why haven't shrimps developed tool usage? they seem well designed for it
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
why haven't shrimps developed tool usage? they seem well designed for it
why haven't shrimps developed tool usage? they seem well designed for it
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Page 10. Good riddance. I'm sorry your thread turned into this OP.
>Nearly 400 posts of this inane mindless arguing
Autism. In its purest, most refined form. Simple as.
>mfw a thread about animals not using tools is going to hit bump limit
Tool use is not a moving target or a vague one
If an object is used to manipulate another object in real time it is a tool being used
Pissing on a bush is communication not tool use. Tool use is always purposeful and part of problem solving. Communication can be accidental.
A dog moving a stool to create a path is close to tool use, but is not exactly to use, it’s missing the part where it realizes objects can be used to manipulate other objects. Pigeons and dogs can move stools but not use tools. They lack the depth of thought needed to realize and act upon the realization that an object can be used as a constant physical and conceptual extension of and enhancement to the body.
>If an object is used to manipulate another object in real time
much better
thank you
I like that a lot more than "any time an object is manipulated for a purpose."
It gets rid of the teleological problem of whether the animal imagined a purpose or the human did.
The problem of imagined purposes was never part of what makes a tool, that’s something you came up with to try and discount tool use in animals
it certainly is.
If an animal behaves instinctively and I imagine it is behaving with purpose, I have falsely identified a tool use via anthropomorphization.
It's crazy the levels white people will go to separate members of the same species.
It’s crazy how many wieners you will suck out of desperation for a (You).
All mammals are self aware and experience conscious thought
and birds too! and plants! and tardigrades!
we're not sure yet about bugguy tho
To be clear when I say imagine problems I don't mean imagine tools.
Crafting, modifying, planning, and imagining a tool for a situation they have encountered are just different ways of saying the same thing.
to craft a tool the animal must first imagine the tool. That is a plan to use it.
the difference is only in whether the problem is real or imagined.
>replying to
>reddit tier b8
>lol k, no u
>mfw this entire fricking thread
Its all bugguy with his trip off
we call him paleoschizo now. Either way he's moronic.
i hoped my thread would be about shrimps, a man can dream
110 more posts to go, be the change you want to see.
Niche subjects with an interesting premise seem to bring out the worst autists. The guy ITT is probs just trolling for attention but man, what a shit life they must lead hey?
I told you what I'm doing. If you like I can write up the product of this thread for you. It has produced real data regarding the classification tool use in humans and animals.
You made the mistake of attracting that old gay who has nothing better to do than argue, and he sure loves to argue. Especially when it’s arguing semantics. He’s going to spend the next hundred replies arguing about fricking hand axes now
>He’s going to spend the next hundred replies arguing about fricking hand axes now
I don't care about hand axes.
I do care about the differences between humans and chimps. Or crows. Or whatever.
>I don't care about hand axes.
There was an argument put forward earlier that the people here are living in a hole compared with the majority of humans when qualifying tools and tool. ise.
To quell and correct that argument:
The vast majority of humans on this planet agree that axes and hammers are tools and their use falls under "tool use". If you need evidence look at tool stores around the world and you will find axes and hammers, even megastores will feature them in the tool section.
>The vast majority of humans on this planet agree that axes and hammers are tools
moron irony again
scientists don't call "hand axes" by that name because they don't believe they were used as axes. That's the name used by the uneducated public such as yourself.
>That's the name used by the uneducated public
You mean to say the vast majority.
the reason it's ironic that you picked the one artifact that isn't usually considered a tool is because H. erectus and habilis both used other tools which aren't disputed.
As to whether their tool use would meet my list of criteria for human tool use, that's impossible to know from artifacts, but it wouldn't be surprising if they did. Chimps almost make the cut, and at some point between chimp and sapiens the full suite of human tool use evolved.
>you picked the one artifact that isn't usually considered a tool
?si=qrZ6pIGJI9bYvt-v&t=185
I see a hammer and an axe my little friend,
You're-a-douce,
You're-a-douce,
Doing mental gymnastics,
Can't make sense of reason,
Mentally impeded,
Oh go play halo,
Go play Halo, Go play Halo,
Go play Halo, Go play Halo,
Go play Halo childish scum
Cry to your muuuuuuuuuuuuum...
>you picked the one artifact that isn't usually considered a tool
They are usually considered a tool though. I’m not sure why you insist on doing such massive leaps in logic to reach the conclusions you do
>scientists don't call "hand axes" by that name because they don't believe they were used as axes. That's the name used by the uneducated public such as yourself.
It’s the name used by archaeologists and palaeoanthropologists, and they were at least sometimes used like axes. The term was even coined by an anthropologist
>Analysis carried out by Domínguez-Rodrigo and co-workers on the primitive Acheulean site in Peninj (Tanzania) on a series of tools dated 1.5 mya shows clear microwear produced by plant phytoliths, suggesting that the hand axes were used to work wood
No shrimps 🙁
This just in, homosexual habilis didn't actually craft tools because there's nothing to suggest they created situations to use those tools in. A handaxe is not a tool because its only for an existing problem, not an imagined one
>makes compound tools
>uses tools for multiple purposes
>preserves high value tools for later use
>shows sequential planning
>uses tools in new scenarios
uh oh
yes.
Frank Herbert's definition.
the one I repeated, but I stole it from Herbert's "God Emperor."
If other animals do all those things, they do it so rarely that it becomes the exception that proves the rule.
and we're still left with the question of why dolphins and crows and apes haven't built nuclear weapons, let alone primitive human tech.
>If other animals do all those things, they do it so rarely that it becomes the exception that proves the rule.
That's not an exception that proves the rule, that's just an exception. In no way does an animal that uses tools for multiple purposes and is capable of planning prove that animals can't use tools for multiple purposes and can't plan, especially when its seen in everything from crows to chimps
>and we're still left with the question of why dolphins and crows and apes haven't built nuclear weapons, let alone primitive human tech.
This was never a question to begin with. They're not intelligent enough, and anybody who poses this question is probably about as intelligent as said apes
Who?
How do you know this is the case? Since when did these decide what a tool is?
>Who?
nobody of importance.
>How do you know this is the case?
because they have observed for millions of hours and have never done it.
>Since when did these decide what a tool is?
they don't.
I'm not talking about what a tool is.
I am talking about what human tool use is.
>because they have observed for millions of hours and have never done it
And have they ever been placed in a scenario to test so intentionally? You say that with a lot of confidence, have you verified whether thats true?
>I am talking about what human tool use is
What human tool use is is irrelevant, this is about animal tool use
>And have they ever been placed in a scenario to test so intentionally?
how would you design a test for a behavior you by definition can't cause?
> this is about animal tool use
yes. Animals are given a much lower bar than humans for everything from tool use to language to art to problem solving.
low enough to be meaningless in understanding where the frick humans came from and how they got here.
>Animals are given a much lower bar than humans for everything from tool use to language to art to problem solving.
In some cases, I'd argue the opposite.
>In some cases, I'd argue the opposite.
I'm listening if you feel like talking.
>Animals are given a much lower bar than humans for everything from tool use to language to art to problem solving
obviously. That doesn't necessarily discount them from using tools
>That doesn't necessarily discount them from using tools
of course not. It means when we talk about tool use in animals it's not the same as human tool use, and is so far off from the human definition as to be meaningless aside from a curiosity.
How do you get the step from
>I see a problem and invent a tool to solve it
to
>I have a tool to solve a problem, so now I will create that problem all the time so I can use the tool to solve it.
>shows sequential planning
Herbert also commented on that with the tail of the donkey
>There was a man who sat each day looking out through a narrow vertical opening where a single board had been removed from a tall wooden fence. Each day a wild ass of the desert passed outside the fence and across the narrow opening—first the nose, then the head, the forelegs, the long brown back, the hindlegs, and lastly the tail. One day, the man leaped to his feet with the light of discovery in his eyes and he shouted for all who could hear him: “It is obvious! The nose causes the tail!
sequential planning is critical to strategic thought, but it results in single phenomena being divided into cause and effect. We see the head cause the tail. Other animals presumably just see a donkey.
this is one difference in human tool use, but it's a very big one.
>sequential planning is critical to strategic thought, but it results in single phenomena being divided into cause and effect. We see the head cause the tail. Other animals presumably just see a donkey.
>this is one difference in human tool use, but it's a very big one.
Except its not. Everything in
is demonstrated by New Caledonian crows, keas, chimps, orangutans and probably more. They can plan out multiple stages of a problem in order
have you ever heard the term, "necessary but not sufficient?"
you've failed to understand it almost a hundred times in this thread alone.
>makes compound tools
>uses tools for multiple purposes
>preserves high value tools for later use
>shows sequential planning
>uses tools in new scenarios
uh oh
fails to create tools for situations they have only imagined.
fails to create situations that require the use of a tool
fails to create tools for situations they have only imagined creating.
>fails to create tools for situations they have only imagined.
As an outside observer who can't speak for the operations of a corvids mind, you have no way to refute the possibility that the corvid may have conceived of the tool for a purpose other than the one observed.
>you have no way to refute the possibility that the corvid may have conceived of the tool for a purpose other than the one observed.
except for the sequence in which it happened.
if they create a tool and then later find a problem that requires the use of that tool, then it's probable.
but that doesn't happen.
>if they create a tool and then later find a problem that requires the use of that tool, then it's probable.
>but that doesn't happen.
It does though. They specifically cache tools for exactly that
>It means when we talk about tool use in animals it's not the same as human tool use
Nobody has said its the same though
>They specifically cache tools for exactly that
they cache tools for problems they've already encountered.
but let's pretend you're right. They make tools for situations they've only imagined. Are they making situations to use those tools?
>Nobody has said its the same though
when I point out the differences I get over 100 posts pointing out the similarities. As if that's relevant to the differences somehow.
>Are they making situations to use those tools?
Nuclear weapons are 'tools'... we should NOT be making situations to use them!
Although it would give us a good reason to use all the other tools we built to survive a nuclear war...
>we should NOT be making situations to use them!
when have humans ever created a tool and then NOT created the situation to use it?
we survive and thrive by engineering our environment to require the use of the tools we make. This is an awesome feedback loop and it's easily capable of destroying sentient life on the planet. I think we should be asking how that happened and what we can do to stop it, if anything.
it's possible that human-type tool use inevitably results in the destruction of the intelligence engaging in it.
>they cache tools for problems they've already encountered
They're also capable of using tools in entirely new problems though
>Are they making situations to use those tools?
Do humans really? Is that even really a criteria for what makes tool use?
>when I point out the differences I get over 100 posts pointing out the similarities
No, you said animals don't use tools either way. People aren't arguing about that
>Do humans really?
how do you suggest we ended up at the top of the food chain?
>Is that even really a criteria for what makes tool use?
no, it's a criteria for what makes HUMAN tool use. Which no other animals do.
>No, you said animals don't use tools either way.
By normal human definitions they don't.
ethologists had to create their own new definitions to claim they do. I'm not the one twisting words. When scientists talk about animal tool use we all know it's not the same thing as human tool use.
>When scientists talk about animal tool use we all know it's not the same thing as human tool use.
Do us all a favour and post a link to a 'reputable' site with a clear definition of what constitutes a tool. Then we'll go from there, becuase what you're trying to argue is based on a defintion that the majority don't appear to share with you.
>what you're trying to argue is based on a defintion that the majority don't appear to share with you.
that's why I'm here
the majority of humans certainly agree with me if they've ever thought about it. The only ones that disagree are people that like to think of themselves as experts on animals and evolution.
which means not only is nobody here likely to agree with me, but nowhere else in the world can I find so many people that disagree.
