masterpiecer:

thief!, u stole the words outa my finger tips. LOL

Emary: I googled "Do animals think research" and got all these. The consensus is that animals think but they are still trying to determine the level of meta cognition. Some of them even think about thinking. Some believe that they think like autistic children who do not apply their senses in the "normal" way we do. Also, the Bible tells me in the story of Balaam (Numbers 22:21-35) that the donkey he was riding could think and sensed the presence of the angel before he did. God only opened her mouth. He also showed that He loves animals because he told Balaam that if she had not turned him away, He would have killed him but spared her(Vs. 32). I don't need anymore conviction than that.

http://www.livescience.com/5712-animals-thinking-research-suggests.html
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/03.14/01-thinking.html
http://cqresearcherblog..com/2010/10/do-animals-think.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/18/hunting.animalwelfare
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/may/what-do-animals-think
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-what-is-your-dog-thinking
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text

I lost confidence on your assertion the moment you mentioned God. Seriously, there is no proven evidence that animals think in any research or whatsoever.

all4naija: Let's call it 'survival instincts' by connotation. I think it can easily pass for instincts than anything else.

thinking leads also to survival.

@all4naija, you wouldn't accept it if it hit you in the eye but I said that I am totally convinced. What you choose to believe is up to you but God doesn't lie.

Emary: @all4naija, you wouldn't accept it if it hit you in the eye but I said that I am totally convinced. What you choose to believe is up to you but God doesn't lie.

*facepalm*

Great thread. There should be more of these on the front page.

Funny how those who love the tribalism threads have given this thread (and others like it) a wide berth. There is still hope for NL.

Emary: @all4naija, you wouldn't accept it if it hit you in the eye but I said that I am totally convinced. What you choose to believe is up to you but God doesn't lie.

We can explain from here till 100pages "All4naija" will never accept until his dog bite him and run away from house for fear of being kill or beating.

D sage:

We can explain from here till 100pages "All4naija" will never accept until his dog bite him and run away from house for fear of being kill or beating.

Okay, sir! You expect me to accept unproven evidences without questioning? I am not that person to be fed on garbage.

With 9 brains the Octopus is a super thinker. This is a fact. They can figure things out, pretty much analytical and don't forget. Also with no mother to learn from,young octopuses learn by studying the actions of older octopuses. Trust me in this...i've read up a lot on animal behaviour and i watched while this octopus experiment was conducted.

uj_sizzle: With 9 brains the Octopus is a super thinker. This is a fact. They can figure things out, pretty much analytical and don't forget. Also with no mother to learn from,young octopuses learn by studying the actions of older octopuses. Trust me in this...i've read up a lot on animal behaviour and i watched while this octopus experiment was conducted.

Lol... whether 9 brains or one brain remains brain. Your inexcusable attempt to convince me that animals think fails right there. There is no evidence to back up your support to prove Octopuses really think only with the assertion that you have read a lot about them, which is not an evidence to prove your beliefs(thinking).

Indeed, young Octopuses mimicking the behavior of older ones actions is by instincts as they are still at infancy doing that(humans as well), anything done at that age should be by instincts - nothing more. You need to really know the definition of instincts before coming up with your allusion - it is baseless in almost all ramifications.

I'm gonna assume u were too blind to see this.

''i watched while
this octopus experiment was
conducted.''

uj_sizzle: I'm gonna assume u were too blind to see this.

''i watched while
this octopus experiment was
conducted.''

I never disagreed with you on watching any experiment but saying Octopus thinks that's where the bone of contention is here.You are too blind to see what I am pointing out to you. How can you say that young Octopus mimicking the behavior of the parents is thinking? To mimic is one of the basic instincts of animals.

They can figure
things out, pretty much analytical and
don't forget.



I was refering to this experiment not mimicking older ones.
Do i have to keep re-quoting myself?
Anyways i've contibuted my two cents, i'm in no way tryna convince you. You can't convince a man that has already made up his mind.

