Why do dogs tilt their heads?

[Obvious Leo]

Because people through thousands of year have given them creds and attention when they have looked cute. The poor little shit- and bark-generating automatas. Or does wolves do likewise?

Only people who have never shared their lives with dogs could possibly describe them as mindless automata. I've lived with dogs all my life and I can think of many humans who I could define in such a way but never a dog.

[Ansiktsburk]

Because people through thousands of year have given them creds and attention when they have looked cute. The poor little shit- and bark-generating automatas. Or does wolves do likewise?

Only people who have never shared their lives with dogs could possibly describe them as mindless automata. I've lived with dogs all my life and I can think of many humans who I could define in such a way but never a dog.

Just joking, didn't you see that article in PN with Descartes involved? Rather inspiring.

Dogs are good for dog people. I wouldn't really describe them as automata. But they bark a lot, and they do shit a lot. If I ever move into the country I will probably get a cat. They are pretty cool.

[Obvious Leo]

I do live in the country, Ansik, and for this reason I don't have cats, although I'm quite fond of cats. I'm a very keen gardener as well as a bird-watcher and I grow plants in my garden for the specific purpose of attracting particular species of native birds. Keeping a cat would be quite inappropriate in such circumstances because the hunting instinct in domestic cats is something which was deliberately selected for by humans in the process of domestication. I see cats as more of an urban pet and prefer that they be kept indoors, which animal behaviourists have assured us doesn't bother them at all. I have a friend who makes a very good living out of making adventure playgrounds for domestic cats which allows them to have the best of both worlds without posing a threat to wildlife.

[Ansiktsburk]

I do live in the country, Ansik, and for this reason I don't have cats, although I'm quite fond of cats. I'm a very keen gardener as well as a bird-watcher and I grow plants in my garden for the specific purpose of attracting particular species of native birds. Keeping a cat would be quite inappropriate in such circumstances because the hunting instinct in domestic cats is something which was deliberately selected for by humans in the process of domestication. I see cats as more of an urban pet and prefer that they be kept indoors, which animal behaviourists have assured us doesn't bother them at all. I have a friend who makes a very good living out of making adventure playgrounds for domestic cats which allows them to have the best of both worlds without posing a threat to wildlife.

My brother would envy you with that garden. He's a top-50, what I think you call "twitcher", up here, and he lives in a place where there is concrete eveywhere you go. I guess he wouldn't keep cats either, if he moved into the country.. But I like the personality of cats, especially since they are somewhat un-devoted, goes about their own business. And I like the idea of them roaming around quite freely. isn't that common in Australia? I saw a quite fantastic documentary from the UK where a university had a project in an english village, putting GPS's on the cats (cameras on some) and analyzed the behavior of the village cats. They were quite advanced in keeping hunting territories, went into other peoples houses to eat, had other unexpected habits. They were like a community within the community. I definitely see the cats as non-automata.

When it comes to catching live animals, well I aint no "tree hugger" as we call it here. If the cats catches rodents and house sparrows, I can live with that, I eat pigs and cows. An excuse which, as I understand it, is quite close to why Descartes said that about automatas. It IS a bit disgusting(could you say "gross" in proper english? Or do I watch too many american films?), the idea of feeding on other living things, that you actually do kill living things in order to eat. But I guess I'm a little tougher than old Rene was, a guy who couldn't handle a normal winter up here. But ok, if the cat catches a sibirian sparrow of some rare kind, It's unfortunate.

[Obvious Leo]

But I like the personality of cats, especially since they are somewhat un-devoted, goes about their own business

I agree, and that's the big difference between keeping a cat and a dog. Humans keep dogs as pets but cats keep humans as pets and you've gotta love that.

And I like the idea of them roaming around quite freely. isn't that common in Australia?

It's still quite common but it's a situation which is rapidly changing. Nowadays it's generally regarded as irresponsible to allow cats to roam freely because of the terrible toll they take on native wildlife. Most foreigners tend to imagine the Australian native marsupials as big lumbering kangaroos who could flatten a cat in a single jump, as indeed they could. However the vast majority of our marsupials are creatures smaller than rabbits and many of these species are critically endangered because of predation by domestic cats, against which they are defenceless. So easy are the pickings for cats that go feral in this country that there is now estimated to be several million of them in the wild and they have been known to grow to the size of a medium-sized dog.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Because people through thousands of year have given them creds and attention when they have looked cute. The poor little shit- and bark-generating automatas. Or does wolves do likewise?

