Descartes Man vs Animal

One study attempted to observe capuchin monkey’s ability to recognize cause and effect relationship in regards to tool use. An article in the international journal or primatology by Anthea Lavallee, describes the tests she conducted in a captive naturalistic environment on capuchin monkeys, as she writes, “I tested tufted capuchins' ability to conceive solutions to a probing task in a naturalistic captive setting” . The results showed at 3 out of the 5 capuchin monkeys displayed an ability to make and use tools that were presented to them from a wide variety of natural materials presented. Another study on the manipulation and tool use in captive yellow breasted capuchin monkeys was published in the “International Journal of Comparative Psychology” . This experiment consisted of six capuchin monkeys, who were placed in an environment where their tool using was tested and observed. The tools that were made available to the monkeys were transparent 9mm Plexiglas boxes with 3mm Plexiglas lids as well as different size stones. A piece of food was then placed into the box with the stones next to it and left for the capuchins. Each test subject was left isolated with the tools and box from the other test subjects, the subjects where successful if they used the stones to try and

According to Darwin (Date), there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental and perceived emotional faculties. In theory, every organism is engrained with complex, useful, and non-arbitrary bits of information that is essential to its survival. Organisms know when it is time to migrate, when it is best to hunt, and when mating should occur. According to Name (Date), these faculties are actually nonrandom parts of our development they must have come from either divine design or natural selection. The notion of whether or not divine design or natural selection is the result of an organisms faculties has sparked significant debate since Darwin first proposed his theory of natural selection

Rifkin gives an example of two birds, Betty and Abel, who use their intelligence to make hooks for retrieving food wedged into tubes. Rifkin states, “…study into animal emotions and cognitive abilities...” This experiment shows how animals, and in this case, Betty and Abel, can use their brains to come up with solutions to complex problems, just the same

Humans are a unique species because they have possess the ability to reason. Other animal species only have instinct, thus making them less smart. In Richard Connell’s short story “The Most Dangerous Game”, it tells of a hunter named Rainsford who got stranded on Ship-Trap Island. Zaroff hunted Rainsford on the island, but in the end Rainsford killed Zaroff . In “The Most Dangerous Game”, the author uses imagery, setting, and characterization to suggest that instinct is better than reasoning.

In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” (2003), published by Los Angeles Times, author Jeremy Rifkin discusses how our fellow creatures are more like humans than we had ever imagined. Using academic diction, Rifkin develops his main idea with evidence such as Caledonian crows being able to make tools to complete a task. These birds were given the task of grabbing meat out of a tube with a choice of two tools, a hooked wire and a straight wire. Both of the birds were able to complete the task, however, one bird showed exceptional cognitive abilities when she bent a straight wire into a hook to grab the meat. This suggests a logos persuasive appeal that broadens the reader’s awareness of the conceptual abilities of crows. Rifkin’s use

The rarity of human uniqueness no longer exists in the thoughts of scientists believing that human ability skills lie within the construction and use of tools. As declared by Goodall in which chimpanzees used straight sticks after removing the leaves and branches to collect termites or ants for consumption. (Goodall, 1986) Other species both primate and non-primate demonstrate successful abilities., which include a sense of self as well as the theory of mind, by which other species recognize that other individuals contain different information than themselves. Different species also have the ability to communicate symbolically to one another through the sounds of vocalization. (Sapolsky R. M., 2006)

Science fiction has two ways of connecting to realistic science. It either predicts or reflects how the technology works in its current state. Artificial intelligence is a very common subject that is discussed in science fiction. And the fact that it has very plausible representations of artificial intelligence helps show how it may be perceived in the future.

In these lands, natural selection is law. These natives trust that, much like how physical attributes have evolved over time, mental abilities have as well. They study how behavior has changed over time to benefit survival. They have argued that humans have evolved mental capabilities for specific adaptations such as forming languages, and being able to determine which mates are healthier or stronger.

In captivity, capuchin monkeys are able to learn to use surrounding objects as tools when given the materials. For example, one study involves clear Plexiglas boxes and wooden sticks. Maize kernels were placed inside of the clear Plexiglas boxes while the boxes were sealed except for a tiny opening that was impossible for the capuchins to get through. The only way for the monkeys to get to the maize was to use the stick to try to break off the cover of the Plexiglas box. Out of the 32 trials, four monkeys were able to use the stick as a tool to open the Plexiglas box. The monkeys used three different techniques in order to do so. They used the stick by pounding it against the box so that it would break it open. They manipulated it as a cutting

The Null Hypothesis is the thought that “all vertebrates (with the exception of humans) are of equal intelligence” (Pearce, 2008). The Null Hypothesis was proposed by Macphail (1982) and has since been widely debated; we will break these debates into six categories for further examination. Associative Learning

He does accept that animals are alive and that they do feel. However, their feelings depend on the organs of the body and not on a mind like Humans. It would seem that the definition of intelligence and thinking used by Descartes is fulfilled sufficiently by the ability to use language. I would ask, however, why is it sufficient to think that by using language something is deemed to

For example, imitation and teaching explain that chimpanzee’s may watch their mother doing actions academically (problem-solving) she never gives her young enough feedback or just a simple look to reinforce his observation. He concludes by explaining that humans have a preexisting capacity that allows them to represent what they imagine by combining human elements (language) while, animals clearly do not.

When people think of pigeons, they usually imagine half-witted birds that do nothing but tilt their head from side to side often and seek for food humans throw out for them. Oh, how wrong they are. In a new study, it’s been discovered that pigeons are a lot smarter than you may think -- smart enough to read -- kind of. With this discovery, it’s very much possible that other organisms have an ability scientists have yet to enclose. By studying the pigeons’ ability to learn words, they could provide insights into origins and function of language for researchers.

We have seen many examples of animal intelligence, and I think Animals are smart in their own ways. We have been focused on chimps, birds, and killer whales, and it is impressive how intelligent they are. In one of the listening we have seen how a chimp understood that another chimp was disabled and helped that chimp. We also learn that competition for food is what motivates them. For example: A chimp with a human who has food, and the chimp want to get the food. The chimp figured it out that if he sneaks around a barrier that the human can’t see, it could get the food. So this demonstrates that chimps understand how to manipulate the situation to get what it wants. Birds also demonstrate that food is their principal motivation. We learn from

MacIntyre is right that animals act, meaning that their movements are rational and purposeful. First, I will present the accumulation of MacIntyre’s arguments that dolphins indeed act rationally and purposefully. Secondly, I will propose a counterargument that dolphins have neither explicit language nor conscious thoughts, and therefore do not act. After the presentation of both of these ideas, I will rebut the counterargument as MacIntyre might, and I will conclude that MacIntyre’s argument about animals acting is successful.