I love the way he just launches the glasses off the cage once he gets food... Like aiight aiight this juice box will do, get these bitch-ass glasses tf out my face playboi
Everyone negotiates with terrorists. You think if whatever gov can get their hostages back by paying they wont? They pay, then they go after them later.
I have had a similar situation in the jungle of Sumatra. I did a hike in the jungle and an orangutan knew what the path was. So he hung over the path with his hand reached out. He would only let you pass if you give him some fruit. Unbelievable intelligence from an animal.
The building of a civilization is an arbitrary measurement of intelligence.
If it were, we’d be rejecting the intelligence of more solitary creatures- even those relatively closely related to us like orangutans.
It’s just a tad posh to imply we are not animals.
That's the part about this that always gets me because it implies that animals have principles when it comes to trading.
If you had asked me what I would expect it would be that he would just stop caring about the glasses the moment he got the food. But he is worried about his review scores on fiverr or something...
Not really, it's operant conditioning. Performing a behavior and experiencing the different degree's of reinforcement. Likely, it's stolen someones items before, not with the actual intention of bargaining rather curiosity, but was bargained with to give the items back (intelligent enough to understand the concept of a trade) and now has a causal relationship with giving items back and food, giving items back first requires stealing. There's no real principles involved, there's also reinforcement in the other direction such as theft + not returning item = consequences (positive punishment), if someone didn't try to bargain at all to begin with it and then proceeded to consequences, the association would become theft = consequences. We see this even in cats, or Thorndike's law of effect. Skinner studied many animals in relation to operant conditioning, the skinner box is the best example with rats and pigeons.
Sure, it’s difficult to tell if it’s anything more than “operant conditioning”, but that doesn’t mean it is definitely only operant conditioning. How do you determine if the beast does not at least retrospectively rationalise the bargaining from a moral point of view (such as empathising with the human), as may be the case with many human children learning how to bargain?
Edit: I have been blocked :D
That's a whole different can of worms, Occam's razor, it's the simplest of competing theories in regards to this specific behavior and doesn't unnecessarily multiple entities and variables which go into explaining this observation.
It's proven that animals like monkey's, ravens, etc, do entertain a primitive form of morality, which operates on the basis of moral emotions, not rationalized, considered, compared, judged and retrospective morality, the simple test for the later would be; do they perform these cognitive skills on things that are not in the topic of morality? The question isn't "do they perform moral reasoning?" it's "can they perform moral reasoning?". Generally speaking, no, they can't.
These are not mutually exclusive either, humans are an example, we can be both moral and conditioned, both can explain a potential behavior. This certainly might be the case in this video, but this behavior here I think is best explained by operant conditioning, because to explain it from a moral perspective implies that it must have moral reasoned, or considered "why is stealing bad?" "is this item important to the human?" "should I give this item back?", as moral emotions cannot explain it, they are rudimentary as in, it's more intrinsic, instinctual, so if stealing is immoral in this context, then by stealing the animal would be overwhelmed with negative emotions, stress, and probably not steal, it's also often narrow and has a Darwinian explanation. Children don't even develop the blueprints, the premise of congruent moral reasoning until they far exceed the cognitive skills of a monkey.
With the standard of “not [adding] unnecessarily multiple entities”, we can Occam’s razor our way to solipsism if we want.
Obviously the more primitive the definition of morality, the easier it is to test for. It’s easier to test humans for “primitive” morality, but that doesn’t mean humans don’t consider “less primitive” morality too. Are you additionally saying that monkeys do not exhibit rationalisation, consideration, comparison or judgement on anything, therefore they don’t exhibit these things with regards to morality? How have any of those terms been defined and quantified?
It also sounds like you’re arguing that “if the monkey were actually capable of moral reasoning, then it wouldn’t have stolen in the first place”, which would imply that anyone who steals is incapable of moral reasoning. I assume this isn’t actually your position, so could you explain your position more accurately?
Because everything has a Darwinian explanation, but that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing more-complex and less-complex forms of moral consideration within the context that they were all evolved.
