(Saturday, June 30, 9am)
Chapman, C. A., Twinomugisha, D., Teichroeb, J. A., Valenta, K., Sengupta, R., Sarkar, D., & Rothman, J. M. (2016). How do primates survive among humans? Mechanisms employed by vervet monkeys at Lake Nabugabo, Uganda. In Ethnoprimatology (pp. 77-94). Springer, Cham.
MacLean, E. L., Herrmann, E., Suchindran, S., & Hare, B. (2017). Individual differences in cooperative communicative skills are more similar between dogs and humans than chimpanzees. Animal Behaviour, 126, 41-51
Fuentes, A. (2018). How Humans and Apes Are Different, and Why It Matters. Journal of Anthropological Research, 74(2), 151-167
It is clear that many animals are better that we are at many tasks. Earth worm are better than me to dig tunnel in the ground and so on... Nevertheless, I think that humans are unique, as much as any other animals are unique in their way.
ReplyDeleteWe were talking about language. In my opinion, animals do have a language. They can communicate with their “language”. I don’t know anything about Japanese language, therefore, if I hear it, I won’t be able to understand a word, but they will do. I guess it’s the same between a specie of animals: it will sound so much different that what I know, but they will understand each other. Do you think we can say animal have no language at all or we say that just because humans cannot understand?
ReplyDeleteOf course, animals can communicate with each other, but what they can’t do and that we, humans, can is use our faculty of language to express whatever we want, tell a story that happen in the past, express our fears, joys and so on. We can say by oral or visuo-spatial languages utterances that have never been said before with a small amount of signs (recursivity), so it is an error to say that our way to communicate is the same that the one of other species: human language is a more evolve capacity. About Japanese language (and in French we would say “langue” instead of “language”), every human can learn new languages at all stages of their life, maybe you won’t find it easy to learn it, but if you have enough motivation one day you might be able to understand Japanese speakers.
Delete*small amount of minimal unity
DeleteI agree with Laurence, though I would be careful using the words “more evolved”, this leads to think that more=better\higher. The goal of the talk was to argue that it is not better, simply different.
DeleteThank you for the remark, I don't mean "more evolved" as in higher in the sense of superiority but in the sense of more developed. Other animals are specialized in some faculty, humans are specialized in the faculty of language.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi Priscilla, to answer your questions about what is “language” and who has “language” (en français on dit “LE langage” mais quand on dit “une langue”, alors en anglais, c’est plutôt “a language” (pas juste “language” tout court. Ça confond beaucoup de francophones), first we need to define what we’re talking about.
DeleteIn a very loose sense some may say: “computer programming language”, or “language of music…” But in cognitive science, when we say “language”, we mean Human Language: the object being studied by the field of Linguistics!
So, yes, to answer your question: definitely! (Human) language is clearly distinct from any other existing form of animal communication. Unlike most other aspects of evolution, it is NOT just a matter of degree.
All the sentences humans use to communicate have something in common. When decomposed to their basic elements, we notice they are all rather simple statements of truth or untruth about a given object or subject (either something about X is true or it’s not true). This subject-predicate structure allows our species to transfer information to multiple people at once, in a voluntary manner. This is how we have schools, with teachers standing in front of a bunch of students, transferring their knowledge through what we call “instructions”. Books are an adaptation of that same function, when you think about it.
What’s bizarre is that the chimpanzees seem to have everything it takes to be able to build such kind of recursive sentences (combining words in an infinite number of ways, like Laurence talked about) but when given the chance (even after we teach them 600 words in sign language), they just don’t seem to be motivated to do so. Anything that can be expressed in any human language can be translated to any other language, but the “sentences” built by chimps out of those signs we teach them just don’t use that kind of structure. They can't seem to say: “this apple is red” or “this apple is not red”.
They might say “red apple” but they don’t seem to understand that, for example, an apple could be something else than red… or that something red may not be an apple. Or understand that the red apple is not blue (in other words, it is false that the apple being the subject of the sentence is blue). So although any human, no matter where they are born in the world could come here, learn another language and eventually discuss with us, when it comes to non-human animals, although some can surpass us in many other cognitive aspects, our extremely efficient ways of communication seem clearly out of their reach, sadly enough.
