[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 221 KB, 1024x768, PVWild12-Monkey-FaceCloseup.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1864260 No.1864260 [Reply] [Original]

Do animals like monkeys and birds have culture?

>> No.1864268

Some animals do like monkeys. Not sure about bird culture.

>> No.1864273

negative on that one chief, culture is unique to humans. Comes from our ability to pass on knowledge and customs and stuff via language.
Other animals may have communication, but its limited to signals and messages dealing with the present, never with abstract things like the past.

>> No.1864274

Define culture

>> No.1864286

>>1864274
get a dictionary

>> No.1864290

Every now and then a human is raised by wolves, or lives with monkeys for 30 years. That person has experienced that animals culture. Furrys do not apply.

>> No.1864310

>>1864260
Reading "culture" as a discursive form, then simply put, no, animals cannot intuit something so grand as a selfreplicating form that the term culture typically materializes to into.

It's creative, alive in a sense. Think of it, as a discursive form, as having rules for its engagement, separate from things like "science," "literature," "medicine" and "schools" but connected with these other forms in terms of rules localized in certain epochs. Culture is this way.

Animals cannot replicate this system. They have their own, based on communication and gesture; how to define what is creative use of language, however, is a dicey argument seeing how it is rooted in linguistics.

>> No.1864336

It's been shown that bird mating rituals, for the most part, are passed down when baby birds observe their parents doing it. Bird songs, dances, feather flourishing, etc. This can be described as culture.

I think the most documented cases are those of songbirds passing down their unique songs down to their babies.

>> No.1864337

>>1864310
Well, Wikipedia says you're wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_culture

>> No.1864358

>>1864337
That Wikipedia article also doesn't consider the argument through discursive forms, which, if you had read my post, is the very first precept of the argument. So, no, the article doesn't even address my issue, nevermind dispose of it.

The piece actually focuses on culture, as relevant to animals, as being defined through teaching and learning relationships. For the most part, this skirts the entirety of the forms of culture as we would recognize it. If you read the article, it clearly demarcates the differences between the notions of a culture and distinct terminology for an animal culture.

>> No.1864365

>>1864337
The article you post pretty much agrees with this assessment:

>Animals cannot replicate this system. They have their own, based on communication and gesture; how to define what is creative use of language, however, is a dicey argument seeing how it is rooted in linguistics.

>> No.1864374

>>1864310
I got a degree in English. I own my own business now so it doesn't matter what I got my degree in, in fact it didn't matter if I got a degree at all. I wanted English because I felt it would help me better myself and my fellow man not that it would allow me to make money.

That said, I'm still glad I got an English degree because I can understand everything you just wrote.

Cool.

>> No.1864376
File: 24 KB, 210x187, newspaper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1864376

I see a discursive definition of culture to be useless. But, hey, arguments over definitions are really the only arguments to be had in this debate.

>> No.1864386

So the answer is yes, animals do have culture. But it's no the kind of culture you might think

>> No.1864402

>>1864374
The degree will do that. I've been reading Foucault, lately.

>>1864376
I don't necessarily want a discursive definition of culture. You can define culture as you wish. You can call it Animal Culture if you like. My interest is if there are rules of engagement which are constructing and spreading this term, this object, this form which are considering, by definition, through Wikipedia, as Animal Culture.

My opinion is, to be blunt, no -- discourse does not exist among the animals. I know this sounds silly to have to form into a statement, but I feel it's essential here.

>> No.1864416

>>1864386
No, animals communicate through gesture, imposition and instinct, but not they do not create on the basis of symbolism.

This has never happened, at least not in any recorded instance.

Sorry, guys, but creation is a fundamental necessity to culture. Animals do have communicative forms, there is no denying this assertion, but culture does not exist for them.

>> No.1864423

>>1864416
>many leading scientists agree on culture being defined as a process, rather than an end product. This process, most agree, involves the social transmittance of a novel behavior, both among peers and between generations

Guess you're wrong then

>> No.1864429

Culture is ambiguous, It can literally be everything in our lives. I think that with niggers there is behavior that is acceptable among them and behavior that is not.

>> No.1864433

>>1864423
Animals do not act in "novel behavior" unless forced by outside stimuli. Once again, they do not create. Your reference clearly overlooks this.

There is no novelty in animal for the sake of it's own selfreplication. Please, I beg of you, show me an instance of this, and instance of something that actually refutes my specific argument instead of trying to skirt the main ideas with random references.

Show me an instance of animal creating for creation's sake.

>> No.1864451
File: 1.17 MB, 2608x1952, BonoboFishing05..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1864451

>>1864433
hurrrr

>> No.1864459

>>1864423
Animals' behaviors are not in any way constructed outward from the center of forms like tradition, history, ritual, time, novelty and experience. Instead, an animal's behavior is trumped when it reaches as far as instinct and survival will take it. In short, there is no symbolic reference to their systems of consciousness. There is no basis for forms to take place, because frankly, objects exists as is to animals, although they are deceived in this.

