What seperates man and beast?

[Morkeliph]

One of the most irritating, and in my opinion, unfounded arguments that is often directed at my line of work has to do with using animals as research subjects. The argument is that studying the behavior of animals is pointless because animals and humans are so inherently different that anything you might discover from animal research cannot be directly applied to humans. Obviously, we could go into great lengths on this argument, but that is not the point of this thread (create another if you wish). What I do wish to discuss is what is it that makes the biggest difference between humans and animals (chimpanzees for example). What is it about humans that makes them so utterly unique that it seperates them from all other animals just by nature. Obviously, whether you're a Creationist or an Evolutionist, there are going to be discrepancies here, but let's discuss them in terms of man's relation to beast.

In my opinion, speaking behaviorally of course, I think the biggest difference is verbal behavior. Of all animals, there are fundamental principles that govern their behavior, whether it is a pigeon, a monkey, an aplisia, or a human. However, the one behavior that is uniquely human is verbal communication. While animals can be trained limited communication via symbols or sign-language, only humans posses the physical capacity for vocal communication in a very precise and variable fashion. What's so important about that you ask? Well, consider it this way, the ability to talk is probably a prerequisite for "conscious thought" as we know it. Do animals think? It would depend on how you define thinking, I suppose. I would argue that they do in fact think, but not in words and language like we do. Our ability to speak and communicate via language enables us to "think" in terms of "private vocalization." It is noteworthy that when individuals learn a second language proficiently, they most typically report beginnig to "think" in the language as well. The ability to "think" in terms of language enhances remembering, allows for the construction and adherance to rules, and enables us to learn things that we might not otherwise learn. Additionally, verbal behavior is the basis for society and culture as we know it. Would there be civilization without communication? It is almost impossible to perceive, and it is little wonder that the first known "civilization" in the history of the world also established the first written language. Looking at it evolutionarily, if humans never developed the ability to speak, how much different would they be today from chimpanzees, baboons, or other apes with whom we share a common ancestry?

[GenocideAlive]

Long-term memory storage, and the ability to cognisantly, willingly commit certain ideas to their memory for recall later. This pretty much opens the book to the thousands of abilities that humans have that certain animals can only reproduce in part.
While animals can be trained limited communication via symbols or sign-language, only humans posses the physical capacity for vocal communication in a very precise and variable fashion.
This is slightly argumentative and I'm not trying to be a jackass, but parrots can mimic human speech perfectly.

[Morkeliph]

That is true, but do parrots "communicate" to one another via verbal cues? Likely not, and if they do, it is severely limited. Humans, however, have developed the ability to use vocalizations as verbal stimuli and consequences that enable them to communicate with one another and complete complex tasks. Certainly, there are physical features of the brain that facilitate this sort of communication, in addition to the physiology of the mouth and throat and such. For me, verbal behavior is so important when you consider human thought. Observing introspectively, how much of your personal thought uses language as its primary mechanism? Don't you typically think to yourself almost in the same fashion as you would speak to yourself? How much of the details of imagination are tied to words and their meanings? When you imagine a sunset, don't the words "red," "orange," "sky," etcetera pop into your thoughts? How would this be different if you spoke another language, or if you were deaf, or if language didn't exist period. In remembering, I think a great portion of our ability to remember depends upon our ability to imagine things as they have happened in the past. Imagining and remembering both deal with seeing/hearing/behaving as we would in the presence of a particular situation (stimuli) but without actually being in the situation. Both, I believe, are greatly facilitated through verbal behavior that we engage in on a covert level.

[SHISHKABOB]

We can imagine things. We can see things with our minds eye unless someone proves to me that a monkey can imagine something then I will forget that. But yeah humans can remember lots of things very well

[GenocideAlive]

Your comment wasn't regarding the comprehension or signficance of communication between beings, it simply said that "physically" no-one could match the human sophistication.

Does the fact that I am unable to comprehend French hold any significance to French as a mode of communication? I can repeat what I hear, and those that are listening can understand. That's all that's required for me to communicate in French. What I am able to communicate is limited to what I'm taught, but that brings us back to the differentiation that I brought up earlier.

Long-term memory means that I can remember a variety of language-oriented teachings and apply different learning methods that I learned earlier in life and apply them.

[Neo]

Correct me if I am wrong... but don't many many animals use verbal cues often during many activities? Sex, hunting, etc...

It might not be verbal language persay, but then a mating call is a mating call, whether its "I'm so wasted!!!" or a bird chirping to death.

I don't actually consider humans all that unique from other animals... Inasmuch that, we will never be able to tell what other animals are thinking, or what they actually think of us. I have found that the sign language apes were interesting though, becuase they aren't just mimicing it, they actually use it to communicate; "Sad" over the loss of an offspring. "Hungry" when they want some food. "Angry/Upset" when something bad happens.

