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

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.