Thread: The conscious perception of aniamls

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

How?



So minority = no one? I thought that sort of thinking was only allowed to politicians...

For the sake of this topic.
The living perception of animals.
Forget about conscious, even though I thought that living organisms were believed to contain a conscious.
Conscious is!

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

[i]So minority = no one? I thought that sort of thinking was only allowed to politicians...

Mes, I hope you can see the irony here. Becasue of the type of response you have brought to the table is exactly why politics have become the way they are. So you use it as a joke, although it is funny, the efforts to elaborate in depth, reword and phrase and be "politically" correct, has brought many discussions like this to a blithering end.

Carousal, have you changed you avatar every post or am I seeing shit?

Originally Posted by Howie

Do you feel, if put to the test, that these animals would perform in that manner on a consistent level? Even beyond 50%?

If consistency is your requirement for consciousness, humans aren't conscious either.

I see your point Howie.

I fear that at the end of the day, a definitive conclusion won't be reached. It's a battle between people who have "experienced" this sort of thing with their interactions with animals, and people who haven't.

Meh.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

If consistency is your requirement for consciousness, humans aren't conscious either.

It is neither a requirement nor a sufficient argument. please!

Tell me that anyone opposing this argument does NOT get the general consensus of my argument?
Without extracting single words to hoist a failing argument on your part.

Besides, you would be surprised how much I DO feel that humans and other mammals are alike. So that argument really has no bearing on what we are trying to distinguish in this one, does it?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

If consistency is your requirement for consciousness, humans aren't conscious either.

To quote Mes:

why?

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

To quote Mes:

why?

Hey, it works. And gets people riled up. With as little effort from you as possible.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

I see your point Howie.

I fear that at the end of the day, a definitive conclusion won't be reached. It's a battle between people who have "experienced" this sort of thing with their interactions with animals, and people who haven't.

Meh.

Does this mean that I cannot have a loving relationship with my dog of 15 years? Or my previous pets?
Just because I don't believe that they have eluded me into thinking that they love me?
I love them either way.

I think all that we've established is that animals, in general, aren't as "smart" (in evaluating a complex situation and choosing the most logical course of action) as humans. Which we already pretty much knew.

Originally Posted by Howie

Does this mean that I cannot have a loving relationship with my dog of 15 years? Or my previous pets?
Just because I don't believe that they have eluded me into thinking that they love me?
I love them either way.

I didn't mention anything about your ability to love animals...

I said that it's a battle between people who have experienced certain things from their animals, and people who haven't.

Originally Posted by Howie

Tell me that anyone opposing this argument does NOT get the general consensus of my argument?

I understand perfectly well what you are saying, Howie. But I know what is true from my experience in my life, my work, and my animals, and no one will be able to convince me otherwise. Especially since it can't be proved one way or the other. So I will retire from this discussion.

It's very interesting to read other peoples' perceptions though.

I understand.
It is like many of our beliefs. It is something we came to know through our own experiences.
Perceptions, as Mes put it. True or false really does not matter in some instances. But perception is very full of crap, for a lack of better wording.

I don't think that your views would change even if the science community provided proof that an animals brain cannot function on that level.
If science said that they could, I would change my view.

I have had many experiences that I felt like my pets have connected with me. I still do. Maybe I did. even for a brief period.
I think it is a fallacy in our nature.

Alright, this is a good first post for me ^_^ Hey everyone, I'm Tamias the Ground Squirrel, and you guys are arguing about something that's very important to me!

First let me assert that what I say in this post is pure opinion. Well, of course, I believe it wholeheartedly, but I am not trying to press my views upon anyone. I would rather everyone be my friend and disagree with me than everyone hate me and... disagree with me ^_^

So: do animals perceive their actions on a conscious level? Do they think and feel? Or is it all just a collection of instinctual patterns and reflexive actions? There's a very simple answer to those very complicated questions:

Yes.

The most important idea to remember when asking questions like these is that you, as human beings, are animals, too. You are every bit as much animals as my friends and I are. The "consciousness" is a very primitive aspect of the organism: it possibly developed long before there were even distinguishable classes of organisms on this planet. Because of that, we could conclude that it is at least conceivable that all complex organisms have some factor of conscious control over their actions. So, in that respect, humans and other animals are exactly the same.

But at the same time, there is another aspect of our lives that influences our actions, and the actions of every animal known to us, possibly more than our conscious control does. Imagine that you are extremely hungry - what do you do? If at all possible, you will eat. Hunger, and other urges (fatigue, thirst, pain) are, collectively, what humans refer to as instincts - desires that guide our behaviors to keep us alive. You heard me correctly; we share much instinctual behavior with animals, and in the case of closely related ones (mammals), we share all of them. And fine, resist if you want - but if you don't eat, eventually you're going to die.

