Dogs, mirrors, self awareness...

you're kind of rude...

TinaBeana wrote:

you're kind of rude...

It's justified.

dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 Goo wrote:


NanK wrote:


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

Interesting article.

No, a BULL**** article:

"When an animal grooms it self, it is aware of it self
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.


Sometimes animals show their feelings for another
by letting the other groom them.

False. That's your anthropomorphic projection, and
it's false.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
Dogs clearly do not have the next three.


And you have no evidence that they don't.

Not my burden of proof, dumbo. If you assert that
something is so, it is up to you to support your claim.

Get busy.


Yes Rudy, get busy supporting your claim. I have done my part already.

You've done ****ing nothing. You've made an assertion
- "dogs are self aware" - and you have done nothing to
support it. Stop lying.

It is impermissible in debate for you to make a claim,
then say that because no one else has disproved it, the
claim must be true. That is not a proof of the truth
of your claim. If you weren't an ignorant ****, you'd
know that.

Where have I said that dogs are self-aware? Please, quote me where I
have said that. If you could control your language and temper, and
actually take the time to read and understand, you would realise that
never have I claimed that dogs are self-aware, and that YOU are
repeatedly claiming that they are not self-aware without anything to
support your claim. At this point, it is safe to assume that you have
nothing to support your claim that dogs are not self-aware, and
whatever you post comes out of nothing else but your simple little
mind. You already showed me that you make up things, like claiming that
I declared dogs have self-awareness.

wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:

Dogs clearly do not have the next three.


And you have no evidence that they don't.

Not my burden of proof, dumbo. If you assert that
something is so, it is up to you to support your claim.

Get busy.


Yes Rudy, get busy supporting your claim. I have done my part already.

You've done ****ing nothing. You've made an assertion
- "dogs are self aware" - and you have done nothing to
support it. Stop lying.

It is impermissible in debate for you to make a claim,
then say that because no one else has disproved it, the
claim must be true. That is not a proof of the truth
of your claim. If you weren't an ignorant ****, you'd
know that.


Where have I said that dogs are self-aware? Please, quote me where I
have said that. If you could control your language and temper, and
actually take the time to read and understand, you would realise that
never have I claimed that dogs are self-aware, and that YOU are
repeatedly claiming that they are not self-aware without anything to
support your claim.

Of course I have "anything" to support it, you ****wit.
The support is that there is NO evidence that they
ARE self aware, given what self awareness *means*.
Don't you get it, you moron? The absence of evidence
that they are is prima facie evidence that they are not.

I assert that dogs have no sense of the past and
future, because humans DO have such a sense, and dogs
do nothing that we recognize as indicating such a
sense. That does not conclusively show that they don't
have a sense of past and future, because they could
have it in ways that we cannot (yet) recognize. But
people have LOOKED for this in other animals, and not
found anything. The tentative scientific conclusion,
then, is that until such time as someone finds
something that indicates dogs do have such a sense, we
conclude that they do not. Similarly with self
awareness: we have defined self awareness in such a
way that, if a species has it generally, we expect
individual members of that species to exhibit this or
this or this behavior. We don't see such behavior, and
so we tentatively conclude that they don't have self
awareness.

The burden of proof is entirely on those who assert
they *do* have it to show evidence for it. So far, no
one has.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

Of course I have "anything" to support it, you ****wit.
The support is that there is NO evidence that they
ARE self aware, given what self awareness *means*.
Don't you get it, you moron? The absence of evidence
that they are is prima facie evidence that they are not.

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.

