Dogs, mirrors, self awareness...

[dh@.]

From what little I've seen about it so far, it looks
to me like some people actually believe dogs are not
aware of themselves simply because they don't appear
to recognise their reflection in a mirror. To me that only
means they don't understand a mirror, and has absolutely
nothing to do with whether or not they have a mental
concept of themselves.

The facts that they have a mental concept of their
objects, their territory, their urine, their body, etc, are
all indications that they have a mental concept of
themselves, imo.

The fact that they are aware of different individual
beings is a very strong indication that they are aware
of themselves as an individual also imo, especially
when considered along with the fact that they have
a mental concept of the other things they encounter.

Question: Has anyone ever managed to get a dog
to understand that it can see its reflection in a mirror,
and if so, did it appear to experience a great revelation
about its own existence at the instant it learned to do so?

[Rudy Canoza]

dh@. wrote:

> From what little I've seen about it so far, it looks
> to me like some people actually believe dogs are not
> aware of themselves simply because they don't appear
> to recognise their reflection in a mirror.

Not "only" because of that, ****wit. But the mirror
test *IS* a widely acknowledged test of self-awareness
among researchers into animal intelligence, and dogs
fail it.


> To me that only
> means they don't understand a mirror, and has absolutely
> nothing to do with whether or not they have a mental
> concept of themselves.

You aren't an animal intelligence researcher, ****wit.

Dogs do NOT give any evidence of self awareness,
****wit. They give NO evidence of understanding that
they exist at a particular place and time.

You can't even *define* self awareness, ****wit, so
everything you say about whether or not dogs have it is
meaningless. You simply don't know what you're talking
about. Once again, it's just standard ****wit David
Harrison bull****.


>
> The facts that they have a mental concept of their
> objects, their territory, their urine, their body, etc, are
> all indications that they have a mental concept of
> themselves, imo.

Your opinion is based on ignorance and deceit, ****wit.
Your opinion doesn't matter.

http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198intelligence/1198debate.html


> The fact that they are aware of different individual
> beings

Are they, ****wit? What kind of awareness do they
have, ****wit? How do you know?

> is a very strong indication that they are aware
> of themselves as an individual also imo,

I always love your stupid "imo", ****wit. It's the
proof positive that you don't know what the **** you're
talking about. You're just bull****ting.

There is no logical connection between what you say is
dogs' awareness of other beings and their supposed self
awareness; no logical connection at all. You've merely
said it exists, without any foundation for your belief.

[Rudy Canoza]

The general consensus in the literature is that
self-awareness represents a complex, multifaceted
neuro-socio-cognitive process (Morin, 2003). It is the
capacity to become the object of one’s own attention
(Duval and Wicklund, 1972) and to actively identify,
process, and store information about the self. It
consists in an awareness of one’s own private
self-aspects such as mental states (e.g., perceptions,
sensations, attitudes, intentions, emotions) and public
self-characteristics (e.g., one’s body, behaviors,
general physical appearance). Self-awareness also
includes knowing that we are the same person across
time, that we are the author of our thoughts and
actions, and that we are distinct from the environment
(Kircher and David, 2003). Thus self-awareness leads to
the realization that one exists as an independent and
unique entity in the world, and that this existence
will eventually cease.

http://human-nature.com/ep/reviews/ep01161171.html


Dogs do not meet any of that definition.

[Rudy Canoza]

Consider the mental life of a dog, for example.
Presumably, dogs have a rich array of experiences (they
feel pain and pleasure, the tree has a particular
"look" to it) and they may even have beliefs about the
world (Fido believes that his supper dish is empty).
Who knows, they may even have special "inner
experiences" that accompany those beliefs. However, if
we assume that dogs are not self-aware in the stronger
sense, then they will lack the ability to critically
reflect upon their beliefs and experiences and thus
will be unable to have other beliefs about their
pleasure or their supper-dish-belief (what philosophers
call "second-order beliefs" or "meta-beliefs"). That is
to say, they may lack the ability to judge that
pleasure may be an unworthy objective in a certain
situation or to judge that their belief that the supper
dish is empty is unjustified.

http://www.ptproject.ilstu.edu/sfaw1.htm


****wit, you are clueless. You will NEVER understand
self-awareness, and why no scientist believes dogs
possess it. Instead, you'll keep blabbering stupidly
about "imo".

[Spot]

Barneys first experience with his reflection came when I went to an ATM
machine. He saw his reflection and totally flipped out at the other dog.
Over time he came to understand that this other dog in the glass wasn't mean
and he didn't have to go into attack mode........LOL Brandy never paid much
attention to mirrors or reflections.

Celeste

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> From what little I've seen about it so far, it looks
> to me like some people actually believe dogs are not
> aware of themselves simply because they don't appear
> to recognise their reflection in a mirror. To me that only
> means they don't understand a mirror, and has absolutely
> nothing to do with whether or not they have a mental
> concept of themselves.
>
> The facts that they have a mental concept of their
> objects, their territory, their urine, their body, etc, are
> all indications that they have a mental concept of
> themselves, imo.
>
> The fact that they are aware of different individual
> beings is a very strong indication that they are aware
> of themselves as an individual also imo, especially
> when considered along with the fact that they have
> a mental concept of the other things they encounter.
>
> Question: Has anyone ever managed to get a dog
> to understand that it can see its reflection in a mirror,
> and if so, did it appear to experience a great revelation
> about its own existence at the instant it learned to do so?

[Logic316]

dh@. wrote:

> Question: Has anyone ever managed to get a dog
> to understand that it can see its reflection in a mirror,
> and if so, did it appear to experience a great revelation
> about its own existence at the instant it learned to do so?

At this point, at the risk of getting a bit personal, I have to conclude
that we have a B.S. artist and a troll on our hands who debates more
like a backwoods evangelist than a scientist, appealing to rhetoric and
semantics rather than hard data. DH has pretty much ignored my numerous
posts and the reference URLs which I have provided, and is obstinately
arguing in circles repeating the same questions which I've already
answered. I'm afraid he has already made up his mind a long time ago and
will never consider yielding his position on this topic no matter what
anybody says :-/

You know DH, you don't have to admit that you might be wrong if it's
THAT embarrassing for you, or if you just don't quite understand the
experiments Rudy and I have mentioned. You could simply say something
like "you people make some interesting points, but I don't think the
evidence is fully conclusive either way, I just feel in my own personal
opinion that animals must at some level have a sense of self-awareness"
and just leave it at that, and you could back out gracefully and not
lose anybody's respect. But all you do is like to do is argue.

- Logic316



"I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and
give the wrong answers."

[Logic316]

dh@. wrote:
> Question: Has anyone ever managed to get a dog
> to understand that it can see its reflection in a mirror,
> and if so, did it appear to experience a great revelation
> about its own existence at the instant it learned to do so?


At this point, at the risk of getting a bit personal, I have to conclude
that we have a B.S. artist and a troll on our hands who debates more
like a backwoods evangelist than a scientist, appealing to rhetoric and
semantics rather than hard data. DH has pretty much ignored my numerous
posts and the reference URLs which I have provided, and is obstinately
arguing in circles repeating the same questions which I've already
answered. I'm afraid he has already made up his mind a long time ago and
will never consider yielding his position on this topic no matter what
anybody says :-/

You know DH, you don't have to admit that you might be wrong if it's
THAT embarrassing for you, or if you just don't fully understand the
experiments Rudy and I have mentioned. You could simply say something
like "you people make some interesting points, but I don't think the
evidence is fully conclusive either way, I just feel in my own personal
opinion that animals must at some level have a sense of self-awareness"
and just leave it at that, and you could back out gracefully and not
lose anybody's respect. But all you do is like to argue!

- Logic316



"I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and
give the wrong answers."

[Logic316]

dh@. wrote:
> Question: Has anyone ever managed to get a dog
> to understand that it can see its reflection in a mirror,
> and if so, did it appear to experience a great revelation
> about its own existence at the instant it learned to do so?


At this point, at the risk of getting a bit personal, I have to conclude
that we have a B.S. artist and a troll on our hands who debates more
like a backwoods evangelist than a scientist, appealing to rhetoric and
semantics rather than hard data. DH has pretty much ignored my numerous
posts and the reference URLs which I have provided, and is obstinately
arguing in circles repeating the same questions which I've already
answered. I'm afraid he has already made up his mind a long time ago and
will never consider yielding his position on this topic no matter what
anybody says :-/

You know DH, you don't have to admit that you might be wrong if it's
THAT embarrassing for you, or if you just don't quite understand the
experiments Rudy and I have mentioned. You could simply say something
like "you people make some interesting points, but I don't think the
evidence is fully conclusive either way, I just feel in my own personal
opinion that animals must at some level have a sense of self-awareness"
and just leave it at that, and you could back out gracefully and not
lose anybody's respect. But all like to do is argue!

- Logic316



"I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and
give the wrong answers."

[Logic316]

dh@. wrote:

> Question: Has anyone ever managed to get a dog
> to understand that it can see its reflection in a mirror,
> and if so, did it appear to experience a great revelation
> about its own existence at the instant it learned to do so?


At this point, at the risk of getting a bit personal, I have to conclude
that we have a B.S. artist and a troll on our hands who debates more
like a backwoods evangelist than a scientist, appealing to rhetoric and
semantics rather than hard data. DH has pretty much ignored my numerous
posts and the reference URLs which I have provided, and is obstinately
arguing in circles repeating the same questions which I've already
answered. I'm afraid he has already made up his mind a long time ago and
will never consider yielding his position on this topic no matter what
anybody says :-/

You know DH, you don't have to admit that you might be wrong if it's
THAT embarrassing for you, or if you just don't quite understand the
experiments Rudy and I have mentioned. You could simply say something
like "you people make some interesting points, but I don't think the
evidence is fully conclusive either way, I just feel in my own personal
opinion that animals must at some level have a sense of self-awareness"
and just leave it at that, and you could back out gracefully and not
lose anybody's respect. But all you like to do is argue!

- Logic316



"I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and
give the wrong answers."

[Rudy Canoza]

Logic316 wrote:

> dh@. wrote:
>
>> Question: Has anyone ever managed to get a dog
>> to understand that it can see its reflection in a mirror,
>> and if so, did it appear to experience a great revelation
>> about its own existence at the instant it learned to do so?
>
>
> At this point, at the risk of getting a bit personal, I have to conclude
> that we have a B.S. artist and a troll on our hands who debates more
> like a backwoods evangelist than a scientist, appealing to rhetoric and
> semantics rather than hard data. DH has pretty much ignored my numerous
> posts and the reference URLs which I have provided, and is obstinately
> arguing in circles repeating the same questions which I've already
> answered.

"DH" is David Harrison. He lives in or near Atlanta,
GA (not in dispute). He is uneducated. He's 46 years
old, maybe 47 by now, and does flunky work. He's a
bible-thumping Southern redneck. He doesn't know his
ass from his face.

[dh@.]

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:15:17 GMT, "Spot" > wrote:

>Barneys first experience with his reflection came when I went to an ATM
>machine. He saw his reflection and totally flipped out at the other dog.

So we know he has the ability to recognise reflected images.

>Over time he came to understand that this other dog in the glass wasn't mean
>and he didn't have to go into attack mode........LOL Brandy never paid much
>attention to mirrors or reflections.
>
>Celeste

I remember fooling with my dog and mirrors as a kid. From what I remember
the dog showed interest at first, and then my impression was that he figured
it out and didn't care about it any more. To him it just didn't mean anything
after he figured out that it wasn't real animals. I saw a cat I had do that with
the TV. When it first saw birds on the screen it was very interested, but after
it learned they weren't real it didn't care any more. Birds outside, that it could
see through the window, were a different matter...and it knew about the pet
door too. Not understanding or caring about a mirror certainly doesn't mean
animals have no awareness of themselves imo. The very idea seems absurd.

[dh@.]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 04:24:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>Logic316 wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> Question: Has anyone ever managed to get a dog
>>> to understand that it can see its reflection in a mirror,
>>> and if so, did it appear to experience a great revelation
>>> about its own existence at the instant it learned to do so?
>>
>>
>> At this point, at the risk of getting a bit personal, I have to conclude
>> that we have a B.S. artist and a troll on our hands who debates more
>> like a backwoods evangelist than a scientist, appealing to rhetoric and
>> semantics rather than hard data. DH has pretty much ignored my numerous
>> posts and the reference URLs which I have provided, and is obstinately
>> arguing in circles repeating the same questions which I've already
>> answered.
>
>"DH" is David Harrison. He lives in or near Atlanta,
>GA (not in dispute). He is uneducated. He's 46 years
>old, maybe 47 by now, and does flunky work. He's a
>bible-thumping Southern redneck.

I've read and have little problem with the Koran and the Book of Mormon
as well as the Bible. I've read the Satanic Bible too, and have my opinions
about all of it, like with the animals, and you would disagree with all of it,
like with the animals. But even if you tried to discuss it you couldn't even
get to the first step imo, like with the animals. Your limitations don't make me
feel stupid Goo, but they sure make me wonder how stupid you really are.

[dh@.]

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:23:43 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> Question: Has anyone ever managed to get a dog
>> to understand that it can see its reflection in a mirror,
>> and if so, did it appear to experience a great revelation
>> about its own existence at the instant it learned to do so?
>
>At this point, at the risk of getting a bit personal, I have to conclude
>that we have a B.S. artist and a troll on our hands

That's because what I say you find absurd, but let me assure you
that what you say seems equally if not more absurd to me. I and other
people I know have been laughing at and ridiculing the idea that
animals have no self awareness, since I was a child watching them
show signs of self awareness. I have considered the idea ignorant,
shallow, but pathetically amusing since the first time I heard it. Now
that I find the idea I already thought of as ignorant, etc, is based on
the non-too-surprising fact that most animals don't understand reflection,
well....of course it just seems that much more ignorant, shallow, and that
much more pathetic instead of amusing.

>who debates more
>like a backwoods evangelist than a scientist, appealing to rhetoric and
>semantics rather than hard data. DH has pretty much ignored my numerous
>posts and the reference URLs which I have provided, and is obstinately
>arguing in circles repeating the same questions which I've already
>answered.

My mistake on that then. Let's just get down to the foundation. I'll ask
two simple questions here, and if you explain then maybe I can finally
get it:

1. How do you think dogs learn to understand reflection?
2. How do you think bettas learn to understand reflection?

>I'm afraid he has already made up his mind a long time ago

Haven't you?

>and
>will never consider yielding his position on this topic no matter what
>anybody says :-/

So far all you've done is say that not understanding they're
looking at a reflection of themselves, somehow means that they
have no concept of themselves. But! You have not explained
why that possibility is the only possibility. I believe it's far more
likely that they have no concept of reflection, than that they have
no concept of themselves. That's because I don't understand how
they could learn what reflection is (but maybe I'll understand after/if
you answer my questions), but I can easily understand ways they
can get a concept(s) of themselves.

>You know DH, you don't have to admit that you might be wrong if it's
>THAT embarrassing for you,

I might be wrong.

>or if you just don't quite understand the
>experiments Rudy and I have mentioned.

I don't see how the experiments you and Goo have mentioned,
show that animals are not aware of themselves. As yet I can only
see how the experiments you and Goo have mentioned, show that
animals may not understand reflection.

>You could simply say something
>like "you people make some interesting points,

I await them.

>but I don't think the
>evidence is fully conclusive either way, I just feel in my own personal
>opinion that animals must at some level have a sense of self-awareness"

I believe it's necessary to the survival of some if not all of them.
If not all of them, it is an evolutionary development and stronger
in more advanced animals, but present to some degree in most
if not all, imo.

>and just leave it at that, and you could back out gracefully and not
>lose anybody's respect. But all you do is like to do is argue.

Of course it's the same old 'I believe you do too' sort of thing. What
if you're wrong? What if they really do have a concept of themselves,
but just don't understand reflection? What if it is an evolutionary
development that really exists? How could you learn the truth if that's
what it is?

>- Logic316
>
>
>
>"I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and
>give the wrong answers."

Another possibility is that sometimes the researchers reach the
wrong conclusions.

[Logic316]

Look folks, feel free to continue this asinine thread without me if you
want, but at least stop crossposting to rec.aquaria.freshwater.goldfish.
This discussion appears to have started
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian (a group that always has halfwits and
loonies flaming each other) and has long ago drifted from goldfish to
dogs, which is definitely OFF-TOPIC here.

I'd just like to say a couple of more things: Rudy, you're a smart guy
and usually know what you're talking about. But you need to improve your
manners otherwise people won't take you seriously, and David will just
claim the moral high ground and gain sympathy by acting innocent. David,
you need to stop looking for fights and to get a formal education - your
lack of comprehension of the most basic scientific procedures and
established philosophical principles makes you unqualified to adequately
handle any debate about consciousness, self-awareness, or experiments
measuring animal intelligence in general.

- Logic316



"I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and
give the wrong answers."

[Rudy Canoza]

dh@. wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 19:15:17 GMT, "Spot" > wrote:
>
>
>>Barneys first experience with his reflection came when I went to an ATM
>>machine. He saw his reflection and totally flipped out at the other dog.
>
>
> So we know he has the ability to recognise reflected images.

We know he didn't recognize HIMSELF.


>>Over time he came to understand that this other dog in the glass wasn't mean
>>and he didn't have to go into attack mode........LOL Brandy never paid much
>>attention to mirrors or reflections.
>>
>>Celeste
>
>
> I remember ****ing my dog as a kid.

[Rudy Canoza]

dh@. wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 04:24:40 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Logic316 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Question: Has anyone ever managed to get a dog
>>>>to understand that it can see its reflection in a mirror,
>>>>and if so, did it appear to experience a great revelation
>>>>about its own existence at the instant it learned to do so?
>>>
>>>
>>>At this point, at the risk of getting a bit personal, I have to conclude
>>>that we have a B.S. artist and a troll on our hands who debates more
>>>like a backwoods evangelist than a scientist, appealing to rhetoric and
>>>semantics rather than hard data. DH has pretty much ignored my numerous
>>>posts and the reference URLs which I have provided, and is obstinately
>>>arguing in circles repeating the same questions which I've already
>>>answered.
>>
>>"DH" is David Harrison. He lives in or near Atlanta,
>>GA (not in dispute). He is uneducated. He's 46 years
>>old, maybe 47 by now, and does flunky work. He's a
>>bible-thumping Southern redneck.
>
>
> I've read and have little problem with the Koran and the Book of Mormon
> as well as the Bible.

That's a lie, ****wit. You could not possibly read the
Koran.

[Rudy Canoza]

dh@. wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:23:43 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Question: Has anyone ever managed to get a dog
>>>to understand that it can see its reflection in a mirror,
>>>and if so, did it appear to experience a great revelation
>>>about its own existence at the instant it learned to do so?
>>
>>At this point, at the risk of getting a bit personal, I have to conclude
>>that we have a B.S. artist and a troll on our hands
>
>
> That's because what I say you find absurd

What you say IS entirely absurd.

[dh@.]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:34:42 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:

>David,
>you need to stop looking for fights and to get a formal education - your
>lack of comprehension of the most basic scientific procedures and
>established philosophical principles makes you unqualified to adequately
>handle any debate about consciousness, self-awareness, or experiments
>measuring animal intelligence in general.
>
>- Logic316

The mirror test shows an individual's ability to understand reflection.
If an animal never understands that a mirror can show a reflection of
itself, that doesn't mean that it has no concept of itself. It simply means
that is doesn't have a mental concept of a reflection of itself...it always
believes the reflection is of a different being. I would certainly agree it
shows they don't have self recognition, but that doesn't mean they have
no concept of themselves. There are things to indicate that they do,
but as yet I've seen nothing to indicate that they don't.

[dh@.]

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 06:04:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:

>> I've read and have little problem with the Koran and the Book of Mormon
>> as well as the Bible.
>
>That's a lie, ****wit. You could not possibly read the
>Koran.

LOL. What makes you "think" that Goo?

[Rudy Canoza]

David ****wit Harrison lied:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:34:42 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:
>
>
>>David,
>>you need to stop looking for fights and to get a formal education - your
>>lack of comprehension of the most basic scientific procedures and
>>established philosophical principles makes you unqualified to adequately
>>handle any debate about consciousness, self-awareness, or experiments
>>measuring animal intelligence in general.
>>
>>- Logic316
>
>
> The mirror test shows an individual's ability to understand reflection.

No. The mirror test shows an animal's self-awareness.

[Rudy Canoza]

****wit David Harrison lied:

> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 06:04:17 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>
>
>>> I've read and have little problem with the Koran and the Book of Mormon
>>>as well as the Bible.
>>
>>That's a lie, ****wit. You could not possibly read the
>>Koran.
>
>
> LOL.

You have not read the Koran. Stop lying.

[dh@.]

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:17:55 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>David ****wit Harrison lied:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:34:42 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>David,
>>>you need to stop looking for fights and to get a formal education - your
>>>lack of comprehension of the most basic scientific procedures and
>>>established philosophical principles makes you unqualified to adequately
>>>handle any debate about consciousness, self-awareness, or experiments
>>>measuring animal intelligence in general.
>>>
>>>- Logic316
>>
>>
>> The mirror test shows an individual's ability to understand reflection.
>
>No. The mirror test shows an animal's self-awareness.

It really can't show that at all. A person will always have to wonder
if they're willing to think about it, if the animal simply has no concept
of its image being reflected, or maybe it has a concept of its own image
that is so different from reality that it would never consider the mirror
image to be itself. Both of those are much more likely than that it has
no concept of itself at all. It must have some concepts of itself, even
if those concepts only involve its own flavor, scent, etc. It could also
have other concepts, such as of itself running, or of itself eating, or
playing, etc. Such things are admittedly beyond your ability to consider,
but they are quite likely non the less.

[dh@.]

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 Goo wrote:

>dh laughed at Goober:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 Goo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I've read and have little problem with the Koran and the Book of Mormon
>>>>as well as the Bible.
>>>
>>>That's a lie, ****wit. You could not possibly read the
>>>Koran.
>>
>>
>> LOL.
>
>You have not read the Koran.

That's a lie Goo. I took notes too. Those are just things that you
can't conceive of. There are lots of them. I have't been pointing out
that you're shallow simply as an insult. In fact none of the things I
say about you are simple insults. They are all the truth. What you
"ARAs" hate about me is that I point out truths that you don't want
to see pointed out. We know that Gonad.

Back to the Koran: Yes, you lied again, of course. Another thing
we know from experience is that if you could be made to stick to
the truth, you would have little if anything to post. Here are some
things I found significant in the Koran, though of course they will
be meaningless to you:

Translation: Pickthall

[al-Baqarah 2:62] Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed
unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians,
and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and
doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no
fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

[al-`Ankabut 29:46]
And argue not with the People of the Scripture
unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do
wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us
and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him
we surrender.

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

[al-Ma'idah 5:46] And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in
their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in
the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance
and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the
Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off
(evil).

[al-Ma'idah 5:47] Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which
Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah
hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

[Maryam 19:27] Then she brought him to her own folk, carrying
him. They said: O Mary! Thou hast come with an amazing thing.

[Maryam 19:28] O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked
man nor was thy mother a harlot.

[Maryam 19:29] Then she pointed to him. They said: How can we
talk to one who is in the cradle, a young boy ?

[Maryam 19:30] He spake: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath
given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet,

[Maryam 19:31] And hath made me blessed wheresoever I may
be, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I
remain alive,

[Maryam 19:32] And (hath made me) dutiful toward her who bore
me, and hath not made me arrogant, unblest.

[Maryam 19:33] Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I
die, and the day I shall be raised alive!

[Maryam 19:34] Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement
of the truth concerning which they doubt.

[[email protected]]

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:34:42 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:
>
> >David,
> >you need to stop looking for fights and to get a formal education - your
> >lack of comprehension of the most basic scientific procedures and
> >established philosophical principles makes you unqualified to adequately
> >handle any debate about consciousness, self-awareness, or experiments
> >measuring animal intelligence in general.
> >
> >- Logic316
>
> The mirror test shows an individual's ability to understand reflection.
> If an animal never understands that a mirror can show a reflection of
> itself, that doesn't mean that it has no concept of itself. It simply means
> that is doesn't have a mental concept of a reflection of itself...it always
> believes the reflection is of a different being. I would certainly agree it
> shows they don't have self recognition, but that doesn't mean they have
> no concept of themselves. There are things to indicate that they do,
> but as yet I've seen nothing to indicate that they don't.

I'll add to this "debate".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror-recognition_test_for_self-awareness
"There is some debate in the scientific community as to the value and
interpretation of results of the mirror test. While this test has been
extensively conducted on primates, there is also debate as to the value
of the test as applied to animals who rely primarily on senses other
than vision, such as dogs."


I tried a different, non-scientific test with my cat. I used a ball of
hair from my cat, and a ball of hair from a foreign cat. When she
smelled the hair from the foreign cat, she reacted aggresively, but
when she smelled the ball of her hair, she had no reaction, but simply
didn't care about presence of the hair. So it very much seems as though
she is aware of her own scent, which is important for a territorial
animal like a cat. This test can be intepreted in the same way as the
mirror test, where with the mirror test, an animal recognizes it's own
appearance, and with my "hair test" an animal recognizes it's own
scent.

Although I can never really know what my cat is thinking, she appears
to be aware of how a mirror works. She often looks at me through my
refection on the mirror but has her ears turned towards me to listen to
me. When she is faced with her own reflection, she doesn't appear to
care about it. I can assume two reasons for that: 1. It doesn't smell
like an animal, so it isn't important, 2. Whatever she sees doesn't
give her food, whereas I do, so my reflection is of more interest to
her. Maybe I can add a third one: She doesn't care about her appearance.

[dh@.]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 01:37:50 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:

wrote:
>
>> I'll add to this "debate".
>
>
>Moonspeak, the exact points you mentioned (Wikipedia article on the
>"mirror test" as well as animals recognizing objects that belong to
>them) have already been discussed absolutely to death in this and other
>parallel threads. This debate was originally about whether fish are able
>to anticipate food,

It was about whether or not they are capable of anticipating at all.

>but it gradually evolved into a mini flame war

The conflict between Goo and myself has been going on for about
5 years, and is not important at all to the subject being discussed. From
a surface thinking pov it's possible that the insults exchanged and lies
presented by Goo are the most important things, but in regards to the
subject being discussed they are actually meaningless even if they
seem to have significance to other people for some reason.

>about
>whether dogs or other animals have self-awareness.

It was started by you:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Logic316 >
Message-ID: >
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:06:41 -0400

wrote:
> I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
> A small bird will drop frozen dead from
> a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.
> --
> I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
> A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
> without ever having felt sorry for itself.

This poem is fundamentally flawed. Most animals, including avian
species, lack the necessary mental capacity to have a sense of "self" in
the first place.

- Logic316
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>However,
>rec.aquaria.freshwater.goldfish really isn't appropriate for extended
>discussions about cat or dog psychology, so perhaps you shouldn't
>crosspost to this newsgroup if you wish to reply to this discussion.
>
>- Logic316

The only reason not to post to the goldfish group, would be
if/because no one in that group is capable of carrying on a decent
discussion about it. Notice that *you* began the discussion, but
when it started to be shown that your theory is incorrect, and also
based on a faulty testing method, you want the discussion to just
go away so you don't have to think about or learn something that
for some reason you just don't happen to like. So whether you're
willing to admit it to yourself or not Logic, this has been/is also a
test of yourself, and possibly of your goldfish group as well.

[dh@.]

On 11 Sep 2005 16:37:02 -0700, wrote:

>
>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> lying ****wit David Harrison lied:
>>
>> > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:42:45 -0700, Svetlana Monsoon > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>there is also debate as to the value of the test as
>> >>>applied to animals who rely primarily on senses other
>> >>>than vision, such as dogs."
>> >>
>> >>They made a good point.
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes. From what I've read on my own, the test has
>> > pretty much determined that most animals don't have
>> > self-recognition, but that does not mean they don't have
>> > any awareness of themselves.
>>
>> No one pretends it is the only test, but an animal who
>> passes it is judged self aware, and undoubtedly is.
>>
>> Dogs do not have self awareness. They don't not have
>> it *because* they fail the test, but they do fail the
>> test, and that leads one to think that they lack self
>> awareness. Note that dogs *can* recognize other dogs
>> that they know by sight, as can cats. But cats and
>> dogs both fail the mirror test. Neither shows *any*
>> evidence of self awareness: they do not know that they
>> exist in a particular time and place, and they have no
>> sense of past or future.
>
>They do not show any evidence that we can recognize as being
>self-awareness, but that doesn't mean that they do not have it. Science
>is about being open to possibilities, and not coming to conclusions
>after one type of test. As the quote I have posted said, scientists are
>still debating whether the test really proves anything or if the
>results have been properly interpreted.

In a way that's what the subjects are doing...they are aware of the
image in the mirror, but fail to interpret it properly. The reason they fail
is not necessarily because they have no concept of themselves. Other
things about their behavior and their known abilities indicate that they
do have some concept(s) of themselves, and nothing about the mirror
test indicates that the reason they don't interpret their own reflection
properly is because they have no concept of themselves.

>And until we can read a dog's
>mind, we really can't say what it is aware of and what it is ignorant
>of. All we can do is speculate.
>
>Btw, gorillas failed the mirror test, but one gorilla, Koko, has passed
>it. Koko being a gorilla raised by humans and lived with them in a
>human environment her entire life and was taught to communicate with
>people via sign language. What does this show? That her brain is wired
>differently than other gorrilas? Perhaps, her passing the mirror test
>is a result of the environment she has been raised in. We still don't
>know. Concluding that passing or failing the mirror test is an error
>proof indicator of self-awareness is faulty thinking.

The mirror test indicates that they don't have self recognition,
not that they don't have self awareness. And really it doesn't even
show that, but only that they don't understand the reflection in a
mirror is their own reflection. They recognise their own territorial
markings, which is an indication that they also have some form(s)
of self recognition.

[Rudy Canoza]

Lying ****wit David Harrison lied:

> On 11 Sep 2005 16:37:02 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>>lying ****wit David Harrison lied:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:42:45 -0700, Svetlana Monsoon > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>there is also debate as to the value of the test as
>>>>>>applied to animals who rely primarily on senses other
>>>>>>than vision, such as dogs."
>>>>>
>>>>>They made a good point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes. From what I've read on my own, the test has
>>>>pretty much determined that most animals don't have
>>>>self-recognition, but that does not mean they don't have
>>>>any awareness of themselves.
>>>
>>>No one pretends it is the only test, but an animal who
>>>passes it is judged self aware, and undoubtedly is.
>>>
>>>Dogs do not have self awareness. They don't not have
>>>it *because* they fail the test, but they do fail the
>>>test, and that leads one to think that they lack self
>>>awareness. Note that dogs *can* recognize other dogs
>>>that they know by sight, as can cats. But cats and
>>>dogs both fail the mirror test. Neither shows *any*
>>>evidence of self awareness: they do not know that they
>>>exist in a particular time and place, and they have no
>>>sense of past or future.
>>
>>They do not show any evidence that we can recognize as being
>>self-awareness, but that doesn't mean that they do not have it. Science
>>is about being open to possibilities, and not coming to conclusions
>>after one type of test. As the quote I have posted said, scientists are
>>still debating whether the test really proves anything or if the
>>results have been properly interpreted.
>
>
> In a way that's what the subjects are doing...they are aware of the
> image in the mirror, but fail to interpret it properly.

Because they lack self awareness.

****wit, you don't even know exactly what the mirror
test is.


>>And until we can read a dog's
>>mind, we really can't say what it is aware of and what it is ignorant
>>of. All we can do is speculate.
>>
>>Btw, gorillas failed the mirror test, but one gorilla, Koko, has passed
>>it. Koko being a gorilla raised by humans and lived with them in a
>>human environment her entire life and was taught to communicate with
>>people via sign language. What does this show? That her brain is wired
>>differently than other gorrilas? Perhaps, her passing the mirror test
>>is a result of the environment she has been raised in. We still don't
>>know. Concluding that passing or failing the mirror test is an error
>>proof indicator of self-awareness is faulty thinking.
>
>
> The mirror test indicates that they don't have self recognition,
> not that they don't have self awareness.

Yes, it indicates they lack self awareness.

[Logic316]

dh@. wrote:

<rambling BS snipped>


> It was started by you:

No, it was started by whoever wrote that cute poem about a bird having
the ability to feel sorry for itself. Perhaps I shouldn't have bothered
replying and performing a dissection on it (it was just a poem after
all), but this thread has gone on long enough here just the same. And
I'm not the one who caused it to degenerate into a ****ing contest.


> The only reason not to post to the goldfish group, would be
> if/because no one in that group is capable of carrying on a decent
> discussion about it.

It's true that in most newsgroups people don't mind an off-topic thread
now and then. But it's just gone on too long and has reached the point
where no further evidence is being introduced on either side of the
debate, you're saying "yes they do" and Rudy's saying "no they don't"
like a couple of kids, and no further progress is being made on this
issue. Not to mention, your constant bickering makes things extremely
unpleasant around here.

- Logic316




"Don't get excited about a tax cut. It's like a mugger giving you back
fare for a taxi."
-- Arnold Glasow

[Dutch]

"Logic316" > wrote

> your constant bickering makes things extremely unpleasant around here.

Do you need a reminder of filters? If your experience is being made
unpleasant, you are allowing it.

[Logic316]

Dutch wrote:
> "Logic316" > wrote
>
>
>>your constant bickering makes things extremely unpleasant around here.
>
>
> Do you need a reminder of filters? If your experience is being made
> unpleasant, you are allowing it.


Unfortunately, the usenet kill filter is currently broken on Mozilla
Thunderbird, but will hopefully be fixed in a future release. I would
consider changing to another app, but the spam filter on this one is
pretty awesome.

- Logic316



"If people were required to *know* all the laws, and not just to
obey them, the government would be overthrown tomorrow."

[dh@.]

On 12 Sep 2005 21:48:33 -0700, wrote:

>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> True, but when they fail *any* test of self awareness,
>> then the smart bet is that they don't have it.
>
>Well, Rudy, you failed to provide a convincing argument. You had time
>to post two replies, none of which answered my, and dh's question of
>what other "self-awareness tests" the animals' have failed.

Goo can rarely if ever back up the things he claims. See "The cowardice
of Goo" postings for a list of claims he's afraid to even try backing up...and
you are encouraged to provide additional examples.

>You keep
>basing your argument against dogs having self-awareness on the mirror
>test, which is a questionable test for self-awareness according to the
>scientific community.

I'm posting what I consider to be significant sections of an article
related to the mirror test. It shows that most animals can't recognise
themselves in a mirror, but it doesn't show that they don't have any
sort of self-awareness. It does show that in order to have self-
recognition an animal must have a sense of self, but not recognising
themselves in a mirror certainly doesn't show that they are incapable
or having some concept of themselves, or of making themselves
the object of their attention. The fact that they groom shows they
are capable of being the object of their own attention.
__________________________________________________ _______
The transition from social to self-oriented responding gave the impression
that the chimpanzees had learned to recognize themselves; i.e., that they
had come to realize that their behavior was the source of the behavior
being depicted in the mirror.
[...]
Even after three weeks of mirror exposure, none of the monkeys showed
any mirror-aided self-directed behaviors, nor did they use the mirror to
investigate the marks during the mark test. The major implications of the
study were not only that chimpanzees shared with humans the capacity
for self-recognition, but that the capacity might be limited to those primates
most closely related to humans, namely the great apes (family Pongidae)
[...]
There is one claim of positive evidence for a gorilla (Patterson The
Cognitive Animal -- Gallup, Anderson, and Shillito, page 5 and Cohn 1994)
which has had extensive contact with humans from an early age. It has
been hypothesized that under normal circumstances the capacity for self-
recognition may not develop in gorillas, but that enculturation in the form
of early and extensive rearing by humans may result in the formation of
critical neural connections required for the expression of this capacity
(Povinelli 1994).
[...]
Self-Recognition, Self-Awareness, and Mental State Attribution

If the species and individual differences in self-recognition are real, are they
important? Mirror self-recognition is an indicator of self-awareness (Gallup
1979). In its most rudimentary form self-awareness is the ability to become
the object of your own attention. When you see yourself in a mirror, you are
literally the object of your own attention, but most organisms respond to
themselves in mirrors as if confronted by another organism. The ability to
correctly infer the identity of the image in the mirror requires a pre-existing
sense of self on the part of the organism making that inference. Without a
sense of self, how would you know who you were seeing when confronted
with your reflection in a mirror? Recent neuropsychological evidence is highly
consistent with the proposition that self-recognition taps into the ability to
conceive of oneself. Patients with damage to the frontal cortex are not only
impaired in their ability to recognize their own faces, but they show corollary
deficits in self-evaluation and autobiographical memory (Keenan and Wheeler
in press)
[...]
http://tinyurl.com/c86nl
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[dh@.]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 Goo wrote:

>dh pointed out:

>> The mirror test indicates that they don't have self recognition,
>> not that they don't have self awareness.
>
>Yes, it indicates they lack self awareness.