Heeyhun: As funny as it sounds, this question caused a lot of uproar in my philosophy class yesterday. Half the class supported the notion while the other half argued that animals act based on instincts and not reasoning or thinking. Please, I need convincing facts(either way). Thanks

Guess u 're a futarian,i was also in dat G.N.S class

uj_sizzle: They can figure
things out, pretty much analytical and
don't forget.



I was refering to this experiment not mimicking older ones.
Do i have to keep re-quoting myself?
Anyways i've contibuted my two cents, i'm in no way tryna convince you. You can't convince a man that has already made up his mind.

The online definition of instincts in general term is "A natural or intuitive way of acting or thinking". The thinking aspect of it is reserve for humans only. Adult does it also. I.e to see a girl to be very loving based on instincts is to accept it with your nature innate responses - that's as feelings go by instincts.But, when they go beyond those by trying to study and find facts collated and processed to better have understanding about the girl and conclude with reasonable evidences then it becomes thinking. Animals don't do that in any way near that.

There are sociological and psychological behaviors in animals exhibited to look reasonable enough yet they are not carried out through thinking but by their make-up response to stimuli. The simple reason animals can easily be trained with food to response to some set exercised behaviors.

To figure things out in animals is part of instincts - how many times will I have to say that here?It's a rhetoric. The analytical aspect of your Octopus, with don't-forget assertion, is a pure evidence to prove the point why it is carried by instincts, much like responding to what they have be routinely trained to do. The moment it is beyond that, where it takes a choice based on reasoning then it starts thinking in whatever way deemed possible(which is not the case). Leaving the human level of thinking out of the argument, with regard to your Octopus experiment, there is no single iota of fact to prove that animals think nothing more of speculations based on what should be expected of them by humans(yourself included) than reality. That alone can't stand to be the reason why we should conclude animals think.

On the final note, beat me to it anytime, not because animals have brain should be a premise to conclude they think or else bacteria exhibit intelligence. On one hand, why do animals have to think? On the other hand, humans think to understand the environment and better to survive in it. Brain is meant for a lot of things, from response to stimuli to basic love-making. On the thinking aspect, the part which is responsible for it(though, I haven't tried to carry out a research on it),I guess, should be missing. There is need to start looking for the reasoning bearing chemicals in the millions of millions of nuerons present in the brain of humans to ascertain this argument better.

Thank you.

Maybe this article could help. To master numbers well mathematically, there's one thing that must be done... Think!

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121128-animals-that-can-count

omodapson: Maybe this article could help. To master numbers well mathematically, there's one thing that must be done... Think!

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121128-animals-that-can-count

Hahaha... There has always been many attempts to eulogize chimps for centuries as animals which can think because they are close relative of human on the biological classification of things. Indeed, I didn't border to read write-up on the BBC as that was what I was having in mind when I saw your link. I will try to watch the video later on when I am chanced to do so probably on YouTube.

Nevertheless, there is nothing about mathematically qualified species in that news by my guessing. The ability to count and recount is nothing beyond exercising of basic or high instincts. The evidence to that from my objection to chimpanzees as primates is on something that has to do with recognition. It is difficult for such apes to recognize themselves on a mirror even with when well trained on the use of it. Please, psychologist are fervently good at alluding to behaviors as per reaction to the environment and thoughts quickly counting them as something on the ground of thinking, it is preposterous to say the least without pointing how reasoning part of the brain is responsible in this judgment in comparison to those which actually think.

I am still very interested on how much have been done to find out if these animals possess the reasoning part of the brain and the brain cells before concluding on thinking. Rational judgment is something beyond merely recognition of numbers(that is instincts in every animals) to count those number based on the animal judgment, is not possible going by that would be something irrational, not clear to humans(who can think). Then it is clear to recognize those numbers at rudimentary level of training by the animals point to the instincts given to them by nature which is not rational judgment carried out with processing of ideas,etc by their own volition, beyond recognition and make something logical from it reasonably. Not through training only such thinking ability can be said to exist, if not, it is only by instincts animals perform these basic rudimentary in nature.