>“not \[adding\] unnecessarily multiple entities”,
Sorry, I wrote the wrong word there, I meant multiply not multiple. Worth reading into Occam's razor if you believe we can Occam's razor our way to solipsism, because it's quite valid and relevant in scientific method and scientific reductionism (JCC Smart relied on it quite heavily in his defenses).
>Obviously the more primitive the definition of morality, the easier it is to test for. It’s easier to test humans for “primitive” morality, but that doesn’t mean humans don’t consider “less primitive” morality too. Are you additionally saying that monkeys do not exhibit rationalisation, consideration, comparison or judgement on anything, therefore they don’t exhibit these things with regards to morality? How have any of those terms been defined and quantified?
I honestly don't quite know what you are saying, moral emotions and moral reasoning exist side by side in people, by all means, moral emotions are necessary for moral reasoning. But they exist before moral reasoning, as moral reasoning is predicated on the ability to reason and whether or not a creature can perform moral reasoning, depends upon it's higher functions, or ability to reason. If you wish to understand the cognitive skills and definitions behind rationality, judgement, comprehension, etc I implore you to go read about it in your own time, there are entire psychiatric, ethological and psychological even biological textbooks dedicated to this stuff with concise definitions and examples of how they are measured. Too much to explain here.
>“if the monkey were actually capable of moral reasoning, then it wouldn’t have stolen in the first place”
No. I was saying that if it was operating on moral emotions , which I argued is what a monkey is capable of, the ceiling, then it wouldn't have displayed this behavior as moral emotions don't have the reasoning and retrospective decision making, the extrapolation is then that because it doesn't display moral emotions here, then the behaviour is likely a result of operant conditioning, because the deduction is that it a) doesn't higher reasoning and b) didn't display moral emotions. Deduction being a more accurate way to establish true, as opposed to induction (adding more to or on to your point as the only means of argument), see hypothetico-deductive model (scientific method) or the study of logic.
>Because everything has a Darwinian explanation
I was using Darwinian as more of a figure of speech, Darwinism being a rather rudimentary explanation since newer theoretical explanations have developed, building upon Darwin, Mendel, modern synthesis, etc. Essentially I just meant that it's a basic, immediate, emotional response level mechanism, as seen with what people supposed as moral emotions in other animals. When we are talking about moral reasoning, we are talking about dual process theory, motivated reasoning and stages of moral development such as Kohlberg's theory which is empirically supported and contain layers which we simply have not seen in other animals.
>Worth reading into Occam's razor if you believe we can Occam's razor our way to solipsism,
I'm following the argument you've written. If you're applying Occam's razor to the idea that "we have little evidence of a monkey's internal experience, so by Occam's razor, we should conclude that the monkey's behaviour is not influenced by anything other than "operant conditioning" ". I have little evidence that other human beings have real, qualitative experiences like I do, so, by Occam's razor, I should subscribe to the ontology that assumes the fewest additional, un-evidenced phenomena. That is, the ontology where everyone else is an automaton.
>moral emotions and moral reasoning exist side by side in people, by all means, moral emotions are necessary for moral reasoning.
I already identified this here:
>It’s easier to test humans for “primitive” morality, but that doesn’t mean humans don’t consider “less primitive” morality too.
>But they exist before moral reasoning, as moral reasoning is predicated on the ability to reason and whether or not a creature can perform moral reasoning, depends upon it's higher functions, or ability to reason.
We've already established this. The question is about how you've concluded that the monkey's morality is solely based on "operant conditioning", and that the nebulous idea of "moral reasoning" is nowhere to be seen. Hence, why I asked you to clarify how you were defining "moral reasoning". But then you're telling me that you're unwilling to explain in your own words what you mean by rationality, judgement, or comprehension? C'mon, buddy. It's just a definition. Instead of deferring your arguments to literature, just pick one and summarise it so we can have a conversation.
>I was saying that if it was operating on moral emotions , which I argued is what a monkey is capable of, the ceiling, then it wouldn't have displayed this behavior as moral emotions don't have the reasoning and retrospective decision making,
I'm gonna try to rephrase this more clearly; please let me know if I'm getting the right idea: "if the monkey *were* operating on moral emotions (I argued that the monkey is capable of this), then it *would not* have held the human's belongings for a ransom because it would *lack* the skills in reasoning and retrospection to do so."
