456
We wouldn't listen, anyway. (mander.xyz)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
107 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 10 months ago (9 children)

But it is nothing more than symbolic association at its absolute best

Have you ever had a pet that you were close to? I think you're right that it's cruel to study them though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    Ive had many pets. None of them have ever exhibited the ability of abstraction. Thats not an insult to their ability to understand my emotions or whats happening around them, their brains are just literally not designed to engage in the kinds of communication humans are capable of. They could not have the conversation you and I are having right now, they are neurologically not capable of it. Humans are uniquely capable of this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (7 children)

    None of them have ever exhibited the ability of abstraction.

    First of all, isn't science always testing and studying? Why and how can you make that statement so confidently? You don't know this for sure.

    Second, couldn't this just be bias on your part? I've had dogs that could speak our language the best they could. Granted, these were very smart dogs, so they might have been outliers. But your dogs could have been dumb as rocks too.

    Third, you're like that archaeology meme with the obsidian in the rafters. It might just be you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (6 children)

    Sorry you lost me with the archeology memes, ill take your word for it lol.

    I said exhibited, that already implies that I dont know for certain. I am saying that there has never been any evidence provided to me that my pets, or anyone else's pets, have ever communicated using structured abstract language to communicate. I think believing that animals have a secret ability to communicate in non-symbolic ways is basically a conspiracy theory. There is nuance to what we would define as symbolic and what we would define as structured abstract language, but overall I think this holds true even with very generous definitions for those terms.

    Communication through posturing, facial expressions, basic vocalizations, pheromones, can all be used to communicate some ideas that are complex in some ways. You can communicate to someone who knows you very well just be showing them a subtle facial expression that they know you well enough to pick up on. We are especially good at communicating emotions this way. I dont think that anyone would argue those modes of communication are as robust as, say, English. How would we have this conversation through purely posturing, facial expressions, vocalizations and pheromones? Can we convey these abstract ideas through those things that are unstructured and based on what is essentially our ability to pattern much external stimuli? Can you present my arguments to your dog? Can you show that your dog can be made to understand the arguments I am making about language?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    If you compare a 2 year old and a really smart dog, they're about the same in their reasoning skills. So yeah, I've had arguments with 2 year olds and dogs.

    Again, you're saying you personally haven't had those experiences, so you might be an outlier.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Your first statement is entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I dont even really know why you said it.

    I'm saying I've never even heard of it. I would love to see a qualitative analysis of 'arguments' with dogs. I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that anything even approaching actual language comprehension is happening. Understanding some words and sentences is not the same thing as language comprehension. Do they understand the meaning of the terms? Can they infer new things if terms have been rearranged? Do they understand the structure of language? No. They definitely cannot. They are capable of pattern matching human vocalizations though, especially as they relate to themselves and things in their immediate environment. Thats not the same thing as language. I'm very sorry if you do not understand the nuance between those 2 things, or if you genuinely believe any of your pets could speak English. Theres nothing I or anyone else can say to convince you otherwise if youve already decided that your subjective emotional experience with your animals leads you to believe they have English language speaking skills.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Arguments are based on reason. This is an argument for instance. You have produced an example that you feel conflicts with my earlier statement.

    Are you able to provide a rationale or argument to your dog that they should get into the crate? Are you capable of reasoning with her logically? How can you communicate those things with her? Could she for instance have this argument that we are having right now? Can she understand the argument I am presently making and provide a rational counter argument? If not, why cant she do that?

    Youre essentially arguing for a broad semantic definition of argument. Both of the participants in the exchange you just provided are focused on one individual. The exchange from your dogs perspective never crosses outside of your dogs subjective sensory experience. Your dog dislikes going into the crate. She is incapable of understanding why it is necessary for her to go in the crate. To claim that she has a humanlike awareness of that situation is to anthropomorphize her. From her perspective I doubt there are any explanations that could be presented to her to convince her that going in the crate is a good idea. She could be motivated by fear or by reward or by her own subjective emotional experience (maybe sometimes she just doesnt mind it that much) or even out of a desire to follow your directions as her master. But you couldn't sit her down and provide a rational argument to her about why she should get in the crate. That's not something her brain is capable of doing. Humans alone have neurology conducive to that. There is variation in the animal kingdom, but nothing that even approaches abstract referrential language.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    I really hope you're not a working scientist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Cool. This isnt a response to anything I said, and you have offered nothing to prove your claim that dogs can speak English lmao.

    You are the exact kind of person for whom the ape torture experiments were made to begin with. Someone entirely uninterested in what can be observed and proven. Someone with a delusional anthropomorphic view of what animals are. Blind to your own biases and convinced by the subjective emotional experiences you have projected onto your pets.

    No, I'm sorry but "believe me its totally true, everyone knows dogs can speak english" is not a legitimate argument nor a response to what I've been saying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)