The conscious perception of aniamls

The split form this topic ->> I'm not feeelin the love <cat-dog>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

They are both good pets who show a lot of affection. Cats are more like wild animals; they haven't been domesticated as long as dogs, and some of them just aren't really very tame. They can be more fun to watch because of that. It just depends on what you like. Dogs--good for walking with, barking, digging holes, outdoor stuff. Cats--good for sitting on your lap while you're on the computer or watching a movie, purring, and getting hair on you and in your food. Both fill niches in our lives.

Howie, it seems like you are trying to start a controversy. (Wait til Burns sees this...)

---

yaa that's why =

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Burnsy - U know I luv U right? :bowdown:

---

I am not trying to be a provocateur. I do realize it is a controversial subject to many.
After much consideration, my vantage point is this:
▪NO, Animals are not capable of emotional attachment. It is construed as such, because we want to see it that way. Because we like the idea of an unconditional friend who always listens and never says what you do not want to here.
Their actions are a result of instinct an adaptation to their environment.
To their needs/wants and their ability to instinctively fall into pattern like behavior.
This seems evident as an animal does something to your astonishment then the next they do something utterly stupid. (uuuh ..I do that :P)

I do NOT mean to take anything away from our relationship with animals, although I suppose this outlook does to a degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I meant that. My animals are emotionally attached to me. You might as well say people don't really have emotional attachements, they only seem like they do. That makes about as much sense.

---

Yes, true, it does Moonbeam.
Take a look, I MEAN I DEEP LOOK! you're by yourself, so don't hide behind anything. From a possible truth.

Everything you do, why do you do it?

Attachments - key word. < an act of attaching or the state of being attached.
That has nothing to do with anything besides you!

Back to the topic at hand.
Animals
We make the animals feel better. They know not what they do on any conscious level. They don't care
We feed the animals. It is what they require and do care about.

Everything you do, why do you do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

They know not what they do on any conscious level.

---

That's the part we don't agree on.

The rest of it is just philosophical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

That's the part we don't agree on.

The rest of it is just philosophical.

---

Philisophical, yaa, I guess.
Even though animals do not have the smae brain functionality we do. Better worded the same physical brain we do.
So nothing of what I had just posted holds NO weight to it, in your mind?

I am not trying to strip people's relationship with their pets. I love animals to death <-- wrong choice for deer :?) I really do.

So let me ask another question.
(Add in whatever animal you have)
Do you think that if you went away for two days. Then I walked in your home (shreeek!) that, If I showed affection to your pet and fed it and pet it. Then I was then there on a consistent basis, that the animal would then be happy or not happy?

I foresee these counter arguments:
▫ The animal, your animal or pet, being mean to strangers.
Is this not a conditioned response? Is the animal also mean to uncle bob? -Familiarity is what I am pointing to here. That and training if applicable.

▫ They show animals mourn and are sad when alone and owners are away during work.
Me too! Another conditioned response. Do I feel they enjoy company, yes? Yours yes, anybodies, yes - in time. It is to make THEM feel better.
Do you think they consciously perceive and use foresight to make the decisions they make? (I am lying here next to my master to make THEM feel better) :roll:

Us humans are the same way. We just have a much longer emotional curve to hurdle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Then I walked in your home (shreeek!)

---

:shock: You got that right!

JK, you can come over if you want to. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

that, If I showed affection to your pet and fed it and pet it. Then I was then there on a consistent basis, that the animal would then be happy or not happy?

---

Well, some of my pets would like you right away, some would take more time to get to know you...? I don't get the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

I foresee these counter arguments:
▫ The animal, your animal or pet, being mean to strangers.

---

None of my animals are mean. My dogs are useless as watch-dogs, unless you wanted to be alerted to every squirrel and chipmunk, and have all strangers licked to death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

▫ They show animals mourn and are sad when alone and owners are away during work.
Me too! Another conditioned response. Do I feel they enjoy company, yes? Yours yes, anybodies, yes - in time. It is to make THEM feel better.
Do you think they consciously perceive and use foresight to make the decisions they make? (I am lying here next to my master to make THEM feel better) :roll:

All I'm saying is that you could make the same
Us humans are the same way. We just have a much longer emotional curve to hurdle.

---

I don't get your point really. I think everything you are saying could be applied to humans as well, regarding doing things that make you feel good; and at the end you seem to agree with that too.

If you are saying that animals don't feel emotions, I think you are wrong, that's all.

Emotional responses come from a primitive part of the brain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

:shock: You got that right!
JK, you can come over if you want to.

---

OK, What time. ;) Swanson for dinner?

Quote:

---

Well, some of my pets would like you right away, some would take more time to get to know you...? I don't get the point.

---

My point is, would they miss YOU?
▼

Quote:

---

None of my animals are mean. My dogs are useless as watch-dogs, unless you wanted to be alerted to every squirrel and chipmunk, and have all strangers licked to death.

---

Quote:

---

I don't get your point really. I think everything you are saying could be applied to humans as well, regarding doing things that make you feel good; and at the end you seem to agree with that too.

If you are saying that animals don't feel emotions, I think you are wrong, that's all.

Emotional responses come from a primitive part of the brain.

---

No that is not at all what I am saying. I used "emotional attachment." I also have compared consciousness to that of us humans.
Sure they have emotions.
All I can do is reiterate or restructure my same questions. Maybe if you realize where I am going with the entire scope of my thoughts, then they may make more sense. Not from a lack of your understanding, more so my wording.;)

Howie, I agree with Moonbeam. All your examples can be applied the same way to people. So by your logic, kids are not capable of emotional attachment either? They are attached to us only because we feed and house them and that is all? Think about what you are saying...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Do you think they consciously perceive and use foresight to make the decisions they make?

