| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Fish do/don't anticipate things? (was: "ARAs" against Game chickens)
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. |
Yes, they do! When they see you outside the tank, don't they wiggle
with anticipation of being fed??? n |
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 |
|
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. |
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. |
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? |
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? |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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: lid (strip the .invalid to email) |
"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 |
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. |
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. |
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. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ 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. |
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." |
****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 ****. |
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." |
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. |
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. |
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 ****. |
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 |
****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 ****. |
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 |
"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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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: . net 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. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ 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. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Rudy Canoza Message-ID: k.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. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Rudy Canoza Message-ID: k.net Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:48:32 GMT Animals do not experience pride or disappointment. Period. [...] No animals anticipate. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Rudy Canoza Message-ID: .net Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 03:07:09 GMT Anticipation requires language. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ 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: k.net Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:53:59 GMT NO animals "benefit" from being born ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball Message-ID: . net Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:09:49 GMT No animal benefits from being born. Period. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball Message-ID: et Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:12:48 GMT NO animals benefit from being born, ****wit. None. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball Message-ID: k.net Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:16:38 GMT NO animals benefit from being born ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball Message-ID: . net Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:33:07 GMT NO animal benefits from being born ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball Message-ID: . net Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 07:53:46 GMT Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball Message-ID: t Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:20:32 GMT NO animals 'benefit' from being born, ****wit. Not a single one. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ 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. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ 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". ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ 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. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball Message-ID: . net Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 22:46:32 GMT You are wrong, JethroDonkey****tardMoron: life is not a "benefit". It can't be. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball Message-ID: k.net Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:02:35 GMT 1. Life per se is not a benefit. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 23:00:34 -0800 Message-ID: Life itself is not a benefit ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ 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. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball Message-ID: . net Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 20:51:20 GMT "Life" is not a benefit ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ From: Jonathan Ball Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:08:13 -0800 Message-ID: "Life" is not a benefit ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ __________________________________________________ _______ 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. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ I strongly disagree with Goo. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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: |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:05 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004 - 2006 FishingBanter