>the majority of humans certainly agree with me if they've ever thought about it.
Doesn't appear so from where I'm sitting, as I said, link a clear definition to avoid any confusion.
>Doesn't appear so from where I'm sitting
I told you where you're sitting.
you're sitting in a place I chose because nobody here agrees with me. Wauf is not in any way representative of humanity as a whole.
I'm not trying to define a tool. That's semantics. I have not once disagreed with anyone here on what a tool is. Merely what humans mean when we talk about our own tool use.
>Merely what humans mean when we talk about our own tool use.
So what you're talking about is a varied and subjective opinion/definiton. Ergo everyone who says animals do you tools is right in their perspective.
Unless you mean to say you speak on behalf of the entire human race, in which case.
/thread
>So what you're talking about is a varied and subjective opinion/definiton.
very close
a tool is defined by how it's used, and that's varied and subjective. You could have a million sticks and all of them might be tools, or none of them, or any number of them. It depends how they're used.
and that's why defining a tool is pointless. Only defining tool use matters. Because the use defines the tool.
>how do you suggest we ended up at the top of the food chain?
by making tools to solve problems, not creating problems that require tools
>no, it's a criteria for what makes HUMAN tool use
which isn't the question
>By normal human definitions they don't
By normal definitions, not ones you came up with, they do
>not creating problems that require tools
car requires a wheel, lug nutz require a wrench. All of our tech is just a stacked series of problems for which we invented the tool first, and the problem second.
>which isn't the question
not your question anyways.
>All of our tech is just a stacked series of problems for which we invented the tool first, and the problem second
Both of those are problems that we create tools for, not tools we create problems for
>not your question anyways
and not the question originally posed
>
I told you where you're sitting.
you're sitting in a place I chose because nobody here agrees with me. Wauf is not in any way representative of humanity as a whole.
I'm not trying to define a tool. That's semantics. I have not once disagreed with anyone here on what a tool is. Merely what humans mean when we talk about our own tool use.
>Wauf is not in any way representative of humanity as a whole
Is that why tool use is generally recognised in animals by zoologists without the need for so much semantic bullshit?
>I'm not trying to define a tool. That's semantics
Seems like you were at the start of the thread
>that's not tool use because its single purpose and not planned
>Both of those are problems that we create tools for, not tools we create problems for
wrenches existed long before car lug nuts
>Is that why tool use is generally recognised in animals by zoologists without the need for so much semantic bullshit?
yes, exactly
scientists are using a much looser definition of the word than non-scientists. But even we know that animal tool use is not the same as human tool use, and we wonder how the differences evolved.
>wrenches existed long before car lug nuts
And they existed for a purpose that preceded the car and the wrench
>scientists are using a much looser definition of the word than non-scientists
No they aren't. They're using a pretty normal definition, hence why its pretty common knowledge monkeys use tools
>And they existed for a purpose that preceded the car and the wrench
a purpose which we then created when designing cars. Created it thousands of times in every car design.
>They're using a pretty normal definition,
again, pretend you're right
then why aren't monkeys building cars?
>a purpose which we then created when designing cars
Thats not creating a problem for a tool, thats creating a tool for a problem which then has a second applicable use later. This is the same as what happen with chimps
>again, pretend you're right
You've been doing that this whole time while being very wrong
>thats creating a tool for a problem which then has a second applicable use later
the use is the same
the only difference is we invented both the tool and the problem it fixes, and then we went out and created that problem billions of times over because we had the tool to fix it.
>the use is the same
But the intent is different. What you're suggesting is no different to what apes do
>you've spent the entire thread arguing a question I didn't ask
I haven't been arguing this entire thread. But yes, the original topic of discussion was whether or not animals use tools
>But the intent is different.
tools are defined by their intent
>But yes, the original topic of discussion was whether or not animals use tools
in the same way humans do.
My point is that humans use tools in ways no other animals do. I then offered my thoughts on how those uses differ, and ONE (1) anon presented a cogent argument that refined my views.
so I continued in the thread as thanks to that ONE (1) anon (who may or may not be you).
>ONE (1) anon presented a cogent argument that refined my views.
speaking of course of this post here
which prompted me to think of how that tool use differs from human tool use.
not a particularly thoughtful post since the anon should've thought of everything I did before posting it, but helpful despite the lack of thought that went into it.
>in the same way humans do.
That was absolutely not the original point of discussion
>so I continued in the thread as thanks to that ONE (1) anon
You might have convinced yourself otherwise but a whole lot of people presented good points, namely people pointing out chimps and other apes as well as the fact you're using random criteria based on who knows what
>That was absolutely not the original point of discussion
not as far as anyone here could tell.
fricking morons.
>You might have convinced yourself otherwise but a whole lot of people presented good points, namely people pointing out chimps and other apes as well as the fact you're using random criteria based on who knows what
yes, excellent rebuttals to a problem I never posed.
>not as far as anyone here could tell. fricking morons.
Probably because you didn't say it. You said animals don't use tools not they don't use tools like humans do. You only started saying that when people started pointing out all sorts of animals that do use tools
>excellent rebuttals to a problem I never posed.
You posed the issue that animals don't use tools for multiple purposes, which people pointed out that apes do
>unless you define tool use as "finding object in the environment and using it without modifying it for a single purpose that was not planned."
>in that case every animal uses tools.
the original post states that either no animals use tools or all do based on how you define tool use. I didn't say which alternative was correct, merely pointed out that they're contradictory.
>You posed the issue that animals don't use tools for multiple purposes, which people pointed out that apes do
I listed several necessary criteria and anons mistook them for sufficient criteria
as you are still doing.
a bicycle is not a car just because it has wheels. Wheels are necessary, but not sufficient.
the primary refinement I achieved with that one post is that humans create situations to use the tools they have already invented or imagined.
that doesn't bridge the imagination gap, but can easily be explained in evolutionary terms by imagining an animal first looking for a problem they have previously solved, and then figuring out how to create a problem they have previously solved.
>humans create situations to use the tools they have already invented or imagined
More like humans repurpose existing tools for new problems, which animals do too
>More like humans repurpose existing tools for new problems
That was listed in my original criteria
and it doesn't preclude recreating problems for which they already have the tools to solve.
or imagining problems and then imagining tools to solve them.
>That was listed in my original criteria
Yes and its not human specific
>I listed several necessary criteria and anons mistook them for sufficient criteria
>as you are still doing.
>a bicycle is not a car just because it has wheels. Wheels are necessary, but not sufficient.
>the original post states that either no animals use tools or all do based on how you define tool use
Which would be wrong, because by the criteria you initially posed of using them for multiple purposes and planning it out some animals would and some wouldn't
>I listed several necessary criteria and anons mistook them for sufficient criteria
No shit. Thats not being mistaken, thats responding to what you've presented. If you've only listed necessary criteria then what are the sufficient criteria? It sounds like you're making things up as you go
>animals don't use tools because of abc
>heres an animal doing abc
>but that's not xyz
If you can't say what the criteria for tool use are then you're in no position to be arguing about whether or not they use tools
>because by the criteria you initially posed of using them for multiple purposes and planning it out some animals would and some wouldn't
if that's all I listed you'd be right
you missed a few
I said them, you ignored them. Which is fine. You're trying to win arguments while I'm trying to learn something from them. We can both claim victory if we like.
>you missed a few
That's what you first posted, before you started adding more and more criteria when people starting giving examples that met what you'd already said
see
>you started adding more and more criteria
you don't see "imagining a problem and creating a tool to solve it"
as the same thing as planning to use a tool?
No, my point was those were the initial criteria you posed.
You also added:
>to create situations that require the use of a tool
>carrying tools around with them to use later
>repurposing
chimps do this, eg - using the same sponges for drinking, grooming and collecting honey or creating double ended tools out of sticks, where each end serves a different purpose in different steps for opening a beehive
>crafting
chimps, orangutans, crows etc all do this
>engineering outcomes beyond the first stage
see above
If you make a statement which is proven wrong, its ok to just accept that rather than doubling down and making a more and more convoluted argument that tries to shift what you were originally intending to say
Thanks I think I have it dialed in even if you don't understand
Irony
Most anthropologists don't consider hand axes to be tool use because of uniformity and distribution. Look it up, it's an interesting case
>Most anthropologists don't consider hand axes to be tool use because of uniformity and distribution
They absolutely do, they’re almost unanimously seen as the oldest human tools
didn't look it up, did ya?
what I do is take complex ideas and try to present them so any idiot could understand. In this case, Boucot's method applied to Herbert's criteria of tool use.
I state the idea. If nobody understands it, I reword it and try again. If nobody understands that, I reword and try again.. and again and again until the tards get it.
you see each rewording of the same idea as a new idea because you didn't understand the first time around, or if you understood, you didn't say anything so I reworded it.
all you see is shifting parameters and moving goalposts. All I see is a bunch of tards helping me optimize and simplify communication of ideas.
I see you're not familiar with the problem of teleology in biology. I'll leave you in your happy ignorance.
>you listed the same thing twice here
I did not, but the fact that you think I did is useful information. Thanks. I'll try to re-write those so that even the stupidest person alive cannot escape understanding them.
>didn't look it up, did ya?
I did actually, didn’t see anything to suggest so. Lots calling them tools though. But if it’s apparently so easy to find why don’t you link it, unless it doesn’t exist
>what I do is take complex ideas and try to present them so any idiot could understand
You must be pretty shit at that then, because you’ve gotten it so mixed up that you can’t seem to keep track yourself. You’re not rewording things, you’re presenting entirely different criteria. Creating situations that require the use of a tool is not a rewording of making tools for imagined scenarios
>I did not, but the fact that you think I did is useful information
You did though
>fails to create tools for situations they have only imagined
>fails to create tools for situations they have only imagined creating
these differ by one word, a word that doesn’t change the meaning at all or add anything new. Again you’re playing the “I’m so enlightened, everyone else is a fool” act, but it’s not difficult to see that you’re full of shit. But what else can you expect from somebody who argues semantics and then tries to turn the conversation to this clusterfrick when people call him moronic
>these differ by one word, a word that doesn’t change the meaning at all or add anything new.
perfect, thanks.
the first example
>I imagine I might be attacked so I make a club
second
>I imagine I might be attacked so I make a club and then go start fights with people so I can club them
this is an oversimplification though
two more examples
first:
>I imagine I might need to turn a square object so I build a wrench
second
>I imagine I might need to turn a square object so I build a wrench and then build a bunch of square objects to turn with my wrench.
>I did actually, didn’t see anything to suggest so.
yes, that goes back to teleology in biology. If you're not aware of the problem you cannot see how others attempt to solve it.
the particular parts you're looking for are
>hand axes may have been made instinctively, as a bird builds a nest.
birds building a nest is not considered tool use because it is instinctive.
>hand axes were all of essentially the same design
tools vary in form and function, they're not all exactly the same and built the same way
>hand axes generally show no damage from use
tools are used, hand axes were apparently not used
>hand axes may be subject to sexual selection
tools aren't sexual displays.
>doesn't post where anyone said they're not tools
yeah sounds about right
>hand axes may have been made instinctively, as a bird builds a nest
Whoever suggested this is moronic. Chimps hitting nuts with rocks isn't instinctual and we're supposed to believe modifying a stone into a sharp point is? In a human species no less?
