At night, I wear a retainer for my bottom teeth, which is in a case on my nightstand, along with a lamp. At night, I get my retainer and put it in, then turn off the light and fall asleep. When I return from school, I am usually a bit exhausted (mostly from climbing up all of the stairs to my room, with my heavy backpack) and my brain is sort of put on auto-pilot. Upon entering my room, I turn on the ceiling fan and two overhead lights, but I also walk around my bed to the nightstand to turn on the lamp as well. If I have had an especially long day, a couple of times I have actually grabbed my retainer case instead of turning on the light! I guess it is just a habitual action, and as my brain is on auto-pilot, it thinks that, in approaching the nightstand, that it is time for bed.
Another case: Sometimes I habitually flip the light switch when I leave a room, even if I didn’t turn it on when I entered.
There are probably more of these habits that other people have experienced, but I can’t list them all.
These sorts of habits are formed by repetitive action. Our brain seems to learn, after a certain amount of times performing an action, how to do that action with much less conscious thought on our parts.
So, do animals have this? Well, I did notice that habits are similar to conditioning. This has been discussed in class before, where dogs associate a bell with food, for instance. Is it the same thing, or just similar? The question I would ask is, which parts of the brain are involved in human habit forming and then in animals’ conditioning? I am no biologist, and, perhaps apprehensive of a long lecture by Mr. Poeser, I think I will forgo further inquiry, because I think that they are pretty much the same thing, by and large. Who is to say that a human, who heard a bell every time dinner was ready, might feel hungry every time they heard that particular bell? Our senses are linked, right? I know this quite well. Whenever I draw or read, I listen to music. I am listening to Debussy piano etudes at this very moment. Sometimes, if, say, a certain part of what I am reading stands out, then the music I was listening to at the time might trigger a memory of that part of the story. I think most people can relate to this in some way or another, whether it is with smells, images, sounds, or even tastes. This might be a more complex form of the conditioning that animals experience. It might not, who am I to say?
But of course there are other types of habits. Smoking, overeating, drinking, etc. Are these habits? They might be, but I would have to say that the above belong to addictions. Are addictions habits? In a way, at least by definition, they are. A habit is something you do over and over again, and a person addicted to smoking smokes over and over again. But I don’t think this is the unconscious, habitual action of, well, a habit. You might be wondering what on earth is this fool rambling on about? and you’d be justified in such thought, for I am indeed rambling. But I will now try my utmost in bringing this point into relevance for our discussion. Do animals get addicted to anything? I don’t know, but I don’t think so, although I have not studied animals. But let’s face it; the actions of animals are limited. I am addicted to playing the piano, but this is not something that animals can do or enjoy. In all, the different things that animals do are very few: find food, eat food, find/make shelter, sleep in shelter, find a mate, reproduce, protect young, find more food… they are very simple for the most part, and it seems odd to think of any animal addicted to anything. Granted, pets have more activities available to them. I stayed in a house for a while when I first moved to
So, habits might exist in animals, they might not, depending on what kind of habit you are talking about.
Wait a minute! I thought about a horrible habit I used to have, of biting my fingernails! This is a terrible habit to have (mind this was well before I had any desire to be a piano player) and the only reason I broke it was because of getting braces. They made it impossible, as the brackets protruding from my teeth pushed my fingers away enough to restrain the nail from reaching the point where top and bottom teeth meet. Forcing it would be risky; the glue holding the brackets in place is tight, but not infallible. And biting my fingernails certainly was not an addiction! It is painful: constant hangnails, jagged nails scratching my hands…. And quite disgusting considering the dirt that collects under the fingernails. Do animals have habits that would match this sort of thing? A dog scratching fleas, perhaps? No, that is caused by the itch of the fleas of course. I really can’t think of any habits like that that any animals have. But what do I know?
Speaking of what I know, this blog assessment is supposed to use ways of knowing, and areas of knowledge. Out of the four, perception and reason seem to be the most relevant, with perception at the top. What we see determines a lot about what we know, or think we know. I have mentioned observing animals, and also the fact that I have not really done this myself. But, really, what can observation of animals tell us about their habits, or lack thereof? Back to the limited activities subject, animals mostly repeat the same thing every day, so who’s to say that’s not habit? Again, I have not studied animals with intent to learn more about their behaviour, so I can’t sit here and write Animals do not have habits or Animals have habits. And if you are going to use WoK #4, emotion, then your results will be even more skewed. I am sure many pet owners form emotional attachments to their pets, and regard them as members of their family. They spend much time with them, and they learn their characteristics and nuances. Where a certain cat likes to nap, or a certain dog likes to bury his bone. Emotion can be a way of knowing, but at the same time an obstacle, blurring the lines between what we think we know and the truth. What is the truth? I don’t know.
I like being cryptic.
Right. Onto the areas of knowledge. These include, but are not limited to: The natural sciences, the human sciences, mathematics, arts. Looking at the index, the heading Problems with Observation jumps out, pg. 228, under natural sciences. Are animals affected by the observer effect, I wonder? Hard to know, because you can’t observe a subject without observing it. The observer effect not only states that the knowledge of being watched affects behaviour, but that simply the act of observation affects behaviour. After all, not many animals are familiar with the functions of cameras, but an animal in a controlled environment is not in its natural habitat. You could take cameras out into the jungle I suppose, but that’s not really feasible. You could place some small cameras about, and hope they capture something. But it’s not going to give great results.
Having discussed one area of knowledge, the logical area to discuss next would be the human sciences. That’s exactly what I am going to do! I am in the chapter of the book right now. It starts at page 257. Already it talks about whether or not we “just animals,”… I’m browsing the chapter for anything related to habits… note that observer effect is again mentioned… OK. Ignoring a call to investigate free will which could tie into habits, possibly… I am going to discuss psychology. Pg. 264, it says, “…rise to a school of psychology known as behaviourism, which redefined the subject as the scientific study, not of consciousness, but of behaviour. Habits fall under behaviour, don’t they? Well, I’m not sure myself just where I am going with this topic, but I suppose that, if one was to say that habit was a sort of automated behaviour, which I have already said could possibly be shared between animals and ourselves, as with the habits we experience, and with conditioning in animals, then the whole matter of habits is really a fruitless venture for any study if one wants to gain evidence either for or against the original argument.
Personally, I think that habits are irrelevant when discussing the difference between humans and animals. Indeed, in my own personal opinion, the only difference that really matters when talking about the difference between us and animals is that we have a soul, and they don’t. Of course, many people don’t believe this (including the majority of our class, if I’m not mistaken) so this is a most unsatisfactory answer for the question. So do people who don’t believe that humans have souls ever believe that humans and animals are different (which is to say, that humans cannot be defined as animals, save in the symbolic sense)? If so, I am curious as to what their reasoning is. It seems that their reasons would be mere technicalities, at least relative to the scope of the implications of humans’ possession of souls. Indeed I think that for the most part the debate between those who separate humans from animals and those who don’t is this whole matter of the soul. Not always, but, I think, usually. For those who believe that humans have a soul, and that animals don’t (as of course there are some religions in which it is thought that people can be reincarnated as animals, in which case the level of human is not brought down to animal level, but the level of animals is brought up to human level. Sort of like PETA) it is inconsequential: all of the things like habits or what have you. The only thing to be considered in distinguishing humans from animals should be the soul. At least, it is what I deem to be the most important part of the whole thing. And that whole matter of the soul is of course a different topic of discussion entirely.
*Wow! 2126 word count! That must be a personal record for blog assignments! A good way to end the year :)
Enjoy your summer break, all who have read my blog! Here's some music for you, if you want.
