Not necessarily. There’s an entire class of dog breeds literally named “retriever”. A quick search shows the AKC saying the first retriever breed was from the 16th century which means humans have been selectively breeding dogs for this specific behavior for nearly 500 years.
Whether or not we consider the basal instinct as retrieval vs some other similar instinct that can be easily used to motivate the retrieval behavior [1], I’d wager most dog owners that have trained (or attempted at least!) would agree that some dogs are just more likely to become good retrievers which to me suggests that there’s more than just a basic pleasure stimulus response.
Similar dog behaviors based on breed that I would argue at least point towards instinctual behavior being at least a partial explanation for behavior are herding and live stock protection breeds. Take a quick watch of any of the sheep herding competitions or other fun related videos [2] to see what I mean.
However, at the end of the day I also think that most “instincts” are more of a shorthand/stereotype for some set of abstract probabilities that may or may not result in a dog being good or bad at any specifically desired behavior.
Your "X don't Y per se, they Z" macro take reveals misunderstanding. In the original, Y and Z are different actions with different intent (use human as ball dispenser vs try to make the a human happy like a dog would) whereas you just make your Z to be a technical definition of Y.
No matter how many times I read it, I interpret his Z as little more than a technical definition of Y. In both, Y and Z are the same actions.
Because we fundamentally disagree on the intent. I don't agree that a cat is engaging in parasitic exploitation of the human toy-thrower, and I don't agree that a dog is toiling in servitude to the thankless human who keeps throwing away the retrieved item. They both love chasing things, they both understand that to chase the thing again they need to return it to the human, and they both appreciate the positive reinforcement, bonding, petting, and attention when they do so.
It's just logic. A cat has infinite ways of exercising on its own and actually most cats do just that, so it's pareto principle to think about "playing fetch" as simply convenient way of exercising a chase something that incidentally involves a human throwing things rather than birds or mouse.
A dog however simply does not do things on its own much, dogs are maybe even more social than humans and live in packs (dog owner is de facto pack leader). Play is more social for them. Take out peer/leader to play with and half the excitement is gone. Dogs generally would not consider mechanical ball dispenser equally exciting of a partner
I once thought I saw a kid abusing a small cat. He picked it up and threw it across his front lawn, quite far. I started running over to stop him ... and then saw the cat run back to the kid, who did it again. They did it a few more times by the time I walked by. They were playing fetch with the whole cat. What's the evolutionary explanation for that?
The simple answer is that being thrown make the cat practice how to land.
But the actual answer is probably that creatures like cats are big enough to contain a lot of evolutionary noises and legacies that it can do random shit.
Definitely kids. My sons will always ask me to throw them on the bed, on the couch, in a bounce house, drop them on the floor, and just love it. I imagine a high trust relationship with a cat could also develop to that point as well.
I had a cat who loved to be tossed across the room (onto the nice safe soft bed) and who would excitedly run back to be tossed again. Just don't ask how we figured it out in the first place...
But he was wierd. He liked going on walks on a leash, and demanded a chair at the table when we played boardgames and he would happily sit and watch us play (or sit in the middle of the board until we got him a seat).
The first time I met him, he very clearly, intentionally guided me to his brother who was sick (meow, runs towards me, meow then back towards his brother, repeat).
We lost him kinda without warning, he got an ear infection that popped his eardrum then he never recovered from the shock. Cats don't communicate pain or discomfort well, so we didn't even realize something was wrong until it was too late.
But yeah, consistent recessive outliers are an evolutionary advantage trait. I've seen a lot of arguments that neurodiversity is an evolutionary trait, as having multiple behavior patterns in the population helps with survival. Cats are social animals, which means a similar neurodiversity pressure probably acts on them.
> (or sit in the middle of the board until we got him a seat)
I've lived with several different cats whose favourite position was directly between the people and the television. I'm not a cat person (nor a dog person); I know nothing. But I suppose they like human attention, so they sit where the humans are looking.
My parent's cat is a total stereotype and will walk back and forth in front of any monitor, including across your keyboard, until you stop what you're doing to give her your full attention.