I still think psychologists, sociologists and Anthropologists are not looking at the right place to ascertain what they think about animals that think. They should be looking at the brain which is all encompassing in this regard. Not just looking at the brain but the parts responsible for logical reasoning and cognitive activities!

You think animals dont think then take a look at this they even communicate

there was this day i was about feeding our local chickens {though we were just allowed to rear it to satisfy our curiosity} one was arround and the other one was looking for food somewhere else but 1 of its chicks the absent 1 happened to be arround the other one but been dat they are hostile to each other that chick did not join in picking the grains u know wat it did it ran to the front of the house and when it was coming back it came back with its mother.still not getting the point[b] it did two things 1).it thought that it would be pecked silly if its mother is not there & 2) it communicated with its mother cos when the mother was coming it came with intent not searching for something[/b] or how could dat possibi happen?

ayomidis: You think animals dont think then take a look at this they even communicate

there was this day i was about feeding our local chickens {though we were just allowed to rear it to satisfy our curiosity} one was arround and the other one was looking for food somewhere else but 1 of its chicks the absent 1 happened to be arround the other one but been dat they are hostile to each other that chick did not join in picking the grains u know wat it did it ran to the front of the house and when it was coming back it came back with its mother.still not getting the point[b] it did two things 1).it thought that it would be pecked silly if its mother is not there & 2) it communicated with its mother cos when the mother was coming it came with intent not searching for something[/b] or how could dat possibi happen?

It is called instincts not thinking. I think you have not really understand the basic nuances of the whole discussion.

all4naija: Hahaha... There has always been many attempts to eulogize chimps for centuries as animals which can think because they are close relative of human on the biological classification of things. Indeed, I didn't border to read write-up on the BBC as that was what I was having in mind when I saw your link. I will try to watch the video later on when I am chanced to do so probably on YouTube.

Nevertheless, there is nothing about mathematically qualified species in that news by my guessing. The ability to count and recount is nothing beyond exercising of basic or high instincts. The evidence to that from my objection to chimpanzees as primates is on something that has to do with recognition. It is difficult for such apes to recognize themselves on a mirror even with when well trained on the use of it. Please, psychologist are fervently good at alluding to behaviors as per reaction to the environment and thoughts quickly counting them as something on the ground of thinking, it is preposterous to say the least without pointing how reasoning part of the brain is responsible in this judgment in comparison to those which actually think.

I am still very interested on how much have been done to find out if these animals possess the reasoning part of the brain and the brain cells before concluding on thinking. Rational judgment is something beyond merely recognition of numbers(that is instincts in every animals) to count those number based on the animal judgment, is not possible going by that would be something irrational, not clear to humans(who can think). Then it is clear to recognize those numbers at rudimentary level of training by the animals point to the instincts given to them by nature which is not rational judgment carried out with processing of ideas,etc by their own volition, beyond recognition and make something logical from it reasonably. Not through training only such thinking ability can be said to exist, if not, it is only by instincts animals perform these basic rudimentary in nature.

I still think psychologists, sociologists and Anthropologists are not looking at the right place to ascertain what they think about animals that think. They should be looking at the brain which is all encompassing in this regard. Not just looking at the brain but the parts responsible for logical reasoning and cognitive activities!

Why jump to conclusion when you have not even read the article? The link in question is not a video link, it is a well written article, scientifically analysed but one to provoke the mind. You must have an open mind to appreciate the write up.

I see you said something about 'reasoning', perhaps you will understand better when you read it. We are not just talking about numbers here, we are talking mathematics. For you to add figures up, you'll surely engage in some reasoning activities. And what happens when you reason? Think?

Below is an excerpt from the article. The experiment shows that animals also learn to control their instincts. The same way human beings weigh options before making decisions. Don't tell me decisions are made by instinct, saying that would further discredit your claim.

"Take the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus), a bird that many think of as having more to do with barbecue sauce than with arithmetic. If a chicken sits in front of two small opaque screens, and one ball disappears behind the first screen, followed by four balls disappearing behind a second screen, the chicken walks towards the screen that hides four balls, since four balls are better than one ball. The feat is made more impressive when you consider that the chicken in question is only three days old. And it can do a lot more than add up.