Meh. Who knows.

I like to think that there are animals out there (like dolphins for instance) that maybe very intelligent.

I think though, that the major differences between us and other animals is... well very little. Almost everything you could argue for a human (at a basic level, ie: thinking, dreaming, creating, destroying) could be applied to animals. I would have to say that our higher brain functions seperate us from animals... While some may think.. I doubt very many imagine. Some may dream, but about what?

When you come down to it, how big of a difference is there? We shroud ourselves in civilization, higher thinking, etc... But are we really that different from our animal cousins?

Maybe its our belief systems that set us apart. After all, whens the last time a lion killed over beliefs.

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

Correct me if I am wrong... but don't many many animals use verbal cues often during many activities? Sex, hunting, etc...
His argument was scope.
I think though, that the major differences between us and other animals is... well very little. Almost everything you could argue for a human (at a basic level, ie: thinking, dreaming, creating, destroying) could be applied to animals. I would have to say that our higher brain functions seperate us from animals... While some may think.. I doubt very many imagine. Some may dream, but about what?
The difference lay in that you can find an animal that shares a trait or two, but by in large they lack the repetoire that humans do. If I possess extremely quick learning capabilities on par with humans, it does me little good if I can't remember what I learned from a year ago. If gorillas can mimic human sign language, but immediately throw it out when being re-entered into the wild, they functionally learned nothing. Additionally, few animals value other animals' input beyond what they can immediately enforce. I could go on and on.

[Mtank]

Correct me if I am wrong... but don't many many animals use verbal cues often during many activities? Sex, hunting, etc...

It might not be verbal language persay, but then a mating call is a mating call, whether its "I'm so wasted!!!" or a bird chirping to death.


Yes, but can animals communicate specific thoughts and feelings rather than just a vague message? An animal may grunt, indicating its hungry, but beyond that, can it have a meaningful discussion about the nature of the world with another animal?

This topic is one that greatly interests me, yet with only limited knowledge about the functioning of the various animals, I find myself unable to contribute much to it.

I have read time and time again that Spirituality is something that separates us from animals. But surely thats part of a greater issue of humans being able to question the world around them and attribute causes to events? How well can animals do that, when compared to humans?

[ScottieIWU]

As I lack a serious background in biology (and by this I mean HS bio) I am not entering this as anything other than a questioning observer attempting to learn a little. On that note, I don't wish to contend in any way that we are equal to animals completely, but is it possible that our inability to necessarily get into the minds of animals is perhaps one of the largest limiting factors in figuring this out?

Just wanted to ask that.

[Eru]

The biggest differences between us and other animals is our lack of automatic vitamin C production and our large amounts of gray matter in our brains.

[GenocideAlive]

The biggest differences between us and other animals is our lack of automatic vitamin C production and our large amounts of gray matter in our brains.
Do you always write meaningless crap when you can't think of something to say? For all that bullshit you just wrote you totally failed to anwer the question
Hilarious.

[Neo]

Yeah you'll have to excuse me, I am never very eloquent or anything.

Has that ever been done GA? An ape thats learned to communicate via sign language released and brought back?

Couldn't something similar be attempted by asking the gorilla if it remembers when it first came to its caretakers (IE: for a gorilla thats been there for a couple of years or longer). Wouldn't that determine if they remember that far back or not? I thought I remembered one of these apes losing an offspring and would continue to "talk" (sign?) about it for years afterwards, even after raising other offspring.

Oh well. I just assume that we hold many higher brain functions that most, if not all animals, are incapable of.

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

Has that ever been done GA? An ape thats learned to communicate via sign language released and brought back?
As far as I know with some of the apes they teach sign language, they release them after a few years of study. The apes begin signing things like "want baby" and it's generally undeniably cruel to deprieve them of their social structure for our amusement.

Once released back into the wild, they generally forget most of what they learn once they've settled into the ape social structure.

I'm sure Mork can either confirm or correct me in any needed instances.

[Eru]

Hilarious.

Hey it was just my two cents. Take it or leave it.

[frazz]

free will. Most animals live to reproduce. Ants and bees live to serve the hive. We, however, can choose to use our time for whatever useless stuff we want to.

[Morkeliph]

Do you "really" have free will? I mean, can you say that every choice that you make isn't determined in large part by (1) your personal history of experiences, (2) the current environmental (situational) conditions and/or (3) biological factors or influences? Studies on "choice" argue that we're not as "free" was we might think.

[GenocideAlive]

Do you "really" have free will? I mean, can you say that every choice that you make isn't determined in large part by (1) your personal history of experiences, (2) the current environmental (situational) conditions and/or (3) biological factors or influences? Studies on "choice" argue that we're not as "free" was we might think.
The day that people bring me what I want when I ask for it, I'll be free. In the meantime, I have to pay for basic necessities: a car, food, electricity, water, a place to live, and personal hygiene anemities.

