Animal Rights

[BhavinB]

yes you can. it is for one necessary in order for evolution to be able to have given us emotions. second a mouse never works anything out. there is a saying fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me. well you can fool a mouse as many times as you want and it will never figure out it is being fooled, it will only be conditioned to longer act that way, and i'm not even sure if that will happen with a mouse.

 

Statement: If you can fool a mouse multiple times at it still doesn't get it, it is not self aware.

Statement: But monkeys and dolphins can be self-aware.

 

Hypothesis: If a monkey can be fooled multiple times without it figuring out its predicament, then a monkey, like the mouse is not self-aware.

 

Evidence: suppose I show an experiment where a monkey is tricked many times into doing something.

 

Re-assessment: Either the initial statement that monkeys are self-aware is incorrect or the definition of self-awareness is incorrect.

 

So now the question becomes...if I can find even one slight example of such evidence, what does this mean to you?

 

I think really, it just means your definition is incorrect and your claim is incorrect. There is no animal on this planet that is smarter than the cunning human so really there is no animal that stands to your definition.

[someguy]

Statement: If you can fool a mouse multiple times at it still doesn't get it, it is not self aware.

Statement: But monkeys and dolphins can be self-aware.

 

Hypothesis: If a monkey can be fooled multiple times without it figuring out its predicament, then a monkey, like the mouse is not self-aware.

 

Evidence: suppose I show an experiment where a monkey is tricked many times into doing something.

 

Re-assessment: Either the initial statement that monkeys are self-aware is incorrect or the definition of self-awareness is incorrect.

 

So now the question becomes...if I can find even one slight example of such evidence, what does this mean to you?

 

I think really, it just means your definition is incorrect and your claim is incorrect. There is no animal on this planet that is smarter than the cunning human so really there is no animal that stands to your definition.

 

monkeys will figure things out. I can;t say for every kind of monkey but certainly some monkeys will. it's more than just fooled multiple times. you can fool a human being multiple times. the point is that the animal will never figure it out. it will never learn from observation. it must be emotionally conditioned in order for its behaviour to change from a certain stimuli. that's why you need treats or some reward system in order to train dogs. either you hurt them when they do something bad so that they associate negative emotion with a specific stimulus or you need to use reward so that they associate positive emotion with a certain stimulus.

 

I am not certain that there is no animal smarter than human beings on this planet. dolphins for one are at least a contender.

[iNow]

i have never seen proof that what i'm saying is wrong, and yet you clearly are telling me i'm just making things up, not even close to accurate, yet you have no proof of the contrary do you? if i am not mistaken you have only popular belief and tradition supporting your position.

You made the claim. The onus fails on you to support it.

[bascule]

Of course, I should clarify---by ``can feel pain'' I mean that they have the architecture in place.

 

And therein lies the problem: you're using nociception and perception synonymously.

 

By your definition, someone undergoing open heart surgery under general anesthetic feels a tremendous amount of pain as surgeons rip their body apart. Clearly this isn't the case.

 

Perceiving pain requires a conscious perceiver. That isn't the case with fetuses, sorry.

[someguy]

You made the claim. The onus fails on you to support it.

 

first i think that i have, i don't recall everything i've said in my posts, but at least i am certain i have proven it to myself, as certain as i am capable of, as certain as i can be of anything.

 

secondly i beg to differ that the onus is on me. since i am claiming that something does not exist and you are claiming that something does. if there is no evidence to support that it does, then why would you assume it does?

 

i think it is your philosophy that has made the claim, i have simply said that it isn't so. therefore the onus is on you. if you cannot prove, or show evidence that supports your view, then i see a weak link in your thought, i see opportunity for dogmatic belief, a belief i once partook in. but you said

"Sorry mate, but this isn't even close to accurate."

if that is not a claim i don't know what is. you are certain i am wrong. show me why you are certain. or at the very least show me where my logic is flawed. if you can do neither of these, then i think your statement i quoted here was a bit harsh and perhaps premature.

 

I assume you do not believe plants are aware, and you do not believe insects are. reptiles and fish and stuff, i'm not sure what you believe, mammals you seem to believe are. why? what has caused you to ascribe this attribute to all animals? you seem certain they have it. how come?

