Mostly they probably think we're in the way.
@CSKA_Moscou said in #10:
> yes but a wild animal born and living in nature cannot create a work of art for example. and you have "ugly" and "pretty" baby animals but only from a human point of view, animals are just trying to get the best out of their environment in order to survive
Animals aren't just survival robots - they do things for pleasure, they do things for aesthetics, they do things out of curiosity, they experiment, explore, and do just about everything any human does. They have a mind of their own that isn't just hardwired to only take actions for survival.
If you take the lens of "Every action is only taken in the interest of survival" and apply it to most humans via observation, you could probably explain away just about anything. "Well he's only playing chess to hone his intelligence to become more fit!" "They paint on the rocks to increase social bonding, and impress mates!"
Just because a lot of birds elaborate aesthetic displays have intrinsic ties to mating - as ours are - it doesn't mean that they have no appreciation for those aesthetics outside of mating. Birds have a ton of fun flying around singing and playing, many mammals also love to play - and it's often just sheer enjoyment. It's not just honing some sort skill.
> yes but a wild animal born and living in nature cannot create a work of art for example. and you have "ugly" and "pretty" baby animals but only from a human point of view, animals are just trying to get the best out of their environment in order to survive
Animals aren't just survival robots - they do things for pleasure, they do things for aesthetics, they do things out of curiosity, they experiment, explore, and do just about everything any human does. They have a mind of their own that isn't just hardwired to only take actions for survival.
If you take the lens of "Every action is only taken in the interest of survival" and apply it to most humans via observation, you could probably explain away just about anything. "Well he's only playing chess to hone his intelligence to become more fit!" "They paint on the rocks to increase social bonding, and impress mates!"
Just because a lot of birds elaborate aesthetic displays have intrinsic ties to mating - as ours are - it doesn't mean that they have no appreciation for those aesthetics outside of mating. Birds have a ton of fun flying around singing and playing, many mammals also love to play - and it's often just sheer enjoyment. It's not just honing some sort skill.
Oy vey there's always the human exceptionalists, who apparently have never observed animals long enough or with enough understanding or empathy to see their emotions and minds work so alike. Of course when you view an animal in the wild most of its energy would be going towards survival related activities. And so would yours if you were running around naked in the wilderness
There are definitely species like dolphins & ceteceans that may even surpass us intellectually in some ways but we don't speak their language so we have no clue, and their biology isn't adept at handling objects
There are definitely species like dolphins & ceteceans that may even surpass us intellectually in some ways but we don't speak their language so we have no clue, and their biology isn't adept at handling objects
@MrPushwood said in #11:
> Mostly they probably think we're in the way.
A lot of them, like pizotes - bless us, for they love to steal our food from the trash... but they don't know it's the trash so they probably think we're either very generous - or very easy to steal from, and judging by their guilty "bank robbery" esque behavior, I'd say its the latter :p
> Mostly they probably think we're in the way.
A lot of them, like pizotes - bless us, for they love to steal our food from the trash... but they don't know it's the trash so they probably think we're either very generous - or very easy to steal from, and judging by their guilty "bank robbery" esque behavior, I'd say its the latter :p
Yes they do.
Watch the Oscar winning documentary "The Elephant Whisperers".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_Whisperers
www.imdb.com/title/tt23628262/
youtu.be/a0J0b_OVa9w
Watch the Oscar winning documentary "The Elephant Whisperers".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_Whisperers
www.imdb.com/title/tt23628262/
youtu.be/a0J0b_OVa9w
@CSKA_Moscou said in #10:
> but a wild animal born and living in nature cannot create a work of art for example
Except they do. As an example, look at some birds' nests, it is very difficult to claim these are not art.
> but a wild animal born and living in nature cannot create a work of art for example
Except they do. As an example, look at some birds' nests, it is very difficult to claim these are not art.
@salmon_rushdie said in #12:
> Animals aren't just survival robots - they do things for pleasure, they do things for aesthetics, they do things out of curiosity, they experiment, explore, and do just about everything any human does. They have a mind of their own that isn't just hardwired to only take actions for survival.
>
> If you take the lens of "Every action is only taken in the interest of survival" and apply it to most humans via observation, you could probably explain away just about anything. "Well he's only playing chess to hone his intelligence to become more fit!" "They paint on the rocks to increase social bonding, and impress mates!"
>
> Just because a lot of birds elaborate aesthetic displays have intrinsic ties to mating - as ours are - it doesn't mean that they have no appreciation for those aesthetics outside of mating. Birds have a ton of fun flying around singing and playing, many mammals also love to play - and it's often just sheer enjoyment. It's not just honing some sort skill.
humans have been able to transcend the need to survive through their evolution, I very much doubt that an australopithecus will wonder if an elephant is cute - however knowing if it is edible would be another matter. the earliest forms of iconographic art, cave paintings, have a specific purpose, to pay homage to dead animals to make the next hunt fruitful, and to have the consent of the spirits of these animals so that the community can feed themselves.
