Animal Mind

Even further, in the case of animals there are many concepts that they simply will not be able to learn. For example, the dog is unlikely to ever be able to learn the concept of an MP3 or grasp the concept of what Wednesdays are. This objection continues by saying that, in order to have higher order thoughts, one must have a concept of mental states. However, it is implausible that either babies or nonhuman animals grasp such a concept.

According to “When Animals Communicate, They Are Not Using “Language” “, Mia Lewis says “...scientists insist that when chimpanzees or other animals are taught to use words or signs, more often or not they are simply performing a kind of trick in order to receive a reward - usually food. That is why animals don’t go on to create more words or complex sentences. A human baby, on the other hand, rapidly progresses from saying a single word to being able to form complex sentences”. Animals only perform actions of language for treats or rewards because of the ‘thing’ that they lack in their brain. However, since humans have this ‘thing’, we start saying words as a baby, than as we grow, form them into complex sentences, and make

4. One of the most important thinking abilities that humans have that other animals apparently do not have is the ability to

There are many reasons on why I support his claim. For instance, The article states, “They feel pain, suffer,and experience stress, affection, excitements and even love.” This can change the way we see animals because animals are just like humans with the same emotions and feelings. Animals are also very similar with cognitive abilities as humans. For

Are movies able to think? This question is usually answered with no or how would a movie even think? Although these answers aren't particularly wrong, there's another answer to that question that mixes things up a bit. Yes. The camera's point of view and a two dimensional screen are usually all we get out of a movie. Bits and pieces of what characters are really thinking are shown, nothing too in depth or complicated about it. However, ‘Inside Out’ is the exception. ‘Inside Out’ makes it possible to see into the mind of a character.

When I was taking psychology 101, we were tasked with an animal metacognition research project. Metacognition is the ability to anylize our thoughts. In other words, to be aware of our existence and our selves in the world. While conducting research, I found a very special case of a primate. This primate's name was Koko. It's thought that Koko has been one of the few primates that has been able to master a certain degree of sign language. Many think its only a case of watching and repeating, but many experiments have been conducting to reinforce the idea that Koko can actually make her own decisions based on physical cues. A very interesting case, yet theres still not a clear answer among scientists as to weather any non-human species poceses

Some people think animals are dumb but they are just calling themselves dumb. Animals are smart because in the article speaking bonobo it states, “ Kanzi touched the symbols for fire and marshmallow, then hi was given matches and marshmallows on a stick…” The animal had to remember the marshmallow symbol and the fire symbol to want them.

As nonhuman primates seem to be able to communicate meaningful messages, the question arises whether our ancestors developed language from a similar state.

Many would say chimpanzees are our long lost relatives. They have many traits that may mirror human beings and they are able to show signs of communication. Whether it be playing pranks on their handlers or simply telling them they are hungry, chimpanzees are highly intellectual creatures that are misunderstood. In “Next of Kin,” a book written by psychologist Roger Fouts, notices and appreciates this intellectual behavior shown from our hairy relatives. For centuries chimpanzees have been practicing the art of communication using gestures, different dialects in hand movement, facial expressions and forms of body language very similar to that of a human. Through his studies in theories of communication, Fout’s expressed that he learned a significant amount more from the chimpanzees than from an American Sign Language program. His store is told in this novel expressing great insight and affection.

Most primates communicate through a lot of ways, one of them being vocalization. Vocalization in primates have a range of functions, but some vary in contexts. For example, vocalization between one primate and another primate can differ greatly from communication between one group and another group. Of all primates, the only species to have developed speech are humans. Another form of communication is the use of symbols and hand gestures. Although apes use symbols, this provides insight on their cognitive abilities. In particular, there have been various recent studies on nonhuman primates and how they show a high level of complexity in linguistics, which is similar to humans. We study primate communication and their behavior to get a better

Descartes’s argument against animals having minds, says that even though they use voice and body language to communicate, it hasn’t been shown that they can achieve “real speech”. For Descartes, animals only communicate their natural impulses, such as anger, fear, etc. These natural impulses align with his thinking that animals have strictly mechanical qualities. They only react to certain emotions in certain, planned ways. I think it’s a good argument, but I’m not sure if it’s “strong”. I know and understand there are obvious differences between humans and animals; we might not think about the same things, but I believe they have a capacity to think. Also, it might not be as strong because Descartes places a lot of weight into the “real speech” idea without considering that animals don’t need to think like us. What if they are visual thinkers instead?

Starting in the 17th century, enlightenment philosophers contemplated animal consciousness and its subsequent implications on animal rights. Descartes viewed animals as a modern-day machine: organic beings that only act instinctually. Thus, Descartes critically distinguished humans and animals based on their respective capacity for reason: since animals supposedly lack the ability to learn, they forego fundamental human rights. However, animal mind philosophy gradually shifted towards the end of the 19th century as Charles Darwin recorded notes of various species around the world. For example, Darwin observed an earthworm consuming leaves in an intelligent, non-instinctual way that, to him,

The ape first acquires language through comprehension and then through expression. This is the same course taken for a child. The acquisition of language structures by apes suggests that they are competent for reasoning. They are capable of experiencing among others, pain, happiness, and sorrow thus, they can experience various dimensions of being, that is, awareness.

The best example for this is that of a baby. Newborns have no capability of the use of language. But they still know how to ‘think’ as they know what is happiness or what is pain. Nature has made them born with a language-independent system for thinking about objects. Another example that is applicable here is that people, sometimes, think visually and do not need language to give them information about the visual world. They can look at a person’s face and make a hypothesis of the emotion that they see.

One of the most controversial topics in modern philosophy revolves around the idea of non-human animals being considered human people. Controversy over what makes up an actual person has been long debated. However, society deems it as a set of characteristics. The average person normally does not realize how complicated a question this is, and in fact many scientists, philosophers, and individuals will side differently on this specific topic. I personally do not believe that animals are capable of being human people, but throughout this argumentative paper I will address critical views presented from multiple philosophers on why this seems to be the case.