Topic: Humans are apes
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #115,737
Great Apes, to be precise. We are hairless bonobos, basically.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 9 hours later[^] [v] #1,278,659
Maybe YOU are.
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,676
If humans 'evolved' from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Funny how scientists are never able to answer this question.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,678
@previous (Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc)
Because God said so. And because divergent evolution was a fantasy made up by Darwin. And because priests routinely post on imageboards and regularly use words like "fuck" and "cunt".
Because God said so. And because divergent evolution was a fantasy made up by Darwin. And because priests routinely post on imageboards and regularly use words like "fuck" and "cunt".
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,682
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,685
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,698
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 41 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,716
Actually, retarded apes. We mature slow, very slow. This slow process was the driving force behind language, or so I heard somewhere. A human is for a long time dependent on care givers, which boosts the advantage of understanding your care givers aka mommy n daddy .
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,720
@previous (E)
> A human is for a long time dependent on care givers, which boosts the advantage of understanding your care givers aka mommy n daddy .
Clearly can't be all of it since non-human primates when raised with humans still do not develop language, at least not to any significant degree.
The slow development of the brain leading to the development of language I think makes sense in another way. Our brains are more adaptive and less hard-wired by instinct. We take longer to develop, having to learn everything from scratch, like not choking on food, but end up in a better place for it.
Although even that idea I think doesn't fully capture what's going on. Our head sizes are massive compared to all other primates and species. A lot of good men, past and present have done their part to select for women with wide hips. There's a limit to that. I personally don't think we've reached it yet. But maybe we're getting close. Point is that head sizes at birth are as large as can be for now. Maybe a trade off was made for being born under-developed and having as much brain reserve capacity as possible tabula rasa style, and having the basics like walking or eating food come later. Because we can afford to.
Another idea is that having stupid babies selects for intelligent parents.
> A human is for a long time dependent on care givers, which boosts the advantage of understanding your care givers aka mommy n daddy .
Clearly can't be all of it since non-human primates when raised with humans still do not develop language, at least not to any significant degree.
The slow development of the brain leading to the development of language I think makes sense in another way. Our brains are more adaptive and less hard-wired by instinct. We take longer to develop, having to learn everything from scratch, like not choking on food, but end up in a better place for it.
Although even that idea I think doesn't fully capture what's going on. Our head sizes are massive compared to all other primates and species. A lot of good men, past and present have done their part to select for women with wide hips. There's a limit to that. I personally don't think we've reached it yet. But maybe we're getting close. Point is that head sizes at birth are as large as can be for now. Maybe a trade off was made for being born under-developed and having as much brain reserve capacity as possible tabula rasa style, and having the basics like walking or eating food come later. Because we can afford to.
Another idea is that having stupid babies selects for intelligent parents.
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,721
Actually forget some of what I said. There was Koko the gorilla. I believe he was even posting here not long ago. But then someone posted chat logs of him sexually harassing another user here and he disappeared. Not really sure what this says about human intelligence, but just thought I'd mention it.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,730
@1,278,720 (D)
The thing is though that it's now in the present where we feel like we can afford it, and in the past (but even today too sadly) we seem to not afford it, off spring would die left and right. I understand that indeed you are right, I do recall it being a trade off for our intelligence, but in reflecting a bit on it, one could say that language is not a given thing when above average intelligence is in a species. So what I'm trying to say is that the negative trade off for intelligence was not so negative because it pushed for language.
The thing is though that it's now in the present where we feel like we can afford it, and in the past (but even today too sadly) we seem to not afford it, off spring would die left and right. I understand that indeed you are right, I do recall it being a trade off for our intelligence, but in reflecting a bit on it, one could say that language is not a given thing when above average intelligence is in a species. So what I'm trying to say is that the negative trade off for intelligence was not so negative because it pushed for language.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,737
Chimps do have language, including dialects and slang. It is just not nearly as advanced as human language, but it does exist.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,740
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,741
@previous (E)
Pussy and ass. Doubt they'd talk about tits that much. We humans love them so much that we selected for women that have them engorged all the time, pregnant or not. Chimps never seemed so inclined.