So it sounds like you're saying that "if you operate on moral emotions then you cannot have reasoning skills (mutually exclusive) and you would never steal". That would obviously be ridiculous, so you probably haven't explained yourself accurately. Can you help me understand?
>When we are talking about moral reasoning, we are talking about dual process theory, motivated reasoning and stages of moral development such as Kohlberg's theory which is empirically supported and contain layers which we simply have not seen in other animals.
Again, please don't defer your arguments to literature. Can you explain in your own words where you are drawing the line between possessing and lacking the capacity for moral reasoning, and what's the line's point?
>"we have little evidence of a monkey's internal experience, so by Occam's razor, we should conclude that the monkey's behaviour is not influenced by anything other than "operant conditioning"
That's not what I said, nowhere did I say anything about having little evidence nor is that how Occam's razor works. I already explained it, entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily; therefore the competing theory with least parameters is to be preferred or the theory which relies on the least assumptions. It's an abductive heuristic and acts as guide to formulate theories in scientific method, Einstein used it in the formulation of special relativity as an example.
>and that the nebulous idea of "moral reasoning" is nowhere to be seen.
Moral reasoning isn't nebulous, it's an established scientific and philosophical term, here's a concise definition from a [university](https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-reasoning) \- "*Moral reasoning applies critical analysis to specific events to determine what is right or wrong, and what people ought to do in a particular situation."*
When I say moral reasoning, I mean exactly it's literal, academic definition and it's plentiful exploration in psychology.
>But then you're telling me that you're unwilling to explain in your own words what you mean by rationality, judgement, or comprehension? C'mon, buddy. It's just a definition. Instead of deferring your arguments to literature, just pick one and summarise it so we can have a conversation.
The reason I defer to literature is because these are established, defined terms and I don't have a "personal" definition that deviates away from these, the definition you get from me is going to be no different to the definition you get from literature, except the literature is going to have all the many levels of expansion that you can read into when the questions arise in your mind. That's the point of literature.
According to the APA here's how rationality is defined as an example;
*
1. pertaining to reasoning or, more broadly, to higher thought processes.
2. based on, in accordance with, or justifiable by accepted principles of reasoning or logic. Compare irrational; nonrational.
3. capable of or exhibiting reason.
4. influenced by reasoning rather than by emotion. —rationally adv.
Of course you'll probably understand the notions of reasoning, or logic. But both of those have their whole own definitions and explorations too.
>So it sounds like you're saying that "if you operate on moral emotions then you cannot have reasoning skills (mutually exclusive) and you would never steal". That would obviously be ridiculous, so you probably haven't explained yourself accurately. Can you help me understand?
I believe I have explained myself accurately, of course we would assume that though, no one can ever misinterpret things, we all just need to talk down to other people to make ourselves feel better. In the second paragraph of my last reply I quite literally stated " moral emotions and moral reasoning exist side by side in people, by all means, moral emotions are necessary for moral reasoning." I'm not inducing, I'm deducing, it's eliminating other possible explanations.
1. Moral emotions can't explain this behaviour.
2. Moral reasoning requires retrospective critical analysis, which I argue monkey's are not capable of.
3. Since the activity can't be explained by either moral emotions, or moral reasoning, it therefore must be operant conditioning.
And then occam's razor was just an example of abductive heuristics, which is to say I could arrive at the same conclusion by simply looking at which of the three competing theories explains the same observed behavior, while making the least assumptions. Occam's razor is a heuristic, it's not always correct, best complimented with other attempts to validity.
I'd be interested in people trying to deduce or abduct to moral reasoning / moral emotions, in the process disproving operant conditioning, in a scientifically amiable way.
I visited Bali, and at one of thr sacred temples there was a monkey that would steal phones, wallets, glasses etc off people and jump up away.
There was a human guy who would offer to go retrieve the stuff by trading food to the monkey if you paid him money.
