| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Dogs, mirrors, self awareness...
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? |
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/1998/1198intell...198debate.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. |
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 ones own attention (Duval and Wicklund, 1972) and to actively identify, process, and store information about the self. It consists in an awareness of ones own private self-aspects such as mental states (e.g., perceptions, sensations, attitudes, intentions, emotions) and public self-characteristics (e.g., ones 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. |
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". |
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? |
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." |
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." |
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." |
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." |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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." |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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. |
****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. |
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. |
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. |
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-...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. |
|
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. |
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 |
"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. |
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." |
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 ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
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. |
|
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. |
|
|
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." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:16 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FishKeepingBanter.com