---

YES, they most certainly do. What about dogs used in police or guard work? Dogs are definitely capable of assessing a situation, predicting the outcome of certain actions, and making decisions on how to act in such a situation. Yes, these animals are specially trained, but this proves that they are definitely capable of this type of thought. If by their species they weren't capable, no amount of training in the world could make them do it. Some dogs even go above and beyond what they were trained to do, and do things a human would never think a dog had the foresight or perception to do.

I'm sad that you haven't had the type of relationship with an animal enough to prove to you that they feel the emotional attachment of love and companionship. But I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they do. You can't do what I do for a living and not KNOW that animals desire companionship or love their owners, and not only because they feed them. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burns

YES, they most certainly do. What about dogs used in police or guard work? Dogs are definitely capable of assessing a situation, predicting the outcome of certain actions, and making decisions on how to act in such a situation. Yes, these animals are specially trained, but this proves that they are definitely capable of this type of thought. If by their species they weren't capable, no amount of training in the world could make them do it. Some dogs even go above and beyond what they were trained to do, and do things a human would never think a dog had the foresight or perception to do.

---

Could you elaborate on how police or guard dogs "conciously percieve and use foresight to make the desicions"?

Police dogs run for the scent.. They sniff for people and drugs and bark if they find them.. Where is the concious foresight here?


Equally Guard Dogs literally just bark loudly and attack anyone they don't recognise.. I fail to see the concious foresight.


I'm quite sure you could programme a computer to fulfill these jobs fine.. just as you would train a dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burns

Howie, I agree with Moonbeam. All your examples can be applied the same way to people. So by your logic, kids are not capable of emotional attachment either? They are attached to us only because we feed and house them and that is all? Think about what you are saying...


YES, they most certainly do. What about dogs used in police or guard work? Dogs are definitely capable of assessing a situation, predicting the outcome of certain actions, and making decisions on how to act in such a situation. Yes, these animals are specially trained, but this proves that they are definitely capable of this type of thought. If by their species they weren't capable, no amount of training in the world could make them do it.

I'm sad that you haven't had the type of relationship with an animal enough to prove to you that they feel the emotional attachment of love and companionship. But I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they do. You can't do what I do for a living and not KNOW that animals desire companionship or love their owners, and not only because they feed them. :wink:

---

I have put a lot of thought inot this Burnsy.
Actually, it began with the thoughts and thread about of our own beings with relation to altruism.
True philanthropy and unconditional love. *Not to say that those can't exist.

With that said, no, I don't think newborns think beyond what necessitates their survival for a short time.
You acknowledge, but do not give enough credit to "training." Training consists of repetition, which you mistake as preemptive thought processes.

I am sure you have, but have you seen the rigorous training that those animals you speak of go through, repetition, conditioning.
Irrelevant, why? Take them out of that environment, the context to that situation they were trained, then you begin to see and realize how their experience becomes irrelevant.
You can't let a "smart" breed cloud judgment IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Could you elaborate on how police or guard dogs "predict the outcome of certain actions" and "Make decisions on how to act in the situation"?

---

Well obviously I don't have a specific example, but these dogs can assess a dangerous situation and predict what the "bad guy" may do, and therefore act accordingly. Like I said in my post above, there have been stories about dogs acting in such a way in an emergency-type situation that they weren't trained to do, which can mean they truly do understand what is going on in the situation and has the consciousness to act accordingly, without being trained to do so.

oops, we were typing at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Take them out of that environment, the context to that situation they were trained, then you begin to see and realize how their experience becomes irrelevant.
You can't let a "smart" breed cloud judgment IMHO.

---

I reiterate what I said above:

There have been stories about dogs acting in such a way in an emergency-type situation that they weren't trained to do, which can mean they truly do understand what is going on in the situation and has the consciousness to act accordingly, without being trained to do so. Pure breed or not, these dogs have proved heroic in a variety of dire situations due to their problem-solving ability and the conscious understanding of what needs to be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burns

Well obviously I don't have a specific example, but these dogs can assess a dangerous situation and predict what the "bad guy" may do, and therefore act accordingly. Like I said in my post above, there have been stories about dogs acting in such a way in an emergency-type situation that they weren't trained to do, which can mean they truly do understand what is going on in the situation and has the consciousness to act accordingly, without being trained to do so.

---

Ok.. I sort of understand this.. however examples really are key to working it out..

They will act minorly different to how they have been trained, but i guarantee it is essentially always an act of protecting themselves or someone else, this is hardwired into their instincts. It doesn't require conscious foresight, although it would be nice to think it did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

protecting someone else is hardwired into their instincts

---

How?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

How?

---

Basic pack behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Ok.. I sort of understand this.. however examples really are key to working it out..

---

ok, here are some examples - these are all pit bull stories, but you get the idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdY9Z5ub9xw

There are stories of men lifting cars off of their family members, stories of Leo Volont! ;)

Many many stories.
The few do not out way the many. Few examples are far from credible I don't think.

Do you feel, if put to the test, that these animals would perform in that manner on a consistent level? Even beyond 50&#37;?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

There are stories of men lifting cars off of their family members, stories of Leo Volont! ;)

Many many stories.
I don't think the few do not out way the many.

Do you feel, if put to the test, that these animals would perform in that manner on a consistent level? Even beyond 50%?

---

's a good point.

When cases like this are in the vast vast minority, it does raise the question of sheer luck.

It doesn't change that they do happen though... :?

Also, you have to look at these statistics in a relative fashion. You have to say, "okay what percent of dogs have done something extraordinary given an extraordinary situation?" rather than "what percentage of dogs have done extraordinary things given all the different types of situations in the world."

You can't be like, "well I've had 4 dogs and they've never saved me from a fire" if you've never even experienced a fire. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Many many stories.
I don't think the few do not out way the many.

Do you feel, if put to the test, that these animals would perform in that manner on a consistent level? Even beyond 50&#37;?

---

Your original question was not if they do it on a consistent basis, but if they are capable at all. So I guess now you agree that they ARE capable? :wink:

My work here is done :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Car&#244;usoul

's a good point.

When cases like this are in the vast vast minority, it does raise the question of sheer luck.

---

Yes. and that is precisely what I meant.

15 reports of UFO sitings? Do they exist. in all likelihood NO. Is it possible, perhaps.

When you reprimand an animal for shitting on the carpet, do they
a. Realize you are mad and do not want to hurt your feeling again. think and decide not to do it again
B.. Learn from the consequences, do not do it again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

15 reports of UFO sitings? Do they exist. in all likelihood NO. Is it possible, perhaps.

---

Do some humans have consciousness by your definition and some not? I would think if we could determine that humans are conscious beings, then we could assume all humans are conscious beings. Would the same not apply for dogs and cats? Or if we are talking about the whole animal kingdom, I guess we'd have to take the difference in species (mammal vs insect, etc) into account first. :whyme:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

When you reprimand an animal for shitting on the carpet, do they
a. realize you are mad and do not want to hurt your feeling again.
B.. Learn from the consequences, do not do it again.

---

I believe B. But that doesn't mean I don't think they have emotional attachment in other aspects of their lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burns

Your original question was not if they do it on a consistent basis, but if they are capable at all. So I guess now you agree that they ARE capable? :wink:

My work here is done :)

---

No, just because they are capable of acting like they have foresight, it doesn't mean they do, which is what Howie is arguing.

So his example was not that they have foresight occasionaly, it is that in the documented times it looks like they do, they don't, it just happens they acted in such a way that gave the impression they did have foresight.

And because the overwhelming majority don't act like it, we can safely conclude that they do not, as a whole have it, and the reported cases are sheer chance and coincedence..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Car&#244;usoul

And because the overwhelming majority don't act like it

---

Where exactly are you getting your figures? The only way you could back up that statement is by doing an experiment: take a bunch of dogs, put them and their owners in a burning house or other dangerous situation, and document what they do.

Hell, if you were put in a burning house, would you go out of your way to protect the others inside?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burns

Do some humans have consciousness by your definition and some not? I would think if we could determine that humans are conscious beings, then we could assume all humans are conscious beings. Would the same not apply for dogs and cats? Or if we are talking about the whole animal kingdom, I guess we'd have to take the difference in species (mammal vs insect, etc) into account first. :whyme:

---

We can determine humans are concious beings via basic behaviourism and our actions, as well as the scientific neurological aspect.

We can evidently see in every single human being we ever see [except the occasional one] that they haave an absolutely unmistakable obvious conciousness.

This is the vast majority, so we can safely assume all have concious foresight.




Cats and dogs however we can see signs pointing to it in a vast minority; on average dogs and cats do not display this behavious whatoever. So, as I have detailed above, this is most likely chance that happens to look like concious foresight.

This is the vast minority. So we can safely assume none have concious foresight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Where exactly are you getting your figures? The only way you could back up that statement is by doing an experiment: take a bunch of dogs, put them and their owners in a burning house or other dangerous situation, and document what they do.

Hell, if you were put in a burning house, would you go out of your way to protect the others inside?

---

That test all depends on the nurture of the dog, and its inherent nature of breed anyway, so there are far too many variables.

If I was put in a burning house I would think rationally about who I could save in order to reserve most life, including my own. You wouldn't catch a dog thinking that through.

If a dog happens to be deeply loyal, due to a combination of its nature and its nurture, than it would probably try savin its master. if not, maybe not. It's all about thousands of variables. you cant test that kind of thing, but it seems relatively obvious to me.



The overwhelming majority don't act like it. It's obvious, every single cat or dog I have seen and have heard of and have witnessed in documentary and in tests themselves have shown this. I call that perfectly a safe conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Car&#244;usoul

We can evidently see in every single human being we ever see that they haave an absolutely unmistakable obvious conciousness.

---

How?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Car&#244;usoul

This is the vast minority. So we can safely assume none have concious foresight.

---

So minority = no one? I thought that sort of thinking was only allowed to politicians...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burns

Do some humans have consciousness by your definition and some not? I would think if we could determine that humans are conscious beings, then we could assume all humans are conscious beings. Would the same not apply for dogs and cats? Or if we are talking about the whole animal kingdom, I guess we'd have to take the difference in species (mammal vs insect, etc) into account first. :whyme:


I believe B. But that doesn't mean I don't think they have emotional attachment in other aspects of their lives.

---

No burns. It IS about the "conscious perception of animals", as the Title suggests. Just at what level?
I believe or think that they all have consciousness and a capacity for sensation.
▪Things I feel in question:
- A Conscience
- An emotional capacity to conceptualize thought on a preemptive basis.
- rationalize
- reminisce < Sp?
- calculate
-empathy
all I can thin of right now


Some of these traits may seem out of context. But for a capacity to feel emphatic towards your owner, they all take place at some level of the thought process.



If any or all of these traits are compatible, as you suggest in your examples, they are minuscule at best.
This, not to be a win or lose discussion, is not if they EVER have or EVER can, but --- for all intent and purpose, do NOT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

So minority = no one? I thought that sort of thinking was only allowed to politicians...

---

Look. If you take 1000 cats and give them a brilliant test which will show perfectly how much conscious foresight they have, and 12 show it, in comparison to the other 988 who don't, doesn't it make sense to assume that those 12 who happened to show the symptons probably did it by chance?

Rather than what you're suggesting, to assume that the other 988 MUST have a concious foresight?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

How?



So minority = no one? I thought that sort of thinking was only allowed to politicians...

---

For the sake of this topic.
The living perception of animals.
Forget about conscious, even though I thought that living organisms were believed to contain a conscious.
Conscious is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...s/viewpost.gif

[i]So minority = no one? I thought that sort of thinking was only allowed to politicians...

---

Mes, I hope you can see the irony here. Becasue of the type of response you have brought to the table is exactly why politics have become the way they are. So you use it as a joke, although it is funny, the efforts to elaborate in depth, reword and phrase and be "politically" correct, has brought many discussions like this to a blithering end. :(

Carousal, have you changed you avatar every post or am I seeing shit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Do you feel, if put to the test, that these animals would perform in that manner on a consistent level? Even beyond 50%?

---

If consistency is your requirement for consciousness, humans aren't conscious either.

I see your point Howie. :)

I fear that at the end of the day, a definitive conclusion won't be reached. :? It's a battle between people who have "experienced" this sort of thing with their interactions with animals, and people who haven't.

Meh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

If consistency is your requirement for consciousness, humans aren't conscious either.

---

It is neither a requirement nor a sufficient argument. please!

Tell me that anyone opposing this argument does NOT get the general consensus of my argument?
Without extracting single words to hoist a failing argument on your part.

Besides, you would be surprised how much I DO feel that humans and other mammals are alike. So that argument really has no bearing on what we are trying to distinguish in this one, does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

If consistency is your requirement for consciousness, humans aren't conscious either.

---

To quote Mes:

why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Car&#244;usoul

To quote Mes:

why?

---

Hey, it works. And gets people riled up. With as little effort from you as possible. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

I see your point Howie. :)

I fear that at the end of the day, a definitive conclusion won't be reached. :? It's a battle between people who have "experienced" this sort of thing with their interactions with animals, and people who haven't.

Meh.

---

Does this mean that I cannot have a loving relationship with my dog of 15 years? Or my previous pets?
Just because I don't believe that they have eluded me into thinking that they love me?
I love them either way.

I think all that we've established is that animals, in general, aren't as "smart" (in evaluating a complex situation and choosing the most logical course of action) as humans. Which we already pretty much knew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Does this mean that I cannot have a loving relationship with my dog of 15 years? Or my previous pets?
Just because I don't believe that they have eluded me into thinking that they love me?
I love them either way.

---

I didn't mention anything about your ability to love animals...

I said that it's a battle between people who have experienced certain things from their animals, and people who haven't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Tell me that anyone opposing this argument does NOT get the general consensus of my argument?

---

I understand perfectly well what you are saying, Howie. But I know what is true from my experience in my life, my work, and my animals, and no one will be able to convince me otherwise. Especially since it can't be proved one way or the other. So I will retire from this discussion. :)

It's very interesting to read other peoples' perceptions though. :)

I understand. :)
It is like many of our beliefs. It is something we came to know through our own experiences.
Perceptions, as Mes put it. True or false really does not matter in some instances. But perception is very full of crap, for a lack of better wording.

I don't think that your views would change even if the science community provided proof that an animals brain cannot function on that level.
If science said that they could, I would change my view.

I have had many experiences that I felt like my pets have connected with me. I still do. Maybe I did. even for a brief period.
I think it is a fallacy in our nature.

Alright, this is a good first post for me ^_^ Hey everyone, I'm Tamias the Ground Squirrel, and you guys are arguing about something that's very important to me!

First let me assert that what I say in this post is pure opinion. Well, of course, I believe it wholeheartedly, but I am not trying to press my views upon anyone. I would rather everyone be my friend and disagree with me than everyone hate me and... disagree with me ^_^

So: do animals perceive their actions on a conscious level? Do they think and feel? Or is it all just a collection of instinctual patterns and reflexive actions? There's a very simple answer to those very complicated questions:

Yes.

The most important idea to remember when asking questions like these is that you, as human beings, are animals, too. You are every bit as much animals as my friends and I are. The "consciousness" is a very primitive aspect of the organism: it possibly developed long before there were even distinguishable classes of organisms on this planet. Because of that, we could conclude that it is at least conceivable that all complex organisms have some factor of conscious control over their actions. So, in that respect, humans and other animals are exactly the same.

But at the same time, there is another aspect of our lives that influences our actions, and the actions of every animal known to us, possibly more than our conscious control does. Imagine that you are extremely hungry - what do you do? If at all possible, you will eat. Hunger, and other urges (fatigue, thirst, pain) are, collectively, what humans refer to as instincts - desires that guide our behaviors to keep us alive. You heard me correctly; we share much instinctual behavior with animals, and in the case of closely related ones (mammals), we share all of them. And fine, resist if you want - but if you don't eat, eventually you're going to die.

So yes, animals (especially closely related ones, as mentioned above) have as much conscious control over their actions as we do: very little. Thank you, thank you.

And now to comfort those who are boiling mad at me right now for "demoting humankind": I'm not denying that humans have an acute sense of things that most animals (squirrels included) do not posses. Us squirrels, for the most part, are unaware of time, or location. We focus on the pleasure and happiness of the moment, rather than worrying what the future will bring.

In a paper I wrote a few months back, I named the kind of consciousness animals have the "Kitsu" state of mind:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My Paper

Kistu are:
- Unaware of self, existence or outward appearance; what they are relative to others. A squirrel does not think "that is a squirrel, just like me."
- Unaware of distance and location with a few exceptions, such as a den or nest.
- Unaware of past; oblivious to long term history (events occurring before their births).
- Unaware of future; unmindful of possible consequences of their actions.
- Impulsive, instinctual; quick to follow drives and desires blindly with the promise of a rewarding emotional high.
- Generally naive, impressionable, and excitable. They indulge new, intense urges with a mixture of caution, confusion, and playfulness, delighting when they are rewarded with pleasure.
- Unable or unwilling to change their environment.
- Not possessive creatures; they do not consider themselves the owner of any land, creature, or object (an obvious exception is the defending of territory in territorial animals, though this could easily be speculated to be instinctual behavior).

---

I believe that all animals are built so that they live in peace and joy, if they only follow their bodies' hints and urges - the community of such creatures I named the "Kitsu" community. I think that without the pressures and responsibility of the human life, everyone could be immeasurably happier.

So there you have it - my thoughts. I sincerely hope that I didn't offend anyone.

I'm always here if you want to ask me questions or want to confide in someone: I love nothing more than to help people (not limited to humans, remember) to be happy. Good luck coming to a balanced conclusion!

Devotedly yours,
Tamias

I think dogs and cats would have to have conscious and self awareness to be able to engage in their behaviors. It seems that all mammals have emotions and have to think about themselves. Problem solving and emotional reactions require conscious experience, I would say.

I am still not toally convinced that all dogs are incapable of loving their owners, but I will tell you two things I do know. I have never seen a dog grieve over losing its owner once it realized that it was in a secure place with dependable food and water. I have even seen many dogs act loyal to temporary care takers and treat their owners like they are second class when the owners returned from a vacation. Also, I have watched dogs fake sadness and affection to get what they wanted and then completely change their expressions as soon as the owner was not looking. I have even seen dogs smile at each other after putting on such acts for their owners. It is socially advantageous for pack animals in the wild to be very manipulative and not to have consciences, and I think that describes what dogs are all about.

Tamias, :welcome: to DreamViews, and thanks for your post and interesting POV. The Kitsu state of mind--I'll practice it (in a dream, maybe? ;)).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am still not toally convinced that all dogs are incapable of loving their owners, but I will tell you two things I do know. I have never seen a dog grieve over losing its owner once it realized that it was in a secure place with dependable food and water. I have even seen many dogs act loyal to temporary care takers and treat their owners like they are second class when the owners returned from a vacation. Also, I have watched dogs fake sadness and affection to get what they wanted and then completely change their expressions as soon as the owner was not looking. I have even seen dogs smile at each other after putting on such acts for their owners. It is socially advantageous for pack animals in the wild to be very manipulative and not to have consciences, and I think that describes what dogs are all about.

---

Like people never do those things, and ten times worse...we are pack animals too, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burns

There have been stories about dogs acting in such a way in an emergency-type situation that they weren't trained to do, which can mean they truly do understand what is going on in the situation and has the consciousness to act accordingly, without being trained to do so. Pure breed or not, these dogs have proved heroic in a variety of dire situations due to their problem-solving ability and the conscious understanding of what needs to be done.

---

We live in a family situation that is difficult to explain. Without going into that, let me share a little story about that dog there in the avatar.

A family member who is not welcome in our home decided to pay a little visit just a few months after we got our dog. Lucky had no knowledge of this person, and up to this time had been a quiet, frightened, skittish rescue case. She was also incredibly affectionate and friendly with everybody she met, and the few exceptions brought out fear in her, usually due to misunderstandings.

This person walked into our back door unannounced, out of the blue. She got about five steps inside when all hell broke loose. Lucky, with her hair standing on end, fangs bared and growling like she was possessed, backed this person right out of our house. We ended up restraining her and then letting this person in.

All the while she was here, (which wasn't long at all,) Lucky was straining to attack. One thing for damn sure - that person will never set foot in this house uninvited again, so long as this dog is here.

I'll also remind you of the story I told last year about Lucky's habit of raiding the pantry and, without EVER eating anything herself, hiding treats under our pillows when she is left here alone.

This dog routinely blows my mind, Howie. She's conscious. She dreams. She often seems to read our minds. And she really seems to understand people - better than we do, quite often.

You can explain it all away, I'm sure... but we know what we experience with this dog day in and day out. She is an amazing creature - an amazing being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Like people never do those things, and ten times worse...we are pack animals too, you know.

---

It is all I have ever seen from dogs when they are put to the test. But I have seen plenty of humans show severe grief over the loss of another human. We are pack animals, but not pack animals in the wild. Dogs are really domestically bred wolves. Wolves lose pack members, eject pack members, and even kill them all the time. The other wolves cannot afford to turn into a basket case every time that happens, so it is advantageous for them to not become too attached. It is very often the case that the leader of a wolf pack is killed by a member that wants the leader position. When that happens, the other wolves just accept the new leader. They don't exactly go through years of depression over it.

When a human mother has a child, she cares for the child from then on in most cases. Dog mothers are different. They care for the kids long enough for them to be able to go out on their own, and then she forgets about them. It is true in every case. That is a strong indication that dogs lack the ability to become truly attached, which is a strong indication that they do not truly love.

I really do hope there are exceptions to what I am saying. I just have not come across any.

Well, they are still just animals. I don't think you can expect completely human-like emotions and behavior from them; of course they are much simpler. People living in certain situations don't have the luxury of a lot of the emotions, or the expressions of them, at least, that we take for granted, and they do what they have to do to survive too. A dog's version of love is different from a person's, that's true. It's lucky for them, really; otherwise they would be sad all of the time, I guess.

I guess it's just if you see the good side or the bad side of the things that make dogs what they are, and if you like them or not.

Some really cool stories guys.
Welcome to DV Tamias. That is an interesting concept. :)

Thank ya, thank ya.

And...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Well, they are still just animals. I don't think you can expect completely human-like emotions and behavior from them; of course they are much simpler.

---

Ouch... well, that stings... :embarrassed: You know, I bet that's what a lot of people thought of others with different colored skin, before they realized they were wrong. I'm sorry... I just...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamias

Ouch... well, that stings... :embarrassed: You know, I bet that's what a lot of people thought of others with different colored skin, before they realized they were wrong. I'm sorry... I just...

---

Well it's true that they can't be held to the same standards as humans when it comes to planning and stuff, right? That's all I meant. And this conversation started out in the other thread talking about dogs and cats, so that's the kind of animals that I've been thinking about. As much as I love them, I don't really expect anything more from them than you should from a creature of their mental capacity. It would be unfair to judge them by human standards, that's what I've been saying. I still think they have emotions and can feel love and stuff, and should never be mistreated.