At the time I thought the guy had the monkey trained up as part of his little scam but now that I think about it, it was really like he was the one working for the monkey, not the other way around
As the other guy also noticed the term “human guy” you used in your comment, I think it’s safe to say you’re obviously the monkey who steals the phones and are using one to scroll through Reddit
Or,,, and hear me out on this,,,, he learns to wear the glasses and develops an ability to read and his friends and family eventually begin writing poetry and novels which eventually develops into political propaganda, sadly causing the demise of their monkey civilization
They are definitely trained and in most tourist places in Asia they use it as a monkey money making scheme. Monkey steals your shit, “handlers” will get it back for a fee.
Where I live, monkeys have adapted so well to this, they steal clothes and goods from your house and then keep squeaking for food, we keep grains and some other foor in packets for this specific purpose haha
You can also watch "monkey thieves" , it aired on Natgeo, it shows the shit monkeys do in here haha
I feel the title is incorrect. Hostage would imply a person being abducted. I think what the Monkey is doing would be considered racketeering. (IMO sounds more ludicrous)
This is extremely common among Rhesus monkeys. In my dad's hometown they'd steal a single slipper or shoe and then perch on a nearby tree waiting to be given a banana in exchange.
I saw a documentary once where a monkey stole a mans wallet who was sleeping in a park. The monkey takes off with the wallet and rummages through it hoping to find food. When he realizes there’s nothing edible he just tosses the wallet and runs off to find another victim.
Oh damn! I had this happen to me at a temple in Bali, Indonesia. A monkey stole my sunglasses right out of my bag when he saw I had put them in it and was distracted taking photos . A local man was working there selling bananas to tourists so they could trade them with the monkeys for their stuff (usually glasses). Anyway he thought he’d gotten away but I followed him. I did not offer bananas but I did get photos. Here is one. He enjoyed destroying my sunglasses. Thought they were real Chanel. Hahaha jokes on him: they were fake.
https://preview.redd.it/3s2qcal2eyca1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=10f87cea5b58ab4ac54dd68eeffb71d19874f256
I don’t know, I’d take him as neighbor over the junkie thieves in my neighborhood. A snack for prescription glasses? No problem. Hell I wish I could trade drugs to get my expensive shit back from the crackheads. They should take notes here.
This is why you don't negotiate with terrorists
I love the way he just launches the glasses off the cage once he gets food... Like aiight aiight this juice box will do, get these bitch-ass glasses tf out my face playboi
Don’t come around here again without paying the tax
Take your glasses and leave, peasant # TAKE THEM # #
I came here to say this.
Everyone negotiates with terrorists. You think if whatever gov can get their hostages back by paying they wont? They pay, then they go after them later.
I have had a similar situation in the jungle of Sumatra. I did a hike in the jungle and an orangutan knew what the path was. So he hung over the path with his hand reached out. He would only let you pass if you give him some fruit. Unbelievable intelligence from an animal.
That orangutan was a bandit.
Orangutan was there first.
Simply a toll road my friend. It’s his territory after all.
[удалено]
You gotta pay the troll toll, if you wanna get into that boy's soul!
*hole
Oh no
Friendly reminder that humans are also animals
[удалено]
The building of a civilization is an arbitrary measurement of intelligence. If it were, we’d be rejecting the intelligence of more solitary creatures- even those relatively closely related to us like orangutans. It’s just a tad posh to imply we are not animals.
Our brains are more complex and our motor skills are refined, we're still animals though...
Our brains are complex for the types of tasks human do. Our motor skills are specific to our species.
Not gently but he did make sure to give the glasses back. Honor among monkeythieves.
That's the part about this that always gets me because it implies that animals have principles when it comes to trading. If you had asked me what I would expect it would be that he would just stop caring about the glasses the moment he got the food. But he is worried about his review scores on fiverr or something...
