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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

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.

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.

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.

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

Interesting article.
n

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.

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.

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

From John Hopkins University.....

University Research Paper:

Self Awareness in Pigeons

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

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."