Since these centered forms cannot be located within their systems of communications and gestures, it's highly improbable, if not impossible, that without the help of normative forms of culture, that they would be able to create and sustain such an advanced patchwork of brilliance and record.

>> No.1864466

>>1864451
He is using that as a tool. This is not creative. You are missing the mark entirely.

>> No.1864478

>>1864466
Using tools is not creative. Ok then

>> No.1864482

>>1864451
This example demonstrates the same phenomena of an animal using a cave, or a tunnel, as shelter from the rain.

Does this mean they have culture?

>> No.1864486
File: 64 KB, 1050x1200, 0269.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1864486

it is commonly thought that chimpanzees learn things like termite fishing by imitation. It isnt really explained to the offspring so its not a form of culture. There have been some good arguments in primatology, my field of study, on if other primates exhibit culture, but as a whole right now, most official stances are no, they do not count as culture. idk about birds but id guess it would be the same case

>> No.1864497
File: 135 KB, 900x600, pachypaint.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1864497

>>1864433
I'm going to guess that human trainer influence invalidates this example, but I still need to ask:
What about elephant painting?

>> No.1864500

>>1864478
It isn't creative. It is manipulative. They manipulate objects, because they infer them as is. There is no symbol involved here. Symbol is fuel of culture (time, history, tradition, ritual, experience).

Using is not creating. The animal never tries to prove that which he has used can be understood in terms of something that can be cataloged as a creative piece of itself. This does not happen in nature. Please, give me an instance of it, please.

>> No.1864508

>>1864497
Now you have finally grabbed my attention. Please, more on this.

>> No.1864510
File: 28 KB, 320x240, elephant-painting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1864510

I believe we've solved this issue

>> No.1864524

>>1864510

i've seen an elephant paint before and it does NOT come out like that. unless the elephant I saw was retarded or something, which I doubt.

>> No.1864532

>>1864508
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk

According to Snopes, elephant painting is legit, but as I said, trained. Still, I wonder to what degree the final product is the result of training, and what is the elephant.

>> No.1864548

>>1864510
If the elephant can pass that skill on by itself then it's culture.

>> No.1864549

>>1864532
Elephants cannot paint. The video is faked. The trainer is guiding the trunk from the area closest to the animal's mouth.

They can hold the brush and they can perform the acting of moving it onto the paper, but it's level or recognition of symbolism and intelligence seems to be negligent. Think of the animal as a child. Would you suggest that infants have a specific culture? We typically think that most of the smarter animals have intelligence levels hovering around infant humans.

>> No.1864553

>>1864524
I went to Thailand and fucked so many little girls and while there I saw elephants painting the great wall in HD. Elephants never forget and aren't retarded, YOUR retarded.

>> No.1864557

If a male animal (not human) gets kicked in the balls, does it hurt just as bad?

>> No.1864558

>>1864524
Not all humans can paint either.

>> No.1864560

>>1864548
lol, that elephant didn't paint that.

This is supposed to be /sci/. You guys are all stupid. You all just blindly trust a questionable jpg. as direct proof that elephants can recognize symbolism is an affected way that rivals that of humans?

The photo is obviously staged -- a promotion, if you will.

>> No.1864562
File: 211 KB, 386x600, mona-lisa-painting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1864562

>>1864524
i've seen a human paint before and it does NOT come out like this. unless the human I saw was retarded or something, which I doubt.

>> No.1864563

>>1864558
But there are no elephants that can paint the way that a human who you would consider to be lacking in the ability to paint can paint.

>> No.1864590

>>1864549
From the other videos, it's clear they guide the elephants from behind the ear, not near the mouth.

Shit. Maybe cat painting?

>> No.1864596
File: 75 KB, 600x436, petri_dish_large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1864596

No, but bacteria do!

Ba-dum TSHH!

>> No.1864600
File: 4 KB, 250x221, alert.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1864600

http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/8056.html

Read that^

>> No.1864604

Yes. I think it's pretty clear.

>> No.1864617

>>1864600
This article looks like it addresses my arguments. I scanned through it and saw that it tries to defend animals' use of symbolism.

I'm exhausted, but I'll bookmark it and read it tomorrow. Thanks for the evidence! I'm hoping this will be an eye opener!

>> No.1864840

>>1864617

Yes, run away like a little faggot now that someone offers evidence to your contrary.

>> No.1866206

>>1864840
Good morning. I'm back. I went to sleep and to my surprise the thread is still alive!

I just finished the article. It seems that towards the end the author is still a bit unsure how he should himself define creativity and symbolism.

There's no other evidence in here but the use of tools and mating calls, but these things seem to be static, immutable.