Thread: The conscious perception of aniamls

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?

See, it's hopeless! O'nus wanted an example of a dog sharing food. I give one, and you say it's instinct.

Well, I say that much of what humans do that seems empathetic is instinct too, so there is no real difference, only degrees.

(P.S. No animal does things for "the sake of the species". That is an inaccurate way of looking at it. It's all just to pass on their own personal genes, and all real competition is within a species, not between species.)

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

See, it's hopeless! O'nus wanted an example of a dog sharing food. I give one, and you say it's instinct.

Well, I say that much of what humans do that seems empathetic is instinct too, so there is no real difference, only degrees.

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.

He wants you to show him an example of empathy threw that of sharing.
You gave him an answer that did not encompass his entire question.

No?

So does the wolf think?
Would it consider that, although I myself am hungry, I love my offspring more, and because of that, I will give it to them?

It's is a frustrating discussion, but not hopeless.

(P.S. No animal does things for "the sake of the species". That is an inaccurate way of looking at it. It's all just to pass on their own personal genes, and all real competition is within a species, not between species.)

How is that inaccurate?
Within and between. How do you differentiate those? If it is within, at some point it become between. I can give you many examples of between.