Fish do/don't anticipate things? (was: Re: "ARAs" against Game chickens)

[dh@.]

On 26 Aug 2005 Goo wrote:

>dh wrote:

>> Fish can and do anticipate Goo
>
>They don't.

It has already been established that they do. One
example of them anticipating is: lake fish hang out
around lakeside restaurants because people feed
them. And we've also noted that they follow ducks
around, Goo, out of anticipation of the ducks getting
some bread, and quite possibly of what might come
out of the ducks' asses as well...processed bread.
Those are two clear examples of anticipation in fish.
There are probably plenty more of them.

[NanK]

Yes, they do! When they see you outside the tank, don't they wiggle
with anticipation of being fed???

n

[Logic316]

NanK wrote:
> Yes, they do! When they see you outside the tank, don't they wiggle
> with anticipation of being fed???
>
> n

Even the simplest organisms have some capacity for learning when it's
directly related to their survival. If a fish always sees a person when
it's being fed, it will associate the image of a person with food and
will exhibit feeding behavior every time it sees somebody, even before
any food is dropped in front of them. In the wild and in captivity, this
ability to associate events ensures that the smartest fish gets to the
food faster than the dumb ones and is thus more likely to survive longer
to pass on it's "smart" genes.

The only question I have, could such a fish (one having learned to
associate the presence of humans with food) learn to distinguish between
humans and other large creatures who show up in front of it's tank who
don't feed it (like dogs or cats)?

- Logic316



Logic: n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with
the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.
-- Ambrose Bierce

[Cyli]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:06:26 GMT, wrote:

>
>I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
>A small bird will drop frozen dead from
>a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.


And how is it that you know exactly what a dead bird felt before it
died? Or how any wild thing is feeling about itself?

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

[Logic316]

wrote:
> I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
> A small bird will drop frozen dead from
> a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.
> --
> I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
> A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
> without ever having felt sorry for itself.

This poem is fundamentally flawed. Most animals, including avian
species, lack the necessary mental capacity to have a sense of "self" in
the first place.

- Logic316



"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
-- Ronald Reagan

[Rudy Canoza]

NanK wrote:
> Yes, they do! When they see you outside the tank, don't they wiggle
> with anticipation of being fed???

No. That's stimulus response, *not* anticipation.

[dh@.]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 05:25:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>NanK wrote:
>> Yes, they do! When they see you outside the tank, don't they wiggle
>> with anticipation of being fed???
>
>No. That's stimulus response, *not* anticipation.

That stimulus response *is* anticipation Goo.

[dh@.]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:06:41 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:

wrote:
>> I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
>> A small bird will drop frozen dead from
>> a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.
>> --
>> I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
>> A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
>> without ever having felt sorry for itself.
>
>This poem is fundamentally flawed. Most animals, including avian
>species, lack the necessary mental capacity to have a sense of "self" in
>the first place.
>
>- Logic316

There are examples that suggest otherwise. For example: We all
know that a dog is aware of his balls, so what would make us believe
he is not aware of himself?

[dh@.]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 06:30:20 GMT, wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:55:35 -0500, Cyli >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:06:26 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
>>>A small bird will drop frozen dead from
>>>a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.
>>
>>
>>And how is it that you know exactly what a dead bird felt before it
>>died? Or how any wild thing is feeling about itself?
>
>
>Perhaps by the same reasoning that allows you to speak to squirrels
>and causes your paranoia with regards to trout.

Maybe not. Why do you think animals can't feel sorry for
themselves? What could prevent it?

[dh@.]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:40:20 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:

>NanK wrote:
>> Yes, they do! When they see you outside the tank, don't they wiggle
>> with anticipation of being fed???
>>
>> n
>
>Even the simplest organisms have some capacity for learning when it's
>directly related to their survival. If a fish always sees a person when
>it's being fed, it will associate the image of a person with food and
>will exhibit feeding behavior every time it sees somebody, even before
>any food is dropped in front of them.

Goo insists that no animals can anticipate, but that humans are
somehow projecting their emotions into the animals causing them
to behave in a way which gives the obvious appearance that they
are experiencing them themselves...most likely through voodoo or
something...it's bizarre, whatever it is.

>In the wild and in captivity, this
>ability to associate events ensures that the smartest fish gets to the
>food faster than the dumb ones and is thus more likely to survive longer
>to pass on it's "smart" genes.

I've explained to Goo that without the ability to anticipate, hawks
would starve to death. They wouldn't look for food if they didn't
anticipate finding it. That seemed as clear an example as I could
think of, but he still can't understand.

>The only question I have, could such a fish (one having learned to
>associate the presence of humans with food) learn to distinguish between
>humans and other large creatures who show up in front of it's tank who
>don't feed it (like dogs or cats)?
>
>- Logic316

Most likely they can learn to avoid things as well as anticipate
getting food from them. Amusingly, Goo can understand that animals
feel fear and anger, but can't understand that they also feel pride,
anticipation and disappointment. It's amusing, but in an almost pitiable
way.

[Rudy Canoza]

Goo ****wit David Lying ****bag Harrison lied:

> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:06:41 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
>>>A small bird will drop frozen dead from
>>>a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.
>>>--
>>>I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
>>>A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
>>>without ever having felt sorry for itself.
>>
>>This poem is fundamentally flawed. Most animals, including avian
>>species, lack the necessary mental capacity to have a sense of "self" in
>>the first place.
>>
>>- Logic316
>
>
> There are examples that suggest otherwise. For example: We all
> know that a dog is aware of his balls, so what would make us believe
> he is not aware of himself?

They fail the mirror test, for one, ****wit, you
****ing ****bag.

A dog is not aware that its tail is "its" tail. It's
aware of THE tail, and if you step on tail it yelps.
It does not know that the tail is "its" tail, or that
its paw is "its" paw. If you approach a dog that will
let you approach it at all, and calmly extend a pair of
garden shears as if you're going to cut off the dog's
front paw, it will not react. It doesn't have the
sense of self required to think, "This stranger might
intend to hurt me."

Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than the
great apes have no sense of self.

[Logic316]

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 05:25:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>NanK wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, they do! When they see you outside the tank, don't they wiggle
>>>with anticipation of being fed???
>>
>>No. That's stimulus response, *not* anticipation.
>
>
> That stimulus response *is* anticipation Goo.

I would have to agree. "Anticipation" simply means sensing that an event
is going to occur. If somebody punches you a couple of times in the
face, you're naturally going to remember the pain and try to avoid his
hand next time you see it coming towards you - that's anticipation, and
it's done without using any abstract thought. But somewhere in that
fish's tiny brain there is a piece of data being stored which tells it
that there's going to be food when it sees the image of a person in
front of it's tank. This information was not genetically inherited from
it's parents, not will it pass it on through it's DNA to it's offspring,
so it can't be called instinct. It is, in fact, a memory - learned
information. It's a very primitive sort of learning, just barely above
the level of instinct, but learning nevertheless. But it does not imply
or require that the fish is consciously thinking or reflecting about
what it's doing.

- Logic316




"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring
one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their
own pursuits of industry and improvement."
-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural address - 1801

[Logic316]

<mid-post>

dh@. wrote:
> Goo insists that no animals can anticipate, but that humans are
> somehow projecting their emotions into the animals causing them
> to behave in a way which gives the obvious appearance that they
> are experiencing them themselves...most likely through voodoo or
> something...it's bizarre, whatever it is.

Perhaps he's referring to "anthropomorphism". Yes, people are often
guilty of attributing human qualities and motives to things that aren't
human. Just look at the Disney channel :-P


>>The only question I have, could such a fish (one having learned to
>>associate the presence of humans with food) learn to distinguish between
>>humans and other large creatures who show up in front of it's tank who
>>don't feed it (like dogs or cats)?
>>
>>- Logic316
>
>
> Most likely they can learn to avoid things as well as anticipate
> getting food from them. Amusingly, Goo can understand that animals
> feel fear and anger, but can't understand that they also feel pride,
> anticipation and disappointment. It's amusing, but in an almost pitiable
> way.

'Fear' and 'anger' are among the most primal of emotions, present even
in most lower lifeforms. These help ensure survival by allowing the
organism to either flee danger, or fight off threats to its food and
territory. 'Anticipation' is not an emotion; it's the condition of
merely having knowledge of an upcoming event, and acting on it. As for
'pride', that's a far more complex emotion which involves feeling
pleasure from knowing that you acquired, accomplished or succeeded at
something - which you definitely won't find in a fish. The closest
instinct you can find to that in a fish is simply territoriality and
aggression. As for 'disappointment', that's also a complex mammalian
emotion involving a feeling of dissatisfaction that results when one's
expectations are not realized. Again, I doubt a fish can feel that; if
it sees and tries to obtain food or a mate and it fails to do so, they
don't have the capacity to think about their loss - they just keep
trying and keep going about the business of survival.

- Logic316



"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to
realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
-- Ronald Reagan

[NanK]

A GOOGLE search may direct you to the latest research where scientists
have actually taught flies to follow a particular flight pattern in
controlled experiments! And did you know that bees remove the legs on a
fellow worker bee that habitually returns "drunk" on fermented nector.

If you watch Animal Planet and Discovery, you have learned about the
complexity of elephants, dolphins, wolves, and many other animals and
insects. Recently, I saw a clip where an unhappy, aquarium-housed
octopus was given a Duplo (jumbo toy blocks) structure with
window-shaped holes, and the animal immediately perked up and
investigated the structure and its openings.

Wild birds have demonstrated uncanny abilities to figure out puzzles in
order to obtain a tasty morsel. Parrots can watch you unlock a cage,
and repeat your action. No training, no conditioning -- just brain power.

Many bored, lonely, anxious pets (birds, rats, cats, dogs, horses) and
zoo animals, i.e., pandas, marsupials, monkeys, develop behavior
problems when confined in inappropriate conditions. Experts constantly
seek to improve zoos and rescue facilities for this very reason. Rescue
groups anxiously rehabilitate and rehome orphaned animals according to
the needs of the species. (Did you catch the otters on "GROWING UP OTTER"?)

We assume a whole lot more than we should about the animals with whom we
share this planet. Perhaps our fish ARE capable of learning,
recognition, and feelings.

Who among us knows for sure?


n

[Logic316]

NanK wrote:
> A GOOGLE search may direct you to the latest research where scientists
> have actually taught flies to follow a particular flight pattern in
> controlled experiments! And did you know that bees remove the legs on a
> fellow worker bee that habitually returns "drunk" on fermented nector.