We are not THAT special, as Colin Chapman explained very well, but (human) language sure is special and mysteriously unique!
Thank you for the presentation, that was really interesting.
ReplyDeleteM.Chapman has just shown us how humans and animals (particularly primates) have common points and are not so different in terms of skills, language, empathy and violence. I think as it was told that humans want to be different and superior over animals but also over other humans, maybe to be noticed, to get special privileges. But it certainly affects relationships and it's pretty sure that the desire of humans to be different leads to decrease their consideration of animals and leads to criminal acts. The lack of knowledge certainly leads to this way of thinking.
In addition to this comment I would like to ask the following question: It was so interesting to look at animals painting, what do you think they experience as feelings at the moment they are painting ?
Thank you !
Thank you for the presentation! Humans have tried to prove their superiority by attributing their own perspective of what comportments are superiors then others and you said how subjective we are and how we have bias. The video of the realization of a task by a chimpanzee and a human was really revealing about how other species are superior than human when it comes to do different tasks. About culture; do you think that maybe our bias are too strong in that matter and that is why it is so difficult to attribute cultural comportments to other species?
ReplyDeleteHi Laurence,
DeleteI agree with you that "superiority" is pretty subjective and can't be the comparison of individuals or species, but only of traits. However, I have difficulties thinking about traits that can't be reproduced inn their functionality and maximized by the human culture and technic. It seems to me that non-human animals can be surpassed (performatively speaking) in any of their traits took independently. Human isn't "better" or "superior" (certainly not a priori), but human shows a taste for improvement, for perfectability, that makes the difference for any task he intends to do.
Toughts?
I agree that humans have a certain need to perform (no matter the discipline, we want to master it), but there certainly are traits fully mastered by other species that humans can’t achieve, e.g. we can’t swim as fast as some fishes.
DeleteJohn Searle came up with an expression that may help in this case : objective is to have objective epistemology about subjective ontology.
ReplyDelete- Sorry for the lack of context on this comment. It’s bound to happen when talks and contributions are that intensive. If I remember correctly, this comment was made for the part where biases were discussed as inevitable. I have found this little distinction to be useful to understand where objectivity as a place, and where subjectivity must be accepted. Sorry about that!
DeleteThanks for the talk. I feel like it is really important to recognize the ways that humans are similar to other animals, but isn´t it equally important to note the ways in which they are different? Trying to analogize human experience to the experience of other animals is obviously going to be more successful with species that more closely resemble human beings and more difficult with species that do not, such as invertebrates. Instead of trying to overcome this gap using problematic or weak analogies, shouldn´t we also develop an understanding of the different ways animals live in the world?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the talk and for the challenging and authentic believes shared with us.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with the idea that the difference between human and non-human animals is one of degree and not of kind. Perhaps more in the way that we all (as species) participate in the kind « animal ». That we all have our uniqueness as species (even as individuals) is obvious. However, it appears to me that there is a compelling difference in the ATTITUDE of the humans toward some of the activities shown in your examples. A progressive and reflexive attitude that push forward instead of a more « satisfied » one.
For instance, I can’t call « art » what the chimp or the elephant is doing as the interest of its doing is the reward they were taught to obtain by this particular way and not the activity in itself. I feel that there is a contentment (that maybe humans should try having!) not only of being up in the trees, but also of going back to the trees once the special task they (the chimps) were taught to do is completed, once they got the reward.
We had a talk by Louis Lefebvre on animal innovation yesterday. I have some difficulties correlating the type of innovation he was telling us about to the human innovation. One is a persistence in motordiversity linked to opportunism while the other is a more reflexive, analytical one, trying to figure out what is the « best » way to resolve a certain problem (if we take science as the constant innovation of humans).
There’s a curiosity in human that, according to the so proud ancient Greek philosophers, seems to escape the grip of necessity. I don’t think that the taste of knowing isn’t without any interest; it is securing ourselves to « know », to understand. Even if this trait could be our particular trait, our necessity as a specie, it is surely not negligible in its effect and on how it greatly distinguishes ourselves among the others.
