|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What makes homo sapiens "human"? | ||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Forget Every Which Way But Loose, check out this evidence:
Now custard, how can you continue to deny that apes have language (not to mention tool use) in the face of such indisputable proof?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
case closed. Here's a picture of an even less evolved primate using language and tools:
Homo Stillerensus This message has been edited by custard, 06-30-2004 01:40 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
But seriously, folks...
custard writes: Yes, animals can count, but they have trouble with concepts like 'six is more than four.' They don't understand why six is more. Even apes have problems with concepts regarding time and cause and effect such as 'if I do this now, I'll get a reward for it tomorrow.' The above post made me recall the following report:
Monkeys reject unequal pay. Brosnan SF, De Waal FB. Nature. 2003 Sep 18;425(6955):297-9. During the evolution of cooperation it may have become critical for individuals to compare their own efforts and pay-offs with those of others... Although there exists substantial cultural variation in its particulars, this 'sense of fairness' is probably a human universal that has been shown to prevail in a wide variety of circumstances. However, we are not the only cooperative animals, hence inequity aversion may not be uniquely human. Many highly cooperative nonhuman species seem guided by a set of expectations about the outcome of cooperation and the division of resources. Here we demonstrate that a nonhuman primate, the brown capuchin monkey (Cebus apella), responds negatively to unequal reward distribution in exchanges with a human experimenter. Monkeys refused to participate if they witnessed a conspecific obtain a more attractive reward for equal effort, an effect amplified if the partner received such a reward without any effort at all. These reactions support an early evolutionary origin of inequity aversion. I'm not saying this study directly refutes the arguments above, but I think it is a strong comment that non-human primates can (abstractly?) think at least in terms of "better" and "worse", since they are able to respond to inequity. Also, although it doesn't deal with the time issue, the study suggests that monkeys can deal with cause-and-effect above simple levels, given the underlying comparison to other individuals - perhaps 'awareness' of cause-and-effect in another individual, along with awareness of their own cause-and-effect situation hints at an ability to deal with abstraction such as better/worse and me/they - and thus inequity. Of course, there's no evidence of the monkeys communicating their thoughts to others, so this doesn't deal with the language issue... I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this study.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
Here we demonstrate that a nonhuman primate, the brown capuchin monkey (Cebus apella), responds negatively to unequal reward distribution in exchanges with a human experimenter. Monkeys refused to participate if they witnessed a conspecific obtain a more attractive reward for equal effort, an effect amplified if the partner received such a reward without any effort at all. Do you have a link to more detail? I'd be better able to understand what their definition of 'refused to participate' and 'respond negatively' is if I could see more details of what the test(s) were, how many monkeys were involved, etc.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Unfortunatly, you need to have access to Nature to get the article. I checked the de Waal lab web page but it only had the abstract. Here's my summary of the technique:
The monkeys are given tokens that they can exchange with a human experimenter for food - in this case either cucumber (acceptable) or grape (preferred). In the experiment two monkeys are placed in a divided cage and given tokens. The experimental monkey first watches an exchange between the other monkey and the human before offered an exchange of its own. Rejection was scored as refusal to barter or refusal to eat after bartering. Five experimental monkeys were used (plus control monkeys). In controls both monkeys are offered the same food reward. In inequality experiments, the first monkey is offered a grape, the second (experimental) is offered a cucumber. A more drastic inequality was produced by giving the first monkey a reward without requiring a token, then requiring a token from the experimental monkey - in this latter case the experimental monkeys displayed outrage, often hurling the tokens at the humans. The difference was quite drastic - in control experiments and other experiments in the de Waal lab, bartering occurs >95% for either food reward. In the inequality experiment this dropped to ~50%; in the effort inequality experiment it dropped below 10%. Hopefully this will be helpful. The authors don't make any mention of 'abstraction' - they stick to the terms 'expectations', 'inequity', and the 'emotionality' resulting from inequity. Here is a link to a pdf of another article from the de Waal lab that does a similar experiment:Living Links | Page not found This second study shows that capuchin monkeys more readily share a food reward with a cooperative partner in obtaining that food reward, relative to sharing a food reward they obtained themselves. In a way it studies 'equity' while the first study I mentioned examines 'inequity.'
|
||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
That seems to confirm many field observations. One thing often noted is that the act of sharing is far lower during foraging than when during a cooperative venture such as hunting.