>tools vary in form and function, they're not all exactly the same and built the same way
Not really, hammers generally don't amount to much more than a heavy lump of something on a stick for example. Or a spear being a pointy stick, sometimes a stick with a pointy rock. Also hand axes definitely varied in form, they ranged from less than palm sized to over a foot long and came in wide to very thinly pointed shapes
>tools are used, hand axes were apparently not used
That's bullshit for sure. They're often covered in wear marks from being struck against other objects, in some cases well preserved enough that you can tell what material they were specifically being struck against.
>tools aren't sexual displays.
Seems unlikely different cultures across the world would be using the exact same hand axes for sexual display
Even if these theories do have some evidence, they are absolutely not the opinion of "most anthropologists" as you said, these are all pretty fringe
read the wiki
The wiki that calls them “tools” in the first sentence on the page?
>Last time I was in a paleoanthro class was in the 1990's, and at that time most anthropologists considered them instinctual forms rather than purposed tools.
They’ve been considered tools since the late 1890s, and in the 1990s there were certainly still people examining them as tools. So whether or not your lecturer didn’t consider them as tools hardly seems like the opinion of most anthropologists
>those tools specifically are hotly debated as to whether they were tools or not.
Seems unlikely seeing as they’re mentioned as being tools just about everywhere you look
>The wiki that calls them “tools” in the first sentence on the page?
did you make it past the first sentence?
seriously, there's some stuff in there that will blow your mind.
>did you make it past the first sentence?
Did you? If you did you'd see a huge amount of info on the wear marks present on them suggesting frequent tool use, and shockingly it refers to them as tools for pretty much the entire thing
>they are absolutely not the opinion of "most anthropologists" as you said,
possibly true
Last time I was in a paleoanthro class was in the 1990's, and at that time most anthropologists considered them instinctual forms rather than purposed tools.
either way, your choice for your reductio ad absurdum was ironic since those tools specifically are hotly debated as to whether they were tools or not.
when I first heard the idea I thought it absurd as well, though there are a few good arguments for why it might be true.
the primary difference between these two forms
is in the first one the human is preparing for the future
in the second one they are preparing for the future and then going out and making the future into what they prepared for.
The first option is useful
the second option puts you in charge of the world.
>the second option puts you in charge of the world.
if you can invent a tool for a problem, and then go make that problem happen, you are in control of both your environment and your response to it. It's virtually unbeatable.
instead of nature blindly deciding who lives and dies, the human now decides which pressures they will face, and how they will survive them. Not just anticipating the future, but actively creating it.
the only criteria I added were
>creating situations to use existing tools
>creating tools to solve problems you imagine creating
these were added today, and again thanks to the anon that prompted them.
situations to use existing tools
this one chimps probably do when they provoke fights with each other just so they can use their clubs.
but that use fails several other criteria such as repurposing, crafting, engineering outcomes beyond the first stage.
proving that a roller skate has wheels doesn't prove that it's a car.
proving that apes repurpose tools does not prove that they create tools for imaginary situations, or create situations for tools they already have.
meeting one or more criteria does not meet all of them.
nor does failing one or more criteria in some cases erase the cases where those criteria are met.
humans don't always meet all of my criteria
apes don't ever meet all of my criteria
this creates a useful division. We can sort something if it happens sometimes in some cases and never in others.
don't get me wrong, when I say
>why aren't monkeys building cars
what I actually mean is
>why are humans building cars?
what happened between basic tool use which appears in multiple lineages of animals, and human tool use which is different in several very important ways?
This has nothing to do with whether or not animals use tools, this is an entirely different question
>This has nothing to do with whether or not animals use tools, this is an entirely different question
you finally get it.
you've spent the entire thread arguing a question I didn't ask.
>except for the sequence in which it happened.
Corvid conceives of a tool,
Situation doesn't occur,
New situation occurs,
>You know what CAWWW, that tool I thought of earlier would solve this problem CAWWW
Makes and uses tool for situation other than what it was intended.
Why is anybody still arguing with this moron? Its clear he's just being argumentative for the sake of it. Anybody who enters a thread to start an argument about semantics probably shouldn't be taken seriously. Especially when he just changes his argument on the go.
>animals don't use tools for multiple purposes or plan things out
>yes they do, look at this
>NUH UH THAT"S NOT WHAT I MEANT YOU MISUNDERSTOOD
Anybody with a brain can see there's a clear distinction between a crow using a stick to remove a grub from a hole and a lion eating off the floor, regardless of whatever bullshit definition this guy comes up with. If you can't draw that line plainly and simply without having to talk about imagined problems that tools are created for then you're moronic. Saying biologists studying tool use are the ones using strange definitions that normal people don't use when its as simple as "a tool is an object used for a specific purpose" is absolutely braindead, especially when your own definition involves imagining future problems and making something to suit but also has to be multi purpose etc. Its so convoluted you can't even get it right yourself, you listed the same thing twice here
>animals don’t use too-ACK
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24916372/
>in that case chimps display one example of human type tool use compared to billions of human examples
>There are verifiable differences between humans and all other animals
Tool use does not have to be equivalent to human technology to be considered tool use moron
>None of you address the actual problem
>instead of trying to explain them you decide to deny them
Nobody is denying the differences you moron, the problem here is that you’re assigning criteria to what defines tool use based on nothing but your personal view and will just move the goal posts to uphold that once somebody presents an example that does fit your criteria. You’ve already made up your mind on the subject and will make any excuse to uphold that, regardless of how flawed it is
>Tool use does not have to be equivalent to human technology to be considered tool use moron
then where do you propose we draw the line?
because currently we have people saying crocodiles are using tools when they move some sticks around in the water, and fish are using tools when they knock a clam against a rock. Which is pretty clearly NOT what humans mean when we say we're using tools.
>then where do you propose we draw the line?
Usually it would be drawn at modifying and manipulating objects to use for a purpose, like fashioning a spear out of a stick. But more importantly where do YOU draw the line? If you don’t agree with existing definitions and can’t come up with a definition that works then shut the frick up. You say that no animals are incapable of imagining a novel use for an existing tool in a new scenario based on fricking what exactly? You’re just making sweeping claims and hoping nobody has an example to prove you wrong, and then when somebody does like
you redefine your bullshit criteria to work around it or go “oh but it didn’t invent the screwdriver like a human, can’t be tool use”. Not a single person has suggested tool use in animals is comparable to the ingenuity in humans, just that tool use exists in other animals
>Which is pretty clearly NOT what humans mean when we say we're using tools.
Isn’t it? It’s manipulating an object physically for a specific purpose, which would be the most basic definition of the word. What we mean when we talk about tool use would probably include making a fricking spear or a stone anvil, which is why the idea of tool use in animals is even a thing to begin with
>when somebody does like
depends on the individual. They're examples of possible problems that a person has never encountered but will imagine anyways.
>they're problems that others have encountered and been observed.
chimps also don't do that. They don't build tools to deal with problems they see other chimps encounter.
>Magpies have learned to trigger traffic lights
let me know when they build a tool to trigger traffic lights and then repurpose it for other uses
until then you're just mistaking using the environment for using tools.
meant to be
>Except they do use tools for multiple purposes. Chimps make sponges out of chewed leaves for collecting water to drink and for grooming
>in that case chimps display one example of human type tool use compared to billions of human examples.
>when somebody does like
depends on the individual. They're examples of possible problems that a person has never encountered but will imagine anyways.
>they're problems that others have encountered and been observed.
chimps also don't do that. They don't build tools to deal with problems they see other chimps encounter.
>Magpies have learned to trigger traffic lights
let me know when they build a tool to trigger traffic lights and then repurpose it for other uses
until then you're just mistaking using the environment for using tools. you redefine your bullshit criteria to work around it
I explicitly said that meets my criteria of tool use.
you're so angery at the idea that humans are different from other animals you've completely stopped reading english. If you were capable of it in the first place.
>I explicitly said that meets my criteria of tool use
If it meets your criteria of tool use then why are you apparently still arguing that animals don’t use tools?
>you're so angery at the idea that humans are different from other animals
Nobody has claimed we’re not different dumbass, you are the one who saw mention of tool use in animals and got so piss mad you decided to ruin the thread
So chimps use tools, therefore animal tool use exists? Do you even know what you were arguing about at this point. You just changed your criteria for what defines tool use again
Do you have brain damage?
I’m not the one who can’t decide what tool use is and whether or not animals use them
yes, you are
you don't understand what I'm saying but still think I'm confused or lying about it.
You're moronic. It's very sad. I'm sure your parents are disappointed.
They are
Lots of complete idiots make it through life simply by being nice.
A person can't help being mentally slow, but they can choose how they react to their disadvantage. Nobody wants to be around a tard who can't understand things and also gets angry at people that can.
>yes you are
Says the person who says that a tool requires that it be repurposed for other uses. You could in theory use a bow and arrow for a purpose other than shooting things, but if you never do then does that mean it’s not a tool? You still can’t seem to define what makes a tool even with definitions you just come up with on the spot
Smells like samegay
>Says the person who says that a tool requires that it be repurposed for other uses.
your reading comprehension is very poor.
you think in absolutes, you assume if I say those things are required to identify human tool use, they must be true in EVERY CASE.
That's obviously not true and your ascribing your own false dichotomies to my opinions is a bit concerning.
If I say humans imagine a purpose for a tool and then build it, I don't mean in every case.
If I say humans repurpose tools, I don't mean in every case.
If I say humans make tools for a particular purpose, I don't mean in every case.
that's stupid, and you're stupid for thinking that's what I'm saying. And I don't like trying to learn things from stupid people. Keep your confused thoughts to yourself, or keep saying them and I'll keep pointing out why you're dumb.
the part you don't understand is that humans do all of those things sometimes, and other animals never do all of those things. Except perhaps in the example of the chimps using crushed leaves for multiple purposes. Which means we have one possible example of human type tool use in the entire animal kingdom, and that comes from a human ancestor.
>your reading comprehension is very poor
Rather I think you just can’t remember what you said yourself, because that was one of the first things you said defines a tool
>you assume if I say those things are required to identify human tool use, they must be true in EVERY CASE
Then the same should be true of animals, yet here you are arguing that no animals imagine a purpose for a tool, repurpose them or create them when that’s blatantly false
>and that comes from a human ancestor
Except they’re not a human ancestor, we did not evolve from modern chimps. Orangutans also exhibit the same behaviour of chewing leaves into sponges for grooming and drinking
>You need me to because you're not capable of thinking in generalities or loose categories
No I really don’t. I’m just pointing out that you are assigning a bullshit definition to something that fits your existing opinion, and rather than adjust your opinion when somebody points out a contradictory example you instead try to redefine what a tool is to suit. Who the frick would ever even think that a tool must be multi purpose to begin with? A tool can be single use
>I can repeat it until I fall over dead, you will never understand.
You are the one who made a moronic statement, got proven wrong, and are now backpedaling.
>Who the frick would ever even think that a tool must be multi purpose to begin with?
I don't. That's you misunderstanding what I say even after I repeatedly try to correct your moronic ass.
Humans use tools for multiple purposes. Not every tool, not every time, but sometimes. Animals that are accused of tool use do not. Crocodiles, fishes, whatever other bullshit scientists have come up with are not using tools as humans do because they never use them for multiple purposes
that does not imply that humans ALWAYS use tools for multiple purposes, nor does it imply that ALL tools must be multipurpose.
you can't understand this.
>I don't. That's you misunderstanding what I say even after I repeatedly try to correct your moronic ass
You quite literally said it right here
>are not using tools as humans do
They never said “as humans do”
>because they never use them for multiple purposes
Except when they do, like the chimps and orangutans mentioned already. You can’t just make something up, pretend it’s fact and then ignore anything presented that might challenge that
>you can't understand this.
