Telephoto Kitchen Lens Timer

"6. Personality"

Anyone that has ever had a dog, cat, horse, or any pet really, would probably agree that duh, of course animals have personality.

I agree with a lot of the article, but we still need to be cautious in assigning emotions to animals based on behavior. We tend to see what we want to see.

Humans/Animals/Computers... we're all really the same :P

"Does this indicate nascent morality?"

Um. Wot? Doesn't it just mean that they're social animals that are used to living in groups and instinctually avoid doing things that harm the group?

Way to project and anthropomorphize, science! Gotta keep those funding grants rolling in.

I agree with Carl.
Altruism in animals doesn't necessarily equate to morality.
Seeing as rhesus monkeys are such social animals, they tend to be strongly motivated to look out for the wellbeing of the group. A rhesus monkey that is only out for him/herself is more likely to be shunned by the group for not contributing and would therefore be less likely to survive in the wild.
This behaviour is likely to be an evolutionary behavioural adaption.

Altruism in humans doesn’t necessarily equate to morality.

Animals are gay

http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=&cat=gayanimals

Doesn’t it just mean that they’re social animals that are used to living in groups and instinctually avoid doing things that harm the group?

That description fits humans too.

Anthropomorphism is a perfectly respectable way to view the behaviour of animals that are closely related to humans. Chimpanzees share 97% of our genes -- it makes less sense not to assign human-like characteristics to their behaviour.

There's an article on the National Geographic site called "Animal MInds" about animals with memory skills, communication skills and tool-making skills that we previously thought were limited to humans:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text

Never said it did, Marco.
There are a lot of theories of morality out there by well respected scientists/anthropoligists/philosophers/theorists, yet they all have limitations. It's hard to define morality in animals when we don't yet entirely understand morlaity in humans.

what i don't understand is how this stuff can be passed as common knowledge, yet, the theory of evolution can be thrown out like a dirty bandage. we continue to research distinct similarities between humans and all other walks of life, are SUCCESSFUL, and are even able to say that chimps have 97% of the same genes as we do. HOW IS THIS NOT PROOF OF EVOLUTION? i'm sorry guys.. i don't want anyone to spit on me for bringing up this crap, but i'm just boggled by things like this. i guess divine faith is just not something i am capable of grasping.

Mooncake.. just wondering here, what brought that on? I don't think anyone said anything about not believing in evolution? I'm not "spitting" on you, just wondered why you'd suddenly let out that tirade?

I find it arrogant and close-minded of people when they are suprised that animals do certain things in certain ways that they attribute only to humans. Just because we don't communicate or live in ways that they do, just because we do not understand does not mean they don't have their own concepts of morality/ethics/language, etc.
WOW. It's almost like that kind of thinking has started wars among HUMANS.

Hmmm.

"I agree with a lot of the article, but we still need to be cautious in assigning emotions to animals based on behavior. We tend to see what we want to see."

I do not agree with that. You can say the same about humans too. We do not know whether the other human has feelings or, not we just presume its existence. We know animals have a brain and an advanced nerve system, they react to pain as we do. There is no reason to assume that they do not feel as we do.

Back at the university we were taught by the lecturer about cats in animal testing. They implanted microchips and various instruments into their brains with which they could discover that they actually had dreams!