Thread: The conscious perception of aniamls

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Like I said, it doesn't take much time spent with an animal to realize that is not true. If you don't think animals recognize the difference between themselves and the external environment, you think they are robots. And if you think they are robots, you might as well apply it to people, because all you have to go on is how they behave as well.

The fact is that children also act just as animals do with the inability to distinguish an exteranlly existing reality.

Simple demonstrations:
- Play peek-a-boo with a young one over the course of their development
- Childrens lying ability

When they do not have a sense of self-awareness, they will expect you to both simultaneously cover and uncover your eyes. This is because the child believes that their mind is the center of the universe and cannot distinguish a separate entity. When they start to be able to distinguish separate minds, then they will find it more amusing to watch you hide and peek because they know then that you are hiding away from them - thus, recognizing an external environment.

Furthermore, when a child first learns to be able to lie is when they are able to recognize that their thoughts are exclusive and independent of all others. They are able to tell something clearly not true because they know and recognize that you cannot read their minds. In early development, and in animals, lies do not happen.

Also, I have more than behaviour to go on because I was, believe it or not, also once a child. Our memories of our youth, just like animals, are simplistic at best. We can see the development of our youthful sense of self-awareness by simply reflecting. I remember being the age of 7 or 8 trying my hardest to remember all my memories when I was younger and being inable to do so (at least, in vivid detail). This is because I developed a sense of self-awareness and, because of that, I can never go back to the state of introverted ignorance.

I wouldn't confuse not being able to use language and therefore "think" as we know it to be the same as not "knowing" certain basic "facts" about existence that are requirements for survival for anything more complicated than an insect. Just because they don't sit around thinking, "This is me, this is the lap I'm laying on", doesn't meant they don't know the difference.

I was explaining and exploiting the reasoning that people are proposing that animals do have a sense of self-awareness. Notice that people often use these types of clips and actions to try and prove an animals sense of self-awareness when it is easily attribute to anthropomorphism. (ie. those sappy tales of animals rescuing humans. Although touching, does not mean that they have a sense of self-awareness.)

Showing that people anthropormorphize objects proves nothing except maybe something about people.

Uhm.. yes, that was exactly my point. The only reasons I have seen given to believe that animals have a sense of self-awareness is quickly, and easily, attributed to anthropomorphism.

I think what you said just shows that you are the solipsist.

Interesting way to end that post on such a note... Please explain to me how I am the solipsist? Further, why be so inclined to straw-man my arguements rather than actually providing a substantial response? If you want to end on such a note, then at least have the decency to have something worth-while to consider. You offered no alternatives in this post to why I should be persuaded differently.

EDIT: I just wanted to note that it offends me, and any other person, when you can tell that they took the time to put in a decent effort into what they are saying and respond as such. I do my best to keep things civil and avoid ad hominems, I try to be respectful, so, if I ever deviate away from this, please tell me and I will duely apologize for it (as you have seen for yourself, Moonbeam). I humbly ask that you do not be so instigating.
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Please explain to me how I am the solipsist?

Well...I was joking really; I doubt you are really a solipsist when it comes to other people, but I think that you are drawing a line that doesn't exist between the perceptions of people and animals, and by thinking animals are not self-aware you were somehow being unaware yourself...now I don't know how that makes you a solipsist really, never mind. I used the universal kidding symbol so you wouldn't take it too seriously.

Originally Posted by O'nus

EDIT: I just wanted to note that it offends me, and any other person, when you can tell that they took the time to put in a decent effort into what they are saying and respond as such. I do my best to keep things civil and avoid ad hominems, I try to be respectful, so, if I ever deviate away from this, please tell me and I will duely apologize for it (as you have seen for yourself, Moonbeam). I humbly ask that you do not be so instigating.
~

I didn't mean to offend you, really, and I'm sorry you feel that way. I am not into trying to scientifically prove where the absolute cut-off in the animal kingdom is between aware and not aware, conscious and not conscious, etc. because I don't think it's valid. I think it's interesting that elephants and dolphins and chimps recognize themselves in a mirror enough to be interested in their own bodies, but just because my cat doesn't care about what his teeth look like doesn't prove to me that he isn't self-aware. If you want to use peek-a-boo as the definition of being self-aware, he passes, because he plays hide-and-seek and can anticipate me actions, knows that I still exist even when I'm hiding, knows that if I disappear into a place with two possible exits I may come out from either way, etc.

Anything animals do, you can just say they are doing it because they have learned that certain actions will bring certain results from people or other animals, so there is no way to prove to this to you. Like I said, if you don't know it the same way you know that other people are aware, it probably can't be proven to you. Just like you can never show me an experiment that will prove cats (or dogs) aren't self-aware and don't know that other beings are not them, and are different from the inaminate objects in the environment. Animals are surprised when objects they thought of as inaminate move on their own--what does that tell you? They are not surprised when they see a thing that looks like another animal moving, however. Just one of a million examples.

I don't accept some psychological attribute that people have (to anthropomorphize animals or inaminate objects) as proof of anything except that people do it. I agree they sometimes give animals too much credit regarding motivation, etc. but that doesn't mean that all beliefs about the capabilities of animals are purely because of that.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well...I was joking really; I doubt you are really a solipsist when it comes to other people, but I think that you are drawing a line that doesn't exist between the perceptions of people and animals, and by thinking animals are not self-aware you were somehow being unaware yourself...now I don't know how that makes you a solipsist really, never mind. I used the universal kidding symbol so you wouldn't take it too seriously.

I should note that that symbol is also used as the universal wise-ass symbol. Not saying that you are, but it seemed like following the comment.