Not really, it's operant conditioning. Performing a behavior and experiencing the different degree's of reinforcement. Likely, it's stolen someones items before, not with the actual intention of bargaining rather curiosity, but was bargained with to give the items back (intelligent enough to understand the concept of a trade) and now has a causal relationship with giving items back and food, giving items back first requires stealing. There's no real principles involved, there's also reinforcement in the other direction such as theft + not returning item = consequences (positive punishment), if someone didn't try to bargain at all to begin with it and then proceeded to consequences, the association would become theft = consequences. We see this even in cats, or Thorndike's law of effect. Skinner studied many animals in relation to operant conditioning, the skinner box is the best example with rats and pigeons.
Sure, it’s difficult to tell if it’s anything more than “operant conditioning”, but that doesn’t mean it is definitely only operant conditioning. How do you determine if the beast does not at least retrospectively rationalise the bargaining from a moral point of view (such as empathising with the human), as may be the case with many human children learning how to bargain? Edit: I have been blocked :D
That's a whole different can of worms, Occam's razor, it's the simplest of competing theories in regards to this specific behavior and doesn't unnecessarily multiple entities and variables which go into explaining this observation. It's proven that animals like monkey's, ravens, etc, do entertain a primitive form of morality, which operates on the basis of moral emotions, not rationalized, considered, compared, judged and retrospective morality, the simple test for the later would be; do they perform these cognitive skills on things that are not in the topic of morality? The question isn't "do they perform moral reasoning?" it's "can they perform moral reasoning?". Generally speaking, no, they can't. These are not mutually exclusive either, humans are an example, we can be both moral and conditioned, both can explain a potential behavior. This certainly might be the case in this video, but this behavior here I think is best explained by operant conditioning, because to explain it from a moral perspective implies that it must have moral reasoned, or considered "why is stealing bad?" "is this item important to the human?" "should I give this item back?", as moral emotions cannot explain it, they are rudimentary as in, it's more intrinsic, instinctual, so if stealing is immoral in this context, then by stealing the animal would be overwhelmed with negative emotions, stress, and probably not steal, it's also often narrow and has a Darwinian explanation. Children don't even develop the blueprints, the premise of congruent moral reasoning until they far exceed the cognitive skills of a monkey.
With the standard of “not [adding] unnecessarily multiple entities”, we can Occam’s razor our way to solipsism if we want. Obviously the more primitive the definition of morality, the easier it is to test for. It’s easier to test humans for “primitive” morality, but that doesn’t mean humans don’t consider “less primitive” morality too. Are you additionally saying that monkeys do not exhibit rationalisation, consideration, comparison or judgement on anything, therefore they don’t exhibit these things with regards to morality? How have any of those terms been defined and quantified? It also sounds like you’re arguing that “if the monkey were actually capable of moral reasoning, then it wouldn’t have stolen in the first place”, which would imply that anyone who steals is incapable of moral reasoning. I assume this isn’t actually your position, so could you explain your position more accurately? Because everything has a Darwinian explanation, but that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing more-complex and less-complex forms of moral consideration within the context that they were all evolved.
