Do Animals Think?

jambo

slip inside my schlafsack
Would demonstrating self-awareness be evidence of thought?
http://www.newscientist.com/article...d.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news4_head_dn14552

I remember another article about a study that apparently showed crows (I think it was) could 'get inside the heads of others', i.e they can model behaviour.

Actually, what do you mean by 'thought'?

Does thought have to involve language?

Does language have to involve thought to be language?

I'd probably say no to both those questions but it's also a matter of definition I think.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"I'd probably say no to both those questions but it's also a matter of definition I think."
Yeah, I think you would have to define quite carefully what you mean by thought and language for this to go anywhere. I'm pretty sure animals communicate with each other but I don't think that alone is enough to constitute language, I'd also say that some animals communicate in ways that are more sophisticated than others but I'm not necessarily sure that it's simply a question of a certain threshold of sophistication being reached that changes communication to language. Maybe it is though actually, I dunno.

"Does language have to involve thought to be language?"
Not sure I agree on that though, or maybe I wouldn't exactly disagree but there is definitely some close relationship between the two. I think that thought aids language and language aids thought and any increase in capacity for one is likely to lead to an increase in capacity for the other.
 

jambo

slip inside my schlafsack
Surely any system of signs and symbols for communication can constitute a language? Strictly speaking I don't think a language need necessarily be structured or verbal, but maybe that's the definition that josef k had in mind.

What I was really asking I think was does language have to be 'intentional', but I wanted to avoid bringing questions of intent into it.

Computers don't think but they use language.
 

jenks

thread death
Pinker's latest book - The Stuff of Thought deals with lots of the 'do we use language to think' kind of questions. He seems to suggest not. It's not an easy read but is absolutely gripping, once you get past the early chapter on transitive verbs.

As to what constitutes Language - the Chomsky wing tend to look at the Bonobo monkeys as not using language per se as they are unable to create original utterances/sentences but 'merely' repeat a series of pre-rehearsed statements. They have also suggested that the human handlers rigged the research by giving cues to help the animals.

Obviously trying to agree on a definition is fraught with difficulty - I have always taught the Chomsky p.o.v because it seems to fit with makes sense to me, however, I have often had huge disagreements with the Psychology department who see things very differently and teach the kids that Nim Chimpsky used 'language'. Cue furious debate.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Surely any system of signs and symbols for communication can constitute a language?
I dunno, I don't think that any communication is automatically language. Once it's systematized then maybe it is.
Depends though in what sense it is a system I think. If I always run away when I see birds being flying up as if scared then the birds are communicating something to me and I'm using a system but I don't think it's language. Unless someone wants to posit some kind of "language of the environment" or something.
So maybe there has to be a system on the part of the person who is sending the communication.

"What I was really asking I think was does language have to be 'intentional', but I wanted to avoid bringing questions of intent into it."
Related to the bird thing I think. Can you have a system without intent?

"Strictly speaking I don't think a language need necessarily be structured or verbal"
I agree.

"Computers don't think but they use language."
I'm not sure that computer languages are languages in the same sense though. And can computer's be said to use anything?
 

jambo

slip inside my schlafsack
Interesting about the Pinker. I think the question of language here, in the absence of a nice definition anyway, might be a bit of a red herring. I think concentrating on the question of thought might be more fruitful.
 

jambo

slip inside my schlafsack
Rich, I did say 'any system of signs and symbols'. I think it's clear that many animals do use systems of signs. Birds, monkeys and other mammals use different calls to denote different meanings. Bees do the dancing thing to communicate the direction of the nice flowers. I'd say this is language.

Can you have a system without intent?
Yes, a system of signs used by a species could evolve, for instance.

I'm not sure that computer languages are languages in the same sense though. And can computer's be said to use anything?
Actually I think what this shows most is that language need not be tied intent or thought. Language in the broadest sense is most straightforwardly defined as a formalised set of symbols. And yes a computer can be said to 'use' language, if a car can be said to 'use' petrol.

But OK, as jenks suggests perhaps we need to make a distinction between language and Language. I suspect this does again raise the issue of intent and free will :eek: Where is the threshold?
 

vimothy

yurp
Rich, I did say 'any system of signs and symbols'. I think it's clear that many animals do use systems of signs. Birds, monkeys and other mammals use different calls to denote different meanings. Bees do the dancing thing to communicate the direction of the nice flowers. I'd say this is language.

I agree, though this based on nothing more learned than my own intuition. Other things that I consider to be languages (for similar reasons) are maths and music.
 

jambo

slip inside my schlafsack
I agree, though this based on nothing more learned than my own intuition. Other things that I consider to be languages (for similar reasons) are maths and music.
I think the systems of signs used by animals can with some certainty be said to be language, at least by some definitions of 'language', but not all.