Pussy and ass. Doubt they'd talk about tits that much. We humans love them so much that we selected for women that have them engorged all the time, pregnant or not. Chimps never seemed so inclined.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,742
Do you remember how Koko got sued for sexual harassment because she kept on asking to see zoo workers nipples? Turns out, that old lady probably just wanted to look at tits
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,744
@1,278,730 (E)
It is kind of a chicken and egg problem. And a lot of evolutionary psychology or evolutionary anything is kind of bullshit. Interesting, but probably bullshit since people come up with contradicting predictions or explanations using seemingly the same reasoning. It means little.
I sometimes wonder if evolution could actually be put to the test. Maybe you've heard of this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
But I wonder if something more refined could be come up with. Like, what is the actual probability that life emerged on earth as is supposed? Doesn't mean God or Shiva did it. Could mean aliens. Or maybe we're just lucky. Could go a good ways in helping resolve the Fermi Paradox of explaining why despite the universe being so imaginably large, we're apparently alone in it.
It is kind of a chicken and egg problem. And a lot of evolutionary psychology or evolutionary anything is kind of bullshit. Interesting, but probably bullshit since people come up with contradicting predictions or explanations using seemingly the same reasoning. It means little.
I sometimes wonder if evolution could actually be put to the test. Maybe you've heard of this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
But I wonder if something more refined could be come up with. Like, what is the actual probability that life emerged on earth as is supposed? Doesn't mean God or Shiva did it. Could mean aliens. Or maybe we're just lucky. Could go a good ways in helping resolve the Fermi Paradox of explaining why despite the universe being so imaginably large, we're apparently alone in it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,746
@1,278,740 (E)
We know what they talk about: food, the troop, social drama, etc. Much of the same shit we talk about.
We know what they talk about: food, the troop, social drama, etc. Much of the same shit we talk about.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,750
@1,278,742 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I remember. I never looked into it. I wonder if it was a sense of humour that was lost on a younger generation. Not saying it's right if she did as you say, but sometimes I think we're all pretty quick to take offence and see things in the worst light possible.
I remember. I never looked into it. I wonder if it was a sense of humour that was lost on a younger generation. Not saying it's right if she did as you say, but sometimes I think we're all pretty quick to take offence and see things in the worst light possible.
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 59 seconds later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,751
@1,278,746 (A)
I would say they are in fact indistinguishable from us. In literally every way. That's my understanding of what the literature says.
I would say they are in fact indistinguishable from us. In literally every way. That's my understanding of what the literature says.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,754
@previous (D)
Well, that is not 100% correct. They do not have the technology that we have, and our pre-frontal corteces are able to make leaps in logic that all other animals lack. Their brains are very serial in their process, and ours can go parallel and also use algorithms to avoid having to think out every step. But, they are VERY close to us in most ways for sure.
Well, that is not 100% correct. They do not have the technology that we have, and our pre-frontal corteces are able to make leaps in logic that all other animals lack. Their brains are very serial in their process, and ours can go parallel and also use algorithms to avoid having to think out every step. But, they are VERY close to us in most ways for sure.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,756
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 33 seconds later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,757
@1,278,744 (D)
I agree, a lot of it feels like guessing and I'm not blaming them. People also tend to take the simplified wording too literal, like when we talk about a trade off, they imagine a being playing a game that they want to win- "why haven't the monkeys played the same cards as humans?"
It's scary to think about the universe and people aren't sure if it's more scary to be alone or not, and people wonder if a certain filter killed everyone else. Then there's more sensible people, they think the universe just might not allow significant traveling.
I agree, a lot of it feels like guessing and I'm not blaming them. People also tend to take the simplified wording too literal, like when we talk about a trade off, they imagine a being playing a game that they want to win- "why haven't the monkeys played the same cards as humans?"
It's scary to think about the universe and people aren't sure if it's more scary to be alone or not, and people wonder if a certain filter killed everyone else. Then there's more sensible people, they think the universe just might not allow significant traveling.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,758
@1,278,756 (D)
Can't be arsed at the moment, but later I will try to find them. I am certain of it though.