Perhaps we should follow a similar approach with drunk drivers. On the
first offense, take away their cars. On the second offense, remove their
legs so they can't operate the pedals.


> If you watch Animal Planet and Discovery, you have learned about the
> complexity of elephants, dolphins, wolves, and many other animals and
> insects. Recently, I saw a clip where an unhappy, aquarium-housed
> octopus was given a Duplo (jumbo toy blocks) structure with
> window-shaped holes, and the animal immediately perked up and
> investigated the structure and its openings.

Most animals are naturally curious. It benefits their survival to
explore their environment as thoroughly as possible.


> Wild birds have demonstrated uncanny abilities to figure out puzzles in
> order to obtain a tasty morsel. Parrots can watch you unlock a cage,
> and repeat your action. No training, no conditioning -- just brain power.

That's called 'learning through imitating', something parrots are
particularly good at. I've seen pretty clever horses do it too. But if
they could figure out on their own how to unlock a cage, that would be
an entirely different story.


> Many bored, lonely, anxious pets (birds, rats, cats, dogs, horses) and
> zoo animals, i.e., pandas, marsupials, monkeys, develop behavior
> problems when confined in inappropriate conditions.

Yes. It's been proven that higher animals can actually experience
boredom and stress when their brains are not sufficiently stimulated.


> We assume a whole lot more than we should about the animals with whom we
> share this planet.

Wait a minute there hippie, this isn't just a "planet". It's an entire
WORLD, and one of a kind at that. And we don't share it. Humans OWN it.
We didn't rise to the top of the food chain by putting the interests of
competing species on the same level as ours. A black bear isn't going to
respect *your* rights if it's hungry or if you happen to be in it's
territory near its cubs.


> Perhaps our fish ARE capable of learning,
> recognition, and feelings.

Fish are capable of learning, certainly. Recognition, maybe or maybe
not. I'd need to see some experiments done on that. I know that
amphibians and reptiles can often differentiate the appearance of their
owner from other people, but fish in the store seem to do that "fishy
dance" no matter who shows up in front of their tank.

- Logic316



"A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. A conservative is a
liberal who's been mugged."
-- Wendy Kaminer

[Cyli]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 06:30:20 GMT, wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:55:35 -0500, Cyli >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:06:26 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
>>>A small bird will drop frozen dead from
>>>a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.
>>
>>
>>And how is it that you know exactly what a dead bird felt before it
>>died? Or how any wild thing is feeling about itself?
>
>
>Perhaps by the same reasoning that allows you to speak to squirrels
>and causes your paranoia with regards to trout.


_Anyone_ can speak to squirrels. They only pay attention if you
frighten them or feed them, though. Speaking for them or their
feelings is another matter.

I'll admit to the trout paranoia accusation. Probably has something
to do with being a lousy fisherman.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

[rick]

"Logic316" > wrote in message
...
> NanK wrote:
>> A GOOGLE search may direct you to the latest research where
>> scientists have actually taught flies to follow a particular
>> flight pattern in controlled experiments! And did you know
>> that bees remove the legs on a fellow worker bee that
>> habitually returns "drunk" on fermented nector.
>
> Perhaps we should follow a similar approach with drunk drivers.
> On the first offense, take away their cars. On the second
> offense, remove their legs so they can't operate the pedals.
============
Nah, then you'd have to "accomodate" them under the ADA, and they
wouldn't have lost any privledges.



>
>
>> If you watch Animal Planet and Discovery, you have learned
>> about the complexity of elephants, dolphins, wolves, and many
>> other animals and insects. Recently, I saw a clip where an
>> unhappy, aquarium-housed octopus was given a Duplo (jumbo toy
>> blocks) structure with window-shaped holes, and the animal
>> immediately perked up and investigated the structure and its
>> openings.
>
> Most animals are naturally curious. It benefits their survival
> to explore their environment as thoroughly as possible.
>
>
>> Wild birds have demonstrated uncanny abilities to figure out
>> puzzles in order to obtain a tasty morsel. Parrots can watch
>> you unlock a cage, and repeat your action. No training, no
>> conditioning -- just brain power.
>
> That's called 'learning through imitating', something parrots
> are particularly good at. I've seen pretty clever horses do it
> too. But if they could figure out on their own how to unlock a
> cage, that would be an entirely different story.
>
>
>> Many bored, lonely, anxious pets (birds, rats, cats, dogs,
>> horses) and zoo animals, i.e., pandas, marsupials, monkeys,
>> develop behavior problems when confined in inappropriate
>> conditions.
>
> Yes. It's been proven that higher animals can actually
> experience boredom and stress when their brains are not
> sufficiently stimulated.
>
>
>> We assume a whole lot more than we should about the animals
>> with whom we share this planet.
>
> Wait a minute there hippie, this isn't just a "planet". It's an
> entire WORLD, and one of a kind at that. And we don't share it.
> Humans OWN it. We didn't rise to the top of the food chain by
> putting the interests of competing species on the same level as
> ours. A black bear isn't going to respect *your* rights if it's
> hungry or if you happen to be in it's territory near its cubs.
>
>
>> Perhaps our fish ARE capable of learning, recognition, and
>> feelings.
>
> Fish are capable of learning, certainly. Recognition, maybe or
> maybe not. I'd need to see some experiments done on that. I
> know that amphibians and reptiles can often differentiate the
> appearance of their owner from other people, but fish in the
> store seem to do that "fishy dance" no matter who shows up in
> front of their tank.
>
> - Logic316
>
>
>
> "A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. A
> conservative is a liberal who's been mugged."
> -- Wendy Kaminer

[dh@.]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 Goo wrote:

>dh wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:06:41 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
>>>>A small bird will drop frozen dead from
>>>>a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.
>>>>--
>>>>I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
>>>>A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
>>>>without ever having felt sorry for itself.
>>>
>>>This poem is fundamentally flawed. Most animals, including avian
>>>species, lack the necessary mental capacity to have a sense of "self" in
>>>the first place.
>>>
>>>- Logic316
>>
>>
>> There are examples that suggest otherwise. For example: We all
>> know that a dog is aware of his balls, so what would make us believe
>> he is not aware of himself?
>
>They fail the mirror test, for one, ****wit, you
>****ing ****bag.
>
>A dog is not aware that its tail is "its" tail. It's
>aware of THE tail, and if you step on tail it yelps.
>It does not know that the tail is "its" tail,

There is no reason to believe anything so stupid as that Goo,
but there is reason not to. For example: dogs mark their territory,
and know that it's their territory. You are amazingly ignorant. It's
no wonder they call you Goobernicus.

>or that
>its paw is "its" paw. If you approach a dog that will
>let you approach it at all, and calmly extend a pair of
>garden shears as if you're going to cut off the dog's
>front paw, it will not react. It doesn't have the
>sense of self required to think, "This stranger might
>intend to hurt me."

That's not it Goober. They don't understand that garden shears
could hurt them, and that's all there is to that little fantasy.

>Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than the
>great apes have no sense of self.

You are the last person who would know if they do Goo, that's
for sure. They indicate by their behavior that they do, and there is
absolutely no reason at all to believe they don't.

[dh@.]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 Goo wrote:

>dh wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 05:25:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>NanK wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yes, they do! When they see you outside the tank, don't they wiggle
>>>>with anticipation of being fed???
>>>
>>>No. That's stimulus response, *not* anticipation.
>>
>>
>> That stimulus response *is* anticipation Goobernicus.
>
>No, ****wit, you idiot, it isn't anticipation.
>Anticipation is THINKING about something BEFORE the
>stimulus is present.

Not always Goo. Sometimes the stimulus stimulates it. Maybe
that's why it's called stimulus, you Goober.

[dh@.]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:16:04 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:

><mid-post>
>
>dh@. wrote:
>> Goo insists that no animals can anticipate, but that humans are
>> somehow projecting their emotions into the animals causing them
>> to behave in a way which gives the obvious appearance that they
>> are experiencing them themselves...most likely through voodoo or
>> something...it's bizarre, whatever it is.
>
>Perhaps he's referring to "anthropomorphism". Yes, people are often
>guilty of attributing human qualities and motives to things that aren't
>human. Just look at the Disney channel :-P

It can go either way...people can attribute too much to animals, but they
also can be ignorant of what animals are capable of. The latter is the case
with Goo. But. Goo does insist that a fantasy about a talking pig--an extreme
case of anthropomorphism written by one of his fellow "ARAs"--somehow
refutes the fact that some farm animals benefit from farming.

>>>The only question I have, could such a fish (one having learned to
>>>associate the presence of humans with food) learn to distinguish between
>>>humans and other large creatures who show up in front of it's tank who
>>>don't feed it (like dogs or cats)?
>>>
>>>- Logic316
>>
>>
>> Most likely they can learn to avoid things as well as anticipate
>> getting food from them. Amusingly, Goo can understand that animals
>> feel fear and anger, but can't understand that they also feel pride,
>> anticipation and disappointment. It's amusing, but in an almost pitiable
>> way.
>
>'Fear' and 'anger' are among the most primal of emotions, present even
>in most lower lifeforms. These help ensure survival by allowing the
>organism to either flee danger, or fight off threats to its food and
>territory. 'Anticipation' is not an emotion; it's the condition of
>merely having knowledge of an upcoming event, and acting on it. As for
>'pride', that's a far more complex emotion which involves feeling
>pleasure from knowing that you acquired, accomplished or succeeded at
>something - which you definitely won't find in a fish. The closest
>instinct you can find to that in a fish is simply territoriality and
>aggression. As for 'disappointment', that's also a complex mammalian
>emotion involving a feeling of dissatisfaction that results when one's
>expectations are not realized. Again, I doubt a fish can feel that; if
>it sees and tries to obtain food or a mate and it fails to do so, they
>don't have the capacity to think about their loss - they just keep
>trying and keep going about the business of survival.
>
>- Logic316

That's probably the case with fish, but some animals do experience
disappointment even if fish don't. This is another area of Goo's extreme
ignorance. Here are a couple of his classic quotes:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:48:32 GMT

Animals do not experience pride or disappointment. Period.
[...]
No animals anticipate.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
His ignorance is so pure, that he doesn't even consider the possibility
that some animals are capable of experiencing things that other
animals are not capable of. That is very shallow "thinking", and in
many ways very primitive and animal like imo.