Humans discovered fire, and are the only species that can create it to use it for their needs. humans were able to change their perception of the world and by creating a new technological world to feel safe, they no longer needed to think about their survival against wild beasts, unless they could not have their technology at their disposal, something which would make humans vulnerable. Animals know what love and sacrifice are because they are universal feelings common to humans. but to show you an example, if certain animals like a pair of cranes are faithful, they do not know the concept of marriage.
humans passed through the box of wild life, not that they did not initially have a notion of aesthetic pleasure, but that these notions were initially linked to their survival.
a kitten can be cute, but often another cat
come to kill them. (I don't think it's useful to explain this thing in detail).
so we humans just have a different vision of the world by trying to put words to everything, but for an animal, "cute" begins above all with an emotional attachment that they feel but cannot explain like humans. an object can be cute for a human, because it has the aesthetic parameters to be cute.
the opposite of robots, which do not have to seek to survive but only to obey or rather to react according to parameters made and created by humans, such as algorithms.
> Animals aren't just survival robots - they do things for pleasure, they do things for aesthetics, they do things out of curiosity, they experiment, explore, and do just about everything any human does. They have a mind of their own that isn't just hardwired to only take actions for survival.
>
> If you take the lens of "Every action is only taken in the interest of survival" and apply it to most humans via observation, you could probably explain away just about anything. "Well he's only playing chess to hone his intelligence to become more fit!" "They paint on the rocks to increase social bonding, and impress mates!"
>
> Just because a lot of birds elaborate aesthetic displays have intrinsic ties to mating - as ours are - it doesn't mean that they have no appreciation for those aesthetics outside of mating. Birds have a ton of fun flying around singing and playing, many mammals also love to play - and it's often just sheer enjoyment. It's not just honing some sort skill.
humans have been able to transcend the need to survive through their evolution, I very much doubt that an australopithecus will wonder if an elephant is cute - however knowing if it is edible would be another matter. the earliest forms of iconographic art, cave paintings, have a specific purpose, to pay homage to dead animals to make the next hunt fruitful, and to have the consent of the spirits of these animals so that the community can feed themselves.
Humans discovered fire, and are the only species that can create it to use it for their needs. humans were able to change their perception of the world and by creating a new technological world to feel safe, they no longer needed to think about their survival against wild beasts, unless they could not have their technology at their disposal, something which would make humans vulnerable. Animals know what love and sacrifice are because they are universal feelings common to humans. but to show you an example, if certain animals like a pair of cranes are faithful, they do not know the concept of marriage.
humans passed through the box of wild life, not that they did not initially have a notion of aesthetic pleasure, but that these notions were initially linked to their survival.
a kitten can be cute, but often another cat
come to kill them. (I don't think it's useful to explain this thing in detail).
so we humans just have a different vision of the world by trying to put words to everything, but for an animal, "cute" begins above all with an emotional attachment that they feel but cannot explain like humans. an object can be cute for a human, because it has the aesthetic parameters to be cute.
the opposite of robots, which do not have to seek to survive but only to obey or rather to react according to parameters made and created by humans, such as algorithms.
Oh!
How should I know that?
How should I know that?
@OctoPinky said in #16:
> Except they do. As an example, look at some birds' nests, it is very difficult to claim these are not art.
but this is art for the human eye. the goal of the bird is to create a solid, spacious and also "beautiful" nest, beautiful in the sense of more impressive than that of the neighbors, or just to say : this is my nest, my territory, because birds build their nests before the mating season
> Except they do. As an example, look at some birds' nests, it is very difficult to claim these are not art.
but this is art for the human eye. the goal of the bird is to create a solid, spacious and also "beautiful" nest, beautiful in the sense of more impressive than that of the neighbors, or just to say : this is my nest, my territory, because birds build their nests before the mating season
@CSKA_Moscou said in #19:
> the goal of the bird is to create a solid, spacious and also "beautiful" nest, beautiful in the sense of more impressive than that of the neighbors
Even if it was true ("if", as we can't read animal mind), it doesn't invalidate that it is art just like lots of human paintings or architectural works, unless picking a definition excluding non-human animals activities.
I agree that a purely useful structure, like honeycombs or spider webs, is not "art" even if it looks beautiful in our eyes. But when we are witnessing a very likely conscious search of beauty (in whatever sense), I can think of no valid reason for excluding it from "art".
> the goal of the bird is to create a solid, spacious and also "beautiful" nest, beautiful in the sense of more impressive than that of the neighbors
Even if it was true ("if", as we can't read animal mind), it doesn't invalidate that it is art just like lots of human paintings or architectural works, unless picking a definition excluding non-human animals activities.
I agree that a purely useful structure, like honeycombs or spider webs, is not "art" even if it looks beautiful in our eyes. But when we are witnessing a very likely conscious search of beauty (in whatever sense), I can think of no valid reason for excluding it from "art".
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.