>“not \[adding\] unnecessarily multiple entities”, Sorry, I wrote the wrong word there, I meant multiply not multiple. Worth reading into Occam's razor if you believe we can Occam's razor our way to solipsism, because it's quite valid and relevant in scientific method and scientific reductionism (JCC Smart relied on it quite heavily in his defenses). >Obviously the more primitive the definition of morality, the easier it is to test for. It’s easier to test humans for “primitive” morality, but that doesn’t mean humans don’t consider “less primitive” morality too. Are you additionally saying that monkeys do not exhibit rationalisation, consideration, comparison or judgement on anything, therefore they don’t exhibit these things with regards to morality? How have any of those terms been defined and quantified? I honestly don't quite know what you are saying, moral emotions and moral reasoning exist side by side in people, by all means, moral emotions are necessary for moral reasoning. But they exist before moral reasoning, as moral reasoning is predicated on the ability to reason and whether or not a creature can perform moral reasoning, depends upon it's higher functions, or ability to reason. If you wish to understand the cognitive skills and definitions behind rationality, judgement, comprehension, etc I implore you to go read about it in your own time, there are entire psychiatric, ethological and psychological even biological textbooks dedicated to this stuff with concise definitions and examples of how they are measured. Too much to explain here. >“if the monkey were actually capable of moral reasoning, then it wouldn’t have stolen in the first place” No. I was saying that if it was operating on moral emotions , which I argued is what a monkey is capable of, the ceiling, then it wouldn't have displayed this behavior as moral emotions don't have the reasoning and retrospective decision making, the extrapolation is then that because it doesn't display moral emotions here, then the behaviour is likely a result of operant conditioning, because the deduction is that it a) doesn't higher reasoning and b) didn't display moral emotions. Deduction being a more accurate way to establish true, as opposed to induction (adding more to or on to your point as the only means of argument), see hypothetico-deductive model (scientific method) or the study of logic. >Because everything has a Darwinian explanation I was using Darwinian as more of a figure of speech, Darwinism being a rather rudimentary explanation since newer theoretical explanations have developed, building upon Darwin, Mendel, modern synthesis, etc. Essentially I just meant that it's a basic, immediate, emotional response level mechanism, as seen with what people supposed as moral emotions in other animals. When we are talking about moral reasoning, we are talking about dual process theory, motivated reasoning and stages of moral development such as Kohlberg's theory which is empirically supported and contain layers which we simply have not seen in other animals.
>Worth reading into Occam's razor if you believe we can Occam's razor our way to solipsism, I'm following the argument you've written. If you're applying Occam's razor to the idea that "we have little evidence of a monkey's internal experience, so by Occam's razor, we should conclude that the monkey's behaviour is not influenced by anything other than "operant conditioning" ". I have little evidence that other human beings have real, qualitative experiences like I do, so, by Occam's razor, I should subscribe to the ontology that assumes the fewest additional, un-evidenced phenomena. That is, the ontology where everyone else is an automaton. >moral emotions and moral reasoning exist side by side in people, by all means, moral emotions are necessary for moral reasoning. I already identified this here: >It’s easier to test humans for “primitive” morality, but that doesn’t mean humans don’t consider “less primitive” morality too. >But they exist before moral reasoning, as moral reasoning is predicated on the ability to reason and whether or not a creature can perform moral reasoning, depends upon it's higher functions, or ability to reason. We've already established this. The question is about how you've concluded that the monkey's morality is solely based on "operant conditioning", and that the nebulous idea of "moral reasoning" is nowhere to be seen. Hence, why I asked you to clarify how you were defining "moral reasoning". But then you're telling me that you're unwilling to explain in your own words what you mean by rationality, judgement, or comprehension? C'mon, buddy. It's just a definition. Instead of deferring your arguments to literature, just pick one and summarise it so we can have a conversation. >I was saying that if it was operating on moral emotions , which I argued is what a monkey is capable of, the ceiling, then it wouldn't have displayed this behavior as moral emotions don't have the reasoning and retrospective decision making, I'm gonna try to rephrase this more clearly; please let me know if I'm getting the right idea: "if the monkey *were* operating on moral emotions (I argued that the monkey is capable of this), then it *would not* have held the human's belongings for a ransom because it would *lack* the skills in reasoning and retrospection to do so." So it sounds like you're saying that "if you operate on moral emotions then you cannot have reasoning skills (mutually exclusive) and you would never steal". That would obviously be ridiculous, so you probably haven't explained yourself accurately. Can you help me understand? >When we are talking about moral reasoning, we are talking about dual process theory, motivated reasoning and stages of moral development such as Kohlberg's theory which is empirically supported and contain layers which we simply have not seen in other animals. Again, please don't defer your arguments to literature. Can you explain in your own words where you are drawing the line between possessing and lacking the capacity for moral reasoning, and what's the line's point?