The paintings comparison that has been shown in the talk are not examples of individual chimps that were taught to do it. These examples were actually taken from sanctuaries where these are used as enrichment for the resident chimps. And I think it is the same for elephants (though of course there are some examples on the internet with trained individuals).
ReplyDeleteJe suis d’accord avec l’idée de Darwin que la différence entre l’Homme et certains animaux est une question de dégrée, plutôt qu’une question d’espèces. Colin Chapman à bien montré que les grands singes partageaient plusieurs traits avec l’Homme qu’on considérait comme propre à notre espèce à une époque. Cependant, l’écart est immense, particulièrement dans l’utilisation d’outil. On peut développer des outils avec notre connaissance de la physique et des mathématiques et anticiper les conséquences de l’utilisation de cet outil. Je ne crois pas qu’il y ait un raisonnement aussi développé chez d’autres primates. C’est peut-être à cause de ses grands écarts entre des traits semblables que certains humains pourraient se considérer comme différents des animaux.
ReplyDeleteÉvidemment que la différence est énorme entre l'humain et le chimpanzé, mais il ne faut pas en être surpris même lorsqu'on dit que le chimpanzé est très intelligent. En termes d'intelligence et de flexbilité comportementale, on est peut-être "supérieur", mais si on se compare sur d'autres traits, on échoue lamentablement (force physique, locomotion, etc.). Pour en rajouter, le chimpanzé, même au niveau cognitif, est capable de nous battre. L'exemple du test d'ordre numérique sur l'écran tactile le montre bien. D'autres espèces plus éloignées phylogénétiquement de nous on d'autres capacité que nous n'avons pas (reconnaissance et discrimination des quantités chez les éléphants (voir Plotknik).
ReplyDeleteJ’ai trouvé la conférence de Colin Chapman très intéressante. L’être humain s’est toujours perçu comme étant supérieur aux autres espèces animales. On peut toutefois se demander à juste titre ce qui fait que nous sommes supérieurs. Quels sont les critères ou quels sont les éléments sur lesquels nous bâtissons cette croyance? On a pensé aux outils, mais plusieurs animaux en utilisent ; notre capacité à nous guérir, mais on se rend compte que d’autres espèces se soignent en utilisant des plantes ; le langage, mais en fait plusieurs espèces communiquent de brillante façon (il s’agirait d’une question de degré et non de nature) ; etc. Pendant des siècles, on a tenté de démontrer la supériorité humaine. Le problème est que l’on peut se poser la question de savoir qui décide des critères. Et c’est bien évidemment nous qui les décidons. Pensons-y, personne ne va prendre comme critère la capacité de grimper et d’être agile dans les arbres. Nous tomberions inférieurs à plusieurs espèces. Ainsi, il n’est pas clair pourquoi nous voulons autant nous mettre au dessus des autres espèces, mais une chose est certaine : cette manière de nous percevoir face aux autres espèces a eu beaucoup de conséquences, dont beaucoup de souffrance...
ReplyDeleteContinuity is obvious across phylogeny. Proximity is obvious too. As to "superiority," it's not clear who is giving out prizes, and for what. Because if it's for the capacity to make other species (and our own) suffer, our is surely by far superior. Let us hope that although we cannot make amends to members of other species for what we have already done to them, we can put an end to it, as we have done with the suffering we have caused to members of our own species, with laws and reform.
ReplyDelete(That said, although all social species can communicate, there is something about human language (the ability to say anything and everything) that is indeed unique (as Laurence points out). There are no doubt also other capacities that are unique to other species, however.)
Even if I agree about human's superiority (in terms of most advanced or adaptively proficient abilities if we could make the calculation of an average between physical and cognitive ones) being a matter of degree, I think nevertheless there is a huge gap between the species closest to ours and us, and that this gap makes us truly privileged... The example of language Dr Harnad gave us is a good one. We simply have been lucky at the evolution's lottery. But the notion of superiority in terms of our aptitude to act on our environment comes with the responsability to use as well our cognitive superiority in an ethical way, because we are undoubtedly able to distinguish and conceptualize what's right or not! We are also easily able to look for and find solutions to do so. I think this human propensity to use improperly its superiority may come from our aptitude to conceptualize myths or religions and so, to believe we resemble or are invested by a divinity instead of being part of the continuum.