The problem isn’t that I can’t understand it, the problem is you keep readjusting a definition of tool use that you made up based on fricking what exactly
>That's funny. But it means you can never add anything to the discussion because all you're capable of is trying to prove things wrong
You mean like how you’re trying to prove animal tool use as wrong?
>You are the one who made a moronic statement, got proven wrong, and are now backpedaling.
you think this is a debate. That's funny. But it means you can never add anything to the discussion because all you're capable of is trying to prove things wrong.
you can't prove something wrong by misunderstanding it. And even if you could, proving what I say wrong adds nothing to your knowledge or anyone else's.
>You still can’t seem to define what makes a tool
I don't need to. You need me to because you're not capable of thinking in generalities or loose categories. Your mind requires black and white answers and you get angry with vagueness and overlapping sets.
you're a tard. An angry, stupid person. And you have no clue what I'm saying about tool use in animals or humans. I can repeat it until I fall over dead, you will never understand.
because the parts of your brain needed to understand what I say are missing.
>It’s manipulating an object physically for a specific purpose
fair enough
like I said, every single animal alive does that. Even if it's just manipulating their food on the ground or in the water so they can eat it.
>prawn
>dance like a prawn
>avoid like a prawn
Tool usage is not as shrimple as you think
There are various species of crabs that use tools such as sponges or algae to make a makeshift camouflage
So shrimps and prawns using tools is probably something that already exists but there may be 0 info about it
>tool: "object from the environment used with a benefit in mind"
>And this tiny crustacean will have claws on two pairs of legs
>"almighty, there's an earthquake destroying a city, people are praying for a miracle to save the child hospital!"
>FRICK OFF, GABRIEL, I'M BUSY
>and this tiny crustacean will have claws on three pairs of legs. Nice!
>that's it for crustaceans, let's go back to beetles...
God did nothing wrong, shrimp are beautiful
A long time ago I saw a video that described that prawn can actually play xylophone and shrimp can play glockenspiel.
How do they “seem well designed for it”? Explain your thought process because I don’t see it
Animals that have manipulators are better suited to make and use tools than those who don't, the second smartest animal, the orca, barely shows any tool use because they are poorly suited for it
has 10 pairs of legs, can use 5 for walking or swimming, that leaves 5 legs to manipulate stuff meanwhile, like human developed arms to swing from trees, and then got bored when the trees disappeared and started throwing rocks instead
... What happened to the trees?
climate change caused by antediluvian demons
the bully chimps would beat us if we got too close to the good trees
Humans are the only animal that uses tools
unless you define tool use as "finding object in the environment and using it without modifying it for a single purpose that was not planned."
in that case every animal uses tools.
False, some corvidae will modify shit they find in the environment to be used as tools, and then hold on to them. As do chimps and 'tangs, on occasion.
single purpose
not planned
learn to read. You're at corvid level right now. Get up to human levels.
It is planned - new Caledonian crows have been seen picking out sticks, shaping and cleaning them, then carrying around for using on various bug nests.
If that's not tool use, neither is making and using a hammer.
that's not planned, that's a response to a known condition in the environment.
but even if we pretend you're right, it's still just one purpose.
humans plan for purposes they have imagined rather than encountered. They build tools for imagined uses, and then they use those tools for multiple purposes. No other animal does these things, and if you start chopping away at the definition of human tool use it becomes meaningless.
>Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
tool
noun
1.
a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.
"gardening tools"
You are assigning made-up definitions to words and then telling people they're wrong when they don't understand the definition that only you use.
You are quite mentally ill.
>a response to a known condition in an environment
Ah so they use their existing knowledge to make a plan?
>that's not planned, that's a response to a known condition in the environment.
Thats called planning something thanks to prior knowledge...
Also nice to see some crustacean discussion!
Holy shit this guy is really insecure about animals using tools. What's the matter big boy? Afraid the crows are going to take your job?
As usual, tard gets ratioed. Maybe stop using semantics.
>tard gets ratioed
I was checking to see if anyone here had any insights regarding the differences between humans and other animals.
not only has nobody here thought about it, but only one anon here
even acknowledges it
I didn't lose anything, and I learned that the board remains as stupid and thoughtless as ever.
>everyone is wrong except me!!!
Sure buddy, we want to talk about crustaceans and arthropods not about (YOU)
You can't be wrong about something you've never thought about. Lots of people throughout history have thought about what makes humans different from other animals.
just not you guys. Incurious little NPC's.
in portuguese and maybe other romance languages I don't care about, the word for tool is "ferramenta". Iron is "ferro". A tool in my language is implied to be an iron object, fundamentally. Now which animals are into metal works? Just us. You make sense to me
>that's not planned, that's a response to a known condition in the environment
Is that not exactly what a plan is? New caledonian crows have been recorded showing sequential planning behaviours for years, as well as taking existing objects and fashioning them into something new that can serve the intended purpose. They even preferentially preserve higher value hooked tools. That is tool use in every sense of the word
>They build tools for imagined uses, and then they use those tools for multiple purposes. No other animal does these things
Lots of animals do this, chimps have already been mentioned but a whole bunch of primates do it
tool use has been ascribed to animals that don't do any of those things, such as fish and crocodiles. This leads to a slippery slope where you could by analogy say that every animal uses tools.
at that point the distinction is useless. It serves only to counter the outdated creationist ideas that humans are above other animals or different from other animals because they were created in god's image. The problem with this is there are essentially no biologists that are creationists, and humans ARE different from other animals. And those differences are worth examining. Not by anyone here, but you know- there's hundreds of scientists examining them without denying the differences. Just again, not anyone here.
If someone points out differences between humans and other animals on Wauf they get met with anger and denial. Which is interesting, but not useful. Nothing you say is of any use in explaining the differences between humans and other animals, since you don't even admit such differences exist.
>tool use has been ascribed to animals that don't do any of those things, such as fish and crocodiles
How do you know that? In crocodiles at least there is absolutely planning involved
>humans ARE different from other animals. And those differences are worth examining
Nobody said otherwise. Tool use does not need to be the same in other animals as in humans. If a fish uses a rock as a hammer then I see no reason why that shouldn’t be considered tool use
Angry much? You’re arguing semantics, you’re in no position to call other people mentally deficient
>You've never heard of the exception that proves the rule
In no way is that an exception that proves the rule. An animal using tools does not prove the rule that animals don’t use tools, that’s moronic
>If a fish uses a rock as a hammer then I see no reason why that shouldn’t be considered tool use
well for one thing the rock didn't move. The fish just smacked a shell on it.
in that case lions use the planet as a table.
>in that case lions use the planet as a table.
If using a surface to open a food item against constitutes tool use, EVERY ANIMAL uses tools.
Which is super cool and amazing for the sorts of women that think plants have feelings, but utterly useless for trying to figure out how humans found themselves in a position to destroy the entire planet.
>well for one thing the rock didn't move. The fish just smacked a shell on it
In which case it functions as an anvil. But even if we don’t call that tool use there are still species of wrasse which pick up rocks to use
>in that case lions use the planet as a table
>If using a surface to open a food item against constitutes tool use, EVERY ANIMAL uses tools
This is one of the most moronic trains of thought I’ve ever heard. If you seriously think these two things are comparable and that this is some kind of gotcha then you are more of a moron than I thought. Eating food off the ground and intentionally using a specific rock to crack open an object are in no way equivalent, and you’re a fricking idiot for trying to suggest so
>t. no argument to make
>that's you
No I’m not, you are the one who came into the thread going “um ackshually animals don’t use tools because of xyz, therefore they don’t fit my definition of the word tool”
>you're the one that mistakenly thinks I'm trying to define what a tool is
You did exactly that at the start of this. Or do you just reimagine the things you’ve said the further you get into an argument?
disagreeing about other animals ignores the actual point, which is that humans very obviously use tools differently from other animals.
instead of trying to think about why that is, or how that is, you simply try to deny it. Which is super interesting to you I guess, but really boring to me. It also makes me think with some certainty that you're moronic since you're incapable of even acknowledging the fact, much less thinking about it.
>ignores the actual point, which is that humans very obviously use tools differently from other animals.
I thought the actual point was that other animals don’t use tools at all, not just differently to humans. You can’t seem to decide
>instead of trying to think about why that is, or how that is, you simply try to deny it
You keep saying this, but not a single person in the thread is denying it. Nobody has said that human and animal tool use is the same, the only thing anyone has said is they’re not the same but that doesn’t mean animal tool use doesn’t exist
>this isn't an argument
No shit dumbass, there’s nothing in
to argue with
>the fact is scientists have ascribed tool use to crocodiles without ruling out conditioning
What is this even supposed to mean? Why would it be discounted as tool use regardless of if conditioning was involved?
>I can't win an argument with someone that doesn't understand what I'm saying
You can’t just keep saying “you’re misunderstanding it”. There’s not much to misunderstand in the first place. You argued tool use does not exist in animals because planning is not involved and they aren’t used for multiple purposes in new contexts, to which people provided examples that fit that definition. Yet you’re still here arguing animal tool use doesn’t exist, or is it just that animal tool use exists but not like human tool use? You seem to have a hard time with picking which one
>I thought the actual point was that other animals don’t use tools at all, not just differently to humans.
yes
you started off by misreading or misunderstanding what I said and then just ran with it.
>What is this even supposed to mean?
hah
>You argued tool use does not exist in animals
wrong
I pointed out that when humans talk about using a tool, it is different from what ethologists mean when they say animals are using a tool. And that the difference results in every animal arguably using tools.
> yes. you started off by misreading or misunderstanding what I said and then just ran with it
That’s not misread, that is quite literally what you said in your own terms. You are trying to change your argument because people pointed out a bunch of examples proving it wrong
>I pointed out that when humans talk about using a tool, it is different from what ethologists mean when they say animals are using a tool
You stated that according to some criteria that you made up that tool use does not exist in animals full stop, with nothing to do with an ethnologist’s definition
>that is quite literally what you said in your own terms
you missed 2 words
morons skip words that modify ideas and only pick up the skeleton of the idea. It's funny.
>You stated that according to some criteria that you made up that tool use does not exist in animals full stop,
yes. You understand that much at least.
>you missed 2 words
Let’s see:
>Humans are the only animal that uses tools
this is false because -
>unless you define tool use as "finding object in the environment and using it without modifying it for a single purpose that was not planned."
- this is not the case in a number of animals already pointed out, such as great apes
There is no misunderstanding, you’re just readjusting your initial argument when people poke holes in it
>yes. You understand that much at least
Which would be incorrect given the examples of tool use that fit your criteria like in chimps and orangutans that have already been pointed out
>I didn't check the paper
Sounds about right
>because the text in the comment is a straw man
You must be new here if you don’t recognise that text
>and even if the behavior described in the paper fits all my criteria you still missed the point
>Even if it fits my criteria, proving that tool use does exist in animals by your own personal definition, it misses the point that tool use doesn’t exist in animals because…
You’re staggeringly moronic
>your initial argument
I didn't make an argument, you utter moron.
I didn't ask you to judge what I say, I asked for what you think on the topic of why you're being a stupid b***h on a computer while chimps haven't even invented a digital watch yet.
>t. no argument to make
lol'd
this isn't an argument.
the fact is scientists have ascribed tool use to crocodiles without ruling out conditioning.
you're not bright enough to think about this.
>this is some kind of gotcha
again this isn't an argument.
you can't win an argument by not understanding it, and I can't win an argument with someone that doesn't understand what I'm saying.
there is no argument here. Just me saying stuff and you rabidly misunderstanding it.
>there is absolutely planning involved
you've never heard of conditioning. That's funny.
Tell me you tune your aura with crystal energy every morning while you greet the feminine power of the sun.