So yes, animals (especially closely related ones, as mentioned above) have as much conscious control over their actions as we do: very little. Thank you, thank you.

And now to comfort those who are boiling mad at me right now for "demoting humankind": I'm not denying that humans have an acute sense of things that most animals (squirrels included) do not posses. Us squirrels, for the most part, are unaware of time, or location. We focus on the pleasure and happiness of the moment, rather than worrying what the future will bring.

In a paper I wrote a few months back, I named the kind of consciousness animals have the "Kitsu" state of mind:

Originally Posted by My Paper

Kistu are:
- Unaware of self, existence or outward appearance; what they are relative to others. A squirrel does not think "that is a squirrel, just like me."
- Unaware of distance and location with a few exceptions, such as a den or nest.
- Unaware of past; oblivious to long term history (events occurring before their births).
- Unaware of future; unmindful of possible consequences of their actions.
- Impulsive, instinctual; quick to follow drives and desires blindly with the promise of a rewarding emotional high.
- Generally naive, impressionable, and excitable. They indulge new, intense urges with a mixture of caution, confusion, and playfulness, delighting when they are rewarded with pleasure.
- Unable or unwilling to change their environment.
- Not possessive creatures; they do not consider themselves the owner of any land, creature, or object (an obvious exception is the defending of territory in territorial animals, though this could easily be speculated to be instinctual behavior).

I believe that all animals are built so that they live in peace and joy, if they only follow their bodies' hints and urges - the community of such creatures I named the "Kitsu" community. I think that without the pressures and responsibility of the human life, everyone could be immeasurably happier.

So there you have it - my thoughts. I sincerely hope that I didn't offend anyone.

I'm always here if you want to ask me questions or want to confide in someone: I love nothing more than to help people (not limited to humans, remember) to be happy. Good luck coming to a balanced conclusion!

Devotedly yours,
Tamias

I think dogs and cats would have to have conscious and self awareness to be able to engage in their behaviors. It seems that all mammals have emotions and have to think about themselves. Problem solving and emotional reactions require conscious experience, I would say.

I am still not toally convinced that all dogs are incapable of loving their owners, but I will tell you two things I do know. I have never seen a dog grieve over losing its owner once it realized that it was in a secure place with dependable food and water. I have even seen many dogs act loyal to temporary care takers and treat their owners like they are second class when the owners returned from a vacation. Also, I have watched dogs fake sadness and affection to get what they wanted and then completely change their expressions as soon as the owner was not looking. I have even seen dogs smile at each other after putting on such acts for their owners. It is socially advantageous for pack animals in the wild to be very manipulative and not to have consciences, and I think that describes what dogs are all about.

Tamias, to DreamViews, and thanks for your post and interesting POV. The Kitsu state of mind--I'll practice it (in a dream, maybe? ).

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am still not toally convinced that all dogs are incapable of loving their owners, but I will tell you two things I do know. I have never seen a dog grieve over losing its owner once it realized that it was in a secure place with dependable food and water. I have even seen many dogs act loyal to temporary care takers and treat their owners like they are second class when the owners returned from a vacation. Also, I have watched dogs fake sadness and affection to get what they wanted and then completely change their expressions as soon as the owner was not looking. I have even seen dogs smile at each other after putting on such acts for their owners. It is socially advantageous for pack animals in the wild to be very manipulative and not to have consciences, and I think that describes what dogs are all about.

Like people never do those things, and ten times worse...we are pack animals too, you know.

Originally Posted by Burns

There have been stories about dogs acting in such a way in an emergency-type situation that they weren't trained to do, which can mean they truly do understand what is going on in the situation and has the consciousness to act accordingly, without being trained to do so. Pure breed or not, these dogs have proved heroic in a variety of dire situations due to their problem-solving ability and the conscious understanding of what needs to be done.

We live in a family situation that is difficult to explain. Without going into that, let me share a little story about that dog there in the avatar.

A family member who is not welcome in our home decided to pay a little visit just a few months after we got our dog. Lucky had no knowledge of this person, and up to this time had been a quiet, frightened, skittish rescue case. She was also incredibly affectionate and friendly with everybody she met, and the few exceptions brought out fear in her, usually due to misunderstandings.

This person walked into our back door unannounced, out of the blue. She got about five steps inside when all hell broke loose. Lucky, with her hair standing on end, fangs bared and growling like she was possessed, backed this person right out of our house. We ended up restraining her and then letting this person in.

All the while she was here, (which wasn't long at all,) Lucky was straining to attack. One thing for damn sure - that person will never set foot in this house uninvited again, so long as this dog is here.