 

I am certain they do not, and i think that all my reasons for that are either in this thread or the one i left directions for. if you do not find them convincing, I would be interested to know why, in specific terms. perhaps you will help me find a flaw in my logic, perhaps i will help you find a flaw in yours, either way we both win.

[Paralith]

I have to admit, I'm a little lost in this conversation. Someguy, I agree that some animals are probably self aware, to some degree at least, and others are not. The exact delineation of who is and who isn't (concurrent with the exact definition of self-aware) is the controversy. But relative to the OP, or at least the original context of the thread, what is your point? Animals that aren't self aware don't deserve to be treated humanely as much as animals who are self aware? This is more for my personal curiosity than anything else.

 

On another note, I would have to agree with BhavinB that the definitions of the terms self-aware and conscious are not the same. A squirrel may not be self aware, but it most certainly is conscious - it processes information, it makes decisions - decisions steered by emotions, but decisions all the same. A plant, on the other hand, is not conscious. A plant has reactions to external stimuli - it does not accrue information about the outside world and make some sort of conclusion about it. A squirrel will evaluate several trees and decide which one is best to inhabit. A plant will grow in whatever direction the sun is. Of course, this all depends on how exactly you chose to define these terms.

[someguy]

I have to admit, I'm a little lost in this conversation. Someguy, I agree that some animals are probably self aware, to some degree at least, and others are not. The exact delineation of who is and who isn't (concurrent with the exact definition of self-aware) is the controversy. But relative to the OP, or at least the original context of the thread, what is your point? Animals that aren't self aware don't deserve to be treated humanely as much as animals who are self aware? This is more for my personal curiosity than anything else.

 

On another note, I would have to agree with BhavinB that the definitions of the terms self-aware and conscious are not the same. A squirrel may not be self aware, but it most certainly is conscious - it processes information, it makes decisions - decisions steered by emotions, but decisions all the same. A plant, on the other hand, is not conscious. A plant has reactions to external stimuli - it does not accrue information about the outside world and make some sort of conclusion about it. A squirrel will evaluate several trees and decide which one is best to inhabit. A plant will grow in whatever direction the sun is. Of course, this all depends on how exactly you chose to define these terms.

 

my point in relation to the purpose of the thread was just what bascule said in his latest post. from that, a new debate emerged. but i don't think that animal rights should be based strictly on their level of awareness. I think that animal rights, just as all things of law should be determined legal or not depending on the repercussions of the actions.

 

i don't think squirrels do make decisions. they just act their emotions are those things that determine action. they do not assess the situation, take into account their emotions and then pursue a course of action, they must always act as their emotions make them. as far as processing information, i guess it would depend on how you define that, but i would say that receiving visual or tactile or sent data and then acting upon it would qualify so i would agree with you on that point.

 

in order to to make a decision, i think you would need knowledge and logic and an awareness in that the animal knows that is feeling an emotion and can choose whether or not to act in accordance with it. squirrels cannot do that. just as plants cannot decide not to follow the light.

 

how do you know they make decisions?

[Paralith]

my point in relation to the purpose of the thread was just what bascule said in his latest post. from that, a new debate emerged. but i don't think that animal rights should be based strictly on their level of awareness. I think that animal rights, just as all things of law should be determined legal or not depending on the repercussions of the actions.

 

ah, gotcha. thanks.

 

i don't think squirrels do make decisions. they just act their emotions are those things that determine action. they do not assess the situation, take into account their emotions and then pursue a course of action, they must always act as their emotions make them. as far as processing information, i guess it would depend on how you define that, but i would say that receiving visual or tactile or sent data and then acting upon it would qualify so i would agree with you on that point.

 

in order to to make a decision, i think you would need knowledge and logic and an awareness in that the animal knows that is feeling an emotion and can choose whether or not to act in accordance with it. squirrels cannot do that. just as plants cannot decide not to follow the light.

 

how do you know they make decisions?

 

I think we are defining the word "decision" differently. Let me ask you a question - what, then, do you think is the difference in mentality between a plant and an animal? The difference between the "decisions" as made by an amoeba, and those made by the squirrel? Is it simply a matter of complexity?

[iNow]

I'm not sure what you mean by self-aware. I've read all the posts and the definition seems not specific enough or incorrect.

 

For example, a mouse can know when food (appealing to its 'emotions') is in a dangerous location (can cause pain). Doesn't this imply it is self-aware?

if the mouse knew then yes. but the mouse doesn't know. saying the mouse knows is a similar "misuse" of the word as saying "my car knows when its wheels are skidding so it applies the anti-lock brakes."

Sorry mate, but this isn't even close to accurate. Support your position and prove me wrong if you can, but otherwise, you're just making stuff up.

I could say the same thing to you on this subject.

 

anyways i think i have supported it. in this thread and in the other. i have never seen proof that what i'm saying is wrong, and yet you clearly are telling me i'm just making things up, not even close to accurate, yet you have no proof of the contrary do you? if i am not mistaken you have only popular belief and tradition supporting your position.

 

how are you so sure i am wrong?

You made the claim. The onus fails on you to support it.

i don't recall everything i've said in my posts, but at least i am certain i have proven it to myself, as certain as i am capable of, as certain as i can be of anything.

 

secondly i beg to differ that the onus is on me. since i am claiming that something does not exist and you are claiming that something does. if there is no evidence to support that it does, then why would you assume it does?

 

i think it is your philosophy that has made the claim, i have simply said that it isn't so. therefore the onus is on you. if you cannot prove, or show evidence that supports your view, then i see a weak link in your thought, i see opportunity for dogmatic belief, a belief i once partook in. but you said

if that is not a claim i don't know what is. you are certain i am wrong. show me why you are certain. or at the very least show me where my logic is flawed. if you can do neither of these, then i think your statement i quoted here was a bit harsh and perhaps premature.

 

 

 

Good grief. This is like pulling teeth.

 

Instead of bickering with you any further, here are over 4,000 pieces of support of my stance that you were wrong by claiming mice don't "know" to avoid food when it is dangerous to get it:

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=how+do+mice+react+in+presence+of+danger

 

 

I apologize, but since so many years of research have centered around the mice response to danger, I considered that it was common knowledge.

 

Regardless, it truly was your responsibility to support your position, which I challenged. If nothing else, you could have made your comment less absolute.

 

You said, "The mouse doesn't know."

Perhaps it would have been better to state something like, "I am not sure, but it seems logical to me that the mouse doens't actually know to avoid the danger. They are reacting on something internally, but it's not from a sense of knowing."

 

 

Agreed?

 

 

Additionally, all I asked you to do was support your comment, and you've somehow managed to attribute all manner of belief sets and perspectives to me about what I think... which animals are and are not self-aware. A strange reaction indeed. I guess the overall point is to stop assuming so much and look at the information that's there.

[pioneer]

Humans have self awareness because we have two centers of consciousness. Animals only have one center of consciousness. Humans have a similar center of consciousness like an animal, plus another secondary (ego). The primary is our unconscious instinct. The secondary is what gives us will power and self awareness, apart from a purely instinctive connection with the environment.

 

For example, if an animal ate something that made them sick , they would hurl, smell it and never fall for that bad food again. A human on the other hand can eat it, hurl, and then knowing they will hurl again, still pick it up and eat it on a dare. We can override animal common sense. We can also override natural instincts and make them unnatural. Animals do not have a secondary center of consciousness that would allow them to do this. If human's intervene, and act as their secondary center, we can mess them up. Left to their own devices, animals will follow, their single center for natural instinct and behavior.

 

Pets sort of acquire a virtual secondary center of consciousness. This is more like a trained rapport that their center of consciousness learns. This usually most apparent to the owner. An outsider sees a pet, but the owner sees what it thinks is an animal that appears to act like a human. It is part projection from the owner, and part virtual secondary center, created by constant reinforcement. If Snuggles is suppose to act like a baby for his the owner, he will do it. It may not do it for everyone else, since the virtual secondary center requires button pushing only the owner knows.

 

The secondary center within a human forms after birth. New born infants are like animals, in the sense, they are instinctive action/reaction with only one center. It takes several months until the secondary appears. The mother gets this primed, virtually, until the second center stabilizes.