ReplyDeleteJe suis d'accord avec M. Chapman lorsqu'il dit que tout est une question de degré et que l'humain a un malin plaisir à se sentir supérieur aux autres. Je crois que l'espèce humaine excelle dans plusieurs choses et qu'elle est distincte des autres, mais cela n'est pas suffisant pour justifier la façon dont nous traitons les animaux. Justement, si nous sommes si 'intelligents' comment se fait-il que nous sommes encore en train de convaincre les gens de la sensibilité des animaux? Comment ses fait-il que nous mettons tellement de temps à reconnaître des droits aux animaux,...droit que nous leur avons pris parce que nous avons des facultés cognitives plus 'élevées' ? Je crois que l'intelligence, ces facultés cognitives/physiques ne sont pas ce sur quoi nous devons se baser, car si non les gens qui en sont privés dans notre société n'auraient aucun droits. Justement si nous sommes si 'supérieurs', profitons-en pour protéger ceux qui sont plus vulnérables.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the talk, it was very interesting. In my understanding, the rationale of the talk is definitely great. Demonstrating that animals are more similar to us than we thought should favor the emergence of greater empathy towards them and, by extension, better treatment. However, it seems that a lot of the experiments discussed were done on outliers or were the effects of training. For example, you mention that a dog can learn more than a thousand words. This is far from being a generalized finding. It took Gregory Berns, who did a talk on dogs earlier in the summer school, 6 months to train dogs to understand two words with an 80% accuracy rate. Another example of that would be the the experiment that showed that young chimpanzees had better working memory than undergrad students. The results of this experiments have been shown to be an effect of extensive training given to the chimps, while the students received none (Cook & Wilson, 2010).
ReplyDeleteThis seems to suggest that animals might have some rudimentary form of abilities possessed by humans, but we are definitely unique and different in the level of expertise manifested by the general population of humans. Would you agree?
Furthermore, would you consider the level of care for animals displayed by a lot of humans something that definitely makes us unique (presence of animal ethics board or animal activist rights organisations)?
Are we different from other animals…
ReplyDelete- Would it be accurate to say that we are the only living organism that dwell on its past actions or try to justify them afterward?
A bird (scrub jays) is able to put food aside in the evening and eat it in the morning. They are shown to have kibble in compartment 1 and peanuts in compartment 2. The next morning they are left with one of the two compartments. They learn that every morning they have access to only one of the two compartments. So when at night, the researchers give them access to the two compartments, they move peanuts from compartment 2 to compartment 1 and they move kibbles from compartment 1 to compartment 2. In this way, it does not matter which compartment they will have access to the next morning, they will have peanuts and kibbles.
ReplyDeleteHow does bird planning compare to human planning?
Simple planning cases, comparable to those of the bird, can be found in humans. In the evening, we can put an apple in our bag so we do not forget the next day.
There are more complex cases of planning in humans. Are these complex cases just large versions of simple cases? Or are new elements and factors not present in simple cases introduced?
Consider a vacation planning. The family goes every year to the same place, the beach is beautiful and the food is fresh. This year, the family decides to spend their holidays in another place. This new place must have at least certain criteria. It must be accessible by a city car and must not be abroad. She must have a beautiful beach. A good hotel must be available. This requires long discussions between families and research. This research in part requires communication with friends, other families. This is a social aspect that comes into play. In addition, parents make plans for themselves and their children. This is not a single plan, but a series of plans. These plans are not unique. The follow-up of a plan depends on several factors and one can very well change the plan on the way. The plan does not extend for a few minutes or hours, but on days and may be months. Social planning, sequential planning and long-term planning are not found in animals. The ability to plan a series of complex tasks over long intervals is a great and unique asset to humans.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete