actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 8 points on 2016-04-08 18:56:45
At this point I refuse to believe they dont know the answer. Its just that the answer makes them uncomfortable.
top comment, 'define pleasure', motherfucker you know exactly whats meant by that, stop trying to make the question deeper than what was meant. The fact that people cant talk straight about this kind of thing bugs me no end.
Animals have clits/dicks and those things are there to feel pleasure, stop thinking humans are that much above other mammals that we're the only ones that enjoy sex.
30-30amator equae 5 points on 2016-04-08 19:43:36
...and at this point I refuse to believe you don´t know that animal sexuality isn´t common grounds for everyone outside our little "special interest" group. I also refuse to believe you don´t know about anthropocentrism and how it is mankinds´ undisputed general point of view due to religion and an inherent need to feel superior.
I DO agree on the top comment; what exactly IS pleasure? Some derive pleasure from being hit and hurt physically and psychically, others are pleasured by hurting others. Some have sex without any sign of pleasure, others are completely drowned within their own fantasies so they don´t even bother trying to find pleasure in real life. The fact that I have two legs does not prove I can run a marathon. The fact that I don´t have two legs does not prove I can´t "run" a marathon (special olympics, anyone? ;) ).
the fact that every human being has a brain does not prove everyone is actually using it...;)
As far as I read, the discussion is an open one and seems to lead somewhere...of course us "filthy animal fuckers" know this, have known this for ages..but let them "normals" find out the truth themselves, at a pace they feel comfortable with.
Sqeezing it into their heads by force won´t lead to enlightenment, it just builds up hostility and resistance. Just let them furless monkey play...
Meanwhile, have a treat to calm down: htts://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MujRLvZ61jE
P.S.: I struggle with temptation...the little dick in me really yearns for throwing in that they should ask someone who knows from first hand experience..."Y U no ask a zoophile???"...;)
zetacola+ Rum 6 points on 2016-04-08 20:52:30
Humans who live in a society advanced enough to access the Internet should be aware that : no, humans are not some magical creatures created in the image of God, but rather products of evolution like any other animal and that yes, the biological blueprints for all mammals is roughly the same. All is left to do is the math, really.
Sqeezing it into their heads by force won´t lead to enlightenment, it just builds up hostility and resistance. Just let them furless monkey play...
Squeezing what in their heads? Common sense? I think if you have to squeeze common sense in somebody's skull you are right to assume that this person is an idiot.
"Do animals get pain when being hit in the face with a baseball bat like humans?"
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 3 points on 2016-04-09 01:13:46
products of evolution like any other animal
Unfortunately, the very fact that that is what they are means it's often beyond them to realise anything you might consider "obvious" or "common sense".
zetacola+ Rum 1 point on 2016-04-09 19:09:34
haha that's genius...
But yeah... In the context of someone asking a question on /r/askscience of all places, I think they should at least be aware of this.
Edit: TIL formatting breaks links
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 4 points on 2016-04-08 23:43:01
I don't know about you 30-30, but the purpose of a clit and the nerve endings purpose etc was properly covered in BOTH my high school biology and sex-ed classes. I even learned the organs are common to all members of a group known as "placental mammals."
This shouldn't be some great mystery, even among "normals." This is a case of chosen ignorance.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2016-04-09 01:16:40
Neither my sex ed or my high school biology discussed the existence of the clitoris. I only knew about it at that age from Monty Python, and everyone around me thought either that humans were the only species to "enjoy sex", or that it was humans and dolphins.
Sex ed is really poor quality where I live.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 2 points on 2016-04-09 01:35:41
Same here, none of my classes in junior high or high school mentioned the clitoris.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 5 points on 2016-04-09 06:58:09
sighs
That's depressing, no offense intended, it just is.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2016-04-09 13:19:59
I agree.
30-30amator equae 3 points on 2016-04-09 06:00:57
Have you been taught that there are many forms of female orgasm and the clitoral is only one amongst many others? Even in full heat, my mare disliked clitoral contact and never climaxed from that. She preferred vaginal climax and I assembled my plastic pedestals so they technically were a little bit "too high" , so I had contact with her upper vaginal wall closest to the anus, farthest from her clitoris. When climaxing, she arched her back and literally "sat" on my lap.
Before my longtime relationship with her, I had shorter relationships with other mares, small and big, pony, normal sized mare and even one draft mare; except the draft mare, not a single lady was into clitoris contact at all. They all preferred penile contact at the upper part of their vaginas, climaxing often and hard. From my experience, I think that the clitoris is overrated and surely isn´t a "pleasure button" you simply have to press to make her go off.
Biological organisms aren´t as mechanical as it commonly is believed and taught. When I remember it correctly, I recall reading that even in human females, there is a significant amount of sexually non dysfunctional women who experience clitoral stimulation as painful and unfavorable/unpleasant. It isn´t as simple as you like to portray it.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2016-04-09 06:59:23
Of course I wasn't taught in such detail, but beggars can't be choosers I suppose. My education does appear to be the exception to the rule judging from the above though...
It isn´t as simple as you like to portray it.
No, it would not appear to be now would it? I suppose my own sexual inexperience is showing.
zoozooz 3 points on 2016-04-08 22:53:15
To be fair, the rules of the subreddit discourage anecdotes, opinions etc. and comments like that are regularly deleted.
His point is more
We can assume a lot of stuff but we can't really know
I mean, I wouldn't be completely sure about a scientific definition of pleasure either. Maybe with a better understanding of the brain and extensive brain scans we could say for sure... One of the first few comments was someone who said right now we can only know from a "behavioral" perspective, i.e. looking at the behavior of animals and trying to read from it whether it's pleasurable and I guess that's not a really exact science...
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 3 points on 2016-04-09 06:21:47
I get the rules over there, I was being a little hyperbolic, but it just seems like such a weasel way out to say we need more research and move the goalposts again. how much evidence do they need? without going into too much detail, is that not what animal testing is about, getting results from a different yet sort of similar species and drawing parallels between the two species? But this suddenly stops being a good way of predicting things when it comes to sex? I'm no biologist but I am extremely suspicious... reading through the thread again other people have raised this exact point.
Obviously this isn't a topic many people think about but ignorance isn't an excuse to jump to conclusions.
electricfoxx 2 points on 2016-04-09 00:02:22
I am trying to figure out the source of this thought, but I think it is Teleology (the idea that things are designed with a purpose). For example, sex creates offspring therefore God designed sex to only be used to create offspring. Anything other than that is sin (which means "off the mark". not necessarily "immoral").
Sex without reproduction is seen as sin ("off the mark"), because it does not align with God's design. There is a converse idea, Teleonomy, that explains that things can have an apparent purpose without having been designed. This concept is explored a lot is complex systems theory. According to this, reproduction happens, because sex is pleasurable and animals like pleasure. It is a very simple feedback system, but it works.
horse_account 3 points on 2016-04-09 00:09:55
They probably don't see it as a magical, spiritual thing. They probably don't think weird shit like "our spirits became one" or "that was 'transcendent'". They probably just think "that felt REALLY fucking good". That's not a bad thing. People who see sex as some kind of fucking religious experience are weird.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2016-04-09 07:12:03
Yeah, right, ´cause animals are totally shallow and have no inner universe at all...sigh
Animals are basically biological automata that don´t give a fuck abut such stupid concepts like "love" and such. :(
Let´s cut it out on the irony for a moment: how do you know what animals feel and think? Why do you look down on people when they consider sexuality as something transcendental and ego defying?
If actual sexual intercourse has no meta level, why would almost anyone I know, including animals, prefer intercourse, especially with an individual who they feel love for over masturbation although the basic feeling isn´t much of a difference? Why does masturbtion leave you rather unsatisfied , but making love with your soulmate leaves you with an afterglow and a body buzz for hours?
I regularly do some exercises taught by the Tantrists(for example training the perinaeum by contractions at will). It helped me elongate intercourse with my mare, with my personal record set at nearly 80 minutes of mutual pleasure, several orgasms my mare had and a gigantic, mindblowing final simultaneous climax launching us both into a bliss lasting for an additional hour I was hugging her, she dropping her head onto my shoulder, still shaking from the internal convulsions and both of us unable to move.
Of course I could be just another weirdo mistaking a simple feelgood experience as transcendence. But it was these kinds of intercourse that bonded us so much that I could ride her without a saddle and reins...and I´m not talking about a little bareback riding in the country, but the literal ability to do entire advanced dressage lessons perfectly. So I think it is justified to assume that I simply wasn´t fooling myself because the effects were visible immediately after at the riding range and witnessed by many fellow riders. Have you ever experienced riding Travers or a Piaffe without a saddle and reins? Our transcendental sex bonded us together so tight that I only had to think of a lesson and she voluntarily did what she was supposed to do, without any further actions needed from my side. I just sat on top of her, my arms crossed in front of my chest.
tl;dr: If you consider people with transcendental sexual experiences as weird, then I have any freedom to see people not seeing it as that, insisting on their shallow approach as the truth, as monodimensional and feel basically sorry for them and their apparent inability to experience sexuality as more than a mechanical ego pleasure.
Exactly that is what R.A. Wilson meant when he stated that the average human ego is wrapped in cellophane and most humans are unable to rip this layer of isolation for even a single second their entire lives. He also stated that average sexuality is nothing more than extended masturbation: the average human never breaks his cocoon and thus does not have sex with another individual, but simply is masturbating with or at each other.
/u/horse_account, if you ever experience truly transcendent sexuality, you´ll definitely feel as if you never had real sex before and all you did before was a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy with very low quality, I promise. ;)
KynophileDog lover 2 points on 2016-04-09 17:44:00
This is absolutely beautiful, and I must admit my jealousy of your experiences, because they sound very much like what would happen if the play Equus ended happily. Such experiences of interconnectedness in a spiritual sense (for lack of a better word) are far too rare.
And yet, I think that you and horse_account are talking past each other. What you are describing is your experience, albeit with significant descriptions of your marefriend's behavior that, if true, would show at least the sort of bonding you describe. What horse_account asked about, however, was your marefriend's experience, and whether she, too, felt this as transcendent, or whether it was more basically emotional than that.
Even if you and she did feel this tantric bliss as a connection between souls, it is my belief that all of these feelings and actions are physically controlled and physically stimulated. The difference between your experiences and masturbation lies in the feedback from your partner and your mutual ability to account for this and, consciously or not, take greater pleasure and emotional significance from it.
What you and she had was marvelous, rivaling (in my view) the great love stories of all time, like Casablanca or Pride and Prejudice. It is all the more marvelous, from my perspective, that all of this can arise eventually from such common ingredients as methane and water, without a spiritual communications network installed above it. That your ancestors were separated 70 million years ago, and yet you still have so much in common that you can desire each other, tell each other how you feel, and act on it to your mutual benefit.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2016-04-10 14:31:33
I see your point here...please forgive me, I tend to forget that not everybody has in depth knowledge of a mare´s sexual behavior.
Let me clarify it: usually, a mare that´s been bred will quickly return to her "normal" behavior, like munching, walking around etc.
You definitely won´t see a mare that sticks around the stallion after breeding for longer intervals of time, she´ll just wait until the "effects" have worn off and then will retunr to mind her own business.
What my mare did was clearly out of the "normal", even when expaning the range of diverse after-sex behavior. She did this although she was totally free to walk away, I even remember one incident she didn´t even cared for her food when it was poured into her trogue half an hour after our intercourse. She was totally relaxed, I had the weight of her head on my shoulder, her lower lip hung down (a sign of total relaxation in horses,btw)..
Another thing I have brought up in some other threads was that she apparently lost interest in stallions. We had two of them in our stables and walking by them with her, these two often started to make advances to her. Her only reaction was hiding behind me, as if she wanted to say "Fuck off, guys. I know where I belong."
I´m not the type of guy that is convinced quickly. But over the years , I´m pretty damn sure she actually enjoyed my presence, she enjoyed sleeping with me. In the last eight years, I used to feed the horses at 5 - 5:20 AM and after I finished, I joined her to sleep with her. Very often, I approached her box, seeing her standing in the typical mating position, with her tail pointing straight upwards. She was so used to it, she made it her habit to pee just before or while I was reaching her box, knowing that we will have intercourse. She literally "flushed" herself before as she was expecting me to arrive.
Of course there´s no way to tell for sure if she really enjoyed sleeping with me, but there are so much hints for it and not even one hint against it. She also knew that the only thing it took her to keep me from having sex was a simple step aside. Sometimes, she wasn´t in the mood and used that form of communication to say "No".
I always respected her refusal and thus I´m pretty sure that she knew how to prevent "it".
So, let´s see: we have a mare that knows how to withdraw from my advances when not in the right mood. We have several signs of pleasure, such as real equine (!) orgasm (not the fake ass shit they try to sell you in multiple "zoo" forums"), we have an "unnatural" kind of behavior by enjoying her mate´s company after sex for longer periods of time, we have signs of total relaxation, we have audible signs like moaning ( the famous "ooooffff!" sounds) during intercourse , we have active participation in intercourse (literally sitting onto my lap by lowering and arching her back, backing into me, licking her lips,chewing , turning around,showing the typical equine "f* me" face etc.). We also have the pictures I posted in here proving the extraordinary trust we had in each other (hope you have seen them...), I trusted her so much I even got fellatio many more times I can count. My one and only real injury I received from a horse was her accidentally biting my dick because I was too much into it and pushed myself into her mouth too much, triggering her chewing reflex, what led to a total circumcision..and guess what I did right after the 6 weeks it took to recover from that surgery? The first was fellatio...and after that, I slept with her as we both were kinda "dried out" and yearning for each other after a 6 week phase of no sex. After this incident, she never chewed again while I was inside her mouth, she always turned her head before she started chewing. She even swallowed...of course, it´s just a guess, but I really believe she liked having sex with me a lot.
All I experienced with her just reassures me in my believes and I do not see how I could possibly misinterpret anything here. Remember that we were together for 22 years, with an daily average of 4-5 hours accompanying her...I knew her from scratch and she knew me from scratch. If she ever would´ve shown a sign of discomfort or apathy, I immediately would´ve quitted having sex with her as it is the way I understand true zoophilia.
horse_account 1 point on 2016-04-13 02:42:49
Humans and other animals enjoy interacting with each other. Having sex is a form of interaction. It's a way to bond with another thing emotionally, like playing checkers but more intimate. That's why sex is more enjoyable than masturbation.
foxyramirez 6 points on 2016-04-09 10:23:10
Speaking from a knowledge of mammals, biologically the genitalia of every species as I know it have massive clusters of nerves. From an evolutionary prospective, it would make sense that pleasure would be a good incentive for breeding. Those that feel the highest grades of pleasure are more likely to breed because they have the highest incentive to. A species with an incredible drive to breed are simply more likely to propagate and drive competition out through numbers. In some species of primates, sex is even used to define social standing and develope friendships. Suffice to say, it is very much likely that other animal species derive pleasure from sex, though, it is clear they express it very differently; our expression of pleasure is likely evolved from our highly developed sense of communication. We develope social connections through sex, and in fact have specific chemicals in our brain that release to create the state of love to form lasting family structure.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2016-04-09 10:36:29
"highly developed sense of communication"...anthropocentrism detected...;)
"specific chemicals in our brain (...) to create the state of love"..yes, the most effective one is called oxytocin and, surprise,surprise, can be found in the brains of a vast number of mammals, too...
I was tempted to give you an upvote, but then you drifted off into the common "human exceptionalism" bogus rubbish right at the end...
foxyramirez 1 point on 2016-04-09 12:27:24
I didn't want to speak out of ignorance. I wasn't entirely sure the levels other mammals get from the act of mating. It's certainly not just a human thing. As far as I know it, just about every chemical experience we enjoy is shared a cross all of primates. It's other mammals I'm less sure about. Brain science is weird, in that over all species, the organs we share largely all do the same things save for the brain. The various ways instinct and personality is expressed throughout the animal kingdom is simply amazing.
zetacola+ Rum 2 points on 2016-04-10 21:57:19
"highly developed sense of communication"...anthropocentrism detected
Humans are among the most social animals on Earth, if not the most social animal of all. Our main evolutionary advantage is that of communication. It's not human exceptionalism to believe we are better able to communicate than other animals, it's observation of objective reality. I hate putting humans on a pedestal as much as the next guy, but denying we have strengths unrivaled in the animal kingdom is just foolish to me.
And yeah, oxytocin is found in other animals as well. But how can we know they experience this hormone as we do? We can't even be sure all humans experience it the same, hell science has shown that males and females within the human species don't even respond to oxytocin the same way.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2016-04-11 04:13:16
So...humans are the most social animals on earth? Tell me, what other species has developed things that could possibly destroy our entire habitat called earth? What other species leads wars? What other species has developed fascism, racism, hate and religion?
There´s a reason why more advanced species usually are depicted as empathically communicating with each other in science fiction. There´s a reason why zen masters try to dissolve their pupils´ normal communication system by silence. Language is based on symbols and whoever controls these symbols, controls us. Our language misleds us, it creates another reality. When I say the word "water", is your thirst quenched? The map isn´t the territory, but humans are like fish that don´t even recognize the water around them anymore. Our human world is entirely made of words and concepts. Words made us lose real connection to reality. We mistake the map inside our heads as the territory ´cause we are so used to words and language.
Words create categories; categories disconnect us from reality. "The jews" , "the n-words" etc...categories delete individualism and objective observance. The first and probably the biggest task a zen student faces is to silence the voices in his/her head. Language is flawed: imagine you want to express your deep love for another human and say that you love him/her like strawberries. For you, the positive connotation of the word "strawberry" is self explanatory because you really like strawberries. But your loved one may be allergic to strawberries and thus will receive your words in a totally wrong way because of different connotations words can have.
I dare you to refrain from talking for, let´s say, 5 days. Do it, even if it´s only because of curiosity what this weird German has written on reddit. Just give it a shot. You will be surprised of the things you can learn by exercising this little experiment. After you´ve done it, we can continue talking about language and how unrivaled it is in animal kingdom. If you don´t lock yourself up in your room to avoid creepy and embarrassing situations, but continue meeting other humans without responding to them verbally, you can actually learn a very useful and meaningful lesson about yourself, body language and humans in general. If you decide to give it a shot, I recommend to observe everything that happens. how others respond, how you desperately try to substitute the oh so superior human communication system , how effective it is at the beginning and at the end of our little experiment, how your perception of the inside and outside world will change by abandoning language... I can only recommend doing this experiment at least once in your life, it will teach you valuable things.
Oxytocin, as any other hormone like serotonine and adrenaline, has the same neorochemical effects in all mammals. Oxytocin concentration usually is very high in species that prefer a monogamous "lifestyle" and is very low in promiscuous species. So, it is pretty safe to say that the basic neurochemical operational mechanisms are not only comparable, but nearly similar. What can differ is how an individual experiences the impact of a specific hormone. For example, some can enjoy the adrenaline rush experienced in extreme sports; others will flee from it. But that is basically the only variable in this neurochemical system.
Maybe you could compare it to drug usage: some will get high and enjoy ingestion or inhalation of cannabis, others will have an unpleasant experience, the infamous "horror trip" with bad sensations and anxieties. The basic mechaism of THC is opening the filters that pick out the few "important" signals from the everflowing stream of signals received by your receiving system/consciousness. THC can increase the signals coming through by a fator of 10 - 20, LSD will open up your filters by the factor of 5 - 10 K. How one deals with the overflow of signals, that´s what depends on the individual.
But with oxytocin, it´s not nearly as complicated. Research has proven that oxytocin does not have such varying effects, it clearly is evoking the same feelings of "love" in human males and females alike...and I honestly doubt that it´s completely different with animals...especially when there´s research out there that has observed two closely related species; one living monogamous and had high oxytocin levels, the other living promiscuous and had a low overall oxytocin level. Oxytocin seems to be an universal monogamy inflictor...even in the animal/mammal kingdom;)
zetacola+ Rum 2 points on 2016-04-11 16:11:16
So...humans are the most social animals on earth? Tell me, what other species has developed things that could possibly destroy our entire habitat called earth?
What the hell does destroying the habitat have to do with being social or not?
What other species leads wars? What other species has developed fascism, racism, hate and religion?
Err... None, because other species lack the fucking communication skills necessary to form societies and therefore are unable to partake in complex societal phenomena like those. And yeah... Tribalism occurs within the animal kingdom.
Language is a system of communication. Communication is a tool. It's a tool of the social animal, as non-social animals have no use for it. Communication can take many forms and it just so happens one of these forms is verbal. There is not a fundamental difference between (verbal) language and other forms of communication. But it just so happens humans have a considerable skill with verbal communication; a skill that has been their main evolutionary advantage; a skill that is unmatched by any other species on Earth. If you are denying this, you are completely and utterly delusional.
Language is based on symbols and whoever controls these symbols, controls us.
Orwell would be proud... The "symbols" we create for ourselves is the result of our neural brain. It is our neural brain that lead us to the creation of "symbols", "images" and concepts. And, big surprise, everything that has a neural brain functions exactly the same. Stimuli go in, neural pathway A get activated, neural pathway A get stronger (and therefore has greater chance of being activated again), physical reaction comes out. Rinse and repeat. The only difference between us and other animals that possess a central nervous system is that ours is exponentially more neuron-dense. That's it. We've even reached a point where mathematical models explain and are even able to replicate the workings of a neural network.
If you want to "break free" of your own brain's inner working in an attempt to connect with "reality", feel free. But the way I've always seen it, is that the duty of the zen student is not to "silence the voices in his head," but rather to accept that the voices will always be present and not let himself be influenced by them. And yeah, also the zen student should respect the fifth precept and not take mind-distracting drugs.
and I honestly doubt that it´s completely different with animals
Well, you can believe what you want, but please don't hold your beliefs as objective truths.
