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.

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:
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:
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.

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.

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.

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?