In order to get money to pay for those things, I have to attend a job; to get a job that pays better, I first have to get extensive training. After I've gotten training and gotten a job, I have to go 8 hours a day 5 days a week (more if needed) and I have 30 minutes to eat my food at midday. To drive my car on the roadways, I have to submit to a series of rules and pay for a variety of identifying markers.

The list goes on and on. And I have spoken to many, many people that have never actually stopped and thought "I am a homo sapiens sapiens interacting with another homo sapiens sapiens in a social ritual for purposes of advancement or entertainment." Free will becomes more of a concept that some of the literati exchange and less of a consistent discerning characteristic of the human race.

[ScottieIWU]

Going along with the fact that free will is a bit of an illusion, consider social psychology.

For example, Solomon Asch did a famous study where a man was in a room with 7 men who would be considered peers, all of whom were confederates of the researcher. The 8 men in the room were presented a diagram of a line, considered the standard line. They were then given three choices, one which was clearly correct and two clearly wrong. The confederates (the 7 people) would say that the wrong line matched the standard line when asked.

Interestingly enough, conformity found that in 18 trials, 70% of the test subjects conformed to the group.

Or, take the case of Stanley Milligram's experiment about obedience. There were three people taking part in this study. The first was a stern-mannered high school biology teacher in a grey lab coat acting as an administrator. The second was a "learner," and the third a "teacher." In this study the "learner" and the teacher in the lab coat were confederates of the researcher while the "teacher" was the subject.

The teacher then had to perform a series of memory tests on the learner, who was placed in a separate room. Every time the learner got something wrong the administrator would tell the teacher to administer a shock to the learner. The shocks were administered via a panel that slowly rose until it hit a point that was labelled with a caution about the possibility of a fatal shock being administered.

The learner was an actor and would perform well at first then slowly head downhill and begin getting more wrong. He would begin to scream to be let out and stop the shocks as the level rose, until eventually near the end he began to simply whimper. 65% of the test subjects in this study obeyed the administrator to what was labelled as the near fatal level.

Then, there is the Zimbardo prison study where college students were hired to act as prisoners and prison guards for a time in a basement rigged to appear as a prison. Zimbardo's study found that those assigned as guards began to act as the stereotypical power-hungry, mean prison guard while the prisoners began to assume their identities as the assigned numbers. The study had to be cut short simply because of the fact that they could not risk potentially serious and permanant psychological damage to the participants.

Social psychology alone shows that sometimes we may think we have free will, but in these cases often people go with society as a whole.

Then, there are other situations where parts of the individual seem less about free will and more determined. Maslow's hierarchy of needs says that the ultimate goal of people is self-actualization, but that first they must progress through physiological needs, saftey needs, love & belonging needs, self-esteem needs and once all of those have been fulfilled they can be self-actualized.

In a certain study (I've, sadly, forgotten by who) a group of about 30 men were put on a diet to simulate conditions in famine countries. As time progressed their lives began to center around food, some men collected recipies, others would lick their plates after meals to get the most out of it. Almost all chewed upward of 50 packs of gum a day, one of the few things they were provided. If free will truly existed as we believe, these men should have been able to use sheer power of will to stop thinking about food and to keep on with their lives. Instead, true to Maslow's hierarchy, they became depressed and could not move out of their stage of physiological needs.

Sorry about length, but I think those show that perhaps free will is a lot less true than we beleive.

[Morkeliph]

In a certain study (I've, sadly, forgotten by who) a group of about 30 men were put on a diet to simulate conditions in famine countries. As time progressed their lives began to center around food, some men collected recipies, others would lick their plates after meals to get the most out of it. Almost all chewed upward of 50 packs of gum a day, one of the few things they were provided. If free will truly existed as we believe, these men should have been able to use sheer power of will to stop thinking about food and to keep on with their lives. Instead, true to Maslow's hierarchy, they became depressed and could not move out of their stage of physiological needs.I love that last study. Have you ever heard of activity anorexia?Consider now the mentalist model for anorexia nervosa. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV) explains anorexia as a neurotic disorder, some of the symptoms being: disturbed cognitions, fear of being fat, obsessive food rituals, distorted body image, and disturbed self-perception.

