Do Animals Believe In Supernatural Beings?

Heyyooo, Wouldn't your first instict be to think that they are simply copying what humans do? That is, at least, what the law of parsimony would dictate that we conclude, initially. Further research could lead to something else.But we know apes can mimic human behaviour, and do.So why would your initial inference be to think they somehow evolved supernatural beliefs? That would require a huge leap over an enormous gap of intelligence (about 7 million years worth.)I have to side with Jar from his first post in this thread that, unless a reasonable and effective means of communication is established between humans and other animals, we have very little to go by as far as understanding their beliefs.- Oni

I don't even know where we are talking about.I just said my first instinct would be to think they copied us, not, hey look they are behaving religiously. I would think, stupid monkey trying to do human things, that's cute. Too big of a leap for me. I would, if I didn't see humans around, think one of the monkeys brought in that habit from wherever he/she saw it from a human.I would, in all cases, assume it was them copying human behaviour.- Oni

No, not at all. Does everything I write sound cynical? It was an irrelevant point, your question. If you found no humans in the area, so what? You figure some monkey brought it from another area where there were humans. I would still assume human. Why make such a giant leap to think monkeys evolved religious belief?- Oni

Hey at least you tried a high-five and not give me the double pistol with your hands hello. If a chimp did that... HOLY SHIT! Chimps have seriously evolved a great deal of intelligence since last we checked. At which point, I would say, yes, those are religious behaviors.Then I would tell them to watch out for christian evangelist and a dude named Jesus. Which would be the first conclusion if we saw them doing that. But in your scenario, we knew they did it as an "offering" after a thunderstorm. That would be where the religious behavior part comes in. but for that we would need to be able to communicate with them at a higher level than what we've been able to do now.But if we don't know it was an offering, then I would first investigate chimps ability to role play. Shit...good question.I may have to think about that a bit. Every time I come up with something I can also see it being mimicry or role playing (which I would think shows a higher level of cognition, but not so much to suggest religious behavior.)I would first think they had to have a much more complex language and a much more structured society, so that something like abstract thought could be suggested.I frankly don't know what would be the minimal evidence.- Oni

Yeah, but in the same sense as telepathic dogs is worthy of further investigation, subjectively speaking. If you'd like to, go ahead and investigate.Funding for such an inquiry might be a bit hard to come by though. Other than the parietal lobe, frontal lobe and thalamus (source), nothing is really required. But those three seem to be a must. By what I have read on it, it seems to correlate with the evolvement of the frontal lobes and pariental lobe. Something unquie to humans. Coincidently, so is religion, apparently.I think the only sure way is to do a neuro scan while the ape is shown symbols and their "shrine," or whatever evidence that we think suggests belief, I'm just going with your example. The same that is done with humans and our religious symbols.If there is found to be activity in the brain that reacts to the symbols and not the same to other non-religious symbols, it would be a good start to the investigation. Higher level of cognitive testing can then follow. Or something like that(?) seems like the ideal process to the question of whether apes are or can be religious.- Oni

[ABE correction]When it comes to god-concepts, I thought we agreed in the other thread that the linguistic expression creates the concept. Right?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

It may seem this way, but it is not. There would be a selection of neurons firing inside your head, from different areas, but there is no one area where anything such as "concept" exists. The only way for a concept to exist is in expressive form, whether verbal, musically, artistically, etc. I don't believe you can. Prove it.- Oni

Yes, be we are neurologically wired to mimic for survival purposes, and this pre-dates language by millions of years. Same neurons are found in apes as well, so they too are wired to mimic.Thus it would be pragmatic to first exhaust every effort in role playing and mimicry, before you jump to an answer that would require, as far as we know, abstract though and communication for religious belief. These things are ONLY taught through verbal (for the most part) communication, and not mimicry. Never say never, barbara.- Oni

Let me say it this way, can you come up with an abstract concept in your head without some-kind of internal dialogue? (Some-kind of verbal communication, internal/in your mind, between you and yourself.)I can't. For me, and I would assume every other human, it needs to be expressed, even in my head, with inner dialogue.Is it still confusing or did I explain it better? I'm not the one making the claim. The burden falls on you does it not? I don't think 'prose' is the right word here. I would say more of an inner dialogue is needed for conceptualising abstract thoughts.- Oni

It is still early in it's conception, but they are working on neuro probes than may be able to read our minds, or create the image being formed in our head (not literally) using just our neuron firings. Short of something like that, I agree, we are shit out of luck.- Oni

Well done, sir. I commend you for that. I would have totally gone with penis. I think I would too. Or at the very least, belief in the supernatural.But I don't think it could be arrived at without some-kind of internal dialogue though. Just the fact that they were trying to find a source for the river, IMO, is evidence of introspective thinking."What do I feel feel about this river?" - "What do I think the source of this river is?" - "What else do I know of that also produces water?"I just don't see how a person could ask such complex questions without some-kind of inner, verbal communication. A language of some sort. Early, primitive, not as complex language, but still much more complex than anything we've seen (in nature, not some lab) from our primate cousins. This isn't refering to yourself in the third person, as I've seen with apes who have been taught sign-language.Which, even in a lab, I still think it's mimicry and not a learned language.- Oni

Sorry, I thought the point was you think he could. So I was just saying that I don't think he could. Ok. Na I wouldn't call that religious belief. Just the easiest conclusion from what he/she knows.Now, if he/she started to worship the eye, drew images of the eye, presented gifts to the eye...then I would call it religious belief.Did I do better this time? I'll get back to this.- Oni

I believe you are talking out of your (as you would say) arse here, Strag. The idea of language is a concept, as are ALL ideas concepts. But language itself is not a concept, it's a physical representation of reality via sounds and signs so you can then create ideas/concepts/thoughts etc. Then I'll be 100% with Clement Rosset:

quote:

---

Where the words miss to say it, lacks also the thought Deprived of the guard of the word, the thought tiole and dies.

---

Or Maurice Merleau-Ponty:

quote:

---

...the thought is nothing interior, it does not exist out of the world and out of the words.

---

Or Nietzsche:

quote:

---

.... it is this conscious thought only which is carried out in words, i.e. communication, by what the origin of the conscience appears.

---

- Oni

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

Crickets make distinct sounds to reflect a different mood and to convey different messages.

quote:

---

There are four types of cricket song: The calling song attracts females and repels other males, and is fairly loud. The courting song is used when a female cricket is near, and is a very quiet song. An aggressive song is triggered by chemoreceptors on the antennae that detect the near presence of another male cricket and a copulatory song is produced for a brief period after a successful mating.

---

This fits fine with the definition of language: "a system of complex communication." How do you know that is what went through their mind?Basic communication skills seem inherent in the human species. It's not surprising that it would dawn on Keller that she can communicate using signs. You're talking about LEARNING language, Straggler. Keller learned to use language, same with the Languageless Man.But a male cricket who hears (however they hear) an aggressive song coming from another male knows not to get close. He understood the language of that other cricket, yet he is not "grasping the idea of physical representations of reality." Not the way we would say humans do. And if you say the cricket is grasping the idea of physical representations in reality, then what would be an example of something that didn't grasp it? Very much so. The jist of which is, humans will always develop a language.But I thought this was about animals? Lingustics and the univsersal theory of grammar are for humans. Oh, I see where we went sour. I was being sarcastic quoting those philosophers because you used Einstein (a physicist) to explain complex language and thought to me. I found that rather humorous.Here was my position in that same post though: Ignoring the philosophers, where in the above do you disagree?- Oni