Thread: The conscious perception of aniamls

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

They are extremely cute, and fearless. If they get out of the nest, they will come right up to you.

Well, if they're not up in a tree. A lot of times, they just drop, from what I've been told. But ground squirrels don't have to worry about that (at least I don't.)

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Let me guess first. He has a pet squirrel. He really likes his squirrel.

Let me be the first to answer! Nope! To respect Oneironaut's intelligence: I refer to myself as a squirrel because, in all manner and being (outside of being able to read at a college level, I suppose), in every glance, smell, touch, and analysis... I will appear to be as such. Let us take the time to question reality. As defined by several brave and intelligent men throughout the generations (Sir Isaac Newton; Albert Einstein; Weird Al), our universe - our reality - operates according to strict, unwavering laws: two bodies will always gravitate towards each other, what is in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an external force, etc. But according to Morpheus (from The Matrix): "What is real? How do you define real? If real is something that you can see, and touch, and smell and taste, then reality is just electrical signals interpreted by your brain." We are bound by our senses, and to the knowledge of generations past, at the same time. Our fathers say "this is a squirrel. He cannot learn to read or write or use a computer or beat Super Mario Bros!" and so we adopt that same position, and we believe what they believe.

But this isn't their reality. It is your reality, determined by what you know, what you see, hear, smell, taste, and feel. And if you take just a moment to contemplate the possibilities of your reality, you might just realize that a technologically inclined squirrel is only a minor anomaly. Awaken the child inside you, and you will remember that things that are "impossible" are not truly impossible, they are just waiting to be discovered! I can't possibly offer any more sensible explanation.

Oh, and I eventually aced Super Mario Bros. It was awesome. Ben had to make this modified controller, because on the original NES controller, the directional buttons and the jump button were too far apart! I'll get a picture up eventually.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Urban Dictionary "furry" : Possibly the strangest sub-culture in all of geekdom. Furries range from being harmless fans fascinated by anthropomorphic characters and animals, to immensely withdrawn or self-abosrbed persons who actually believe, or want to believe, they're eagle-winged fox-like versions of themselves with giant gentalia who wouldn't dare be anything else that could be considered mundane. Furries defy any coventional or unifying definition.

...Sorry, this is bugging me: you (or whoever wrote that definition) misspelled "absorbed," "conventional," and "genitalia." Three errors in a single definition kind of detracts from this entry's credibility. I'm... very fascinated with animals, me and Ben both. He wants to go to college for a major in Veterinary Science, and then he wants to be a Wildlife Rehabilitator. And I pretty much look like a squirrel already, and I already believe it, and so unless I'm dreaming and I'm actually human (...? hold on... nope)... I don't know what else to say. Wings might be cool, I guess... Wait, by defying that definition (which seems pretty unifying), am I a furry? Or do you need to believe you're... something else... as well? I'm so confused...

~Tamias

Originally Posted by Tamias

...Sorry, this is bugging me: you (or whoever wrote that definition) misspelled "absorbed," "conventional," and "genitalia." Three errors in a single definition kind of detracts from this entry's credibility. I'm... very fascinated with animals, me and Ben both. He wants to go to college for a major in Veterinary Science, and then he wants to be a Wildlife Rehabilitator. And I pretty much look like a squirrel already, and I already believe it, and so unless I'm dreaming and I'm actually human (...? hold on... nope)... I don't know what else to say. Wings might be cool, I guess... Wait, by defying that definition (which seems pretty unifying), am I a furry? Or do you need to believe you're... something else... as well? I'm so confused...

~Tamias

I didn't write it. It was from urbandictionary.com

Well done. Furry.




Actually, there's something michaeljacksonish about the whole unlocking the child within thing.. I don't know.. weird.

Originally Posted by Tamias

Let me be the first to answer! Nope! To respect Oneironaut's intelligence: I refer to myself as a squirrel because, in all manner and being (outside of being able to read at a college level, I suppose), in every glance, smell, touch, and analysis... I will appear to be as such. Let us take the time to question reality. As defined by several brave and intelligent men throughout the generations (Sir Isaac Newton; Albert Einstein; Weird Al), our universe - our reality - operates according to strict, unwavering laws: two bodies will always gravitate towards each other, what is in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an external force, etc. But according to Morpheus (from The Matrix): "What is real? How do you define real? If real is something that you can see, and touch, and smell and taste, then reality is just electrical signals interpreted by your brain." We are bound by our senses, and to the knowledge of generations past, at the same time. Our fathers say "this is a squirrel. He cannot learn to read or write or use a computer or beat Super Mario Bros!" and so we adopt that same position, and we believe what they believe.

But this isn't their reality. It is your reality, determined by what you know, what you see, hear, smell, taste, and feel. And if you take just a moment to contemplate the possibilities of your reality, you might just realize that a technologically inclined squirrel is only a minor anomaly. Awaken the child inside you, and you will remember that things that are "impossible" are not truly impossible, they are just waiting to be discovered! I can't possibly offer any more sensible explanation.