 

Once an unborn child begins to show brainwaves, its first center of consciousness is has been powered up. Before brainwaves, it is biomass. The reason I say that is, the opposite of life is death. Death is defined as when brainwaves and the heart stop. The opposite of death is life, such that the definition of when a human life begins should be the opposite of death i.e., the brain waves appear and the heart begins to beat.

 

When a human dies, the hair and fingernails continue to grow. The person is dead, but biological activity is still occurring, even when they are dead. If only bioactivity counts, then burying a person before the hairs stops growing, is that considered burying them alive? It is just biomass at that point, without either a primary or seconday center. The same should be true of the unborn, once it gets brain waves, it has one center. It is alive.

 

If a person was in a coma, they are down to one center again. That single center may try to power up the secondary center. This may appear on and off but is often only virtual. Once the secondary is up to full power, they will wake up. When we dream, the single center is a still awake, but the secondary is powered down into the range of virtual. We become a virtual second center witnessing a virtual reality. A dreaming human is sort of like a domesticated animal when they dream, with the primary center the owner, who help creates this virtual rapport, with our dreams. The primary center is often called the inner self. The secondary is the ego.

[iNow]

Pioneer - Do you have anything that's not speculation in support of this 600 word post you've just submitted?

 

 

Humans have self awareness because we have two centers of consciousness. Animals only have one center of consciousness. Humans have a similar center of consciousness like an animal, plus another secondary (ego). The primary is our unconscious instinct. The secondary is what gives us will power and self awareness, apart from a purely instinctive connection with the environment.

Please define for us how we can measure consistently these concepts of the unconscious and conscious.

 

For example, if an animal ate something that made them sick , they would hurl, smell it and never fall for that bad food again. A human on the other hand can eat it, hurl, and then knowing they will hurl again, still pick it up and eat it on a dare. We can override animal common sense.

This is called a conditioned taste-aversion, and humans have it too. When we decide to act contrary to this conditioned aversion, we are using primarily the prefrontal cortex to suppress the expression of other brain centers and emotion, and humans are not the only living beings to engage in this.

 

We can also override natural instincts and make them unnatural. Animals do not have a secondary center of consciousness that would allow them to do this. If humans intervene, and act as their secondary center, we can mess them up. Left to their own devices, animals will follow, their single center for natural instinct and behavior.

Which animals are those? All non-humans? Also, how does one put parameters on “natural” and “unnatural?”

 

Pets sort of acquire a virtual secondary center of consciousness. This is more like a trained rapport that their center of consciousness learns. This usually most apparent to the owner. An outsider sees a pet, but the owner sees what it thinks is an animal that appears to act like a human. It is part projection from the owner, and part virtual secondary center, created by constant reinforcement. If Snuggles is suppose to act like a baby for his the owner, he will do it. It may not do it for everyone else, since the virtual secondary center requires button pushing only the owner knows.

This has nothing to do with brain structure, and everything to do with conditioning and reinforcement. It is a little bit language as well, but I’m not going to go off on you with another neuroanatomy 101 lesson. They never seem to stick, and you keep making stuff up regardless what you’re taught.

 

The secondary center within a human forms after birth. New born infants are like animals, in the sense, they are instinctive action/reaction with only one center. It takes several months until the secondary appears. The mother gets this primed, virtually, until the second center stabilizes.

It seems you are calling the prefrontal cortex the “secondary center,” and this is already developing during gestation.

 

Here is a link to Neuroscience for kids. All I have covered thus far is included:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/dev.html

 

 

Once an unborn child begins to show brainwaves, its first center of consciousness is has been powered up. Before brainwaves, it is biomass. The reason I say that is, the opposite of life is death. Death is defined as when brainwaves and the heart stop. The opposite of death is life, such that the definition of when a human life begins should be the opposite of death i.e., the brain waves appear and the heart begins to beat.

What’s your point here? I am struggling to follow this disjointed stammering.

 

Also, just FYI – “Brain waves” in an unborn human fetus have been detected as early as 54 days after conception. Heart rates have been detected as early as 8 weeks after conception.

 

The rest of your post seemed off topic, so if you don’t mind, I plan to stop here.

[lucaspa]

the simplest solutions are generally the best.

 

Don't tell that to anyone working in transcription control, intracellular signalling, or evolution. You really think the panda's thumb is a "simplest solution"?

 

Parsimony was never meant by Ockham to be a method of theory evaluation.