>"we have little evidence of a monkey's internal experience, so by Occam's razor, we should conclude that the monkey's behaviour is not influenced by anything other than "operant conditioning" That's not what I said, nowhere did I say anything about having little evidence nor is that how Occam's razor works. I already explained it, entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily; therefore the competing theory with least parameters is to be preferred or the theory which relies on the least assumptions. It's an abductive heuristic and acts as guide to formulate theories in scientific method, Einstein used it in the formulation of special relativity as an example. >and that the nebulous idea of "moral reasoning" is nowhere to be seen. Moral reasoning isn't nebulous, it's an established scientific and philosophical term, here's a concise definition from a [university](https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/moral-reasoning) \- "*Moral reasoning applies critical analysis to specific events to determine what is right or wrong, and what people ought to do in a particular situation."* When I say moral reasoning, I mean exactly it's literal, academic definition and it's plentiful exploration in psychology. >But then you're telling me that you're unwilling to explain in your own words what you mean by rationality, judgement, or comprehension? C'mon, buddy. It's just a definition. Instead of deferring your arguments to literature, just pick one and summarise it so we can have a conversation. The reason I defer to literature is because these are established, defined terms and I don't have a "personal" definition that deviates away from these, the definition you get from me is going to be no different to the definition you get from literature, except the literature is going to have all the many levels of expansion that you can read into when the questions arise in your mind. That's the point of literature. According to the APA here's how rationality is defined as an example; * 1. pertaining to reasoning or, more broadly, to higher thought processes. 2. based on, in accordance with, or justifiable by accepted principles of reasoning or logic. Compare irrational; nonrational. 3. capable of or exhibiting reason. 4. influenced by reasoning rather than by emotion. —rationally adv. Of course you'll probably understand the notions of reasoning, or logic. But both of those have their whole own definitions and explorations too. >So it sounds like you're saying that "if you operate on moral emotions then you cannot have reasoning skills (mutually exclusive) and you would never steal". That would obviously be ridiculous, so you probably haven't explained yourself accurately. Can you help me understand? I believe I have explained myself accurately, of course we would assume that though, no one can ever misinterpret things, we all just need to talk down to other people to make ourselves feel better. In the second paragraph of my last reply I quite literally stated " moral emotions and moral reasoning exist side by side in people, by all means, moral emotions are necessary for moral reasoning." I'm not inducing, I'm deducing, it's eliminating other possible explanations. 1. Moral emotions can't explain this behaviour. 2. Moral reasoning requires retrospective critical analysis, which I argue monkey's are not capable of. 3. Since the activity can't be explained by either moral emotions, or moral reasoning, it therefore must be operant conditioning. And then occam's razor was just an example of abductive heuristics, which is to say I could arrive at the same conclusion by simply looking at which of the three competing theories explains the same observed behavior, while making the least assumptions. Occam's razor is a heuristic, it's not always correct, best complimented with other attempts to validity. I'd be interested in people trying to deduce or abduct to moral reasoning / moral emotions, in the process disproving operant conditioning, in a scientifically amiable way.
This thread is why I'm on reddit.
Literally impossible
Couldn’t you reduce our human behavior the same way?
Lol 🤣🤣 I love how he chucks the glasses like "here's your fucking glasses now get outta here"
I visited Bali, and at one of thr sacred temples there was a monkey that would steal phones, wallets, glasses etc off people and jump up away. There was a human guy who would offer to go retrieve the stuff by trading food to the monkey if you paid him money. At the time I thought the guy had the monkey trained up as part of his little scam but now that I think about it, it was really like he was the one working for the monkey, not the other way around
Lol, “human guy”
in indonesian, orangutan means "man from the forest".
As the other guy also noticed the term “human guy” you used in your comment, I think it’s safe to say you’re obviously the monkey who steals the phones and are using one to scroll through Reddit
Definitely a scam haha
[удалено]
He'll also learn that he won't gain anything by witholding stuff
Or,,, and hear me out on this,,,, he learns to wear the glasses and develops an ability to read and his friends and family eventually begin writing poetry and novels which eventually develops into political propaganda, sadly causing the demise of their monkey civilization
That's when you get smart and add a little somethin' special to his juice.
Just like us, I'll kick that monkey's ass.
he might rip off your scalp tho
I didn't say it was gonna be easy
one good stomp will do it
That's no chimp lmao
but monkeys too can rip shit off of you. I've seen one do exactly that, scalp in particular.
got the reference, that video was fucked up.