I doubt a wolf would have much interest in a ball, but I'd be willing to bet they could catch a small furry creature if you threw it their way. Wolves can do much the same, but are not as cute, and are a bit harder to make friends, even from pups.
I'd not call either dogs or wolves automata.
Automata can't learn, dogs and wolves most certainly can.

[Obvious Leo]

Hobbes. I have an interesting piece of trivia for someone who shares my interest in evolutionary anthropology. It seems that the symbiotic relationship between humans and wolves stretches back to a time before the extinction of the Neanderthals and that it was only the sapiens sub-species which was able to form such a relationship. It is surmised that this difference can be attributed to a particular variant of the FOXP2 gene which was present in sapiens but not in neandertalis and which is thought to be closely associated with the evolution of complex language. This is still very much an active field of research but the reasoning goes that a more complex language was necessary for such a symbiotic relationship to become reinforced over time but that once it was established such a relationship would have given sapiens a selective advantage over their rivals in what was essentially the same ecological niche. Obviously this remains a rather speculative hypothesis but it has an internal logic to it which I find rather appealing.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes. I have an interesting piece of trivia for someone who shares my interest in evolutionary anthropology. It seems that the symbiotic relationship between humans and wolves stretches back to a time before the extinction of the Neanderthals and that it was only the sapiens sub-species which was able to form such a relationship. It is surmised that this difference can be attributed to a particular variant of the FOXP2 gene which was present in sapiens but not in neandertalis and which is thought to be closely associated with the evolution of complex language. This is still very much an active field of research but the reasoning goes that a more complex language was necessary for such a symbiotic relationship to become reinforced over time but that once it was established such a relationship would have given sapiens a selective advantage over their rivals in what was essentially the same ecological niche. Obviously this remains a rather speculative hypothesis but it has an internal logic to it which I find rather appealing.

Speculation of a speculation I think.

All neanderthal gene information is highly fragmentary and incomplete, so it is not possible to say that any gene is missing.
But I totally doubt the importance and any single gene or gene sequence in given humans the ability to co-habit with another species.
When you consider the vast number of examples of cross species co-operation I can not give this speculation any credibility.
I can't see why symbolically complex language would be relevant to the man/dog relationship.

I've seen dog-bitches suckle piggies, and cats; cats adopt puppies, and fox cubs; and seen lion cubs accept humans as friends - a relationship they maintained well into adulthood, and capable of playing with their human "dad" without killing or injuring him. I'm puzzled why you think the acquisition of symbolic thinking is related - though the evidence of domestication seems to come around the same time as art.

I've always considered that our relationship with dogs was a function of our (mammalian) caring instinct, which can be seen in the most odd circumstances.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fhnyfd7eLI

There is a tendency in archaeology to see changes as sudden. This is more to do with the partial nature of the evidence than any real suddenness of changes. So the big change to symbolic thinking is taken to be a phenomenon of H sapiens, but you've only to look at the typical tool assemblages of H. Neanderthal to realise that a good deal of abstract thinking was going on. I can also testify, as a craftsman, just how fucking difficult making those tools is, having been shown how by an experienced archaeologist.

And this says nothing about the technologies of wood, leather and other fugitive material that are forever lost to our gaze, that had to be an essential part of the remarkable Neanderthal achievement as they penetrated so far into cold northerly climates.

There is even some evidence that homo erectus was thinking symbolically as far back as half a million years ago.

[Obvious Leo]

Speculation of a speculation I think.

I agree. However it is just such speculative thinking which advances our understanding of human evolution as a cultural phenomenon as much as it was a biological one, even if the specific example being used may be being incorrectly applied.

All neanderthal gene information is highly fragmentary and incomplete, so it is not possible to say that any gene is missing.

The evidence is fragmentary but genetics has got a hell of a lot more to do with gene adaptation and gene expression than it has to do with gene selection, which is a very blunt instrument indeed. The exact same gene performs an entirely different function in a banana than it does in a human and this differences in gene expression becomes a lot more nuanced when species are closely related. The fact that neandertalis was unable to evolve the complex symbolic language of sapiens is by no means a canon orthodoxy but the evidence for this conclusion is steadily mounting and to therefore suggest that this skill allowed sapiens to out-compete his rival is hardly an improbable assumption, although to suggest that this alone might have been the sole causal agent would be to deny all principles of evolutionary theory.

I can't see why symbolically complex language would be relevant to the man/dog relationship.

