Hacker News Reader

You’re basically trying to redefine thinking in purely human terms. Many animals plan, which is the clearest definition of thinking there is.

A range of animals also have complex language skills, and or use tools which imply significant levels of cognition.

EX: http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/innovative-fema... , but chimps have also been known to make and use weapons and warfare.

PS: I would avoid redefining an existing word that with a similar meaning for what you’re describing as it muddles your argument. Replace your specific meaning with say 'Pogo Stick' and it becomes clear when you mean that specific thing vs the more commonly understood definition.

You should get yourself a pet. My cats communicate with me every day.

"The danger here is to project our abilities into a small set of faculties animals have and say, look!, we're no better, we're no different."

I think the greater danger is to project our definition of what it means to "think" onto animals, and say, look! they're stupid, thoughtless creatures we can do with as we like.

Yes, any pet owner will corroborate that their pets make efforts to communicate with their owners quite regularly.

What amazes me about cats is that they alter their method of communication to better fit humans. Cats don’t meow amongst each other or even with other types of animals; it’s something they do exclusively for our benefit. Not only do they realize that instinctual feline communication isn’t effective with humans, but also that humans are very dominantly vocal creatures and thus, if they are to successfully communicate they must be vocal. Perhaps I am too strongly projecting my human experience on these creatures, but this behavior reminds me of how a human might react if dropped into a society with entirely different modes of communication from his own, and as such suggests some level of cognition.

Yes. I also find the independent nature of cats striking. They very clearly understand we could kill them, and that we don't gives them license to be who they are unabashedly. A relationship with a cat is entirely optional as far as the cat is concerned.

They coexist here with us, often treating us as peer beings in this world. It is remarkably like how I would imagine a human handling a similar scenario.

There is more to cats cognition than we often give them credit for. I suspect this is true of many animals. I just have an affinity and what I consider deep understanding of cats. This runs deep enough for me to see the persona in them, not just personify behavior they demonstrate.

It seems they evolved their way of communicating to manipulate us:

'Cats may be exploiting “innate tendencies in humans to respond to cry-like sounds in the context of nurturing offspring" ' ( https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17455-hungry-cats-tri... )

Anyway, whoever thinks that animals, specially mammals, don't think or have feelings need to interact with them more.

I have a cat and I grew with animals around my house.

We should refrain from ethical judgements before having a clear understanding of what we're talking about. To understand requires a clear definition for every term we're using, either if we're very generous with animal mental faculties or we're not.

I think your definition of "thinking" is a bit too narrow. Certainly, there are humans with mental conditions which prevent them from communicating with "articulate language" (autism, aphasia, etc). Yet there's little doubt that they can still "think".

Yes, there's a danger of personifying animals. But there's also a tendency for us to picture ourselves as special (Geocentrism being the obvious example).

Indeed, thinking doesn't require speaking.

>> But there's also a tendency for us to picture ourselves as special

I get this a lot. First, there is no reason to exclude the possibility that we are indeed special. There are arguments against our exceptionality, as there are in favour. We can't dismiss that from the beginning.

Animal treatment should be based on their sentience, not their intelligence.

> I believe a proper definition of rational thinking involves the ability of having articulate language

Counterargument: http://www.grandin.com/references/thinking.animals.html

You may think language is necessary, and probably because that is the only way you've experienced thought. Curious, what do you think went through helen kellers mind? Or someone in a similar situation? Are they incapable of thinking without a formal language to internalize? Do you think they "think less"?

Our thoughts are inextricably linked to and shaped by our senses. Sight and vocalization dominate for humans and your thoughts center around those sensations.

But what the hell do I know, I'm just a dog.

> what do you think went through helen kellers mind?

Well, Keller wasn't blind and deaf from birth. John McCrone wrote a popsci book on the subject of mind, The Myth of Irrationality, in which he proposes that conscious thought (as distinct from intelligence itself) is literally talking to yourself and essentially nothing more. Keller is a topic of one of his chapters, and he points out that she had some formative exposure to language pre-loss, while examples of humans born deaf and blind don't seem to have the same success.

There is a notion that we "stand on the shoulders of giants". When you can't communicate with any of those giants, it's hard to climb on their shoulders. I can see that.

Actually, it's almost certainly not the way GP actually experiences most thought. A lot, if not most, of any intelligence is nonverbal, whether your mouth functions correctly or not.

I agree, language-as-thought seems to be the ex-post-facto self-explanation of what we just experienced.

>I only read half of the article, but it seems to me that the language used is philosophically naive.

Just because scientific findings disagree with the conceptual framework taught in philosophy degrees doesn't make them wrong.

> But thinking? I believe a proper definition of rational thinking involves the ability of having articulate language.

This isn't a very robust argument, because it can't handle the "I have no mouth, and I must scream" scenario.

Doesn't the example of the dog figuring out request for unknown object among known objects count as "logical thinking"?

Anyway, I liked the article, it's a great overview of what is known.

The article is objective observations of evident intelligence in various forms. If you'd read the whole article you'd probably agree that it doesn't make any speculative claims about animal thinking, which is left to the reader. I'm not sure why God makes an appearance in your criticism either.

"I believe a proper definition of rational thinking involves the ability of having articulate language."

A lot of social animals use complex languages. Do a mute person think? have feelings?

"The danger here is to project our abilities into a small set of faculties animals have and say, look!, we're no better, we're no different."

I want to argue the opposite. If your pet looks like have feelings and thoughts, if you see how its behaviour is congruent with curiosity for instance.

why do you decide to discard the most obvious hypothesis and decide to create a new category for them?

And whatever your reasons, why not to do the same for your neighbour? After all, how can you be sure that your are not projecting?

Who says that human 'thought' necessarily requires inner speech?

I am just going to share this:

My daughter collected plushie toys, which the cat liked to take and shread. One day, she had enough. The cat took one too many and she raged! I watched as the two of them went from room to room.

The cat totally understood she meant to do it some harm. And it knew why too.

I'll avoid too much detail, but the end game was in her room. Door closed, her and the cat matched up. She would go over the bed, cat under, she would go one side, the cat the other... perfect zero sum game, and it ended with her on the bed, the cat on the other end, both eye locked, intent!

She had that torn plushie, yelling, the cat watching intently, tail moving slowly...

Truth is, at her age, she could not actually get that cat, and he knew it. When they both arrived at that realization, there was "the talk" as described.

That cat never took another plushie, and they bonded closely over the next few months, having come to a basic understanding, I'll add as beings, people.

Of course, I observed this all with great interest and would have put a stop to any real harm, but for those two, it was as real as it gets!

She was maybe 7, the cat 2 or three.

In terms of basic intelligence, factoring out higher order language and other human capabilities, they were pretty well matched. The cat could totally read her, and she the cat. They both were planning, reading the other and responding.

This was one of the more interesting animal, human interactions I've ever seen. She was vocalizing and gesturing with that plushie. The cat was also vocalizing and using body language, its face and tail to carry out its end of the argument.

She later reported to me the result. The cat knows which plushies are OK. She would designate one or two, and the cat would not mess with the favorites.

It clearly doesn't. Many people think in terms of pictures or symbols they have internalized to represent their world.

Animals do this too. They plan, and socialize, etc...

Heck, cows have been demonstrated to have besties!

I think I agree with you.

The inability to think of a word , I think, is evidence that not all thought requires words.

But maybe that isn't entirely conclusive.