Animals thoughts?

[awisler]

This is a bit of a dumb question but I somehow thought of it the other day. What language do animals think in?

[Chaigidel]

the thoughts of animals are more than likely a totally instinctual process so to say they dont really think anything other than the functions they must fulfill to propegate the species-- this changes i think as you get into more complex lifeforms like dogs for instance--- I know dogs think, I know they have thoughts which they connect with true reason a test proved it recently(im totally not gonna link tho just call me a ********ter) so I dont think that they would have a real language for those thoughts -- if you just think for a moment how would you consider things without your language? it would be impressions, connections, just without word labels

[Francisco Montana]

Yea. It's just like before man developed a functioning language. It was all grunts and moans, etc. So, to that extent, there is a 'language' in essense (ie mating calls, etc.) But, beyond that, it's all a matter of reacting to their instincts and prior experiences. I suppose, rather than thinking with words, they think in pictures (if you will.)

[Thanatos]

If we could somehow translate their thoughts into words, I'm pretty sure it would be around the lines of single words, like "Hey!" or "Run" or "Hide."

[Chaigidel]

that would be god awful to have the dog yelling HEY HEY HEY repeatedly instead of barking--

I think whales elephants dolphins and many extremely complex mammals have higher thought and probably even self awareness and awareness of death--

[Simetrical]

This is a bit of a dumb question but I somehow thought of it the other day. What language do animals think in?

They don't think in language. Nor do babies, and in many cases nor do we. You've surely felt many times that you knew what you were thinking but couldn't put it into words. Language is not truly adequate to contain thought, so how could thought consist of language? It seems to me that they might as well think like we do, just in many ways less quickly or powerfully. Of course, it's a somewhat unscientific question, unless you're happy taking evidence from neural pathways and whatnot.

the thoughts of animals are more than likely a totally instinctual process

Wrong. Instinct is inherited, inflexible behavior. Even insects demonstrate an ability to be conditioned, which is definitely not a matter of instinct. Many animals have sophisticated memory, adaptability to novel information or challenges, and even ability to plan, which are more than conditioning and certainly far more than instinct.

Yea. It's just like before man developed a functioning language. It was all grunts and moans, etc. So, to that extent, there is a 'language' in essense (ie mating calls, etc.)

Language is more than just a system of communication. It also necessarily involves things like extensibility and grammar to qualify. (Sophisticated articulation, i.e., being able to produce more than grunts and moans, is neither necessary nor sufficient for language. Consider on the one hand parrots, and on the other hand deaf people.) Things like mating calls are not language.

But, beyond that, it's all a matter of reacting to their instincts and prior experiences.

It's a stretch to say that an animal that feels a spot on its head when presented with a mirror is merely reacting to its instincts or prior experiences.

If we could somehow translate their thoughts into words, I'm pretty sure it would be around the lines of single words, like "Hey!" or "Run" or "Hide."

No, you'd certainly have thoughts like "My owner is mad at me! Maybe if I bring him my ball to play fetch I'll make him happy!" that cannot be adequately expressed in terms of single words. I point again to the mirror situation, a striking demonstration of animal thought: "Hey, that's somehow a picture of me. Do I really look like that? What's that spot?"

[Francisco Montana]

Language is more than just a system of communication. It also necessarily involves things like extensibility and grammar to qualify. (Sophisticated articulation, i.e., being able to produce more than grunts and moans, is neither necessary nor sufficient for language. Consider on the one hand parrots, and on the other hand deaf people.) Things like mating calls are not language.

Language: 1) : audible, articulate, meaningful sound as produced by the action of the vocal organs (2) : a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings.

With Webster's backing me up I will have to disagree with you, Sim. Even the most basic of communication is, by definition, a language.

As for our feathered friends; the parrot is simply copying a sound it heard. But the tiger, on the other hand, makes a distinct sound that it has learned through instinct to call another tiger for mating. That -is- a language (if you think Webster has any credibility.)

It's a stretch to say that an animal that feels a spot on its head when presented with a mirror is merely reacting to its instincts or prior experiences.

You'll have to eleborate on this one, Sim. What 'spot' is the animal 'feeling' when you present the mirror?

My statement, "But, beyond that, it's all a matter of reacting to their instincts and prior experiences." was simply clarifying what animals do on a daily basis. They react to their instincts and their prior experiences. To say otherwise would be baffling to me.

Please explain your point further.