Example:

"After decades of studying animals ranging from coyotes, gray wolves,
domestic dogs, and Adlie penguins and other birds, I've come to the
conclusion that not only are some animals self-aware, but also that
there are degrees of self-awareness. Combined with studies by my
colleagues, it's wholly plausible to suggest that many animals have a
sense of "mine-ness" or "body-ness." So, for example, when an
experimental treatment, an object, or another individual affects an
individual, he or she experiences that "something is happening to this
body." Many primates relax when being groomed and individuals of many
species actively seek pleasure and avoid pain. There's no need to
associate "this body" with "my body" or with "me" (or "I"). Many
animals also know the placement in space of parts of their body as they
run, jump, perform acrobatics, or move as a coordinated hunting unit or
flock without running into one another. They know their body isn't
someone else's body." - Marc Bekoff, professor of biology at the
University of Colorado, Boulder


Now, with such a statement, we can no longer conclude that dogs lack
self-awareness. It has become a possibility which is neither likely or
unlikely, until more possible evidence leads us to a certain direction.


"ON ANIMAL SELF-AWARENESS

The following points are made by Marc Bekoff (Nature 2002 419:255):

1) Researchers are interested in animal awareness because they are
curious to discover what animals might know about themselves. There
are, however, long-held and polarized views about the degree of
self-awareness in animals. Some people believe that only great apes
have "rich" notions of self --knowing who they are and/or having a
"theory of mind", which means being able to infer the states of minds
of others --whereas others argue that it is methodologically too
difficult to address this question because animal (like human) minds
are subjective and private. Many in this latter category do not
attribute any sense of self to animals other than humans, and some,
dismissing behavioral and neurobiological research on animal cognition,
wonder whether animals are conscious of anything at all.

2) What might animals know about themselves? Most studies of animal
self-awareness have been narrowly paradigm-driven. The "red spot"
technique was first used by Gordon Gallup to study animal
self-awareness in chimpanzees; it and variations have been used on
great apes and monkeys, as well as on a few dolphins and elephants. For
primates, a spot is placed on the forehead of an anesthetized
individual and self-directed movements towards the spot are scored
after he or she awakens and catches sight of themselves in a mirror, a
high score indicating the presence of some degree of self-awareness.
But in some cases, the data are derived from tests on small numbers of
individuals, many of whom fail it because they do not make
self-directed movements towards the spot. Those who pass the test might
not be representative of wild relatives because they have had extensive
human contact and previous experience with mirrors, factors that might
influence their trainability and willingness to use a mirror. Those who
fail the test might show some sense of 'self' in other contexts, and
other individual differences might also play a role.

3) The concept of animal self-awareness remains open to different
interpretations, but we will probably learn more about the mysteries of
"self" and "body-ness" by using non-invasive neuroimaging techniques in
combination with cognitive ethological studies. If we look at
"self-awareness" as "body-awareness", we might also discover more about
how animals think and the perceptual and neurobiological processes
underlying various cognitive capacities. Darwin's ideas about
evolutionary continuity, together with empirical data ("science sense")
and common sense, caution against the unyielding claim that humans
--and perhaps other great apes and cetaceans -- are the only species in
which some sense of self has evolved.(1-5)

References (abridged):

1. Bekoff, M. Minding Animals: Awareness, Emotions, and Heart (Oxford
Univ. Press, New York & London, 2002).

2. Bekoff, M., Allen, C. & Burghardt, G. M. (eds) The Cognitive Animal:
Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition (MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2002); see especially essays on
self-awareness by Gallup, G. G., Anderson, J. R. & Shillito, D. J.;
Mitchell, R. W.; Shumaker, R. W. & Swartz, K. B.

3. Mitchell, R. W. in Handbook of Self and Identity (eds Leary, M. R. &
Tangney, J.) 567 593 (Guilford, New York, 2002).

4. Reiss, D. Nature 418, 369 370 (2002).

5. Rilling, J. K. et al. Neuron 35, 395 405 (2002).

Nature http://www.nature.com/nature

ScienceWeek http://scienceweek.com"

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

wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Of course I have "anything" to support it, you ****wit.
The support is that there is NO evidence that they
ARE self aware, given what self awareness *means*.
Don't you get it, you moron? The absence of evidence
that they are is prima facie evidence that they are not.


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.

There is a lack of evidence for the aspects of self
awareness beyond mere body awareness.


Example:

"After decades of studying animals ranging from coyotes, gray wolves,
domestic dogs, and Adlie penguins and other birds, I've come to the
conclusion that not only are some animals self-aware, but also that
there are degrees of self-awareness. Combined with studies by my
colleagues, it's wholly plausible to suggest that many animals have a
sense of "mine-ness" or "body-ness."

Notice he doesn't say "me-ness" or anything connected
to "being-ness".


So, for example, when an
experimental treatment, an object, or another individual affects an
individual, he or she experiences that "something is happening to this
body." Many primates relax when being groomed and individuals of many
species actively seek pleasure and avoid pain. There's no need to
associate "this body" with "my body" or with "me" (or "I"). Many
animals also know the placement in space of parts of their body as they
run, jump, perform acrobatics, or move as a coordinated hunting unit or
flock without running into one another. They know their body isn't
someone else's body."

The last sentence is a wild leap of inference that does
not follow in any way from the one that precedes it.



Now, with such a statement, we can no longer conclude that dogs lack
self-awareness.

You've dumbed it down to the point of meaninglessness.
People are interested in the question of self
awareness as part of the larger issue of consciousness.
This awareness of its body in a very primitive sense
as evidence of "self awareness", as a part of a larger
and more meaningful consciousness/sentience, is
laughable. We're looking for a sense of self awareness
as a sense of knowing that the individual possessing
the sense knows it exists in time and space, and all
the bull**** you've blabbered on about does not in any
way point to such knowledge.


"ON ANIMAL SELF-AWARENESS

The following points are made by Marc Bekoff (Nature 2002 419:255):

1) Researchers are interested in animal awareness because they are
curious to discover what animals might know about themselves. There
are, however, long-held and polarized views about the degree of
self-awareness in animals. Some people believe that only great apes
have "rich" notions of self --knowing who they are and/or having a
"theory of mind", which means being able to infer the states of minds
of others --whereas others argue that it is methodologically too
difficult to address this question because animal (like human) minds
are subjective and private. Many in this latter category do not
attribute any sense of self to animals other than humans, and some,
dismissing behavioral and neurobiological research on animal cognition,
wonder whether animals are conscious of anything at all.

It's this "theory of mind" for which there is no
evidence in animals other than the great apes; dogs
give no evidence that we can detect of having it.


2) What might animals know about themselves? Most studies of animal
self-awareness have been narrowly paradigm-driven. The "red spot"
technique was first used by Gordon Gallup to study animal
self-awareness in chimpanzees; it and variations have been used on
great apes and monkeys, as well as on a few dolphins and elephants. For
primates, a spot is placed on the forehead of an anesthetized
individual and self-directed movements towards the spot are scored
after he or she awakens and catches sight of themselves in a mirror, a
high score indicating the presence of some degree of self-awareness.
But in some cases, the data are derived from tests on small numbers of
individuals, many of whom fail it because they do not make
self-directed movements towards the spot. Those who pass the test might
not be representative of wild relatives because they have had extensive
human contact and previous experience with mirrors, factors that might
influence their trainability and willingness to use a mirror. Those who
fail the test might show some sense of 'self' in other contexts, and
other individual differences might also play a role.

Look at all the instances of the weasel word "might".



3) The concept of animal self-awareness remains open to different
interpretations, but we will probably learn more about the mysteries of
"self" and "body-ness" by using non-invasive neuroimaging techniques in
combination with cognitive ethological studies. If we look at
"self-awareness" as "body-awareness",

Which we shouldn't. Consciousness, which is the real
objective of this line of research, is vastly more than
mere body awareness. Dogs don't give any evidence of
these higher order or "richer" dimensions of consciousness.

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.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:


Of course I have "anything" to support it, you ****wit.
The support is that there is NO evidence that they
ARE self aware, given what self awareness *means*.
Don't you get it, you moron? The absence of evidence
that they are is prima facie evidence that they are not.