Perhaps why this is convincing to the general populace is because unusual thoughts often accompany bizarre behavior. However, many studies have shown that these ‘symptoms’ are not the causes of anorexic behavior, but the by products (Epling & Pierce, 1992; Keys, Brozek, Henschel, Mickelson, & Taylor, 1950). In 1950, several healthy, male volunteers participated in a forced starvation study performed by Keys and his associates. As their research progressed, and as the men lost progressively more weight, symptoms similar to those found in anorexia nervosa developed. On some tests, the men became neurotic even into the psychotic range, developing varieties of food obsession. Most significantly, these symptoms followed rather than preceded the starvation, making evident that they were not the causes of anorexia. This supports the behaviorist perspective that thoughts and emotions are not intangible, internal causes of behavior, but that behavior is shaped by its environment through conditioning. The behavioral model for anorexia, activity anorexia, is based on objectively observable and reproducible experimental data showing causation (Pierce, Epling and Boer, 1986).

[ScottieIWU]

I love that last study. Have you ever heard of activity anorexia?

Some. Correct me if I'm wrong but is it the situation where a drastic decrease in eating leads to a drastic increase in exercise, which in turn leads to a further decrease in eating?

[Morkeliph]

Yeah, that's basically it. Excessive activity --> Decreased Appetite --> Increased Activity...etc.

I like it because it can explore the phenomenon without inferences of "poor body image" or "dysfuctional cognitions" as the causing agent.

Pulling this back on topic a bit, free will or free agency may be seen in the same light. What good does it do to say that behavior is the result of "free will?" What is this will that exhibits such a strong eliciting power over behavior? It's much simpler to acknowledge that behavior is influenced and maintain via environmental effects rather than some mystical inner decision making agent. Free agency aside, choices/decisions are influenced by previously experienced environmental antecedents/consequences.

[ScottieIWU]

Free agency aside, choices/decisions are influenced by previously experienced environmental antecedents/consequences.

Definitely have to agree, psychology tends to look to that direction in a lot of situations. We are who we are in many ways because of an interesting mix of experiences and biology.

Side note: Mork, if I might inquire what background do you have in psychology? I've noticed you seem to usually be on top of studies and all of that, so I was kind of curious.

[Morkeliph]

I'm an undergraduate behavior analysis major. I should graduate next spring and looking to attend Western Michigan or the University of Florida preferrably. Most of my background comes from behavior analysis, so I'm not all that up-to-date when it comes to cognitive, Freudian or social psychology. Then again, I don't know how much of it I really would like to be up on...social psychology excepted.

As for keeping up on studies and such, I just read a lot. It's really my hobby to keep up on interesting studies, or read interesting old ones. Some of the stuff I find most interesting right now is Allen Neuringer's work on operant variability. I never know how complex it was until I started reading up on it a few weeks ago. Pretty interesting stuff. If you can, get your hands on Reinforced Variability in Animals and People, in the American Psychologist, December 2004. It's a general overview of the work he's been doing over the past 20 years; it's pretty interesting stuff.

[GenocideAlive]

I'm an undergraduate behavior analysis major. I should graduate next spring and looking to attend Western Michigan or the University of Florida preferrably. Most of my background comes from behavior analysis, so I'm not all that up-to-date when it comes to cognitive, Freudian or social psychology. Then again, I don't know how much of it I really would like to be up on...social psychology excepted.
So if you ever ask Mork about his belief structure centred around the "mental state of..." expect a stern rebuke and a flurry of argumentative case studies. He's a purist, and isn't very permissive of anything other than behavioral connections to the physical being.

I personally think that what separates us Men from Beasts is that we have a different mental state...;) Don't hurt me, Mork.

[Tissue]

You just ruined one of the most interesting flow of conservation there genal. I find most of mork's arguments ...scientific. Which is better than the whymsical supposings of "animals don't wonder about where they come from" or "animals don't beleive in god or make up belief structures". Who is to say that animals don't ponder about their existence and that they merely cannot communiacte it as efficiently as humans can.

[Pisces]

I'm an undergraduate conservation major with a good deal of political science mixed in with that. I never took psychology so I can't qoute any specific reports, I only have experiance from the large amount of animal and human observations which I have been exposed to during my political science and conservation study.
But my opinion anyway, I agree with everything scientifically stated in this thread and my conclusion is that the differance between animals and humans is how we think/feel rather than how much we think/feel. Physically what seperates is our ability to problem solve without doing the problem.
To address the first: In NZ we have Keas which are among the smartest animals on earth, when given a new physical problem they can solve it as fast as I could without any trail and error, which is a feat beyond most monkeys and young humans; infact in many cases they will do things which the designers (intelligent human beings) had not thought of. Can they solve a mathmatics equation? Well it would be impossible to test because Keas they won't sit still and think because they are told to like humans do, if they did then I don't think their mental capacity is as great as humans but I'd expect them to be able to as much as a human with an equal experiance of maths, I don't think they could learn more complex maths though.
Solving a problem without trail and error is the same process used when thinking about philosophy. So why don't Keas build an advanced society like ours? While they have a philosophical mind they don't have a mind able of building and using tools crafted tools and they don't have a social structure which is able to advance of a previous generations gains in research like monkeys.
All in all I feel that our self proclaimed superiority over animals is just a mix of evolutionary traits which have not been mixed in the same way in other animals but our differances are only in the mix not the make (as such). I do honestly believe that if a Kea's philosophical thinking and complex langauge (thought to be as complex as ours) and a monkey's social structure and ability to use tools were mixed together and put into a humans body then given a few millions years to develop we would have something similiar to a human.