Can't be arsed at the moment, but later I will try to find them. I am certain of it though.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,763
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,766
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
It was not Koko who was sued for sexual harassment, but the Gorilla Foundation, whose president insisted the girls show their tits to the gorilla.
It was not Koko who was sued for sexual harassment, but the Gorilla Foundation, whose president insisted the girls show their tits to the gorilla.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,768
@previous (G)
Ah I see
But still, the monkey was likely never actually communicating, and the old lady was probably a fraud
Ah I see
But still, the monkey was likely never actually communicating, and the old lady was probably a fraud
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,770
@1,278,763 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
What species are you?
@1,278,758 (A)
I'll be waiting.
@1,278,757 (E)
> It's scary to think about the universe and people aren't sure if it's more scary to be alone or not, and people wonder if a certain filter killed everyone else.
I find it so interesting. I mean, what if something like the experiment I outlined were completed in a convincing way and it determined the odds of life emerging on earth by chance were something like 1 in quadrillion-billion-gazillion? Isn't that creepy? Like, what the hell is going on. Same for the reverse, if it is likely, as you say.
> Then there's more sensible people, they think the universe just might not allow significant traveling.
And they'd be wrong because you don't have to travel to communicate or reveal your presence, intentionally or unintentionally.
What species are you?
@1,278,758 (A)
I'll be waiting.
@1,278,757 (E)
> It's scary to think about the universe and people aren't sure if it's more scary to be alone or not, and people wonder if a certain filter killed everyone else.
I find it so interesting. I mean, what if something like the experiment I outlined were completed in a convincing way and it determined the odds of life emerging on earth by chance were something like 1 in quadrillion-billion-gazillion? Isn't that creepy? Like, what the hell is going on. Same for the reverse, if it is likely, as you say.
> Then there's more sensible people, they think the universe just might not allow significant traveling.
And they'd be wrong because you don't have to travel to communicate or reveal your presence, intentionally or unintentionally.
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,773
@1,278,768 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Not that it matters much here but gorillas and monkeys are very different.
Not that it matters much here but gorillas and monkeys are very different.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,777
Matt is a pedophile.
Obese Alcoholic Pedophile, to be precise. He is a child predator, basically.
Obese Alcoholic Pedophile, to be precise. He is a child predator, basically.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,783
@1,278,770 (D)
Really? The way I see it, the chance is small but it's a big universe so there should be life out there and a lot of it, but the distance is just way too big between them. Too big for even "advanced signals" whatever that might be.
Really? The way I see it, the chance is small but it's a big universe so there should be life out there and a lot of it, but the distance is just way too big between them. Too big for even "advanced signals" whatever that might be.
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 42 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,798
@previous (E)
I guess how big it is isn't the right question. The universe could be infinite in expanse for all we know. Sparsity I think is what we're after and inflation, too. And it is quite sparse, but then again there are a mind blowing number of stars just within our galaxy. It's like 10 or so thousand light years across iirc. So more than enough time for signals to reach us if any other civilization got just an ever so slight head start before us.
People are even speculating there could be (unicellular or simplistic) life now on Mars. Possibly the upper atmosphere of Venus, or in the subsurface oceans of Jupiter's moons.
If our solar system is typical, which there's some reason to think it may be, and the odds of life forming are not astronomically low, we should be swimming in life.
That's just the impression I've got from stumbling across this topic from time to time. I've never looked into any real numbers or serious estimates. If you do now or in the future, please post about it. I'm interested in learning more about this but not so motivated enough at least right now to dig into it on my own.
I guess how big it is isn't the right question. The universe could be infinite in expanse for all we know. Sparsity I think is what we're after and inflation, too. And it is quite sparse, but then again there are a mind blowing number of stars just within our galaxy. It's like 10 or so thousand light years across iirc. So more than enough time for signals to reach us if any other civilization got just an ever so slight head start before us.
People are even speculating there could be (unicellular or simplistic) life now on Mars. Possibly the upper atmosphere of Venus, or in the subsurface oceans of Jupiter's moons.
If our solar system is typical, which there's some reason to think it may be, and the odds of life forming are not astronomically low, we should be swimming in life.