The trick here, is that once you got him his own seat at the table, he was perfectly happy to sit on it with his face poking up and watching us play. If I just made him get off the table, the first time we look away he would hop right back on and start knocking pieces off in protest of this mistreatment.
What's the evolutionary explanation for the child wanting to throw the cat?
Also what's the evolutionary explanation for you trying to save the cat?
Personally I think it's genetic drift. In safe environments natural selection by definition is much less strict and thus all kinds of random mutations pass the bar of survival.
I lived with a black cat some 15 years ago. Whenever it was bed sheet changing time, it was also cat tossing time. He loved being tossed "across the room" (really just a few feet) onto the matress and wouldn't stop coming back to get more.
My theory is that most (all?) mammals evolved a liking for fast movement to counteract the unpleasant exertion that usually accompanies it, and which might otherwise encourage them to sit around doing nothing all day. This is a simpler mechanism (and thus more likely to evolve) that something involving delayed rewards for exertion. If you can get the the fast movement without the exertion, net pleasure is even higher.
The cat being thrown probably feels the same as a human driving a fast car or riding a roller-coaster, or a dog putting its head out a car window, or a mouse stopping suddenly on an exercise wheel to let it spin it around.
I did something similar with my cat growing up, tossing him onto the bed or the couch, and he seemed to enjoy it and would keep coming back. Eventually we had a sort of routine where I'd toss him into a backflip and he'd land gracefully. He also played fetch with little paper or foil balls, dropping them near my feet and panting(!) like a dog once he got a bit tired from chasing them. The last interesting behavior to me is that he liked to burrow underneath blankets to sleep next to people, but that one might be more usual.
He was a large black and white short-hair cat. I always described his behavior as very dog-like and some people were very surprised by it.
Edit: I should have at least tried to respond to your question. I agree with the sibling comments theory about how animals enjoying movement can encourage their physical development.
The subtitle of the article is cats who fetch. I'm sorry to be a pedant, but language matters when we talk about other living beings, and I think it's important that we recognize them as such, rather than, say, a box that opens, or a Bluetooth speaker that ran out of battery.
Good that you aren't implying this topic is important. I was going to be extremely offended if you did. Because thats the new trendy thing to do: get offended by things that aren't important.
This is the point I am making. Human exceptionalism is built into our language and it is wrongheaded. Anyone who has known a cat will be aware that they are full of personality, very much unlike a box or a Bluetooth speaker.
I think this topic is not important. We slaughter self aware animals and eat their flesh. That's the biggest sin we commit and I don't even care. Why should I care about this grammatical politeness?
Also the cat doesn't even care, it's not cats getting offended it's just people.
Language can be used flexibly, word choice can be used to subtly emphasise an aspect.
I think it's more permissible when it is used to emphasise that the cat as a living being is exercising agency in voluntary behaviour that they enjoy. (1)
e.g. "Cats that shed" or "rocks that crumble" vs "Cats who fetch" and "people who sing".
"Cats that shed" is definitely correct. "Cats who fetch" implies that the cat has agency and choice here, is in a small way "human-like".
Are "humans that walk" and "people that sing" incorrect in some versions of English? I am a foreigner who is relatively good at English, but I do not remember seeing this prescription in textbooks or style guides.
On the other hand, above I just wrote "I am a foreigner that ..." and Grammarly corrected me to "I am a foreigner who ...". I am still leaving this comment here as a reference to others that wonder the same.
I don’t think most English speakers have a strong preference for ‘who’ over ‘that’ in these constructs, which means it’s no longer a matter of ‘correctness’.
When it no longer even sounds wrong to well educated well-read native speakers, it’s pure prescriptive conservatism to hang on to the idea that there’s a grammatical rule there.
I think there’s a stronger instinct to use ‘who’ in preference to ‘which’ in these kinds of constructions - but overall in English both who and which are frequently replaced with ‘that’ in contexts where that previously would have been considered incorrect.
Usually "the people that," is referring to a role that some people fulfill, like "the people that make the laws." Whereas if you're referring to a category of people with a shared behavior, it feels more natural to say "people who bicycle to work" rather than "people that cycle to work."
I'm not sure there is any grammatical rule for this, though. And besides, nobody likes people that nitpick ;)
Hard disagree. Language doesn't matter. Only communication and intent matters and language is only a servant to communication and intent.
If the intent and meaning came across and the intention wasn't to offend and the meaning is clear there is zero and I mean zero need to pretend to be offended. The cat doesn't even care and clearly no body here thinks of cats as Bluetooth speakers... what practical purpose does any of this serve? None.
It's all part of that pronoun thing started by transgender people. The desire to be recognized as a certain gender in language codified into a "law" and that law is now being taken to logical extremes in such a way that we have to use the correct term for cats. The next step is to teach cats English so they can actually be offended.
Sometimes you don't have to overthink it everything. The explanation for the behavior is simple. Cats have a natural instinct to hunt, and when you throw a toy for them, they get to exercise that instinct. After they've done it once, the sense of reward drives them to seek the reward again. Therefore, they attempt to repeat it by prompting the thrower to throw again by bringing them the toy.
Instincts are such a weird concept. It's incredible how so many specific behaviors can be genetically encoded, to the point they're visible even in animals that are raised in human households. Their parents aren't passing down cultural memes to them, and yet they still know exactly what to do.
It makes me wonder how much instinctual human behavior we're conflating with learned behavior. Since we have language it's easy to assume that we do things because we learned them. But what about a Tarzan situation? How would a human behave if raised in total isolation, or even under the purview of other animals like the legendary Remus and Romulus (at least they had each other)? If the role of cat and human were reversed, what would humans do that the cats found endearing and "just human instinct?"
I would encourage you to look up the history of feral children, but the results are quite saddening (confounded, of course, by the fact that any child raised this way would by definition have grown up in an abusive environment).
Oliver Sacks argues in his book Seeing Voices (about sign language, and why it is important that we let the deaf speak it (which, yes, was controversial among the hearing up until a few decades ago)), that this is because our brain evolved to the point that it needs to acquire language from the human tribe we are born into to fully function. It is basically "incomplete" without it.
Ludwig Wittgenstein's no-private-language argument also applies here. He wrote that you can't make up your own words or concepts, absent any interaction with others, because there's nothing to stop you from changing your mind on what that word means the next day. (No "criterion for identity".)
Sounded controversial to me when I first encountered it, but apparently accepted by modern philosophers as a legit argument. (That language is necessarily a public/communal thing.)
> because there's nothing to stop you from changing your mind on what that word means the next day.
Ok, that is interesting and I can kind of see it, but this is basically assuming you already have acquired language and talks about the actual act of using language. Otherwise it's a bit of a circular argument: consciously deciding what a word means, as opposed to intuiting its meaning from experience, context and memory, requires being able to consciously structure and organize thoughts. And for that you need to be able to categorize the thoughts, which requires labeling them, which already presupposes a rudimentary form of language.
(Also, if I were to "make up a word with a meaning", use it in a sentence I write down, then read it again the next day, then there is something stopping me from changing my mind on what it means: making sense of my own past thoughts. But this is a bit of a cheat because "past me" and "current me" are arguably two different entities)
The problem I have with Wittgenstein (and many philosophers) is that they rarely, if ever, seem to leave the domain of language and semiotics to consider the world outside of the signposts that the signposts actually point to. They're having too much fun with their language games.
Meanwhile, Sacks is always trying to stay grounded in what we know from research and case studies. For example Seeing Voices describes accounts of the prelingual deaf who acquired sign language later in life, and therefore were able to describe what their experience of acquiring language was like (since childhood amnesia[0] did erase the memories of this process). I can't fully recall the details on the spot here, but living without language essentially is like suffering from an absence of mental "scaffolding", making it impossible to compose ideas together to build cohesive, complex lines of thought.
