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

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