I didn't mean to offend you, really, and I'm sorry you feel that way. I am not into trying to scientifically prove where the absolute cut-off in the animal kingdom is between aware and not aware, conscious and not conscious, etc. because I don't think it's valid. I think it's interesting that elephants and dolphins and chimps recognize themselves in a mirror enough to be interested in their own bodies, but just because my cat doesn't care about what his teeth look like doesn't prove to me that he isn't self-aware. If you want to use peek-a-boo as the definition of being self-aware, he passes, because he plays hide-and-seek and can anticipate me actions, knows that I still exist even when I'm hiding, knows that if I disappear into a place with two possible exits I may come out from either way, etc.

Yes, I also play peek-a-boo with my cat actually. It is cute and fun.

Object premanence is also evident in young children that have yet to develop self-awareness.

Infants able to recognize object permanence:
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjBh9ld_yIo (This one is with narrative)
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-ht4-ysUJU

The point is that even if the animal recognizes object permanence, this does not warrant self-awareness. In the first video, we see the common mistake "A not B Error". Cats and animals do this all the time and we find it entertaining. We may play tricks on our animals by utilizing this ignorance.

However, this only further demonstrates that they cannot distinguish an external reality.

If you can tell me a unviersity you have access to, I can send links to a plethora of Journals that study this.

Anything animals do, you can just say they are doing it because they have learned that certain actions will bring certain results from people or other animals, so there is no way to prove to this to you.

No, this is walking into behaviourism. This is not what I am going towards. I am talking about the ability to distinguish an externally existing environment.

Like I said, if you don't know it the same way you know that other people are aware, it probably can't be proven to you.

This sentence is walking into pyrrhonic skepticism. We can easily say that we cannot be certain of anything. In this case, we cannot even know that we do not even know that we don't know that we don't know anything. It's circular, boring, and sophomoric. It does not offer any solutions or practicality. The fact is that we are aware of some senses, perceptions, and behaviours. We must learn how to gauge them in order to understand our environment. Animals have severe (if not impossible) capabilities to distinguishing an external reality. Humans can develop it.

Just like you can never show me an experiment that will prove cats (or dogs) aren't self-aware and don't know that other beings are not them, and are different from the inaminate objects in the environment. Animals are surprised when objects they thought of as inaminate move on their own--what does that tell you? They are not surprised when they see a thing that looks like another animal moving, however. Just one of a million examples.

We cannot mistake a reflex for self-awareness. If I jerk my hand away from a hot oven that I thought was cold, does that mean I am self-aware? We are inclined to believe that animals see inanimate objects as being devoid of consciousness but only because we do! Animals do not know this, if they could, we would have a completely different world.

I don't accept some psychological attribute that people have (to anthropomorphize animals or inaminate objects) as proof of anything except that people do it. I agree they sometimes give animals too much credit regarding motivation, etc. but that doesn't mean that all beliefs about the capabilities of animals are purely because of that.

Right, and all the evidence purported to believe that animals do have a sense of self-awareness is based on anthropomorphism which is not good enough. The next step is to step into the pyrrhic skepticism of, "Well, you cannot know anything for certain."

However, we can know that animals do not distinguish an external reality which invariably shows an incapability to develop a sense of self-awareness. In order to have self-awareness, you must be able to distinguish an externally existing reality. Otherwise, the being exists in a solipsist world with the inability to recognize and appreciate the consciousness of other beings.

The truth is that if animals had a sense of self-awareness, I would not be able to argue it because my cat would hurt me for my stupidity. The world would be very different if animals did have self-awareness and babies would have a completely different developmental process.

In a world with self-aware animals, they would congregate to safer living quarters rather than trying to live in my furnace or live in areas where they know they will be killed.

Further, I help run a dog kennel. These dogs stand by each other all the time, 24/7, through chicken fence. They can see and watch each other.

Consider this scenario:
- One dog is not given food for a duration.
- Take the hungry dog and the well-fed dog that sits beside it out. So we have two dogs that are always exposed to one another outside of their cages now.
- Place one dish of food down.
- Both dogs will dive for the food in ALL cases.

If the dog had self-awareness, then it would recognize that the other dog is hungry and would allow it to eat. However, this is never the case.
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Consider this scenario:
- One dog is not given food for a duration.
- Take the hungry dog and the well-fed dog that sits beside it out. So we have two dogs that are always exposed to one another outside of their cages now.
- Place one dish of food down.
- Both dogs will dive for the food in ALL cases.

If the dog had self-awareness, then it would recognize that the other dog is hungry and would allow it to eat. However, this is never the case.
~

I disagree. That just means they don't share well. A deficiency of what we would consider to be altruistic or empathetic behavior does not mean a lack of self-awareness. Altruism studies are done differently than self-awareness studies.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I disagree. That just means they don't share well. A deficiency of what we would consider to be altruistic or empathetic behavior does not mean a lack of self-awareness. Altruism studies are done differently than self-awareness studies.

First, this is just one example and explanation out of the many that I provided. It is, by no means, the crux of my arguement.

Second, this does not necessarily have to be altruism or "sharing". Altruism studies are done differently in the sense that they are almost entirely exclusive to humans because they nearly always fail with animals.

Altruism and empathy are acts of self-awareness. How?

Self-awareness requires the recognition and awareness of an externally existing environment and that others thoughts are independent of their own. Altruism and empathy are acts of self-awareness.

You seemed to imply that a dog could be empathetic and able to share its food with another dog. If you can give an example, in any form, I would be more than accepting to see it.
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You seemed to imply that a dog could be empathetic and able to share its food with another dog. If you can give an example, in any form, I would be more than accepting to see it.
~

A wolf bringing food home to share with its cubs.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

A wolf bringing food home to share with its cubs.

instinct!
It will sacrifice it's own needs for the sake of it's own species to carry on. NOT on a conciousl level.

Do you believe the wolf ponders that question, or nany question?