Self-reporting is notoriously bad. Also, through my studies of autism, I am keenly aware of the problems of associating physical gestures with internal emotions. If it weren't possible, there'd be no actors. But no, it wasn't facetious. All humans use these cues to gauge the emotions of others. Sometimes, yes, the measurements are inaccurate. Humans lie, but so do other animals.
To your first point, the reason to suggest that there may be more information contained in the monkey calls is because as a trend over time, as observe more, we are finding that the communication between animals, does in fact, contain more information than we believed in the past.
Are you denying this trend?
For example, in the past, our understanding of chimpanzee communication didn't lead us to believe that they could conspire with others and plot against other chimpanizees, but since then, we have observed that groups of chimps would lie to a target chimp, then isolate that chimp, then murder that chimp. I suspect it takes quite a bit of complex communication skills to pull off pre-meditated murder of a fellow clansman.
The fact of the matter is that humans tend to get all of our information through language, either written or verbal. We extend this expectation to other animals, that any intelligent animal must have a complex verbal language.
However, we frequently underestimate the audible range. You mentioned elephants ULF calls, which are known to travel between herds. However likely low in information.
Yet man's best friend (dog's) communicate almost exclusively through body language and scent. One of my friend's dogs barks viciously at anyone, to the point strangers are scared of it. However, take one step towards it after it backs and it runs away. People mistakenly take the bark as aggression, when it's really fear. Essentially the dog is able to lie to us.
I frequently hear the statistic that communication is 10% verbal and 90% body language: touches, glances, winks. There is information in these gestures as well. Of course this very conversation is an example of how much we can communicate with words.
Your chimpanzee murder examlpe seems at variance3 with your first comment above: I don't know any animal, other than humans, that will kill another animal just for the sheer pleasure of it. That seems quite morally corrupt. Animals kill other animals for what appear to be rationalizable reasons, food, competition, self-preservation.
Obviously this is only a casual conversation, but you argue that unknowns in animal communication may obscure a greater moral sensibility (than that of humans), then provide an example of apparent immorality, which seems to refute your original contention. You make interesting points throughout, but they don't seem very coherent. Can you back up and clarify your thesis a little?
Well, considering electromagnetic's numbers and insightful comments, perhaps it isn't that these species have greater moral sensibility, but that they haven't evolved the ability to disregard morality. It may be my perception that people are more likely to disregard morality that makes me believe they are less moral, rather than animals being more moral. It also seems apparent that humans can express moral behaviors that surpass many species, so I may have jumped the gun by saying animals are more moral than people. If humans can disregard morality and other animals cannot, though that would seem to mesh with the "sense" I have about them being more moral.
I don't really know, just kind of typing it and thinking it at the same time. It is still a question in my mind.
I was thinking about this last night. I was at my aunt's house and she has some dogs that were running around and appeared to be happy and excited. I just thought how amazing it was that that they always seem happy to see people and I couldn't imagine them trying to hurt anyone or being mean. So perhaps my thoughts here are a little bit temporally biased.
Yeah, not very coherent. I'm still formulating thoughts in my own head as well on this topic.
Comments
Self-reporting is notoriously bad. Also, through my studies of autism, I am keenly aware of the problems of associating physical gestures with internal emotions. If it weren't possible, there'd be no actors. But no, it wasn't facetious. All humans use these cues to gauge the emotions of others. Sometimes, yes, the measurements are inaccurate. Humans lie, but so do other animals.
To your first point, the reason to suggest that there may be more information contained in the monkey calls is because as a trend over time, as observe more, we are finding that the communication between animals, does in fact, contain more information than we believed in the past.
Are you denying this trend?
For example, in the past, our understanding of chimpanzee communication didn't lead us to believe that they could conspire with others and plot against other chimpanizees, but since then, we have observed that groups of chimps would lie to a target chimp, then isolate that chimp, then murder that chimp. I suspect it takes quite a bit of complex communication skills to pull off pre-meditated murder of a fellow clansman.
The fact of the matter is that humans tend to get all of our information through language, either written or verbal. We extend this expectation to other animals, that any intelligent animal must have a complex verbal language.
However, we frequently underestimate the audible range. You mentioned elephants ULF calls, which are known to travel between herds. However likely low in information.
Yet man's best friend (dog's) communicate almost exclusively through body language and scent. One of my friend's dogs barks viciously at anyone, to the point strangers are scared of it. However, take one step towards it after it backs and it runs away. People mistakenly take the bark as aggression, when it's really fear. Essentially the dog is able to lie to us.
I frequently hear the statistic that communication is 10% verbal and 90% body language: touches, glances, winks. There is information in these gestures as well. Of course this very conversation is an example of how much we can communicate with words.
Your chimpanzee murder examlpe seems at variance3 with your first comment above: I don't know any animal, other than humans, that will kill another animal just for the sheer pleasure of it. That seems quite morally corrupt. Animals kill other animals for what appear to be rationalizable reasons, food, competition, self-preservation.
Obviously this is only a casual conversation, but you argue that unknowns in animal communication may obscure a greater moral sensibility (than that of humans), then provide an example of apparent immorality, which seems to refute your original contention. You make interesting points throughout, but they don't seem very coherent. Can you back up and clarify your thesis a little?
Well, considering electromagnetic's numbers and insightful comments, perhaps it isn't that these species have greater moral sensibility, but that they haven't evolved the ability to disregard morality. It may be my perception that people are more likely to disregard morality that makes me believe they are less moral, rather than animals being more moral. It also seems apparent that humans can express moral behaviors that surpass many species, so I may have jumped the gun by saying animals are more moral than people. If humans can disregard morality and other animals cannot, though that would seem to mesh with the "sense" I have about them being more moral.
I don't really know, just kind of typing it and thinking it at the same time. It is still a question in my mind.
I was thinking about this last night. I was at my aunt's house and she has some dogs that were running around and appeared to be happy and excited. I just thought how amazing it was that that they always seem happy to see people and I couldn't imagine them trying to hurt anyone or being mean. So perhaps my thoughts here are a little bit temporally biased.
Yeah, not very coherent. I'm still formulating thoughts in my own head as well on this topic.