[Logic316]

dh@. wrote:

>>Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than the
>>great apes have no sense of self.
>
>
> You are the last person who would know if they do Goo, that's
> for sure. They indicate by their behavior that they do, and there is
> absolutely no reason at all to believe they don't.


Even a broken clock can be right once in a while. I would urge you to
look at the following objective studies on self-awareness:

The "mirror test" at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Scientific American article on empathy:
http://geowords.com/lostlinks/b36/7.htm

In a nutshell, the vast majority of animals cannot truly make a
psychological distinction between themselves and their environment.

- Logic316



"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

[Rudy Canoza]

****wit David Tub of **** Harrison lied:

> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Tub of **** Harrison lied:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 05:25:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>NanK wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, they do! When they see you outside the tank, don't they wiggle
>>>>>with anticipation of being fed???
>>>>
>>>>No. That's stimulus response, *not* anticipation.
>>>
>>>
>>> That stimulus response *is* anticipation Goobernicus.
>>
>>No, ****wit, you idiot, it isn't anticipation.
>>Anticipation is THINKING about something BEFORE the
>>stimulus is present.
>
>
> Not always Rudy.

ALWAYS, you stupid tub of ****.

[Logic316]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

>> Not always Rudy.
>
>
> ALWAYS, you stupid tub of ****.


You folks ever consider taking this to private e-mail? I doubt anybody's
interested in these personal issues.

- Logic316


"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

[dh@.]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:32:26 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>>>Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than the
>>>great apes have no sense of self.
>>
>>
>> You are the last person who would know if they do Goo, that's
>> for sure. They indicate by their behavior that they do, and there is
>> absolutely no reason at all to believe they don't.
>
>
>Even a broken clock can be right once in a while. I would urge you to
>look at the following objective studies on self-awareness:
>
>The "mirror test" at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

That's not a test to see if animals have awareness. It's simply an
effort to get them to realise that what they view is somehow a
representation of themselves. It's not surprising that a dog can't
learn it, but it could certainly pass a test of awareness of its own urine
marking its own territory:

"...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."

which to me means the same thing as it would if they passed the mirror test:
they are aware of themselves.

>Scientific American article on empathy:
>http://geowords.com/lostlinks/b36/7.htm
>
>In a nutshell, the vast majority of animals cannot truly make a
>psychological distinction between themselves and their environment.
>
>- Logic316

Just because they don't recognise themselves in a mirror doesn't
have anything to do with an inability to be aware of themsevles.
I saw nothing on the empathy page to indicate that either, but if you
think it's there I'd be interested in exactly what you're referring to. So
far I've seen only evidence that they are aware of themselves, and
nothing to indicate they are not. Just the fact that they recognise other
individual beings, even of different species, is proof to me that they
are aware of other individuals, and almost certainly aware that they are
an individual as well.

[dh@.]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:19:29 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:

>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>> Not always Rudy.
>>
>>
>> ALWAYS, you stupid tub of ****.
>
>
>You folks ever consider taking this to private e-mail? I doubt anybody's
>interested in these personal issues.

No one's going to learn anything from Goo. So the only
way I'll learn anything from ngs about this stuff, is to include
other people. I wondered if there were any other people
who had similar beliefs about animal awareness for example,
and you provided some significant info and ideas about it.
Do you think I'd ever get anything like that out of email with
Goo? I sure don't.

[Rudy Canoza]

Goo ****wit David Tub-of-**** Harrison lied:

> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:19:29 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:
>
>
>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Not always Rudy.
>>>
>>>
>>>ALWAYS, you stupid tub of ****.
>>
>>
>>You folks ever consider taking this to private e-mail? I doubt anybody's
>>interested in these personal issues.
>
>
> No one's going to learn anything from Rudy.

A reasonably sensible and open-minded person could
learn a lot from me, ****wit, but you're neither
sensible nor open-minded. You're a stupid, lying,
Southern cracker, and a stinking tub of ****.

[Logic316]

dh@. wrote:

> That's not a test to see if animals have awareness. It's simply an
> effort to get them to realise that what they view is somehow a
> representation of themselves.

Au contraire. When something recognizes itself as an individual and
distinct entity, it WILL recognize a visual representation of itself.
Self-awareness MEANS creating and maintaining a visual image of yourself
in your mind. This is a function that requires a specially-evolved
cerebral cortex that simply doesn't exist in most other animals.
Incidentally, I am puzzled as to why "animal-righties" take it so
personally when somebody states that a particular species (human)
possesses a unique ability (which specifically evolved to help it
survive in it's environment) that other species do not.


> It's not surprising that a dog can't
> learn it, but it could certainly pass a test of awareness of its own urine
> marking its own territory:

So it is territorial and is aware of the scent of it's own urine. That
is a purely instinctive process, so I don't see how that is particularly
relevant here.


> "...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."

Either one of two things happen when you put a dog in front of a mirror
- it usually ignores it (probably because the reflected image has no
scent), or it might get frightened off by it. But even if you somehow
arrange it so that the dog can SMELL the image in the mirror, and it
smells just like it does, it will not see it as a representation of
'itself'. A self-aware creature like a human realizes that the
reflection in the mirror looks just like him and is doing everything
exactly as he does (since the image in the mirror matches the image of
the self contained in the higher brain). A dog would simply think that
it's another dog, and would either try to play with it or get angry and
attack it to try to chase it away from its territory.


> which to me means the same thing as it would
> if they passed the mirror test: they are aware of themselves.

So just because you fail a test that might be flawed, that
*automatically* means you would pass a test if it was valid? Illogical.

What it comes down to, is that YOU have to show an experiment that
proves your assertion that animals are self-aware, not for skeptics to
prove that they aren't. It is nearly impossible to prove a negative, and
proof is always incumbent on the person making the claim. Otherwise,
your belief is more a matter of religion than science.

- Logic316



"I think there is a world market for maybe 5 computers."
-- Thomas Watson, IBM boss, 1943

[Rudy Canoza]

****wit David Tub-of-**** Harrison lied:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:32:26 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:
>
> >****wit David Tub-of-**** Harrison lied:
> >
> >>>Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than the
> >>>great apes have no sense of self.
> >>
> >>
> >> You are the last person who would know if they do Goo, that's
> >> for sure. They indicate by their behavior that they do, and there is
> >> absolutely no reason at all to believe they don't.
> >
> >
> >Even a broken clock can be right once in a while. I would urge you to
> >look at the following objective studies on self-awareness:
> >
> >The "mirror test" at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
>
> That's not a test to see if animals have awareness. It's simply an
> effort to get them to realise that what they view is somehow a
> representation of themselves.

That's what self awareness IS, you stupid unthinking uneducated
Southern hillbilly tub of ****.

[Joe Pfeiffer]

dh@. writes:

> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:32:26 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:
>
> >dh@. wrote:
> >
> >>>Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than the
> >>>great apes have no sense of self.
> >>
> >>
> >> You are the last person who would know if they do Goo, that's
> >> for sure. They indicate by their behavior that they do, and there is
> >> absolutely no reason at all to believe they don't.
> >
> >
> >Even a broken clock can be right once in a while. I would urge you to
> >look at the following objective studies on self-awareness:
> >
> >The "mirror test" at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
>
> That's not a test to see if animals have awareness. It's simply an
> effort to get them to realise that what they view is somehow a
> representation of themselves. It's not surprising that a dog can't
> learn it, but it could certainly pass a test of awareness of its own urine
> marking its own territory:
>
> "...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."
>
> which to me means the same thing as it would if they passed the mirror test:
> they are aware of themselves.

Well, no. It casts doubt on whether it's a good test for dogs. Note
that at this point it's quite well established that rubbing a puppy's
nose in its messes is useless in housebreaking the animal; this
implies that they aren't aware that they were responsible for the
mess. Whatever a dog's reaction to its own urine means, it's hard to
imagine it would imply real self-awareness.

It's hard for me to imagine my Golden doesn't have self-awareness at
some level when brings me a toy and bumps my elbow to know my hand off
the keyboard. But that's different from real objective evidence.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
skype: jjpfeifferjr

[Joe Pfeiffer]

"Rudy Canoza" > writes:
>
> That's what self awareness IS, you stupid unthinking uneducated
> Southern hillbilly tub of ****.

Are you really this incredibly boorish in person? dh@ appears to be
trying valiantly to have a conversation, and your response is to paint
yourself as an idiot.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
skype: jjpfeifferjr

[Rudy Canoza]

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

> dh@. writes:
>
>
>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:32:26 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than the
>>>>>great apes have no sense of self.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are the last person who would know if they do Goo, that's
>>>>for sure. They indicate by their behavior that they do, and there is
>>>>absolutely no reason at all to believe they don't.
>>>
>>>
>>>Even a broken clock can be right once in a while. I would urge you to
>>>look at the following objective studies on self-awareness:
>>>
>>>The "mirror test" at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
>>
>> That's not a test to see if animals have awareness. It's simply an
>>effort to get them to realise that what they view is somehow a
>>representation of themselves. It's not surprising that a dog can't
>>learn it, but it could certainly pass a test of awareness of its own urine
>>marking its own territory:
>>
>>"...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."
>>
>>which to me means the same thing as it would if they passed the mirror test:
>>they are aware of themselves.
>
>
> Well, no. It casts doubt on whether it's a good test for dogs. Note
> that at this point it's quite well established that rubbing a puppy's
> nose in its messes is useless in housebreaking the animal; this
> implies that they aren't aware that they were responsible for the
> mess. Whatever a dog's reaction to its own urine means, it's hard to
> imagine it would imply real self-awareness.
>
> It's hard for me to imagine my Golden doesn't have self-awareness at
> some level when brings me a toy and bumps my elbow to know my hand off
> the keyboard. But that's different from real objective evidence.

"No dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
there will be dogs after him." - Kenneth Boulding

[dh@.]

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 12:34:16 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> That's not a test to see if animals have awareness. It's simply an
>> effort to get them to realise that what they view is somehow a
>> representation of themselves.
>
>Au contraire. When something recognizes itself as an individual and
>distinct entity, it WILL recognize a visual representation of itself.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. I remember learning about some
people in primitive type tribes being shown pictures of themselves
and having no idea what they were, or even that they were pictures,
until it was explained and pointed out to them. That explains a lot
about the issue, if you're willing to think it out.