Studies of chimps and other species show that tribal behavior is not limited to humans. It's a known evolutionary survival tactic amongst multiple species. Further, multiple species both within and outside mammals have complex communication and rudimentary language, with specific sounds having specific meanings.
Before you start talking about biology, it would help if you did the research.
zetacola+ Rum 1 point on 2016-04-12 23:59:32
You're replying to the wrong person buddy.
I am well aware that tribalism takes place elsewhere in the animal realm. I also never denied animals communicate. All I said is that they lack a language complex enough to form societies of the scale of what humans accomplish.
ivy_bound 2 points on 2016-04-13 04:08:27
It's unlikely that it is language holding certain species back. In the case of some apes, it's probably just a matter of a few tens of thousands of years practice. If you want a real difference between humanity and animals, look towards the ideas of metaphor and storytelling.
zetacola+ Rum 1 point on 2016-04-13 23:59:31
It's unlikely that it is language holding certain species back.
Well, what else? It's not like physical prowess is the main advantage of humans. And look at how far we've gone. We dominate the planet, in case you didn't notice.
it's probably just a matter of a few tens of thousands of years practice.
Yes, by a process called "evolution" some species may develop brains sophisticated to match ours. Again, what exactly did I say that wasn't true?
If you want a real difference between humanity and animals
When did I ever say I wanted a difference between humanity and animals? I'm replying to someone who thinks our highly developed sense of communication is "human exceptionalism." Yes, humans have an exceptionally well developed sense of communication. This isn't about finding differences between humans and animals, it's about recognizing that humans are the best adapted species to communicate.
I mean, why the hell do I even have to argue about this? As of this very moment, I'm instantaneously communicating to you, a total stranger on the other side of the planet. What other species is capable of such a feat?
By the by, gizmodo isn't a source.
ivy_bound 1 point on 2016-04-14 00:27:14
No, but the sources that they reference ARE. I just grabbed a handy link from Google. Use your head.
And technically, any species that has access to a computer is capable of such communications. Claiming that that technology separates us from animals moves the line of separation to about thirty years ago. If you want to claim the ability to use technology, then you start counting native tribesmen as animals. If you talk about the ability to learn technology, then a large number of species that have been taught to use the tech are suddenly human.
Again, it is the use of metaphor and story that separates us.
zetacola+ Rum 1 point on 2016-04-14 01:49:17
And technically, any species that has access to a computer is capable of such communications.
Holy shit, you are delusional.
ivy_bound 1 point on 2016-04-14 03:53:33
Really? Because there are multiple researchers, working with multiple species, communicating in English through computers, sign language, and other devices. That the other species are learning to use.
zetacola+ Rum 1 point on 2016-04-15 19:55:32
Okay. Do you have more gizmodo to support your claim?
With a "vocabulary" of a little over a 1000 words, Chaser the border collie is said to have the largest memory in non-human animals. She can't enunciate the words, she can't read the words, she can't write the words, but she is able to do something even great apes - our closest relatives - are unable to do: hear a word a handful of times and know what the acoustic patterns stand for. This doesn't account for understanding complex and abstract ideas, only knowing that verbal sounds stand for something tangible. Now, I know animals have been shown to understand more complex concepts, but Chaser still has the largest memory for words. And that's the thing with language. You need both memory and cognition to make it work.
Chaser is a dog; a herding dog. Dogs have closely associated with humans for thousands of years; herding dogs have been specifically bred for their intelligence and their ability to closely listen to their owner. It stands to reason that dogs have an innate capacity to grok human language. But it is still human language.
So what about other animals? Great apes and birds have been shown to understand concepts such as greater, smaller or same and communicate them through language. Dolphins and elephants have been demonstrated to be self-aware and possess rudimentary language...
And even with all that said, nothing come even close to what the human brain can accomplish. Even with a thousand words vocabulary, even with rudimentary understanding of abstract concepts, it is simply not enough to claim parity with humans. The active vocabulary of the average anglophone is estimated to be over 10,000 words, which include both verbal and written form.
Animals are learning to use graphical interfaces that we designed for them, not technology. We made technology. We made technology because we have a sophisticated set of languages that enable use to communicate complex ideas to one another.
This isn't to say humans are superior. This is to say humans are more efficient at being social animals, which is the entire premise of this conversation.
References. For both apes and cetaceans, and not limited to them. From scientific papers, as summaries are apparently beneath you. We've been working with and communicating with apes for decades, through sign language and computers and we've communicated effectively with elephants. We're only now beginning to dissect the layers of nonhuman communication, which can, in a few vocalizations, more effectively convey the nature of a threat than our own language can.
What animals can NOT do is lie, grasp metaphor, or similar acts of creativity. They do not, in other words, have the capacity for storytelling.
Your turn for references, and try to produce some that were made within the last ten years. Mine were produced in the last three.
zetacola+ Rum 0 points on 2016-04-17 17:27:35
Ok. So articles written by humans using a human language are supposed to make me understand what exactly? That human communication isn't superior to animal communication?
I really don't understand what you're trying to prove.
I also don't really know what articles to produce to defend the strawman you've been beating with a stick for the past week. Do you want a link to Merriam-Webster's website?
Temporal lobes, which process language, are found only in primates and are largest in humans. This part of the cerebral cortex is believed to give humans the unique ability to communicate in propositional speech. Likewise, the prefrontal cortex, which is believed to do with complex cognitive behavior as well as moderating social behavior and processing of language has also expanded the most in humans.
As for cetaceans, the question of dolphin intelligence has recently been the subject of denial. That isn't to say they can't communicate, but to hold these animals on a cognitive level comparable to humans on the basis of their brain size and neuron count alone may be unfounded.
ivy_bound 1 point on 2016-04-17 21:23:11
So, two published, peer reviewed scientific articles discussing at great lengths recent discoveries about language in non-humans, and you're countering with a dictionary. I think it's safe to say that this discussion is over.
zetacola+ Rum 0 points on 2016-04-17 23:49:03
Did you know the text in blue are hyperlinks? That means you can click on them and be taken to other websites.
ivy_bound 1 point on 2016-04-18 06:21:24
You linked to two books (one from 1975, one from 1990), one article on relative brain shape, and two articles on reasoning ability, only one of those articles being within the scope of papers I asked for, and none having to do with the topic at hand, which has to do with conclusions based on study of communication, not neuroscience (which is a poorly understood field at best, constantly evolving, and a poor basis for drawing conclusions).
I offered two papers based entirely on studies of actual communication between species. Published within the last five years.
Not exactly comparable.
zetacola+ Rum 1 point on 2016-04-19 01:28:44
Let me reiterate the premise of this conversation ok?
Humans are among the most social animals on Earth, if not the most social animal of all. Our main evolutionary advantage is that of communication. It's not human exceptionalism to believe we are better able to communicate than other animals, it's observation of objective reality.
What exactly have you offered me that contradicts this statement? I've offered you literature that demonstrates that the temporal lobes and prefrontal cortices, parts of the brain that have to do with language processing and complex social behavior, are the most developed in humans.
Bringing up that animals can communicate is cute, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. I'm going to say it again. Do you need a link to a dictionary to accept that human language is more sophisticated than any other form of communication in the animal kingdom? Because I have a hard time figuring out what to link you otherwise.