I'll also remind you of the story I told last year about Lucky's habit of raiding the pantry and, without EVER eating anything herself, hiding treats under our pillows when she is left here alone.

This dog routinely blows my mind, Howie. She's conscious. She dreams. She often seems to read our minds. And she really seems to understand people - better than we do, quite often.

You can explain it all away, I'm sure... but we know what we experience with this dog day in and day out. She is an amazing creature - an amazing being.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Like people never do those things, and ten times worse...we are pack animals too, you know.

It is all I have ever seen from dogs when they are put to the test. But I have seen plenty of humans show severe grief over the loss of another human. We are pack animals, but not pack animals in the wild. Dogs are really domestically bred wolves. Wolves lose pack members, eject pack members, and even kill them all the time. The other wolves cannot afford to turn into a basket case every time that happens, so it is advantageous for them to not become too attached. It is very often the case that the leader of a wolf pack is killed by a member that wants the leader position. When that happens, the other wolves just accept the new leader. They don't exactly go through years of depression over it.

When a human mother has a child, she cares for the child from then on in most cases. Dog mothers are different. They care for the kids long enough for them to be able to go out on their own, and then she forgets about them. It is true in every case. That is a strong indication that dogs lack the ability to become truly attached, which is a strong indication that they do not truly love.

I really do hope there are exceptions to what I am saying. I just have not come across any.

Well, they are still just animals. I don't think you can expect completely human-like emotions and behavior from them; of course they are much simpler. People living in certain situations don't have the luxury of a lot of the emotions, or the expressions of them, at least, that we take for granted, and they do what they have to do to survive too. A dog's version of love is different from a person's, that's true. It's lucky for them, really; otherwise they would be sad all of the time, I guess.

I guess it's just if you see the good side or the bad side of the things that make dogs what they are, and if you like them or not.

Some really cool stories guys.
Welcome to DV Tamias. That is an interesting concept.

Thank ya, thank ya.

And...

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well, they are still just animals. I don't think you can expect completely human-like emotions and behavior from them; of course they are much simpler.

Ouch... well, that stings... You know, I bet that's what a lot of people thought of others with different colored skin, before they realized they were wrong. I'm sorry... I just...

Originally Posted by Tamias

Ouch... well, that stings... You know, I bet that's what a lot of people thought of others with different colored skin, before they realized they were wrong. I'm sorry... I just...

Well it's true that they can't be held to the same standards as humans when it comes to planning and stuff, right? That's all I meant. And this conversation started out in the other thread talking about dogs and cats, so that's the kind of animals that I've been thinking about. As much as I love them, I don't really expect anything more from them than you should from a creature of their mental capacity. It would be unfair to judge them by human standards, that's what I've been saying. I still think they have emotions and can feel love and stuff, and should never be mistreated.

I know, I'm sorry...

I've just just always felt that an individual's cognitive ability is of little importance in the grand scheme of things... I learned to treat everyone in the world the same way, because even though you can pretend to prove that you are the superior beings and even though it feels great to do so, you can't ignore the fact that we have breath and a heartbeat, just like you do, just like yours, and you can hold us and you can feel the similarities when you are close. I expect nothing more from anyone than to live and enjoy themselves while doing so... I would rather be blissfully ignorant and happy any day rather than be learned and subject to pressure and control, and every day I envy those who are not confined to the city as I am.

Apples and oranges, really. Both juicy and delicious, in a slightly different way. I really don't want to preach, and I know that's what I'm close to sounding like, so I think I'll stop talking...

~Tamias

Originally Posted by Tamias

... I learned to treat everyone in the world the same way, because even though you can pretend to prove that you are the superior beings and even though it feels great to do so, you can't ignore the fact that we have breath and a heartbeat, just like you do, just like yours, and you can hold us and you can feel the similarities when you are close.
~Tamias

I wasn't ignoring anything like that or trying to prove I'm a superior being (even tho I am the being bringing home the vittles while some other beings sleep all day...) I'm sorry I said that cats and dogs are not as smart as people, geez...

I've seen much more evidence that animals such as dogs and cats have a conscious perception that is (somewhat) similar to ours (in regard to emotions, cognitive ability, etc), in ways that many people either disregard or are not aware of, than that they do not.

So far, in this discussion, I haven't seen very much evidence for the claim that they do not, besides a few anecdotes and the "skeptical" view of "Well those that the display those traits are in the minority (though I'd still like to see a source for that claim)"

So, to try to draw some out, here are a few (permissible, in my opinion) works that work to support the theory that they do.