>Self-awareness MEANS creating and maintaining a visual image of yourself
>in your mind.

You don't know that. It's almost certain that some do and some
do not imo. Even if it were true, you would still have no idea what
every creatures imagined visual image of itself is like, and how near
or far from reality the impression is.

>This is a function that requires a specially-evolved
>cerebral cortex that simply doesn't exist in most other animals.
>Incidentally, I am puzzled as to why "animal-righties" take it so
>personally when somebody states that a particular species (human)
>possesses a unique ability (which specifically evolved to help it
>survive in it's environment) that other species do not.

From my experience with them, "ARAs" always have a twisted
view of reality. They "learn" from things like Charlotte's Web and
Chicken Run. The very concept is a gross mi$nomer anyway in
regards to domestic animals. "AR" would not provide them with
better lives, longer lives, rights, or anything at all. It would eliminate
them. It also would not provide rights for animals killed in growing
crops, or producing wood and paper, or building roads and buildings,
etc, since "ARAs" happily contribute to all of those things.

>> It's not surprising that a dog can't
>> learn it, but it could certainly pass a test of awareness of its own urine
>> marking its own territory:
>
>So it is territorial and is aware of the scent of it's own

There ya' go. "it's own", requiring some sense of self. You proved
it yourself by basic observation. BTW try the tape recorder test with
any dog you can try it with, and if you do please let me know how
it goes.

>urine. That
>is a purely instinctive process, so I don't see how that is particularly
>relevant here.

I hope you can by now...it's urine, it's bone, it's territory, it's balls,
it's house, it's bowl, it's food, it's toy, it's leash...are you beginning
to see any relevant evidence that it may have some concept of
it's self?

>> "...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."
>
>Either one of two things happen when you put a dog in front of a mirror
>- it usually ignores it (probably because the reflected image has no
>scent),

There are probably a number of reasons, that probably being one
of the main ones.

>or it might get frightened off by it. But even if you somehow
>arrange it so that the dog can SMELL the image in the mirror, and it
>smells just like it does, it will not see it as a representation of
>'itself'.

That's because it's hard to inform the dog about what's goind on.
I feel sure one of the last things that would occur to a dog on seeing
a mirror is: 'wow, look how the photons are reflecting off of me, onto
that smooth surface, and away in a way which represents my image
so clearly', or anything even close to it.

>A self-aware creature like a human realizes that the
>reflection in the mirror looks just like him and is doing everything
>exactly as he does (since the image in the mirror matches the image of
>the self contained in the higher brain). A dog would simply think that
>it's another dog, and would either try to play with it or get angry and
>attack it to try to chase it away from its territory.

There's more of that relevant evidence. The fact that it is aware
of other individuals is evidence that it is aware of it's self as well.

> > which to me means the same thing as it would
> > if they passed the mirror test: they are aware of themselves.
>
>So just because you fail a test that might be flawed, that
>*automatically* means you would pass a test if it was valid?

It depends on what's being tested, don't you think?

>Illogical.
>
>What it comes down to, is that YOU have to show an experiment that
>proves your assertion that animals are self-aware,

They are aware that individuals exist. They are aware of their
body. They are aware of their possesions and territory. Those
things are very strong evidence that they are aware of themselves
as well as the other things, regardless of their interpretation of
a mirror or a television.

>not for skeptics to
>prove that they aren't. It is nearly impossible to prove a negative, and
>proof is always incumbent on the person making the claim. Otherwise,
>your belief is more a matter of religion than science.
>
>- Logic316
>
>
>
>"I think there is a world market for maybe 5 computers."
> -- Thomas Watson, IBM boss, 1943

[dh@.]

On 1 Sep 2005 Goo wrote:

>dh wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:32:26 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:

>> >The "mirror test" at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
>>
>> That's not a test to see if animals have awareness. It's simply an
>> effort to get them to realise that what they view is somehow a
>> representation of themselves.
>
>That's what self awareness IS, you stupid unthinking

You are completely lost on this one Goober. A being that has never
seen anything in its life could be aware of itself, lol (excuse me) but as
always this is just too much for you to understand. You are so amusingly
stupid Goo...lol...I guarantee I laugh at you more than at anything else in
the world.

[dh@.]

On 01 Sep 2005 22:11:36 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer > wrote:

>"Rudy Canoza" > writes:
>>
>> That's what self awareness IS, you stupid unthinking uneducated
>> Southern hillbilly tub of ****.
>
>Are you really this incredibly boorish in person? dh@ appears to be
>trying valiantly to have a conversation, and your response is to paint
>yourself as an idiot.

He actually is exposing himself, and it is quite incredible. I find it
very hard to believe he's actually as stupid as he insists that he is,
but I do continue to underestimate how stupid he turns out to really
be. It's hard to say how much is for real....

Check this out:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Message-ID: et>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 20:40:05 GMT

Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability to
feel either.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:15:08 GMT

No. It's not anticipation, and not disappointment.


> and also frustration,

No. Animals do not experience frustration.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Message-ID: .net>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:21:03 GMT

Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or
cattle, or any other animal you've ever encountered.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Message-ID: .net>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:48:32 GMT

Animals do not experience pride or disappointment. Period.
[...]
No animals anticipate.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 03:07:09 GMT

Anticipation requires language.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Those are all things he claims to believe. Here are some more,
and I'll include a bunch to show how strongly he believes this:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Message-ID: .net>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:53:59 GMT

NO animals "benefit" from being born
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Message-ID: et>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:09:49 GMT

No animal benefits from being born. Period.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Message-ID: t>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:12:48 GMT

NO animals benefit from being born, ****wit. None.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Message-ID: .net>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:16:38 GMT

NO animals benefit from being born
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Message-ID: et>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:33:07 GMT

NO animal benefits from being born
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Message-ID: et>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 07:53:46 GMT

Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Message-ID: >
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:20:32 GMT

NO animals 'benefit' from being born, ****wit. Not a
single one.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:53:53 GMT

Being born is not a benefit, ****WIT; it cannot be.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Message-ID: >
From: Jonathan Ball >
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 23:22:32 GMT

Life is not a "benefit"
[...]
Repeat after me, ****wit: life, itself, cannot be a
"benefit".
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Message-ID: >
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT

Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
creature.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Message-ID: et>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 22:46:32 GMT

You are wrong, JethroDonkey****tardMoron: life is not
a "benefit". It can't be.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Message-ID: .net>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:02:35 GMT

1. Life per se is not a benefit.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 23:00:34 -0800
Message-ID: >

Life itself is not a benefit
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Message-ID: . net>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 05:20:00 GMT

Life per se is not a benefit at all. It
can't be.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Message-ID: et>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 20:51:20 GMT

"Life" is not a benefit
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:08:13 -0800
Message-ID: >

"Life" is not a benefit
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:19:32 GMT

I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I strongly disagree with Goo.

[dh@.]

On 01 Sep 2005 22:10:26 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer > wrote:

>dh@. writes:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:32:26 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:
>>
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than the
>> >>>great apes have no sense of self.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You are the last person who would know if they do Goo, that's
>> >> for sure. They indicate by their behavior that they do, and there is
>> >> absolutely no reason at all to believe they don't.
>> >
>> >
>> >Even a broken clock can be right once in a while. I would urge you to
>> >look at the following objective studies on self-awareness:
>> >
>> >The "mirror test" at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
>>
>> That's not a test to see if animals have awareness. It's simply an
>> effort to get them to realise that what they view is somehow a
>> representation of themselves. It's not surprising that a dog can't
>> learn it, but it could certainly pass a test of awareness of its own urine
>> marking its own territory:
>>
>> "...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."
>>
>> which to me means the same thing as it would if they passed the mirror test:
>> they are aware of themselves.
>
>Well, no. It casts doubt on whether it's a good test for dogs. Note
>that at this point it's quite well established that rubbing a puppy's
>nose in its messes is useless in housebreaking the animal;

Not if done correctly. Accompanying the nose rubbing with
an ass whipping gives better results.

>this
>implies that they aren't aware that they were responsible for the
>mess.

I know for a fact that a dog we had when I was a kid was
concerned when he **** on the floor. I remember coming home
one night and my dad could tell just from his behavior that he'd
dropped a load in the basement where he had been. He didn't
get punished for it that time though, because it was my dad's
fault for him being there so long, and he never did it under normal
conditions.

>Whatever a dog's reaction to its own urine means, it's hard to
>imagine it would imply real self-awareness.

To me it shows without doubt the dog is aware of its territory,
meaning it has to be aware of itself. More evidence that it's
aware of itself, is the fact that it's aware of other individuals.

>It's hard for me to imagine my Golden doesn't have self-awareness at
>some level when brings me a toy and bumps my elbow to know my hand off
>the keyboard. But that's different from real objective evidence.

[dh@.]

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 Goo wrote:

>Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> It's hard for me to imagine my Golden doesn't have self-awareness at
>> some level when brings me a toy and bumps my elbow to know my hand off
>> the keyboard. But that's different from real objective evidence.
>
>"No dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
>there will be dogs after him." - Kenneth Boulding

Not the same thing Goo.

[Logic316]

dh@. wrote:

>>Au contraire. When something recognizes itself as an individual and
>>distinct entity, it WILL recognize a visual representation of itself.
>
>
> Sometimes. Sometimes not. I remember learning about some
> people in primitive type tribes being shown pictures of themselves
> and having no idea what they were, or even that they were pictures,
> until it was explained and pointed out to them. That explains a lot
> about the issue, if you're willing to think it out.

Perhaps they didn't recognize the pictures as representations of
themselves, because they simply never saw themselves before. It wouldn't
surprise me if there are still a few primitive cultures which don't have
mirrors. Although one would think they may have seen their reflections
in water or something else that's shiny, but it's quite possible that
they didn't.


>>Self-awareness MEANS creating and maintaining a visual image of yourself
>>in your mind.
>
>
> You don't know that. It's almost certain that some do and some
> do not imo. Even if it were true, you would still have no idea what
> every creatures imagined visual image of itself is like, and how near
> or far from reality the impression is.

When a human looks into a mirror they eventually realize it's their
reflection because as they move around, the image moves around the exact
same way. He will notice that if he wears a red sticker on his chest or
any other marking, the mirror image will show the same markings. The
image may only be two-dimensional and may not smell or feel like a
human, but an image does not need to be an *exact* duplicate of the
subject in order to be recognized by any creature that has the ability
to reason. A fish or a dog can make no such connection because it does
not possess nor can it create a mental concept of itself.


>>That
>>is a purely instinctive process, so I don't see how that is particularly
>>relevant here.
>
>
> I hope you can by now...it's urine, it's bone, it's territory, it's balls,
> it's house, it's bowl, it's food, it's toy, it's leash...are you beginning
> to see any relevant evidence that it may have some concept of
> it's self?

Nope. Territoriality is a basic instinct in just about every animal. It
establishes it's territory, and feels angry and gets aggressive (or
afraid) when some other animal enters it. These are all ingrained
automatic behaviors processed in the lower brain which requires no
ability to reflect upon one's own mental processes.


>>or it might get frightened off by it. But even if you somehow
>>arrange it so that the dog can SMELL the image in the mirror, and it
>>smells just like it does, it will not see it as a representation of
>>'itself'.
>
>
> That's because it's hard to inform the dog about what's goind on.
> I feel sure one of the last things that would occur to a dog on seeing
> a mirror is: 'wow, look how the photons are reflecting off of me, onto
> that smooth surface, and away in a way which represents my image
> so clearly', or anything even close to it.

C'mon dh, most humans don't think about the photons either. A detailed
scientific understanding of how the mirror works is not necessary to
know that the image it shows belongs to you. Even if an uninformed
primitive human or a very young child scratches his head, looks at it
and thinks "gee, I guess I must be in two places at once", he still
realizes the image in the mirror somehow corresponds to 'him' and nobody
else.


> There's more of that relevant evidence. The fact that it is aware
> of other individuals is evidence that it is aware of it's self as well.

Not so, not so. Just because an organism is aware of objects in it's
surroundings (or pain in it's body) or feels a connection to them, does
not necessarily mean it is aware of it's own mental processes.


>>>which to me means the same thing as it would
>>>if they passed the mirror test: they are aware of themselves.
>>
>>So just because you fail a test that might be flawed, that
>>*automatically* means you would pass a test if it was valid?
>
>
> It depends on what's being tested, don't you think?

No sir. If the mirror test is flawed, all that means is that the animals
that flunked it *might* be self aware, not that they *definitely* are.
You come up with a test that works properly, and then you know for sure.
It is irresponsible to draw such conclusions until then.


> They are aware that individuals exist. They are aware of their
> body. They are aware of their possesions and territory. Those
> things are very strong evidence that they are aware of themselves
> as well as the other things, regardless of their interpretation of
> a mirror or a television.

I often like to compare animal and human brains to rudimentary and
advanced types of computers (a bit oversimplified perhaps, but it works
for this analogy). The way I see it, an animal brain is like a CPU which
can analyze and process signals inputted from various external sensors,
decide what to do based on it's programming and whatever data is in it's
memory, and then send signals out various sets of electric motors to
manipulate something in it's environment. However, unlike a more
advanced model of computer (the human), it's CPU lacks a unique circuit
which would allow it the ability to analyze and monitor it's own
internal functions and processes (self-awareness).

- Logic316



"Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their
property that they may more perfectly respect it."
-- G.K. Chesterton

[dh@.]

On 2 Sep 2005 Goo lied:

>dh wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 Goo wrote:
>>
>> >Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> >
>> >> Goober wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>That's what self awareness IS, you stupid unthinking uneducated
>> >>>Southern hillbilly tub of ****.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Are you really this incredibly boorish in person? dh@ appears to be
>> >> trying valiantly to have a conversation,
>> >
>> >No, he isn't. You don't know '@dh'. He is a lying,
>> >animal-torturing ****bag named David Harrison. He
>> >lives on a leaky, decrepit houseboat on Lake Lanier,
>> >not far from Atlanta. He participates in
>> >cock-fighting.
>>
>> I've had nothing to do with game chickens in about
>> ten years
>
>That's a lie, ****wit.

That's another lie Goober.

>> >He also raises dogs for dog fighting.
>>
>> Of course that's a lie.
>
>That's not a lie,

Yes it's another lie Goober.

>****wit. You've been involved.

That's yet another lie Goo.

>> >****wit - that's David Harrison's real nickname in
>> >usenet - is uneducated, and a self-admitted pervert.
>> >He believes, stupidly, that causing farm animals to
>> >live is somehow doing them a favor.
>>
>> As I've pointed out many times, some farm animals benefit
>> from farming, and some of them don't.
>
>NO farm animals "benefit" from coming into existence,

That's a lie Goo. Some don't. Some do.

>****wit. Not
>"from farming",

Some benefit from farming and some don't Goo. It's a very
obvious fact, and it's obvious that you lied again.

>in your sleazy euphemism; you mean from coming into
>existence. They do not benefit from coming into existence, ****wit,
>you stupid tub of ****. That has been explained to you over and over.

Now that you mention it, all you've done is lie about that too. You
insist that nothing can benefit from life because imaginary nonexistent
"entities" can't benefit, but it's just another of your lies Gonad. Your
ines on which your supposed explanation is completely dependant,
don't even exist much less can they in some magical way prevent
everything from benefitting from existence.

[dh@.]

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 Goo wrote:

>dh wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 Goo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's hard for me to imagine my Golden doesn't have self-awareness at
>>>>some level when brings me a toy and bumps my elbow to know my hand off
>>>>the keyboard. But that's different from real objective evidence.
>>>
>>>"No dog knows that there have been dogs before him, and
>>>there will be dogs after him." - Kenneth Boulding
>>
>>
>> Not the same thing Rudy.
>
>Very much part of the same thing

Of course this will be another example for your cowardice document. But
just for extra fun we'll go ahead and challenge you, to see how you slink
and crawl away from your own idiocy:

[dh@.]

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:26:03 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>>>Au contraire. When something recognizes itself as an individual and
>>>distinct entity, it WILL recognize a visual representation of itself.
>>
>>
>> Sometimes. Sometimes not. I remember learning about some
>> people in primitive type tribes being shown pictures of themselves
>> and having no idea what they were, or even that they were pictures,
>> until it was explained and pointed out to them. That explains a lot
>> about the issue, if you're willing to think it out.
>
>Perhaps they didn't recognize the pictures as representations of
>themselves, because they simply never saw themselves before. It wouldn't
>surprise me if there are still a few primitive cultures which don't have
>mirrors. Although one would think they may have seen their reflections
>in water or something else that's shiny, but it's quite possible that
>they didn't.
>
>
>>>Self-awareness MEANS creating and maintaining a visual image of yourself
>>>in your mind.
>>
>>
>> You don't know that. It's almost certain that some do and some
>> do not imo. Even if it were true, you would still have no idea what
>> every creatures imagined visual image of itself is like, and how near
>> or far from reality the impression is.
>
>When a human looks into a mirror they eventually realize it's their
>reflection because as they move around, the image moves around the exact
>same way. He will notice that if he wears a red sticker on his chest or
>any other marking, the mirror image will show the same markings. The
>image may only be two-dimensional and may not smell or feel like a
>human, but an image does not need to be an *exact* duplicate of the
>subject in order to be recognized by any creature that has the ability
>to reason.

Explain why a dog would ever consider that it is looking at an image
of itself.

>A fish or a dog can make no such connection because it does
>not possess nor can it create a mental concept of itself.

Whether or not it can create a mental concept of itself has absolutely
nothing to do with whether or not it can understand a mirror.

>>>That
>>>is a purely instinctive process, so I don't see how that is particularly
>>>relevant here.
>>
>>
>> I hope you can by now...it's urine, it's bone, it's territory, it's balls,
>> it's house, it's bowl, it's food, it's toy, it's leash...are you beginning
>> to see any relevant evidence that it may have some concept of
>> it's self?
>
>Nope.

I do. Since we see that it's aware of its objects, we know that it
can be aware of objects. We know that it can recognise other
individuals, and distinguish between them. It has a mental concept
of objects and of individuals, both of which suggest it recognises
itself as an object and an individual, and other things suggest that
it even has a mental concept of what species it is.

>Territoriality is a basic instinct in just about every animal. It
>establishes it's territory, and feels angry and gets aggressive (or
>afraid) when some other animal enters it. These are all ingrained
>automatic behaviors processed in the lower brain which requires no
>ability to reflect upon one's own mental processes.
>
>
>>>or it might get frightened off by it. But even if you somehow
>>>arrange it so that the dog can SMELL the image in the mirror, and it
>>>smells just like it does, it will not see it as a representation of
>>>'itself'.
>>
>>
>> That's because it's hard to inform the dog about what's goind on.
>> I feel sure one of the last things that would occur to a dog on seeing
>> a mirror is: 'wow, look how the photons are reflecting off of me, onto
>> that smooth surface, and away in a way which represents my image
>> so clearly', or anything even close to it.
>
>C'mon dh, most humans don't think about the photons either. A detailed
>scientific understanding of how the mirror works is not necessary to
>know that the image it shows belongs to you. Even if an uninformed
>primitive human or a very young child scratches his head, looks at it
>and thinks "gee, I guess I must be in two places at once", he still
>realizes the image in the mirror somehow corresponds to 'him' and nobody
>else.

Understanding a mirror to some extent is necessary, and if dogs come
to an incorrect conclussion about mirrors, they are doing no worse than
you are in concluding that somehow restricts them to being able to have
it can have a mental concept of every object it encounters except itself.

[Logic316]

dh@. wrote:

>>When a human looks into a mirror they eventually realize it's their
>>reflection because as they move around, the image moves around the exact
>>same way. He will notice that if he wears a red sticker on his chest or
>>any other marking, the mirror image will show the same markings. The
>>image may only be two-dimensional and may not smell or feel like a
>>human, but an image does not need to be an *exact* duplicate of the
>>subject in order to be recognized by any creature that has the ability
>>to reason.
>
>
> Explain why a dog would ever consider that it is looking at an image
> of itself.

It's not done consciously or purposely, so there is no 'why'. I'll say
it again. If any creature has the ability to see, and has any concept of
'self', it would sooner or later sense that the image in the mirror
belongs to it and it would show a reaction i.e. if it sees a snack next
to its leg in the mirror image, it would then think to look for it by
its real leg and eat it.