>You’re arguing semantics
that's you
you're the one that mistakenly thinks I'm trying to define what a tool is, or insisting my categorization of "human type tool use" is wrong without ever once thinking about the actual idea. You have severe thinking problems.
You've never heard of the exception that proves the rule.
you're incapable of playing devil's advocate.
you lack the imagination to consider an opinion you don't hold.
you can't even understand what I'm saying while disagreeing with it.
you guys are basically the same as chimps. No self-awareness, no imagination. There is nothing to gain from asking a mentally deficient person to engage in thought that's beyond their abilities. If you want to discuss the topic you need to start by showing you understand what I'm saying. So far this hasn't happened.
>No other animal does these things
the chimps would like a word
already discussed
one human-like use of a single tool by a human ancestor is interesting, but also ignores the point that humans use tools very differently from all other animals.
You sound like your fun at parties.
I'm good looking and wealthy so that helps
>good looking
Kek
lol
ask your mom, she'll tell you
she says you look like a downie robin williams
>she says you look like a downie robin williams
kek'd out loud
someone else told me that last year
she'd still sleep with me.
I was going to just ask if anyone here can think of any animals that use tools differently from humans, but you fricking argumentative tards don't respond to polite requests for information.
I have to shove it in your face and dare you to argue. Then you spend days telling me why you think I'm wrong. You're painfully easy to manipulate. Like children. Or chimps.
>she'd still sleep with me
Somehow I doubt it. Your wife has been posted here before, not something someone who’s apparently so good looking would settle for
>you fricking argumentative tards don't respond to polite requests for information
>You're painfully easy to manipulate. Like children. Or chimps.
I know that you legitimately believe this to be true, and it’s pretty sad to think about. But seeing as your moronic old ass thinks you’re painfully good looking and intelligent compared to everyone else in the room I shouldn’t be surprised. You’re not manipulating any of the people in the thread, the only thing that’s happened is you having holes poked in your confidently wrong assertions one after another
Why would I? For the hundredth time nobody has said human and animal tool use are equivalent, and that was never the topic of the thread no matter how hard you try to push it in. Everyone can see that as soon as a thread takes a turn you don’t like, you try switch to something new
so to recap,
no animal uses tools in ways humans can't
octopuses don't modify objects to use as tools
and corvids don't modify objects to use as tools in the wild.
get to work. Prove me wrong.
>Somehow I doubt it. Your wife has been posted here before, not something someone who’s apparently so good looking would settle for
the last woman that said I look like Robin Williams slipped me a $100 bill and her phone number.
>For the hundredth time nobody has said human and animal tool use are equivalent
did you notice I ignored you every single time you said that, and you said it several times?
Because as soon as you said that, the "argument" was over. My initial assertion are that animals and humans use tools differently, and it is fair to classify and name those differences such that either no animals use tools, or they all do.
you agreeing with me ends the session. So I ignored it.
>she'd still sleep with me
This can’t be real
Did you just dox bugguy (again)?
>Did you just dox bugguy (again)?
why would he dox himself?
final final argument
corvids don't modify objects to use as tools in the wild.
I'm just mopping up here. You haven't poked holes in anything I've said, but you have clearly pointed out the parts you didn't understand.
>corvids don't modify objects to use as tools in the wild
Oh god he doesnt know about the crow sticks.
Fricking moron.
>Oh god he doesnt know about the crow sticks.
missed a word or two, didn't ya?
>modify objects
>in the wild
See
>corvids don't modify objects to use as tools in the wild
>Prove me wrong.
I love when people are so confident in being wrong
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15069611/
perfect, you sure won that argument! I shall never recover from my embarrassment.
no word on octopi or tool use not displayed by humans?
I don’t think I’ve seen octopi mentioned once in this thread, and if they have it wasn’t often. Why bring them up now? Why not ask about chimps or orangutans, or is it because you know the answer to that?
>Yes, you're amazing at proving me wrong. Great work, I kneel before your towering intellect.
you can play it off all you like but this is the same thing that’s been happening since the start of the thread. You make a confident assertion which is incorrect -> it gets pointed out -> you ignore it or try act like you meant something entirely different from the start -> you make another confidently incorrect assertion and hope this time nobody will be able to prove it wrong
>Why bring them up now?
putting together a table of usages according to my modified Boucot Scale for tool use.
>Why not ask about chimps or orangutans, or is it because you know the answer to that?
bingo.
>you can play it off all you like but this is the same thing that’s been happening since the start of the thread.
Oh it's been going on for years. I created a tool and then found a use for it. You just happen to be my tool.
it's not all work though. That Robin Williams thing was comedy gold
>bingo
If you knew the answer why would you say animals don’t modify or repurpose tools when chimps and orangutans do both?
>gets called moronic for 250 replies
>actually YOU were the tool all along, I was merely pretending to be moronic
I know your narcissistic personality won’t allow it, but you really should know when to call it quits
>If you knew the answer why would you say animals don’t modify or repurpose tools when chimps and orangutans do both?
I didn't.
I said they don't modify AND repurpose AND plan AND imagine problems
You have trouble with AND/OR ideas. So you took each criteria as independent when I clearly meant they were cumulative.
But I know this about you so aside from naming the error I didn't try very hard to correct it. I don't believe you're capable of understanding your mistake.
and your mistake isn't relevant to most people, no matter how dumb they are.
>modify
Check
>repurpose
Check
>plan
Check
>imagine
Probably a check, but you seem quite confident that’s not the case despite being unable to prove it. Looks like your bad habit of making sweeping statements and hoping nobody can disprove them again
>Probably a check, but you seem quite confident that’s not the case despite being unable to prove it.
yes, the path nobody here took is to ask
>how would you know?
well actually one person did ask, but they didn't bother trying to think of ways they could know.
that's where I come in. I come up with ways to test for each behavior. Some of the are easy
>is the object modified?
super simple
some are more difficult
>is the object made for a real or imagined situation.
but those are problems I know how to solve, even if nobody here thinks about that sort of thing.
>that's where I come in
Lolno. You come in to argue semantics
>I come up with ways to test for each behavior
No you don’t. You just go “they can’t do it” not “let’s think of a way to test whether or not they can do it”, if you did the former you wouldn’t be saying they’re incapable of imagined problems a hundred times
>the last woman that said I look like Robin Williams slipped me a $100 bill and her phone number
And then everyone clapped. I see being called unattractive struck a nerve
>did you notice I ignored you every single time you said that
>My initial assertion are that animals and humans use tools differently
Your initial assertion was “animals don’t use tools”, followed up by they don’t use tools because they don’t repurpose or plan
>Your initial assertion was “animals don’t use tools”,
there's that pesky AND/OR failure again
you should get that looked at
Not a single and/or in sight
>A unless B
>A or B
>A or B
You just said it had to be A and B, not A or B. You've made such a fricking swamp of a thread you can't keep track yourself
That's a whole lot of words for very little meaning
Anosognosia
>Anosognosia
Yes we all know you're disabled, no need to spell it out for us
You constantly complain that what I say doesn't make sense.
I never complain that I can't understand you.
if one of us has a problem understanding things, it is certainly you.
I think you might have forgotten what you said. Memory loss does come with old age after all. You seem to disagree with me saying you said it had to be repurposing A and B, not A or B even though its exactly what you said in
. So either you're having trouble with your own argument, or you're making it up as you go every time you get caught out
>A=X+Y+Z
>A or B
Apparently you got confused because the statement contained both an AND and an OR condition.
interesting.
I can't say whether this is ESL failure or disability, but I'd guess it's disability since you've been displaying this same sort of mistake for over a decade here. If it was a simple language barrier I'd expect you to have figured it out by now.
either way it's not helpful in simplifying my argument, except to note that some people have trouble with that form of statement, and I probably can't communicate an idea to those people.
The problem with your definition of a tool
>an object used for a purpose
is that
1. every object manipulated by an organism is used for a purpose, including food
2. The purpose is assigned by the human observer, not the organism. (I say the prawn is using the algae for the purpose of feeding, the prawn imagines no such purpose)
this gets back to teleology. Is the purpose assigned by me or the animal? To be a tool, the purpose must be given a purpose by the animal, not the observer.
>To be a tool, the purpose must be given a purpose by the animal, not the observer.
to be a tool, the object must be given a purpose by the animal, not the observer.
You are as moronic as "sensate" schizo (yourself)
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2020.1490
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237408/
https://www.mpg.de/12401947/1024-verh-060830-new-caledonian-crows-compound-tools
>bbbbut in the wild
i didnt know that being challenged with artificial complexity made intelligence as artificial... learn basic logic.
>i didnt know that being challenged with artificial complexity made intelligence as artificial.
we're talking tool use, not intelligence
if we're not going to count a cat flushing a toilet as tool use because it's using a human tool, then we're not going to count a crow bending a wire for the same reason.
>if we're not going to count a cat flushing a toilet as tool use because it's using a human tool, then we're not going to count a crow bending a wire for the same reason.
Now you're being silly.
The toilet is a result of cause and effect: Pull leaver, toilet flushes.
There is no direct cause-effect with the wire. It's actions required abstract thought and planning.
Consider an object on a high shelf you desire...
If you were to push a button and the object fall down it would be a sign of intelligence, but it wouldn't constitute tool use.
Now, if you were to get a stool, stand upon it and reach up and take the object that would constitute tool use. It required you to conceive manipulating an object in to a new position in order to reduce the distance. You may not agree but lets take it further.
Look at Stoffel the escape artist. You might argue that putting an object in a corner and climbing it isn't tool use but when he's manipulating mud to create those objects it's a step further: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c36UNSoJenI
It might offend your sensibilities that mud could be considered a tool but that's a shortfall in your own intelligence.
>The toilet is a result of cause and effect: Pull leaver, toilet flushes.
are you suggesting conditioning as the cause of the behavior?
more importantly, are you agreeing with me that conditioned behaviors aren't tool use?
>crocodile swims under some sticks
>crocodile catches bird coming to take sticks
>crocodile keeps swimming under sticks because birds keep getting caught
>sticks are not tools because the behavior was conditioned rather than planned
>are you suggesting conditioning as the cause of the behavior?
>more importantly, are you agreeing with me that conditioned behaviors aren't tool use?
Yes.
In your example:
>crocodile swims under some sticks
>crocodile catches bird coming to take sticks
>crocodile keeps swimming under sticks because birds keep getting caught
>sticks are not tools because the behavior was conditioned rather than planned
This is a good example of conditioned behavior. Now if we were to take it a step further.
>No sticks in river
>Crocodile finds a tree
>Pulls off sticks and puts them in the river
Then using sticks becomes an example of tool use.
>Then using sticks becomes an example of tool use.
yes, agreed.
conditioned use by itself is not tool use, but it can easily become tool use.
thank you.
I would guess this is how tool use evolved in every single lineage that displays it. Instinctive or conditioned behaviors that were then transferred to new situations and locations.
>conditioned use by itself is not tool use
That's a slippery line as it's not entirely accurate. Consider the crocodile:
>Crocodile has baby
>Baby observe parent placing sticks in river to attract food when none are present
>Emulates parent
Even though this is conditioned behavior, it still constitutes using sticks as tools.
perfect, you jumped to learned behaviors.
I'm counting learned tool use as actual tool use because imitation is higher thinking than conditioning. We agree on that point as well.
my cat didn't accidentally learn to open the bathroom door through trial and error, he imitated me.
>my cat didn't accidentally learn to open the bathroom door through trial and error, he imitated me.
Your point?