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.

There is a lack of evidence for the aspects of self
awareness beyond mere body awareness.


Example:

"After decades of studying animals ranging from coyotes, gray wolves,
domestic dogs, and Adlie penguins and other birds, I've come to the
conclusion that not only are some animals self-aware, but also that
there are degrees of self-awareness. Combined with studies by my
colleagues, it's wholly plausible to suggest that many animals have a
sense of "mine-ness" or "body-ness."

Notice he doesn't say "me-ness" or anything connected
to "being-ness".


So, for example, when an
experimental treatment, an object, or another individual affects an
individual, he or she experiences that "something is happening to this
body." Many primates relax when being groomed and individuals of many
species actively seek pleasure and avoid pain. There's no need to
associate "this body" with "my body" or with "me" (or "I"). Many
animals also know the placement in space of parts of their body as they
run, jump, perform acrobatics, or move as a coordinated hunting unit or
flock without running into one another. They know their body isn't
someone else's body."

The last sentence is a wild leap of inference that does
not follow in any way from the one that precedes it.



Now, with such a statement, we can no longer conclude that dogs lack
self-awareness.

You've dumbed it down to the point of meaninglessness.
People are interested in the question of self
awareness as part of the larger issue of consciousness.
This awareness of its body in a very primitive sense
as evidence of "self awareness", as a part of a larger
and more meaningful consciousness/sentience, is
laughable. We're looking for a sense of self awareness
as a sense of knowing that the individual possessing
the sense knows it exists in time and space, and all
the bull**** you've blabbered on about does not in any
way point to such knowledge.


"ON ANIMAL SELF-AWARENESS

The following points are made by Marc Bekoff (Nature 2002 419:255):

1) Researchers are interested in animal awareness because they are
curious to discover what animals might know about themselves. There
are, however, long-held and polarized views about the degree of
self-awareness in animals. Some people believe that only great apes
have "rich" notions of self --knowing who they are and/or having a
"theory of mind", which means being able to infer the states of minds
of others --whereas others argue that it is methodologically too
difficult to address this question because animal (like human) minds
are subjective and private. Many in this latter category do not
attribute any sense of self to animals other than humans, and some,
dismissing behavioral and neurobiological research on animal cognition,
wonder whether animals are conscious of anything at all.

It's this "theory of mind" for which there is no
evidence in animals other than the great apes; dogs
give no evidence that we can detect of having it.


2) What might animals know about themselves? Most studies of animal
self-awareness have been narrowly paradigm-driven. The "red spot"
technique was first used by Gordon Gallup to study animal
self-awareness in chimpanzees; it and variations have been used on
great apes and monkeys, as well as on a few dolphins and elephants. For
primates, a spot is placed on the forehead of an anesthetized
individual and self-directed movements towards the spot are scored
after he or she awakens and catches sight of themselves in a mirror, a
high score indicating the presence of some degree of self-awareness.
But in some cases, the data are derived from tests on small numbers of
individuals, many of whom fail it because they do not make
self-directed movements towards the spot. Those who pass the test might
not be representative of wild relatives because they have had extensive
human contact and previous experience with mirrors, factors that might
influence their trainability and willingness to use a mirror. Those who
fail the test might show some sense of 'self' in other contexts, and
other individual differences might also play a role.

Look at all the instances of the weasel word "might".



3) The concept of animal self-awareness remains open to different
interpretations, but we will probably learn more about the mysteries of
"self" and "body-ness" by using non-invasive neuroimaging techniques in
combination with cognitive ethological studies. If we look at
"self-awareness" as "body-awareness",

Which we shouldn't. Consciousness, which is the real
objective of this line of research, is vastly more than
mere body awareness. Dogs don't give any evidence of
these higher order or "richer" dimensions of consciousness.

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, 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)?

wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:



Of course I have "anything" to support it, you ****wit.
The support is that there is NO evidence that they
ARE self aware, given what self awareness *means*.
Don't you get it, you moron? The absence of evidence
that they are is prima facie evidence that they are not.


