Thread: The conscious perception of aniamls

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.

Well, it has been written many times that animals are trying to help "the species". This is not true; their genes are interested only in being passed on. Genes work thru individual animals, not thru species.

In biology, it is said that in a stable ecological system, only one species fills a particular niche. I know what you are saying, it does seem that species compete against each other, but "theoretically" one species will win out in the end, and different species will not be competing directly against each other. That is one of those statements that it is easy to find holes in, it's just kind of a general rule.

It is easy to see how most of the competition occurs within a species, however. The members of a species are all competing for exactly the same food, habitat, mates, etc. That's why the genes don't care about the species, they care about their individual "carrier" being better than the other members of the same species around it.

You realize when I say the genes "want" to do do things, this is just the nature of replicators--they replicate, and the better ones are better at replicating, better being defined as replicating more. It's the same thing as saying water "wants" to run downhill.

You are describing survival of the fittest genes or replicators?

You realize when I say the genes "want" to do do things, this is just the nature of replicators--they replicate, and the better ones are better at replicating, better being defined as replicating more. It's the same thing as saying water "wants" to run downhi

ll.

Yes, and I mean wolves "want" to share via means of their instincts.

interesting Moonbeam.

In biology, it is said that in a stable ecological system, only one species fills a particular niche. I know what you are saying, it does seem that species compete against each other, but "theoretically" one species will win out in the end, and different species will not be competing directly against each other. That is one of those statements that it is easy to find holes in, it's just kind of a general rule

Originally Posted by Howie

You are describing survival of the fittest genes or replicators?

The genes are the replicators. (Is that what you mean?) The fittest genes are circularly defined as the ones that are best at replicating (survival of the fittest = survival of those that survive.)

Originally Posted by Howie

Yes, and I mean wolves "want" to share via means of their instincts.

Just like people "want" to take care of their offspring.

Or, you could say that instinct is accomplished on a conscious level, thus bringing your two arguments to a perfectly viable compromise. Hm?

Allow me to explain (God forbid, right?): Have you ever thought that something looked cute? I mean really cute. As in, a lot of people find squirrels really cute, or little babies. Or little baby squirrels! My point being, that feeling of "cute;" the feeling of need to protect and nurture is (according to theory, like everything else in this thread) parental instinct at work. Without this instinct, we would not care for our children, you humans included!

That a wolf (shiver) finds food and brings it home to her cubs specifically is instinct acting on consciousness: she does not think in terms of love for the children, but she feels an incredibly strong affection and need to protect. She is not aware, in fact, that eating makes one survive (only that eating makes one feel a whole lot better, which is the body's intent), and, instinctively, she wishes to pass that good feeling on to her offspring.

Examples of this are found in human activity everywhere. That is to say, our actions are determined by instinct a good 100% of the time. If anyone were in complete conscious control of their actions, nobody would be obese and nobody would have AIDS. But guess what? Your body tells you to eat, and your body tells you to have sex, and nine times out of ten, you'll do it. No questions asked. Even if, somewhere in the back of your mind, you know it is bad for you. I found, long ago, it is so fulfilling just to give in and surrender to what your body tells you to do. Of course, I haven't had sex yet and I might not ever...

Ben: - Not my fault -

but everyone says it is wonderful, and I'll probably jump to it the first time I feel the urge, just to see what it feels like. I've accepted that I am not in complete control of my life any more than anyone else is, but also that whatever is (various chemicals raging around in my bloodstream, I suppose) doesn't wish me any harm, and even wishes me pleasure. I'm not suggesting that chemicals in your blood have consciences, by the way. It was personification.

Well, I told myself I wouldn't come back to this thread and now look what I've gone and done. Just, everyone, don't get mad at me if I rant. Even if I don't make sense, I don't intend to preach or upset ^_^

~Tamias

Originally Posted by Tamias

That a wolf (shiver) finds food and brings it home to her cubs specifically is instinct acting on consciousness: she does not think in terms of love for the children, but she feels an incredibly strong affection and need to protect.

Love = incredibly strong affection and need to protect. I would say love is an emotion, not "thinking in terms of" something.

I like the explanation of instinct acting on consciousness; that sort of brings it together in an understandable way.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Love = incredibly strong affection and need to protect. I would say love is an emotion, not "thinking in terms of" something.

