MSilvia
Contributor
True... it doesn't mean it isn't either. Since it neither means it is or that it isn't, it seems to me that something more substantial than "it looks like it's having fun" should be used to determine what a behavior means.
I think looking at behaviors in comparison to similar known behaviors in other animals is a good start. I mentioned the garabaldi because the looping and pushing behaviors described earlier reminded of me of another fish that did the same things for a non-play reason.
I personally haven't seen fish do anything that couldn't be explained in terms of a basic instinct like feeding, self-preservation, territoriality, mating, etc. On the other hand, I've seen octopi and mammals engage in creative complex behaviors unlike what I've seen in fish. I think creativity requires high order cognition, and play in turn requires creativity.
I don't think play is universal in the animal kingdom, though it may be in mammals. I'm pretty sure I've never seen any behavior that I would interpret as ant, urchin, coral, barnacle, amoeba, clam, or worm play. Have you?
I think looking at behaviors in comparison to similar known behaviors in other animals is a good start. I mentioned the garabaldi because the looping and pushing behaviors described earlier reminded of me of another fish that did the same things for a non-play reason.
I personally haven't seen fish do anything that couldn't be explained in terms of a basic instinct like feeding, self-preservation, territoriality, mating, etc. On the other hand, I've seen octopi and mammals engage in creative complex behaviors unlike what I've seen in fish. I think creativity requires high order cognition, and play in turn requires creativity.
I don't think play is universal in the animal kingdom, though it may be in mammals. I'm pretty sure I've never seen any behavior that I would interpret as ant, urchin, coral, barnacle, amoeba, clam, or worm play. Have you?