• stray@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    20 hours ago

    How so? (I’m assuming OOP is using the common definition of “animal” to exclude humans.)

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I think they left out a descriptor for the type of complexity which when we’re talking about “measures of complexity” is an important detail. I’m guessing they mean accoustic complexity which is used to categorize things like birdsongs.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      20 hours ago

      They didn’t use the common definition, they specified the animal kingdom. That definitely includes humans.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 hours ago

        We like to think we aren’t animals. You’re attaching meaning to a combination of words that is far too common to guarantee any kind of single definition.

        People don’t like to think they’re animals. Call it whatever you like, in a context like this they almost certainly do not mean to include humans. And heck, do either of us actually know enough about sperm whale communication to say it ain’t? I’m sure Korea’s twelve levels of politeness probably has them beat, but still.