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.
~