We can imagine things. We can see things with our minds eye unless someone proves to me that a monkey can imagine something then I will forget that. But yeah humans can remember lots of things very well

If you remember a well known recent finding of a gorilla using a stick to measure depth of the water before it steps. If that is using your mind to imagine thing I don't know what is.

[Spartan-II]

He meant imagining things like far off planets, the distant future, and ghosts/goblins etc. He meant excercising the imagination for entertainment.

Also, using a stick to measure depth isn't imaginative, it's just a manifestation of intelligence, although it is being creative.

I beleive the gap between man and beast lies in the mind. Emotions and how we perceive them, knowledge of things beyond our immediate environment, and use of the imagination are the best examples I can think of.

[GenocideAlive]

You just ruined one of the most interesting flow of conservation there genal. I find most of mork's arguments ...scientific. Which is better than the whymsical supposings of "animals don't wonder about where they come from" or "animals don't beleive in god or make up belief structures". Who is to say that animals don't ponder about their existence and that they merely cannot communiacte it as efficiently as humans can.
Someone get this guy a tissue. Ha ha! Anyway, otherwise you can generally assess an animals capability to reason through their brain physiology. To argue that animals have similar faculties is certainly feasible, but again the extent or degree to which they can express all of the faculties is the limiting reagent. Animals don't have anything near the human brain:size ratio.

[Pisces]

He meant imagining things like far off planets, the distant future, and ghosts/goblins etc. He meant excercising the imagination for entertainment.

Is the ability to imagine things which you can not see not the same? For a gorrilla to do this it must understand the length of stick, memorise the length of stick, put the stick underwater and in its head imagine how far the stick is down from its hand and how tall the gorrilla itself is. Sure this may seem like a small thing to you but if a gorrilla is able to imagine that then surely it can imagine anything. Animals stare off into nothingness whilst there is still senserary imput, if they weren't thinking then any senserary imput would disrupt it whilst if they only thought of action they would move. Of course animals don't have the same capacity, though everyone knows brainsize is not conditional to intelligance (otherwise shorter people would be stupider) likewise humans only use a small portion of their brain and other animals with smaller brains use a large portion. Humans are just on the high end of the intelligance scale so I don't really think it qaulifies putting them into another catagory.

As I meant to address in my first post but didn't, humans are a combination of different mental abilities, we can understand projecticles while many other animals can't (otherwise tigers would start attacking trees for dropping fruit near them instead of just a confused growl and perhaps a breif attack of the offending fruit) but we are not the only animals who can. We have both a developed speech comprehension and vocalisation parts of our brain, this was mentioned earlier that a parrot can mimic our speech but that is it has more developed vocalisation (and voice box) but not necessarily comprehension, so it can use its voice in a way that a monkey copies actions but not understand what is said; while social animals will have more developed comprehension so they can understand what certain sounds mean and react to them but not necessarily be able to voice the same range of meanings.
This may seem inferior to us but when you think about it a fly can react to things 10 times faster than us and many fish and birds can hunt things above/below the water's surface as if they weren't even looking at a reflected image, this is something humans stand no chance at. Humans also lack the ability accurately judge the mass of spherical objects, with the ability to accurately comprehend spherical objects were to have the same thought capacity as us they would probably have mastered astro physics, rotational physics and quatium physics beyond our own society's knowledge while they are still in school but asking them to work out where that rock came from is like asking us to think of a trillion in the shape of a sphere.

If a rat was given all our mental qualities besides capacity then it would still wouldn't be thinking about religion because it would hurt its head trying to consider the concept of 1. But just because we have the highest mental capacity don't throw animals who don't show what we think of intelligance off the ladder; the age old question "If aliens found earth would they consider any life on it as intelligent". For those of you who have enjoyed a few drinks in your time, if you consider what happens to your thought process when you are drunk; your general capacity for thought decreases but some things are hit harder than others; if you think of animals in the same sort of sense. No I do not mean all animals a perminately drunk but I'm sure a few bright sparks out there can think of this concept in its proper context.

[Veeger]

One critical part of human nature that I believe has been overlooked here is self discipline.