I'm going to stop replying now because this is an absolute waste of my time. PM when you'll have had a conversation on Kantian ethics with a dolphin.
ivy_bound 1 point on 2016-04-19 01:36:43
Given as you have yet to show human-to-human communication with the effectiveness and signal density of most nonhuman warning cries, which in a single noise burst can provide an accurate description of aggressors, their direction, motion, and number, and that the only evidence you have provided is neuroscience from the 90s and earlier, which was vague, inaccurate, and has changed considerably, and has little to do with actual communication, no, you have not provided sufficient evidence that it is communication, and not complex abstract thought processes such as metaphor which separates us. Suggesting Kantian ethics can only be discussed because of language, and not because philosophy requires metaphor to exist and expand, shows a lack of understanding of language, metaphor, and philosophy.
[deleted] 1 point on 2016-04-10 21:57:19
[deleted]
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 2 points on 2016-04-11 00:07:58
I'm not sure it's bogus in this one, select instance. Our ability to communicate IS arguably far above any animals ability, at least that we know of.
ivy_bound 2 points on 2016-04-12 12:41:56
Pleasure is a sensation set off by several neurochemicals, including dopamine and oxytocin. These chemicals are released as rewards for survival behavior, including eating good food (salty/fatty/sweet), engaging in reproductive behavior, caring for young, and so forth. They can also be set off by a variety of naturally occurring chemicals.
These neurochemical interactions are not unique to humans, nor are the stimuli that cause them. Aside from hunting/mating/survival behavior, multiple species from multiple families, including insects, have shown pleasure from chemical stimulus, including alcohol, mushrooms, and other stimulants and psychoactives. There has also been plenty of evidence of uncommon orientations among animals, from homosexual behavior to attraction to other species, including humans.
/r/zoophilia archive
At this point I refuse to believe they dont know the answer. Its just that the answer makes them uncomfortable.
top comment, 'define pleasure', motherfucker you know exactly whats meant by that, stop trying to make the question deeper than what was meant. The fact that people cant talk straight about this kind of thing bugs me no end.
Animals have clits/dicks and those things are there to feel pleasure, stop thinking humans are that much above other mammals that we're the only ones that enjoy sex.
...and at this point I refuse to believe you don´t know that animal sexuality isn´t common grounds for everyone outside our little "special interest" group. I also refuse to believe you don´t know about anthropocentrism and how it is mankinds´ undisputed general point of view due to religion and an inherent need to feel superior. I DO agree on the top comment; what exactly IS pleasure? Some derive pleasure from being hit and hurt physically and psychically, others are pleasured by hurting others. Some have sex without any sign of pleasure, others are completely drowned within their own fantasies so they don´t even bother trying to find pleasure in real life. The fact that I have two legs does not prove I can run a marathon. The fact that I don´t have two legs does not prove I can´t "run" a marathon (special olympics, anyone? ;) ). the fact that every human being has a brain does not prove everyone is actually using it...;)
As far as I read, the discussion is an open one and seems to lead somewhere...of course us "filthy animal fuckers" know this, have known this for ages..but let them "normals" find out the truth themselves, at a pace they feel comfortable with.
Sqeezing it into their heads by force won´t lead to enlightenment, it just builds up hostility and resistance. Just let them furless monkey play...
Meanwhile, have a treat to calm down: htts://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MujRLvZ61jE
P.S.: I struggle with temptation...the little dick in me really yearns for throwing in that they should ask someone who knows from first hand experience..."Y U no ask a zoophile???"...;)
Humans who live in a society advanced enough to access the Internet should be aware that : no, humans are not some magical creatures created in the image of God, but rather products of evolution like any other animal and that yes, the biological blueprints for all mammals is roughly the same. All is left to do is the math, really.
Squeezing what in their heads? Common sense? I think if you have to squeeze common sense in somebody's skull you are right to assume that this person is an idiot.
"Do animals get pain when being hit in the face with a baseball bat like humans?"
Unfortunately, the very fact that that is what they are means it's often beyond them to realise anything you might consider "obvious" or "common sense".
haha that's genius...
But yeah... In the context of someone asking a question on /r/askscience of all places, I think they should at least be aware of this.
Edit: TIL formatting breaks links
I don't know about you 30-30, but the purpose of a clit and the nerve endings purpose etc was properly covered in BOTH my high school biology and sex-ed classes. I even learned the organs are common to all members of a group known as "placental mammals."
This shouldn't be some great mystery, even among "normals." This is a case of chosen ignorance.
Neither my sex ed or my high school biology discussed the existence of the clitoris. I only knew about it at that age from Monty Python, and everyone around me thought either that humans were the only species to "enjoy sex", or that it was humans and dolphins.
Sex ed is really poor quality where I live.
Same here, none of my classes in junior high or high school mentioned the clitoris.
sighs
That's depressing, no offense intended, it just is.
I agree.
Have you been taught that there are many forms of female orgasm and the clitoral is only one amongst many others? Even in full heat, my mare disliked clitoral contact and never climaxed from that. She preferred vaginal climax and I assembled my plastic pedestals so they technically were a little bit "too high" , so I had contact with her upper vaginal wall closest to the anus, farthest from her clitoris. When climaxing, she arched her back and literally "sat" on my lap.
Before my longtime relationship with her, I had shorter relationships with other mares, small and big, pony, normal sized mare and even one draft mare; except the draft mare, not a single lady was into clitoris contact at all. They all preferred penile contact at the upper part of their vaginas, climaxing often and hard. From my experience, I think that the clitoris is overrated and surely isn´t a "pleasure button" you simply have to press to make her go off.
Biological organisms aren´t as mechanical as it commonly is believed and taught. When I remember it correctly, I recall reading that even in human females, there is a significant amount of sexually non dysfunctional women who experience clitoral stimulation as painful and unfavorable/unpleasant. It isn´t as simple as you like to portray it.
Of course I wasn't taught in such detail, but beggars can't be choosers I suppose. My education does appear to be the exception to the rule judging from the above though...
No, it would not appear to be now would it? I suppose my own sexual inexperience is showing.
To be fair, the rules of the subreddit discourage anecdotes, opinions etc. and comments like that are regularly deleted.
His point is more
I mean, I wouldn't be completely sure about a scientific definition of pleasure either. Maybe with a better understanding of the brain and extensive brain scans we could say for sure... One of the first few comments was someone who said right now we can only know from a "behavioral" perspective, i.e. looking at the behavior of animals and trying to read from it whether it's pleasurable and I guess that's not a really exact science...
I get the rules over there, I was being a little hyperbolic, but it just seems like such a weasel way out to say we need more research and move the goalposts again. how much evidence do they need? without going into too much detail, is that not what animal testing is about, getting results from a different yet sort of similar species and drawing parallels between the two species? But this suddenly stops being a good way of predicting things when it comes to sex? I'm no biologist but I am extremely suspicious... reading through the thread again other people have raised this exact point.
Obviously this isn't a topic many people think about but ignorance isn't an excuse to jump to conclusions.
I am trying to figure out the source of this thought, but I think it is Teleology (the idea that things are designed with a purpose). For example, sex creates offspring therefore God designed sex to only be used to create offspring. Anything other than that is sin (which means "off the mark". not necessarily "immoral").
Sex without reproduction is seen as sin ("off the mark"), because it does not align with God's design. There is a converse idea, Teleonomy, that explains that things can have an apparent purpose without having been designed. This concept is explored a lot is complex systems theory. According to this, reproduction happens, because sex is pleasurable and animals like pleasure. It is a very simple feedback system, but it works.