>>> I hope you can by now...it's urine, it's bone, it's territory, it's balls,
>>>it's house, it's bowl, it's food, it's toy, it's leash...are you beginning
>>>to see any relevant evidence that it may have some concept of
>>>it's self?
>>
>>Nope.
>
>
> I do. Since we see that it's aware of its objects, we know that it
> can be aware of objects. We know that it can recognise other
> individuals, and distinguish between them. It has a mental concept
> of objects and of individuals, both of which suggest it recognises
> itself as an object and an individual, and other things suggest that
> it even has a mental concept of what species it is.

There is a difference between something being an "object" and something
being a "subject". The subject is the perceiver (fish, dog, human, etc)
and only whatever it's perceiving in its environment is an object. A
robot could respond to the presence of objects in all kinds of
sophisticated ways, but it does not mean it is aware of itself and it's
own mental processes.


>>C'mon dh, most humans don't think about the photons either. A detailed
>>scientific understanding of how the mirror works is not necessary to
>>know that the image it shows belongs to you. Even if an uninformed
>>primitive human or a very young child scratches his head, looks at it
>>and thinks "gee, I guess I must be in two places at once", he still
>>realizes the image in the mirror somehow corresponds to 'him' and nobody
>>else.
>
>
> Understanding a mirror to some extent is necessary, and if dogs come
> to an incorrect conclussion about mirrors, they are doing no worse than
> you are in concluding that somehow restricts them to being able to have
> it can have a mental concept of every object it encounters except itself.

No, not at all. One does not need to know anything about light, glass,
or photons to pass the mirror test. People in ancient cultures, 2 year
old children, and perhaps chimpanzees and dolphins instinctively realize
that what they see in the mirror belongs to them without even thinking
about it. And if a dog (or a fish) is able to see and recognize images
of objects, why can it not recognize an image of itself? Simple. It is
unable to form such a concept. A betta fish will become aggressive and
flare up if you put a mirror in front of it because it operates soley on
visual cues, but it only thinks its another male. A dog will ignore it
both because it has no scent AND also because it lacks the ability to
recognize it as an image of itself. That's all there is to it.

- Logic316



"If a man speaks in the woods
and no woman is there to hear it,
is he still wrong?"

[dh@.]

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 00:10:05 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>>>When a human looks into a mirror they eventually realize it's their
>>>reflection because as they move around, the image moves around the exact
>>>same way. He will notice that if he wears a red sticker on his chest or
>>>any other marking, the mirror image will show the same markings. The
>>>image may only be two-dimensional and may not smell or feel like a
>>>human, but an image does not need to be an *exact* duplicate of the
>>>subject in order to be recognized by any creature that has the ability
>>>to reason.
>>
>>
>> Explain why a dog would ever consider that it is looking at an image
>> of itself.
>
>It's not done consciously or purposely, so there is no 'why'. I'll say
>it again. If any creature has the ability to see, and has any concept of
>'self', it would sooner or later sense that the image in the mirror
>belongs to it

We still haven't seen any reason at all why a dog would ever consider
that it is looking at an image of itself. No reason at all.

>and it would show a reaction i.e. if it sees a snack next
>to its leg in the mirror image, it would then think to look for it by
>its real leg and eat it.
>
>
>>>> I hope you can by now...it's urine, it's bone, it's territory, it's balls,
>>>>it's house, it's bowl, it's food, it's toy, it's leash...are you beginning
>>>>to see any relevant evidence that it may have some concept of
>>>>it's self?
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>
>>
>> I do. Since we see that it's aware of its objects, we know that it
>> can be aware of objects. We know that it can recognise other
>> individuals, and distinguish between them. It has a mental concept
>> of objects and of individuals, both of which suggest it recognises
>> itself as an object and an individual, and other things suggest that
>> it even has a mental concept of what species it is.
>
>There is a difference between something being an "object" and something
>being a "subject". The subject is the perceiver (fish, dog, human, etc)
>and only whatever it's perceiving in its environment is an object. A
>robot could respond to the presence of objects in all kinds of
>sophisticated ways, but it does not mean it is aware of itself and it's
>own mental processes.

Out of curiosity, why do you think being able to understand a mirror
is a better sign of self awareness than things like recognising their own
urine, territory, possesions, etc? Why do you think that being able to
understand a mirror is a better sign of self awareness than the fact that
they can be aware of so many other selves besides their own?

>>>C'mon dh, most humans don't think about the photons either. A detailed
>>>scientific understanding of how the mirror works is not necessary to
>>>know that the image it shows belongs to you. Even if an uninformed
>>>primitive human or a very young child scratches his head, looks at it
>>>and thinks "gee, I guess I must be in two places at once", he still
>>>realizes the image in the mirror somehow corresponds to 'him' and nobody
>>>else.
>>
>>
>> Understanding a mirror to some extent is necessary, and if dogs come
>> to an incorrect conclussion about mirrors, they are doing no worse than
>> you are in concluding that somehow restricts them to being able to have
>> it can have a mental concept of every object it encounters except itself.
>
>No, not at all. One does not need to know anything about light, glass,
>or photons to pass the mirror test. People in ancient cultures, 2 year
>old children, and perhaps chimpanzees and dolphins instinctively realize
>that what they see in the mirror belongs to them without even thinking
>about it.

They had to get some type of understanding of it somehow, even
if their understanding was not entirely correct.

>And if a dog (or a fish) is able to see and recognize images
>of objects, why can it not recognize an image of itself?

Why should it ever consider the possibility that it's seeing a reflection
of itself?

>Simple. It is
>unable to form such a concept.

I don't believe that. I believe dogs can learn to recognise their reflection,
if a person is able to teach them what it is.

>A betta fish will become aggressive and
>flare up if you put a mirror in front of it because it operates soley on
>visual cues, but it only thinks its another male. A dog will ignore it
>both because it has no scent AND also because it lacks the ability to
>recognize it as an image of itself. That's all there is to it.
>
>- Logic316

LOL. That certainly doesn't mean it has no mental concept of itself. They
are entirely different things. You can't say that not understanding something
it doesn't care in the least bit about, restricts it from having any mental
concept of itself. You have as yet given no reason at all to jump to a
conclusion like that.

[Logic316]

dh@. wrote:

>>It's not done consciously or purposely, so there is no 'why'. I'll say
>>it again. If any creature has the ability to see, and has any concept of
>>'self', it would sooner or later sense that the image in the mirror
>>belongs to it
>
>
> We still haven't seen any reason at all why a dog would ever consider
> that it is looking at an image of itself. No reason at all.

It wouldn't, because it lacks the ability. A creature either has the
ability to understand an image it's looking at, or it doesn't. It's like
any other trait produced by evolution - it somehow allows the organism
to survive longer and produce more offspring and thereby pass on that
trait - humans have it because it serves some useful function for them,
and canines never developed it because it would have served them no
purpose out in the wild. The only question is how to record the
creature's ability to recognize its image - in the case of a 2 year old
child, you can place a red sticker on his chest, he will see the sticker
in the mirror image, and then likely go to look for it on his real chest.


> Out of curiosity, why do you think being able to understand a mirror
> is a better sign of self awareness than things like recognising their own
> urine, territory, possesions, etc? Why do you think that being able to
> understand a mirror is a better sign of self awareness than the fact that
> they can be aware of so many other selves besides their own?

The experiment has nothing to do with understanding the mirror. A dog
(or a fish, etc) is capable of recognizing images of other things, but
not an image of itself and therefore is not "self-aware". It really
isn't any more complicated than that.


>>No, not at all. One does not need to know anything about light, glass,
>>or photons to pass the mirror test. People in ancient cultures, 2 year
>>old children, and perhaps chimpanzees and dolphins instinctively realize
>>that what they see in the mirror belongs to them without even thinking
>>about it.
>
>
> They had to get some type of understanding of it somehow, even
> if their understanding was not entirely correct.

I'll say it once more, it's NOT THE DANG MIRROR the subject has to
understand, just the image reflected on it.


>>Simple. It is
>>unable to form such a concept.
>
> I don't believe that. I believe dogs can learn to recognise their reflection,
> if a person is able to teach them what it is.

A dog can neither recognize it's own reflection, nor is cabable of being
taught what it is. These abilities are mutually inclusive - you can't
have one without the other.


>>A betta fish will become aggressive and
>>flare up if you put a mirror in front of it because it operates soley on
>>visual cues, but it only thinks its another male. A dog will ignore it
>>both because it has no scent AND also because it lacks the ability to
>>recognize it as an image of itself. That's all there is to it.
>>
>>- Logic316
>
>
> LOL. That certainly doesn't mean it has no mental concept of itself. They
> are entirely different things. You can't say that not understanding something
> it doesn't care in the least bit about, restricts it from having any mental
> concept of itself. You have as yet given no reason at all to jump to a
> conclusion like that.

A betta most certainly DOES care about seeing another male approaching
it's territory, and if it had the ability to be "self-aware" it wouldnt
bother flaring up and stressing itself out when it sees itself in a
mirror. As for the dog, it doesn't care about the image in the mirror
because it doesn't *understand* it - NOT the other way around! If you
were to put blinders on the dog and hang a favorite chewie toy near it
where it can't see it directly, but it can see it in the mirror image,
it still wouldn't think to turn around and look for it.

- Logic316



"A diplomat thinks twice before saying nothing."

[dh@.]

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:27:26 -0400, Logic316 > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>>>It's not done consciously or purposely, so there is no 'why'. I'll say
>>>it again. If any creature has the ability to see, and has any concept of
>>>'self', it would sooner or later sense that the image in the mirror
>>>belongs to it
>>
>>
>> We still haven't seen any reason at all why a dog would ever consider
>> that it is looking at an image of itself. No reason at all.
>
>It wouldn't, because it lacks the ability. A creature either has the
>ability to understand an image it's looking at, or it doesn't.

I believe you try to oversimplify tremendously, but even if a creature
does not understand an image in a mirror, I don't believe that has a
thing to do with whether or not they have self awareness. But then I
believe something that's blind can have self awareness....even a blind
dog. That must seem insane to you.

>It's like
>any other trait produced by evolution - it somehow allows the organism
>to survive longer and produce more offspring and thereby pass on that
>trait -

We'll have to disagree on this, but I believe some level of self awareness
is required for most animals to survive.

