Hi I’m new here but here’s a theory which has been bugging me.
Animals are said to have no theory of mind and act upon instinct alone, except of course the dolphin and some primates. (I’ll get back to that later.) If animals have no theory of mind and act upon instinct alone, then why do they do our commands I hear you ask. They may sit and lie down etc, but remember they were trained by using positive and negative reinforcements remember and are only doing what you ask for these treats or to avoid punishment. Even if they don’t want to do what we say, they’re doing it or not doing it because they don’t need food or are unwell, or even don’t want pain if they’ve been treated badly for not doing something.
However if they do have a theory of mind like humans, then why do they not work towards self improvement and develop tools, much like chimps have been shown to do, and build colonies like we have. I mean the bee does, however there are no hospital sects or even designated sleeping areas etc. (Is this just their way of living?)
Surely there must be more to this argument or am i wrapping myself in circles? (And by the way I own numerous pets I am not condemning animals or the like!)
I believe that animals act directly from their nature, so don’t have to think about their actions, they certainly don’t have motives.
Did you hear about the elephants who saved, I think it was 14 people during the Tsunami. Aparently they picked people up and carried them to higher ground. I don’t know about theory of mind, but for me it appears there is certainly love present.
Richard Rorty gives an explanation that might help. He is citing Davidson’s view of what language is, as behavioral interpretation, and it certainly can be extended to animals. In this way your dog might “understand” your English better than a visiting friend, as amazing as that may seem:
“In a recent paper, nicely entitled “A nice Derangement of Epitaphsâ€, Davidson tries to undermine the notion of languages as entities by developing the notion of what he calls “a passing theory†about the noises and inscriptions presently being produced by a fellow human being. Think of such a theory as part of a larger “passing theory†about this person’s total behavior – a set of guesses about what she will do under conditions. Such a theory is “passing†because it must constantly be corrected to allow for mumbles, stumbles, malapropisms, metaphors, tics, seizures, psychotic symptoms, egregious stupidity, strokes of genius, and the like. To make things easier, imagine that I am forming a theory about the current behavior of a native of an exotic culture into which I have unexpectedly parachuted. This strange person, who presumably finds me equally strange, will simultaneously be busy forming a theory about my behavior. If we ever succeed in communicating easily and happily, it will be because her guesses about what I am going to do next, including what noises I’m going to make next, and my own expectations about what I shall do or say under certain circumstances, come more or less to coincide, and because the converse is also true. She and I are coping with each other as we might cope with mangoes or boa constrictors – we are not trying to be taken by surprise. To say that we speak the same language is to say, as Davidson puts it, that “we tend to converge on passing theories.†Davidson’s point is that all “two people need, if they are to understand one another through speech, is the ability to converge on passing theories from utterance to utteranceâ€. –Contingency, irony, and solidarity
The mind is simply a simple projection that allows us to anticipate behavior. At many times it is appropriate to contribute mind to animals and sometimes machines as well. There is no fixed rule. There is no “mindâ€, as in a localizable essence, in humans either. Or if you would prefer, if humans have a mind, so do many other things.
If you smack a dog then won’t it move away only because it has associated the raised hand with pain? Much like associating a lead with a walk for example?..
Elephants have also been seen to guard dead elephants, so is this for example an instinct to guard a fallen comrade, or do they truly grieve their friend?
I don’t know what elephants are thinking in this way, but observing elephants one can see the love they have for each other. It appears that they act directly according to the situation which is far superior to most humans.
Actually yes. Watching elephants and their undivided love for each other may actually enlighten some humans… Contridicting my first argument there is somethign special about animals and their way to co exist, whether it be just for food or maybe even because they can see the whole picture unlike us and aren’t too wrapped up in their wn lives to see it?
Yes, I have the same suspicion. Animals definately appear to be in the rythmn of the world whereas human beings appear to be stuck in their own thoughts and opinions about the world.
It’s like my dog knows he’s been ill and acts tired, looks down. But then whenever I call him he just jumps up as though at a command because he usually gets fed. (We’ve had to starve him. :~( ) So, does he know what’s going on or is he acting according to the surroundings and to instincts, hoping for food and searching/acting for it… Does he know he’s ill?
I think he knows he is ill. Poor Gizmo-Bear. But that is his great love. He knows that he is your dog and he is playing the role of your doggy. He could never let you down, it is not in his nature. He has unconditional love to the extent that he would sacrifice himself to live his purpose.
I send love to the little Gizmo-Bear - tummy tickles and scratches behind the ears…the whole thing. Get well little doggy.