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

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.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
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: 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.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
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.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
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: k.net
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:53:59 GMT

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

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

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

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

NO animal benefits from being born
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
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.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
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.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
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: . net
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: k.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: . net
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.

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.