>humans have it because it serves some useful function for them,
>and canines never developed it because it would have served them no
>purpose out in the wild. The only question is how to record the
>creature's ability to recognize its image - in the case of a 2 year old
>child, you can place a red sticker on his chest, he will see the sticker
>in the mirror image, and then likely go to look for it on his real chest.
>
>
>> Out of curiosity, why do you think being able to understand a mirror
>> is a better sign of self awareness than things like recognising their own
>> urine, territory, possesions, etc? Why do you think that being able to
>> understand a mirror is a better sign of self awareness than the fact that
>> they can be aware of so many other selves besides their own?
>
>The experiment has nothing to do with understanding the mirror.

To you that is somehow an intelligent thing to say, but to me it is an
example of great ignorance. So one of us is wrong. I believe that you're
wrong, because I don't see how a dog could be expected to know that
he's looking at a reflection of himself in a mirror, if he doesn't understand
that mirrors reflect things. A concept of reflection is necessary for an
animal to understand that it's looking at a reflection of itself. To me that
is a basic fact. I believe it far more likely that a dog has no mental concept
of reflection, than it is that a dog has no mental concept of itself.

>A dog
>(or a fish, etc) is capable of recognizing images of other things, but
>not an image of itself and therefore is not "self-aware". It really
>isn't any more complicated than that.

That is only one possibility, and a very unlikely one imo.

>>>No, not at all. One does not need to know anything about light, glass,
>>>or photons to pass the mirror test. People in ancient cultures, 2 year
>>>old children, and perhaps chimpanzees and dolphins instinctively realize
>>>that what they see in the mirror belongs to them without even thinking
>>>about it.
>>
>>
>> They had to get some type of understanding of it somehow, even
>> if their understanding was not entirely correct.
>
>I'll say it once more, it's NOT THE DANG MIRROR the subject has to
>understand, just the image reflected on it.

How can it understand that it's looking at a reflection of itself, if it
doesn't understand that mirrors reflect images?

>>>Simple. It is
>>>unable to form such a concept.
>>
>> I don't believe that. I believe dogs can learn to recognise their reflection,
>> if a person is able to teach them what it is.
>
>A dog can neither recognize it's own reflection,

Can it recognize anything's reflection?

>nor is cabable of being
>taught what it is.

Even if so, that certainly doesn't have a thing to do with whether
or not they have any awareness of themselves.

>These abilities are mutually inclusive - you can't
>have one without the other.
>
>
>>>A betta fish will become aggressive and
>>>flare up if you put a mirror in front of it because it operates soley on
>>>visual cues, but it only thinks its another male. A dog will ignore it
>>>both because it has no scent AND also because it lacks the ability to
>>>recognize it as an image of itself. That's all there is to it.
>>>
>>>- Logic316
>>
>>
>> LOL. That certainly doesn't mean it has no mental concept of itself. They
>> are entirely different things. You can't say that not understanding something
>> it doesn't care in the least bit about, restricts it from having any mental
>> concept of itself. You have as yet given no reason at all to jump to a
>> conclusion like that.
>
>A betta most certainly DOES care about seeing another male approaching
>it's territory,

And that has what to do with recognising its image in a mirror?

>and if it had the ability to be "self-aware" it wouldnt
>bother flaring up and stressing itself out when it sees itself in a
>mirror.

Now you need to explain how a betta could possibly learn that
mirrors reflect images of things, since the ability to do so would be
required in order for it to know it was seeing a reflection, but just
not being self aware enough to understand that the reflection it
somehow knows it's looking at, is of itself. Your saying that bettas
know they are seeing a reflection, and their limitation is only in
understanding that the reflection is of themselves, because they
have no concept of themselves. So I want to know how you
think they learn what a reflection is, and why you believe it's
more likely that they have no concept of themselves than it
is that they just have no concept of reflection.

>As for the dog, it doesn't care about the image in the mirror
>because it doesn't *understand* it -

That's my point.

>NOT the other way around! If you
>were to put blinders on the dog and hang a favorite chewie toy near it
>where it can't see it directly, but it can see it in the mirror image,
>it still wouldn't think to turn around and look for it.
>
>- Logic316

[dh@.]

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 11:56:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 18:05:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:56:55 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>>>> I'm not opposed to cock fighting
>>>>>> if it's done with consideration for the birds
>>>>>
>>>>>'Consideration for the birds' according to your logic means that one
>>>>>only
>>>>>has to ponder the fact that if the birds weren't raised for fighting
>>>>>they
>>>>>would never gotten to experience life at all,
>>>>
>>>> You know there's more to it than that, so as always you're lying.
>>>
>>>But *that* part of it is the core of your position on domestic animals,
>>
>> The first step is to consider their lives. The next is to cosider the
>> quality of their lives.
>
>Consideration of "their lives" apart from the quality of those lives is
>metaphysical nonsense, it's woolgathering. The only reason you do it is
>because you believe that noting that they "experience life" forms a useful
>argument. It does not.

It does unless the only thing you care about is their deaths. Their deaths
are all you/"ARAs" want people to consider. I will always consider their lives
as well as their deaths, the good and the bad.

>> I took the first step years ago. You never will.
>> You pretending any interest in the second is amusing in a most
>> contemptible and pathetic way to me.
>
>Why? Why can't I be interested in the welfare of animals only if they are
>born?

You can't care about their lives, so I've no reason to believe you care
about any of the details of their lives either. It would be absurd to believe
that you really do.

> >>it's
>>>what sets your position apart. There isn't a single person here who
>>>doesn't,
>>>at least in principle, advocate decent treatment of domestic animals,
>>
>> Which domestic animals do "ARAs" advocate decent treatment of?
>
>All of them, how about you?
>
>> Of couse I know that you won't say anything about them advocating
>> decent treatment of existing domestic animals:
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> From: "Dutch" >
>> Message-ID: >
>> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 06:07:48 GMT
>>
>> Who the **** cares about such a short term issue? They'd
>> be handled some way or another by different groups. What's important is
>> the
>> medium/long term implications, that is no more animals "in bondage" to
>> humans. THAT'S the important issue to be debated ****wit, NOT what will
>> happen to a population of present day animals that were only going to live
>> a
>> short time anyway. Get your ****ing head straight.
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> because they don't matter to you.
>
>It doesn't matter in the long run *how long* existing livestock live. They
>currently don't live very long, so what's the big deal if they were killed
>off under an elimination agenda?
>
>> So you need to explain which domestic
>> animals "ARAs" advocate decent treatment of in the long term.
>
>ALL OF THEM!

None would exist to receive the decent treatment that you
dishonestly insist could somehow be provided for "THEM!"

>>>so to
>>>tack that onto your position as if we disagree about it is dishonest.
>
>Because you are a dishonest sophist.
>
>>>>>just like consumers only need
>>>>>to ponder that pigs only experience life because we eat them.
>>>>
>>>> You're lying Dutch, and we know it.
>>>
>>>It's precisely what you mean when you talk about "consideration" for the
>>>animals.
>>
>> You are incapable of giving consideration to the animals, so of
>> course you are incapable of understanding the consideration I give
>> them as well. Damn Dutch, it seems that you could have figured
>> that out for yourself.
>
>Then explain it to me in your words. It appears to mean that since they
>experience life, therefore we do something honorable by raising them for
>food, aka "The Logic of the Larder". How is that specifically a wrong
>interpertation?

Some of their lives are worth living. Some are not.

>>>> We know there's more to
>>>> it, and you are a lowlife **** for deliberately lying and saying that
>>>> there isn't. But you continually persuade me that you're really this
>>>> stupid.
>>>
>>>If you mean "animal welfare" then it's you who is lying, because you
>>>advocate sanctioned animal bloodsports,
>>
>> I've reached an educated conclusion which again you can't
>> understand. You are arguing with me about things you don't have
>> a clue about. How could I possibly have any regard at all for your
>> opinion about things like knife vs. gaff, or gaff length, or details
>> regarding trimming, or pit regulations, or possible regulations regarding
>> their housing on the yard, or nutrition,
>> etc..............................? How
>> could I, even if I wanted to?
>
>Am I supposed to be impressed that you are familar with the trivia of
>bloodsports?

You don't know anything about cock fighting, so your opinion of it
is worth as little or less than that of an ignorant child.

>Are you a fan of bullfighting also? What other forms of
>animal-torture-for-pleasure do you find amusing?
>
>>>and oppose every animal welfare
>>>campaign promoted by PeTA
>>
>> What good have they done?
>
>They have been instrumental in raising awareness and pressuring fast-food
>chains to make improvements in the conditions for both hens and pigs.

I'm not convinced that they are, though I believe they are likely to
dishonestly persuade some people that they're responsible for things
they are not.

Even if "ARAs" are responsible for some improvements in AW, I
would rather see consumers and growers take more interest in the
quality of lives of the animals they raise, than "ARAs" who want to
see the animals done away with. That's what I would like to see
happen, and that's what you are so maniacally opposed to seeing
happen because it could destroy your hopes of elimination, as I
frequently point out.

>List
>the improvements for animals your "consideration" has accomplished. That
>shouldn't take long.
>
>> What harm have they done?
>
>PeTA probably does plenty of harm, but I still support their animal welfare
>campaigns

How much money do you send them?

>on behalf of livestock. Nobody else around is doing anything.
>
>>>on the flimsy pretense that they advocate
>>>"elimination, not welfare".
>>
>> Since you like fantasies, here's one: What if someone told you
>> they wanted some money so they could go help a person build
>> a huge outside yard for their laying hens--hens restricted to battery
>> cages--and a nice big roomy house they could go in and out of
>> whenever they want....and then after they get that done they're
>> going to terrorise a mink farm and release 400 mink, and they
>> need money to do all that. Do you think it would be a good idea
>> to give them some money but tell them only to use it on the chicken
>> project? You encourage such because it supports "AR":
>
>I would support the improvement for hens, and I am dead set against mink
>"farms". How about you? Do you enjoy watching wild animals crammed into tiny
>cages?

I don't know enough about mink farming to have an opinion. I do
know that I'm opposed to seeing hundreds of mink released, for
reasons which you have proven to have absolutely no idea about.

>[..]
>
>>>> You criticise me for giving consideration to the animals themselves,
>>>
>>>No,
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Your "consideration" is self-serving rhetoric.
>
>>>for claiming a moral benefit due to the animals "experiencing life". You
>>>always pretend that is NOT our objection to your argument,
>>
>> Because it's not.
>
>Yes it is, it's the only thing it logically can be.

Your objection to me is my suggestion that anything could be
ethically equivalent or superior to eliminating farm animals, as
we are both well aware.