Oh, and I eventually aced Super Mario Bros. It was awesome. Ben had to make this modified controller, because on the original NES controller, the directional buttons and the jump button were too far apart! I'll get a picture up eventually.

Lol. So, basically "you do, because you choose to?"

That was either profoundly existential, universally conscious, or hilariously nonsensical. I can't figure out which.

Either way, nicely done.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Lol. So, basically "you do, because you choose to?"

That was either profoundly existential, universally conscious, or hilariously nonsensical. I can't figure out which.

Either way, nicely done.

...Well, Ben says I'm nonsensical in a "not-funny" kind of way. I think he was joking.

And thank you, I try EDIT: <--- So that's what those smiley faces do! How cool! <3

EDIT EDIT: Ha, I just realized you have a Morpheus quote in your signature ^_^

~Tamias

On account of this thread, I changed my avatar to a photo I took of my miniature long haired dachshund, Pee Wee, in one of my boots.

He is now 15 years old. He is the bestes of ALL dogs

But I'll still argue my view point.

The thread was getting off topic anyway ^_^ Your dog is adorable, Howie! Say hi for me <3

~Tamias

Originally Posted by Tamias

The thread was getting off topic anyway ^_^ Your dog is adorable, Howie! Say hi for me <3

~Tamias

Will do thanks!

so I'm the only person even vaguely weirded out by the whole "I'm a squirrel" thing?

LOL

Self awareness!!
Do children have this, moreover, newborns?

If they do not for a certain amount of time, then when and what changes?

Aside form a handful of animals, I.E. Cats and dogs do NOT have this ability. I think O had pointed this out.

If they have no "self" awareness, how can they be capable of the emotions that many of you claim they do?

Originally Posted by Howie

Aside form a handful of animals, I.E. Cats and dogs do NOT have this ability. I think O had pointed this out.

Correction: One independent study from a single person concluded that they do not. In the context of this discussion, I wouldn't necessarily call that sufficient enough to state it as fact.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Correction: One independent study from a single person concluded that they do not. In the context of this discussion, I wouldn't necessarily call that sufficient enough to state it as fact.

"They do not" - what animals?

His study concluded that dogs did not. However, I'm not sure if I even read your post right.

You said:

Aside form a handful of animals, I.E. Cats and dogs do NOT have this ability.

What exactly did you mean by this? It's kind of confusing because of the I.E. and there being nothing to separate that from the rest of the sentence. Are you saying "a handful animals do not have this ability?" Are you saying "aside from a handful of animals like cats and dogs, Most animals do not have this ability?"

My cats know things in a mirror are really behind them, and they watch the other things, not themselves, so they must know which ones is themself. Just because they don't try to get something off their head that they can only see by looking in the mirror doesn't prove they don't know that it is themself. They don't have sense to be curious or care about what they look like, their brains just don't work like that. If I try to sneak up on one, they see me in the mirror and turn around and look at the real me--that kind of stuff they're interested in. Maybe they are using other senses too, but I know they can see me in the mirror.

There seems to be something grammatically wrong with that paragraph, but you know what I mean.

I know other animals like the elephants and chimps look in their own mouths and try to get paint off of their forehead, but that is just because they are smart enough to be curious about that.

I guess I think the mirror thing is kind of stupid. It's obvious how intelligent (or not) and how much emotion domestic animals have if you live with them. If somebody who can't figure it out, it probably says more about them than the animals.

Animals do have have the same consciousness as humans. Further, all the animals that we know of do not have a sense of self-awareness. At least, this is as of yet. (Edit: I am making room for aliens and life we have no yet encountered here.)

(I will try to make this post interesting so I included several videos)

First, self-awareness:
- The ability to recognize that there is an external environment that exists independent of the individuals mind and externally operates mutually exclusively.

How do we know this?

- Animals fail rogue tests, mirror tests, and further individuality tests to show that animals can demonstrate a sense of self-awareness.

- These tests are often to place the animal infront of a mirror and see if it can recognize that it is, in fact, themselves that they are seeing (thus making the conscious effort to notice an external environment that can recognize them) or if it is another cat (not being able to distinguish an external environment)

Videos to demonstrate animals inability to separate an external environment from an internal:
- Cat vs. Mirror: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O67wbZ7BcMo
- Dog vs. Mirror: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO9mTq3nbdE
- Goat vs. Mirror: http://jumpcut.com/view/?id=7A204148...92000423CF4092

Videos demonstrating when humans first recognize external reality transcending from an introvert reality:
- Child rouge test: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...arch&plindex=1

- Why do we find the animals amusing and videotape them? Because we know that they are not recognizing an externally exisiting reality outside of their own minds. To these animals, solipisim is the only way of life.

- There are no anomolous activities of animals expressing self-awareness. For example; the movie "Happy Feet" depicts the penguin dancing and entertaining the humans while he is in the zoo. If a penguin (or any animal) actually did this in the sense that it is recognizing that an external mind is being entertained by what you do, this is a recognize of an exclusive consciousness existing independent from your own.