So sacks also concludes that we need other humans to acquire language (really, to become human in general), but it's more of a matter of bootstrapping: in order to acquire language you need a dialogue, and you can't have that if none of the participants of the dialogue posses a language!
I am not well-read enough to opine on your reaction Re: Wittgenstein, esp. since I haven't read Sacks' work. But you are the first person I've encountered who appears to have an internalized understanding of these ideas, and so am curious to continue the conversation:
> So sacks also concludes that we need other humans to acquire language (really, to become human in general)
I do agree with Sacks' conclusion, having first come across a version of it in Hegel's dialectic--the dialectic of self vs. other. Or in my interpretation, of personhood and relationship. i.e. Personhood is forged through relationships with other persons.
Do you think this applies to AGI? That it needs to bootstrap itself by communicating and relating with other intelligences? This, and related concepts like free will, tend to be ignored in the scientific literature on the subject[1].
> Do you think this applies to AGI? That it needs to bootstrap itself by communicating and relating with other intelligences? This, and related concepts like free will, tend to be ignored in the scientific literature on the subject[1].
That sounds plausible. On the other hand, it might be another case our tendency to judge intelligence by the already existing intelligence that we know of, which is us. But we probably shouldn't assume that that is the only form of "intelligence" that exists.
Related to that: these types of discussion tend to get rather fuzzy because most of the words involved ("intelligence" especially) aren't nearly as neatly defined as our gut feeling tends to make us believe. And depending on which interpretation people pick they can wildly talk past each other, or even confuse themselves by not realizing they're switching between which aspect of intelligence they're talking about in the middle of their argument without realizing it.
Which is precisely why I don't really feel the urge to go deeper into what might be needed for AGI right now though, apologies. I think we maybe should put a bit more effort into understanding humans first.
Have had 2 cats in life: 1 would always want to go outside (my record of going toward the front door, then U-turning toward the back door and them following me throughout was 17 return trips until I got tired out and let them out). -10C outside? Still wanted to sit on the patio for 10 minutes.
Cat2: completely afraid of anything and everything outdoors. Will follow you around the house, but absolutely not follow you outside.
Much better for the surrounding native animals though. You of course need to provide them with enough stimulation, play with them and keep them active. Their concept of sanity is not like human sanity, cats like to be in enclosed spaces that have their scent and they feel safe in the environment. It's partially how they were raised and genetics, if they would prefer staying indoors or trying to stay outdoors. Keeping them indoors since young makes them accustomed to it, and is the best age to train them with good habits.
I don't think that explains it at all. There are plenty of rewarding behaviors that cats don't give two shits about. And it also doesn't explain why some do it and others don't. Plus, cats have individual personalities. Not everything is driven by instinct.
That is adorable! All my cats were always consistent shoulder riders in their kittenhood, but the physics of balancing a 7kg feline stretching almost a meter in length on a lanky guy’s shoulder(s) are a lot more challenging than placing a tiny ball of fluff in that same spot and walking around.
I had a cat that would fetch only one particular kind of Christmas tree decoration (like a little stuffed animal). Anything else wouldn't interest her, even if it had a similar shape and size.
It sounds more like 15% of cats realized their humans could be made to entertain them with proper prompting.
My experience with fetching cats is that it is a comforting/boredom relief behavior. They bring me a toy, I throw and they chase it, then bring it back to my general location (they get distracted and drop it easily, most often right before jumping onto the couch). The fact the loop can be repeated a few times before they get bored again and move on is just bonus points.
To emphasize your second point: I have learned that cats are much more “obedient” - but really, much less inclined to suddenly just not give a damn - as kittens than when they get older.
I had an extremely bright kitten that learned his name in a week, would come running no matter where he was in the (fairly large) house when I called his name, even if he was asleep, etc and would perfectly play fetch, up to and including bringing the toy all the way back to my hand/lap.
He didn’t forget his name or how to play a year later. He just realized he doesn’t have to get up from his comfortable spot just because I felt like calling his name. Likewise he figured if he just makes a half-ditch effort to bring a fetch toy back, perhaps picking it up a few paces only, I’ll still pick it back up and play fetch with him again.