[Simetrical]

Language: 1) : audible, articulate, meaningful sound as produced by the action of the vocal organs (2) : a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings.

With Webster's backing me up I will have to disagree with you, Sim. Even the most basic of communication is, by definition, a language.

Well, okay, whatever. I'd tend to consider human language sufficiently different from animal communication to merit its own word, but whatever you like.

As for our feathered friends; the parrot is simply copying a sound it heard.

False. This is most strikingly demonstrated by Alex, but any parrot owner could tell you that parrots understand some of the meaning in their words. That's beside the point, though.

You'll have to eleborate on this one, Sim. What 'spot' is the animal 'feeling' when you present the mirror?

Present a sufficiently intelligent animal, such as a great ape, dolphin, or elephant, with a mirror. The animal has not seen mirrors before. (At most it might possibly have seen a reflection of itself in water, but that can probably be discarded because water tends to be murky and give poor reflections.) And yet upon seeing the mirror, it figures out that the mirror is a reflection of it. How do we know this? Because upon inspecting itself in the mirror, the animal will often take some action based on that, such as feeling a spot, wiping off dirt, or similar things that it would not have done if not presented by the mirror.

This is a classic test of intelligence, applied also to human babies: discreetly daub some paint on the kid's forehead, then show it a mirror. If it's old enough (and thus presumably smart enough), it will reach up and attempt to wipe off the spot. The same is true for more intelligent animals, but not less intelligent ones. Thus we can draw the conclusion that the animal understands that the mirror is a reflection of it. That cannot be attributed to instinct, or conditioning, to "reacting to their instincts and prior experiences". It's intelligence, plain and simple.

[Shatterer]

When my dog barks, it's not as much of a "Hey!" but more of a "AAAAAHHHHH!!!" as if he's screaming.

[Chaigidel]

I think he is talking about the the case of a chimp and a mirror or a gorilla and a mirror-- they actually used the mirrors to check themselves , and seemed to recognize that it was a reflection rather than another chimp/gorilla

I vaugely remember seeing something about that:O

[Blau&Gruen]

Animals think in the language of the heart. Beautiful thoguht it was, wasn't it? Though, yesterday my gf watched a show on TV where a lady was introduced as the first teacher in horse language. And in fact she seemed by able to comunicate over gestures and body positions with a horse, that had not been familiar with her before. That is it about "animal language". To prove that animals dream might be a bit difficult, nevertheles everyone, who owes a cat or a dog, knows that they show signs of "mental/psychic" activities during the night not unlike people who talk during sleep (I myself do not of course).

[Richard]

I assume animals would also think in a small amount of the language they're used to? Aside from grunts and growls perhaps 'Polly want a cracker?' and 'sit boy' and the like from time to time to accompany images?

[NaptownKnight]

I assume animals would also think in a small amount of the language they're used to? Aside from grunts and growls perhaps 'Polly want a cracker?' and 'sit boy' and the like from time to time to accompany images?

When a bird "says" "Polly wanna cracker?" or any element of any human language it is just repeating what it's heard. There is no thoguht association with those words other than the fact that someone has repeatedly said that around the bird.

[Amorphos]

dogs for instance have a language largely based on smells but i doubt they think in this way. i think like chai says that its a bit like how we think but without words,i mean much of the time we don’t actually think in words - when doing something like riding a bike, we are not thinking, push the pedal down and turn the handlebars etc.

i wont mention anything about how they connect to us via the universal mind

[Valentin the II]

For the less advanced animals I will quote Terry Pratchett:
For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks.
-Terry Pratchett
(I love that man )

For the smarter ones like squids, marinae mammels, apes and other social animals (not enclueding grazers) I'd have to say that in most cases their line of thought is somewhat similar to that of a human babie and in some cases more complex.

When a bird "says" "Polly wanna cracker?" or any element of any human language it is just repeating what it's heard. There is no thoguht association with those words other than the fact that someone has repeatedly said that around the bird.

Thats BS.
How do you think we train our pets?
They create associations betwin sounds\signals and food or a comand of some sort.
It's clearly obvious that most, if not all animals think.
Thats why you can sometimes here that animals like dogs are unpredictable.

[chris_uk_83]

i wont mention anything about how they connect to us via the universal mind

Good!

[Simetrical]

When a bird "says" "Polly wanna cracker?" or any element of any human language it is just repeating what it's heard. There is no thoguht association with those words other than the fact that someone has repeatedly said that around the bird.

False. I already linked to http://www.alexfoundation.org/ above.