Not sure if I would say that maths is a language. There are languages of mathematics, languages that describe mathematics and language that uses mathematics, but isn't mathematics, or at least number something that precedes language?

I think something similar could be said of music.

I suppose then the question is do these things exist independent of an observer. Oh dear, let's stick with animals shall we. ;)
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
isn't mathematics, or at least number something that precedes language?

That's quite interesting -- what do you mean? That the idea of a number preceded the language needed to describe that idea?

I think something similar could be said of music.

Music is ambiguous. The grammar is more dynamically shifting norms that hard rules. Emergent orders and all that. But I think it is a language... you just can't use it to get directions.
 

jambo

slip inside my schlafsack
Music is ambiguous. The grammar is more dynamically shifting norms that hard rules. Emergent orders and all that. But I think it is a language... you just can't use it to get directions.
Music contains languages for sure, and something like written notation is quite literally a language. Not arguing there, just don't think that music is (just) a language - language is mapped onto the broader spectrum of music. This gets down to the question of what is music though I suppose so there's room for interpretation. Consciously ordered noise / framed sound / anything I say it is! To me there's music in birdsong, and traffic noise.
That's quite interesting -- what do you mean? That the idea of a number preceded the language needed to describe that idea?
Well, perhaps mathematics can be said to be the language of number - but it's clear that complex 'mathematics' exists throughout nature without us needing to identify and talk about it. Then again, you could say that the whole of the universe is constantly involved in the process of talking to itself in mathematics.
 
Last edited:

jenks

thread death
Aitchison in The Articlate Mammal:
" Even though intelligent animals seem capable of coping with some of the rudimentary characteristics of human language, they do not seem predisposed to cope with them." Language training for apes is, in her eyes, an unnatural task.

What they can do is carry out simple slot filling manouevres, providing they are adequately rewarded. They show no evidence of structure. Chomsky states: "higher apes lack the capacity to develop even the rudiments of the computational capacity of human language."

So, no, Jambo, I cannot agree with this:

"I think the systems of signs used by animals can with some certainty be said to be language, at least by some definitions of 'language', but not all."

For me Language has to be more than a series of bird calls or bee dances - it has to have the capacity to create unique utterances and express that which has never been expressed before. What they do is communicate but I don't think they are using 'language' to do it.
 

jambo

slip inside my schlafsack
Shall we call that Language then jenks? Because it is to a large extent an issue of definition, arguably one of degree. If we look at a few dictionary defs. of 'language' I think that many could be applied to animal communication.
  • Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.
  • A system of signs, symbols, gestures, or rules used in communicating.
  • The special vocabulary and usages of a scientific, professional, or other group.
  • The manner or means of communication between living creatures other than humans.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/language

Especially that last one. ;)

How unique is unique? I don't suppose this conversation has never been had before ;). Might there be nuances in animal communication that we are not aware of?

As for animals not being predisposed to learning human languages, well all I can say, in the manner of lingually challenged British Islanders, is that their human is probably better than my ape.
 

jambo

slip inside my schlafsack
Maybe it seems I'm being overly picky. I can of course see the distinction, at least I think so. Still suspect there might be an element of parochial hubris involved though, we're only human.

It could be that we are indeed the only species afflicted with language.

Thought?
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Rich, I did say 'any system of signs and symbols'. I think it's clear that many animals do use systems of signs. Birds, monkeys and other mammals use different calls to denote different meanings. Bees do the dancing thing to communicate the direction of the nice flowers. I'd say this is language.
Yes, I know, I wasn't disagreeing, I was just emphasising how important that bit was (to me). I'd definitely say waggle dance or whatever is (part of) a language. I don't think birds flying off scared is.

"Yes, a system of signs used by a species could evolve, for instance."
Sorry yeah, of course, in general, a system can evolve but then, in the case of a language type system, the person being communicated to is interpreting that system in a way which is not necessarily related to the way the system exists. I think that for language the system has to be present for both the speaker and the listener (just using those words for convenience, doesn't have to be verbal obviously).

Actually I think what this shows most is that language need not be tied intent or thought. Language in the broadest sense is most straightforwardly defined as a formalised set of symbols. And yes a computer can be said to 'use' language, if a car can be said to 'use' petrol
Interesting that I was originally going to say that computers use languages only in the sense that cars use petrol. I think that's different to the way in which I use something as a means to an end. Maybe this just reveals that I think (or presuppose) that language does in fact require intent.
 
Top