That's just one possibility Goo, and a very unlikely one.

[dh@.]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 04:08:19 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:

>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>> The mirror test indicates that they don't have self recognition,
>>> not that they don't have self awareness.
>>
>>
>> Yes, it indicates they lack self awareness.
>
>Do either of you two have any netiquette awareness? Stop posting about
>dogs, cats, and gorillas to rec.aquaria.freshwater.goldfish.

A guy on a TV show I saw the other day said that goldfish only have
a memory of about three minutes. What do you think of that?

>I don't
>think I'm only speaking for myself

Even if someone in you goldfish group had something to contribute,
they wouldn't be likely to give it up after you started crying about the
thread.

>when I say this thread's gone on long
>enough here.
>
>- Logic316

From my experience you are somewhat unique for having tried to make
a respectable contribution to the discussion at any time. Most of the time
the people I've seen who complain about what others are discussing, never
have anything of any value at all to add.

Note: no goldfish or their owners were killed or injured during the making of
this post.

[Rudy Canoza]

lying convict ****wit David Harrison lied:

> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>dh pointed out:
>
>
>>> The mirror test indicates that they don't have self recognition,
>>>not that they don't have self awareness.
>>
>>Yes, it indicates they lack self awareness.
>
>
> That's just one possibility Rudy, and a very unlikely one.

The likeliest one, ****wit, particularly when you
understand *all* of the aspects of self awareness that
"philosophers of mind" are talking about. You don't
understand them, because you've never read anything
about it, and your own uninformed "opinions" about it
are those of a drug-abusing uneducated cracker.

[NanK]

http://www.strato.net/~crvny/sa03002.htm

Interesting article.
n

[NanK]

Reference Material below:

William James and the Evolution of Consciousness

Nielsen, Mark and Day, R. H. (1999) William James and the Evolution of
Consciousness. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology
19:pp. 90-113.

Abstract

Despite having been relegated to the realm of superstition during the
dominant years of behaviourism, the investigation and discussion of
consciousness has again become scientifically defensible. However,
attempts at describing animal consciousness continue to be criticised
for lacking independent criteria that identify the presence or absence
of the phenomenon. Over one hundred years ago William James recognised
that mental traits are subject to the same evolutionary processes as are
physical characteristics and must therefore be represented in differing
levels of complexity throughout the animal kingdom.

James's proposals with regard to animal consciousness are outlined and
followed by a discussion of three classes of animal consciousness
derived from empirical research. These classes are presented to defend
both James's proposals and the position that a theory of animal
consciousness can be scientifically supported. It is argued that by
using particular behavioural expressions to index consciousness and by
providing empirical tests by which to elicit these behavioural
expressions a scientifically defensible theory of animal consciousness
can be developed.

[Rudy Canoza]

NanK wrote:

> http://www.strato.net/~crvny/sa03002.htm
>
> Interesting article.

No, a BULL**** article:

"When an animal grooms it self, it is aware of it self
been groomed. This is also a gesture of love towards
ones self and sometimes towards the ones that you love.
For example: when one animal wants to prove to another
its affection, most of the time, if it is a mammal or a
bird, it shows this with a grooming gesture towards the
other."

Pure bull****. No reputable animal behavioralist
believes animals groom one another out of affection.

[NanK]

http://www.jhu.edu/~newslett/05-3-01/Science/2.html

From John Hopkins University.....

[NanK]

University Research Paper:

Self Awareness in Pigeons

http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~allanr/mirror.html

[NanK]

NEW BOOK: SEE: www.amazon.com

Minding Animals: Awareness, Emotions, and Heart (Hardcover)
by Marc Bekoff (Foreword), Jane Goodall


"Book Description

Thinking bees, ice-skating buffaloes, dreaming rats, happy foxes,
ecstatic elephants, despondent dolphins--in Minding Animals, Marc Bekoff
takes us on an exhilarating tour of the emotional and mental world of
animals, where we meet creatures who do amazing things and whose lives
are filled with mysteries.

Following in the footsteps of Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen, Bekoff
has spent the last 30 years studying animals of every stripe--from
coyotes in Wyoming to penguins in Antarctica. He draws on this vast
experience, as well as on the observations of other naturalists, to
offer readers fascinating stories of animal behavior, including grooming
and gossip, self-medication, feeding patterns, dreaming, dominance, and
mating behavior. Many of these stories are truly incredible--chimpanzees
medicating themselves with herbal remedies, elephants clearly mourning a
dead group member--but this is not simply a catalog of amazing animal
tales, for Bekoff also sheds light on many of the more serious issues
surrounding animals.

He offers a thought-provoking look at animal cognition, intelligence,
and consciousness and he presents vivid examples of animal passions,
highlighting the deep emotional lives of our animal kin. All this serves
as background for his thoughtful conclusions about humility and animal
protection and animal well-being, where he urges a new paradigm of
respect, grace, compassion, and love for all animals. Marc Bekoff has
gone deep into the minds, hearts, spirits, and souls of animals, giving
him profound insight into their lives, and no small insight into ours.
Minding Animals is an important contribution to our understanding of
animal consciousness, a major work that will be a must read for anyone
who loves nature."

[[email protected]]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> lying convict ****wit David Harrison lied:
>
> > On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> >
> >>dh pointed out:
> >
> >
> >>> The mirror test indicates that they don't have self recognition,
> >>>not that they don't have self awareness.
> >>
> >>Yes, it indicates they lack self awareness.
> >
> >
> > That's just one possibility Rudy, and a very unlikely one.
>
> The likeliest one, ****wit, particularly when you
> understand *all* of the aspects of self awareness that
> "philosophers of mind" are talking about. You don't
> understand them, because you've never read anything
> about it, and your own uninformed "opinions" about it
> are those of a drug-abusing uneducated cracker.

Many thoughts and beliefs of great philosophers of the past have been
disproven through proper scientific experimentation. The mirror test is
not widely accepted by the scientific community as being a test for
self-awareness in animals, therefore, no true assumption about the
presence or lack of self-awareness can be made with the mirror test.

[dh@.]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:34:06 GMT, NanK > wrote:

>
>Reference Material below:
>
>William James and the Evolution of Consciousness
>
>Nielsen, Mark and Day, R. H. (1999) William James and the Evolution of
>Consciousness. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology
>19:pp. 90-113.
>
>Abstract
>
>Despite having been relegated to the realm of superstition during the
>dominant years of behaviourism, the investigation and discussion of
>consciousness has again become scientifically defensible. However,
>attempts at describing animal consciousness continue to be criticised
>for lacking independent criteria that identify the presence or absence
>of the phenomenon. Over one hundred years ago William James recognised
>that mental traits are subject to the same evolutionary processes as are
>physical characteristics and must therefore be represented in differing
>levels of complexity throughout the animal kingdom.

Thank you! Darwin said the same thing about emotions in animals.
It's in this site someplace:

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/

but I stupidly neglected to mark it or grab a sample quote when I bumped
into it before, and since haven't been able to find it again. Goo even more
stupidly believes that animals aren't capable of feelings like anticipation
or pride. Of course the concept that animals can feel love is far beyond
his realm of contemplation. In this article Darwin described an example of
his dog becoming disappointed:
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
I formerly possessed a large dog, who, like every other dog,
was much pleased to go out walking. He showed his pleasure
by trotting gravely before me with high steps, head much
raised, moderately erected ears, and tail carried aloft but
not stiffly. Not far from my house a path branches off to
the right, leading to the hot-house, which I used often to
visit for a few moments, to look at my experimental plants.
This was always a great disappointment to the dog, as he did
not know whether I should continue my walk; and the
instantaneous and complete change of expression which came
over him as soon as my body swerved in the least towards the
path (and I sometimes tried this as an experiment) was
laughable. His look of dejection was known to every member
of the family, and was called his hot-house face. This
consisted in the head drooping much, the whole body sinking
a little and remaining motionless; the ears and tail falling
suddenly down, but the tail was by no means wagged. With the
falling of the ears and of his great chaps, the eyes became
much changed in appearance, and I fancied that they looked
less bright. His aspect was that of piteous, hopeless
dejection; and it was, as I have said, laughable, as the
cause was so slight.
[...]
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/expression/expression02.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
but Goo amusingly believes Darwin was just projecting, and the
dog who clearly was displaying disappointment, was not really
disappointed:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza" >
Date: 25 Jul 2005 11:02:56 -0700
Message-ID: om>

The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:13:29 GMT

Darwin, a sentimental person, was
projecting. He saw something that wasn't there. He
was, in a way, hallucinating.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
LOL.

Another amusing Goobal concept:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 03:07:09 GMT

Anticipation requires language.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
LOL.

>James's proposals with regard to animal consciousness are outlined and
>followed by a discussion of three classes of animal consciousness
>derived from empirical research. These classes are presented to defend
>both James's proposals and the position that a theory of animal
>consciousness can be scientifically supported. It is argued that by
>using particular behavioural expressions to index consciousness and by
>providing empirical tests by which to elicit these behavioural
>expressions a scientifically defensible theory of animal consciousness
>can be developed.

Sounds good so far.

[dh@.]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 Goo wrote:

>NanK wrote:
>
>> http://www.strato.net/~crvny/sa03002.htm
>>
>> Interesting article.
>
>No, a BULL**** article:
>
>"When an animal grooms it self, it is aware of it self

That's obvious enough even you should understand,
but apparently not Goo.

>been groomed. This is also a gesture of love towards
>ones self

Not necessarily, though when animals appear to give
up from sickness or whatever they will stop grooming.
It's a significant thing, but of course, not to you....

>and sometimes towards the ones that you love.
>For example: when one animal wants to prove to another
>its affection, most of the time, if it is a mammal or a
>bird, it shows this with a grooming gesture towards the
>other."
>
>Pure bull****. No reputable animal behavioralist
>believes animals groom one another out of affection.

Sometimes animals show their feelings for another
by letting the other groom them. That shoud blow your
struggling little "brain" Goo. I believe it was a Silverback
gorilla in a documentary that I saw allow a lesser member
of the group to groom him. He turned his back to the
other and sat down. Sometimes it involves affection
and sometimes not so much Goober, but for some reason
you apparently can't grasp things like that. In your horrible
battle to understand, you try over simplifying things to
being "always or never", and that destroys you immediately
in more than one area....like every area where there is
"sometimes".

[dh@.]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:47:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>lying convict ****wit David Harrison lied:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh pointed out:
>>
>>
>>>> The mirror test indicates that they don't have self recognition,
>>>>not that they don't have self awareness.
>>>
>>>Yes, it indicates they lack self awareness.
>>
>>
>> That's just one possibility Rudy, and a very unlikely one.
>
>The likeliest one, ****wit, particularly when you
>understand *all* of the aspects of self awareness that
>"philosophers of mind" are talking about.

Explain or at least list them all Goober, so we can learn
what it is you're trying to talk about.

>You don't
>understand them, because you've never read anything
>about it, and your own uninformed "opinions" about it
>are those of a drug-abusing uneducated cracker.

You'll prove that you not only can't explain anything, you
probably can't even make a list of things you pretend to
understand. It'll be another example for the cowardice Goo.

[Rudy Canoza]

****wit David Harrison, felon, lied:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>NanK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.strato.net/~crvny/sa03002.htm
>>>
>>>Interesting article.
>>
>>No, a BULL**** article:
>>
>>"When an animal grooms it self, it is aware of it self
>>been groomed. This is also a gesture of love towards
>>ones self
>
>
> Not necessarily,

Not AT ALL, ****wit, so the entire thing is bull****.

[Rudy Canoza]

****wit David Harrison, felon, lied:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:47:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>lying convict ****wit David Harrison lied:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh pointed out:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The mirror test indicates that they don't have self recognition,
>>>>>not that they don't have self awareness.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it indicates they lack self awareness.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's just one possibility Rudy, and a very unlikely one.
>>
>>The likeliest one, ****wit, particularly when you
>>understand *all* of the aspects of self awareness that
>>"philosophers of mind" are talking about.
>
>
> Explain or at least list them all, so we can learn
> what it is you're talking about.

What the **** do you mean, "all", ****wit? You just
revealed, yet again, that you not only don't know what
youre talking about, but you don't even know the right
questions to ask. Philosophers of mind are not in
unanimous agreement on what they are, you stupid ****,
so there *can not* be an "all".

Here are *some*, ****wit, and they indicate that again,
you are grossly over your head.

- being aware that one is a being separate from others,
*and* from the rest of the environment

- being aware, as a direct implication of one's own
self awareness, that *others* are self aware

- knowing that one has a beginning and an end

- knowing that one exists at a particular place and time,
which *necessarily* implies that there are other
places and times in which the self aware being does
*not* exist


At the very best, ****wit, you stupid unaware log, dogs
could conceivably meet the first; but there is no
evidence they do, and people like you who just
stubbornly insist they do have no evidence to support
the belief, only your own wishful thinking.

Dogs clearly do not have the next three.

[[email protected]]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison, felon, lied:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:47:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>lying convict ****wit David Harrison lied:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>dh pointed out:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> The mirror test indicates that they don't have self recognition,
> >>>>>not that they don't have self awareness.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, it indicates they lack self awareness.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That's just one possibility Rudy, and a very unlikely one.
> >>
> >>The likeliest one, ****wit, particularly when you
> >>understand *all* of the aspects of self awareness that
> >>"philosophers of mind" are talking about.
> >
> >
> > Explain or at least list them all, so we can learn
> > what it is you're talking about.
>
> What the **** do you mean, "all", ****wit? You just
> revealed, yet again, that you not only don't know what
> youre talking about, but you don't even know the right
> questions to ask. Philosophers of mind are not in
> unanimous agreement on what they are, you stupid ****,
> so there *can not* be an "all".
>
> Here are *some*, ****wit, and they indicate that again,
> you are grossly over your head.
>
> - being aware that one is a being separate from others,
> *and* from the rest of the environment
>
> - being aware, as a direct implication of one's own
> self awareness, that *others* are self aware
>
> - knowing that one has a beginning and an end
>
> - knowing that one exists at a particular place and time,
> which *necessarily* implies that there are other
> places and times in which the self aware being does
> *not* exist
>
>
> At the very best, ****wit, you stupid unaware log, dogs
> could conceivably meet the first; but there is no
> evidence they do, and people like you who just
> stubbornly insist they do have no evidence to support
> the belief, only your own wishful thinking.
>
> Dogs clearly do not have the next three.

And you have no evidence that they don't. All you have is your wishful
thinking.

[Rudy Canoza]

wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>****wit David Harrison, felon, lied:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:47:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>lying convict ****wit David Harrison lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>dh pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The mirror test indicates that they don't have self recognition,
>>>>>>>not that they don't have self awareness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, it indicates they lack self awareness.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just one possibility Rudy, and a very unlikely one.
>>>>
>>>>The likeliest one, ****wit, particularly when you
>>>>understand *all* of the aspects of self awareness that
>>>>"philosophers of mind" are talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>> Explain or at least list them all, so we can learn
>>>what it is you're talking about.
>>
>>What the **** do you mean, "all", ****wit? You just
>>revealed, yet again, that you not only don't know what
>>youre talking about, but you don't even know the right
>>questions to ask. Philosophers of mind are not in
>>unanimous agreement on what they are, you stupid ****,
>>so there *can not* be an "all".
>>
>>Here are *some*, ****wit, and they indicate that again,
>>you are grossly over your head.
>>
>>- being aware that one is a being separate from others,
>> *and* from the rest of the environment
>>
>>- being aware, as a direct implication of one's own
>> self awareness, that *others* are self aware
>>
>>- knowing that one has a beginning and an end
>>
>>- knowing that one exists at a particular place and time,
>> which *necessarily* implies that there are other
>> places and times in which the self aware being does
>> *not* exist
>>
>>
>>At the very best, ****wit, you stupid unaware log, dogs
>>could conceivably meet the first; but there is no
>>evidence they do, and people like you who just
>>stubbornly insist they do have no evidence to support
>>the belief, only your own wishful thinking.
>>
>>Dogs clearly do not have the next three.
>
>
> And you have no evidence that they don't.

Not my burden of proof, dumbo. If you assert that
something is so, it is up to you to support your claim.

Get busy.

[[email protected]]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> >>****wit David Harrison, felon, lied:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:47:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>lying convict ****wit David Harrison lied:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>dh pointed out:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> The mirror test indicates that they don't have self recognition,
> >>>>>>>not that they don't have self awareness.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Yes, it indicates they lack self awareness.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's just one possibility Rudy, and a very unlikely one.
> >>>>
> >>>>The likeliest one, ****wit, particularly when you
> >>>>understand *all* of the aspects of self awareness that
> >>>>"philosophers of mind" are talking about.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Explain or at least list them all, so we can learn
> >>>what it is you're talking about.
> >>
> >>What the **** do you mean, "all", ****wit? You just
> >>revealed, yet again, that you not only don't know what
> >>youre talking about, but you don't even know the right
> >>questions to ask. Philosophers of mind are not in
> >>unanimous agreement on what they are, you stupid ****,
> >>so there *can not* be an "all".
> >>
> >>Here are *some*, ****wit, and they indicate that again,
> >>you are grossly over your head.
> >>
> >>- being aware that one is a being separate from others,
> >> *and* from the rest of the environment
> >>
> >>- being aware, as a direct implication of one's own
> >> self awareness, that *others* are self aware
> >>
> >>- knowing that one has a beginning and an end
> >>
> >>- knowing that one exists at a particular place and time,
> >> which *necessarily* implies that there are other
> >> places and times in which the self aware being does
> >> *not* exist
> >>
> >>
> >>At the very best, ****wit, you stupid unaware log, dogs
> >>could conceivably meet the first; but there is no
> >>evidence they do, and people like you who just
> >>stubbornly insist they do have no evidence to support
> >>the belief, only your own wishful thinking.
> >>
> >>Dogs clearly do not have the next three.
> >
> >
> > And you have no evidence that they don't.
>
> Not my burden of proof, dumbo. If you assert that
> something is so, it is up to you to support your claim.
>
> Get busy.

Yes Rudy, get busy supporting your claim. I have done my part already.

[Rudy Canoza]

wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrison, felon, lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:47:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>lying convict ****wit David Harrison lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dh pointed out:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The mirror test indicates that they don't have self recognition,
>>>>>>>>>not that they don't have self awareness.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, it indicates they lack self awareness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's just one possibility Rudy, and a very unlikely one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The likeliest one, ****wit, particularly when you
>>>>>>understand *all* of the aspects of self awareness that
>>>>>>"philosophers of mind" are talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Explain or at least list them all, so we can learn
>>>>>what it is you're talking about.
>>>>
>>>>What the **** do you mean, "all", ****wit? You just
>>>>revealed, yet again, that you not only don't know what
>>>>youre talking about, but you don't even know the right
>>>>questions to ask. Philosophers of mind are not in
>>>>unanimous agreement on what they are, you stupid ****,
>>>>so there *can not* be an "all".
>>>>
>>>>Here are *some*, ****wit, and they indicate that again,
>>>>you are grossly over your head.
>>>>
>>>>- being aware that one is a being separate from others,
>>>> *and* from the rest of the environment
>>>>
>>>>- being aware, as a direct implication of one's own
>>>> self awareness, that *others* are self aware
>>>>
>>>>- knowing that one has a beginning and an end
>>>>
>>>>- knowing that one exists at a particular place and time,
>>>> which *necessarily* implies that there are other
>>>> places and times in which the self aware being does
>>>> *not* exist
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At the very best, ****wit, you stupid unaware log, dogs
>>>>could conceivably meet the first; but there is no
>>>>evidence they do, and people like you who just
>>>>stubbornly insist they do have no evidence to support
>>>>the belief, only your own wishful thinking.
>>>>
>>>>Dogs clearly do not have the next three.
>>>
>>>
>>>And you have no evidence that they don't.
>>
>>Not my burden of proof, dumbo. If you assert that
>>something is so, it is up to you to support your claim.
>>
>>Get busy.
>
>
> Yes Rudy, get busy supporting your claim. I have done my part already.

You've done ****ing nothing. You've made an assertion
- "dogs are self aware" - and you have done nothing to
support it. Stop lying.

It is impermissible in debate for you to make a claim,
then say that because no one else has disproved it, the
claim must be true. That is not a proof of the truth
of your claim. If you weren't an ignorant ****, you'd
know that.

[TinaBeana]

you're kind of rude...

[Rudy Canoza]

TinaBeana wrote:

> you're kind of rude...

It's justified.

[Rudy Canoza]

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 Goo wrote:
>
>
>>NanK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.strato.net/~crvny/sa03002.htm
>>>
>>>Interesting article.
>>
>>No, a BULL**** article:
>>
>>"When an animal grooms it self, it is aware of it self
>>been groomed. This is also a gesture of love towards
>>ones self and sometimes towards the ones that you love.
>>For example: when one animal wants to prove to another
>>its affection, most of the time, if it is a mammal or a
>>bird, it shows this with a grooming gesture towards the
>>other."
>>
>>Pure bull****. No reputable animal behavioralist
>>believes animals groom one another out of affection.
>
>
> Sometimes animals show their feelings for another
> by letting the other groom them.

False. That's your anthropomorphic projection, and
it's false.

[[email protected]]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>Dogs clearly do not have the next three.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And you have no evidence that they don't.
> >>
> >>Not my burden of proof, dumbo. If you assert that
> >>something is so, it is up to you to support your claim.
> >>
> >>Get busy.
> >
> >
> > Yes Rudy, get busy supporting your claim. I have done my part already.
>
> You've done ****ing nothing. You've made an assertion
> - "dogs are self aware" - and you have done nothing to
> support it. Stop lying.
>
> It is impermissible in debate for you to make a claim,
> then say that because no one else has disproved it, the
> claim must be true. That is not a proof of the truth
> of your claim. If you weren't an ignorant ****, you'd
> know that.

Where have I said that dogs are self-aware? Please, quote me where I
have said that. If you could control your language and temper, and
actually take the time to read and understand, you would realise that
never have I claimed that dogs are self-aware, and that YOU are
repeatedly claiming that they are not self-aware without anything to
support your claim. At this point, it is safe to assume that you have
nothing to support your claim that dogs are not self-aware, and
whatever you post comes out of nothing else but your simple little
mind. You already showed me that you make up things, like claiming that
I declared dogs have self-awareness.

[Rudy Canoza]

wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>>>>>Dogs clearly do not have the next three.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And you have no evidence that they don't.
>>>>
>>>>Not my burden of proof, dumbo. If you assert that
>>>>something is so, it is up to you to support your claim.
>>>>
>>>>Get busy.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes Rudy, get busy supporting your claim. I have done my part already.
>>
>>You've done ****ing nothing. You've made an assertion
>>- "dogs are self aware" - and you have done nothing to
>>support it. Stop lying.
>>
>>It is impermissible in debate for you to make a claim,
>>then say that because no one else has disproved it, the
>>claim must be true. That is not a proof of the truth
>>of your claim. If you weren't an ignorant ****, you'd
>>know that.
>
>
> Where have I said that dogs are self-aware? Please, quote me where I
> have said that. If you could control your language and temper, and
> actually take the time to read and understand, you would realise that
> never have I claimed that dogs are self-aware, and that YOU are
> repeatedly claiming that they are not self-aware without anything to
> support your claim.

Of course I have "anything" to support it, you ****wit.
The support is that there is NO evidence that they
ARE self aware, given what self awareness *means*.
Don't you get it, you moron? The absence of evidence
that they are is prima facie evidence that they are not.

I assert that dogs have no sense of the past and
future, because humans DO have such a sense, and dogs
do nothing that we recognize as indicating such a
sense. That does not conclusively show that they don't
have a sense of past and future, because they could
have it in ways that we cannot (yet) recognize. But
people have LOOKED for this in other animals, and not
found anything. The tentative scientific conclusion,
then, is that until such time as someone finds
something that indicates dogs do have such a sense, we
conclude that they do not. Similarly with self
awareness: we have defined self awareness in such a
way that, if a species has it generally, we expect
individual members of that species to exhibit this or
this or this behavior. We don't see such behavior, and
so we tentatively conclude that they don't have self
awareness.

The burden of proof is entirely on those who assert
they *do* have it to show evidence for it. So far, no
one has.

[[email protected]]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Of course I have "anything" to support it, you ****wit.
> The support is that there is NO evidence that they
> ARE self aware, given what self awareness *means*.
> Don't you get it, you moron? The absence of evidence
> that they are is prima facie evidence that they are not.

The thing is that there isn't so much an absence of evidence, but
simply a lack of consensus in the intepretations of the possible
evidence.

Example:

"After decades of studying animals ranging from coyotes, gray wolves,
domestic dogs, and Adlie penguins and other birds, I've come to the
conclusion that not only are some animals self-aware, but also that
there are degrees of self-awareness. Combined with studies by my
colleagues, it's wholly plausible to suggest that many animals have a
sense of "mine-ness" or "body-ness." So, for example, when an
experimental treatment, an object, or another individual affects an
individual, he or she experiences that "something is happening to this
body." Many primates relax when being groomed and individuals of many
species actively seek pleasure and avoid pain. There's no need to
associate "this body" with "my body" or with "me" (or "I"). Many
animals also know the placement in space of parts of their body as they
run, jump, perform acrobatics, or move as a coordinated hunting unit or
flock without running into one another. They know their body isn't
someone else's body." - Marc Bekoff, professor of biology at the
University of Colorado, Boulder


Now, with such a statement, we can no longer conclude that dogs lack
self-awareness. It has become a possibility which is neither likely or
unlikely, until more possible evidence leads us to a certain direction.


"ON ANIMAL SELF-AWARENESS

The following points are made by Marc Bekoff (Nature 2002 419:255):

1) Researchers are interested in animal awareness because they are
curious to discover what animals might know about themselves. There
are, however, long-held and polarized views about the degree of
self-awareness in animals. Some people believe that only great apes
have "rich" notions of self --knowing who they are and/or having a
"theory of mind", which means being able to infer the states of minds
of others --whereas others argue that it is methodologically too
difficult to address this question because animal (like human) minds
are subjective and private. Many in this latter category do not
attribute any sense of self to animals other than humans, and some,
dismissing behavioral and neurobiological research on animal cognition,
wonder whether animals are conscious of anything at all.

2) What might animals know about themselves? Most studies of animal
self-awareness have been narrowly paradigm-driven. The "red spot"
technique was first used by Gordon Gallup to study animal
self-awareness in chimpanzees; it and variations have been used on
great apes and monkeys, as well as on a few dolphins and elephants. For
primates, a spot is placed on the forehead of an anesthetized
individual and self-directed movements towards the spot are scored
after he or she awakens and catches sight of themselves in a mirror, a
high score indicating the presence of some degree of self-awareness.
But in some cases, the data are derived from tests on small numbers of
individuals, many of whom fail it because they do not make
self-directed movements towards the spot. Those who pass the test might
not be representative of wild relatives because they have had extensive
human contact and previous experience with mirrors, factors that might
influence their trainability and willingness to use a mirror. Those who
fail the test might show some sense of 'self' in other contexts, and
other individual differences might also play a role.

3) The concept of animal self-awareness remains open to different
interpretations, but we will probably learn more about the mysteries of
"self" and "body-ness" by using non-invasive neuroimaging techniques in
combination with cognitive ethological studies. If we look at
"self-awareness" as "body-awareness", we might also discover more about
how animals think and the perceptual and neurobiological processes
underlying various cognitive capacities. Darwin's ideas about
evolutionary continuity, together with empirical data ("science sense")
and common sense, caution against the unyielding claim that humans
--and perhaps other great apes and cetaceans -- are the only species in
which some sense of self has evolved.(1-5)

References (abridged):

1. Bekoff, M. Minding Animals: Awareness, Emotions, and Heart (Oxford
Univ. Press, New York & London, 2002).

2. Bekoff, M., Allen, C. & Burghardt, G. M. (eds) The Cognitive Animal:
Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition (MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2002); see especially essays on
self-awareness by Gallup, G. G., Anderson, J. R. & Shillito, D. J.;
Mitchell, R. W.; Shumaker, R. W. & Swartz, K. B.

3. Mitchell, R. W. in Handbook of Self and Identity (eds Leary, M. R. &
Tangney, J.) 567 593 (Guilford, New York, 2002).

4. Reiss, D. Nature 418, 369 370 (2002).

5. Rilling, J. K. et al. Neuron 35, 395 405 (2002).

Nature http://www.nature.com/nature

ScienceWeek http://scienceweek.com"

[NanK]

wrote:


> The thing is that there isn't so much an absence of evidence, but
> simply a lack of consensus in the intepretations of the possible
> evidence.
>

Haven't you noticed that RC hasn't commented on any of the scientific
links I've sent, nor has he supplied links (from reputable sources)
which support his (rudely) expressed position? Instead, he gets his
undies in a bunch and calls anyone receptive to dialog vulgar names.

Methinks it's time to save intelligent conversation for people
interested in exploring the topic instead of responding to his temper
tantrums.

n

[Rudy Canoza]

wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>Of course I have "anything" to support it, you ****wit.
>> The support is that there is NO evidence that they
>>ARE self aware, given what self awareness *means*.
>>Don't you get it, you moron? The absence of evidence
>>that they are is prima facie evidence that they are not.
>
>
> The thing is that there isn't so much an absence of evidence, but
> simply a lack of consensus in the intepretations of the possible
> evidence.

There is a lack of evidence for the aspects of self
awareness beyond mere body awareness.


> Example:
>
> "After decades of studying animals ranging from coyotes, gray wolves,
> domestic dogs, and Adlie penguins and other birds, I've come to the
> conclusion that not only are some animals self-aware, but also that
> there are degrees of self-awareness. Combined with studies by my
> colleagues, it's wholly plausible to suggest that many animals have a
> sense of "mine-ness" or "body-ness."

Notice he doesn't say "me-ness" or anything connected
to "being-ness".


> So, for example, when an
> experimental treatment, an object, or another individual affects an
> individual, he or she experiences that "something is happening to this
> body." Many primates relax when being groomed and individuals of many
> species actively seek pleasure and avoid pain. There's no need to
> associate "this body" with "my body" or with "me" (or "I"). Many
> animals also know the placement in space of parts of their body as they
> run, jump, perform acrobatics, or move as a coordinated hunting unit or
> flock without running into one another. They know their body isn't
> someone else's body."

The last sentence is a wild leap of inference that does
not follow in any way from the one that precedes it.


>
> Now, with such a statement, we can no longer conclude that dogs lack
> self-awareness.

You've dumbed it down to the point of meaninglessness.
People are interested in the question of self
awareness as part of the larger issue of consciousness.
This awareness of its body in a very primitive sense
as evidence of "self awareness", as a part of a larger
and more meaningful consciousness/sentience, is
laughable. We're looking for a sense of self awareness
as a sense of knowing that the individual possessing
the sense knows it exists in time and space, and all
the bull**** you've blabbered on about does not in any
way point to such knowledge.


> "ON ANIMAL SELF-AWARENESS
>
> The following points are made by Marc Bekoff (Nature 2002 419:255):
>
> 1) Researchers are interested in animal awareness because they are
> curious to discover what animals might know about themselves. There
> are, however, long-held and polarized views about the degree of
> self-awareness in animals. Some people believe that only great apes
> have "rich" notions of self --knowing who they are and/or having a
> "theory of mind", which means being able to infer the states of minds
> of others --whereas others argue that it is methodologically too
> difficult to address this question because animal (like human) minds
> are subjective and private. Many in this latter category do not
> attribute any sense of self to animals other than humans, and some,
> dismissing behavioral and neurobiological research on animal cognition,
> wonder whether animals are conscious of anything at all.

It's this "theory of mind" for which there is no
evidence in animals other than the great apes; dogs
give no evidence that we can detect of having it.


> 2) What might animals know about themselves? Most studies of animal
> self-awareness have been narrowly paradigm-driven. The "red spot"
> technique was first used by Gordon Gallup to study animal
> self-awareness in chimpanzees; it and variations have been used on
> great apes and monkeys, as well as on a few dolphins and elephants. For
> primates, a spot is placed on the forehead of an anesthetized
> individual and self-directed movements towards the spot are scored
> after he or she awakens and catches sight of themselves in a mirror, a
> high score indicating the presence of some degree of self-awareness.
> But in some cases, the data are derived from tests on small numbers of
> individuals, many of whom fail it because they do not make
> self-directed movements towards the spot. Those who pass the test might
> not be representative of wild relatives because they have had extensive
> human contact and previous experience with mirrors, factors that might
> influence their trainability and willingness to use a mirror. Those who
> fail the test might show some sense of 'self' in other contexts, and
> other individual differences might also play a role.

Look at all the instances of the weasel word "might".


>
> 3) The concept of animal self-awareness remains open to different
> interpretations, but we will probably learn more about the mysteries of
> "self" and "body-ness" by using non-invasive neuroimaging techniques in
> combination with cognitive ethological studies. If we look at
> "self-awareness" as "body-awareness",

Which we shouldn't. Consciousness, which is the real
objective of this line of research, is vastly more than
mere body awareness. Dogs don't give any evidence of
these higher order or "richer" dimensions of consciousness.

A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
and of which self awareness is an important but only
small part. No animals give any evidence of these
higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.

[[email protected]]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Of course I have "anything" to support it, you ****wit.
> >> The support is that there is NO evidence that they
> >>ARE self aware, given what self awareness *means*.
> >>Don't you get it, you moron? The absence of evidence
> >>that they are is prima facie evidence that they are not.
> >
> >
> > The thing is that there isn't so much an absence of evidence, but
> > simply a lack of consensus in the intepretations of the possible
> > evidence.
>
> There is a lack of evidence for the aspects of self
> awareness beyond mere body awareness.
>
>
> > Example:
> >
> > "After decades of studying animals ranging from coyotes, gray wolves,
> > domestic dogs, and Adlie penguins and other birds, I've come to the
> > conclusion that not only are some animals self-aware, but also that
> > there are degrees of self-awareness. Combined with studies by my
> > colleagues, it's wholly plausible to suggest that many animals have a
> > sense of "mine-ness" or "body-ness."
>
> Notice he doesn't say "me-ness" or anything connected
> to "being-ness".
>
>
> > So, for example, when an
> > experimental treatment, an object, or another individual affects an
> > individual, he or she experiences that "something is happening to this
> > body." Many primates relax when being groomed and individuals of many
> > species actively seek pleasure and avoid pain. There's no need to
> > associate "this body" with "my body" or with "me" (or "I"). Many
> > animals also know the placement in space of parts of their body as they
> > run, jump, perform acrobatics, or move as a coordinated hunting unit or
> > flock without running into one another. They know their body isn't
> > someone else's body."
>
> The last sentence is a wild leap of inference that does
> not follow in any way from the one that precedes it.
>
>
> >
> > Now, with such a statement, we can no longer conclude that dogs lack
> > self-awareness.
>
> You've dumbed it down to the point of meaninglessness.
> People are interested in the question of self
> awareness as part of the larger issue of consciousness.
> This awareness of its body in a very primitive sense
> as evidence of "self awareness", as a part of a larger
> and more meaningful consciousness/sentience, is
> laughable. We're looking for a sense of self awareness
> as a sense of knowing that the individual possessing
> the sense knows it exists in time and space, and all
> the bull**** you've blabbered on about does not in any
> way point to such knowledge.
>
>
> > "ON ANIMAL SELF-AWARENESS
> >
> > The following points are made by Marc Bekoff (Nature 2002 419:255):
> >
> > 1) Researchers are interested in animal awareness because they are
> > curious to discover what animals might know about themselves. There
> > are, however, long-held and polarized views about the degree of
> > self-awareness in animals. Some people believe that only great apes
> > have "rich" notions of self --knowing who they are and/or having a
> > "theory of mind", which means being able to infer the states of minds
> > of others --whereas others argue that it is methodologically too
> > difficult to address this question because animal (like human) minds
> > are subjective and private. Many in this latter category do not
> > attribute any sense of self to animals other than humans, and some,
> > dismissing behavioral and neurobiological research on animal cognition,
> > wonder whether animals are conscious of anything at all.
>
> It's this "theory of mind" for which there is no
> evidence in animals other than the great apes; dogs
> give no evidence that we can detect of having it.
>
>
> > 2) What might animals know about themselves? Most studies of animal
> > self-awareness have been narrowly paradigm-driven. The "red spot"
> > technique was first used by Gordon Gallup to study animal
> > self-awareness in chimpanzees; it and variations have been used on
> > great apes and monkeys, as well as on a few dolphins and elephants. For
> > primates, a spot is placed on the forehead of an anesthetized
> > individual and self-directed movements towards the spot are scored
> > after he or she awakens and catches sight of themselves in a mirror, a
> > high score indicating the presence of some degree of self-awareness.
> > But in some cases, the data are derived from tests on small numbers of
> > individuals, many of whom fail it because they do not make
> > self-directed movements towards the spot. Those who pass the test might
> > not be representative of wild relatives because they have had extensive
> > human contact and previous experience with mirrors, factors that might
> > influence their trainability and willingness to use a mirror. Those who
> > fail the test might show some sense of 'self' in other contexts, and
> > other individual differences might also play a role.
>
> Look at all the instances of the weasel word "might".
>
>
> >
> > 3) The concept of animal self-awareness remains open to different
> > interpretations, but we will probably learn more about the mysteries of
> > "self" and "body-ness" by using non-invasive neuroimaging techniques in
> > combination with cognitive ethological studies. If we look at
> > "self-awareness" as "body-awareness",
>
> Which we shouldn't. Consciousness, which is the real
> objective of this line of research, is vastly more than
> mere body awareness. Dogs don't give any evidence of
> these higher order or "richer" dimensions of consciousness.
>
> A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
> dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
> will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
> know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
> of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
> and of which self awareness is an important but only
> small part. No animals give any evidence of these
> higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
> That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
> is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
> and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.

How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in humans, if say, we
take away our ability to communicate with eachother, or do not use
behavioral attributes as evidence (we understand other people's
behaviour and can make rather good guesses as to what those people are
feeling or thinking due to the fact that we are the same species, which
is an obvious bias if we want to look at self-awareness objectively)?

[Rudy Canoza]

wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Of course I have "anything" to support it, you ****wit.
>>>> The support is that there is NO evidence that they
>>>>ARE self aware, given what self awareness *means*.
>>>>Don't you get it, you moron? The absence of evidence
>>>>that they are is prima facie evidence that they are not.
>>>
>>>
>>>The thing is that there isn't so much an absence of evidence, but
>>>simply a lack of consensus in the intepretations of the possible
>>>evidence.
>>
>>There is a lack of evidence for the aspects of self
>>awareness beyond mere body awareness.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Example:
>>>
>>>"After decades of studying animals ranging from coyotes, gray wolves,
>>>domestic dogs, and Adlie penguins and other birds, I've come to the
>>>conclusion that not only are some animals self-aware, but also that
>>>there are degrees of self-awareness. Combined with studies by my
>>>colleagues, it's wholly plausible to suggest that many animals have a
>>>sense of "mine-ness" or "body-ness."
>>
>>Notice he doesn't say "me-ness" or anything connected
>>to "being-ness".
>>
>>
>>
>>>So, for example, when an
>>>experimental treatment, an object, or another individual affects an
>>>individual, he or she experiences that "something is happening to this
>>>body." Many primates relax when being groomed and individuals of many
>>>species actively seek pleasure and avoid pain. There's no need to
>>>associate "this body" with "my body" or with "me" (or "I"). Many
>>>animals also know the placement in space of parts of their body as they
>>>run, jump, perform acrobatics, or move as a coordinated hunting unit or
>>>flock without running into one another. They know their body isn't
>>>someone else's body."
>>
>>The last sentence is a wild leap of inference that does
>>not follow in any way from the one that precedes it.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Now, with such a statement, we can no longer conclude that dogs lack
>>>self-awareness.
>>
>>You've dumbed it down to the point of meaninglessness.
>> People are interested in the question of self
>>awareness as part of the larger issue of consciousness.
>> This awareness of its body in a very primitive sense
>>as evidence of "self awareness", as a part of a larger
>>and more meaningful consciousness/sentience, is
>>laughable. We're looking for a sense of self awareness
>>as a sense of knowing that the individual possessing
>>the sense knows it exists in time and space, and all
>>the bull**** you've blabbered on about does not in any
>>way point to such knowledge.
>>
>>
>>
>>>"ON ANIMAL SELF-AWARENESS
>>>
>>>The following points are made by Marc Bekoff (Nature 2002 419:255):
>>>
>>>1) Researchers are interested in animal awareness because they are
>>>curious to discover what animals might know about themselves. There
>>>are, however, long-held and polarized views about the degree of
>>>self-awareness in animals. Some people believe that only great apes
>>>have "rich" notions of self --knowing who they are and/or having a
>>>"theory of mind", which means being able to infer the states of minds
>>>of others --whereas others argue that it is methodologically too
>>>difficult to address this question because animal (like human) minds
>>>are subjective and private. Many in this latter category do not
>>>attribute any sense of self to animals other than humans, and some,
>>>dismissing behavioral and neurobiological research on animal cognition,
>>>wonder whether animals are conscious of anything at all.
>>
>>It's this "theory of mind" for which there is no
>>evidence in animals other than the great apes; dogs
>>give no evidence that we can detect of having it.
>>
>>
>>
>>>2) What might animals know about themselves? Most studies of animal
>>>self-awareness have been narrowly paradigm-driven. The "red spot"
>>>technique was first used by Gordon Gallup to study animal
>>>self-awareness in chimpanzees; it and variations have been used on
>>>great apes and monkeys, as well as on a few dolphins and elephants. For
>>>primates, a spot is placed on the forehead of an anesthetized
>>>individual and self-directed movements towards the spot are scored
>>>after he or she awakens and catches sight of themselves in a mirror, a
>>>high score indicating the presence of some degree of self-awareness.
>>>But in some cases, the data are derived from tests on small numbers of
>>>individuals, many of whom fail it because they do not make
>>>self-directed movements towards the spot. Those who pass the test might
>>>not be representative of wild relatives because they have had extensive
>>>human contact and previous experience with mirrors, factors that might
>>>influence their trainability and willingness to use a mirror. Those who
>>>fail the test might show some sense of 'self' in other contexts, and
>>>other individual differences might also play a role.
>>
>>Look at all the instances of the weasel word "might".
>>
>>
>>
>>>3) The concept of animal self-awareness remains open to different
>>>interpretations, but we will probably learn more about the mysteries of
>>>"self" and "body-ness" by using non-invasive neuroimaging techniques in
>>>combination with cognitive ethological studies. If we look at
>>>"self-awareness" as "body-awareness",
>>
>>Which we shouldn't. Consciousness, which is the real
>>objective of this line of research, is vastly more than
>>mere body awareness. Dogs don't give any evidence of
>>these higher order or "richer" dimensions of consciousness.
>>
>>A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
>>dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
>>will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
>>know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
>>of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
>>and of which self awareness is an important but only
>>small part. No animals give any evidence of these
>>higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
>>That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
>>is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
>>and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.
>
>
> How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in humans, if say, we
> take away our ability to communicate with eachother,

Why would we do that? That ability to communicate with
one another, especially symbolic communication, is a
defining characteristic of our species. What a
nonsense question. If your grandmother had had
testicles, would she have been your grandfather?


> or do not use
> behavioral attributes as evidence (we understand other people's
> behaviour and can make rather good guesses as to what those people are
> feeling or thinking due to the fact that we are the same species, which
> is an obvious bias if we want to look at self-awareness objectively)?

But this is the very essence of what people are LOOKING
for among other animals. So why would you want to
"take away" that salient aspect of humans? God damn,
you're an imbecile.

I was incorrect earlier in ascribing to you a stated
belief that animals are self aware. But there is a
rational basis for my error: you very much *want* to
find that animals are conscious in the way humans are.
That isn't a scientific sentiment, and it in fact
greatly reduces your ability to approach the issue from
a legitimately scientific perspective.

[[email protected]]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
> >>dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
> >>will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
> >>know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
> >>of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
> >>and of which self awareness is an important but only
> >>small part. No animals give any evidence of these
> >>higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
> >>That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
> >>is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
> >>and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.
> >
> >
> > How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in humans, if say, we
> > take away our ability to communicate with eachother,
>
> Why would we do that? That ability to communicate with
> one another, especially symbolic communication, is a
> defining characteristic of our species. What a
> nonsense question.

We would do that because we are currently unable to communicate with
animals. Right now, some people, like yourself, are concluding that
animals do not have self awareness. Animals have no way to tell us that
they are self-aware if they were, in fact, self-aware, just like a
chinese man cannot tell me he is self-aware. Should I conclude that the
chinese man is not self-aware because there is no way he can
communicate to me that he is?

> > or do not use
> > behavioral attributes as evidence (we understand other people's
> > behaviour and can make rather good guesses as to what those people are
> > feeling or thinking due to the fact that we are the same species, which
> > is an obvious bias if we want to look at self-awareness objectively)?
>
> But this is the very essence of what people are LOOKING
> for among other animals. So why would you want to
> "take away" that salient aspect of humans? God damn,
> you're an imbecile.

Well, some people have noticed behavioral attribute in animals which
might indicate a certain level of self-awareness, which you then
disregard due to anthropomorphic projection. Perhaps, the
interpretations of the behavioral aspects of certain animals is
correct. If you will disregard certain behavioral evidence in animals
because of anthropomorphic projections, then you must do so with humans
as well to remove bias.

> I was incorrect earlier in ascribing to you a stated
> belief that animals are self aware. But there is a
> rational basis for my error: you very much *want* to
> find that animals are conscious in the way humans are.
> That isn't a scientific sentiment, and it in fact
> greatly reduces your ability to approach the issue from
> a legitimately scientific perspective.

You are, again, wrong in believing that I want to find that animals are
self-aware. You have no basis to make such an assumption. You have,
once again, made something up.

Some people who posted here are curious about certain aspects of
self-awareness and in ways for animals to show whether one is
self-aware or not. I have simply stated different ways to look at the
subject, while you would put up false statements about certain test and
beliefs from the scientific community, such as:

"You will NEVER understand self-awareness, and why no scientist
believes dogs possess it."
False statement because some scientists do believe dogs may have
self-awareness.


"But the mirror test *IS* a widely acknowledged test of self-awareness
among researchers into animal intelligence, and dogs fail it."
False statement because there is no consensus on whether the test has
any relation to self-awareness.


"True, but when they fail *any* test of self awareness, then the smart
bet is that they don't have it."
You failed to mention what those other tests are, even when directly
asked a number of times.


dh: "The mirror test is a test of self recognition Rudy, not self
awareness."
Rudy: "It's a test of self awareness, ****wit."
False again. The test was originally designed by Gallup to answer the
question whether animals can recognize themselves in mirrors.

[[email protected]]

NanK wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
> > The thing is that there isn't so much an absence of evidence, but
> > simply a lack of consensus in the intepretations of the possible
> > evidence.
> >
>
> Haven't you noticed that RC hasn't commented on any of the scientific
> links I've sent, nor has he supplied links (from reputable sources)
> which support his (rudely) expressed position? Instead, he gets his
> undies in a bunch and calls anyone receptive to dialog vulgar names.
>
> Methinks it's time to save intelligent conversation for people
> interested in exploring the topic instead of responding to his temper
> tantrums.
>
> n

His beliefs and statements are questionable in my view, even though he
believes they are not, and I am curious as to where he comes up with
such ideas. I am capable of going past the name calling, even though
Rudy hasn't.

The links you have sent do not raise such questions in my mind that I
want to explore in a simple and unsufficient medium like the internet.

[Rudy Canoza]

wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>>>A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
>>>>dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
>>>>will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
>>>>know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
>>>>of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
>>>>and of which self awareness is an important but only
>>>>small part. No animals give any evidence of these
>>>>higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
>>>>That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
>>>>is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
>>>>and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.
>>>
>>>
>>>How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in humans, if say, we
>>>take away our ability to communicate with eachother,
>>
>>Why would we do that? That ability to communicate with
>>one another, especially symbolic communication, is a
>>defining characteristic of our species. What a
>>nonsense question.
>
>
> We would do that because we are currently unable to communicate with
> animals. Right now, some people, like yourself, are concluding

*tentatively* concluding...


> that animals do not have self awareness.

Because most of them don't exhibit anything that we can
recognize as self awareness, despite hard searching.



> Animals have no way to tell us that
> they are self-aware if they were, in fact, self-aware, just like a
> chinese man cannot tell me he is self-aware.

With a little work, a Chinese man can tell you.

Again, self awareness is only one part of the larger
consciousness for which people are searching. And most
philosophers of the mind believe that language is
indispensable to what we call consciousness.


> Should I conclude that the
> chinese man is not self-aware because there is no way he can
> communicate to me that he is?

No, dumb **** - you should learn Chinese. And write
'Chinese' - it's a proper noun.


>>>or do not use
>>>behavioral attributes as evidence (we understand other people's
>>>behaviour and can make rather good guesses as to what those people are
>>>feeling or thinking due to the fact that we are the same species, which
>>>is an obvious bias if we want to look at self-awareness objectively)?
>>
>>But this is the very essence of what people are LOOKING
>>for among other animals. So why would you want to
>>"take away" that salient aspect of humans? God damn,
>>you're an imbecile.
>
>
> Well, some people have noticed behavioral attribute in animals which
> might indicate a certain level of self-awareness, which you then
> disregard due to anthropomorphic projection. Perhaps, the
> interpretations of the behavioral aspects of certain animals is
> correct. If you will disregard certain behavioral evidence in animals
> because of anthropomorphic projections, then you must do so with humans
> as well to remove bias.

What bias?


>>I was incorrect earlier in ascribing to you a stated
>>belief that animals are self aware. But there is a
>>rational basis for my error: you very much *want* to
>>find that animals are conscious in the way humans are.
>> That isn't a scientific sentiment, and it in fact
>>greatly reduces your ability to approach the issue from
>>a legitimately scientific perspective.
>
>
> You are, again, wrong in believing that I want to find that animals are
> self-aware. You have no basis to make such an assumption.

I do have. It's the tone of your writing.


> Some people who posted here are curious about certain aspects of
> self-awareness and in ways for animals to show whether one is
> self-aware or not. I have simply stated different ways to look at the
> subject, while you would put up false statements about certain test and
> beliefs from the scientific community, such as:
>
> "You will NEVER understand self-awareness, and why no scientist
> believes dogs possess it."
> False statement because some scientists do believe dogs may have
> self-awareness.
>
>
> "But the mirror test *IS* a widely acknowledged test of self-awareness
> among researchers into animal intelligence, and dogs fail it."
> False statement because there is no consensus on whether the test has
> any relation to self-awareness.
>
>
> "True, but when they fail *any* test of self awareness, then the smart
> bet is that they don't have it."
> You failed to mention what those other tests are, even when directly
> asked a number of times.
>
>
> dh: "The mirror test is a test of self recognition Rudy, not self
> awareness."
> Rudy: "It's a test of self awareness, ****wit."
> False again. The test was originally designed by Gallup to answer the
> question whether animals can recognize themselves in mirrors.
>

[[email protected]]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> >>>>A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
> >>>>dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
> >>>>will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
> >>>>know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
> >>>>of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
> >>>>and of which self awareness is an important but only
> >>>>small part. No animals give any evidence of these
> >>>>higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
> >>>>That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
> >>>>is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
> >>>>and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in humans, if say, we
> >>>take away our ability to communicate with eachother,
> >>
> >>Why would we do that? That ability to communicate with
> >>one another, especially symbolic communication, is a
> >>defining characteristic of our species. What a
> >>nonsense question.
> >
> >
> > We would do that because we are currently unable to communicate with
> > animals. Right now, some people, like yourself, are concluding
>
> *tentatively* concluding...
>
>
> > that animals do not have self awareness.
>
> Because most of them don't exhibit anything that we can
> recognize as self awareness, despite hard searching.
>
>
>
> > Animals have no way to tell us that
> > they are self-aware if they were, in fact, self-aware, just like a
> > chinese man cannot tell me he is self-aware.
>
> With a little work, a Chinese man can tell you.

How?

> Again, self awareness is only one part of the larger
> consciousness for which people are searching. And most
> philosophers of the mind believe that language is
> indispensable to what we call consciousness.

Well, dh, who started this thread was asking about whether a dog has
any mental concept of itself, because some people say it doesn't while
other feel it does because of certain behaviours. What the rest of the
people are looking for in the realm of consciousness is of no
importance to this particular thread. What philosophers believe is not
scientifically tested to this point. They are simply coming up with
ideas, just like the rest of us.

> > Should I conclude that the
> > chinese man is not self-aware because there is no way he can
> > communicate to me that he is?
>
> No, dumb **** - you should learn Chinese. And write
> 'Chinese' - it's a proper noun.

So people need to learn to communicate with dogs then, rather than
*tentavely* conclude they are not self-aware, since I can't make such a
conclusion about the *Chinese* man.

> >>>or do not use
> >>>behavioral attributes as evidence (we understand other people's
> >>>behaviour and can make rather good guesses as to what those people are
> >>>feeling or thinking due to the fact that we are the same species, which
> >>>is an obvious bias if we want to look at self-awareness objectively)?
> >>
> >>But this is the very essence of what people are LOOKING
> >>for among other animals. So why would you want to
> >>"take away" that salient aspect of humans? God damn,
> >>you're an imbecile.
> >
> >
> > Well, some people have noticed behavioral attribute in animals which
> > might indicate a certain level of self-awareness, which you then
> > disregard due to anthropomorphic projection. Perhaps, the
> > interpretations of the behavioral aspects of certain animals is
> > correct. If you will disregard certain behavioral evidence in animals
> > because of anthropomorphic projections, then you must do so with humans
> > as well to remove bias.
>
> What bias?

The bias that humans are automatically self-aware because the observer
is self-aware. This is, in a sense, like cultural bias.

> >>I was incorrect earlier in ascribing to you a stated
> >>belief that animals are self aware. But there is a
> >>rational basis for my error: you very much *want* to
> >>find that animals are conscious in the way humans are.
> >> That isn't a scientific sentiment, and it in fact
> >>greatly reduces your ability to approach the issue from
> >>a legitimately scientific perspective.
> >
> >
> > You are, again, wrong in believing that I want to find that animals are
> > self-aware. You have no basis to make such an assumption.
>
> I do have. It's the tone of your writing.

My tone doesn't indicate as such. You are simply imposing your feelings
on my writing.

> > Some people who posted here are curious about certain aspects of
> > self-awareness and in ways for animals to show whether one is
> > self-aware or not. I have simply stated different ways to look at the
> > subject, while you would put up false statements about certain test and
> > beliefs from the scientific community, such as:
> >
> > "You will NEVER understand self-awareness, and why no scientist
> > believes dogs possess it."
> > False statement because some scientists do believe dogs may have
> > self-awareness.
> >
> >
> > "But the mirror test *IS* a widely acknowledged test of self-awareness
> > among researchers into animal intelligence, and dogs fail it."
> > False statement because there is no consensus on whether the test has
> > any relation to self-awareness.
> >
> >
> > "True, but when they fail *any* test of self awareness, then the smart
> > bet is that they don't have it."
> > You failed to mention what those other tests are, even when directly
> > asked a number of times.
> >
> >
> > dh: "The mirror test is a test of self recognition Rudy, not self
> > awareness."
> > Rudy: "It's a test of self awareness, ****wit."
> > False again. The test was originally designed by Gallup to answer the
> > question whether animals can recognize themselves in mirrors.
> >

[Rudy Canoza]

wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
>>>>>>dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
>>>>>>will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
>>>>>>know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
>>>>>>of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
>>>>>>and of which self awareness is an important but only
>>>>>>small part. No animals give any evidence of these
>>>>>>higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
>>>>>>That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
>>>>>>is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
>>>>>>and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in humans, if say, we
>>>>>take away our ability to communicate with eachother,
>>>>
>>>>Why would we do that? That ability to communicate with
>>>>one another, especially symbolic communication, is a
>>>>defining characteristic of our species. What a
>>>>nonsense question.
>>>
>>>
>>>We would do that because we are currently unable to communicate with
>>>animals. Right now, some people, like yourself, are concluding
>>
>>*tentatively* concluding...
>>
>>
>>
>>>that animals do not have self awareness.
>>
>>Because most of them don't exhibit anything that we can
>>recognize as self awareness, despite hard searching.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Animals have no way to tell us that
>>>they are self-aware if they were, in fact, self-aware, just like a
>>>chinese man cannot tell me he is self-aware.
>>
>>With a little work, a Chinese man can tell you.
>
>
> How?

Goddamn, you helpless ****. You learn Chinese; or he
learns English; or you employ a translator.

I'm tired of doing your heavy lifting.


>>Again, self awareness is only one part of the larger
>>consciousness for which people are searching. And most
>>philosophers of the mind believe that language is
>>indispensable to what we call consciousness.
>
>
> Well, dh, who started this thread was asking about whether a dog has
> any mental concept of itself, because some people say it doesn't while
> other feel it does because of certain behaviours.

David Harrison - ****wit, or 'dh@' - has a particularly
dishonest agenda he's pursuing in doing that.


>>>Should I conclude that the
>>>chinese man is not self-aware because there is no way he can
>>>communicate to me that he is?
>>
>>No, dumb **** - you should learn Chinese. And write
>>'Chinese' - it's a proper noun.
>
>
> So people need to learn to communicate with dogs then, rather than
> *tentavely* conclude they are not self-aware, since I can't make such a
> conclusion about the *Chinese* man.

You can reach such a conclusion about someone who
natively speaks a language other than yours fairly
easily. Then, following easily learned rules of
inductive logic, you can expand it to cover all groups
of humans no matter what language they speak.


>>>>>or do not use
>>>>>behavioral attributes as evidence (we understand other people's
>>>>>behaviour and can make rather good guesses as to what those people are
>>>>>feeling or thinking due to the fact that we are the same species, which
>>>>>is an obvious bias if we want to look at self-awareness objectively)?
>>>>
>>>>But this is the very essence of what people are LOOKING
>>>>for among other animals. So why would you want to
>>>>"take away" that salient aspect of humans? God damn,
>>>>you're an imbecile.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, some people have noticed behavioral attribute in animals which
>>>might indicate a certain level of self-awareness, which you then
>>>disregard due to anthropomorphic projection. Perhaps, the
>>>interpretations of the behavioral aspects of certain animals is
>>>correct. If you will disregard certain behavioral evidence in animals
>>>because of anthropomorphic projections, then you must do so with humans
>>>as well to remove bias.
>>
>>What bias?
>
>
> The bias that humans are automatically self-aware because the observer
> is self-aware.

That isn't the way the conclusion is reached.


>>>>I was incorrect earlier in ascribing to you a stated
>>>>belief that animals are self aware. But there is a
>>>>rational basis for my error: you very much *want* to
>>>>find that animals are conscious in the way humans are.
>>>> That isn't a scientific sentiment, and it in fact
>>>>greatly reduces your ability to approach the issue from
>>>>a legitimately scientific perspective.
>>>
>>>
>>>You are, again, wrong in believing that I want to find that animals are
>>>self-aware. You have no basis to make such an assumption.
>>
>>I do have. It's the tone of your writing.
>
>
> My tone doesn't indicate as such.

Yes, it does.

[[email protected]]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
> >>>>>>dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
> >>>>>>will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
> >>>>>>know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
> >>>>>>of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
> >>>>>>and of which self awareness is an important but only
> >>>>>>small part. No animals give any evidence of these
> >>>>>>higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
> >>>>>>That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
> >>>>>>is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
> >>>>>>and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in humans, if say, we
> >>>>>take away our ability to communicate with eachother,
> >>>>
> >>>>Why would we do that? That ability to communicate with
> >>>>one another, especially symbolic communication, is a
> >>>>defining characteristic of our species. What a
> >>>>nonsense question.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>We would do that because we are currently unable to communicate with
> >>>animals. Right now, some people, like yourself, are concluding
> >>
> >>*tentatively* concluding...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>that animals do not have self awareness.
> >>
> >>Because most of them don't exhibit anything that we can
> >>recognize as self awareness, despite hard searching.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Animals have no way to tell us that
> >>>they are self-aware if they were, in fact, self-aware, just like a
> >>>chinese man cannot tell me he is self-aware.
> >>
> >>With a little work, a Chinese man can tell you.
> >
> >
> > How?
>
> Goddamn, you helpless ****. You learn Chinese; or he
> learns English; or you employ a translator.
>
> I'm tired of doing your heavy lifting.

You have a serious anger problem. I suggest you seek professional help.

If I do what you suggest, then I am adding something new into the
equation. Something that, as of yet, cannot be done with animals.
Basically, until I become like the Chinese man (ie, understand Chinese)
or he changes his behaviour to accomodate the observer (ie, speak
english), or I add something which may or may not be an accurate means
interpreting (ie, the translator), I cannot tell whether he is
self-aware. By simply observing the Chinese man objectively, I cannot
tell whether he is self-aware. If you believe that I can, explain how?

> >>Again, self awareness is only one part of the larger
> >>consciousness for which people are searching. And most
> >>philosophers of the mind believe that language is
> >>indispensable to what we call consciousness.
> >
> >
> > Well, dh, who started this thread was asking about whether a dog has
> > any mental concept of itself, because some people say it doesn't while
> > other feel it does because of certain behaviours.
>
> David Harrison - ****wit, or 'dh@' - has a particularly
> dishonest agenda he's pursuing in doing that.

I am not aware of his agenda, nor do I care if he has an agenda, or
whether you have an agenda, or whether Joe Shmo has an agenda. This
doesn't change the actual points I am chosing to discuss.

> >>>Should I conclude that the
> >>>chinese man is not self-aware because there is no way he can
> >>>communicate to me that he is?
> >>
> >>No, dumb **** - you should learn Chinese. And write
> >>'Chinese' - it's a proper noun.
> >
> >
> > So people need to learn to communicate with dogs then, rather than
> > *tentavely* conclude they are not self-aware, since I can't make such a
> > conclusion about the *Chinese* man.
>
> You can reach such a conclusion about someone who
> natively speaks a language other than yours fairly
> easily. Then, following easily learned rules of
> inductive logic, you can expand it to cover all groups
> of humans no matter what language they speak.

How does the ability of speech indicate that a being is self-aware?
Especially when the observer does not understand the language spoken?

> >>>>>or do not use
> >>>>>behavioral attributes as evidence (we understand other people's
> >>>>>behaviour and can make rather good guesses as to what those people are
> >>>>>feeling or thinking due to the fact that we are the same species, which
> >>>>>is an obvious bias if we want to look at self-awareness objectively)?
> >>>>
> >>>>But this is the very essence of what people are LOOKING
> >>>>for among other animals. So why would you want to
> >>>>"take away" that salient aspect of humans? God damn,
> >>>>you're an imbecile.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well, some people have noticed behavioral attribute in animals which
> >>>might indicate a certain level of self-awareness, which you then
> >>>disregard due to anthropomorphic projection. Perhaps, the
> >>>interpretations of the behavioral aspects of certain animals is
> >>>correct. If you will disregard certain behavioral evidence in animals
> >>>because of anthropomorphic projections, then you must do so with humans
> >>>as well to remove bias.
> >>
> >>What bias?
> >
> >
> > The bias that humans are automatically self-aware because the observer
> > is self-aware.
>
> That isn't the way the conclusion is reached.

Then how is it reached?

> >>>>I was incorrect earlier in ascribing to you a stated
> >>>>belief that animals are self aware. But there is a
> >>>>rational basis for my error: you very much *want* to
> >>>>find that animals are conscious in the way humans are.
> >>>> That isn't a scientific sentiment, and it in fact
> >>>>greatly reduces your ability to approach the issue from
> >>>>a legitimately scientific perspective.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You are, again, wrong in believing that I want to find that animals are
> >>>self-aware. You have no basis to make such an assumption.
> >>
> >>I do have. It's the tone of your writing.
> >
> >
> > My tone doesn't indicate as such.
>
> Yes, it does.

Still imposing your feelings, I see. You do appear to lack the ability
to control your emotions.

[rick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> >
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
>> >>>>>>dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
>> >>>>>>will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
>> >>>>>>know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
>> >>>>>>of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
>> >>>>>>and of which self awareness is an important but only
>> >>>>>>small part. No animals give any evidence of these
>> >>>>>>higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
>> >>>>>>That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
>> >>>>>>is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
>> >>>>>>and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in
>> >>>>>humans, if say, we
>> >>>>>take away our ability to communicate with eachother,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Why would we do that? That ability to communicate with
>> >>>>one another, especially symbolic communication, is a
>> >>>>defining characteristic of our species. What a
>> >>>>nonsense question.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>We would do that because we are currently unable to
>> >>>communicate with
>> >>>animals. Right now, some people, like yourself, are
>> >>>concluding
>> >>
>> >>*tentatively* concluding...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>that animals do not have self awareness.
>> >>
>> >>Because most of them don't exhibit anything that we can
>> >>recognize as self awareness, despite hard searching.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>Animals have no way to tell us that
>> >>>they are self-aware if they were, in fact, self-aware, just
>> >>>like a
>> >>>chinese man cannot tell me he is self-aware.
>> >>
>> >>With a little work, a Chinese man can tell you.
>> >
>> >
>> > How?
>>
>> Goddamn, you helpless ****. You learn Chinese; or he
>> learns English; or you employ a translator.
>>
>> I'm tired of doing your heavy lifting.
>
> You have a serious anger problem. I suggest you seek
> professional help.
>
> If I do what you suggest, then I am adding something new into
> the
> equation. Something that, as of yet, cannot be done with
> animals.
> Basically, until I become like the Chinese man (ie, understand
> Chinese)
> or he changes his behaviour to accomodate the observer (ie,
> speak
> english), or I add something which may or may not be an
> accurate means
> interpreting (ie, the translator), I cannot tell whether he is
> self-aware. By simply observing the Chinese man objectively, I
> cannot
> tell whether he is self-aware. If you believe that I can,
> explain how?
=============================
I suggest that it is YOU that has an awarness problem. So,
according to you, only those that can speak in the limited
language skills that YOU have are self-aware. How totally
bigoted of you, little girl.



>
>> >>Again, self awareness is only one part of the larger
>> >>consciousness for which people are searching. And most
>> >>philosophers of the mind believe that language is
>> >>indispensable to what we call consciousness.
>> >
>> >
>> > Well, dh, who started this thread was asking about whether a
>> > dog has
>> > any mental concept of itself, because some people say it
>> > doesn't while
>> > other feel it does because of certain behaviours.
>>
>> David Harrison - ****wit, or 'dh@' - has a particularly
>> dishonest agenda he's pursuing in doing that.
>
> I am not aware of his agenda, nor do I care if he has an
> agenda, or
> whether you have an agenda, or whether Joe Shmo has an agenda.
> This
> doesn't change the actual points I am chosing to discuss.
>
>> >>>Should I conclude that the
>> >>>chinese man is not self-aware because there is no way he
>> >>>can
>> >>>communicate to me that he is?
>> >>
>> >>No, dumb **** - you should learn Chinese. And write
>> >>'Chinese' - it's a proper noun.
>> >
>> >
>> > So people need to learn to communicate with dogs then,
>> > rather than
>> > *tentavely* conclude they are not self-aware, since I can't
>> > make such a
>> > conclusion about the *Chinese* man.
>>
>> You can reach such a conclusion about someone who
>> natively speaks a language other than yours fairly
>> easily. Then, following easily learned rules of
>> inductive logic, you can expand it to cover all groups
>> of humans no matter what language they speak.
>
> How does the ability of speech indicate that a being is
> self-aware?
> Especially when the observer does not understand the language
> spoken?
>
>> >>>>>or do not use
>> >>>>>behavioral attributes as evidence (we understand other
>> >>>>>people's
>> >>>>>behaviour and can make rather good guesses as to what
>> >>>>>those people are
>> >>>>>feeling or thinking due to the fact that we are the same
>> >>>>>species, which
>> >>>>>is an obvious bias if we want to look at self-awareness
>> >>>>>objectively)?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>But this is the very essence of what people are LOOKING
>> >>>>for among other animals. So why would you want to
>> >>>>"take away" that salient aspect of humans? God damn,
>> >>>>you're an imbecile.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Well, some people have noticed behavioral attribute in
>> >>>animals which
>> >>>might indicate a certain level of self-awareness, which you
>> >>>then
>> >>>disregard due to anthropomorphic projection. Perhaps, the
>> >>>interpretations of the behavioral aspects of certain
>> >>>animals is
>> >>>correct. If you will disregard certain behavioral evidence
>> >>>in animals
>> >>>because of anthropomorphic projections, then you must do so
>> >>>with humans
>> >>>as well to remove bias.
>> >>
>> >>What bias?
>> >
>> >
>> > The bias that humans are automatically self-aware because
>> > the observer
>> > is self-aware.
>>
>> That isn't the way the conclusion is reached.
>
> Then how is it reached?
>
>> >>>>I was incorrect earlier in ascribing to you a stated
>> >>>>belief that animals are self aware. But there is a
>> >>>>rational basis for my error: you very much *want* to
>> >>>>find that animals are conscious in the way humans are.
>> >>>> That isn't a scientific sentiment, and it in fact
>> >>>>greatly reduces your ability to approach the issue from
>> >>>>a legitimately scientific perspective.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>You are, again, wrong in believing that I want to find that
>> >>>animals are
>> >>>self-aware. You have no basis to make such an assumption.
>> >>
>> >>I do have. It's the tone of your writing.
>> >
>> >
>> > My tone doesn't indicate as such.
>>
>> Yes, it does.
>
> Still imposing your feelings, I see. You do appear to lack the
> ability
> to control your emotions.
>

[[email protected]]

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> >
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>>A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
> >> >>>>>>dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
> >> >>>>>>will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
> >> >>>>>>know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
> >> >>>>>>of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
> >> >>>>>>and of which self awareness is an important but only
> >> >>>>>>small part. No animals give any evidence of these
> >> >>>>>>higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
> >> >>>>>>That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
> >> >>>>>>is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
> >> >>>>>>and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in
> >> >>>>>humans, if say, we
> >> >>>>>take away our ability to communicate with eachother,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Why would we do that? That ability to communicate with
> >> >>>>one another, especially symbolic communication, is a
> >> >>>>defining characteristic of our species. What a
> >> >>>>nonsense question.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>We would do that because we are currently unable to
> >> >>>communicate with
> >> >>>animals. Right now, some people, like yourself, are
> >> >>>concluding
> >> >>
> >> >>*tentatively* concluding...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>that animals do not have self awareness.
> >> >>
> >> >>Because most of them don't exhibit anything that we can
> >> >>recognize as self awareness, despite hard searching.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>Animals have no way to tell us that
> >> >>>they are self-aware if they were, in fact, self-aware, just
> >> >>>like a
> >> >>>chinese man cannot tell me he is self-aware.
> >> >>
> >> >>With a little work, a Chinese man can tell you.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > How?
> >>
> >> Goddamn, you helpless ****. You learn Chinese; or he
> >> learns English; or you employ a translator.
> >>
> >> I'm tired of doing your heavy lifting.
> >
> > You have a serious anger problem. I suggest you seek
> > professional help.
> >
> > If I do what you suggest, then I am adding something new into
> > the
> > equation. Something that, as of yet, cannot be done with
> > animals.
> > Basically, until I become like the Chinese man (ie, understand
> > Chinese)
> > or he changes his behaviour to accomodate the observer (ie,
> > speak
> > english), or I add something which may or may not be an
> > accurate means
> > interpreting (ie, the translator), I cannot tell whether he is
> > self-aware. By simply observing the Chinese man objectively, I
> > cannot
> > tell whether he is self-aware. If you believe that I can,
> > explain how?
> =============================
> I suggest that it is YOU that has an awarness problem. So,
> according to you, only those that can speak in the limited
> language skills that YOU have are self-aware. How totally
> bigoted of you, little girl.

I have never said that. I simply presented a hypothetical situation
with a human, which is the situation we are found in with animals. When
Rudy disregards any possible behavioral interpretation in animals as
something which is also present in humans as anthropomorphic
projection, that raises the question whether when interpreting the
behaviour of a human, if we are projecting our own experiences and
feeling onto an individual which isn't us and expecting our
interpretation to be accurate.

Rudy also said that the simple fact that we cannot communicate with a
human is not a basis to assume that the human does not have
self-awareness. Yet when the same situation is presented with an
animal, he has no problem making the assumption that the animal does
not have self-awareness.

[Rudy Canoza]

wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
>>>>>>>>dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
>>>>>>>>will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
>>>>>>>>know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
>>>>>>>>of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
>>>>>>>>and of which self awareness is an important but only
>>>>>>>>small part. No animals give any evidence of these
>>>>>>>>higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
>>>>>>>>That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
>>>>>>>>is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
>>>>>>>>and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in humans, if say, we
>>>>>>>take away our ability to communicate with eachother,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why would we do that? That ability to communicate with
>>>>>>one another, especially symbolic communication, is a
>>>>>>defining characteristic of our species. What a
>>>>>>nonsense question.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>We would do that because we are currently unable to communicate with
>>>>>animals. Right now, some people, like yourself, are concluding
>>>>
>>>>*tentatively* concluding...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>that animals do not have self awareness.
>>>>
>>>>Because most of them don't exhibit anything that we can
>>>>recognize as self awareness, despite hard searching.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Animals have no way to tell us that
>>>>>they are self-aware if they were, in fact, self-aware, just like a
>>>>>chinese man cannot tell me he is self-aware.
>>>>
>>>>With a little work, a Chinese man can tell you.
>>>
>>>
>>>How?
>>
>>Goddamn, you helpless ****. You learn Chinese; or he
>>learns English; or you employ a translator.
>>
>>I'm tired of doing your heavy lifting.
>
>
> You have a serious anger problem. I suggest you seek professional help.

**** off. Find a new usenet insult. That one was
stale 10 years ago.

>
> If I do what you suggest, then I am adding something new into the
> equation.

Bull****. I speak fluent French. It doesn't add
anything "new" into my communication with a native
French speaker.

You're a science fraud.


> Something that, as of yet, cannot be done with animals.

Animals are different species from humans, asshole.
Humans are the same no matter what language they speak.


> Basically, until I become like the Chinese man (ie, understand Chinese)
> or he changes his behaviour to accomodate the observer (ie, speak
> english), or I add something which may or may not be an accurate means
> interpreting (ie, the translator), I cannot tell whether he is
> self-aware. By simply observing the Chinese man objectively, I cannot
> tell whether he is self-aware. If you believe that I can, explain how?
>
>
>>>>Again, self awareness is only one part of the larger
>>>>consciousness for which people are searching. And most
>>>>philosophers of the mind believe that language is
>>>>indispensable to what we call consciousness.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, dh, who started this thread was asking about whether a dog has
>>>any mental concept of itself, because some people say it doesn't while
>>>other feel it does because of certain behaviours.
>>
>>David Harrison - ****wit, or 'dh@' - has a particularly
>>dishonest agenda he's pursuing in doing that.
>
>
> I am not aware of his agenda,

I am. His agenda is to try to show that humans are
doing animals a favor by breeding them into existence
in order to kill them and eat them. I'm not making
that up. I think I know why he's trying to show that
animals have self awareness and other attributes of
consciousness that would make them seem more
human-like, but I'm not tipping my hand.

I'm done with you. You're a tedious windbag, and
you're a science fraud to boot. Go **** yourself.

[rick]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>>>A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that
>> >> >>>>>>"No
>> >> >>>>>>dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
>> >> >>>>>>will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of
>> >> >>>>>>Rome
>> >> >>>>>>know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
>> >> >>>>>>of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
>> >> >>>>>>and of which self awareness is an important but only
>> >> >>>>>>small part. No animals give any evidence of these
>> >> >>>>>>higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
>> >> >>>>>>That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date
>> >> >>>>>>there
>> >> >>>>>>is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from
>> >> >>>>>>ignorant
>> >> >>>>>>and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in
>> >> >>>>>humans, if say, we
>> >> >>>>>take away our ability to communicate with eachother,
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>Why would we do that? That ability to communicate with
>> >> >>>>one another, especially symbolic communication, is a
>> >> >>>>defining characteristic of our species. What a
>> >> >>>>nonsense question.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>We would do that because we are currently unable to
>> >> >>>communicate with
>> >> >>>animals. Right now, some people, like yourself, are
>> >> >>>concluding
>> >> >>
>> >> >>*tentatively* concluding...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>that animals do not have self awareness.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Because most of them don't exhibit anything that we can
>> >> >>recognize as self awareness, despite hard searching.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Animals have no way to tell us that
>> >> >>>they are self-aware if they were, in fact, self-aware,
>> >> >>>just
>> >> >>>like a
>> >> >>>chinese man cannot tell me he is self-aware.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>With a little work, a Chinese man can tell you.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > How?
>> >>
>> >> Goddamn, you helpless ****. You learn Chinese; or he
>> >> learns English; or you employ a translator.
>> >>
>> >> I'm tired of doing your heavy lifting.
>> >
>> > You have a serious anger problem. I suggest you seek
>> > professional help.
>> >
>> > If I do what you suggest, then I am adding something new
>> > into
>> > the
>> > equation. Something that, as of yet, cannot be done with
>> > animals.
>> > Basically, until I become like the Chinese man (ie,
>> > understand
>> > Chinese)
>> > or he changes his behaviour to accomodate the observer (ie,
>> > speak
>> > english), or I add something which may or may not be an
>> > accurate means
>> > interpreting (ie, the translator), I cannot tell whether he
>> > is
>> > self-aware. By simply observing the Chinese man objectively,
>> > I
>> > cannot
>> > tell whether he is self-aware. If you believe that I can,
>> > explain how?
>> =============================
>> I suggest that it is YOU that has an awarness problem. So,
>> according to you, only those that can speak in the limited
>> language skills that YOU have are self-aware. How totally
>> bigoted of you, little girl.
>
> I have never said that. I simply presented a hypothetical
> situation
> with a human,
======================
No, you spewed a pile of crap. Another person can always learn a
new language, well those unlike you that are capable.
An animal will never learn a language to that degree. Like you
they may understand sit, beg, and bad girl....


which is the situation we are found in with animals. When
> Rudy disregards any possible behavioral interpretation in
> animals as
> something which is also present in humans as anthropomorphic
> projection, that raises the question whether when interpreting
> the
> behaviour of a human, if we are projecting our own experiences
> and
> feeling onto an individual which isn't us and expecting our
> interpretation to be accurate.
==========================
LOL You are the one projecting, fool...


>
> Rudy also said that the simple fact that we cannot communicate
> with a
> human is not a basis to assume that the human does not have
> self-awareness. Yet when the same situation is presented with
> an
> animal, he has no problem making the assumption that the animal
> does
> not have self-awareness.
===========================
Are you really this stupid?


>

[[email protected]]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>>>>A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
> >>>>>>>>dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
> >>>>>>>>will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
> >>>>>>>>know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
> >>>>>>>>of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
> >>>>>>>>and of which self awareness is an important but only
> >>>>>>>>small part. No animals give any evidence of these
> >>>>>>>>higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
> >>>>>>>>That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
> >>>>>>>>is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
> >>>>>>>>and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in humans, if say, we
> >>>>>>>take away our ability to communicate with eachother,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Why would we do that? That ability to communicate with
> >>>>>>one another, especially symbolic communication, is a
> >>>>>>defining characteristic of our species. What a
> >>>>>>nonsense question.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>We would do that because we are currently unable to communicate with
> >>>>>animals. Right now, some people, like yourself, are concluding
> >>>>
> >>>>*tentatively* concluding...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>that animals do not have self awareness.
> >>>>
> >>>>Because most of them don't exhibit anything that we can
> >>>>recognize as self awareness, despite hard searching.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Animals have no way to tell us that
> >>>>>they are self-aware if they were, in fact, self-aware, just like a
> >>>>>chinese man cannot tell me he is self-aware.
> >>>>
> >>>>With a little work, a Chinese man can tell you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>How?
> >>
> >>Goddamn, you helpless ****. You learn Chinese; or he
> >>learns English; or you employ a translator.
> >>
> >>I'm tired of doing your heavy lifting.
> >
> >
> > You have a serious anger problem. I suggest you seek professional help.
>
> **** off. Find a new usenet insult. That one was
> stale 10 years ago.

That is not presented as an insult. I seriously do believe you have
trouble managing your anger, and this is obviously affecting your
ability to have a dicussion with someone.

> >
> > If I do what you suggest, then I am adding something new into the
> > equation.
>
> Bull****. I speak fluent French. It doesn't add
> anything "new" into my communication with a native
> French speaker.

But with my Chinese situation, I, the observer, do not speak fluent
Chinese.

> You're a science fraud.

Your whole basis of what is self-awareness and why humans have it and
dogs do not is entirely based on philosophy, not science. You claim
that your "tentative" conclusion about dogs and their lack of
self-awareness is based on the lack of scientific evidence, but your
conclusion about humans having self-awareness is not based on
scientific evidence. You show a bias.

> > Something that, as of yet, cannot be done with animals.
>
> Animals are different species from humans, asshole.
> Humans are the same no matter what language they speak.

So? What does that change about one's ability to be self-aware?

> > Basically, until I become like the Chinese man (ie, understand Chinese)
> > or he changes his behaviour to accomodate the observer (ie, speak
> > english), or I add something which may or may not be an accurate means
> > interpreting (ie, the translator), I cannot tell whether he is
> > self-aware. By simply observing the Chinese man objectively, I cannot
> > tell whether he is self-aware. If you believe that I can, explain how?
> >
> >
> >>>>Again, self awareness is only one part of the larger
> >>>>consciousness for which people are searching. And most
> >>>>philosophers of the mind believe that language is
> >>>>indispensable to what we call consciousness.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well, dh, who started this thread was asking about whether a dog has
> >>>any mental concept of itself, because some people say it doesn't while
> >>>other feel it does because of certain behaviours.
> >>
> >>David Harrison - ****wit, or 'dh@' - has a particularly
> >>dishonest agenda he's pursuing in doing that.
> >
> >
> > I am not aware of his agenda,
>
> I am. His agenda is to try to show that humans are
> doing animals a favor by breeding them into existence
> in order to kill them and eat them. I'm not making
> that up. I think I know why he's trying to show that
> animals have self awareness and other attributes of
> consciousness that would make them seem more
> human-like, but I'm not tipping my hand.

So what? Just because he believes that breeding animals is doing them a
favor doesn't change my opinion that your argument about dogs lacking
self-awareness is flawed.

> I'm done with you. You're a tedious windbag, and
> you're a science fraud to boot. Go **** yourself.

So you cannot answer my questions? You, once again make things up, like
me being a science fraud, because you are not aware of my background.
You have yet to show any actual understanding of science. So far, you
have only made false statements about science. And your argument
remains flawed.

[[email protected]]

rick wrote:
> >> =============================
> >> I suggest that it is YOU that has an awarness problem. So,
> >> according to you, only those that can speak in the limited
> >> language skills that YOU have are self-aware. How totally
> >> bigoted of you, little girl.
> >
> > I have never said that. I simply presented a hypothetical
> > situation
> > with a human,
> ======================
> No, you spewed a pile of crap. Another person can always learn a
> new language, well those unlike you that are capable.
> An animal will never learn a language to that degree. Like you
> they may understand sit, beg, and bad girl....

You are, like Rudy, also making things up by saying that I am not
capable of learning a new language. Do you not understand the meaning
of "hypothetical"?

> which is the situation we are found in with animals. When
> > Rudy disregards any possible behavioral interpretation in
> > animals as
> > something which is also present in humans as anthropomorphic
> > projection, that raises the question whether when interpreting
> > the
> > behaviour of a human, if we are projecting our own experiences
> > and
> > feeling onto an individual which isn't us and expecting our
> > interpretation to be accurate.
> ==========================
> LOL You are the one projecting, fool...

Explain.

> >
> > Rudy also said that the simple fact that we cannot communicate
> > with a
> > human is not a basis to assume that the human does not have
> > self-awareness. Yet when the same situation is presented with
> > an
> > animal, he has no problem making the assumption that the animal
> > does
> > not have self-awareness.
> ===========================
> Are you really this stupid?

Are you?

[rick]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> rick wrote:
>> >> =============================
>> >> I suggest that it is YOU that has an awarness problem. So,
>> >> according to you, only those that can speak in the limited
>> >> language skills that YOU have are self-aware. How totally
>> >> bigoted of you, little girl.
>> >
>> > I have never said that. I simply presented a hypothetical
>> > situation
>> > with a human,
>> ======================
>> No, you spewed a pile of crap. Another person can always
>> learn a
>> new language, well those unlike you that are capable.
>> An animal will never learn a language to that degree. Like
>> you
>> they may understand sit, beg, and bad girl....
>
> You are, like Rudy, also making things up by saying that I am
> not
> capable of learning a new language. Do you not understand the
> meaning
> of "hypothetical"?
=================================
Yes, but apparently you don't. You have presented a pile of
crap. There is no hypothetical where a person cannot learn a new
language, OR where an animal can learn any at all. You reaching
for straws trying to make sonething true that isn't there.


>
>> which is the situation we are found in with animals. When
>> > Rudy disregards any possible behavioral interpretation in
>> > animals as
>> > something which is also present in humans as anthropomorphic
>> > projection, that raises the question whether when
>> > interpreting
>> > the
>> > behaviour of a human, if we are projecting our own
>> > experiences
>> > and
>> > feeling onto an individual which isn't us and expecting our
>> > interpretation to be accurate.
>> ==========================
>> LOL You are the one projecting, fool...
>
> Explain.
==========================
You're the one projecting that animals are the self-aware. All
because YOU want it to be so, despite the facts.


>
>> >
>> > Rudy also said that the simple fact that we cannot
>> > communicate
>> > with a
>> > human is not a basis to assume that the human does not have
>> > self-awareness. Yet when the same situation is presented
>> > with
>> > an
>> > animal, he has no problem making the assumption that the
>> > animal
>> > does
>> > not have self-awareness.
>> ===========================
>> Are you really this stupid?
>
> Are you?
===================
No, but you must be. Try stepping back from your propaganda
brainwashing and see the idiocy you write.

>

[[email protected]]

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > rick wrote:
> >> >> =============================
> >> >> I suggest that it is YOU that has an awarness problem. So,
> >> >> according to you, only those that can speak in the limited
> >> >> language skills that YOU have are self-aware. How totally
> >> >> bigoted of you, little girl.
> >> >
> >> > I have never said that. I simply presented a hypothetical
> >> > situation
> >> > with a human,
> >> ======================
> >> No, you spewed a pile of crap. Another person can always
> >> learn a
> >> new language, well those unlike you that are capable.
> >> An animal will never learn a language to that degree. Like
> >> you
> >> they may understand sit, beg, and bad girl....
> >
> > You are, like Rudy, also making things up by saying that I am
> > not
> > capable of learning a new language. Do you not understand the
> > meaning
> > of "hypothetical"?
> =================================
> Yes, but apparently you don't. You have presented a pile of
> crap. There is no hypothetical where a person cannot learn a new
> language, OR where an animal can learn any at all. You reaching
> for straws trying to make sonething true that isn't there.

A hypothetical situation involves an assumption made for the sake of an
argument. So, the assumption is that the observer cannot understand the
language of it's subject.

> >
> >> which is the situation we are found in with animals. When
> >> > Rudy disregards any possible behavioral interpretation in
> >> > animals as
> >> > something which is also present in humans as anthropomorphic
> >> > projection, that raises the question whether when
> >> > interpreting
> >> > the
> >> > behaviour of a human, if we are projecting our own
> >> > experiences
> >> > and
> >> > feeling onto an individual which isn't us and expecting our
> >> > interpretation to be accurate.
> >> ==========================
> >> LOL You are the one projecting, fool...
> >
> > Explain.
> ==========================
> You're the one projecting that animals are the self-aware. All
> because YOU want it to be so, despite the facts.

Oh, you are a repeat of Rudy's case of making things up. Since Rudy
couldn't find evidence anywhere that I suggest that animal's are
self-aware, perhaps you can? Find me a direct quote from me.

> >> >
> >> > Rudy also said that the simple fact that we cannot
> >> > communicate
> >> > with a
> >> > human is not a basis to assume that the human does not have
> >> > self-awareness. Yet when the same situation is presented
> >> > with
> >> > an
> >> > animal, he has no problem making the assumption that the
> >> > animal
> >> > does
> >> > not have self-awareness.
> >> ===========================
> >> Are you really this stupid?
> >
> > Are you?
> ===================
> No, but you must be. Try stepping back from your propaganda
> brainwashing and see the idiocy you write.

I suggest you try to read what I wrote without any preconception about
what I might be feeling or thinking, and taking what I write at face
value.

[dh@.]

On 17 Sep 2005 13:46:34 -0700, wrote:

>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> >>A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
>> >>dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
>> >>will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
>> >>know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
>> >>of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
>> >>and of which self awareness is an important but only
>> >>small part. No animals give any evidence of these
>> >>higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
>> >>That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
>> >>is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
>> >>and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.
>> >
>> >
>> > How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in humans, if say, we
>> > take away our ability to communicate with eachother,
>>
>> Why would we do that? That ability to communicate with
>> one another, especially symbolic communication, is a
>> defining characteristic of our species. What a
>> nonsense question.
>
>We would do that because we are currently unable to communicate with
>animals. Right now, some people, like yourself, are concluding that
>animals do not have self awareness. Animals have no way to tell us that
>they are self-aware if they were, in fact, self-aware, just like a
>chinese man cannot tell me he is self-aware. Should I conclude that the
>chinese man is not self-aware because there is no way he can
>communicate to me that he is?
>
>> > or do not use
>> > behavioral attributes as evidence (we understand other people's
>> > behaviour and can make rather good guesses as to what those people are
>> > feeling or thinking due to the fact that we are the same species, which
>> > is an obvious bias if we want to look at self-awareness objectively)?
>>
>> But this is the very essence of what people are LOOKING
>> for among other animals. So why would you want to
>> "take away" that salient aspect of humans? God damn,
>> you're an imbecile.
>
>Well, some people have noticed behavioral attribute in animals which
>might indicate a certain level of self-awareness, which you then
>disregard due to anthropomorphic projection. Perhaps, the
>interpretations of the behavioral aspects of certain animals is
>correct. If you will disregard certain behavioral evidence in animals
>because of anthropomorphic projections, then you must do so with humans
>as well to remove bias.
>
>> I was incorrect earlier in ascribing to you a stated
>> belief that animals are self aware. But there is a
>> rational basis for my error: you very much *want* to
>> find that animals are conscious in the way humans are.
>> That isn't a scientific sentiment, and it in fact
>> greatly reduces your ability to approach the issue from
>> a legitimately scientific perspective.
>
>You are, again, wrong in believing that I want to find that animals are
>self-aware. You have no basis to make such an assumption. You have,
>once again, made something up.
>
>Some people who posted here are curious about certain aspects of
>self-awareness and in ways for animals to show whether one is
>self-aware or not. I have simply stated different ways to look at the
>subject, while you would put up false statements about certain test and
>beliefs from the scientific community, such as:
>
>"You will NEVER understand self-awareness, and why no scientist
>believes dogs possess it."
>False statement

That's to be expected. The truth is not Goo's friend, or even
an aquaintance afaik. The pattern I've noticed and have pointed
out to him a number of times, is that if he could be made to stick
to the truth he would have little or nothing to post.

>because some scientists do believe dogs may have
>self-awareness.
>
>
>"But the mirror test *IS* a widely acknowledged test of self-awareness
>among researchers into animal intelligence, and dogs fail it."
>False statement because there is no consensus on whether the test has
>any relation to self-awareness.
>
>
>"True, but when they fail *any* test of self awareness, then the smart
>bet is that they don't have it."
>You failed to mention what those other tests are, even when directly
>asked a number of times.

There are many things like that, and this is just another one.

>dh: "The mirror test is a test of self recognition Rudy, not self
>awareness."
>Rudy: "It's a test of self awareness, ****wit."
>False again. The test was originally designed by Gallup to answer the
>question whether animals can recognize themselves in mirrors.

Lie after lie. Yes, that's our Goober's normal method. There are
a number of things he has claimed to know of or be capable of,
but he has cowardly (pathetically, amusingly...) failed entirely at:

1. explaining exactly which emotions animals can and
can not experience.

2. explaining how anything could have inherent rights.

3. providing any opposition at all to "AR".

4. explaining why nothing has ever benefitted from living.

5. explaining why we should only consider killing but not life.

6. explaining what or whom--other than those who are
disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat--would benefit
from their elimination objective.

7. describing any emotion(s) through language.

8. explaining any way(s) in which people could contribute to
better lives for food animals.

9. explaining why one emotion is more difficult to experience
than another.

10. explaining how any difference between the ability of humans and
other animals to experience emotions, is a moral issue.

11. explaining the qualitative differences between anger and
disappointment, if there are any.

12. demonstrating an ethically equivalent or superior alternative
to the elimination of domestic animals.

13. explaining what it is that makes animals appear to be experiencing
certain emotions, under conditions which could easily trigger those
particular emotions, if it is not those particular emotions.

14. explaining how any emotions could be dependant on language.

15. explaining the kind of stimulus-response "anticipation" you can get
from a dog.

16. explaining what--if anything at all--he has learned from experience
with animals.

17. explaining what could be more important to animals raised for food
than the experiencing of their lives.

18. describing any tests which have been done to test for self-awareness
in dogs.

[rick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> =============================
>> >> >> I suggest that it is YOU that has an awarness problem.
>> >> >> So,
>> >> >> according to you, only those that can speak in the
>> >> >> limited
>> >> >> language skills that YOU have are self-aware. How
>> >> >> totally
>> >> >> bigoted of you, little girl.
>> >> >
>> >> > I have never said that. I simply presented a hypothetical
>> >> > situation
>> >> > with a human,
>> >> ======================
>> >> No, you spewed a pile of crap. Another person can always
>> >> learn a
>> >> new language, well those unlike you that are capable.
>> >> An animal will never learn a language to that degree. Like
>> >> you
>> >> they may understand sit, beg, and bad girl....
>> >
>> > You are, like Rudy, also making things up by saying that I
>> > am
>> > not
>> > capable of learning a new language. Do you not understand
>> > the
>> > meaning
>> > of "hypothetical"?
>> =================================
>> Yes, but apparently you don't. You have presented a pile of
>> crap. There is no hypothetical where a person cannot learn a
>> new
>> language, OR where an animal can learn any at all. You
>> reaching
>> for straws trying to make sonething true that isn't there.
>
> A hypothetical situation involves an assumption made for the
> sake of an
> argument.
=======================
No, it's still a piece of crap. Another person can learn to tell
you what you think you have to hear to undertstand what you're
talking about. No amount of teaching will get an animal that
far. But one thing for sure, using your crappy idea, I can agree
that the chinese guy will find you totally non self-aware.

So, the assumption is that the observer cannot understand the
> language of it's subject.
==============================
Which means squat when applied to people, fool.


>
>> >
>> >> which is the situation we are found in with animals. When
>> >> > Rudy disregards any possible behavioral interpretation in
>> >> > animals as
>> >> > something which is also present in humans as
>> >> > anthropomorphic
>> >> > projection, that raises the question whether when
>> >> > interpreting
>> >> > the
>> >> > behaviour of a human, if we are projecting our own
>> >> > experiences
>> >> > and
>> >> > feeling onto an individual which isn't us and expecting
>> >> > our
>> >> > interpretation to be accurate.
>> >> ==========================
>> >> LOL You are the one projecting, fool...
>> >
>> > Explain.
>> ==========================
>> You're the one projecting that animals are the self-aware.
>> All
>> because YOU want it to be so, despite the facts.
>
> Oh, you are a repeat of Rudy's case of making things up. Since
> Rudy
> couldn't find evidence anywhere that I suggest that animal's
> are
> self-aware, perhaps you can? Find me a direct quote from me.
=======================
Then why are you arguing, fool?


>
>> >> >
>> >> > Rudy also said that the simple fact that we cannot
>> >> > communicate
>> >> > with a
>> >> > human is not a basis to assume that the human does not
>> >> > have
>> >> > self-awareness. Yet when the same situation is presented
>> >> > with
>> >> > an
>> >> > animal, he has no problem making the assumption that the
>> >> > animal
>> >> > does
>> >> > not have self-awareness.
>> >> ===========================
>> >> Are you really this stupid?
>> >
>> > Are you?
>> ===================
>> No, but you must be. Try stepping back from your propaganda
>> brainwashing and see the idiocy you write.
>
> I suggest you try to read what I wrote without any
> preconception about
> what I might be feeling or thinking, and taking what I write at
> face
> value.
====================
Face value of what you write is zip...

>

[[email protected]]

rick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > rick wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> >> =============================
> >> >> >> I suggest that it is YOU that has an awarness problem.
> >> >> >> So,
> >> >> >> according to you, only those that can speak in the
> >> >> >> limited
> >> >> >> language skills that YOU have are self-aware. How
> >> >> >> totally
> >> >> >> bigoted of you, little girl.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have never said that. I simply presented a hypothetical
> >> >> > situation
> >> >> > with a human,
> >> >> ======================
> >> >> No, you spewed a pile of crap. Another person can always
> >> >> learn a
> >> >> new language, well those unlike you that are capable.
> >> >> An animal will never learn a language to that degree. Like
> >> >> you
> >> >> they may understand sit, beg, and bad girl....
> >> >
> >> > You are, like Rudy, also making things up by saying that I
> >> > am
> >> > not
> >> > capable of learning a new language. Do you not understand
> >> > the
> >> > meaning
> >> > of "hypothetical"?
> >> =================================
> >> Yes, but apparently you don't. You have presented a pile of
> >> crap. There is no hypothetical where a person cannot learn a
> >> new
> >> language, OR where an animal can learn any at all. You
> >> reaching
> >> for straws trying to make sonething true that isn't there.
> >
> > A hypothetical situation involves an assumption made for the
> > sake of an
> > argument.
> =======================
> No, it's still a piece of crap. Another person can learn to tell
> you what you think you have to hear to undertstand what you're
> talking about. No amount of teaching will get an animal that
> far. But one thing for sure, using your crappy idea, I can agree
> that the chinese guy will find you totally non self-aware.

Okay, so you don't understand what is going on when someone presents a
hypothetical situation.

> So, the assumption is that the observer cannot understand the
> > language of it's subject.
> ==============================
> Which means squat when applied to people, fool.

Once again, you show a lack of understanding of what I am presenting. I
don't know how I can simplify it more for you.

> >
> >> >
> >> >> which is the situation we are found in with animals. When
> >> >> > Rudy disregards any possible behavioral interpretation in
> >> >> > animals as
> >> >> > something which is also present in humans as
> >> >> > anthropomorphic
> >> >> > projection, that raises the question whether when
> >> >> > interpreting
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > behaviour of a human, if we are projecting our own
> >> >> > experiences
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > feeling onto an individual which isn't us and expecting
> >> >> > our
> >> >> > interpretation to be accurate.
> >> >> ==========================
> >> >> LOL You are the one projecting, fool...
> >> >
> >> > Explain.
> >> ==========================
> >> You're the one projecting that animals are the self-aware.
> >> All
> >> because YOU want it to be so, despite the facts.
> >
> > Oh, you are a repeat of Rudy's case of making things up. Since
> > Rudy
> > couldn't find evidence anywhere that I suggest that animal's
> > are
> > self-aware, perhaps you can? Find me a direct quote from me.
> =======================
> Then why are you arguing, fool?

I was trying to demonstrate to Rudy that his argument is flawed, and to
get him to present more justifiable reasons for why he took his
position on the self-awareness issue. He couldn't answer my questions
though, so he doesn't appear to understand why he believes what he
does. Just because someone is questioning another, it doesn't mean that
they believe the opposite.

> >> >> >
> >> >> > Rudy also said that the simple fact that we cannot
> >> >> > communicate
> >> >> > with a
> >> >> > human is not a basis to assume that the human does not
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > self-awareness. Yet when the same situation is presented
> >> >> > with
> >> >> > an
> >> >> > animal, he has no problem making the assumption that the
> >> >> > animal
> >> >> > does
> >> >> > not have self-awareness.
> >> >> ===========================
> >> >> Are you really this stupid?
> >> >
> >> > Are you?
> >> ===================
> >> No, but you must be. Try stepping back from your propaganda
> >> brainwashing and see the idiocy you write.
> >
> > I suggest you try to read what I wrote without any
> > preconception about
> > what I might be feeling or thinking, and taking what I write at
> > face
> > value.
> ====================
> Face value of what you write is zip...

So only what you make up in your head matters?

[rick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> rick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> >> =============================
>> >> >> >> I suggest that it is YOU that has an awarness
>> >> >> >> problem.
>> >> >> >> So,
>> >> >> >> according to you, only those that can speak in the
>> >> >> >> limited
>> >> >> >> language skills that YOU have are self-aware. How
>> >> >> >> totally
>> >> >> >> bigoted of you, little girl.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I have never said that. I simply presented a
>> >> >> > hypothetical
>> >> >> > situation
>> >> >> > with a human,
>> >> >> ======================
>> >> >> No, you spewed a pile of crap. Another person can
>> >> >> always
>> >> >> learn a
>> >> >> new language, well those unlike you that are capable.
>> >> >> An animal will never learn a language to that degree.
>> >> >> Like
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> they may understand sit, beg, and bad girl....
>> >> >
>> >> > You are, like Rudy, also making things up by saying that
>> >> > I
>> >> > am
>> >> > not
>> >> > capable of learning a new language. Do you not understand
>> >> > the
>> >> > meaning
>> >> > of "hypothetical"?
>> >> =================================
>> >> Yes, but apparently you don't. You have presented a pile
>> >> of
>> >> crap. There is no hypothetical where a person cannot learn
>> >> a
>> >> new
>> >> language, OR where an animal can learn any at all. You
>> >> reaching
>> >> for straws trying to make sonething true that isn't there.
>> >
>> > A hypothetical situation involves an assumption made for the
>> > sake of an
>> > argument.
>> =======================
>> No, it's still a piece of crap. Another person can learn to
>> tell
>> you what you think you have to hear to undertstand what you're
>> talking about. No amount of teaching will get an animal that
>> far. But one thing for sure, using your crappy idea, I can
>> agree
>> that the chinese guy will find you totally non self-aware.
>
> Okay, so you don't understand what is going on when someone
> presents a
> hypothetical situation.
> ==========================
No, YOU don't know how to propose a true hypothetical situation,
fool.



>> So, the assumption is that the observer cannot understand the
>> > language of it's subject.
>> ==============================
>> Which means squat when applied to people, fool.
>
> Once again, you show a lack of understanding of what I am
> presenting. I
> don't know how I can simplify it more for you.
==========================
You are presenting crap. An idiotic piece of spew that means
nothing.


>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> which is the situation we are found in with animals.
>> >> >> When
>> >> >> > Rudy disregards any possible behavioral interpretation
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > animals as
>> >> >> > something which is also present in humans as
>> >> >> > anthropomorphic
>> >> >> > projection, that raises the question whether when
>> >> >> > interpreting
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > behaviour of a human, if we are projecting our own
>> >> >> > experiences
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > feeling onto an individual which isn't us and
>> >> >> > expecting
>> >> >> > our
>> >> >> > interpretation to be accurate.
>> >> >> ==========================
>> >> >> LOL You are the one projecting, fool...
>> >> >
>> >> > Explain.
>> >> ==========================
>> >> You're the one projecting that animals are the self-aware.
>> >> All
>> >> because YOU want it to be so, despite the facts.
>> >
>> > Oh, you are a repeat of Rudy's case of making things up.
>> > Since
>> > Rudy
>> > couldn't find evidence anywhere that I suggest that animal's
>> > are
>> > self-aware, perhaps you can? Find me a direct quote from me.
>> =======================
>> Then why are you arguing, fool?
>
> I was trying to demonstrate to Rudy that his argument is
> flawed, and to
> get him to present more justifiable reasons for why he took his
> position on the self-awareness issue. He couldn't answer my
> questions
> though, so he doesn't appear to understand why he believes what
> he
> does. Just because someone is questioning another, it doesn't
> mean that
> they believe the opposite.
=======================
And you have yet to disprove what anyone has said, or prove what
you are babbling about...


>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Rudy also said that the simple fact that we cannot
>> >> >> > communicate
>> >> >> > with a
>> >> >> > human is not a basis to assume that the human does not
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > self-awareness. Yet when the same situation is
>> >> >> > presented
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > an
>> >> >> > animal, he has no problem making the assumption that
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > animal
>> >> >> > does
>> >> >> > not have self-awareness.
>> >> >> ===========================
>> >> >> Are you really this stupid?
>> >> >
>> >> > Are you?
>> >> ===================
>> >> No, but you must be. Try stepping back from your
>> >> propaganda
>> >> brainwashing and see the idiocy you write.
>> >
>> > I suggest you try to read what I wrote without any
>> > preconception about
>> > what I might be feeling or thinking, and taking what I write
>> > at
>> > face
>> > value.
>> ====================
>> Face value of what you write is zip...
>
> So only what you make up in your head matters?
===========================
ROTFLMAO This from the person who thinks that the chinese are
not self-aware because SHE is too stupid to understand. I stand
by my assertion that they would be right in determining that you
are not self-aware because they don't understnad you. Hell, even
you don't understand you...


>

[[email protected]]

rick wrote:
> >> >> >> >> =============================
> >> >> >> >> I suggest that it is YOU that has an awarness
> >> >> >> >> problem.
> >> >> >> >> So,
> >> >> >> >> according to you, only those that can speak in the
> >> >> >> >> limited
> >> >> >> >> language skills that YOU have are self-aware. How
> >> >> >> >> totally
> >> >> >> >> bigoted of you, little girl.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I have never said that. I simply presented a
> >> >> >> > hypothetical
> >> >> >> > situation
> >> >> >> > with a human,
> >> >> >> ======================
> >> >> >> No, you spewed a pile of crap. Another person can
> >> >> >> always
> >> >> >> learn a
> >> >> >> new language, well those unlike you that are capable.
> >> >> >> An animal will never learn a language to that degree.
> >> >> >> Like
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> they may understand sit, beg, and bad girl....
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You are, like Rudy, also making things up by saying that
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > am
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > capable of learning a new language. Do you not understand
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > meaning
> >> >> > of "hypothetical"?
> >> >> =================================
> >> >> Yes, but apparently you don't. You have presented a pile
> >> >> of
> >> >> crap. There is no hypothetical where a person cannot learn
> >> >> a
> >> >> new
> >> >> language, OR where an animal can learn any at all. You
> >> >> reaching
> >> >> for straws trying to make sonething true that isn't there.
> >> >
> >> > A hypothetical situation involves an assumption made for the
> >> > sake of an
> >> > argument.
> >> =======================
> >> No, it's still a piece of crap. Another person can learn to
> >> tell
> >> you what you think you have to hear to undertstand what you're
> >> talking about. No amount of teaching will get an animal that
> >> far. But one thing for sure, using your crappy idea, I can
> >> agree
> >> that the chinese guy will find you totally non self-aware.
> >
> > Okay, so you don't understand what is going on when someone
> > presents a
> > hypothetical situation.
> > ==========================
> No, YOU don't know how to propose a true hypothetical situation,
> fool.

It's okay if you don't understand. My questions weren't directed at you
anyway.

> >> So, the assumption is that the observer cannot understand the
> >> > language of it's subject.
> >> ==============================
> >> Which means squat when applied to people, fool.
> >
> > Once again, you show a lack of understanding of what I am
> > presenting. I
> > don't know how I can simplify it more for you.
> ==========================
> You are presenting crap. An idiotic piece of spew that means
> nothing.

Well, your lack of understanding is of no importance anyway.

> >> >> >> which is the situation we are found in with animals.
> >> >> >> When
> >> >> >> > Rudy disregards any possible behavioral interpretation
> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> > animals as
> >> >> >> > something which is also present in humans as
> >> >> >> > anthropomorphic
> >> >> >> > projection, that raises the question whether when
> >> >> >> > interpreting
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > behaviour of a human, if we are projecting our own
> >> >> >> > experiences
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > feeling onto an individual which isn't us and
> >> >> >> > expecting
> >> >> >> > our
> >> >> >> > interpretation to be accurate.
> >> >> >> ==========================
> >> >> >> LOL You are the one projecting, fool...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Explain.
> >> >> ==========================
> >> >> You're the one projecting that animals are the self-aware.
> >> >> All
> >> >> because YOU want it to be so, despite the facts.
> >> >
> >> > Oh, you are a repeat of Rudy's case of making things up.
> >> > Since
> >> > Rudy
> >> > couldn't find evidence anywhere that I suggest that animal's
> >> > are
> >> > self-aware, perhaps you can? Find me a direct quote from me.
> >> =======================
> >> Then why are you arguing, fool?
> >
> > I was trying to demonstrate to Rudy that his argument is
> > flawed, and to
> > get him to present more justifiable reasons for why he took his
> > position on the self-awareness issue. He couldn't answer my
> > questions
> > though, so he doesn't appear to understand why he believes what
> > he
> > does. Just because someone is questioning another, it doesn't
> > mean that
> > they believe the opposite.
> =======================
> And you have yet to disprove what anyone has said, or prove what
> you are babbling about...

Asking questions isn't a proof. I have demonstrated that Rudy's
argument is incomplete and biased. But it's okay that you don't
understand that.

> >> >> >> > Rudy also said that the simple fact that we cannot
> >> >> >> > communicate
> >> >> >> > with a
> >> >> >> > human is not a basis to assume that the human does not
> >> >> >> > have
> >> >> >> > self-awareness. Yet when the same situation is
> >> >> >> > presented
> >> >> >> > with
> >> >> >> > an
> >> >> >> > animal, he has no problem making the assumption that
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > animal
> >> >> >> > does
> >> >> >> > not have self-awareness.
> >> >> >> ===========================
> >> >> >> Are you really this stupid?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Are you?
> >> >> ===================
> >> >> No, but you must be. Try stepping back from your
> >> >> propaganda
> >> >> brainwashing and see the idiocy you write.
> >> >
> >> > I suggest you try to read what I wrote without any
> >> > preconception about
> >> > what I might be feeling or thinking, and taking what I write
> >> > at
> >> > face
> >> > value.
> >> ====================
> >> Face value of what you write is zip...
> >
> > So only what you make up in your head matters?
> ===========================
> ROTFLMAO This from the person who thinks that the chinese are
> not self-aware because SHE is too stupid to understand. I stand
> by my assertion that they would be right in determining that you
> are not self-aware because they don't understnad you. Hell, even
> you don't understand you...

So, judging from your comments, I assume that the answer to my question
is "yes".