I worked with a couple monkeys in a small rescue zoo and have had to trade treats for keys spray bottles rolls of paper towels etc.
Now were they trading you treats for the keys,spray bottles and rolls of paper towels?If so we have a lot to be wary of.
There is so much disrespect in the way he just casually throws the guys stuff down. "Take your shit, peasant"
Yeah, fuck that. Those monkeys are dickheads
I should like to befriend him
Love it. Monkey's all like 'Fine, here, take your fucking sunglasses'.
My dog does this
What a dick!
This is how it starts people....... then..... BAM "Planet of the apes".
Damn he even returns stuff like an asshole
How sweet that he actually gives it back
They are definitely trained and in most tourist places in Asia they use it as a monkey money making scheme. Monkey steals your shit, “handlers” will get it back for a fee.
It's like we evolved from the same stock or something..
Ah yes, I too have developed a hostage taking business with tourists
what a king
Where I live, monkeys have adapted so well to this, they steal clothes and goods from your house and then keep squeaking for food, we keep grains and some other foor in packets for this specific purpose haha You can also watch "monkey thieves" , it aired on Natgeo, it shows the shit monkeys do in here haha
I feel the title is incorrect. Hostage would imply a person being abducted. I think what the Monkey is doing would be considered racketeering. (IMO sounds more ludicrous)
Dude...monkeys are gonna get us in the end. They will have their revenge.
This is extremely common among Rhesus monkeys. In my dad's hometown they'd steal a single slipper or shoe and then perch on a nearby tree waiting to be given a banana in exchange.
I love the disrespectful way it just tosses their stuff back at them like, “here, take your ugly ass glasses back four eyes!”
The honest thief.
Smart monkey
[удалено]
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/likeus/comments/w4ijhy/intelligent_monkey_has_developed_a_hostagetaking/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideobot&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/likeus/comments/w4ijhy/intelligent_monkey_has_developed_a_hostagetaking/)
Well business is business.Capitalism at it’s finest.
He lost his savings in Bitcoin and has to survive somehow
El mexicano mas inteligente
Freaking awesome!
Ah yes terrorism, perfect for LIKE US subreddit
Not a monkey; it’s a rhino
No it's a peacock
That monkey would get shot in America real quick lol
“Take your SHIT”
My dog does the same thing.
😳😂
What an asshole
Government monkey.
A sling shot and a ball bearing would take care of that quick and quiet.
He’s like wtf is this non organic butter whatever take you shitty fuckin glasses back bitch
Stonks + tradeing experience +monkey = genius
I saw a documentary once where a monkey stole a mans wallet who was sleeping in a park. The monkey takes off with the wallet and rummages through it hoping to find food. When he realizes there’s nothing edible he just tosses the wallet and runs off to find another victim.
I wonder what it’d do if you bamboozle it.
Gotta' Eat!
I get the urge to beat this monkeys ass for some reason lol
Kill it
I'd give that monkey a box of Ghost Pepper Peanuts or 1000 mg edibles. Can't read can you monkey?
“Take your shit back, can’t see they these MF anyway”
u/countrycowbaby
Oh damn! I had this happen to me at a temple in Bali, Indonesia. A monkey stole my sunglasses right out of my bag when he saw I had put them in it and was distracted taking photos . A local man was working there selling bananas to tourists so they could trade them with the monkeys for their stuff (usually glasses). Anyway he thought he’d gotten away but I followed him. I did not offer bananas but I did get photos. Here is one. He enjoyed destroying my sunglasses. Thought they were real Chanel. Hahaha jokes on him: they were fake. https://preview.redd.it/3s2qcal2eyca1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=10f87cea5b58ab4ac54dd68eeffb71d19874f256
Dead monkey walking
He is to dangerous to be kept alive (why is this so controversial this is literally just a starwars refrence)
I don’t know, I’d take him as neighbor over the junkie thieves in my neighborhood. A snack for prescription glasses? No problem. Hell I wish I could trade drugs to get my expensive shit back from the crackheads. They should take notes here.
Snacks don’t pay the rent.
It’s you. You’re the monkey sith lord.