I know, I'm sorry...

I've just just always felt that an individual's cognitive ability is of little importance in the grand scheme of things... I learned to treat everyone in the world the same way, because even though you can pretend to prove that you are the superior beings and even though it feels great to do so, you can't ignore the fact that we have breath and a heartbeat, just like you do, just like yours, and you can hold us and you can feel the similarities when you are close. I expect nothing more from anyone than to live and enjoy themselves while doing so... I would rather be blissfully ignorant and happy any day rather than be learned and subject to pressure and control, and every day I envy those who are not confined to the city as I am.

Apples and oranges, really. Both juicy and delicious, in a slightly different way. I really don't want to preach, and I know that's what I'm close to sounding like, so I think I'll stop talking...

~Tamias

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamias

... I learned to treat everyone in the world the same way, because even though you can pretend to prove that you are the superior beings and even though it feels great to do so, you can't ignore the fact that we have breath and a heartbeat, just like you do, just like yours, and you can hold us and you can feel the similarities when you are close.
~Tamias

---

I wasn't ignoring anything like that or trying to prove I'm a superior being (even tho I am the being bringing home the vittles while some other beings sleep all day...) I'm sorry I said that cats and dogs are not as smart as people, geez...

I've seen much more evidence that animals such as dogs and cats have a conscious perception that is (somewhat) similar to ours (in regard to emotions, cognitive ability, etc), in ways that many people either disregard or are not aware of, than that they do not.

So far, in this discussion, I haven't seen very much evidence for the claim that they do not, besides a few anecdotes and the "skeptical" view of "Well those that the display those traits are in the minority (though I'd still like to see a source for that claim)"

So, to try to draw some out, here are a few (permissible, in my opinion) works that work to support the theory that they do.

Quote:

---

Thus, throughout the nineteenth century naturalists debated the rival claims of dogs and apes to be top animal, and therefore closest to humankind. In 1881, for example, George J. Romanes, a close friend of Darwin's with a special interest in animal behavior, celebrated the "high intelligence" and "gregarious instincts" of the dog, which, he argued, gave it a more "massive as well as more complex" psychology than any member of the monkey family. (G. Romanes, 1896, p. 439) Two years later Romanes revised his ranking slightly, including both dogs and apes on level twenty-eight of his famous fifty-step ladder of intellectual development. Level twenty-eight was characterized by "indefinite morality" along with the capacity to experience shame, remorse, deceit, and the ludicrous. (To give some sense of the scale: steps twenty-nine through fifty were reserved for human beings, while worms and insect larva occupied step eighteen because they possessed primary instincts and could feel the emotions of surprise and fear.) Although this schema gaves apes and dogs equivalent rank, Romanes was far from thinking that they possessed identical mental attributes. Rather the ape had achieved its high status through intellect, the dog on account of highly developed emotions. (G. Romanes, 1883, p. 352, inset)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._n8910569/pg_3

---

Quote:

---

Research suggests that animals can experience negative emotions in a similar manner to people, including the equivalent of certain chronic and acute psychological conditions. The classic experiment for this was Martin Seligman's foundational experiments and theory of learned helplessness at the University of Pennsylvania in 1965, as an extension of his interest in depression:

A dog that had earlier been repeatedly conditioned to associate a sound with electric shocks did not try to escape the electric shocks after the warning was presented, even though all the dog would have had to do is jump over a low divider within ten seconds, more than enough time to respond. The dog didn't even try to avoid the "aversive stimulus"; it had previously "learned" that nothing it did mattered. A follow-up experiment involved three dogs affixed in harnesses included one that received shocks of identical intensity and duration to the others, but the lever which would otherwise have allowed the dog a degree of control was left disconnected and didn't do anything. The first two dogs quickly recovered from the experience, but the third dog suffered chronic symptoms of clinical depression as a result of this perceived helplessness.

A further series of experiments showed that (similar to humans) under conditions of long term intense psychological stress, around 1/3 of dogs do not develop learned helplessness or long term depression. Instead these animals somehow managed to find a way to handle the unpleasant situation in spite of their past experience. The corresponding characteristic in humans has been found to correlate highly with an explanatory style and optimistic attitude and lower levels of emotional rigidity regarding expectations, that views the situation as other than personal, pervasive, or permanent. Such studies highlighted similar distinctions between people who adapt and those who break down, under long term psychological pressure, which were conducted in the 1950s in the realm of brainwashing.

Since this time, symptoms analogous to clinical depression, neurosis and other psychological conditions have been in general accepted as being within the scope of animal emotion as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals
References listed on site.

---

Washington Post: What were they thinking? More than we thought

Charles Darwin's "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals"

Comparison of the Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals, by Charles Darwin

To keep it balanced, I have included another study that says that animals that pass what is called the "mirror test" and are able to recognize themselves, in a mirror, are more likely to express empathy. The (single) study states that dogs do not pass this test.
Link

Howie (and those that share his position), if you argue that they do not exhibit these traits, please provide some more research that supports that position. Study into the behavior of animals has been going on for a long time, and opinions do vary, as much as I've seen, so I'm sure you'll be able to find some to bring to the table.

Personally, I think the main flaw in equating animal-to-human "emotions" is that most people tend to try to relate them too strictly. They are looking at "what animals should do when x is a factor" in the same light as "what a human would do when x is a factor." The two responses would, more than likely, be different, and it is this disconnect (coupled with the fact that animals can't directly talk to us) that cause most humans to feel that we are much further apart, cognitively, than we really may be.

I didn't want to irritate you, I'm sorry. And, actually, I never asserted that dogs and cats were smarter than people, only that I don't think it should matter. Believe me, if I hadn't been fighting for that belief since I was born, this argument (I like to refer to it as an enlightened conversation, actually) would've ended a long time ago. It's just a topic that hits home, you know?