It would be interesting to find some references that might detail such behavior. Do you know of any specific ones? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
If you are interested, there is a book called Good Natured by Frans de Waal (an anthropomorphism-free and agenda-free primatologist). The book focuses on animal morality, and covers some of the cooperation studies in captivity and in the wild. Some excerpts related to the subject at hand, since I don't expect anyone to run out and get the book:
Chimpanzees are quite good about sharing prey, but hopeless when it comes to favored plant foods. [Chimpanzees] arrive at a task division in which individual hunters perform different but complementary actions. Some of them drive the prey, others encircle them or block their escape to a distant tree. Rather than taking meat into the trees, where beggars can be avoided, Tai chimpanzees typically form feeding clusters on the ground, where there is room for everyone. The captor usually manages to retain a significant portion, yet prey does tend to change hands immediately upon the hunt's completion... The Boesches found that participation in a hunt affects how much meat a male can expect at the end. Males attracted to the scene after the prey is captured, whatever their rank or age, tend to receive little or nothing. Females are not held to the same standard: they recieve meat regardless of their role in the hunt. After an adult male had captured one monkey, a female discovered a second, which she cornered underneath some rocks. Instead of trying to catch it herself, she called the male while staring at the monkey. The male understood her signals, came over, and grabbed the monkey. He killed it right away by flinging it forcefully to the ground. Despite the presence of other beggars, the male let this particular female have one of his two monkey carcasses. There are also more complex examples that are nothing short of political positioning - males using meat-distribution to specific individuals and groups to establish allies that maintain their rank when physical strength alone would not. de Waal's conclusion is that the shift from straightforward dominance to food sharing was a milestone in human evolution - "The result is the relatively equitable distribution of resources that our sense of justice and fairness requires." There is also some interesting comments on survival of the "unfit" in such social groups, and of human and neanderthal fossils of people with disabilities that lived to adulthood. An example is made of a congenitally handless macaque in a study group that was accepted and managed to live a long life, have many children, and participate in cooperation and politics. I believe (though am not postive) primates are unique in this aspect - non-primates shun or attack conspecifics with visible disabilities...
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3470 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings,
Actually, these parrots really seem capable of actual conversation. Check out this amazing conversation with "N'Kisi" the African Grey, after he had been in a car for the first time - N'Kisi: "Remember, we went in a car"Aimee: "Yes! Did you like it?" N'Kisi: "I like that - wanna go out in the car" Aimee: "We can't, wo don't have a car now" N'Kisi: "Wanna go in a car right now" Aimee: "I'm sorry, we can't right now - maybe we can go again later" N'kisi: "Why can't I go in a car now?" Aimee: "Because we don't have one" N'kisi: "Let's get a car" Aimee: "No Kisi, we can't get a car now" N'kisi: "I want a car" Aimee: "I'm sorry, baby, not today" N'kisi: "Hurry up, wanna go in a car. Remember? We were in a car" This not mimicry - if you did not know this was a bird, it sounds just like a child that liked his first ride in a car and wants to go again. Early experiments with chimps (e.g. Washoe et al) have not lived up to hopes - these parrots are one of the hot species when it comes to animal communication these days. Iasion
|
||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
Conversation is a misnomer here. I don't see a conversation. I see the parrot repeating its request over and over. No offense, but I don't see how this is significantly different than my dog licking my face until I feed him; or him ringing his bell because he wants to go outside.
The parrot seems to be simply running through request actions, in this case sounds he has memorized, in order to get back into the car. The parrot doesn't demonstrate that it has any idea what 'we don't have a car' and 'I can't get a car' means. Even a child would ask 'why can't you get a car?' The parrot doesn't make this leap. It just keeps repeating its demand. Communication, yeah; but not language. Finally, I'd have to actually see & hear the tape before I believe the parrot's syntax is anywhere near as good as this. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm just saying I'm a skeptic so I need more than hearsay. Do you have any links to this conversation?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3470 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings,
Its true the "conversation" does show some limits, yet he also seems to be able to understand and communicate some basic ideas - Aimee: "Yes! Did you like it?"N'Kisi: "I like that - wanna go out in the car" Responding to a question and expanding it. Aimee: "Because we don't have one"N'kisi: "Let's get a car" Understanding the statement and suggesting solution. Of course, you are correct that this is essentially ONE anecdote of unknown accuracy, indeed almost certainly biased - the woman started with the goal of showing animal communication. My immediate source is below (I have not checked the facts myself, sorry). I first saw it in a paper some months ago. http://www.animalsentience.com/news/2004-01-26.htm Iasion
|
||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
Dude,
this sentence from that article makes me skeptical of every other claim therein:
quote: No wonder the parrots are so good at communicating... although one might think N'kisi might have been able to read Aimee's mind so she didn't have to explain why they couldn't get a car. This message has been edited by custard, 07-01-2004 06:27 AM
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3470 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Whoops,
turns out the telepathy angle seems to a big part of this story, even with the author, not just fringe web-sites. This seems to be the home page -http://www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/ Iasion
|
||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I checked out the 'peer-reviewed' journal the parrot-telepathy paper was published in - the Journal of Scientific Exploration.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse.html It includes other astounding articles like Unexplained Weight Gain Transients at the Moment of Death, where a person (without any instituitional affiliation) places sheep on a large balance, kills them by placing a plastic bag over their heads, and measures weight changes as they die. Definitely not the most ethical or scientific study I've seen. The journal is perhaps worth checking out solely for amusement...
|
||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
Yeah, wasn't that experiment the basis of that movie 21 lambs?
Ok bad pun.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Hey, Sasq
Sorry to get into this so late. In other issues of my thinking I've been musing on sensory/motor life/awareness vs. conceptual/imagination. I'm thinking perhaps it's this increased conceptual activity leading to imagination and participation in shared imaginary worlds such as revealed religous concepts of spirits, heaven, etc. that is what distinguishes homo sap from the rest of the life forms on this planet. It's not what we do, it's all the dramatic imagining we add to our doing that makes us different. Whaddya think? peace,lfen
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024