They’re creatures that (who) have mastered the art of doing the bare minimum to get by.
My cat did this, but only started after I was gone for three weeks.
The night I got home he was so happy he started bringing me his toys on bed. All of his toys. Eventually various household objects. Finally a wooden spoon to my face! I was so confused I tossed it away, and he played fetch with it ever since(and later other objects sometimes).
I had a cat that would gift give if I was away for a while too. I always figured it was a bribe to not do it again. He also liked to play fetch, but it predated the gift thing.
I'm 63. Cats seem a lot more friendly and open to human interaction now than when I was a kid. I wonder what they were like 200 years ago. Especially barn cats, with half wild lifestyles.
Some cats now have floppy ears -- I first saw that in the late 90s. Floppy ears is a sign of domestication in dogs and foxes.
> I'm 63. Cats seem a lot more friendly and open to human interaction now than when I was a kid.
I’m only a little behind you. I noted that my dad (b. mid 1930s) would pick up and cuddle our cats but was pretty unconcerned about dropping the cat when done (cat would always twist and land on its feet). Also kitty litter was only developed in the early 60s so ppl chucked the cats out at night.
I’ve always been careful to rotate the cat and place it somewhere on its feet. I think the cultures simply used to be casually rougher and it made the cats wary. My cats will lie on their backs in my arms and fall asleep. With my dad they were happy for a cuddle and would purr but their eyes were always open as they were alert to an unexpected change in orientation and support.
Used to live in Asia with a lot of street cats that never had an owner. I ended up adopting a lost kitten in my shed (mum didn't come back after 2 days, so didn't have much choice beyond letter her starve).
Because I now had food out for my cat I ended up with a lot of street cats come visit (i.e. steal food). My house was pretty open (tropical climate) so bit difficult to prevent, and I didn't really mind so it was all good. Can use a lot of adjectives for these cats, but "friendly" and "open to human interaction" are not among them.
At some point I left the bedroom door open and a kitten wandered in. My bedroom was closed off and I wanted to get him out as I wanted to close the door to leave for the evening. Had to get him from behind the wardrobe.
I had been feeding him for a few months already so I figured that should be fine. It wasn't. I found out that the answer to "how much pain can a small cute kitten inflict" is "surprisingly a lot". Then there were the two siblings that would miaow at me to get food, but then hiss at me for getting too close to the food bowl where they were waiting. Herp derp.
Cats that didn't grow up with humans are completely different animals then cats that grew up with humans. This is probably fairly close to your barn cats from 200 years ago.
Mine puts his toys into my suitcase when I pack. Once, when we had a houseguest, I refused to feed him dinner twice. We found him packing his toys into our houseguest’s case.
This is not a big mystery. Cats play for the same reason that dogs and kids do. For some reason cats vary a lot in how they play. But its no mystery why it often involves chasing something that moves. They are genetically evolved to practice hunting, because they are natural hunters.
> He picked it up and threw it, and she ran and brought it back several times until she had had enough... My roommate hadn't trained the cat to do anything. She had trained him to be her cat toy.
My daughter first learned to train dogs as part of Guide Dogs for the Blind. When she got a cat, she tried training it in the same way, and it worked. Her cat will sit, stay, “do her business”, lie down, etc. on command. It is kind of bizarre and makes me wonder how many other cats can be trained likewise.
One of our cats will sit, high five, and run in a circle on command. Neither of us have ever trained any animals before, it just took some patience and some treats.
I lived with a Siamese cat once. I didn't teach her to fetch. She taught me to throw again. She used to love those little foam balls, but only the yellow ones. Other colors were just not as fun too play with.
115 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 184 ms ] threadWhether or not we consider the basal instinct as retrieval vs some other similar instinct that can be easily used to motivate the retrieval behavior [1], I’d wager most dog owners that have trained (or attempted at least!) would agree that some dogs are just more likely to become good retrievers which to me suggests that there’s more than just a basic pleasure stimulus response.