They probably don't see it as a magical, spiritual thing. They probably don't think weird shit like "our spirits became one" or "that was 'transcendent'". They probably just think "that felt REALLY fucking good". That's not a bad thing. People who see sex as some kind of fucking religious experience are weird.
Yeah, right, ´cause animals are totally shallow and have no inner universe at all...sigh Animals are basically biological automata that don´t give a fuck abut such stupid concepts like "love" and such. :(
Let´s cut it out on the irony for a moment: how do you know what animals feel and think? Why do you look down on people when they consider sexuality as something transcendental and ego defying? If actual sexual intercourse has no meta level, why would almost anyone I know, including animals, prefer intercourse, especially with an individual who they feel love for over masturbation although the basic feeling isn´t much of a difference? Why does masturbtion leave you rather unsatisfied , but making love with your soulmate leaves you with an afterglow and a body buzz for hours?
I regularly do some exercises taught by the Tantrists(for example training the perinaeum by contractions at will). It helped me elongate intercourse with my mare, with my personal record set at nearly 80 minutes of mutual pleasure, several orgasms my mare had and a gigantic, mindblowing final simultaneous climax launching us both into a bliss lasting for an additional hour I was hugging her, she dropping her head onto my shoulder, still shaking from the internal convulsions and both of us unable to move. Of course I could be just another weirdo mistaking a simple feelgood experience as transcendence. But it was these kinds of intercourse that bonded us so much that I could ride her without a saddle and reins...and I´m not talking about a little bareback riding in the country, but the literal ability to do entire advanced dressage lessons perfectly. So I think it is justified to assume that I simply wasn´t fooling myself because the effects were visible immediately after at the riding range and witnessed by many fellow riders. Have you ever experienced riding Travers or a Piaffe without a saddle and reins? Our transcendental sex bonded us together so tight that I only had to think of a lesson and she voluntarily did what she was supposed to do, without any further actions needed from my side. I just sat on top of her, my arms crossed in front of my chest.
tl;dr: If you consider people with transcendental sexual experiences as weird, then I have any freedom to see people not seeing it as that, insisting on their shallow approach as the truth, as monodimensional and feel basically sorry for them and their apparent inability to experience sexuality as more than a mechanical ego pleasure.
Exactly that is what R.A. Wilson meant when he stated that the average human ego is wrapped in cellophane and most humans are unable to rip this layer of isolation for even a single second their entire lives. He also stated that average sexuality is nothing more than extended masturbation: the average human never breaks his cocoon and thus does not have sex with another individual, but simply is masturbating with or at each other.
/u/horse_account, if you ever experience truly transcendent sexuality, you´ll definitely feel as if you never had real sex before and all you did before was a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy with very low quality, I promise. ;)
This is absolutely beautiful, and I must admit my jealousy of your experiences, because they sound very much like what would happen if the play Equus ended happily. Such experiences of interconnectedness in a spiritual sense (for lack of a better word) are far too rare.
And yet, I think that you and horse_account are talking past each other. What you are describing is your experience, albeit with significant descriptions of your marefriend's behavior that, if true, would show at least the sort of bonding you describe. What horse_account asked about, however, was your marefriend's experience, and whether she, too, felt this as transcendent, or whether it was more basically emotional than that.
Even if you and she did feel this tantric bliss as a connection between souls, it is my belief that all of these feelings and actions are physically controlled and physically stimulated. The difference between your experiences and masturbation lies in the feedback from your partner and your mutual ability to account for this and, consciously or not, take greater pleasure and emotional significance from it.
What you and she had was marvelous, rivaling (in my view) the great love stories of all time, like Casablanca or Pride and Prejudice. It is all the more marvelous, from my perspective, that all of this can arise eventually from such common ingredients as methane and water, without a spiritual communications network installed above it. That your ancestors were separated 70 million years ago, and yet you still have so much in common that you can desire each other, tell each other how you feel, and act on it to your mutual benefit.
I see your point here...please forgive me, I tend to forget that not everybody has in depth knowledge of a mare´s sexual behavior. Let me clarify it: usually, a mare that´s been bred will quickly return to her "normal" behavior, like munching, walking around etc. You definitely won´t see a mare that sticks around the stallion after breeding for longer intervals of time, she´ll just wait until the "effects" have worn off and then will retunr to mind her own business. What my mare did was clearly out of the "normal", even when expaning the range of diverse after-sex behavior. She did this although she was totally free to walk away, I even remember one incident she didn´t even cared for her food when it was poured into her trogue half an hour after our intercourse. She was totally relaxed, I had the weight of her head on my shoulder, her lower lip hung down (a sign of total relaxation in horses,btw)..
Another thing I have brought up in some other threads was that she apparently lost interest in stallions. We had two of them in our stables and walking by them with her, these two often started to make advances to her. Her only reaction was hiding behind me, as if she wanted to say "Fuck off, guys. I know where I belong."
I´m not the type of guy that is convinced quickly. But over the years , I´m pretty damn sure she actually enjoyed my presence, she enjoyed sleeping with me. In the last eight years, I used to feed the horses at 5 - 5:20 AM and after I finished, I joined her to sleep with her. Very often, I approached her box, seeing her standing in the typical mating position, with her tail pointing straight upwards. She was so used to it, she made it her habit to pee just before or while I was reaching her box, knowing that we will have intercourse. She literally "flushed" herself before as she was expecting me to arrive. Of course there´s no way to tell for sure if she really enjoyed sleeping with me, but there are so much hints for it and not even one hint against it. She also knew that the only thing it took her to keep me from having sex was a simple step aside. Sometimes, she wasn´t in the mood and used that form of communication to say "No". I always respected her refusal and thus I´m pretty sure that she knew how to prevent "it".
So, let´s see: we have a mare that knows how to withdraw from my advances when not in the right mood. We have several signs of pleasure, such as real equine (!) orgasm (not the fake ass shit they try to sell you in multiple "zoo" forums"), we have an "unnatural" kind of behavior by enjoying her mate´s company after sex for longer periods of time, we have signs of total relaxation, we have audible signs like moaning ( the famous "ooooffff!" sounds) during intercourse , we have active participation in intercourse (literally sitting onto my lap by lowering and arching her back, backing into me, licking her lips,chewing , turning around,showing the typical equine "f* me" face etc.). We also have the pictures I posted in here proving the extraordinary trust we had in each other (hope you have seen them...), I trusted her so much I even got fellatio many more times I can count. My one and only real injury I received from a horse was her accidentally biting my dick because I was too much into it and pushed myself into her mouth too much, triggering her chewing reflex, what led to a total circumcision..and guess what I did right after the 6 weeks it took to recover from that surgery? The first was fellatio...and after that, I slept with her as we both were kinda "dried out" and yearning for each other after a 6 week phase of no sex. After this incident, she never chewed again while I was inside her mouth, she always turned her head before she started chewing. She even swallowed...of course, it´s just a guess, but I really believe she liked having sex with me a lot. All I experienced with her just reassures me in my believes and I do not see how I could possibly misinterpret anything here. Remember that we were together for 22 years, with an daily average of 4-5 hours accompanying her...I knew her from scratch and she knew me from scratch. If she ever would´ve shown a sign of discomfort or apathy, I immediately would´ve quitted having sex with her as it is the way I understand true zoophilia.