I'm not going to claim to have a vast knowledge of animal societies, but I have seen my fair share of nature shows and read nature journals, and I have personally never seen/read anything that suggests that any species of life on this planet, except for humans, understands that somethings are wrong, and some things are right. If a lion kills the alpha male of a pride, it is not shunned from the pride, or forced to leave the pride for a certain period of time (punishment), it usually takes over the pride.

Anyone who has ever owned a dog knows that nearly every dog, at some point in its life, will eat its own feces. I know of a few dogs in my neighborhood who eat theirs habitually. This is something that no human baby, child, or adult, would ever dream of, because we understand that it is not good for our bodies. Plus it smells bad (lol). Dogs, however, even with their keener sense of smell (and thus, it must smell even worse to them than to us), eat it anyway.

I used to argue intelligence, but as has been adaquetely explained here, that is not always the case, as there are some very smart animals, just as there are some incredibly stupid humans. However, even these stupid humans understand that there is right and wrong. Many choose to ignore this, but they still understand it. They know when they've done something wrong, even before they have been chastised and/or being arrested. A dog, just for example, does not feel bad (in my opinion), though it may appear to after it has been trained not to do something. I believe this is more fear of the coming punishment than understanding the principle that something is wrong, and should not be done.

And just a note on the free will argument: Free Will is not the sense that we are "free" to do literally whatever we want. Free Will originated from religion, specifically Christianity, as our ability to choose whether or not to do right or wrong (which ties into my above argument). We have the Will to decide, "No, I'm not going to do that, it is wrong." Or, "I don't care if it is wrong, I'm doing it anyway." To animals, this decision is not really a decision, because to them it is just an "action". There is no right, or wrong, connotation to it.

[KidSephy]

This may have little to do with with what you are speaking of, but since we bring up human-and-animal seperations, check this out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4339740.stm

It has to do with a new string of human species. They've also found 'big-foot' traces over in Maylasia.. what do you think this will do to our way of evolutionary thinking?



-KS

[Neo]

Anyone who has ever owned a dog knows that nearly every dog, at some point in its life, will eat its own feces. I know of a few dogs in my neighborhood who eat theirs habitually. This is something that no human baby, child, or adult, would ever dream of, because we understand that it is not good for our bodies. Plus it smells bad (lol). Dogs, however, even with their keener sense of smell (and thus, it must smell even worse to them than to us), eat it anyway.
My dog has never ingested her own feces, or feces of other dogs. Your line about humans not doing it is wrong also. As disgusting as it is to think, some people do consume feces... thier own or not.

So yeah. Next time, try to use a better example =/

-Neo

[Veeger]

I didn't say all dogs, I said nearly all dogs. My dog has only done it once, and that was enough (lol).

There are always exceptions to every general rule.

[Morkeliph]

Feces eating aside...I think I will return to my initial argument. That is that complex verbal behavior is the biggest behavioral trait that seems unique to humans. While it may be true that apes and other animals use vocal cues like mating calls and alarm crys to some extent, it would appear that only humans exhibit complex verbal behavior in which information is exchanged and tasks are performed. The reason I emphasize the importance of verbal behavior is because thought and rule-following may both be seen as the results of complex verbal behavior. In most behavioral experiments involving the differences in performance between humans and animals the performance difference can generally be attributed to following some idiosyncratic verbal rule. For instance, when pigeons and other birds are trained to key peck on a fixed-interval schedule for food reinforcement (FI schedules are schedules in which after a fixed amount of time, say 45 seconds, the next response made will produce reinforcement and start the interval over again. Responses made prior to the termination of the interval are never reinforced) they generate a "scalloping" pattern of performance. This is because the animal is testing the schedule to see if the interval is ended. As the interval runs closer to running out, the rate of response rises dramatically until a response is finally reinforced. http://online.sfsu.edu/~psych200/unit3/fig9.gif
When adult humans respond on FI schedules they produce one of two patterns typically, either a continuous high rate of responding, or a periodic low rate of responding. This is because of the effects of verbal behavior (infants and "mentally" handicapped humans generate the "scalloping" pattern exhibited by other animals) and the generation of verbal rules. One adult might make the rule, "after I press the key 385 times, I get reinforced" where as the another follows the rule "after I count to 45, or pace 10 times across the room, if I press the key I get reinforced." You can see the difference these sorts of rules would make on the individuals' performance. One will respond at a constant high rate, the other at an efficient, low rate. Importantly, when the schedule is changed to some other sort of contingency, the existence of these verbal rules inhibit the adjustment to the new schedule conditions. Research by Mark Galizio (1979) illustrates this point plainly, which I might quote in subsequent post.

