Posted: Jun 20, 2014 9:45 am
by Thomas Eshuis
DaveScriv wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote: If a leopard came around a corner and saw a troop of hominids foraging, then assume she knew where they slept, where they were going, how they would react if they saw her.

1. Leopards didn't exist back then.
2. Leopards as most animals only think on instinct. They don't know what other animals do or will do.

Jayjay4547 wrote: On the other side one can assume that a typical troop often had a habituated predator that had successfully lived off the troop for some time, and it had set reaction tactics that worked somewhat. Evidence for that comes e.g. from the shikari tales of Jim Corbett.

More assumptions, presented without evidence whatsoever.

In defence of Jayjay4547, I think there are enough observed examples of relatively complex animal behaviours, both in the wild (deception nut storing and moving stored nuts by squirrels or pack hunting tactics by various predators for example)

All based on instincts, either inhereted or learned from peers.
There's no evidence squirrels make concious choices about nut storing or wolves do likewise with hunting.

DaveScriv wrote: and in the lab (all those clever problem solving birds, notably various corvids and pigeons), to indicate some level of understanding of what other animals are likely to do.

Yes, those animals themselves, but there is no evidence that one animal has knowledge of or conciously thinks about what another animal of a different species does or will do.

DaveScriv wrote:Whether, or to what extent, this applied to Hominids and/or Leopards (or equivalent species back then) I have no idea, but I think it wrong to write off all animal behaviours as 'instinct'.

Much, if not all of if it is.
Just because it appears clever, doesn't mean it's a process of concious thought.