Humans and other animals enjoy interacting with each other. Having sex is a form of interaction. It's a way to bond with another thing emotionally, like playing checkers but more intimate. That's why sex is more enjoyable than masturbation.
Speaking from a knowledge of mammals, biologically the genitalia of every species as I know it have massive clusters of nerves. From an evolutionary prospective, it would make sense that pleasure would be a good incentive for breeding. Those that feel the highest grades of pleasure are more likely to breed because they have the highest incentive to. A species with an incredible drive to breed are simply more likely to propagate and drive competition out through numbers. In some species of primates, sex is even used to define social standing and develope friendships. Suffice to say, it is very much likely that other animal species derive pleasure from sex, though, it is clear they express it very differently; our expression of pleasure is likely evolved from our highly developed sense of communication. We develope social connections through sex, and in fact have specific chemicals in our brain that release to create the state of love to form lasting family structure.
"highly developed sense of communication"...anthropocentrism detected...;) "specific chemicals in our brain (...) to create the state of love"..yes, the most effective one is called oxytocin and, surprise,surprise, can be found in the brains of a vast number of mammals, too... I was tempted to give you an upvote, but then you drifted off into the common "human exceptionalism" bogus rubbish right at the end...
I didn't want to speak out of ignorance. I wasn't entirely sure the levels other mammals get from the act of mating. It's certainly not just a human thing. As far as I know it, just about every chemical experience we enjoy is shared a cross all of primates. It's other mammals I'm less sure about. Brain science is weird, in that over all species, the organs we share largely all do the same things save for the brain. The various ways instinct and personality is expressed throughout the animal kingdom is simply amazing.
Humans are among the most social animals on Earth, if not the most social animal of all. Our main evolutionary advantage is that of communication. It's not human exceptionalism to believe we are better able to communicate than other animals, it's observation of objective reality. I hate putting humans on a pedestal as much as the next guy, but denying we have strengths unrivaled in the animal kingdom is just foolish to me.
And yeah, oxytocin is found in other animals as well. But how can we know they experience this hormone as we do? We can't even be sure all humans experience it the same, hell science has shown that males and females within the human species don't even respond to oxytocin the same way.
So...humans are the most social animals on earth? Tell me, what other species has developed things that could possibly destroy our entire habitat called earth? What other species leads wars? What other species has developed fascism, racism, hate and religion?
There´s a reason why more advanced species usually are depicted as empathically communicating with each other in science fiction. There´s a reason why zen masters try to dissolve their pupils´ normal communication system by silence. Language is based on symbols and whoever controls these symbols, controls us. Our language misleds us, it creates another reality. When I say the word "water", is your thirst quenched? The map isn´t the territory, but humans are like fish that don´t even recognize the water around them anymore. Our human world is entirely made of words and concepts. Words made us lose real connection to reality. We mistake the map inside our heads as the territory ´cause we are so used to words and language.
Words create categories; categories disconnect us from reality. "The jews" , "the n-words" etc...categories delete individualism and objective observance. The first and probably the biggest task a zen student faces is to silence the voices in his/her head. Language is flawed: imagine you want to express your deep love for another human and say that you love him/her like strawberries. For you, the positive connotation of the word "strawberry" is self explanatory because you really like strawberries. But your loved one may be allergic to strawberries and thus will receive your words in a totally wrong way because of different connotations words can have.
I dare you to refrain from talking for, let´s say, 5 days. Do it, even if it´s only because of curiosity what this weird German has written on reddit. Just give it a shot. You will be surprised of the things you can learn by exercising this little experiment. After you´ve done it, we can continue talking about language and how unrivaled it is in animal kingdom. If you don´t lock yourself up in your room to avoid creepy and embarrassing situations, but continue meeting other humans without responding to them verbally, you can actually learn a very useful and meaningful lesson about yourself, body language and humans in general. If you decide to give it a shot, I recommend to observe everything that happens. how others respond, how you desperately try to substitute the oh so superior human communication system , how effective it is at the beginning and at the end of our little experiment, how your perception of the inside and outside world will change by abandoning language... I can only recommend doing this experiment at least once in your life, it will teach you valuable things.
Oxytocin, as any other hormone like serotonine and adrenaline, has the same neorochemical effects in all mammals. Oxytocin concentration usually is very high in species that prefer a monogamous "lifestyle" and is very low in promiscuous species. So, it is pretty safe to say that the basic neurochemical operational mechanisms are not only comparable, but nearly similar. What can differ is how an individual experiences the impact of a specific hormone. For example, some can enjoy the adrenaline rush experienced in extreme sports; others will flee from it. But that is basically the only variable in this neurochemical system. Maybe you could compare it to drug usage: some will get high and enjoy ingestion or inhalation of cannabis, others will have an unpleasant experience, the infamous "horror trip" with bad sensations and anxieties. The basic mechaism of THC is opening the filters that pick out the few "important" signals from the everflowing stream of signals received by your receiving system/consciousness. THC can increase the signals coming through by a fator of 10 - 20, LSD will open up your filters by the factor of 5 - 10 K. How one deals with the overflow of signals, that´s what depends on the individual.
But with oxytocin, it´s not nearly as complicated. Research has proven that oxytocin does not have such varying effects, it clearly is evoking the same feelings of "love" in human males and females alike...and I honestly doubt that it´s completely different with animals...especially when there´s research out there that has observed two closely related species; one living monogamous and had high oxytocin levels, the other living promiscuous and had a low overall oxytocin level. Oxytocin seems to be an universal monogamy inflictor...even in the animal/mammal kingdom;)
What the hell does destroying the habitat have to do with being social or not?
Err... None, because other species lack the fucking communication skills necessary to form societies and therefore are unable to partake in complex societal phenomena like those. And yeah... Tribalism occurs within the animal kingdom.
Language is a system of communication. Communication is a tool. It's a tool of the social animal, as non-social animals have no use for it. Communication can take many forms and it just so happens one of these forms is verbal. There is not a fundamental difference between (verbal) language and other forms of communication. But it just so happens humans have a considerable skill with verbal communication; a skill that has been their main evolutionary advantage; a skill that is unmatched by any other species on Earth. If you are denying this, you are completely and utterly delusional.
Orwell would be proud... The "symbols" we create for ourselves is the result of our neural brain. It is our neural brain that lead us to the creation of "symbols", "images" and concepts. And, big surprise, everything that has a neural brain functions exactly the same. Stimuli go in, neural pathway A get activated, neural pathway A get stronger (and therefore has greater chance of being activated again), physical reaction comes out. Rinse and repeat. The only difference between us and other animals that possess a central nervous system is that ours is exponentially more neuron-dense. That's it. We've even reached a point where mathematical models explain and are even able to replicate the workings of a neural network.
If you want to "break free" of your own brain's inner working in an attempt to connect with "reality", feel free. But the way I've always seen it, is that the duty of the zen student is not to "silence the voices in his head," but rather to accept that the voices will always be present and not let himself be influenced by them. And yeah, also the zen student should respect the fifth precept and not take mind-distracting drugs.
Well, you can believe what you want, but please don't hold your beliefs as objective truths.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5572430/which-animals-make-war-other-than-humans
Studies of chimps and other species show that tribal behavior is not limited to humans. It's a known evolutionary survival tactic amongst multiple species. Further, multiple species both within and outside mammals have complex communication and rudimentary language, with specific sounds having specific meanings.
