Can animals(non humans) lie?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by davewhite04, Jul 23, 2008.

  1. Jetex Jim Registered Member

    Messages:
    68
    Yes, but 'Ethically', is the creature actually aware that it's lieing, or is this just behaviour is evolutionary tuned, and no more conscious than a animal having colour patterns that make it difficult to detect.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    In monkeys, yes probably.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jetex Jim Registered Member

    Messages:
    68
    Sorry Enmos, I have difficulty with accepting this. Not that its not possible that the monkey isn't conscious, it might be, but it seems unlikely that it could 'know' of the concept of a lie.

    If it didn't, it would hold the truth to have no particular value.

    I think it follows that, if you don't know that you lie, ethically you arn't lying.
    --just behaving expediently for the circumstances--
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    What if you know you aren't telling the truth to rightfully get what you need ? Hmm..

    I have seen enough controlled experiments on consciousness with monkeys to come to my own conclusions.
    I really don't have any time now, I will try to look up some this afternoon.
    (Got to go to work :bawl

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Jetex Jim Registered Member

    Messages:
    68
    Choice Blind

    A little thread drift, but its kind of pertinent

    In psychology, choice blindness is a phenomenon in which subjects fail to detect conspicuous mismatches between their intended (and expected) choice and the actual outcome.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_blindness
    Which suggests to me that often humans, are 'not concious' of what they are actually doing, or why they are doing it.


    We meet this kind of behaviour in every day life often. When people are in denial. Abusers of children and carers for children who have systematically ignored the abuse of a child by a spouse etc... They were unaware it was happening, they maintain.

    Are those negligent carers actually lying when they say they were unaware any abuse took place, or in fact adopting a coping strategy which requires them to 'not be concious' of what was happening?
     
  9. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I agree.

    If you put it that way, I disagree. I believe they are lying.
     
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Not exactly what I promised but interesting nonetheless. Some paragraphs:

    "After humans, rhesus macaques are one of the most successful primate species on our planet; our Machiavellian intelligence may be one of the reasons for our success" wrote Maestripieri.

    Pressure to find Machiavellian solutions to social problems may also have led to the evolution of larger human brains.

    "Our Machiavellian intelligence is not something we can be proud of, but it may be the secret of our success. If it contributed to the evolution of our large brains and complex cognitive skills, it also contributed to the evolution of our ability to engage in noble spiritual and intellectual activities, including our love and compassion for other people", Maestripieri said.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024144314.htm

    Machiavellian intelligence:
    In cognitive science and evolutionary psychology, Machiavellian intelligence (also known as political intelligence or social intelligence) is the capacity of an entity to be in a successful political engagement with social groups.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellian_intelligence
     
  11. Jetex Jim Registered Member

    Messages:
    68
    Enmos, from your Machievelian monkey post

    Complex behaviour, true but,for me, its still 'selfish gene' type stuff though.

    The following, Global Workspace Theory, is an interesting 'take' on consciouness
    http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/baars/baarsBrain.htm
     
  12. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
  13. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    From your article:
    Baars uses an operational definition of consciousness that considers people to be conscious of an event if (1) they can say immediately afterwards that they were conscious of it and (2) we can independently verify the accuracy of their report (Baars, 1988, p 15). In other words, if immediately after being presented with X, a person can say that they have experienced X, but after presented with Y, they can say that they have not experienced X, they are deemed to have been conscious of X.

    This human biased, since were are the only one using spoken language.
    However, when you read the articles from my previous post, I think you will agree that the monkeys were conscious when performing the tests, even though they were not able to say it on words.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2008
  14. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I believe the experiment that I was referring to in particular used a Capuchin monkey.

    The experimenter put honey in a Plexiglas tube, covered it tightly with a plastic film and then put it inside another Plexiglas tube.
    The monkey had a choice between several tools, among which a large flint stone, another large rock, a leafy twig, and a wooden block toy.
    Immediately the monkey started out banging the large flint on the other stone until the flint broke up into sharp shards.
    It took a shard and pierced the plastic film. But he still could not reach the honey.
    It turned around and got the twig, deleafed and debarked it, and used it to get to the honey.

    In a second experiment all the previous tools were represented by tokens, the relation between the tokens and the actual tools was shown behind glass.
    The monkey first picked the token representing the flint stone and proceeded as in the previous experiment.
    Then the monkey requested the twig, but instead got the wooden block.
    It thew the block away, got the token back and gave the token again.
    Again, it got the wooden block and, again, it threw it away.
    The third time it got the twig he requested and proceeded as in the previous experiment.

    Maybe you have to have seen it, but it convinced me. These monkeys are conscious of what they are doing.
     
  15. Jetex Jim Registered Member

    Messages:
    68
    This is remarkable stuff, perhaps it is proof of conciousness, but like I say, I'm not entirely convinced that humans are conscious all the time, never mind animals.

    What I mean is, its quite possible to be smart, and pick the right solutions, but be somewhat detached from it all. (like a savannt)


    Billy Connelly, stand up comedian, has said that sometimes on stage he's not sure what will come out of his mouth next, its like he verablising something he's not in control of.

    I know, writing fiction, that sometimes I've no idea what my fingers are going to punch out next, feels good when it works like that though.
     
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Question of thread does not concern the state of animal's knowledge /awareness / etc. of what it is doing. Only if animals tell lies. They do.
     
  17. Jetex Jim Registered Member

    Messages:
    68
    Okay, end of discussion then.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Perhaps not. At least I want to be clear what I consider to be lying:

    Lying requires a "teller" and a comprehending, believing "listener" of some assertion that the teller must believe is false. (Thus, it is possbile to make a true statment and be telling a lie if you believe the statement to be false, in my POV.)

    In the case I cited:
    The slow monkey was the "teller"
    The other moneys in the group were the "comprehending and believing listeners."
    The lie was his assertion that a tiger was approaching.

    He obviously knew this assertion to be a false, as unlike the other monkeys in the group who ran to the distant trees; he calmly remained to eat the berries.

    Unless you disagree with my description of what is required to be a liar, then clearly that berry eating monkey told a typical (self serving) lie - not a "white lie" which is not significantly "self serving."

    If only a turtle (no other moneys were present) the identical vocalization by the slow monkey would not be a lie as far as I am concerned - do you agree?

    I.e. I think it is impossible to lie, if there is no "comprehending, believing listener."
    With modern technology and considerable time delay it may be possible to lie to oneself.

    For example, I could knowing falsely record where I claim to have buried a diamond ring. Years later, after having forgotten all about making this tape recording I could find and play it. Probably I would go, now as the "comprehending believing listener" there and try to dig it up.

    Without this time delay, I do not believe it is possible to lie (as defined above at start of post) to oneself as you cannot simultaneously know that the assertion is false and believe it to be true.

    I.e. The listener must believe the assertion for it to be a lie. For example, I know that last Friday I did not visit the moon and eat a small piece of its green cheese surface, but I can tell you that I did. I am confident you do not believe my assertion, so I am not lying, even though making an assertion that I know to be false to a comprehending listener.

    Do you agree to all of the above? Or want to modify part?

    Note that consciousness does not enter into the question / discussion as I understand lying. I even think machines can lie. For an example:

    Assume two game playing machines exchanging information, both trying to win the game, which is done by learning the location of "the treasure." Neither machine initially has all of the treasure's coordinates, etc. but jointly they do have all the necessary information to find the treasure.

    Each provides an assertion to the other in turns. Neither can win prior to having disclosed to the other all of the true information it has, but can make two false assertions for each true revelation it provides the other.

    The receiver of each assertion must try to correctly separate the lies from the true statement, while giving away all its truths about the treasure location and yet be the first "to publish" (correctly) the location of the treasure. Each wrong location "published" requires that machine to tell a new "marked as true" fact to the other machine, so a good winning strategy does not make many wild guesses.

    Obviously the true contest is between the two different teams that wrote the software controlling these machines. This might actually be a good exercise for college IT students to attempt. Some additional or modified rules of this game I invented in last two minutes may be required.

    Certainly these machines are not conscious yet they are often lying to each other.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2008
  20. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Well if you define lying in such a way that it can mean deception without being conscious about it,then yea I agree.
    But what we were on about was whether or not deception without being conscious about it can indeed be called lying.
     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    My definition of lying does not require "consciousness" as it is impossible to know with certainty that any living creature (except yourself) is conscious. (This is called "the other minds" problem.) As I illustrated in last post, it is impossible (WITHOUT SOME TIME DELAY provided by modern technology) to lie to oneself. When these two facts are combined and if then "consciousness" is made part of the defined requirements of lying, then lying becomes impossible. - Clearly you do not want "consciousness" to be part of the definition, and it is not in my definition of lying.

    Please edit your post to make it conform to my more recently edited version, which has also removed the requirement that the Liar "know" that his assertion is false. I have replaced "know" with "believe" as few things, outside of mathematics, can be known with certainty.

    Also please offer a definition of lying if you do not fully accept mine, but be careful not to make it impossible to know if lying even exists is possible. I think the inclusion of any requirement that the liar is conscious or Knows for certain that the assertion is false in the definition opens the possibility that lies are impossible or do not exist.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2008
  22. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    What post ?
    In my first post here I made clear that it depends on the definition, and I held open both possibilities in my consequent posts as far as I know.

    Your definition poses somewhat of a problem though.
    Is a moth with camouflage considered a liar ?
    I think the common definition of the word "to lie" and our interpretation of it is streamlined for human purposes, hence the problems we encounter when trying to apply it to non-humans.
     
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    156. Here again is my one sentence definition of lying (and one comment) copied from post 156.:

    Lying requires a "teller" and a comprehending, believing "listener" of some assertion that the teller must believe is false. (Thus, it is possbile to make a true statment and be telling a lie if you believe the statement to be false, in my POV.)
     

Share This Page