like. It is impossible to use or understand language without making the basic logical link between a representation (i.e. the sound, sign, symbol etc.) and the concept being represented. As per the Eureka moments above. How does one make this abstract logical link if one is without language and thus (supposedly) incapable of abstract thought? Answer: You cannot. The thought is language position hits an insurmountable catch 22 dead end. Language is required for abstract thought. But the ability to think abstract thoughts is required to acquire language in the first place.I know you are fan of Chomsky. Are you familiar with his theory of universal grammar at all? The girl in the case study I supplied in my last post is a linguistic idiot savant. She is capable of highly articulate responsive and impromptu superficially meaningful conversation. All the internal linguistic links inside her brain are in place. Indeed they are highly developed. But the link with reality, the comprehension of what it all means, is severely lacking.If abstract thought is language (as you insist) how can one be highly adept at language but so deeply impaired in one’s ability to think abstractly? Or (as we can come to) vice versa?

It is impossible to use or understand language without making the basic logical link between a representation (i.e. the sound, sign, symbol etc.) and the concept being represented. Without that logical link there is no meaning attached and no linguistic communication is possible. Do we invent language to express concepts or do we invent concepts to meet the requirements of existing language? The (frankly blindingly obvious) conclusion is that we invent language to express concepts. Abstract or otherwise. Any reasonably developed human brain contains the conceptual framework required to mentally make sense of the environment it evolved in. A conceptual framework for things like space, time, substance, number, causality, intention as well as the conceptual ability to make logical connections between these things. It is from this conceptual framework that all human languages are derived.Are you familiar with Chomsky's theory of universal grammar at all? The rarity of languageless people case studies (and their acquisition of language) is what makes them so valuable as insights into what abilities are and are not related to language.Combine these with the (also rare but equally important) case studies of those with brain disorders that result in high linguistic ability but little comprehension (or vice versa) - And the conclusion that language is not essential for abstract thought seems clear. Yes - The languageless humans in the case studies I have provided.Are you still asserting that language is required for abstract thought? If so on what evidential basis?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

"What" is "that"? Be specific.This is the man you previously described in the following terms - "he wasn't thinking much at all". But whatever your equivocations I would suggest that his reaction (and that of his teacher telling the story) speaks for itself. The realisation that symbols and concepts could be logically linked and shared for purposes of communication. It isn't "one person". And what these cases do show is that the assertion you guys have all been making - That an ability for abstract thought necessarily goes hand in hand with language - is just not true.If you think I am suggesting that chimps are even possibly inventing absurdities like the Trinity or that gorillas believe in a being who sends his own son who is himself to be tortured so that he can forgive the torturers of the sins that their great great great great great (etc.) grandaddy commited - Then NO.Drivel like that is a truly human invention. It is highly arguable that both us and our fellow apes share an evolutionary ability to think in terms of causation and intent that is not dependent on language. In fact these are two of the conceptual foundations that all human languages are thought by many to be derived from.So ascribing conscious intent as the cause for an otherwise inexplicable phenomenon may not be so outlandish as you are suggesting. Have you never seen "Bumfights"? OK. Consider a deist who says he believes in "something" that he cannot linguistically define or describe but has felt the "presence" of and to which he ascribes some causal role - Would you argue with him if he described his beliefs as "religious"?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes that is exactly the question.So what types of thinking are required for the most basic of "religious" beliefs? (call them "superstitious" if it makes you happier - I see little meaningful distinction between the two at the basic level being considered).I would say the following types of thinking are needed - An ability to ascribe intent. An ability to comprehend cause and effect. Then the ability to combine the two in the form of some conscious agent (whether "perceived" or imagined/dreamed).All the evidence indicates that all these forms of thought are available to intelligent non-humans such as chimps. In fact far from requiring language as a basis for such forms of thinking the evidence suggests that human language is derived from these evolutionary originating conceptual frameworksOf course none of this is evidence that chimps do believe in such things. But it does mean that the relentless assertions that they cannot are too simplistic. Essentially nothing more than gut reactions of the "No way dude!! It's a frikkin monkey!!" type.

"That" is the object, "this" is the hand-sign. Before, he was just repeating what she signed, then he had the realization that the sign was corresponding to the object. I don't think so. The furthest I'd have it is you providing an exception to an otherwise good rule of thumb. Maybe. Do you know any deists that consider their beliefs as religious?

This has certainly been your claim, which you've repeated multiple times and for which you've yet to offer any evidence. I don't think Language is 'invented'; on top of that, I'd say it is most likely that Language and Concepts develop together within the cultural group. Another claim yet to be supported by evidence. Developing a 'conceptual framework' is a pretty massive and intensive process; I've seen no evidence to date showing that such a task is possible without Language. Evidence for this? Of course; and it's about as unevidenced as the claims you've so far been making. Yes, but all you have to report on such folk are talltalesyou've linked not to a singe scientific study of these people or their abilities. And even the reports to which you have linked only support what you've said very tenuously and under the influence of a heavy load of unsubstantiated assumptions. If you believe these case studies support your position, then please offer some links to them. The ones I've seen do not demonstrate at all the notion that higher-level thinking is possible without linguistic abilities. If that is all the evidence you have for your position, then I'm afraid your claims are seriously undersupported. I'm asserting that all the evidence we know of so far tells us that individuals (human or not) who do not possess, and/or never have possessed, normal linguistic abilities are not capable of normal higher-level thinking (what I believe you call 'abstract thought').Presenting evidence to the contrary would, interestingly, be your job, and not mine. My role is simply telling you whether the evidence is convincing or not; so far it all sucks.ABE: Reply to Message 268 At the very least propositional thoughts. Okay; that's a startperhaps. Whatever this evidence might be, it is certainly not the evidence you've so far been presenting. Do you have any evidence for this?JonEdited by Jon, : added replyEdited by Jon, : clarity

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr