Thread: The conscious perception of aniamls

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.

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)

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

Originally Posted by Howie

Then I walked in your home (shreeek!)

You got that right!

JK, you can come over if you want to.

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.

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.

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)

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.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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

OK, What time. Swanson for dinner?

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?
▼

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

oops, we were typing at the same time.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

protecting someone else is hardwired into their instincts

How?

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

How?

Basic pack behaviour.

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;?

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.

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?

My work here is done

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.

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.

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.

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?

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..

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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...

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.


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!