I don't want to fight about it; I want to be friends ^_^;; I've said what I think, and it's great pleasure enough to me to know that you took the time to even read it, so thank you very much! I'm glad you aren't into cruelty, and I'm glad that all of you even care. Because most people wouldn't even consider it - they take us (and each other, which I find most baffling) completely for granted.

I'm sorry if I was rude in any way...

~Tamias

P.S., to the above remark: I despise study; often it inhibits truth, especially when studying others. You can never know what another thinks; it is physically impossible and an amazing breach of privacy. Logical arguments, or romantic arguments (all of my views originate from experience and the heart) are preferable, to me. On another note, that Wikipedia article in question I've read many, many times - so many I've practically memorized it ^_^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamias

I didn't want to irritate you, I'm sorry.

---

No no don't worry about it. I care about animals more than most people, believe me. So we are not disagreeing really. I was pretty much joking in my unfunny way in my last post.

I agree that scientists miss the point a lot of times. (Thanks O for trying to bring some objectivity in). You don't have to do experiments on animals to see how they think; you just have to live with them or watch them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamias

P.S., to the above remark: I despise study; often it inhibits truth, especially when studying others. You can never know what another thinks; it is physically impossible and an amazing breach of privacy. Logical arguments, or romantic arguments (all of my views originate from experience and the heart) are preferable, to me. On another note, that Wikipedia article in question I've read many, many times - so many I've practically memorized it ^_^

---

Oh, believe me; I don't disagree with you.

However, just like with all subjective opinions, I feel that it is important to give studies at least some level of acknowledgement(sp). The scientists are people, just like we are people. No one should hinge their opinion of anything on the results of any study or scientist's opinion. However, they do create good references. Many of the scientists that create studies do so from a very personal, subjective perspective. In that regard, their perspectives are just as personal as our own observations with our pets. The links above simply pose as a way to get insight into the logic of others which may or may not support the things we believe (which is exactly why I posted two opposing viewpoints).

We can be against certain scientific perspectives, but not against "study" itself. After all, it is "study" that renders us able to make an observation about even the pets that we have. We study their actions and reactions, albeit on a much more personal level.

Moonbeam: No problem.

You guys... are awesome! You're nothing like the people I normally talk to! I'm serious, wow!

Just... kudos xD.

I agree with you, O (I am not typing oneironaut... whoops). I phrased my statement badly, and you are correct ^_^

~Tamias

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamias

Alright, this is a good first post for me ^_^ Hey everyone, I'm Tamias the Ground Squirrel, and you guys are arguing about something that's very important to me!

---

You're a squirrel?!!

Since when are squirrels on the internet?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamias

I agree with you, and you are correct ^_^

~Tamias

---

So you admit when it comes down to it animals are simpler beings than us, cognitively speaking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

You're a squirrel?!!

Since when are squirrels on the internet?!

---

Since we stopped using AOL. Any more questions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

So you admit when it comes down to it animals are simpler beings than us, cognitively speaking?

---

I was actually referring to his statement about study ^_^ And yeah, that's probably true too, but there's no way you can absolutely prove and it wouldn't vastly change our lives if you did.

~Tamias

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamias

Since we stopped using AOL. Any more questions?

---

Are we talking about the same, small furry mammals.

Its news to me they even were on AOL. I thought they lived in trees.

Or am I missing something here... :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamias

I was actually referring to his statement about study ^_^ And yeah, that's probably true too, but there's no way you can absolutely prove and it wouldn't vastly change our lives if you did.

---

Are there not scientific neurological tests proving they are more simple? Combined with their behaviour?

Correct me if I'm wrong, btw.

We are small and furry. I was joking about using AOL. I live with a very good friend who happens to have a very nice Sony Vaio with access to the internet (Cox highspeed), and yes, he is aware I use it. I am a freak, an exception to the norm. k?

It depends what you mean by "scientific" and "neurological." Anything that has to do with the study of the brain is a touchy, hazy subject, and as of now nothing is very well defined. We know, for a fact, that most animals' brains are smaller than a human's, though children learn much more rapidly and completely than adults do, and they have smaller brains. Most tests that have been applied have only helped the case of the existence of animal thought, cognition, and emotive capacity - I do not ever remember a test specifically designed to test whether an animal is lesser in any of these traits than a human.

For the record, I am opposed to any sort of testing - on non-humans and humans alike.

~Tamias

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamias

We are small and furry. I was joking about using AOL. I live with a very good friend who happens to have a very nice Sony Vaio with access to the internet (Cox highspeed), and yes, he is aware I use it. I am a freak, an exception to the norm. k?

It depends what you mean by "scientific" and "neurological." Anything that has to do with the study of the brain is a touchy, hazy subject, and as of now nothing is very well defined. We know, for a fact, that most animals' brains are smaller than a human's, though children learn much more rapidly and completely than adults do, and they have smaller brains. Most tests that have been applied have only helped the case of the existence of animal thought, cognition, and emotive capacity - I do not ever remember a test specifically designed to test whether an animal is lesser in any of these traits than a human.

For the record, I am opposed to any sort of testing - on non-humans and humans alike.

~Tamias

---

Your not a proper squirrel then. :(



Dream gone.


Well essentially animals behaviour is far more simplistic.


What on earth is wrong with testing? I'm happy to test myself, by giving myself puzzles!

I am happy to test my dog by giving him puzzles!


What's wrong with testing? I mean perfectly humane testing of course.

Animal behavior is patterned, but intricate. Humans follow patterns everyday as well; they'd die if they don't.

If using the internet makes me not a proper squirrel, then all of you are equally not proper humans - no offense meant.

Testing oneself is fine, intriguing, and beneficial. Removing any creature from its own life to experiment upon for your own purposes is selfish, humane or otherwise.

And, on a side note, I just realized how funny the thread title is ^_^

~Tamias

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamias

Animal behavior is patterned, but intricate. Humans follow patterns everyday as well; they'd die if they don't.