That's just the impression I've got from stumbling across this topic from time to time. I've never looked into any real numbers or serious estimates. If you do now or in the future, please post about it. I'm interested in learning more about this but not so motivated enough at least right now to dig into it on my own.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,799
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,800
@previous (I)
That's kind of true, but doesn't exactly speak to what we're talking about.
It's also kind of not true since they also behave quite like waves and their true nature seems to remain elusive even today.
That's kind of true, but doesn't exactly speak to what we're talking about.
It's also kind of not true since they also behave quite like waves and their true nature seems to remain elusive even today.
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,804
@previous (D)
Well anyway, it's not like there was a ton of time before life on earth for some aliens to form and "get a head start". They would need the same conditions we did, namely the Universe to cool it a bit and let stars start making dope AF elements and planets forming.
If we aren't jumping through wormholes and shit, you're setting expectations high for some aliens that probably showed up around the same time we did
Well anyway, it's not like there was a ton of time before life on earth for some aliens to form and "get a head start". They would need the same conditions we did, namely the Universe to cool it a bit and let stars start making dope AF elements and planets forming.
If we aren't jumping through wormholes and shit, you're setting expectations high for some aliens that probably showed up around the same time we did
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Anonymous I double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,805
@1,278,800 (D)
Atoms are mostly empty though, that's a fact. I wasn't taking about electrons, which can behave like waves like you mention
Atoms are mostly empty though, that's a fact. I wasn't taking about electrons, which can behave like waves like you mention
(Edited 51 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,811
@1,278,804 (I)
We've had multiple evolutionary resets due to asteroid impacts. We as a species and most of the species on earth were also almost wiped out about 100k years ago due to events not well understood today, but probably had to do with sudden changes in global temperature. Genetically all humans come from just a few thousand, possibly even just a few hundred humans that made it out of that time. Or that's the idea at least. My point is that if we were a little more lucky perhaps we'd be a little further ahead if we had fewer of these resets.
Just imagine if we got started 1000 years earlier. That's nothing in astronomical terms. How far will humans be technologically in the year 3024? It's crazy to think about.
> Atoms are mostly empty though, that's a fact. I wasn't taking about electrons, which can behave like waves like you mention
All matter is described quantum mechanically by wave functions, no different than electrons. The universe really is that crazy! The extreme agreement with experiment would lead us to think so at least.
We've had multiple evolutionary resets due to asteroid impacts. We as a species and most of the species on earth were also almost wiped out about 100k years ago due to events not well understood today, but probably had to do with sudden changes in global temperature. Genetically all humans come from just a few thousand, possibly even just a few hundred humans that made it out of that time. Or that's the idea at least. My point is that if we were a little more lucky perhaps we'd be a little further ahead if we had fewer of these resets.
Just imagine if we got started 1000 years earlier. That's nothing in astronomical terms. How far will humans be technologically in the year 3024? It's crazy to think about.
> Atoms are mostly empty though, that's a fact. I wasn't taking about electrons, which can behave like waves like you mention
All matter is described quantum mechanically by wave functions, no different than electrons. The universe really is that crazy! The extreme agreement with experiment would lead us to think so at least.
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,815
@previous (D)
Did you know that our region of space is actually relatively mild as far as asteroid activity? Think about it.
Did you know that our region of space is actually relatively mild as far as asteroid activity? Think about it.
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,816
@1,278,811 (D)
> Genetically all humans come from just a few thousand, possibly even just a few hundred humans
LOL, no they don't you berk :)
> Genetically all humans come from just a few thousand, possibly even just a few hundred humans
LOL, no they don't you berk :)
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,817
@1,278,811 (D)
> All matter is described quantum mechanically by wave functions, no different than electrons.
No. Quantum mechanics only apply at a subatomic level. The entire concept is a hacky patch to smooth over a blank spot in our knowledge
> All matter is described quantum mechanically by wave functions, no different than electrons.
No. Quantum mechanics only apply at a subatomic level. The entire concept is a hacky patch to smooth over a blank spot in our knowledge
(Edited 52 seconds later.)