>Your point?
cats have evolved a skill they never use in the wild. Meaning tool use is just a side-effect of some more useful set of cognitive skills.
>Meaning tool use is just a side-effect of some more useful set of cognitive skills.
Side-effect is the wrong word. If you were to delve in to the hierarchy of cognitive skills I suspect problem solving (i.e. the ability to develop a tool) ranks higher than learned behavior.
Developing a tool and learning to use a tool are two different things.
>Developing a tool and learning to use a tool are two different things.
yes, this is reflected in my table.
imitation and learning are not the same as inventing.
humans mostly imitate and learn, but we are also capable of inventing. Even if we rarely do it. Or perhaps most people never do it.
Most people do invent. They simply invent things that had already been invented because it was easier than finding out if they were being that original.
Problem solving is normally more efficient than attempting to probe cultural databases.
>Most people do invent.
I feel like it's pretty rare now with at least people in the west having a set of tools handed to them at birth that cover most of their needs.
but I agree that all normal humans have the capacity and perhaps most use it.
second point,
the ability to use tools is not the same as the opportunity to use tools
humans use tools in ways other animals cannot because we create both the tool and the opportunity to use it.
other animals only create the tool.
my cutoff on that slippery slope is generous
I think an animal engaging in a single behavior at a single location may be conditioned.
as soon as they modify that behavior or move it to a new location, we're seeing tool use rather than conditioning. Same if another animal imitates the behavior. Obviously it's not conditioning at that point.
>It might offend your sensibilities that mud could be considered a tool
I'm attempting to classify tool use by complexity and show a correlation to derivation.
nothing offends my sensibilities, I don't have any feelings about the topic. I only question if certain behaviors are actually tool use at all.
New caledonian crows modify objects to create tools.
Because the amount of intelligence required to use and make tools to a certain degree in a more challenging environment enables even more complex behavior in an easy one where they don’t struggle to survive. Why do people do better on tests when they aren’t dodging gunfire and foraging for roadkill?
>New caledonian crows modify objects to create tools.
so I have been told. I appreciate you guys hunting down citations for my table, even if your goal is just to prove I'm stupid.
>ecause the amount of intelligence required to use and make tools to a certain degree in a more challenging environment enables even more complex behavior in an easy one
yes, but that brings me back to cats. Animals that afaik regularly operate tools in captivity but never in the wild. They clearly have the intelligence, but apparently never have the opportunity.
or more importantly, never create the opportunity.
>or more importantly, never create the opportunity.
same situation with apes. They easily create compound tools in captivity, but afaik do not in the wild.
we create the opportunity for them to do so. They are unable to create the opportunity themselves.
>they are unable to create the opportunity
The need doesnt exist in their environment. We can give them two sticks and a problem that requires two sticks. Nature certainly gives them two sticks but not a problem requiring two sticks so they don’t use two sticks. Simple as.
Humans oddball diet (process food or fricking starve) and mode of facultative carnivory REQUIRES compound tools. Daily. That’s the difference. Humans did not purposefully create the opportunity. It is foist upon them by biology.
A cat being trained to push a button is not tool use.
>Humans did not purposefully create the opportunity.
not at first
at some point we began manipulating our environments to create opportunities to use tools. When that happened and why is the question I'm aiming at.
a chimp building a club to hit another chimp is not engineering their environment
a chimp starting fights with other chimps so he can club them is engineering their environment.
>A cat being trained to push a button is not tool use.
a cat seeing a behavior and copying it is tool use.
Cats do not engage in imitative learning nor do they use tooms
Dogs do when watching humans but not dogs
Wolves do when watching humans or dogs
Neither uses tools (using an object to manipulate other objects to which it is not attached - a rope tied to something is not a tool, that is moving a compound object)
Cats do not, at all.
>humans are creating the need for tool use
Humans are attempting to acquire things and what degree of tool use those acquisitions acquire are not thoughts in a human’s mind. Humans have a natural capacity for the manufacture and use of tools so they can succeed at those acquisitions. A human does not go hunt a larger animal thinking “now i will need a compound tool”. They think “i am fricking hungry” and the higher grade of tool use comes to them as they encounter problems in the acquisition attempt. Dumber humans also make these attempts but they fail when their simpler tool use is insufficient. Simple. As.
>tiktok videos of cats passing the mirror test posted daily
>it's not published so it's not true!
your idea that human tool use isn't planned but rather instinctive is not new, but I'm not sure it matters except for in the grand philosophical sense.
even if humans act entirely on instincts we're not aware of, there are still measurable differences in both the activity and the results.
Its a tiktok video so its unsubstantiated. A hoax.
There are youtube videos of dogs performing self inspection in mirrors implying it is not a surprise to them. Would that make dogs self aware or would it make it a misinterpreted youtube video? There are also videos where dogs appear to use mirrors to locate people but it could also be scent.
If the significantly more intelligent animal is not self aware you are just misinterpreting partially faked tiktoks like a gullible moron. Most likely cats performing a funny panic/threat display because they are moronic domesticated mutants.
not really interested in arguing the point, but tiktok users mostly lack the knowledge to fake a passed mirror test.
if a dog or cat passes the mirror test in somebody's house I just assume they pass.
if they pass in hundreds of different people's houses, I again assume they pass. The person recording the event has nothing to gain by faking a pass.
Tiktok users lack academic conspiracies but they do have a sense for whats novel and entertaining.
The differences lie in breadth of perception, max number of steps before thought gets ineffective, and accuracy of thought. Followed shortly by degree of abstraction.
>Tiktok users lack academic conspiracies but they do have a sense for whats novel and entertaining.
indeed. But the animal doesn't. The poster has a bias in what they post, but the animal has no such bias in how it behaves. Unless it's rewarded for the behavior. Which seems unlikely over enough different repetitions.
>The differences lie in breadth of perception, max number of steps before thought gets ineffective, and accuracy of thought. Followed shortly by degree of abstraction.
agree
I want a measurable method of quantifying that based solely on behavior, and a strict definition of where on the gradient the behavior changes.
which I believe I now have.
Its not that human tool use is instinctive, its the natural consequence of a certain level of intelligence. Multi step problem solving. A broad perception of potential spacetime.
yes. Clearly since very similar tool use evolved repeatedly in a lot of very different animals.
my interest is in what the differences are from other animals, and how to test for them. But I think this thread helped nail it down.
>they are unable to create the opportunity
The need doesnt exist in their environment. We can give them two sticks and a problem that requires two sticks. Nature certainly gives them two sticks but not a problem requiring two sticks so they don’t use two sticks. Simple as.
Humans oddball diet (process food or fricking starve) and mode of facultative carnivory REQUIRES compound tools. Daily. That’s the difference. Humans did not purposefully create the opportunity. It is foist upon them by biology.
A cat being trained to push a button is not tool use you fricking moron. Somewhere out there, there are MRI studies showing the difference between button pushing and tool use, but you’re moronic and probably purposefully grow poisonous plants and complain about the consequences or call monkshood nightshade or something.
Anyways all dinosaur lineages started out with feathers yes all of them goodbye
also to point out the obvious,
if an animal uses tools one way in the wild and other ways in captivity, that tells us something about nature. Apes have the capacity to create compound tools in the wild, but they lack the opportunity.
humans create the opportunity.
probably what you should be asking is why animals have abilities they never get the chance to use in nature.
but that's above your paygrade.
>every object manipulated by an organism is used for a purpose, including food
If you are seriously incapable of recognising the difference between eating food and using a rock as a hammer or a stick as a spear then you are more moronic than I thought. You are splitting hairs at that point, it is obvious what is meant by “tool use” in animals
>it is obvious what is meant by “tool use” in animals
it absolutely is not, or we wouldn't have PhD scientists proposing feeding methods and conditioned behaviors and instinctive behaviors as tool use.
A behaviour being conditioned or instinctual does not mean it’s not tool use. But even if that were the case there are so many examples that aren’t conditioned or instinctual that you must be a moron to make the statement that animals can’t use tools and a chimp using a hammer is the same as a dog eating a bone
>But even if that were the case there are so many examples that aren’t conditioned or instinctual that you must be a moron to make the statement that animals can’t use tools
as humans do
your brain can't understand modifying words. It's funny. You just skip those entirely.
>and a chimp using a hammer is the same as a dog eating a bone
a fish smacking their food against a rock is the same as a lion pinning their food against the ground.
>as humans do
You only started saying this after people started calling you moronic
>a fish smacking their food against a rock is the same as a lion pinning their food against the ground
Using a favoured anvil rock is not equivalent to eating your food wherever it happens to drop. But I’m not sure what a fish has to do with it since I said chimp
>You only started saying this after people started calling you moronic
no, you only realized I said it after I told you repeatedly to go back and re-read the post
and even now you're pretending I didn't say it.
you are very stupid.
>Using a favoured anvil rock is not equivalent to eating your food wherever it happens to drop.
what do you propose is the difference?
>But I’m not sure what a fish has to do with it since I said chimp
agree
I think you spend most of your life confused about how other people think.
>no, you only realized I said it after I told you repeatedly to go back and re-read the post
You can say this all you like that’s not gonna make it any truer.
>humans are the only animals that use tools
Not human style tool use, just tool use
>unless you define tool use as "finding object in the environment and using it without modifying it for a single purpose that was not planned."
Which you quickly back tracked on and started moving goal posts because lots of animals modify, plan and repurpose
>what do you propose is the difference?
One is intentional, one is not. One requires the use of a specific individual object, one happens anywhere any time. If you can’t see the difference then there must be something seriously wrong
>and even now you're pretending I didn't say it
Oh you said it alright, just way after you made a flawed statement that people started poking holes in immediately
>I think you spend most of your life confused about how other people think
And I think you spend most of your life thinking you are infallible, and that when anyone points out anything wrong with what you’ve said you immediately change it up
>One is intentional, one is not. One requires the use of a specific individual object
so would you say a fish flashing against a specific rock to mark its territory is tool use?
and if so, is a dog using tools when it pisses on a specific bush?
>when anyone points out anything wrong with what you’ve said you immediately change it up
Yes, when I refine a statement to make it clearer for morons, all the moron sees is a new statement.
to you I am moving goalposts and losing arguments because you're an angry idiot.
to me I am using an angry idiot to refine and restate ideas for dumb people.
>and if so, is a dog using tools when it pisses on a specific bush?
This doesn’t have a specific goal, so no it would not be tool use. Again I’m not sure why you’re so focused on fish when I said chimps. Maybe fish shouldn’t be considered tool users, but thinking that somehow equates to animal tool use being non existent is absolutely moronic
>Yes, when I refine a statement to make it clearer for morons, all the moron sees is a new statement
When the “refined statement” has a different meaning to the original statement, yes that is a new statement
>to me I am using an angry idiot to refine and restate ideas for dumb people
It’s clear your narcissistic personality doesn’t allow you to think for a second that maybe you have gotten something wrong, so please spare us the bullshit about how you’re actually using people in the thread like some master manipulator. You have no grand audience here
>Maybe fish shouldn’t be considered tool users,
it's not about the particular animal, it's about having a set of rules that apply to all animals.
>When the “refined statement” has a different meaning to the original statement, yes that is a new statement
meaning is in the eyes of at least 2 different people. The goal is to bring the communicator's meaning closer to the listener's. However that depends a lot on how clear the communicator is, and how tuned the listener is. You and I are too far apart to communicate, but your constant attempts are useful.
>You have no grand audience here
I know. You are the only one I need.
>it's about having a set of rules that apply to all animals
And if your rules discount fish but not chimps then why the frick would you be claiming animals don’t use tools to begin with
>meaning is in the eyes of at least 2 different people. The goal is to bring the communicator's meaning closer to the listener's. However that depends a lot on how clear the communicator is, and how tuned the listener is.