This is merely one, elementary example of the profound impact verbal behavior can have on the behavior of an organism as a whole. Verbal behavior also facilitates the performing of complex tasks that require the cooperation or help of another. Verbal behavior allows us to construct verbal "rules" which in term teach us ways of behaving without ever having to be exposed to the actual conditions described by the rule. Rules and verbal behavior are powerfully profound ingredients in the transmission of cultural practices and superstitions. Most of the bigger differences we might illustrate between human and animal can likely be traced back the effects of complex verbal behavior.

[GenocideAlive]

Ah, but we have writing, which is by no means any extension of our verbal skills. Almost as long as humans have been able to communicate verbally, they have been able to express themselves with written techniques as well. Writing skills have an entirely different set of rules and circumstances surrounding their use and propegation, and could easily be argued as far more critical to life as we practice it (Internet, contracts, etc.). We also tend to hold reading and writing and one of the basic tenets of education for a fledgling, whereas speech isn't included in earnest at any point in formal education.

How could "verbal behavior" be the most crucial element of human success when it accounts for less than 50% of what a human experiences in a day in terms of communication? Everything that is considered important by our society must be seen in writing, and speech is considered borderline worthless in terms of value. How could verbal behavior be the crux of our society when it's the legal equivalent of nothing?

I think you're going to have to take that little idea back to the drawing board.

[ScottieIWU]

How could verbal behavior be the crux of our society when it's the legal equivalent of nothing?

I think Mork was onto something, though he was by no means hitting a bullseye (in my opinion.) You're definitely coming close, GA, in that I'd almost say that the thing that really seems to separate us from animals is, in general, communication.

For example, you pointed out most people want to see things in writing and that speech often holds little legal value. This is mainly because writing endures and because it is also considered more honest than speech. Humans have the spectacular ability to decieve that (as far as I know, which isn't very) isn't reproduced much, if at all, in nature. So, our ability to communicate complex thoughts via language is definitely up there, but without writing we would definitely not be as advanced as we are.

Good to have you back, too, GA.

[Morkeliph]

Writing, I believe, is very much an extension of or verbal skills. To put it more appropriately, written symbolic communication and vocal symbolic communication both are types of symbolic communication, which, in my argument at least, equate verbal behavior. It is notable that vocal communication is generally a requisite for written communication. It may work the other way around in some instances as well. What essentially is occuring in either, however, is the symbolic communication is being taught to the organism. The letters of the alphabet all represent phoenetic sounds and when combined in certain orders produce words. These words and sounds obviously correspond to some vocal stimuli that have come to be because of other behavioral contigencies. Just as T-R-U-C-K represents the spoken word "truck" which in turn represents a type of vehicle. Writing would be functionally worthless without speaking, at least developmentally. Could a person learn to write before they learn to speak? Sure, is no different than the other scenario other than that the order of learning is changed. Both, however, are still forms of symbolic communication and constitute verbal behavior.

Additionally, in terms of thought, without the use of verbal behavior (both in terms of vocal or written) thought as we typically know it wouldn't exist. Does that mean that animals don't think? There isn't any reason to assume such, but to be honest, no one really knows. They might think in terms of images and sounds or smells, etc., but they very likely don't think in terms of words and language like humans. The reasoning of such I think is fairly obvious. So what's so important about that? Well, another finding is that humans possess greater skills in remembering than most animals. This, of course depends on how you define remembering. If remembering is defined behaviorally, which is the only way it should be defined, then remembering is merely responding similarly to events/stimuli after the passage of time. For instance, if ten years ago you went to Rome and in the present you can verbally describe what Rome looks like, we say that you "remember" Rome. If a pigeon is presented with a red key and then minutes later is given the option of choosing between a red and a green key in which only the matching key produces reinforcement, then pecking the red key would exhibit "remembering" in the pigeon. What is interesting is on these "matching to sample" experiments with pigeons and other animals, pigeons only respond correctly when the time between sample and matching is less than 6-8 seconds. That is to say that after 8 seconds, pigeons only perform the matching task with "chance accuracy," meaning essentially that they just guess.

Now, the really interesting part of all this is what happens when pigeons are trained in some sort of symbollic communication task and what happens to terms on length of memory when the option is given to peck a symbolic key that functions as a "memorandum" during the delay between sample and matching. See the following link: http://www.jstor.org/view/00368075/ap993161/99a00380/0

In this scenario, after the sample color was given (red, yellow or green) the long delay was given but the pigeon could peck a key labeled with an R, Y, or G during the passage of time. Importantly, the pigeon was not required to do so by the experiment (in theory if the pigeon could remember the color long enough it could just peck the corresponding colored key when they were illuminated after the interval ran out) but that they did in fact use the keys to help them remember the color. When the pigeons used the "memorandum" they were highly accurate at much longer delays of time than when te memorandum keys were unavailable. In this latter example, responding approximated chance accuracy after a delay of 6-8 seconds, as is typical.