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.

There is a lack of evidence for the aspects of self
awareness beyond mere body awareness.



Example:

"After decades of studying animals ranging from coyotes, gray wolves,
domestic dogs, and Adlie penguins and other birds, I've come to the
conclusion that not only are some animals self-aware, but also that
there are degrees of self-awareness. Combined with studies by my
colleagues, it's wholly plausible to suggest that many animals have a
sense of "mine-ness" or "body-ness."

Notice he doesn't say "me-ness" or anything connected
to "being-ness".



So, for example, when an
experimental treatment, an object, or another individual affects an
individual, he or she experiences that "something is happening to this
body." Many primates relax when being groomed and individuals of many
species actively seek pleasure and avoid pain. There's no need to
associate "this body" with "my body" or with "me" (or "I"). Many
animals also know the placement in space of parts of their body as they
run, jump, perform acrobatics, or move as a coordinated hunting unit or
flock without running into one another. They know their body isn't
someone else's body."

The last sentence is a wild leap of inference that does
not follow in any way from the one that precedes it.



Now, with such a statement, we can no longer conclude that dogs lack
self-awareness.

You've dumbed it down to the point of meaninglessness.
People are interested in the question of self
awareness as part of the larger issue of consciousness.
This awareness of its body in a very primitive sense
as evidence of "self awareness", as a part of a larger
and more meaningful consciousness/sentience, is
laughable. We're looking for a sense of self awareness
as a sense of knowing that the individual possessing
the sense knows it exists in time and space, and all
the bull**** you've blabbered on about does not in any
way point to such knowledge.



"ON ANIMAL SELF-AWARENESS

The following points are made by Marc Bekoff (Nature 2002 419:255):

1) Researchers are interested in animal awareness because they are
curious to discover what animals might know about themselves. There
are, however, long-held and polarized views about the degree of
self-awareness in animals. Some people believe that only great apes
have "rich" notions of self --knowing who they are and/or having a
"theory of mind", which means being able to infer the states of minds
of others --whereas others argue that it is methodologically too
difficult to address this question because animal (like human) minds
are subjective and private. Many in this latter category do not
attribute any sense of self to animals other than humans, and some,
dismissing behavioral and neurobiological research on animal cognition,
wonder whether animals are conscious of anything at all.

It's this "theory of mind" for which there is no
evidence in animals other than the great apes; dogs
give no evidence that we can detect of having it.



2) What might animals know about themselves? Most studies of animal
self-awareness have been narrowly paradigm-driven. The "red spot"
technique was first used by Gordon Gallup to study animal
self-awareness in chimpanzees; it and variations have been used on
great apes and monkeys, as well as on a few dolphins and elephants. For
primates, a spot is placed on the forehead of an anesthetized
individual and self-directed movements towards the spot are scored
after he or she awakens and catches sight of themselves in a mirror, a
high score indicating the presence of some degree of self-awareness.
But in some cases, the data are derived from tests on small numbers of
individuals, many of whom fail it because they do not make
self-directed movements towards the spot. Those who pass the test might
not be representative of wild relatives because they have had extensive
human contact and previous experience with mirrors, factors that might
influence their trainability and willingness to use a mirror. Those who
fail the test might show some sense of 'self' in other contexts, and
other individual differences might also play a role.

Look at all the instances of the weasel word "might".



3) The concept of animal self-awareness remains open to different
interpretations, but we will probably learn more about the mysteries of
"self" and "body-ness" by using non-invasive neuroimaging techniques in
combination with cognitive ethological studies. If we look at
"self-awareness" as "body-awareness",

Which we shouldn't. Consciousness, which is the real
objective of this line of research, is vastly more than
mere body awareness. Dogs don't give any evidence of
these higher order or "richer" dimensions of consciousness.

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. If your grandmother had had
testicles, would she have been your grandfather?


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.

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.