- Note that humans are guilty of all these introverted activities up until they
become self-aware. Once a human becomes self-aware, they can never go back without some form of brain damage.

What causes us to believe that they do?

In one word, Anthropomorphism.

Anthropomorphism is the transference of man's traits and human attributes to the external forces of nature.

This mentality has been around for a long time. Xenophanes early expressed the view that man created gods in his own image, and that if oxen could create gods they would certainly conceive of them as oxlike, while lions would consider them leonine.

When you watch these videos of animals, read stories, or communicate with these animals, we are inclined to attach human traits to them. By human traits, I mean self-awareness.

Here is a perfect example of anthropomorphism:
Ikea's Lamp Commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I07xDdFMdgw

Notice how we are inclined to attach human feelings of loneliness, negligence, and pain to the lamp. These feelings are the same inclination towards animals.

Instances of further anthropomorphism:
+ Attaching human words to animals:
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tayhKuJe44Y
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBhE6LNdBEs
+ Process of teaching animals words via operant conditioning:
- Husky learns "I love you": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-fEeT6ChQk
+ Attaching human language and activites to furniture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqWgbrzbGj4
+ Attaching human activites and language to random sounds:
- Guy interprets basement sounds to ghosts telling him "lost ball" and to shoot his cat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqrLtFkEMc

These dogs do not know English, that is simple fact. They may respond to it and the tones and sounds that they emmit are conditioned and reinforced due to the owners response. Notice the owners response once the animal makes the right cue. This will be the reinforcement. Further, I had trouble even noticing some of what I was "supposed to hear" until the human said the word. This is then subject to a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the animal can learn and understand English at a full level, then they would probably also be paying taxes and writing books.

What we should expect:

The strongest incidence of animal communication I have found:
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=46752

Also, look for "Kiki" and other apes that can talk through sign language. These are the developments we should be looking for and encouraging - not random sounds and reinforcement. These animals have complex thoughts, sentence development, and creativity! It is just apes so far, but this is why we have descended from them - because of the potentiality for self-awareness.

But, I love my pets..

All this is, by no means, suggesting that you stop doing these funny activities with your pets. I am saying do not make the mistake of thinking that they have self-awareness. Instead, encourage these activities knowing that they could eventually one day help an animal develop self-awareness. I still talk through my pets, you know, impersonating what they would likely be saying. But I never think that they are aware of what I think.

My cat will never draw a picture, write a poem, get me food because she thinks I am hungry, buy me a Christmas present, etc.

I hope this has been enlightening. What do you think...?
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

- The ability to recognize that there is an external environment that exists independent of the individuals mind and externally operates mutually exclusively.
~

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.

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.

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

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

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 Oneirenaut

What exactly did you mean by this? It's kind of confusing because of the I.E. and there being nothing to separate that from the rest of the sentence. Are you saying "a handful animals do not have this ability?" Are you saying "aside from a handful of animals like cats and dogs, Most animals do not have this ability?"

Sorry that was my bad. After again reading it myself, it made no sense.
I meant the ladder - "Are you saying "aside from a handful of animals like cats and dogs, Most animals do not have this ability."
There are only a handful of animals that exhibit what is conventionally known as self awareness.
Cats and dogs have not shown this recognition.

Moonbeam, your cats know there is something behind the couch too. Do they differentiate such things.
Are you going to hang your argument on the basis that cats are not curious enough to get something off their head.

"Their brains just don't work like that."
Exactly. The conscious perception of animals!!
They look but without the ability to conceptualize.

They know you in the mirror because it is you, outside of themselves - which they do not recognize.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

My cats know things in a mirror are really behind them, and they watch the other things, not themselves, so they must know which ones is themself. Just because they don't try to get something off their head that they can only see by looking in the mirror doesn't prove they don't know that it is themself. They don't have sense to be curious or care about what they look like, their brains just don't work like that. If I try to sneak up on one, they see me in the mirror and turn around and look at the real me--that kind of stuff they're interested in. Maybe they are using other senses too, but I know they can see me in the mirror.

There seems to be something grammatically wrong with that paragraph, but you know what I mean.

I know other animals like the elephants and chimps look in their own mouths and try to get paint off of their forehead, but that is just because they are smart enough to be curious about that.

I guess I think the mirror thing is kind of stupid. It's obvious how intelligent (or not) and how much emotion domestic animals have if you live with them. If somebody who can't figure it out, it probably says more about them than the animals.

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.
~

O'nus, thank you for putting my thoughts in a concise and comprehensive post.
That is all along what I have argued. Perhaps it was not clear.

All one can do now is put human perception over scientific relevance. I have to ask, how precise do you feel our perception of anything is? Science is a process of dismissing fact from fiction, as we currently know it.
Perception is often at a whim, in addition all our perceptions are misguided truths from preconceived input.

I now fully understand what you had meant by the nature of things, O'nus.

Humans and the nature of our perceptions has to be a factor as well as an accounted for variable, in our thoughts and ideas.

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.
~