>> If you gave even the slightest crumb of a ****
>> about the animals, you could and would easily ignore anything to
>> do with a person's moral benefit when considering the position of
>> the animals.
>
>What do you mean "considering the position of the animals"?

What do you think? Have you ever tried it? No. You can't. It's
another of those things you will never be able to do, or even try.
If you could have, you would have been doing it and there would
be no need for you to ask me about it, or to try to prevent considering
the position of the animals as you maniacally do.

>Explain. Except
>for welfare, what else is there to consider?
>
>[..]
>
>>>Such as?
>>
>> Have some influence on providing them with decent lives. For example
>> I buy cage free eggs to encourage those type lives for hens, and that is
>> the *only* reason I buy them.
>
>That only affects animal welfare. How is buying free range related to this
>"consideration" that you talk about that allegedly goes much deeper than
>welfare?

What I talk about IS Animal Welfare. What you talk about is their
elimination--i.e. the gross mi$nomer "Animal Rights"--instead, like I've
been pointing out for years.

>It doesn't cause *more* hens to be born, so what is it?

Try to get it straight...just this one thing Dutch:

AW promotes decent life for livestock.
"AR" promotes no life for livestock.
You're pro "AR". I'm pro AW.

[Derek]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:22:12 -0400, dh@. wrote:

> I'm pro AW.

No, Harrison, you're not. People who promote animal
welfare don't breed animals to fight in pits for their
sadistic pleasure, like you do. You're a liar and a fraud.

[Rudy Canoza]

dh@. wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 11:56:18 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>>On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 18:05:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:56:55 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not opposed to cock fighting
>>>>>>>if it's done with consideration for the birds
>>>>>>
>>>>>>'Consideration for the birds' according to your logic means that one
>>>>>>only
>>>>>>has to ponder the fact that if the birds weren't raised for fighting
>>>>>>they
>>>>>>would never gotten to experience life at all,
>>>>>
>>>>> You know there's more to it than that, so as always you're lying.
>>>>
>>>>But *that* part of it is the core of your position on domestic animals,
>>>
>>> The first step is to consider their lives. The next is to cosider the
>>>quality of their lives.
>>
>>Consideration of "their lives" apart from the quality of those lives is
>>metaphysical nonsense, it's woolgathering. The only reason you do it is
>>because you believe that noting that they "experience life" forms a useful
>>argument. It does not.
>
>
> It does

It does not.


>>>I took the first step years ago. You never will.
>>>You pretending any interest in the second is amusing in a most
>>>contemptible and pathetic way to me.
>>
>>Why? Why can't I be interested in the welfare of animals only if they are
>>born?
>
>
> You can't care about their lives,

He does care about their lives...IF they are born.

Stop lying, ****wit.


>>
>>It doesn't matter in the long run *how long* existing livestock live. They
>>currently don't live very long, so what's the big deal if they were killed
>>off under an elimination agenda?
>>
>>
>>>So you need to explain which domestic
>>>animals "ARAs" advocate decent treatment of in the long term.
>>
>>ALL OF THEM!
>
>
> None would exist

They advocate decent for any of them IF they exist.


>>>>so to
>>>>tack that onto your position as if we disagree about it is dishonest.
>>
>>Because you are a dishonest sophist.
>>
>>
>>>>>>just like consumers only need
>>>>>>to ponder that pigs only experience life because we eat them.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're lying Dutch, and we know it.
>>>>
>>>>It's precisely what you mean when you talk about "consideration" for the
>>>>animals.
>>>
>>> You are incapable of giving consideration to the animals, so of
>>>course you are incapable of understanding the consideration I give
>>>them as well. Damn Dutch, it seems that you could have figured
>>>that out for yourself.
>>
>>Then explain it to me in your words. It appears to mean that since they
>>experience life, therefore we do something honorable by raising them for
>>food, aka "The Logic of the Larder". How is that specifically a wrong
>>interpertation?
>
>
> Some of their lives are worth living. Some are not.

NONE of them "benefit" from coming into existence. None.



>>> I've reached an educated conclusion which again you can't
>>>understand.

**** yourself up the ass, ****wit. There is *NOTHING*
you can understand that Dutch and I cannot. Badly hung
over and with a piece of rebar through our heads, Dutch
and I both are far smarter and more intelligent than
you. Dutch and I understand many things that you do
not; you understand NOTHING that he and I do not. This
is beyond dispute.


>>>You are arguing with me about things you don't have
>>>a clue about.

He has more than a clue. You have none, ****wit. None.


>>>[****wit's bull****]
>>
>>Am I supposed to be impressed that you are familar with the trivia of
>>bloodsports?
>
>
> You don't know anything about cock fighting

He knows enough to kick your ****ing ass.


>>Are you a fan of bullfighting also? What other forms of
>>animal-torture-for-pleasure do you find amusing?

All of them.


>>>>and oppose every animal welfare
>>>>campaign promoted by PeTA
>>>
>>> What good have they done?
>>
>>They have been instrumental in raising awareness and pressuring fast-food
>>chains to make improvements in the conditions for both hens and pigs.
>
>
> I'm not convinced that they are

You're wrong. As bad and silly as they are, they have
done VASTLY more than you to raise awareness of animal
*welfare*.



>>List
>>the improvements for animals your "consideration" has accomplished. That
>>shouldn't take long.
>>
>>
>>> What harm have they done?

List the improvements for animals your "consideration"
has accomplished. It's a short list: ZERO.

Your "consideration" has done zero, because your
consideration IS zero, ****wit. You give ZERO
consideration to animals and their welfare; it's
nothing but lip service, a lie.


>>PeTA probably does plenty of harm, but I still support their animal welfare
>>campaigns
>
>
> How much money do you send them?

Ha ha ha ha ha!


>>on behalf of livestock. Nobody else around is doing anything.
>>
>>
>>>>on the flimsy pretense that they advocate
>>>>"elimination, not welfare".
>>>
>>> Since you like fantasies, here's one: What if someone told you
>>>they wanted some money so they could go help a person build
>>>a huge outside yard for their laying hens--hens restricted to battery
>>>cages--and a nice big roomy house they could go in and out of
>>>whenever they want....and then after they get that done they're
>>>going to terrorise a mink farm and release 400 mink, and they
>>>need money to do all that. Do you think it would be a good idea
>>>to give them some money but tell them only to use it on the chicken
>>>project? You encourage such because it supports "AR":
>>
>>I would support the improvement for hens, and I am dead set against mink
>>"farms". How about you? Do you enjoy watching wild animals crammed into tiny
>>cages?
>
>
> I don't know enough about mink farming to have an opinion.

You don't know enought about ANYTHING to have an
opinion, ****WIT.


>>>>> You criticise me for giving consideration to the animals themselves,
>>>>
>>>>No,
>>>
>>> Yes.

NO. He criticizes you for LYING and saying you give
consideration to animals. You do not, ****wit. This
is established.


>>Your "consideration" is self-serving rhetoric.
>>
>>
>>>>for claiming a moral benefit due to the animals "experiencing life". You
>>>>always pretend that is NOT our objection to your argument,
>>>
>>> Because it's not.
>>
>>Yes it is, it's the only thing it logically can be.
>
>
> Your objection to me is my suggestion that anything could be
> ethically equivalent or superior to eliminating farm animals

False. Our objection is that you do not give
"consideration" to the animals; and that you falsely
claim to be doing them a favor by causing them to live.
That is our objection.

You do NOT give any consideration to the animals. What
you do is LIE and say that you give them consideration,
when all you are doing is trying to mitigate the moral
harm you fear you cause.


>>>If you gave even the slightest crumb of a ****
>>>about the animals, you could and would easily ignore anything to
>>>do with a person's moral benefit when considering the position of
>>>the animals.
>>
>>What do you mean "considering the position of the animals"?
>
>
> What do you think?

It's bull****. Unconceived/unborn animals do not have
a "position", you ****ing tub of ****.


>>Explain.

There is NOTHING to explain, Dutch. It's bull**** from
start to finish. Unborn/unconceived animals do NOT
have a "position"...unless, AS ****wit does believe
(stupidly), the unconceived/unborn animals are sitting
around waiting to be born. ****wit DOES believe that,
but it's bull****.


>>>>Such as?
>>>
>>> Have some influence on providing them with decent lives. For example
>>>I buy cage free eggs to encourage those type lives for hens, and that is
>>>the *only* reason I buy them.
>>
>>That only affects animal welfare. How is buying free range related to this
>>"consideration" that you talk about that allegedly goes much deeper than
>>welfare?
>
>
> What I talk about IS Animal Welfare.

That's a lie, ****wit.


>>It doesn't cause *more* hens to be born, so what is it?
>
>
> Try to get it straight.

**** off, ****wit, you stupid tub of ****. David
Harrison - ****wit - is a stupid tub of ****.

[dh@.]

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 05:48:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>Dutch and I understand many things that you do
>not; you understand NOTHING that he and I do not. This
>is beyond dispute.

Explain the wiring in Molefay, or be once again a known liar.

[dh@.]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:35:58 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:22:12 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>> I'm pro AW.
>
>No, Harrison, you're not.

Yes 2goo, I am. Remember that I am the one who is trying
to get you to care even to the slightest degree about significant
facts to game chickens, but you don't care, can't care, and
therefore you never will care. It's not bad enough that you don't
care about significant aspects to the birds, but you lie about
them too.

>People who promote animal
>welfare don't breed animals to fight in pits

Some do. Some don't. You lied.

>for their
>sadistic pleasure,

I don't.

>like you do.

You're a liar. I did. I don't. But you *are* a liar, and
will always *be* a liar. And an ignoramus too Goochild
....maybe that's because you really believe your lies,
but you're still an inconsiderate (inconsiderate of the
animals) liar, and ingnoramus, regardless of how
"innocently" you may have gotten in your position. As
always I mean only the best by pointing that out, in
the hopes that you could some day become a less
dishonest and inconsiderate person. Good luck, if not
for you at least for those who must have some association
with you. They have my (our?) sympathy.

[Derek]

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:22:33 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:35:58 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:22:12 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> I'm pro AW.
>>
>>No, Harrison, you're not.
>
> Yes

No, Harrison, you're not. People who promote animal
welfare don't breed animals to fight in pits for their
sadistic pleasure, like you do. You're a liar and a fraud.