Thus, throughout the nineteenth century naturalists debated the rival claims of dogs and apes to be top animal, and therefore closest to humankind. In 1881, for example, George J. Romanes, a close friend of Darwin's with a special interest in animal behavior, celebrated the "high intelligence" and "gregarious instincts" of the dog, which, he argued, gave it a more "massive as well as more complex" psychology than any member of the monkey family. (G. Romanes, 1896, p. 439) Two years later Romanes revised his ranking slightly, including both dogs and apes on level twenty-eight of his famous fifty-step ladder of intellectual development. Level twenty-eight was characterized by "indefinite morality" along with the capacity to experience shame, remorse, deceit, and the ludicrous. (To give some sense of the scale: steps twenty-nine through fifty were reserved for human beings, while worms and insect larva occupied step eighteen because they possessed primary instincts and could feel the emotions of surprise and fear.) Although this schema gaves apes and dogs equivalent rank, Romanes was far from thinking that they possessed identical mental attributes. Rather the ape had achieved its high status through intellect, the dog on account of highly developed emotions. (G. Romanes, 1883, p. 352, inset)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._n8910569/pg_3

Research suggests that animals can experience negative emotions in a similar manner to people, including the equivalent of certain chronic and acute psychological conditions. The classic experiment for this was Martin Seligman's foundational experiments and theory of learned helplessness at the University of Pennsylvania in 1965, as an extension of his interest in depression:

A dog that had earlier been repeatedly conditioned to associate a sound with electric shocks did not try to escape the electric shocks after the warning was presented, even though all the dog would have had to do is jump over a low divider within ten seconds, more than enough time to respond. The dog didn't even try to avoid the "aversive stimulus"; it had previously "learned" that nothing it did mattered. A follow-up experiment involved three dogs affixed in harnesses included one that received shocks of identical intensity and duration to the others, but the lever which would otherwise have allowed the dog a degree of control was left disconnected and didn't do anything. The first two dogs quickly recovered from the experience, but the third dog suffered chronic symptoms of clinical depression as a result of this perceived helplessness.

A further series of experiments showed that (similar to humans) under conditions of long term intense psychological stress, around 1/3 of dogs do not develop learned helplessness or long term depression. Instead these animals somehow managed to find a way to handle the unpleasant situation in spite of their past experience. The corresponding characteristic in humans has been found to correlate highly with an explanatory style and optimistic attitude and lower levels of emotional rigidity regarding expectations, that views the situation as other than personal, pervasive, or permanent. Such studies highlighted similar distinctions between people who adapt and those who break down, under long term psychological pressure, which were conducted in the 1950s in the realm of brainwashing.

Since this time, symptoms analogous to clinical depression, neurosis and other psychological conditions have been in general accepted as being within the scope of animal emotion as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals
References listed on site.

Washington Post: What were they thinking? More than we thought

Charles Darwin's "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals"

Comparison of the Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals, by Charles Darwin

To keep it balanced, I have included another study that says that animals that pass what is called the "mirror test" and are able to recognize themselves, in a mirror, are more likely to express empathy. The (single) study states that dogs do not pass this test.
Link

Howie (and those that share his position), if you argue that they do not exhibit these traits, please provide some more research that supports that position. Study into the behavior of animals has been going on for a long time, and opinions do vary, as much as I've seen, so I'm sure you'll be able to find some to bring to the table.

Personally, I think the main flaw in equating animal-to-human "emotions" is that most people tend to try to relate them too strictly. They are looking at "what animals should do when x is a factor" in the same light as "what a human would do when x is a factor." The two responses would, more than likely, be different, and it is this disconnect (coupled with the fact that animals can't directly talk to us) that cause most humans to feel that we are much further apart, cognitively, than we really may be.

I didn't want to irritate you, I'm sorry. And, actually, I never asserted that dogs and cats were smarter than people, only that I don't think it should matter. Believe me, if I hadn't been fighting for that belief since I was born, this argument (I like to refer to it as an enlightened conversation, actually) would've ended a long time ago. It's just a topic that hits home, you know?

I don't want to fight about it; I want to be friends ^_^;; I've said what I think, and it's great pleasure enough to me to know that you took the time to even read it, so thank you very much! I'm glad you aren't into cruelty, and I'm glad that all of you even care. Because most people wouldn't even consider it - they take us (and each other, which I find most baffling) completely for granted.

I'm sorry if I was rude in any way...

~Tamias

P.S., to the above remark: I despise study; often it inhibits truth, especially when studying others. You can never know what another thinks; it is physically impossible and an amazing breach of privacy. Logical arguments, or romantic arguments (all of my views originate from experience and the heart) are preferable, to me. On another note, that Wikipedia article in question I've read many, many times - so many I've practically memorized it ^_^