Animal Coginition Thoroughly Redifined

Hi ya'll, my name is Big Country Al and I'm from West Virginia (born n raised). I've been lurking around these forums for a while and I was finally "inspired" enough by the thread (Do animals think we're beautiful?) to register. Anyway, lets continue on with the main subject.

Rules and Definitions

A mutually accepted set of definitions is critical to the foundation of any intelligible and productive discussion. What is most disappointing with the above mentioned thread is that a disproportionate amount of time was spent attempting to push for a number of "universal truths" e.g. animals cannot feel beauty, no sense of self identity, etc... rather than in spending time in the other phases of the discussion. I feel that any constructive discussion should have four parts.

1. Mutually agreed upon definitions.
2. Analytical use of definitions to reach a hypothesis.
3. (In my opinion the most crucial step of a discussion)Critical analysis of the hypothesizes.
4. The construction of a theory.

It is my sincere hope that no religious and spiritual arguments will be brought forth in the analysis of animal perception and cognition.

Without further adieu, these are my proposed definitions:

1. Perception As A Function Of Evolutionary Demand and Unique Neurological Structure:

The intrinsic nature of the word perception makes it difficult to apply any universal definition to it. For example, a quick look at google defines it as the following:

perceived - generally recognized to be true; as seen or understood by an individual
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/perceived

Conscious understanding of something; Vision (ability); Acuity; That which is detected by the five senses; not necessarily understood

In psychology and the cognitive sciences, perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information.

It would be difficult to find any modern day authoritative figure give a definition that would imply perception is a strictly human ability.

Therefore going by the above statements, it would be ridiculous to suggest that animals cannot perceive. I wouldn't try to argue this point out in detail because studies show that animals can integrate sensory information and adapt their behavior accordingly.

The most important part of this definition is establishing the evolutionary and neurological link to perception.

As told in modern day biology, evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation which can be brought about by either a geological adaptation or random genetic drift. The first reason has been shown to play a dominant role in specie adaptation.

Here is the key; neurological evolution was primarily due to the social organization of the particular specie which was in turn due to their geological location. For example there are numerous extinct species of dolphins that have been found with massive brains but apparently "inferior" intelligence because of the structure of their neocortex which was in turn developed to survive in their environment

(remove space before .org, I can't post links)
plosbiology. org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030050

There are numerous examples of such animals.

2. Sensation

Pleasure are possibly the two most motivating sensations in the mammalian family, both of which are controlled by the dopamine pathways.

Sexually compliant individuals within an animal's specie also activate this pathway (any very, very many others - I'm oversimplifying)

Knowing this and all the other above statements, what reasonable conclusion can be reached about (for example) a person staring at a beautiful painting, like a picture of my blue ridge mountains?

#1. The painting/picture is representative of an evolutionarily advantageous scene by virtue of it lighting up the dopamine pathways. A similar statement can be made about extreme works of "art" - for example a grotesque scenery that illicits pleasure in one who finds it appealing. The complexity of human perception allows us to place values on items that would be otherwise completely useless when placed outside of a society. E.g. - money is literally just a mixture of paper and clothing. Absolutely worthless without a society and is given meaning by the human beings in it. Therefore it can illicit an evolutionary response.

#2. All mammals have dopamine pathways. Irregardless of whether or not they are able to objectify items, they are still able to perceive the amount of "pleasure" a certain object gives.

#3. Human beings aren't the only animals with a sense of self-identity. For example, elephants mourn individuals:

(remove space before .net, I can't post links)
abc .net.au/science/news/stories/s1497634.htm

Primates have complex societies AND CULTURES:
(remove space before .com, I can't post links)

gorp.away.com/gorp/location/africa/tanzania/gom_chi2.htm

The list in endless. Certain animal species can recognize individuals place them in social "rankings".

So lets combine everything I've stated above into one grand statement:

Certain animal species can not only recognize individuals (and themselves), but they can also attach emotion values to them. Furthermore, the observation of an individual by any mammal will illicit a dopamine response of some level. Therefore, certain mammals can "judge" how beautiful human beings (or even a human being in comparison to others) are.

List of animals that can do that based on evidence I have collected on the web"

1. Most primates
2. Dolphins
3. Elephants
4. Pigs
5. More I'm sure but little evidence supporting them and therefore I can't put them in the "definite list". This includes canines.