Similar dog behaviors based on breed that I would argue at least point towards instinctual behavior being at least a partial explanation for behavior are herding and live stock protection breeds. Take a quick watch of any of the sheep herding competitions or other fun related videos [2] to see what I mean.
However, at the end of the day I also think that most “instincts” are more of a shorthand/stereotype for some set of abstract probabilities that may or may not result in a dog being good or bad at any specifically desired behavior.
[1] https://www.wildfowlmag.com/editorial/tips_strategies_wf_ins... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FX9rviEhw
Because we fundamentally disagree on the intent. I don't agree that a cat is engaging in parasitic exploitation of the human toy-thrower, and I don't agree that a dog is toiling in servitude to the thankless human who keeps throwing away the retrieved item. They both love chasing things, they both understand that to chase the thing again they need to return it to the human, and they both appreciate the positive reinforcement, bonding, petting, and attention when they do so.
A dog however simply does not do things on its own much, dogs are maybe even more social than humans and live in packs (dog owner is de facto pack leader). Play is more social for them. Take out peer/leader to play with and half the excitement is gone. Dogs generally would not consider mechanical ball dispenser equally exciting of a partner
The simple answer is that being thrown make the cat practice how to land.
But the actual answer is probably that creatures like cats are big enough to contain a lot of evolutionary noises and legacies that it can do random shit.
But he was wierd. He liked going on walks on a leash, and demanded a chair at the table when we played boardgames and he would happily sit and watch us play (or sit in the middle of the board until we got him a seat).
The first time I met him, he very clearly, intentionally guided me to his brother who was sick (meow, runs towards me, meow then back towards his brother, repeat).
We lost him kinda without warning, he got an ear infection that popped his eardrum then he never recovered from the shock. Cats don't communicate pain or discomfort well, so we didn't even realize something was wrong until it was too late.
But yeah, consistent recessive outliers are an evolutionary advantage trait. I've seen a lot of arguments that neurodiversity is an evolutionary trait, as having multiple behavior patterns in the population helps with survival. Cats are social animals, which means a similar neurodiversity pressure probably acts on them.
I've lived with several different cats whose favourite position was directly between the people and the television. I'm not a cat person (nor a dog person); I know nothing. But I suppose they like human attention, so they sit where the humans are looking.
I'm pretty sure it is, as society needs us nerds to invent new things.
Also what's the evolutionary explanation for you trying to save the cat?
Personally I think it's genetic drift. In safe environments natural selection by definition is much less strict and thus all kinds of random mutations pass the bar of survival.
Demonstrating trust strengthens bonds. In the wild, that kid might be more likely to defend that cat’s interests when e.g. food ran short.
So you swung the proverbial cat ? :)
The cat being thrown probably feels the same as a human driving a fast car or riding a roller-coaster, or a dog putting its head out a car window, or a mouse stopping suddenly on an exercise wheel to let it spin it around.
I had never considered they may be doing that on purpose.
He was a large black and white short-hair cat. I always described his behavior as very dog-like and some people were very surprised by it.
Edit: I should have at least tried to respond to your question. I agree with the sibling comments theory about how animals enjoying movement can encourage their physical development.
Besides, cats objectively have fewer rights because I can own one, for example.
This is better bait for a pedant then a laser pointer is for a cat...
Also the cat doesn't even care, it's not cats getting offended it's just people.
I think it's more permissible when it is used to emphasise that the cat as a living being is exercising agency in voluntary behaviour that they enjoy. (1)
e.g. "Cats that shed" or "rocks that crumble" vs "Cats who fetch" and "people who sing".
"Cats that shed" is definitely correct. "Cats who fetch" implies that the cat has agency and choice here, is in a small way "human-like".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38405224
On the other hand, above I just wrote "I am a foreigner that ..." and Grammarly corrected me to "I am a foreigner who ...". I am still leaving this comment here as a reference to others that wonder the same.
Nevertheless, in formal, written English, “who” is the overwhelmingly correct choice. Cf https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=people+who%2Cp...