If one ball disappears behind the first screen, and four balls disappear behind the second, just as before, but then two of the four balls behind the second screen are visibly moved over to the first screen, the chicken is now faced with two tasks. It must add two to one, and know that there are now three balls behind the first screen. It must also subtract two from four, and realise that there are only two balls left behind the second screen. The young chicken must overcome its initial impulse to approach the second screen, which initially hid four balls, and instead approach the first screen, now hiding three balls. If this sounds complicated for the three-day-old bird, think again. Infant chickens correctly approached the screen hiding more balls nearly 80% of the time."

omodapson:

Why jump to conclusion when you have not even read the article? The link in question is not a video link, it is a well written article, scientifically analysed but one to provoke the mind. You must have an open mind to appreciate the write up.

I see you said something about 'reasoning', perhaps you will understand better when you read it. We are not just talking about numbers here, we are talking mathematics. For you to add figures up, you'll surely engage in some reasoning activities. And what happens when you reason? Think?

Below is an excerpt from the article. The experiment shows that animals also learn to control their instincts. The same way human beings weigh options before making decisions. Don't tell me decisions are made by instinct, saying that would further discredit your claim.

"Take the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus), a bird that many think of as having more to do with barbecue sauce than with arithmetic. If a chicken sits in front of two small opaque screens, and one ball disappears behind the first screen, followed by four balls disappearing behind a second screen, the chicken walks towards the screen that hides four balls, since four balls are better than one ball. The feat is made more impressive when you consider that the chicken in question is only three days old. And it can do a lot more than add up.

If one ball disappears behind the first screen, and four balls disappear behind the second, just as before, but then two of the four balls behind the second screen are visibly moved over to the first screen, the chicken is now faced with two tasks. It must add two to one, and know that there are now three balls behind the first screen. It must also subtract two from four, and realise that there are only two balls left behind the second screen. The young chicken must overcome its initial impulse to approach the second screen, which initially hid four balls, and instead approach the first screen, now hiding three balls. If this sounds complicated for the three-day-old bird, think again. Infant chickens correctly approached the screen hiding more balls nearly 80% of the time."

I read it not quite long through the night. I never said it's a video. I said I will probably watch the video on the topic in YouTube. I hope that is clear enough to you.

Now, With the age of the chick involved in that particular experiment nullifies every fact it could have presented to the general public, from my own observation.

Another thing, going by the Tunisian desert ants using some advanced mathematical process to navigate their environment is not well proven too. Only the idea stated reveal nothing than what has been attached to the limb of one of the ants distracting it from able to locate its home. The very things presented there were not arguably clear enough to ascertain the reasons to accept why animals think. Not from a physical perspective of exhibiting some intelligence, which we know is an ability yet bacteria, without brain, does the same thing. It is a matter of reacting to the environment at one time in best possible ways provided by nature. In this case there is nothing really about reasoning in the chick able to spot the difference in number of the change in the mirrors while trying to understand if animals really think. That to me is merely stating something we are quite aware exist in nature all along. Chicks exhibit somehow intelligence behaviors in most cases. Even a male chick would often hop to the mother's back to differentiate itself from the female sometimes - it does that sometimes by using objects close by to climb. Instincts is just not really well defined in this regard. Reasoning is not only an ability for processing of data but for other means of surviving, it is much a human thing at the moment without doubt.

I never concluded so quickly on a premise, but with what we have seen so far there is no reliable evidences to prove animals think. For that, I said those responsible for the experiments should go beyond the physical behaviors of these animals and experiment with composition of their brain to better prove their theories.

Heeyhun:
As funny as it sounds, this question caused a lot of uproar in my philosophy class yesterday. Half the class supported the notion while the other half argued that animals act based on instincts and not reasoning or thinking. Please, I need convincing facts(either way). Thanks

what a beautiful thread,nairaland should have a link to their favorite threads for threads like this,kudos op