That’s a lot of mindless babble, but it doesn’t really say anything about how your original post says nothing of human tool use and how that’s something you snuck in later
>If an animal behaves instinctively and I imagine it is behaving with purpose
The imagined purposes part of tool use you posed has nothing to do with this, what you were saying was about whether or not the animal can imagine purposes and problems
>why the frick would you be claiming animals don’t use tools to begin with
indeed.
that's very certainly what I meant, there's no way I could've meant something you didn't understand. Because you don't make mistakes. You're an argument-winning machine. The captain of the debate team. The ruler of all. For how can someone win an argument you cannot understand?
>The imagined purposes part of tool use you posed has nothing to do with this, what you were saying was about whether or not the animal can imagine purposes and problems
yes, we switched topics but because we were using the same word you failed to follow.
how very machine-like of you.
>that's very certainly what I meant, there's no way I could've meant something you didn't understand
>humans are the only animals that use tools
>actually here’s some that use tools, fitting your own definitions
>NO THATS NOT WHAT I MEANT ACTUALLY
It’s funny that you move goalposts and then expect to be taken seriously that you were just misunderstood and there was no moving of goalposts
>Because you don't make mistakes. You're an argument-winning machine
Kek don’t try saying this when you’re the one who went “nobody has poked holes in anything I’ve said” before being responded to with a list of shit you’ve said that was pointed out as wrong by at least two people
>yes, we switched topics but because we were using the same word you failed to follow.
It wasn’t switching topics, it was you once again forgetting what you said.
>and then expect to be taken seriously
I don't.
why would I expect you to suddenly understand what I say after years of you failing to?
>It wasn’t switching topics, it was you once again forgetting what you said.
yes, because a human imagining a tool for a purpose they haven't encountered is clearly the same as a human imagining an animal imagining a tool for purpose they have.
>after years of you failing to?
He’s going full schizo mode
>yes, because a human imagining a tool for a purpose they haven't encountered is clearly the same as a human imagining an animal imagining a tool for purpose they have
They’re not the same thing, the point is you’re just mixing up what you meant by imagined purposes
>the point is you’re just mixing up what you meant by imagined purposes
one of us certainly is.
If you really want to shock me, try understanding what I say the first time around. That would blow my mind.
but I also wouldn't know it's you, because I recognize you solely by your failure to understand.
>try understanding what I say the first time around
What you said the first time round has an entirely different meaning to what you say the 200th time round
>first time round: humans are the only animals that use tools
time round: humans are the only animals that use tools
>or
you process parts of sentences and ideas. Never the whole thing.
The “or” was
>unless you define tool use as "finding object in the environment and using it without modifying it for a single purpose that was not planned."
Which is moronic since lots of animals modify, repurpose and plan. You’re still pretending I haven’t read the whole thing but that’s all there is to it. An incorrect statement followed up by a misinformed one
>Which is moronic since lots of animals modify, repurpose and plan.
do they?
the thread lists 3 animals out of millions of species.
and none of them plan in all the same ways humans do.
nor do any of them plan in ways humans do not.
>the thread lists 3 animals out of millions of species
So it has to be a large percentage of the total existing number of species for you to consider it “lots”? Lol. I’d say the number given in the thread is plenty considering you said no animals use tools
>and none of them plan in all the same ways humans do.
>nor do any of them plan in ways humans do not
Notice how that’s absent from what you said
>I’d say the number given in the thread is plenty considering you said no animals use tools
>or
See
the OR was
>either tool use is defined such that NO animals do it
OR
>tool use is defined such that ALL animals do it
this is obviously false, but remains undefined in science. So you and I and others hashed out a definition.
And that OR is presented in a way that’s complete shit, since it’s based on the idea that it’s defined by animals find an object but don’t modify, repurpose or plan its use
Half of that would still be a lot, especially compared to 0 or 3
>it’s based on the idea that it’s defined by animals find an object but don’t modify, repurpose or plan its use
yep, we managed to rinse and refine that down to 2 measurable behaviors which I then imagined experiments to test for.
>Half of that would still be a lot,
the diversity is far more interesting than the number.
>yep, we managed to rinse and refine that down to 2 measurable behaviors
which is why people called your initial statement wrong. So is that correct, or are they still just misunderstanding?
>the diversity is far more interesting than the number
Then why bother pointing out that only three have been given in this thread?
>So is that correct, or are they still just misunderstanding?
AND/OR problem again. It is possible for the initial statement to be incorrect AND you misunderstood it.
>Then why bother pointing out that only three have been given in this thread?
because that's a fact. And it helped refine the scale.
>AND/OR problem again
>It is possible for the initial statement to be incorrect AND you misunderstood it
You can’t just keep saying it’s being misunderstood. There’s nothing being misunderstood
>humans are the only animals that use tools
False
>either tool use is defined such that NO animals do it
OR
>tool use is defined such that ALL animals do it
False because -
>unless you define tool use as "finding object in the environment and using it without modifying it for a single purpose that was not planned."
- by this definition a number of non human animals use tools
>because that's a fact. And it helped refine the scale
The scale which was then blown back up to hundreds of species
>You can’t just keep saying it’s being misunderstood. There’s nothing being misunderstood
because clearly I am perfect at communication and you are perfect at comprehension
we're both so amazing.
one of us won an argument against a hated enemy
the other created some novel science to publish.
win win
>gets caught out on the bullshit “you’re misunderstanding”
>aha actually I get to publish novel science on this, even though everything in the thread is already published
Frick off lmao. We both know nothing is getting published from this. And even if you did it’d be nothing more than a compilation of other people’s work, which has already been done.
>even if you did it’d be nothing more than a compilation of other people’s work, which has already been done.
but is not being followed.
if we make it easier to follow we have improved their work.
repurposing existing tools. Improving them.
>gets caught out on the bullshit “you’re misunderstanding”
the reason you're so useful is BECAUSE you think everything is an argument. You're incapable of imagining a scenario where someone engages with you and isn't trying to win an argument.
it's a special sort of moronation, but useful for editing.
You can try to pretend you’re not arguing, but you’ve been arguing with a number of people since you entered this thread. If you weren’t arguing you wouldn’t be trying to pull apart people as misunderstanding what you’ve said or call them moronic, you shouldn’t try act like it now
>but useful for editing
We both know you’re not editing anything Mr hack fraud
>If you weren’t arguing you wouldn’t be trying to pull apart people as misunderstanding what you’ve said or call them moronic
When the horse wanders off the track I smack them with a stick.
dissecting the meanings of individual words doesn't help when I can just replace them entirely while keeping the same meaning.
if that doesn't work I can try a different set of words for the same idea again and again.
but at the end of the day some morons are never going to get past the individual words to find the ideas behind them. Those morons are of far less use to me.
>I can just replace them entirely while keeping the same meaning
Or assign a totally new meaning as you’re so fond of
>but at the end of the day some morons are never going to get past the individual words to find the ideas behind them. Those morons are of far less use to me.
You’re still going with this pseudo-enlightened crap? It was clear from the start you didn’t know what the frick you were talking about
How often do I argue with you?
once a year? twice?
seems pretty rare for needing to validate my ego or step on yours.
>schizo mode once again
You argue with a lot of people, don’t pretend you know who each of them are
you always fail the AND/OR
you can't wrap your head around it. You say you can, but then you go right on not doing.
>almost 250 genera have tool use attributed to them
Yeah I’d say that’s a fair bit
>almost 250 genera have tool use attributed to them
I'd guess less than half of those are true, and I know none of them meet human standards. Even morons can use tools better than any existing animal.
>a fish smacking their food against a rock
But what if the fish goes and gets a rock to smack against the food?
>But what if the fish goes and gets a rock to smack against the food?
that would be a lot better. But we should probably list the differences for the poor dumb PhD's that didn't notice them.
The statement was a false dichotomy because I know how much you love false dichotomies. Instead of trying to resolve it, you further dichotomized it.
it was premised on the prescriptivists notion that terms should only have one meaning because I know how much you love the prescriptivist notion that terms should only have one meaning.
it's literally an homage and love letter to your incessant, constant trolling. I made it for you. You react quite vigorously to your own techniques.
>corvids don't modify objects to use as tools in the wild.
Not only do they modify tools, they’re capable of combining objects to create compound tools
>You haven't poked holes in anything I've said, but you have clearly pointed out the parts you didn't understand.
As a recap:
>corvids don’t modify objects to use as tools in the wild
>animals don’t repurpose tools
>animals don’t plan tool use
>animals don’t carry tools around
>hand axes aren’t tools and most anthropologists believe that
And probably a few more if I were to scroll through the thread to check
Oh and I forgot the most obvious one: animals don’t use tools
Yes, you're amazing at proving me wrong. Great work, I kneel before your towering intellect.
so octopuses don't modify objects to use as tools
and no animal uses tools in ways humans don't.
Holy shit you are a moron
I’m letting some cats outside in your honor
You don't need to, he’s already been doxxed. All you need to do is find it in an archive
>I'm good looking and wealthy and spend countless hours shit-posting on Wauf
Is the mental moronation is as obvious in real-life as it is here?
You just ass fricked him anon go easy on him
>redditspacing
Concession accepted.
>Concession accepted.
Not only do humans use tools in ways that no other animal does,
but no other animal uses tools in ways that humans do not. There is no animal on the planet using tools in ways that humans can't.
humans can do everything animals can, and several things animals cannot.
>makes an entirely new argument after making himself look moronic for the entire thread
About what was expected
I will take your silence as confirmation that you can't think of any animals that use tools in ways humans can't either.
final "argument" for you
octopuses don't modify objects to create tools
So do dolphins and octopuses.
As I said, your definition results in ALL animals using tools.
either all of them do or none of them do. Either we define it to exclude all animals aside from humans, or the definition becomes universal and thus meaningless.
i dont need tool use to be attributed to my species to feel better about myself, let the animals have it
This. Last I checked, crows weren't out here splitting the atom or launching shit into space.
then all animals use tools if it makes you feel better to have it said like that
you're wrong and don't understand the definition of a tool but you can have it your way
crows, dolphins, octopuses, apes, monkeys, crabs, crocodiles. arguably even animals that eat stones to help digest food technically use tools
does making a nest count ?
it's kinda a tool that keeps me warm
Chimps fashion spears to stab bush babies hiding in tree hollows, if thats not tool use then nothing is
>if thats not tool use then nothing is
if that's tool use then everything is.
Bugguy tier animal cognition opinion
Any cope to avoid any animal having any thought whatsoever. Like kant or descartes but much dumber.
>thought is the same as tool use
somewhere in nature there's a line between spearing bush babbies and building jet planes.
you are on the wrong side of that chimp/human line. So is bugguy.
>somewhere in nature there's a line between spearing bush babbies and building jet planes.
"Tool use" is not that line.
An animal that sees a problem and fashions a tool to solve it obviously thinks.
their failure to then use the same tool to solve other similar problems shows a type of thought they don't have. As does their inability to imagine a problem they've never encountered, and build a tool to solve it.
It's not that animals don't think. That's stupid and it's stupid of you to suggest that's what I'm saying. It displays a lack of imagination similar to the animals you feel the need to defend. You are little better than a chimp, of course you get insulted when people point out how dumb you are.
>Chimps don't imagine novel problems
You can't prove this empirically. They could, very well, imagine novel problems frequently, and most likely do, but only up to a certain level of complexity, only store that previous information so well, and suffer from a thought terminating stress response that slows their problem solving attempts so severely the researchers would have to stare at chimps playing with sticks for several days after giving them the new problem. They have the basic ability but its practical use is narrowed significantly and needs "unlocked".
One of the nice things about being human is we're domesticated. We have lower resting stress levels than a wild animal so we have fewer barriers to actually applying thought. It's possible we could study animal cognition better by altering their neurochemistry a bit to reduce irrational responses.
>You can't prove this empirically.
why would I need to prove something I didn't say?
I said they don't create tools to deal with imagined problems. That's extremely easy to prove. Whether they imagine problems or not isn't the point. They don't make tools for problems they imagine, while humans do.
Would you guess your failure to follow what I'm saying arises from the stress in your life?
I think your explanation is exactly right, but doesn't explain why one group of chimps unlocked the potential for planning ahead while other groups never did, despite them both having the same amount of time and similar conditions in which to do so.
>Could someone provide some examples?
>We want to chase some animals off a cliff but I imagine the animals are just going to run away from the cliff so we erect walls to keep the animals running towards the cliff
>I want to drive to the store but I imagine I might get a flat tire, so I carry a spare tire in case that happens
>I want to go to the river to get water but I imagine I might be attacked on the way so I take a weapon with me, even though I've never been attacked on the way to the river before.
in reality humans usually just respond to problems they've encountered, but we're fully capable of responding to problems we only imagine, and do it quite often.
Chimps don't generally do this. They're capable of imagining problems, but don't build or use tools to prepare for imagined problems. They don't plan ahead when it comes to their tool use. If they did, they'd carry spears everywhere, not just when they're hungry.
>>We want to chase some animals off a cliff but I imagine the animals are just going to run away from the cliff so we erect walls to keep the animals running towards the cliff
>>I want to drive to the store but I imagine I might get a flat tire, so I carry a spare tire in case that happens
>>I want to go to the river to get water but I imagine I might be attacked on the way so I take a weapon with me, even though I've never been attacked on the way to the river before.
unfortunately these aren't problems "that have never been encountered" they're problems that others have encountered and been observed.
Magpies have learned to trigger traffic lights so that they can safely position nuts in front of cars to be crushed. That's a problem they have "never encountered" before.
>unfortunately these aren't problems "that have never been encountered"
depends on the individual. They're examples of possible problems that a person has never encountered but will imagine anyways.
>they're problems that others have encountered and been observed.
chimps also don't do that. They don't build tools to deal with problems they see other chimps encounter.
>Magpies have learned to trigger traffic lights
let me know when they build a tool to trigger traffic lights and then repurpose it for other uses
until then you're just mistaking using the environment for using tools.
>I said they don't create tools to deal with imagined problems. That's extremely easy to prove.
If the problem is only imagined they would not get to use the tool and we would have hard time realising it is a tool. If a chimp made a stick to chase off gumbo-gumbo ghosts in case they exist, how would you know it?
>a stick to chase off gumbo-gumbo ghosts
I was thinking more of engineering problems, where you imagine something going wrong with a tool usage and then fix the problem before it comes up.
But you make a lovely point. Most human tools throughout our history were made to deal with problems that simply don't exist outside our own heads. Even now people regularly carry tools for problems in their heads, or real problems they will almost certainly never encounter.
>As does their inability to imagine a problem they've never encountered, and build a tool to solve it.
I've seen this said multiple times. Could someone provide some examples?
>their failure to then use the same tool to solve other similar problems shows a type of thought they don't have
Except they do use tools for multiple purposes. Chimps make sponges out of chewed leaves for collecting water to drink and for grooming
in that case chimps display one example of human type tool use compared to billions of human examples. And it's not surprising since they are human ancestors.
None of you address the actual problem. There are verifiable differences between humans and all other animals, and instead of trying to explain them you decide to deny them.
>If a chimp made a stick to chase off gumbo-gumbo ghosts in case they exist, how would you know it?
they'd keep it with them at all times?
in case they needed it?
humans do this all the time. We have a whole kit we carry around in case we need it, and we have had for tens of thousands of years.
isn't there some chimps known to sharpen sticks or branches and use them as spears
yep, and that's very close to human tool use
if they also used those spears for other things, and used other tools such as rocks, they'd be close to our level.
which is meaningless since humans are a type of chimp.
the frick do you mean "planned"
I mean anticipated in advance
a tool is fashioned before it is used, so it must be planned. The use is known before the tool is made. When a tool is repurposed for a different purpose, that is also usually planned. The user knows in advance what they are going to use the tool for.
if you're asking about the deeper meaning of the concept of planning, and how that applies to various animals, your guess is as good as mine. I only know how humans plan. I have no idea if or how crocodiles or shrimps plan.
e.g.
if a chimp is building a spear, they are planning on stabbing something
if a human is building a jet plane, they are planning on flying somewhere
the original purpose is known before the tool is even built.
if a tool is built for a purpose other than the one it's being used for, that use is also usually planned. If I grab a hammer and hit you with it, I planned to do that, even if the hammer was not originally made for hitting you. The use of the tool generally indicates a conscious intent or plan to do something.
Chimps will carry an object with them and only use it after walking a long way to a specific location. That seems to imply a plan.
>bicycles have wheels, this seems to imply they are cars
meeting one or more of a set of criteria is not the same as meeting all of the criteria.
even if it were, it doesn't explain why a car is not a bicycle.
Are these the criteria you pulled out of your ass?
Learn to consolidate your posts jesus
>Are these the criteria you pulled out of your ass?
yes! If you disagree on what makes human tool use different from animals I'd love to hear it.
if you're just going to say there's no difference I was bored with you years ago.
>Learn to consolidate your posts jesus
no
>straw man from a moron
>animals using tools in a way that fits your criteria perfectly is a straw man
Kek
I didn't check the paper because the text in the comment is a straw man, and even if the behavior described in the paper fits all my criteria you still missed the point.
You think I'm here to defend my criteria
I am here to listen to what other people's criteria are.
as long as you think every conversation is an invitation to argue, you are far too stupid to be talking to real humans.
>You think I'm here to defend my criteria
No I think you’re here because you decided to argue the semantics of what tool use is in a joke thread, presented some random criteria that were met, and are too invested in having to be right that you can’t accept that just maybe tool use does exist in animals in a way that meets your criteria
>I am here to listen to what other people's criteria are
We both know that’s not the case seeing your responses to other people suggesting what makes tool use
>as long as you think every conversation is an invitation to argue, you are far too stupid to be talking to real humans
Says the one who started an argument and seems to love to argue
>I didn't make an argument, you utter moron
Sure you did, that’s all you’ve done in this thread
>say, I asked for what you think on the topic
No you didn’t. You can pretend this, but anybody can scroll up and see that’s not the case. You were already arguing with people before I even entered the thread
You have nothing to offer aside from criticism. No insight, no human thoughts. Just a shitload of
>BUT THAT'S WRONG!
no shit it's wrong. So how do you explain the obvious technological differences between humans and every single fricking animal ever?
you don't. You can't. You've never thought about it and can only deny the differences exist.
>You're good at criticizing the thoughts of others, but scared shitless of presenting your own thoughts for criticism
>You have nothing to offer aside from criticism. No insight, no human thoughts
That’s a lot of words for “stop calling out my bullshit”. There are no deep thoughts to be had about what you said because it was nothing but shallow misinformation from the start, there is no deep thinking involved about making a sweeping statement you think will be hard to disprove and hoping nobody has an example that proves it wrong
>So how do you explain the obvious technological differences between humans and every single fricking animal ever?
>can only deny the differences exist
I don’t intend to, because I never said otherwise. You keep going back to this but not a single purpose has claimed that human technological advancement is equivalent to a chimp hitting something with a rock. Nobody has denied they are different. Now THAT is a straw man
>Nobody has denied they are different.
yet instead of attempting to explain those differences you could only attack my attempts at explaining them.
which leaves me right back where I started. You've certainly not helped aside from convincing me that you're incapable of thinking about it.
>yet instead of attempting to explain those differences you could only attack my attempts at explaining them
Why would I need to explain the obvious? You're making up a new argument to try make yourself look enlightened, when in reality you just made a moronic statement and everyone said that's moronic. Nobody cares about the differences between human and animal tool use, nobody claimed they were the same, nobody is denying the differences between the two. The point of discussion was whether or not animal tool use exists and whether or not they're capable of planning and repurposing of tools, which they very clearly are despite what you might think
>I don't mind being told I'm wrong
Clearly you do, seeing as you've been here arguing why you're right against anyone who says otherwise for the last hundred replies
>Nobody cares about the differences between human and animal tool use
most scientists studying animal tool use care ONLY about the differences between human and animal tool use.
>you've been here arguing why you're right
nope, I've told you in almost every comment that you're failing to understand.
>They're not intelligent enough
I doubt it
I expect you're not a lot more intelligent than a chimp, and I have no doubt you use tools more effectively.
>most scientists studying animal tool use care ONLY about the differences between human and animal tool use
I don't see many of those in this thread
>I've told you in almost every comment that you're failing to understand
And in every comment you seem to be slowly changing your argument every time somebody responds to something
>I doubt it
A chimp isn't intelligent enough to understand nuclear theory? Wow, great insight here on Wauf from our resident pseudointellectual
You fail to understand that when you make a statement and somebody posts something that proves it wrong, going "you misunderstand" doesn't make you suddenly right
I love that you think everything is an argument
I bet you get your ass kicked a lot in real life.
>I love that you think everything is an argument
And I love that you're sitting here, arguing on the internet pretending that you're not to make yourself look mightier than thou
>I bet you get your ass kicked a lot in real life
you're on Wauf gay, pot kettle
>you're not to make yourself look mightier than thou
You don't understand how anonymity works, huh moron?
you think you win arguments?
"you" don't even exist in this space. I can't respect "you" because I can't tell "you" from anyone else here.
it's a bit sad you don't understand this after all the years you've been here.
>you" don't even exist in this space. I can't respect "you" because I can't tell "you" from anyone else here
and here (You) are trying to convince everyone that you're actually super knowledgeable about the topic, and that everyone else just can't grasp the depths of your mind. Which is why you make moronic statements like tool use doesn't exist in animals, a lion using the floor as a table is equivalent to a chimp fashioning a double ended tool and that animals are incapable of planning
>everyone else just can't grasp the depths of your mind.
You mean Frank Herbert's mind.
No, I don't mean the mind of an author with no background in zoology. I mean the mind of the pseud on a mongolian basket weaving forum who thinks eating off the floor and using a spear that has been fashioned from a stick are comparable in any sense
You're good at criticizing the thoughts of others, but scared shitless of presenting your own thoughts for criticism
if you even have thoughts.
>WAAAH STOP BEING MEAN AND TELLING ME IM WRONG ON THE INTERNET
I don't mind being told I'm wrong, that's why I made the comment in the first place.
I would prefer "opponents" who understand which point they're meant to "prove wrong," and would be thrilled to find one that actually suggests a better explanation.
but I'm stuck with morons and chimps.
Don’t orangutans try to saw shit and hammer nails?
wouldn't surprise me, but we're really going off the rails if we start wondering about animals learning to use human tools.
My cat can open the bathroom door. I don't think cats in general are considered to be tool users. Dogs can be trained to use tools. Again I don't guess dogs are treated as a tool using species normally.
I think when an animal uses human tools via imitation or training we don't count it, but great apes use lots of tools in almost human ways naturally.
shrimpgays lose again
prawnbros, we just can't stop winning
I didn't think it was prawnsible to make it so shrimple!
Need to develop a lot more gray matter first, and crustaceans' decentralized nervous systems don't really facilitate that.