When it no longer even sounds wrong to well educated well-read native speakers, it’s pure prescriptive conservatism to hang on to the idea that there’s a grammatical rule there.
I think there’s a stronger instinct to use ‘who’ in preference to ‘which’ in these kinds of constructions - but overall in English both who and which are frequently replaced with ‘that’ in contexts where that previously would have been considered incorrect.
“Who” is more often identified with individual/identity than sentience. They’re not talking about particular, individual cats.
I'm not sure there is any grammatical rule for this, though. And besides, nobody likes people that nitpick ;)
If the intent and meaning came across and the intention wasn't to offend and the meaning is clear there is zero and I mean zero need to pretend to be offended. The cat doesn't even care and clearly no body here thinks of cats as Bluetooth speakers... what practical purpose does any of this serve? None.
It's all part of that pronoun thing started by transgender people. The desire to be recognized as a certain gender in language codified into a "law" and that law is now being taken to logical extremes in such a way that we have to use the correct term for cats. The next step is to teach cats English so they can actually be offended.
My problem is other people having arbitrary problems with language.
It makes me wonder how much instinctual human behavior we're conflating with learned behavior. Since we have language it's easy to assume that we do things because we learned them. But what about a Tarzan situation? How would a human behave if raised in total isolation, or even under the purview of other animals like the legendary Remus and Romulus (at least they had each other)? If the role of cat and human were reversed, what would humans do that the cats found endearing and "just human instinct?"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Voices
Sounded controversial to me when I first encountered it, but apparently accepted by modern philosophers as a legit argument. (That language is necessarily a public/communal thing.)
Ok, that is interesting and I can kind of see it, but this is basically assuming you already have acquired language and talks about the actual act of using language. Otherwise it's a bit of a circular argument: consciously deciding what a word means, as opposed to intuiting its meaning from experience, context and memory, requires being able to consciously structure and organize thoughts. And for that you need to be able to categorize the thoughts, which requires labeling them, which already presupposes a rudimentary form of language.
(Also, if I were to "make up a word with a meaning", use it in a sentence I write down, then read it again the next day, then there is something stopping me from changing my mind on what it means: making sense of my own past thoughts. But this is a bit of a cheat because "past me" and "current me" are arguably two different entities)
The problem I have with Wittgenstein (and many philosophers) is that they rarely, if ever, seem to leave the domain of language and semiotics to consider the world outside of the signposts that the signposts actually point to. They're having too much fun with their language games.
Meanwhile, Sacks is always trying to stay grounded in what we know from research and case studies. For example Seeing Voices describes accounts of the prelingual deaf who acquired sign language later in life, and therefore were able to describe what their experience of acquiring language was like (since childhood amnesia[0] did erase the memories of this process). I can't fully recall the details on the spot here, but living without language essentially is like suffering from an absence of mental "scaffolding", making it impossible to compose ideas together to build cohesive, complex lines of thought.
So sacks also concludes that we need other humans to acquire language (really, to become human in general), but it's more of a matter of bootstrapping: in order to acquire language you need a dialogue, and you can't have that if none of the participants of the dialogue posses a language!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_amnesia
> So sacks also concludes that we need other humans to acquire language (really, to become human in general)
I do agree with Sacks' conclusion, having first come across a version of it in Hegel's dialectic--the dialectic of self vs. other. Or in my interpretation, of personhood and relationship. i.e. Personhood is forged through relationships with other persons.
Do you think this applies to AGI? That it needs to bootstrap itself by communicating and relating with other intelligences? This, and related concepts like free will, tend to be ignored in the scientific literature on the subject[1].
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08708 Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness
That sounds plausible. On the other hand, it might be another case our tendency to judge intelligence by the already existing intelligence that we know of, which is us. But we probably shouldn't assume that that is the only form of "intelligence" that exists.
Related to that: these types of discussion tend to get rather fuzzy because most of the words involved ("intelligence" especially) aren't nearly as neatly defined as our gut feeling tends to make us believe. And depending on which interpretation people pick they can wildly talk past each other, or even confuse themselves by not realizing they're switching between which aspect of intelligence they're talking about in the middle of their argument without realizing it.
Which is precisely why I don't really feel the urge to go deeper into what might be needed for AGI right now though, apologies. I think we maybe should put a bit more effort into understanding humans first.
Cat2: completely afraid of anything and everything outdoors. Will follow you around the house, but absolutely not follow you outside.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
there's a guy in my neighborhood who cruises around on his MTB with a shoulder cat. i am very jealous.
would a substitute suffice? (or offend?)
My experience with fetching cats is that it is a comforting/boredom relief behavior. They bring me a toy, I throw and they chase it, then bring it back to my general location (they get distracted and drop it easily, most often right before jumping onto the couch). The fact the loop can be repeated a few times before they get bored again and move on is just bonus points.
I had an extremely bright kitten that learned his name in a week, would come running no matter where he was in the (fairly large) house when I called his name, even if he was asleep, etc and would perfectly play fetch, up to and including bringing the toy all the way back to my hand/lap.
He didn’t forget his name or how to play a year later. He just realized he doesn’t have to get up from his comfortable spot just because I felt like calling his name. Likewise he figured if he just makes a half-ditch effort to bring a fetch toy back, perhaps picking it up a few paces only, I’ll still pick it back up and play fetch with him again.
They’re creatures that (who) have mastered the art of doing the bare minimum to get by.
Something that becomes incredibly obvious if they react, e.g. twitch their tail, when you call their name but not another.
The night I got home he was so happy he started bringing me his toys on bed. All of his toys. Eventually various household objects. Finally a wooden spoon to my face! I was so confused I tossed it away, and he played fetch with it ever since(and later other objects sometimes).
I had a cat that would gift give if I was away for a while too. I always figured it was a bribe to not do it again. He also liked to play fetch, but it predated the gift thing.
Maybe domestic cats are slowly evolving into dogs!
Some cats now have floppy ears -- I first saw that in the late 90s. Floppy ears is a sign of domestication in dogs and foxes.
I’m only a little behind you. I noted that my dad (b. mid 1930s) would pick up and cuddle our cats but was pretty unconcerned about dropping the cat when done (cat would always twist and land on its feet). Also kitty litter was only developed in the early 60s so ppl chucked the cats out at night.
I’ve always been careful to rotate the cat and place it somewhere on its feet. I think the cultures simply used to be casually rougher and it made the cats wary. My cats will lie on their backs in my arms and fall asleep. With my dad they were happy for a cuddle and would purr but their eyes were always open as they were alert to an unexpected change in orientation and support.
Because I now had food out for my cat I ended up with a lot of street cats come visit (i.e. steal food). My house was pretty open (tropical climate) so bit difficult to prevent, and I didn't really mind so it was all good. Can use a lot of adjectives for these cats, but "friendly" and "open to human interaction" are not among them.
At some point I left the bedroom door open and a kitten wandered in. My bedroom was closed off and I wanted to get him out as I wanted to close the door to leave for the evening. Had to get him from behind the wardrobe.
I had been feeding him for a few months already so I figured that should be fine. It wasn't. I found out that the answer to "how much pain can a small cute kitten inflict" is "surprisingly a lot". Then there were the two siblings that would miaow at me to get food, but then hiss at me for getting too close to the food bowl where they were waiting. Herp derp.
Cats that didn't grow up with humans are completely different animals then cats that grew up with humans. This is probably fairly close to your barn cats from 200 years ago.
https://archive.ph/qwkvc
https://idlewords.com/talks/robot_armies.htm
> He picked it up and threw it, and she ran and brought it back several times until she had had enough... My roommate hadn't trained the cat to do anything. She had trained him to be her cat toy.
> "...and makes me wonder how many other cats can be trained..."
Reaction: Trained by a typical cat owner, or trained by your top-0.1% in animal training skill daughter?
https://www.charlesmingus.com/mingus/cat-traning-program
https://archive.ph/qwkvc
He passed away in 2020, still miss him.