Right, what I meant was that she doesn't think "I have cubs, so it is my responsibility to feed them," rather, "what can I do to make them happy?" And the reason she thinks that second one is because of parental instinct. She does not think love, but love makes her think. So instinct does not expressly override thought as much as it alters it slightly so we view the world in a different way. ^_^

~Tamias

Originally Posted by Tamias

Or, you could say that instinct is accomplished on a conscious level, thus bringing your two arguments to a perfectly viable compromise. Hm?

Or you could say that that denies the very definition of instinct. But whatever.

Originally Posted by Tamias

Right, what I meant was that she doesn't think "I have cubs, so it is my responsibility to feed them," rather, "what can I do to make them happy?" And the reason she thinks that second one is because of parental instinct. She does not think love, but love makes her think. So instinct does not expressly override thought as much as it alters it slightly so we view the world in a different way. ^_^

~Tamias

This is ridiculous. She doesn;t think anything like that.

You seriously think a wolf mother actually THINKS IN HER HEAD "WHAT WILL MAKE THEM HAPPY. I WONDER. WHAT COULD IT BE?" That is the most proposterous thing you have said thus far.


[Apart from your claims of being a squirrel, of course.]

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Or you could say that that denies the very definition of instinct. But whatever.

I don't think so, because humans have instincts, yet they think about everything they do. It flows up from the hormones or whatever is the initial trigger, into the emotions, then into conscious thought.

I don't know what to call what animals do with their brains; "thinking" doesn't seem right, because that seems to involve language. I think they are something more than just reflexes and emotions--some mammals and birds, at least, but I don't know what else there is. Different for different animals, probably.

That parrot Alex was pretty smart.

There is a lot that I've missed, so I'm afraid I won't be able to respond to everything.

A few key points are:

As far as the mirror tests provided by O'nus. How do those animals' reactions prove that they are not self aware? How do they even evidence that they are not self aware? The only way they provide evidence of that is if one acts like those animals are reacting to the mirror on the same learning curve as a human; even a human child (i.e.; the one in the video). Think about how old that child is. Think about how often that child has seen himself in the mirror. Think about how old (for instance) the cat in the first clip is. Think about how many times it's seen itself in the mirror. Think about the fact that the child felt his forehead being written on with a marker.

Now, I don't know how many people that are replying to this thread actually have pets, but my old dog stopped spazzing out at his own reflection in the mirror after a while, though he would still react to other dogs he passed on the street. It takes human babies a little while of getting used to a mirror before they lose their wonderment of it. What evidence do we have that those animals have had the same amount of allotted time to condition themselves to their reflections, when those videos were posted? None.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

This is ridiculous. She doesn;t think anything like that.

You seriously think a wolf mother actually THINKS IN HER HEAD "WHAT WILL MAKE THEM HAPPY. I WONDER. WHAT COULD IT BE?" That is the most proposterous thing you have said thus far.

Why?

What makes you think a wolf doesn't "think" such things? After ages of evolution, we humans have developed a language. We have developed a way of expressing ourselves; of understanding ourselves. We (over time) have developed a way to know exactly what each other is thinking, because we have developed a system by which we can put those thoughts/feelings into words. Does this necessarily mean that we have developed feelings outside the scope of those which "language-less" animals possess? No. It simply means that we have developed a more complex system of both expressing and understanding those feelings.

Now, look at this from outside of the human perspective. If an alien that had little to no understanding of the way humans feel/think, because they could not understand our speech, and thought of themselves on a completely different mental plane as we are, what would they think, while observing our actions? Would they automatically deduce that we do the things we do because we have some complex system of thought/emotions, that may rival their own? Probably not. For reasons of conceit/ethnocentrism, they may look at our reactions and listen to our incomprehensible grunts and vocal outbursts as nothing but "instinct", and simplistic actions/reactions. The problem, in such a case, would be the language barrier.

Who here honestly thinks that we - as humans, with no way of possibly understanding every single bark/tone/gesture presented by a species with which we have no direct forms of communication - can hypothesize what actually goes on inside of their heads? What about cavemen? Does the fact that, were we to meet one of them in the street, they would present us with nothing but a series of unintelligible grunts and gestures give us cause to believe that they were incapable of complex emotions, feelings, or cognition?