I can. Allowing wild and potentially dangerous animals to co-habit with a hunter-gatherer group would have required a sophisticated cost/benefit analysis involving giving appropriate weight to a wide range of different variables. It's not hard to see that the balance would ultimately weigh in favour of the symbiosis but this would need to happen over a large number of successive generations and in highly organised and complex societies. In evolutionary anthropology it is generally accepted that highly organised and complex societies go hand in glove with highly organised and complex language. It is also significant that the man/dog symbiosis evolved in many different human societies which were not causally connected and that the modern domestic dog has been shown to have descended from three distinctly different species of wolves. There is no evidence whatsoever that neandertalis evolved this behaviour and it's not for want of looking for it.

I'm puzzled why you think the acquisition of symbolic thinking is related - though the evidence of domestication seems to come around the same time as art.

This is likely to be more than just coincidence but I do not suggest that symbolic thinking alone could be responsible for either art or the man/dog symbiosis. I would agree with you that symbolic thinking probably pre-dates both of these evolutionary phenomena by as much as millions of years and there is no reason to suppose that symbolic thinking is the exclusive domain of the hominins. A number of other species are also tool-makers after all. However the complex language which allows a species to more precisely communicate its symbolic thinking to others must surely have been a game-changer. In any event this is the mainstream position in evolutionary anthropology and since I'm no more than an enthusiastic amateur in the field it sure sounds plausible enough to me. It was ultimately language which allowed homo sapiens to climb to the top of the tree of primate sentience and we left plenty of extinct hominin species in our wake over the 5 million year period since our ancestors decided to climb down from the trees.

"homo hominis lupus est"....Plautus. "Man is the wolf of man".

Of course Plautus was a playwright and not an evolutionary biologist so he probably imagined he was composing a metaphor. Little did he know that his pithy epithet was a complete explanation for the evolution of mankind.

And this says nothing about the technologies of wood, leather and other fugitive material that are forever lost to our gaze, that had to be an essential part of the remarkable Neanderthal achievement as they penetrated so far into cold northerly climates.

Don't get me wrong because I certainly don't want to downplay the significance of the cultural achievements of the neanderthals. They were worthy adversaries for sapiens because they were the last of the dominoes to fall.

[Hobbes' Choice]

=
I can. Allowing wild and potentially dangerous animals to co-habit with a hunter-gatherer group would have required a sophisticated cost/benefit analysis involving giving appropriate weight to a wide range of different variables.

And this is why evolutionary psychology and other dark arts such as economics is a crock of shit.
Like the Cat that allows puppy to suckle her milk - people do things or reasons that have got fuck all to do with long terms benefits.

[Ansiktsburk]

Because people through thousands of year have given them creds and attention when they have looked cute. The poor little shit- and bark-generating automatas. Or does wolves do likewise?

I doubt a wolf would have much interest in a ball, but I'd be willing to bet they could catch a small furry creature if you threw it their way. Wolves can do much the same, but are not as cute, and are a bit harder to make friends, even from pups.
I'd not call either dogs or wolves automata.
Automata can't learn, dogs and wolves most certainly can.

If you read further in the thread you will get more about the automata stuff.
But do wolves tilt their heads?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Because people through thousands of year have given them creds and attention when they have looked cute. The poor little shit- and bark-generating automatas. Or does wolves do likewise?

I doubt a wolf would have much interest in a ball, but I'd be willing to bet they could catch a small furry creature if you threw it their way. Wolves can do much the same, but are not as cute, and are a bit harder to make friends, even from pups.
I'd not call either dogs or wolves automata.
Automata can't learn, dogs and wolves most certainly can.

If you read further in the thread you will get more about the automata stuff.
But do wolves tilt their heads?

Of course.

[Obvious Leo]

if you dismiss evolutionary psychology as a crock of shit then you'll have to accept that the entire catalogue of mental disorders in the DSMV must be of genetic origin. Are you sure you want to go there?

However I agree with what you say about economics, the predictive authority of which is comparable to the tarot but less interesting.

[Ansiktsburk]

Then that rules out my suggestion of environmental cuteness, I suppose. Then, beats me. But it looks kind of cute.

Do dogs do headtilting often? I cannot remember seeing a cat do that.

[Obvious Leo]

Do dogs do headtilting often? I

Some do it more than others but as far as I know all dogs do it. Because wild dogs also do it we can safely assume that it's not just an acquired behavioural trait for cuteness but if we find it cute in our dog if she does this then she'll pick up on this cue and probably do it more often for our benefit. However dogs learn just as quickly how to manipulate our behaviour as we learn how to manipulate theirs. Cats are even better at it and regard humans mainly as their personal servants.

DOG: He feeds me, he gives me shelter, and he treats me with love and kindness. He must be god.

CAT: He feeds me, he gives me shelter, and he treats me with love and kindness. I must be god.