Before you start talking about biology, it would help if you did the research.
You're replying to the wrong person buddy.
I am well aware that tribalism takes place elsewhere in the animal realm. I also never denied animals communicate. All I said is that they lack a language complex enough to form societies of the scale of what humans accomplish.
It's unlikely that it is language holding certain species back. In the case of some apes, it's probably just a matter of a few tens of thousands of years practice. If you want a real difference between humanity and animals, look towards the ideas of metaphor and storytelling.
Well, what else? It's not like physical prowess is the main advantage of humans. And look at how far we've gone. We dominate the planet, in case you didn't notice.
Yes, by a process called "evolution" some species may develop brains sophisticated to match ours. Again, what exactly did I say that wasn't true?
When did I ever say I wanted a difference between humanity and animals? I'm replying to someone who thinks our highly developed sense of communication is "human exceptionalism." Yes, humans have an exceptionally well developed sense of communication. This isn't about finding differences between humans and animals, it's about recognizing that humans are the best adapted species to communicate.
I mean, why the hell do I even have to argue about this? As of this very moment, I'm instantaneously communicating to you, a total stranger on the other side of the planet. What other species is capable of such a feat?
By the by, gizmodo isn't a source.
No, but the sources that they reference ARE. I just grabbed a handy link from Google. Use your head.
And technically, any species that has access to a computer is capable of such communications. Claiming that that technology separates us from animals moves the line of separation to about thirty years ago. If you want to claim the ability to use technology, then you start counting native tribesmen as animals. If you talk about the ability to learn technology, then a large number of species that have been taught to use the tech are suddenly human.
Again, it is the use of metaphor and story that separates us.
Holy shit, you are delusional.
Really? Because there are multiple researchers, working with multiple species, communicating in English through computers, sign language, and other devices. That the other species are learning to use.
Okay. Do you have more gizmodo to support your claim?
With a "vocabulary" of a little over a 1000 words, Chaser the border collie is said to have the largest memory in non-human animals. She can't enunciate the words, she can't read the words, she can't write the words, but she is able to do something even great apes - our closest relatives - are unable to do: hear a word a handful of times and know what the acoustic patterns stand for. This doesn't account for understanding complex and abstract ideas, only knowing that verbal sounds stand for something tangible. Now, I know animals have been shown to understand more complex concepts, but Chaser still has the largest memory for words. And that's the thing with language. You need both memory and cognition to make it work.
Chaser is a dog; a herding dog. Dogs have closely associated with humans for thousands of years; herding dogs have been specifically bred for their intelligence and their ability to closely listen to their owner. It stands to reason that dogs have an innate capacity to grok human language. But it is still human language.
So what about other animals? Great apes and birds have been shown to understand concepts such as greater, smaller or same and communicate them through language. Dolphins and elephants have been demonstrated to be self-aware and possess rudimentary language...
And even with all that said, nothing come even close to what the human brain can accomplish. Even with a thousand words vocabulary, even with rudimentary understanding of abstract concepts, it is simply not enough to claim parity with humans. The active vocabulary of the average anglophone is estimated to be over 10,000 words, which include both verbal and written form.
Animals are learning to use graphical interfaces that we designed for them, not technology. We made technology. We made technology because we have a sophisticated set of languages that enable use to communicate complex ideas to one another.
This isn't to say humans are superior. This is to say humans are more efficient at being social animals, which is the entire premise of this conversation.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000334721300328X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959438814001226
References. For both apes and cetaceans, and not limited to them. From scientific papers, as summaries are apparently beneath you. We've been working with and communicating with apes for decades, through sign language and computers and we've communicated effectively with elephants. We're only now beginning to dissect the layers of nonhuman communication, which can, in a few vocalizations, more effectively convey the nature of a threat than our own language can.
What animals can NOT do is lie, grasp metaphor, or similar acts of creativity. They do not, in other words, have the capacity for storytelling.
Your turn for references, and try to produce some that were made within the last ten years. Mine were produced in the last three.
Ok. So articles written by humans using a human language are supposed to make me understand what exactly? That human communication isn't superior to animal communication?
I really don't understand what you're trying to prove.
I also don't really know what articles to produce to defend the strawman you've been beating with a stick for the past week. Do you want a link to Merriam-Webster's website?
Temporal lobes, which process language, are found only in primates and are largest in humans. This part of the cerebral cortex is believed to give humans the unique ability to communicate in propositional speech. Likewise, the prefrontal cortex, which is believed to do with complex cognitive behavior as well as moderating social behavior and processing of language has also expanded the most in humans.
As for cetaceans, the question of dolphin intelligence has recently been the subject of denial. That isn't to say they can't communicate, but to hold these animals on a cognitive level comparable to humans on the basis of their brain size and neuron count alone may be unfounded.
So, two published, peer reviewed scientific articles discussing at great lengths recent discoveries about language in non-humans, and you're countering with a dictionary. I think it's safe to say that this discussion is over.
Did you know the text in blue are hyperlinks? That means you can click on them and be taken to other websites.
You linked to two books (one from 1975, one from 1990), one article on relative brain shape, and two articles on reasoning ability, only one of those articles being within the scope of papers I asked for, and none having to do with the topic at hand, which has to do with conclusions based on study of communication, not neuroscience (which is a poorly understood field at best, constantly evolving, and a poor basis for drawing conclusions).
I offered two papers based entirely on studies of actual communication between species. Published within the last five years.
Not exactly comparable.
Let me reiterate the premise of this conversation ok?
What exactly have you offered me that contradicts this statement? I've offered you literature that demonstrates that the temporal lobes and prefrontal cortices, parts of the brain that have to do with language processing and complex social behavior, are the most developed in humans.
Bringing up that animals can communicate is cute, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. I'm going to say it again. Do you need a link to a dictionary to accept that human language is more sophisticated than any other form of communication in the animal kingdom? Because I have a hard time figuring out what to link you otherwise.
I'm going to stop replying now because this is an absolute waste of my time. PM when you'll have had a conversation on Kantian ethics with a dolphin.
Given as you have yet to show human-to-human communication with the effectiveness and signal density of most nonhuman warning cries, which in a single noise burst can provide an accurate description of aggressors, their direction, motion, and number, and that the only evidence you have provided is neuroscience from the 90s and earlier, which was vague, inaccurate, and has changed considerably, and has little to do with actual communication, no, you have not provided sufficient evidence that it is communication, and not complex abstract thought processes such as metaphor which separates us. Suggesting Kantian ethics can only be discussed because of language, and not because philosophy requires metaphor to exist and expand, shows a lack of understanding of language, metaphor, and philosophy.
[deleted]
I'm not sure it's bogus in this one, select instance. Our ability to communicate IS arguably far above any animals ability, at least that we know of.
Pleasure is a sensation set off by several neurochemicals, including dopamine and oxytocin. These chemicals are released as rewards for survival behavior, including eating good food (salty/fatty/sweet), engaging in reproductive behavior, caring for young, and so forth. They can also be set off by a variety of naturally occurring chemicals.
These neurochemical interactions are not unique to humans, nor are the stimuli that cause them. Aside from hunting/mating/survival behavior, multiple species from multiple families, including insects, have shown pleasure from chemical stimulus, including alcohol, mushrooms, and other stimulants and psychoactives. There has also been plenty of evidence of uncommon orientations among animals, from homosexual behavior to attraction to other species, including humans.