Fishkeeping - Dogs, mirrors, self awareness...

FishKeepingBanter.com (http://www.fishkeepingbanter.com/index.php)

- Goldfish (http://www.fishkeepingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12)

- - Dogs, mirrors, self awareness... (http://www.fishkeepingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=22501)

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.

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/char...pression02.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: . com

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.

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".

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.

****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****.

****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.

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.