If using the internet makes me not a proper squirrel, then all of you are equally not proper humans - no offense meant.

Testing oneself is fine, intriguing, and beneficial. Removing any creature from its own life to experiment upon for your own purposes is selfish, humane or otherwise.

And, on a side note, I just realized how funny the thread title is ^_^

~Tamias

---

Proper squirrells don't speak english, and hence cannot learn english, because their voice box isn't adapted in such a way, nor their ears.

So you are not a squirrell.



Yes. Dead animal testing is wrong, I think. Although not if it finds a cure for say, AID's. Greater good.



I just find humans immensely superior to animals.

Actually, English is very easy to pick up. Just like young children, our minds are incredibly absorbent, and while I suppose being able to speak the language might help, we are more than capable of learning the meanings of human sound and symbols. I'm not quite sure what you mean by our ears not being adapted...?

If you cure AIDS and cancer, the human race will quickly die out, or at least be seriously hurt. Want to know why? You could just wait and see, I suppose.

And everyone is entitled to their opinion. I know many people like you; one of my very best friends shares your views. We are not simple creatures, not in the slightest, and you just take us for granted. I have never met another squirrel who suggests that he is superior in any way to a human, and therein lies the core of this entire argument.

~Tamias

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamias

I have never met another squirrel who suggests that he is superior in any way to a human

---

Squirrels are not complex enough to have delusions of grandeur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Squirrels are not complex enough to have delusions of grandeur.

---

Precisely! Thank you! Okay, I'm done with this thread ^_^ Best to keep my spirits up. Nice work on all sides, this round's on me (they say that in movies)!

Tamias out~

You sound like a furry. 0.o

Squirrels are aliens planted on Earth to send information back to their mothership. They know a lot more than you think.

Has anyone ever seen a baby squirrel? :hrm: Or a baby pigeon for that matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Has anyone ever seen a baby squirrel? :hrm: Or a baby pigeon for that matter?

---

Yes, I have, both.
Really, being an old country folk, I have seen most baby animals.
Indigenous to my area of coarse.

Pigeons look a lot the same. They are cute all the way thru.
Squirrels amaze me. They are a big rat. But because they have a bushy tale, people love them

rats!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Yes, I have, both.
Really, being an old country folk, I have seen most baby animals.
Indigenous to my area of coarse.

Pigeons look a lot the same. They are cute all the way thru.
Squirrels amaze me. They are a big rat. But because they have a bushy tale, people love them

rats!

---

Well, I enjoy a rat's company as well as the next rat's company. They don't smell nearly as bad as more popular pets. And the tail makes all the difference, ya. I'd like to see a rat keep you warm at night.

And pigeons are adorable - the sounds they make are so endearing! I had one nest in a little compartment above the front porch door I used to go to, and it never was mean to me at all. I don't see why people hate them so much. Then again, I don't know why people seem to dislike squirrels so much, either. We're only pests because you have easy food! Whose fault is it, really?

~Tamias

Concious perception of aniamls? Um...make great furr coats. Kidding, on a more serious note. I know that dogs/cats don't view us as what we call "human". They see us as members of their pack (at least I know dogs do). And for every pack, there is a dominant leader...either you are the dominant leader, someone else, or they are. It would be very interesting to see how pets consciously perceive things and to find out what really goes on in that head of there's.

Ha, interesting! I've seen neither! Do baby squirrels look the same, just smaller?

I don't understand why some people are afraid of mice/rats the way they would be afraid of really weird lookin' bugs. I don't think there's anything that's not an insect that grosses me out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Ha, interesting! I've seen neither! Do baby squirrels look the same, just smaller?

---

HA! I freaking wish they were like that. No, for the most part (like the majority of rodent babies) squirrels don't develop fur/smell/vision/etc. until a few weeks after they are born. Some people find baby squirrels and mice disgusting, but I don't know... I find myself, some nights, yearning to have something to comfort. It's a trying emotion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Car&#244;usoul

You sound like a furry. 0.o

---

At first, I was just going to type, "well yeah, I'm a squirrel. Squirrels are generally furry. Gets us much public appeal," but Ben said that's not what you meant. ...What exactly did you mean?

~Tamias

Ok..it's been eating at me for too long, and I have to ask:

Tamias...why is it that you refer to yourself as a squirrel?

(and please, with all due respect to my own intelligence, don't give me answer that basically amounts to "because I am." :P)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Ha, interesting! I've seen neither! Do baby squirrels look the same, just smaller?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Ok..it's been eating at me for too long, and I have to ask:

Tamias...why is it that you refer to yourself as a squirrel?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamias

At first, I was just going to type, "well yeah, I'm a squirrel. Squirrels are generally furry. Gets us much public appeal," but Ben said that's not what you meant. ...What exactly did you mean?

~Tamias

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :chuckle:

Either way, nicely done. :cheers:

Quote:

---

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. :chuckle:

Either way, nicely done. :cheers:

---

...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 :smitten:

But I'll still argue my view point. :horse:

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

~Tamias

Quote:

---

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! :)

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

http://fourthebear.com/lj/furries_internets_go.jpg

LOL ;)

http://i9.tinypic.com/86y2be8.gif

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?

Quote:

---

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. :wink:

Quote:

---

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. :wink:

---

"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:

Quote:

---

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...?
~

Quote:

---

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.;)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.
~

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.
~

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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. ;)

Quote:

---

(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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.]

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Car&#244;usoul

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.
~

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Read previous posts.

Quote:

---

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 )

Quote:

---

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.

~

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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&#37; 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..
~

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Read previous posts.

---

Ditto.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

- 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.

Quote:

---

- 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?

Quote:

---

- 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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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..

Quote:

---

Ditto.

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...?
~

Quote:

---

What do you think...?

---

It was fun.
I'm outta here too. :horse: