Do any animals (besides humans) have a sense of time?

ironmarlin1 said:The standard interpretations of quantum mechanics work perfectly fine, and as far as anyone knows, they don't contain any contradictions—any physicist worth their salt would tell you the same thing. If you’re feeling skeptical, feel free to head over to the natural sciences subforum and try to point out a contradiction there. 🤷
So far, you haven't actually demonstrated any legal conflict within the laws of physics suggesting that a value can be both A and non-A. You've just been rambling about the scope of definitions, which is a rather obscure way to approach the problem.

amberviper said:Of course you can, because otherwise, how else would you arrive at the idea that we possess internal, external, and semantic worlds? How could you possibly tell the difference between fantasy or abstraction and plain old reality? You're just generalizing things and getting lost in all the formalities... And you'll never become creative or a true creator through logic alone. That requires intuition, which then uses logic as a sort of "tool" to construct or postulate models and theories. Sure, a world without rationality is incomprehensible, but a world without logic? Well, you might get by... maybe even better!

amberviper said:Could you perhaps elaborate on what exactly you mean by the phrase "certain functionality of the organism"? What does that "functionality" actually entail in your view?

That’s just proof that you can't squeeze more data out of a machine than what you feed into it. But a human being isn't some piece of hardware, a computer, or any sort of mechanical engine! We generate that stuff ourselves. That is where the fundamental distinction lies. Humans are self-aware beings capable of producing far more than we simply consume.🙂
Is this a paradox, or just a classic "L-law" scenario?

James Lee77 said:A tennis player sprints toward a ball they can barely reach and catches a glimpse out of the corner of their eye that their opponent has rushed the net. The tennis player hits a lob and passes them.

Did the tennis player think, "Aha, there he is at the net, that leaves space behind him—I just need to lob it and the point is mine!" after seeing the opponent?

I don't think so. It feels more like something completely non-verbal—they saw the opponent, realized the opportunity, and acted on that opportunity.

A seagull flies over the ocean and spots a fish. It dives deep. (I would say "it dives deep to catch the fish"—but for some reasons I don't quite get, you and ironmarlin1 don't agree that it's okay to say the seagull dives with the intention of catching the fish it saw, or for the purpose of catching the fish it spotted.)

I don't see any difference between the tennis player making a split-second play and the seagull diving for prey. Sure, the difference comes in that the tennis player can reflect on the move later and look for different options—but the moment of decision itself seems the same to me: there's an insight into a possibility, and then a decision. As far as I can tell, that decision isn't verbal.

So, it seems totally fair to say a seagull has the intention to catch a fish, just like a tennis player has the intention to pass their opponent.

When we're talking about planning for the future, yeah, language clearly lets humans do way more than animals that can't talk.

But, going back to that earlier example:

When a fox buries extra food, it buries it

a) for later
b) just because
c) instinctively.

My answer is a), and I haven't seen anything in this thread yet to change my mind. From what I gather, ironmarlin1's answer is b), and yours is c), but I just don't see the distinction between human intentionality (since it's non-verbal) and animal instinct.

James Lee77 said:Okay, look, imagine you're an anthropologist visiting some remote tribe where you don't speak the language at all.
You watch them stash away food, and then you see them coming back for it later.
What would you honestly think?

Wouldn't you just assume, "Hey, they're saving this for later"? I mean, would you really be like, "I won't assume anything until I have hard evidence"?

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Aganor1,
If animals just operated on pure instinct like you’re claiming, then a dog wouldn't straight-up stop eating out of grief after being separated from an owner they actually loved.

ironmarlin1;14765764 said:

Is a guy with liver cancer healthy? No, his body isn't functioning properly.

You can't just dodge the point like that, ironmarlin1! You didn't actually answer what I asked... sure, a man with liver cancer isn't "healthy," but that doesn't mean he isn't a "functioning organism," and you're using that as your whole argument! It's clear you don't really grasp what that term implies...😁

It’s obvious you haven't kept up with AI research. Computers are perfectly capable of creative problem-solving, like through evolutionary algorithms.

I wouldn't say I'm an expert, but unfortunately, you're even further behind... My point stands, though—you simply cannot extract more information from these machines than what you've already poured into them, and that's an unshakeable fact. Have you even considered why that is?
Look, ironmarlin1, humans build these systems, which is exactly why they remain imperfect, unconscious, and devoid of emotion, even if we manage to give them the illusion of having those human qualities...
Your references are completely meaningless!

ironmarlin1 said:How else would I have concluded that we possess an internal, external, and semantic world? If I hadn't reached that conclusion, I wouldn't be here, but *you* are the one who arrived there, not me. You're conflating entirely different concepts. Please, explain to me: how exactly did the creative Bach break the rules of logic? You speak as if the two are mutually exclusive, which is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Or as if intuition serves as some kind of counter-argument to logic. It's just silly.
Since you seem to perceive the world through a lens that ignores logic entirely, pray tell, how do you grasp the truth value of a statement where both $p$ and $\neg p$ are asserted? Either way, you end up in a contradiction, flipping-flopping between one point and its opposite. Sadly, you really ought to make a choice. You can't claim to have five fingers on your hand while simultaneously claiming you don't, or can you? 🤷

amberviper said:Since animals are capable of thought, they act accordingly. But their behavior isn't governed by logic or reason—their primitive "consciousness" just lacks that cohesive sense of self...

Then again, we haven't even fully explored that yet.
Even if they are thinking, animals aren't driven by intention, but strictly by instinct. It's obvious they bury food for later, but it isn't a conscious choice; it's just baked-in biological drives. When you see a jaguar in the jungle covering its extra food with leaves, it's clearly instinctive... because if it were truly intentional, the animal would find a secure shelter first and then go store the food there. It doesn't do that, so it's clear it's not acting with intent.

amberviper said:Since you've started trivializing everything, I think it might be time for a little breather. What on earth does Bach's music have to do with formal logic? Are you high or something?😁

amberviper said:You can’t just dodge the point like that, ironmarlin1! You haven't actually answered what I asked! Look, a man suffering from advanced liver failure isn't exactly "healthy," but that doesn't mean he isn't a "functioning organism," does it? And you're treating that like some kind of trophy win! You clearly have no idea what we're actually talking about here!😁

I wouldn't claim to be an expert, though unfortunately, you seem even less informed than I am. My core premise—that you can't squeeze more intelligence out of these machines than the data you feed into them—remains absolutely unshakable.

But ironmarlin1, humans are the ones building these systems, which is precisely why they remain flawed, unconscious, and devoid of emotion, even if we can certainly program them to mimic those very human traits.
Your references are completely nonsensical!

amberviper said:Have you ever even stopped to consider how animals react when their entire life situation shifts? You haven't!
When we move an animal from one territory to another, they go through that exact same process until they finally acclimate. It’s how they process stress. If an animal has formed an "emotional" bond with a person, they’re going to react to that separation with that kind of intense stress, and it isn't some calculated choice on their part...

Keith Lee2 said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P8Nwl7FAJk

You guys have probably seen this already, but watching these crows... I feel like there's
something more going on than just pure instinct.🤷

Davor000;14766919 said:

There’s no trophy here. A functioning system is just one that manages to survive in today's environment...

Of course there's a win here, because nothing is more ridiculous than watching an amateur try to lecture an expert. You can't even answer my question, which is your loss, and everything else you're saying is just old news.

There’s no point arguing with you because every time I answer one thing, you immediately pivot to something else instead of sticking to the topic. You claimed computers can't be creative, then when I gave you an example where they could, you suddenly switched gears to talk about consciousness. It's pointless, so I'm out. It's impossible to have a real debate with someone who dodges concrete questions by talking nonsense.

It isn't helpful to just parrot things back without realizing how wrong you are. My point remains: computers cannot be creative, because true creation requires something entirely new. No computer is capable of bringing anything truly novel into existence since it's strictly limited by its creator, which is a human being. A machine only operates based on the code written by its specialist.
Computers alone aren't creative and they don't create anything new! Is that clear? Only humans possess the power of creation! Not some machine, and certainly not some computer!

Kenneth Peterson5 said:I don't know, I really don't know, Aganore1, but from what little I do know, you're being way too stubborn when you talk about what animals can and can't do.

I'll give you two more examples involving dogs—since I'm talking about my own pets here, so I'm speaking from firsthand experience.

There was this four-month-old puppy, totally trained, that I gave to a friend of mine who's a vet. At his place, the pup was eating meat, sleeping wherever he wanted, had company all day, a huge backyard, and plenty of walks.
Within a month, my friend handed the puppy right back to me because first, he started peeing everywhere he shouldn't, then he stopped listening, then he started tearing things up, and finally, he actually started biting.
Once the puppy was back home with me, he went right back to behaving perfectly.

Then there's my two dogs—both pretty old, and one has a limp. The other one, as soon as he realized the first guy's limp was acting up a bit more, starts faking a limp himself whenever the first one is nearby.
If that isn't intentional, then I have no clue what is.

amberviper said:Of course there’s a failure here, because there is nothing quite as unsightly as the fact that an amateur thinks they can lecture a professional. You aren't capable of answering my question, and that is your shortcoming; everything else you're bringing up is just old news.

It isn't particularly productive to parrot arguments without recognizing the fallacy behind them. My position remains unchanged: computers cannot be creative, because true creation necessitates the birth of something entirely unprecedented.

A computer alone is not creative and creates nothing new! Do you understand? Only humans possess the power of creation! Not a machine, and certainly not a computer!

ironmarlin1 said:I find myself returning to this particular thought quite often, much like how one might revisit a complex movement by Bach, only to realize that the nuances I missed during the first listening are actually the very heart of the composition. It’s a bit like trying to map out the interstate highway system while driving through a heavy fog—you think you have a firm grasp on the direction you're heading, but then a single unexpected detour reveals just how little you truly understood about the terrain. When I look back at what amberviper was saying earlier, there is a certain undeniable gravity to the argument, even if I can't quite bring myself to agree with the specific conclusion they reached. It reminds me of those long, winding discussions we used to have over coffee in Seattle, where we would spend three hours debating the merits of a single philosophical concept, only to realize we had completely bypassed the actual problem at hand. We tend to get caught up in the elegance of the theory, much like a scholar lost in the footnotes of a dense textbook, forgetting that the practical application is where the real friction occurs. It isn't that the logic is flawed, per se, but rather that it feels somewhat insulated from the messy, unpredictable reality of how things actually function in a place like Chicago or New York. You can design the most streamlined, efficient process imaginable—something akin to an optimized logistics network run by FedEx—but the moment you introduce the human element, the whole thing tends to wobble. There is an inherent unpredictability in people that no amount of theoretical modeling can ever fully account for, no matter how many variables you plug into your equation.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that you aren't actually following your own train of thought, and since you seem to have completely abandoned the basic principles of logic, I find there is really no point in attempting to engage in any kind of meaningful argument with you. 🤷

Davor000;14768325 said:

An amateur? An expert?

Don't you realize this whole debate is just weighing you down too much? Regarding that whole "functioning organism" question, I'm the expert here and you're just some uneducated layman... just accept it once and for all.

What are you even talking about? Calling yourself an expert while trying to explain evolution by comparing chimpanzees to crows... whenever someone starts labeling themselves an expert and everyone they disagree with as a layman, it’s pretty easy to see we're dealing with someone who isn't quite civilized and can only really affirm evolution and their connection to distant ancestors.

Evolution isn't a proven theory. To me, the arguments against it actually make sense, whereas the ones supporting it don't... so what we're looking at here is "evolutionism," basically just an ideology that atheist evolutionists want to use as the foundation for their scientific, dogmatic "religion."

There's music out there that is entirely new and more creative than anything you'll ever compose in your life. For instance, check out http://arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm—it's available in MIDI and MP3 formats.

Do you even understand what you're saying? Those compositions are just the result of a human-written program, so just wake up and realize it... which means nothing about them is actually new!

Hey, calm down. You aren't preaching here. I already gave you an example of how a computer creates new music without any human involvement.

But who built the computer and wrote the programming for that composition software? A person, an engineer... where is your logic in that?👎