Without relating to them as fellow humans (perhaps because of reasons of arrogance or bias), would we grant them the possibility that their lines of thinking/feeling are just as complex as our own, with our (as modern, "educated" humans) knowledge of what we, humans, are mentally capable of? Again, I would argue that we would not. The only gap that provides such a suspension of credibility would be the lack of language. They could not "tell us" the true complexity of their feelings. They could, in no discernible way, express them. If it were not for the a priori assumption that "Well, they are human, like me, so there must be something more going on inside their heads," or the recognition of some of their gestures as being comparable to some of the gestures we use today, we would look at them with the exact same condescension as the dog-to-human relationships are being looked at, in the context of this thread.

Conclusively, there are two ways to look at this:

1) The empirical evidence pruports, via the scientific method, that animals can not distinguish an externally existing reality. Since self-awareness requires this ability, we can determine that animals do not have self-awareness.

2) Pyrrhic skepticism demonstrates that we cannot know anything, including that we do not even know. Since we cannot know, for certain, that animals do not think, then we can accept the possibility that they do think no matter what empirical evidence is purported. This possibility gives room the possibility of animal self-awareness, but without any empirical grounding. This is because it does not require empirical grounding.

Oneironaut:
- The mirror is just one residual result of not having self-awareness.
- The video of the child with the marker on his head is the only video I can find resembling the rouge test. The actual test does it much better as it uses rouge, not an obnoxious marker.
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

1) The empirical evidence pruports, via the scientific method, that animals can not distinguish an externally existing reality. Since self-awareness requires this ability, we can determine that animals do not have self-awareness.

You say "the" empirical evidence, as if to conclude 2 things:

1) That you have access to all of the empirical evidence given in all documented cases of the scientific exploration of the comparability of animal-to-human perception.

2) That there is no empirical evidence that shows that such an assertion may, in fact, be incorrect.

Please provide substantiation for both of the above claims. I've yet to see it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Oneironaut:
- The mirror is just one residual result of not having self-awareness.

One in which the outcome seems to be the same, for both a human child that may have had interaction with a mirror, before, and with a non-human animal that may be encountering a mirror for one of its first few times. Nothing more, from what I've seen so far.

Originally Posted by O'nus

- The video of the child with the marker on his head is the only video I can find resembling the rouge test. The actual test does it much better as it uses rouge, not an obnoxious marker.
~

Well, I'm sorry, but because of the way the results of that test can be explained away, due to the variables I've mentioned, it really does nothing to evidence that such a reaction is exclusively human.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You say "the" empirical evidence, as if to conclude 2 things:

1) That you have access to all of the empirical evidence given in all documented cases of the scientific exploration of the comparability of animal-to-human perception.

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.

2) That there is no empirical evidence that shows that such an assertion may, in fact, be incorrect.

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.

Please provide substantiation for both of the above claims. I've yet to see it.

Read previous posts.

One in which the outcome seems to be the same, for both a human child that may have had interaction with a mirror, before, and with a non-human animal that may be encountering a mirror for one of its first few times. Nothing more, from what I've seen so far.

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 )

Well, I'm sorry, but because of the way the results of that test can be explained away, due to the variables I've mentioned, it really does nothing to evidence that such a reaction is exclusively human.

I never said it was. I said that, as far as it has been so far, it has been exclusive to humans.

Note, if animals were capable of distinguishing an externally existing reality, the following sorts of things would happen:
- Less animals living in areas where they will be killed (ie. my furnace, construction zones)
- Animals would congregate develop complex socieites in relation to social status considering that they can recognize and individualise 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).
- 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.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Animals would congregate develop complex socieites in relation to social status considering that they can recognize and individualise each other.

Ants have complex societies involving social status. I am not saying ants have consciousness however.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Ants have complex societies involving social status. I am not saying ants have consciousness however.

Good point, they do. However, do they have trends? Is there such a thing as an "individual" in an ant society?

As a side note, I thought it would be interesting to note the following in evolutionary studies I have examined:
- The leader dog will hesitate and mourn before maiming and killing a dog that it must kill because it fails the pack.
- Snakes are hesitant by about 50% more to kill another snake than any other species.
- Spiders are significantly slower to attack fellow spiders of the same species

That is not relevant.. I just thought it was an interesting side note related to evolutionary behaviour..
~

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?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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.

Pardon me for being like that.. it was uncalled for. I need to relax sometimes.

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.

How is it flawed? Animals cannot distinguish that it is a separate being whereas humans can eventually distinguish this.

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.

I cannot argue the content of this directly because, as you explained, we can't. However, we can show that animals cannot distinguish an externally existing reality in the same way we do in infant humans - which is what I have shown. Consider that point when referring to my previous points. I cannot argue anything further than that, really..

Ditto.

Sorry, I was too lazy to repeat. I think I made my point too vague and unclear.

Deltona Regional Library.

I will find some articles and post them. Is there a university nearby you? They would more likely contain journals than a library.

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.

The first two are not analogous to what I was saying. The case is that animals evolve and adapt to moving to areas where they can live. If I start revving a chainsaw that will demolish a tree that a squirrel lives in, he will not have any idea of my intention until I do so - unless it is conditioned to being afraid of the sound of a chainsaw. It cannot distinguish my cruel intent.

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?

Yes, people do restrict themselves to socieites where they have little individuality. However, they choose to do so in knowledge of alternative lifestyles.

My point is that we do have trends and a sense of individuality. Animals do not.

1) Happy Feet is a fictional account.

Exactly, because if animals were able to distinguish an externally existing reality, it may very likely be nonfictional.

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?

Because of his interaction and invariant communication with humans. Is this not analogous to interacting with someone who does not speak my language and I cannot speak to them? We can still communicate on different terms because we can distinguish that they are a separate being and find similarities and function our interaction still through this means. Animals do not do this. If animals did do this, we would be able to properly communicate with our pets on a much more complex scale.

Humans are complex and have profound cognitive abilities because of the ability to distinguish an externally existing reality. This is why humans have developed as such and why we have grown so significantly as a species.

Edit:

I forgot to make clear what I am arguing:
- Animals cannot distinguish the fact that other beings think. As far as animals know, they are the only ones that think. Thus, it is very well possibel that they may think consciously - I cannot argue that. However, we can see, empirically, that they cannot recognize the fact that other beings have a separate and exclusive conscious.

Does that help..?
~

A squirrel does not look at another squirrel and think, "that is a squirrel, just like me." A squirrel does not know it is a squirrel. In that way, you are right about animals having little self awareness - it only means they end up being far less conceited than any human alive. An animal does not care what it looks like, for it sees no reason to look "attractive." Without the means or will to know what it looks like, how can you possibly expect it to be able to recognize itself in a mirror?

Originally Posted by Carousoul

Or you could say that that denies the very definition of instinct. But whatever.

Nope, wrong again! An instinct, by definition, is a type of behavior - one learned or inherent from birth. You can be completely conscious while taking part in a "behavior" (such as eating; I don't know about you, but I think a LOT when I eat.)


Everyone else, you are all absolutely right - given the chance, the time, and the tools, any animal could become as trapped as human beings have become by their so-called "success". The lack of social order, though, is not absolutely a sign of lesser consciousness. Perhaps you can't understand that maybe, just maybe to some animals, everyone is equal?

~Tamias

Originally Posted by O'nus

How is it flawed? Animals cannot distinguish that it is a separate being whereas humans can eventually distinguish this.

You haven't proven this.

Originally Posted by O'nus

- Animals cannot distinguish the fact that other beings think. As far as animals know, they are the only ones that think. Thus, it is very well possibel that they may think consciously - I cannot argue that. However, we can see, empirically, that they cannot recognize the fact that other beings have a separate and exclusive conscious.

You don't know what animals know. You're empirical evidence is insufficient.

OK, I'm out of here.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You haven't proven this.

You don't know what animals know. You're empirical evidence is insufficient.

OK, I'm out of here.

At that point, I was merely trying to make clear what I was arguing, and what these studies aim to argue.

Here are further empirical studies through videos that can show how this is believed to be factual:

Egocentricism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OinqFgsIbh0
Overview of Piaget: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcjPkPIwsog

These studies are conducted with humans. Give the following premise, we can allow this as evidence; the development of humans ability to distinguish an externally existing consciousness from there own is analogous to an animals ability.

With that accepted, then we can see how the children cannot imagine what the other humans is perceiving (ie. the boy in the first video assumes that the girl, on the other side of the mountain, see's what he see's.) Further, the object permanence in the second video shows how the child assumes that only what they see is what is factual and existent. Once a toy if concealed at all, even if just underneath a blanket, they assume that it no longer exists whatsoever.

Transferring these experiments to animals, we see how animals are incapable of distinguishing separate existances on the exact same experimental designs.

What do you think...?
~

What do you think...?

It was fun.
I'm outta here too.