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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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...

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".