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,818
Anon D just about clawed his way through 4th grade science at the age of 17 :)
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,823
@previous (Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc)
He gets his knowledge from Neil DeGrasse Tyson and YouTube shorts.
He is a monkey.
He gets his knowledge from Neil DeGrasse Tyson and YouTube shorts.
He is a monkey.
(Edited 55 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 42 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,845
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,846
@1,278,817 (I)
> No. Quantum mechanics only apply at a subatomic level.
Not actually true and it wouldn't support your original statement even if it were.
> The entire concept is a hacky patch to smooth over a blank spot in our knowledge
Agree.
> No. Quantum mechanics only apply at a subatomic level.
Not actually true and it wouldn't support your original statement even if it were.
> The entire concept is a hacky patch to smooth over a blank spot in our knowledge
Agree.
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc replied with this 2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,858
@1,278,845 (D)
> What did I say that makes me look like a retard, Dave? Which thread?
This one you berk :)
> What did I say that makes me look like a retard, Dave? Which thread?
This one you berk :)
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 29 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,862
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 22 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,868
Interesting and on topic
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/children-anticipate-what-others-want-but-great-apes-dont
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/children-anticipate-what-others-want-but-great-apes-dont
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,869
for real
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 16 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,870
@1,278,868 (A)
> Have you ever guessed what dish your significant other would order at a restaurant before they even picked up the menu? If so, congratulations, you’ve engaged in a behavior that some researchers believe might be “uniquely human.”
>
> In a new paper, published today in PLOS ONE, a team of scientists found that young children from diverse cultural backgrounds have the ability to anticipate other peoples’ food preferences—but nonhuman great apes do not. “It’s a question of social cognition,”
This sounds like really crappy research. That or the article isn't representing the study very well.
Anyone that's ever owned a dog, or even seen a dog, knows they are very good at anticipating actions of people they know. There's a whole cottage industry of papers trying to find the unique thing that makes us human and better than all the other animals. It's dumb because there probably is no singular thing that separates us. We're just better at everything.
> Have you ever guessed what dish your significant other would order at a restaurant before they even picked up the menu? If so, congratulations, you’ve engaged in a behavior that some researchers believe might be “uniquely human.”
>
> In a new paper, published today in PLOS ONE, a team of scientists found that young children from diverse cultural backgrounds have the ability to anticipate other peoples’ food preferences—but nonhuman great apes do not. “It’s a question of social cognition,”
This sounds like really crappy research. That or the article isn't representing the study very well.
Anyone that's ever owned a dog, or even seen a dog, knows they are very good at anticipating actions of people they know. There's a whole cottage industry of papers trying to find the unique thing that makes us human and better than all the other animals. It's dumb because there probably is no singular thing that separates us. We're just better at everything.
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,873
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,875
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 13 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,024
@1,278,870 (D)
Dogs seem to know when I'm about to take them for a walk, it's true. But are they not just anticipating what is going to happen rather than what I want?
Dogs seem to know when I'm about to take them for a walk, it's true. But are they not just anticipating what is going to happen rather than what I want?
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,044
@previous (E)
> But are they not just anticipating what is going to happen rather than what I want?
What's the difference? And how would you ever know? Same could be said of predicting what food someone will order or whatever the study was going on about.
> But are they not just anticipating what is going to happen rather than what I want?
What's the difference? And how would you ever know? Same could be said of predicting what food someone will order or whatever the study was going on about.
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,046
Also a lot of dogs do show guilty body language when they do something wrong. Maybe that's also just them anticipating your reaction, but then it seems kinda dumb because everything could be said to be that rather than knowing what you want. Theory of mind research is really quite low on the list of reputable psychology/neuroscience research and a lot closer to pop-sci.
(Edited 49 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,057
@1,279,044 (D)
@previous (D)
Yeah I have my objections too you know. They said they made the volunteers express what food they wanted, ok, how? Did they yell into the children's ears? Did they use Koko sign language stuff on the monkeys?
@previous (D)
Yeah I have my objections too you know. They said they made the volunteers express what food they wanted, ok, how? Did they yell into the children's ears? Did they use Koko sign language stuff on the monkeys?
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,143
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,279,151
