I would think that if a horse goes through the effort to pin his ears back/try to kick one person, but not another…that would be concept forming.
I don’t see that. Concept-formation involves integration (of multiple units), differentiation (multiple units must be recognised), measurement omission (abstraction from the specific non-essential properties of the particular concretes, and symbolic representation – not just the ability to perform in a particular way on behavioral tests, but actual ability to mentally represent an open-ended class with a symbol. This latter part is most obviously beyond the capability of non-humans; claims about the other cognitive aspects are also commonly overblown.
I don’t see that. Concept-formation involves integration (of multiple units), differentiation (multiple units must be recognised), measurement omission (abstraction from the specific non-essential properties of the particular concretes, and symbolic representation – not just the ability to perform in a particular way on behavioral tests, but actual ability to mentally represent an open-ended class with a symbol. This latter part is most obviously beyond the capability of non-humans; claims about the other cognitive aspects are also commonly overblown.
You may need to break that down a little further for me…since I didn’t understand a .25 of that. (remember, i’m a drummer). I know that Horses/dogs/cats can do the first two you listed, but I don’t think I understand the measurement omission part. I CAN tell you that a Horse/dog/cat CAN tell the difference between me and you, another person from another person, and even species from species. I can’t really speak about measurement omission until I understand it more.
I CAN tell you that a Horse/dog/cat CAN tell the difference between me and you, another person from another person, and even species from species.
Where is the evidence that horses, dogs or cats understand the unity of the species “cat”, “dog”, “man”, “squirrel”? What facts are you pointing to that show that prove this?
If you take the concept “man”, that subsumes any number of concretes, like for example all of the people in Houston. They come in many sizes and colors, which are “measurements”. Since not all men are the same height, shape, color, then these aren’t essential attributes of the concept “man”, and they are omitted. Measurement omission refers to leaving out the details which are not essential to the concept.
Where is the evidence that horses, dogs or cats understand the unity of the species “cat”, “dog”, “man”, “squirrel”? What facts are you pointing to that show that prove this?
If you take the concept “man”, that subsumes any number of concretes, like for example all of the people in Houston. They come in many sizes and colors, which are “measurements”. Since not all men are the same height, shape, color, then these aren’t essential attributes of the concept “man”, and they are omitted. Measurement omission refers to leaving out the details which are not essential to the concept.
Generally, how they act towards said creature. I don’t have a bunch of SCIENTIFIC evidence, I just have personal observations. A horse knows the difference between a dog and human (by nature that the horse might approach the human for food, and run from the dog…being a natural predator). I’ll try to pull up some sites that might offer insight. Besides, it seems you’re suggesting (I could be wrong) that animals have no cognitive skills whatsoever. Basic concept forming MUST exist for cognitive skills to exist (otherwise there’s no purpose in them.) How does an herbivore know to avoid poisonous plants without having some form of recognition (via measurements - shape, size, smell, sound)? How does my dog know the difference between all three of his toy bones (the tennis ball bone…his rubber bone…his spiky bone…). How does a horse know the difference between hay and straw? They must have, at least, BASIC concept forming.
Basic concept forming MUST exist for cognitive skills to exist (otherwise there’s no purpose in them.) How does an herbivore know to avoid poisonous plants without having some form of recognition (via measurements - shape, size, smell, sound)?
I understand the problem now. Peikoff’s book OPAR and Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology will provide a much more details overview of Objectivist epistemology and I highly recommend that you read them; however, the brief answer is that you’re not speaking of “concepts”, as Rand identified them. You’re basically asking an evolutionary / purposive question – why does man have a conceptual faculty, more specifically, what sequence of evolutionary events gave rise to the conceptual faculty as a specialized aspect of consciousness. Of course, we have no idea – all we know is that it did happen. You appear to equate “consciousness” with “having a conceptual faculty”, which is wrong, in that the two terms are defined differently. You are also conflating the issue of innateness and conceptualism: much animal knowledge is innate but no human knowledge is. No doubt the loss of innate knowledge is connected to the rise of the conceptual faculty (at the very least, the conceptual faculty renders innate knowledge superfluous).
On the lower end (lower than planaria), I don’t have a clear enough understanding of “cognition” to know whether there are any non-cognitive animals. Sponges might be an example. Otherwise, I think all animals have cogition. But your arguments don’t address the question of concept-formation, they only address the question of whether animals have cognition.
No, since sentience is basic consciousness and many animals have that.
I was always under the impression sentience indicated self-awareness and thus the capability of abstract theorization, a trait no animal possesses to a signifigant extent (tool usage).
I was always under the impression sentience indicated self-awareness and thus the capability of abstract theorization, a trait no animal possesses to a signifigant extent (tool usage).
Heard the other day that chimpanzees were reported as using a spear to get food, which I would consider “tool” usage.
Haven’t looked into it much yet, although there’s a video series (seen on PBS) that explores this very topic. I believe it was like a documentary, filming scientists performing the tests at various places. Probably been 10 years since I saw it, but I’ll try and find it. One thing I remember was them putting a dot of paint onto a monkeys face, then later giving it a mirror and it trying to get the paint off himself. It’s interesting B)
Conceptualization is a very complex behavior, so there is no simple test for it. We can’t expect a test based solely on the completion of a steps of mechanical actions. If conceptualization were easy to do, we would have been able to program computers to do it. Nature itself program animals with complex algorithms than simulate thinking. However the combination of all facilities working together produces dramatic and unmistakable differences between humans and animals.