|
IMJack posted:
Bat eared fox is great. 
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 09:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/zUD6K4T.mp4
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 13:01
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/yipLaRp.mp4 https://thumbs.gfycat.com/TallTangibleHammerheadshark-mobile.mp4 turn the sound on for the second https://twitter.com/catsu/status/1094584460350287873 Sininu has a new favorite as of 14:17 on Feb 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 13:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/emzoticofficial/status/1094328370064707588
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
That? Oh that’s my travel-bat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/azxtXde.mp4
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
Liking the new Shadow Of The Colossus remake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CuriousZelda/status/1094696919526502400
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
 Love those twitchy ears
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Do bats get that big, that thing is huge. It looks like a flying dog or a gargoyle
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Do bats get that big, that thing is huge. It looks like a flying dog or a gargoyle Fruit bats get huge, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Do bats get that big, that thing is huge. It looks like a flying dog or a gargoyle They're called Flying Foxes for a reason, they only weight 2-3 lbs, but they can have a wingspan greater than 5 feet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Do bats get that big, that thing is huge. It looks like a flying dog or a gargoyle  Flying foxes definitely get that big. They chill in the trees around where I live and are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
They're the sweetest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdMeQWv2HJw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B0UPtEpOQc
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/sGzalPh.gifv
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 23:31
|
|
Glory to Italia!
|
https://twitter.com/ZooBoooK/status/1094138329195413505
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
Knorth posted:They're the sweetest That whole channel is a pro click. Lots and lots of adorable sky puppies. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
If that duck had arms it wouldn't have that problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AMAZlNGNATURE/status/1094741797228679169
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 01:10
|
|
|
One thing I sometimes think about about animals is, is it right to assign the concepts like happiness to their behaviors? Or is it defining their most inner feelings not on their terms, but ours?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:One thing I sometimes think about about animals is, is it right to assign the concepts like happiness to their behaviors? Or is it defining their most inner feelings not on their terms, but ours? Animals get itchy, few can scratch them well with their paws/hooves, so yes I'm pretty sure they are ecstatic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
You know how it feels good to receive a massage. Thats all animals ever times 1 billion
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
I love the way she tags in the other one. "Mabel! Your go!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:One thing I sometimes think about about animals is, is it right to assign the concepts like happiness to their behaviors? Or is it defining their most inner feelings not on their terms, but ours? Honestly I'd say the opposite approach is much worse
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:One thing I sometimes think about about animals is, is it right to assign the concepts like happiness to their behaviors? Or is it defining their most inner feelings not on their terms, but ours? Write out a definition of "happy" for yourself, but exclude the words "people" or "human". Or check out a dictionary definition and do the same. Then observe:  
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
Is this a set piece for the unfilmed episodes of Pushing Daisies?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 02:52
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:One thing I sometimes think about about animals is, is it right to assign the concepts like happiness to their behaviors? Or is it defining their most inner feelings not on their terms, but ours? A lot of pretty notable animal cognition science went more or less completely untouched for an extended period of time thanks to the allergy a lot of old school scientists had towards anthropomorphizing their subjects. While this is fine, to a degree - animals are not people, etc - there is a vast gulf between using 'happy' to describe an animal's behaviour, and assuming that 'happy' means for the animal what it explicitly means for us. And even then, it's not like the difference between human and animal happiness is some vast chasm that can't possibly be navigated, especially for other herd/pack animals. Ex: Are we socializing, well fed, moving around, surrounded by loved ones? Then we tend to be happier. Are we sad when one of those loved ones die? Yes. It's not hard, or even out of bounds, to apply this to a wild wolf pack. Wolves are known to mourn their dead (low throated howl), and some mates are known to travel great distances to find a partner that vanished overnight, usually thanks to being shot. IIRC, one of the most notorious female alphas in Yellowstone was shot dead because she tried to visit the site where her mate was killed by a hunter. And it's not just pack animals. Cat owners have continuously observed that if you have a bonded pair of cats, and one dies, the surviving cat tends to get depressed in very tangible ways (ex: an otherwise healthy animal suddenly refusing to groom themselves/eating sparingly where before they had a healthy appetite/etc). To be honest, robbing animals of the emotion that we can define and relate to is a way of diminishing the responses they have to outside stimulus. All it does is make us feel better about the fact that we continually inflict pain on any given species (those humans that do, anyway), and insisting that it's 'alien' has only stymied efforts to further research animal emotion and cognition. EDIT: this isn't an excuse to just assume that a behaviour actually is 'happy' as opposed to 'that's a stress response,' but that's why ethology exists as a means of navigating what behaviour means what. If you want to know why an animal is behaving the way it is, look up an ethologist that studies the species and read some stuff! Curiosity is good. Still, there are some examples, like a cow being positively stimulated by the opportunity to get dem scritches, that are kind of irrefutable. EDIT 2: Last thing, I promise, but: this isn't necessarily a bad thing to wonder about. It can, however, be taken to extremes that can be counterproductive. Old Boot has a new favorite as of 04:16 on Feb 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:One thing I sometimes think about about animals is, is it right to assign the concepts like happiness to their behaviors? Or is it defining their most inner feelings not on their terms, but ours? It's a stimulus that they will willingly go back to, that probably correlates to elevated levels of dopamine or serotonin or whatever. Whether the cow is actually thinking "this is loving awesome" is unknowable, but may or may not be important anyway. Edit: Old Boot answered that better, so have a cute purring cougar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXhfZRE08ko tudabee has a new favorite as of 04:23 on Feb 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 04:19
|
|
|
Old Boot posted:A lot of pretty notable animal cognition science went more or less completely untouched for an extended period of time thanks to the allergy a lot of old school scientists had towards anthropomorphizing their subjects. While this is fine, to a degree - animals are not people, etc - there is a vast gulf between using 'happy' to describe an animal's behaviour, and assuming that 'happy' means for the animal what it explicitly means for us. And even then, it's not like the difference between human and animal happiness is some vast chasm that can't possibly be navigated, especially for other herd/pack animals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
One of the problems was that there was an inherent assumption that humans and animals were very, very different. In fact it was common to believe that humans weren't even animals at all. The assumption was that we were different enough given our ability to think, reason, and feel. Animals were running primarily on autopilot based on their hardware. Animals couldn't really feel the way we understood it and I mean, we teach each other poo poo and use tools! Then when we started looking more closely a hell of a lot of the same brain hardware in animals also exists in us. Our brains are literally just ape brains but the biggest ape brains you can find. We aren't special and we aren't all that different. Tool use isn't even specific to humans nor is teaching. The we go on to find out that people don't even really have as much free will as we like to think we do. We aren't really much more than very fancy chimps that figured out how to write things down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:One thing I sometimes think about about animals is, is it right to assign the concepts like happiness to their behaviors? Or is it defining their most inner feelings not on their terms, but ours? It seems wronger to assume they don't have emotions such as happiness tbh. Lets assume they do until we find a way to find out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
Bored posted:Is this a set piece for the unfilmed episodes of Pushing Daisies? That was the greatest show, so thanks for making me think of it again. Dandelion high five!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:That's interesting. I had no idea that my idea had that kind of history in research. Oh yeah, it's been hotly debated for a long, long time. As an example, Jane Goodall took a lot of heat for anthropomorphizing chimps in her writings and research, which, on its face, sounds-- well. See what ToxicSlurpee said. Don't get me wrong, there are bad kinds of anthropomorphizing (furry joke goes here), and there are still holdouts that subscribe to the old way of thinking, but they're starting to get phased out as time goes on, and more research continues to be done. There's a book, Animal Wise, that has a lot of information about the debate, as well as advances that have been made in the field of cognition. If you're curious to learn more, check it out, and if you prefer audiobooks, good news! The audiobook version is quite good. Fair warning, though: the Dolphin Jerkoff Story is in there. ...But, I mean, for as loving absurd as that story was/as highly questionable as that """"study"""" happened to be, it does actually apply to the overall topic. vvvv interestingly enough, IIRC, the dolphin thing was partly based on linguistics, it just went sharply off the rails (EDIT: I'm wrong, sort of) vvvv Old Boot has a new favorite as of 05:03 on Feb 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
Being trained as a linguist the only experience I had was reading studies of teaching animals human language and interpreting their communication ability in terms of ours, when it is wonderful all on its own and should be studied that way. That's how I was thinking about this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
This poor kitty is heavily inbread. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 05:44
|
|
|
Slippery posted:That was the greatest show, so thanks for making me think of it again. Dandelion high five!  
Bored has a new favorite as of 07:39 on Feb 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 07:36
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/VN9ZaRW.mp4
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/Eh3ifeE.gifv
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
Weird looking cat you got there
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
Want this regulator dog
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2019 17:04
|
|