Thread: The conscious perception of aniamls

I have seen enough evidence and been lectured enough on how animals cannot distinguish an externally existing reality.

If an animal could distinguish as such, then results would have shown this - and they do not. The closest that has come is apes and the post I have provided.

I have seen none of this evidence, nor have I been lectured on such, so forgive me if I don't take your word of mouth as sufficient. It's nothing personal. I'm sure you understand.

And which results do you mean? Do you mean the ones you have allegedly been lectured on, or the ones you have posted? For the former, see the above post. For the latter, I have seen nothing but the mirror test, as something that "provides" evidence" against the claim, and I find the mirror test (at least, in the way you have provided it) to be flawed.

If you are saying that what I am saying is unfalsifiable, I would say that that is certainly not the case. It is simple, if an animal could empathise and be aware of an externally existing reality, they would react appropriately to all of the tests I have provided.

See above. The only test I have seen you provide, in strict relation to animals, has been the mirror test. I have presented variables that cannot necessarily be taken into account, when drawing a conclusion from the mirror tests that you posted. Further more, without a running study of human psychology, we would have nothing by which to understand why humans commit actions that seem to be outside the human norm (though they do it all the time). Only when we look at all human logic an psychology as (it should be like this, as if we are all cognitive identicals, can we even begin to assume what any one human would do in any one situation. So far, I believe that only without giving animals that same benefit of doubt, can we try to assume the same, for them. Again, the probable gap between an understanding of their complexity is an inability to to directly communicate with them. No matter what our figures show about how any one human "should" react in any given situation, we (if considering things objectively) must understand that such is not always the case. In fact, is is so often not the case that a human must comply with a sociological norm, that you couldn't even call such a deviation anomalous.

Read previous posts.

Ditto.

There are several longitudinal tests that provide animal mirror-self tests over the period of their life spans. Tell me the local library or university to you and I can provide these journal entries as they require membership. (ie. http://www.jneurosci.org )

Deltona Regional Library.

- Less animals living in areas where they will be killed (ie. my furnace, construction zones)

Would that, in any way, prove different than humans living in areas where they would either, likely, be killed or sustain any substantial loss?
- The abundance of population in Tornado Alley.
- Florida (being a magnet for hurricanes) being a highly populated area.
- Extreme sports being enjoyed by the millions, and life-long careers for so many.
- Human affinity for remaining in emotionally detrimental relationships.
- Humans taking on some of the most dangerous jobs on the planet, even when they don't pay all that much.

- Animals would congregate develop complex societies in relation to social status considering that they can recognize and individualize each other. Why? Because if an animal has the ability to distinguish an externally existing reality, they will inevitably develop their own individual identity to separate them from the rest of their species. This is not a choice, it simply happens. (Do you choose to be an individual? No, it just occurs naturally due to a flexible society and atmosphere. Considering animals do not the same restrictions as we do, I see no reason why they could not develop such a complex society).

Did neanderthals have the same amount of complex systems as we do today? Could I use my own individuality as a comparison for what they would have developed, back then? While they do not have the same restrictions as we do, they also have, in many ways, more. The search for food, protection from predators, the abundance of shelter. At a more primitive base, these things are much harder to sustain than they are in the realms of grocery stores, hourly wages, and top-of-the-food-chain atmopsheres that we humans have grown accustomed to, over the centuries. There are always rogues, in any animalistic society. There always have been. Would you not also agree that individuality spreads faster among humans because of our lack of necessity to be pampered by one another? Think about indigenous cultures. Do they not show a greater sense of community than we, pampered, modern folk do? Might this not be more directly linked to "necessity for survival" than to what "is not a choice, and simply happens?"

Do polygamist sects (such as that formerly run by Warren Jeffs) not utilize such simple hierarchies as the ones the animals you are talking about, do? Hierarchies to where there is but one supreme authority, and a simply following of that authority by all others in the community? Are these people not human, because of such social simplicity?

- We would have anomolous cases of animal behaviour. ie. the movie "Happy Feet" (I am repeating myself now) where he dances for humans entertainment is a perfect example of anomalous animal activity that requires the ability to distinguish realities. Unfortunately, I have yet to see such a case that is not subject to simple reflexive behaviour.

1) Happy Feet is a fictional account. 2) We only know that he is dancing for humans' entertainment because of language. The animals speak our language, in that fictional account. Without that bridge, how else would we know that he's not simply dancing for the sake of making himself happy?