Dogs, mirrors, self awareness...

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

NanK wrote:
wrote:


The thing is that there isn't so much an absence of evidence, but
simply a lack of consensus in the intepretations of the possible
evidence.


Haven't you noticed that RC hasn't commented on any of the scientific
links I've sent, nor has he supplied links (from reputable sources)
which support his (rudely) expressed position? Instead, he gets his
undies in a bunch and calls anyone receptive to dialog vulgar names.

Methinks it's time to save intelligent conversation for people
interested in exploring the topic instead of responding to his temper
tantrums.

n

His beliefs and statements are questionable in my view, even though he
believes they are not, and I am curious as to where he comes up with
such ideas. I am capable of going past the name calling, even though
Rudy hasn't.

The links you have sent do not raise such questions in my mind that I
want to explore in a simple and unsufficient medium like the internet.

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.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
and of which self awareness is an important but only
small part. No animals give any evidence of these
higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.


How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in humans, if say, we
take away our ability to communicate with eachother,

Why would we do that? That ability to communicate with
one another, especially symbolic communication, is a
defining characteristic of our species. What a
nonsense question.

We would do that because we are currently unable to communicate with
animals. Right now, some people, like yourself, are concluding that
animals do not have self awareness. Animals have no way to tell us that
they are self-aware if they were, in fact, self-aware, just like a
chinese man cannot tell me he is self-aware. Should I conclude that the
chinese man is not self-aware because there is no way he can
communicate to me that he is?

or do not use
behavioral attributes as evidence (we understand other people's
behaviour and can make rather good guesses as to what those people are
feeling or thinking due to the fact that we are the same species, which
is an obvious bias if we want to look at self-awareness objectively)?

But this is the very essence of what people are LOOKING
for among other animals. So why would you want to
"take away" that salient aspect of humans? God damn,
you're an imbecile.

Well, some people have noticed behavioral attribute in animals which
might indicate a certain level of self-awareness, which you then
disregard due to anthropomorphic projection. Perhaps, the
interpretations of the behavioral aspects of certain animals is
correct. If you will disregard certain behavioral evidence in animals
because of anthropomorphic projections, then you must do so with humans
as well to remove bias.

I was incorrect earlier in ascribing to you a stated
belief that animals are self aware. But there is a
rational basis for my error: you very much *want* to
find that animals are conscious in the way humans are.
That isn't a scientific sentiment, and it in fact
greatly reduces your ability to approach the issue from
a legitimately scientific perspective.

You are, again, wrong in believing that I want to find that animals are
self-aware. You have no basis to make such an assumption. You have,
once again, made something up.

Some people who posted here are curious about certain aspects of
self-awareness and in ways for animals to show whether one is
self-aware or not. I have simply stated different ways to look at the
subject, while you would put up false statements about certain test and
beliefs from the scientific community, such as:

"You will NEVER understand self-awareness, and why no scientist
believes dogs possess it."
False statement because some scientists do believe dogs may have
self-awareness.


"But the mirror test *IS* a widely acknowledged test of self-awareness
among researchers into animal intelligence, and dogs fail it."
False statement because there is no consensus on whether the test has
any relation to self-awareness.


"True, but when they fail *any* test of self awareness, then the smart
bet is that they don't have it."
You failed to mention what those other tests are, even when directly
asked a number of times.


dh: "The mirror test is a test of self recognition Rudy, not self
awareness."
Rudy: "It's a test of self awareness, ****wit."
False again. The test was originally designed by Gallup to answer the
question whether animals can recognize themselves in mirrors.

wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
and of which self awareness is an important but only
small part. No animals give any evidence of these
higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.


How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in humans, if say, we
take away our ability to communicate with eachother,

Why would we do that? That ability to communicate with
one another, especially symbolic communication, is a
defining characteristic of our species. What a
nonsense question.


We would do that because we are currently unable to communicate with
animals. Right now, some people, like yourself, are concluding

*tentatively* concluding...


that animals do not have self awareness.

Because most of them don't exhibit anything that we can
recognize as self awareness, despite hard searching.



Animals have no way to tell us that
they are self-aware if they were, in fact, self-aware, just like a
chinese man cannot tell me he is self-aware.

With a little work, a Chinese man can tell you.

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.


Should I conclude that the
chinese man is not self-aware because there is no way he can
communicate to me that he is?

No, dumb **** - you should learn Chinese. And write
'Chinese' - it's a proper noun.


or do not use
behavioral attributes as evidence (we understand other people's
behaviour and can make rather good guesses as to what those people are
feeling or thinking due to the fact that we are the same species, which
is an obvious bias if we want to look at self-awareness objectively)?

But this is the very essence of what people are LOOKING
for among other animals. So why would you want to
"take away" that salient aspect of humans? God damn,
you're an imbecile.


Well, some people have noticed behavioral attribute in animals which
might indicate a certain level of self-awareness, which you then
disregard due to anthropomorphic projection. Perhaps, the
interpretations of the behavioral aspects of certain animals is
correct. If you will disregard certain behavioral evidence in animals
because of anthropomorphic projections, then you must do so with humans
as well to remove bias.

What bias?


I was incorrect earlier in ascribing to you a stated
belief that animals are self aware. But there is a
rational basis for my error: you very much *want* to
find that animals are conscious in the way humans are.
That isn't a scientific sentiment, and it in fact
greatly reduces your ability to approach the issue from
a legitimately scientific perspective.