What this basically suggests is that a history of reinforcement for symbolic communication actually enhances an organisms ability to remember events and stimuli over longer periods of time. This is because though the original events or stimuli are no longer present, the symbolic representations on such are always available to the organism and this organism can use these symbols to "recall the information." Or in other, more appropriate terms, the symbols now develop some level of stimulus control over the organisms behavior because of their previous contiguity with the prior events.

Welcome back GenAl. We missed you. Well, I did at least.

EDIT: It is important to understand that verbal may refer to either (1) of or relating to words, or (2) spoken rather than written. Here we are referring to the former. Both speaking and writing are of or related to words.

[Prozerran]

Ah, but we have writing, which is by no means any extension of our verbal skills. Almost as long as humans have been able to communicate verbally, they have been able to express themselves with written techniques as well. Writing skills have an entirely different set of rules and circumstances surrounding their use and propegation, and could easily be argued as far more critical to life as we practice it (Internet, contracts, etc.). We also tend to hold reading and writing and one of the basic tenets of education for a fledgling, whereas speech isn't included in earnest at any point in formal education.

You're joking, right? I recall many, many lectures throughout high school and college. To the extent that writing is used in education, it is merely a method of retaining information. To that end, it is an extension of our verbal skills, a tool to aid memory of communications that we process as information. That we value reading and writing has no relevance to that which distinguishes us from animals.

How could "verbal behavior" be the most crucial element of human success when it accounts for less than 50% of what a human experiences in a day in terms of communication? Everything that is considered important by our society must be seen in writing, and speech is considered borderline worthless in terms of value. How could verbal behavior be the crux of our society when it's the legal equivalent of nothing?

I think you're going to have to take that little idea back to the drawing board.

Where are you getting this "verbal behavior accounts for less than 50% of what a human experiences in a day in terms of communication" crap? The importance placed on written communication isn't relevant to how humanity distinguishes itself from animals.

The truth is, we know very little to assert that our ability to communicate exceeds that of animals. What we do know is that we are the dominant species on the planet.

[GenocideAlive]

You're joking, right? I recall many, many lectures throughout high school and college. To the extent that writing is used in education, it is merely a method of retaining information. To that end, it is an extension of our verbal skills, a tool to aid memory of communications that we process as information. That we value reading and writing has no relevance to that which distinguishes us from animals.
You're more than welcome to debate the validity of my argument with more than ridicule and your "personal experiences", but in the meantime I'll assume you're just talking out of your ass because you like the sound it makes. People don't write fictional books to "retain information", BTW.
Where are you getting this "verbal behavior accounts for less than 50% of what a human experiences in a day in terms of communication" crap? The importance placed on written communication isn't relevant to how humanity distinguishes itself from animals.
Again, more than your asinine ridicule and inane disbelief for an argument would be much more convincing. If you can't figure out how to make and defend an argument, spare the IR your flames and 10th grade paragraph construction.

Let's see how you spend your day in "communication":
When you want to call someone, how do you do so?
You look it up in a directory.
When you want to see what Genocide has to say, what do you do?
You read forums.
When you want to know when to cross an intersection, what do you do?
You wait for a light color-change.
When you're looking for a particular restaurant, what do you do?
You look for the sign.
Food to eat in that restaurant?
Read a menu.
When you need to learn information for a class, what do you do?
You read books, and write in books (perhaps talk it over with a classmate to enhance these materials).

Most of our learning, information gathering, and important communications are done through writing; almost nothing is done solely through speech, save for social activities.
The truth is, we know very little to assert that our ability to communicate exceeds that of animals. What we do know is that we are the dominant species on the planet.
I think the "truth" is a little closer to that you know little regarding this subject save your opinion, which you truss up like a four-dollar whore.
---

To the grownups:
Just as T-R-U-C-K represents the spoken word "truck" which in turn represents a type of vehicle. Writing would be functionally worthless without speaking, at least developmentally.
Then how do you justify a drawing of a truck being included with nearly every word "truck" in children's teaching books? Children are first taught to recognize a drawing of a truck, then to associate the word with the picture, then the picture with the writing. Apparently, the two are far enough removed from one another that they require a medium. You'd be more than welcome to point to an instance in which children are taught writing without pictures, but I seriously doubt you could do so with any success.

You point to your animal study to reinforce what you're writing, but I think it instead reinforces where your theory lacks. You could almost never teach a dog, pigeon, or other animal to read and write with much success WITHOUT the internment of pictures, which is actually what they're associating: two pictures. The pigeons don't understand what each letter means, nor the annunciation--but they understand the significance of the appearance of that word: a picture.

I'd be willing to bet if you changed the word from "green" to "green", you'd find that the pigeons would need to be entirely retrained.