That is all. Back to the farm for me, my boss is gonna kill me for taking 30 mins off to write all this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi West Virginia, and welcome. I grew up in Charleston, lived Kanawa City and South Hills areas. First real job was as transmitter engineer for radio WCHS. I was pulling summer vacation relief duty for the four adult engineers and only about 14, but had passed the first class commerical license exam, then required. (Chief engineer was a patient of my MD father and knew I was a ham, had built my own transmitter, etc. He needed that help so promsed me that same pay as the adults if I could get the license. That sure bet the hell out of my paperboy job.) Does WCHS still exist with that name? Three tall towers for a directional radiation pattern down in S. Charleston. WCHS was powerful, 50,000 Ws as I recall and needed directionality to put "notches" in the pattern to avoid interferring with some distant stations on same frequency (580Kc?).

Now to your post: I think your 4 step proceedure is fatally flawed as never is there any connection to the real world, no experiment, no observations, no testing etc. It can be applied to the question: Are unicorns sad? etc.

Also, neurotransmitter dopamine is much more concern with moderation of nerves that relate to mussle control, especially in the cerebellum, than with pain / pleasure axis. The neurotransmitter more associated with that is seratonine, (probably spelled wrong, but I am lazy and rarely look up things - I just remeber well, especial for an old guy). If you want to look into it look up things about how drugs that induce pleasure work - i.e. what receptor cites they bind to etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nice to meet ya bill.

Of course there is no real need to have a connection with the "real world". All observations and definitions are based on previously observed phenomenon that have been incorrectly interpreted. THAT is the basis of my analytical steps.

I hope that clears it up for you. I realize I wrote a bit much.

Dopamine is the primary neurotransmitter concerned with pain and pleasure:
news.softpedia .com/news/Dopamine-Involved-in-Pain-Response-not-Only-in-the-Pleasure-One-38367.shtml

en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Dopamine

biopsychiatry .com/dopamine/pleasure-pain.html

Serotonin is involved with sleep cycles.

pages.prodigy .net/unohu/topics_sero.htm

Tryptophan is then converted into serotonin, the neurotransmitter that regulates sleep, reduces pain and appetite, and generally calms you down and improves mood, etc...

Please site sources before formulating an argument. Thank you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wtf?

 

I am a little dyslectic and poor typer the "it" should have been "is" and two "not"s should hae been "no"

I.e. the wtf sentence was to be:
I think your 4 step proceedure is fatally flawed as never is there any connection to the real world, no experiment, no observations, no testing etc...

Often the wrong words come out of my typing fingers. I think I type "that" when meaning "than" at least half the time. (The still reverberating neural circuts associated with the production of the initial "t" cause a second "t" to be made instead of the correct "n" I think is the reason.)

I read what I ment so do not catch the error til posted. I do not fully understand why, but when format changes with the post, I can usually read what I have actually typed and correct. Both of you posted while I was on my first edit. (I have added more also.)

 

To W. Va.:

I will back off on the dopamine vs. Seratonin roles. (reward vs mood) You are on solid ground according to wiki entry under "neurotransmitters."

My post reflects 20 year old POV.The L-dopa for parkinsion era, and back when "reward" was more aligned with a "pain / pleasure" axis.

Thanks for motivating me to search as that brings me more up to date. It is so much easier to base posts on my memory that is what I usually do. Thanks again.

PS You did not tell if WCHS is still on the air - Perhaps you do not live near Charleston?

 

Hey Billy, thanks for the replies. I actually live in Nitro mate. Can't help you there haha. But always a pleasure hearing from a fellow W.Virginian.

 

Billy, I fall under the same trap often, hence the thread title

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To answer the original question, do animals find us beautiful, I would say that is purely speculative and specie dependent.

It's a pity that as advanced as we are in some scientific fields, we are still hopelessly behind in others due to their complexity.

My personal guess is that with the ones that can "judge" us and have spent enough time with human being to closely differentiate and appraise us, probably not.

I'm sure we look very odd. For example, look at our clothes.

Newborns would have a universal appeal because of the "cute gene" (yes it really exists) that makes all mammalian babies look cute to other mammals.

But all in all, I would hazard a guess that we probably just look very, very odd and behave even stranger than our appearances.

 

Boy do you have the reason wrong in many cases. A baby looks beautifully delicious to a hungry lion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

------
A cartoon I saw had two alligators reclining on a river bank, full bellies up, and beside them was a white pith helmet and a shoe.

One was saying to the other: "That was delicious! No fur, no scales, no claws and fat."

They surely thought that explorer was “beautiful.”

 

Ever heard of neoteny? Guess not

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

bellaonline .com/articles/art18189.asp

 

Howdy, howdy, howdy!

I like your first post, and you'll hear no disagreement from me on the intelligence of animals.

 

Good natured By Frans de Waal

reviews by king, mcgrew and madison