You are, again, wrong in believing that I want to find that animals are
self-aware. You have no basis to make such an assumption.

I do have. It's the tone of your writing.


Some people who posted here are curious about certain aspects of
self-awareness and in ways for animals to show whether one is
self-aware or not. I have simply stated different ways to look at the
subject, while you would put up false statements about certain test and
beliefs from the scientific community, such as:

"You will NEVER understand self-awareness, and why no scientist
believes dogs possess it."
False statement because some scientists do believe dogs may have
self-awareness.


"But the mirror test *IS* a widely acknowledged test of self-awareness
among researchers into animal intelligence, and dogs fail it."
False statement because there is no consensus on whether the test has
any relation to self-awareness.


"True, but when they fail *any* test of self awareness, then the smart
bet is that they don't have it."
You failed to mention what those other tests are, even when directly
asked a number of times.


dh: "The mirror test is a test of self recognition Rudy, not self
awareness."
Rudy: "It's a test of self awareness, ****wit."
False again. The test was originally designed by Gallup to answer the
question whether animals can recognize themselves in mirrors.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
wrote:

Rudy Canoza wrote:

A famous economist, Kenneth Boulding, observed that "No
dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
will be dogs after him." Similarly, "the cats of Rome
know nothing of the mice of Athens." It is this type
of awareness that people are looking for in animals,
and of which self awareness is an important but only
small part. No animals give any evidence of these
higher levels of awareness, of true consciousness.
That doesn't mean they don't have it, but to date there
is ZERO reason to believe they do, apart from ignorant
and superstitious anthropomorphic projection.


How are we aware of the ability to be self-aware in humans, if say, we
take away our ability to communicate with eachother,

Why would we do that? That ability to communicate with
one another, especially symbolic communication, is a
defining characteristic of our species. What a
nonsense question.


We would do that because we are currently unable to communicate with
animals. Right now, some people, like yourself, are concluding

*tentatively* concluding...


that animals do not have self awareness.

Because most of them don't exhibit anything that we can
recognize as self awareness, despite hard searching.



Animals have no way to tell us that
they are self-aware if they were, in fact, self-aware, just like a
chinese man cannot tell me he is self-aware.

With a little work, a Chinese man can tell you.

How?

Again, self awareness is only one part of the larger
consciousness for which people are searching. And most
philosophers of the mind believe that language is
indispensable to what we call consciousness.

Well, dh, who started this thread was asking about whether a dog has
any mental concept of itself, because some people say it doesn't while
other feel it does because of certain behaviours. What the rest of the
people are looking for in the realm of consciousness is of no
importance to this particular thread. What philosophers believe is not
scientifically tested to this point. They are simply coming up with
ideas, just like the rest of us.

Should I conclude that the
chinese man is not self-aware because there is no way he can
communicate to me that he is?

No, dumb **** - you should learn Chinese. And write
'Chinese' - it's a proper noun.

So people need to learn to communicate with dogs then, rather than
*tentavely* conclude they are not self-aware, since I can't make such a
conclusion about the *Chinese* man.

or do not use
behavioral attributes as evidence (we understand other people's
behaviour and can make rather good guesses as to what those people are
feeling or thinking due to the fact that we are the same species, which
is an obvious bias if we want to look at self-awareness objectively)?

But this is the very essence of what people are LOOKING
for among other animals. So why would you want to
"take away" that salient aspect of humans? God damn,
you're an imbecile.


Well, some people have noticed behavioral attribute in animals which
might indicate a certain level of self-awareness, which you then
disregard due to anthropomorphic projection. Perhaps, the
interpretations of the behavioral aspects of certain animals is
correct. If you will disregard certain behavioral evidence in animals
because of anthropomorphic projections, then you must do so with humans
as well to remove bias.

What bias?

The bias that humans are automatically self-aware because the observer
is self-aware. This is, in a sense, like cultural bias.

I was incorrect earlier in ascribing to you a stated
belief that animals are self aware. But there is a
rational basis for my error: you very much *want* to
find that animals are conscious in the way humans are.
That isn't a scientific sentiment, and it in fact
greatly reduces your ability to approach the issue from
a legitimately scientific perspective.


You are, again, wrong in believing that I want to find that animals are
self-aware. You have no basis to make such an assumption.

I do have. It's the tone of your writing.

My tone doesn't indicate as such. You are simply imposing your feelings
on my writing.

Some people who posted here are curious about certain aspects of
self-awareness and in ways for animals to show whether one is
self-aware or not. I have simply stated different ways to look at the
subject, while you would put up false statements about certain test and
beliefs from the scientific community, such as:

"You will NEVER understand self-awareness, and why no scientist
believes dogs possess it."
False statement because some scientists do believe dogs may have
self-awareness.


"But the mirror test *IS* a widely acknowledged test of self-awareness
among researchers into animal intelligence, and dogs fail it."
False statement because there is no consensus on whether the test has
any relation to self-awareness.


"True, but when they fail *any* test of self awareness, then the smart
bet is that they don't have it."
You failed to mention what those other tests are, even when directly
asked a number of times.


dh: "The mirror test is a test of self recognition Rudy, not self
awareness."
Rudy: "It's a test of self awareness, ****wit."
False again. The test was originally designed by Gallup to answer the
question whether animals can recognize themselves in mirrors.

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.