 

I challenge you to find an instance where an animal (not one known for intelligence like monkeys or dolphins) is capable of acting against its emotions. your pet will never learn to trust you.

 

Sorry, but that is not true. The emotion of cats is not to be on their backs, especially if held. They are too vulnerable. Yet I have seen several cats who will willingly be held in that position and actually enjoy it.

 

Look at any animal act where animals are taught to act against their emotion of fear of fire.

 

the only way to get them to act differently from what their emotions tell them is to change their emotions.

 

This looks like the True Scotsman fallacy.

 

if animals can readily disobey their emotions, then what is the purpose of emotions, and how did evolution manage to give us these by natural selection?

 

Strawman. There is a difference between "never" go against emotion and "can readily disobey their emotions". Just because an animal can doesn't mean it is "readily". Humans can go against their emotion of fear of death, but it takes a struggle to do so.

 

if you were born without senses, would you be self-aware? would you have consciousness?

 

Wasn't Helen Keller born without many of her senses? Yet she was self aware.

 

None of this is to say that animals are "self-aware" or "conscious" as are humans. It is simply looking at some specific arguments you are using.

[bascule]

Humans have self awareness because we have two centers of consciousness.

 

No, wrong

 

Animals only have one center of consciousness.

 

No, wrong

 

Humans have a similar center of consciousness like an animal, plus another secondary (ego).

 

No wrong

 

The primary is our unconscious instinct.

 

So you're saying humans have two centers of consciousness, one conscious, the other unconscious

 

*headgib*

 

The secondary is what gives us will power and self awareness, apart from a purely instinctive connection with the environment.

 

What you're doing here is assuming, a priori, that animals do not have consciousness. You're then defining terms in a contradictory way, pulling in some garbage from Freud, and using it all to spin some completely nonsensical conjecture.

 

Is there any neurophysiological basis to what you're saying, or are you just making shit up?

[someguy]

Good grief. This is like pulling teeth.

 

Instead of bickering with you any further, here are over 4,000 pieces of support of my stance that you were wrong by claiming mice don't "know" to avoid food when it is dangerous to get it:

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=how+do+mice+react+in+presence+of+danger

 

 

I apologize, but since so many years of research have centered around the mice response to danger, I considered that it was common knowledge.

 

Regardless, it truly was your responsibility to support your position, which I challenged. If nothing else, you could have made your comment less absolute.

 

You said, "The mouse doesn't know."

Perhaps it would have been better to state something like, "I am not sure, but it seems logical to me that the mouse doens't actually know to avoid the danger. They are reacting on something internally, but it's not from a sense of knowing."

 

 

Agreed?

 

 

Additionally, all I asked you to do was support your comment, and you've somehow managed to attribute all manner of belief sets and perspectives to me about what I think... which animals are and are not self-aware. A strange reaction indeed. I guess the overall point is to stop assuming so much and look at the information that's there.

 

you misinterpreted what i said. i did not say that mice do not sense and react to danger. i said that they don't 'know'. that's why i said the anti-lock brakes thing. my car responds to wheels skidding. but that does not mean my car 'knows' its wheels are skidding. my car is not capable of knowing. showing that mice react to danger does not assert that they 'know' there is danger. just like my car engaging anti-lock brakes does not show that my car 'knows'.

you know what i'm saying? the method of proving that mice 'know' there is danger does not require that the tests have anything to do with danger at all. simply that they show that mice are capable of knowing. sensing and reacting to various stimulus is a fact i cannot deny.

 

i didn't mean to be rude to you. sorry if i offended you.

[iNow]

you misinterpreted what i said. i did not say that mice do not sense and react to danger. i said that they don't 'know'.

And I don't think this is accurate, so I asked you to support it with evidence. I know what you're saying, but I disagree with it.

 

i didn't mean to be rude to you. sorry if i offended you.

Well, thank you for saying this... really. However, I wasn't offended, nor did I take offense (Let me recipricate by apologizing to you. I am a real hard ass sometimes, and it's big part of my being. Works well in the board room, but sometimes not in the forums). Even if you offended me though, I've got a thick skin... I just bite back.

 

 

Seriously, I think you're wrong about the mice. I'm confident that I'm correct. I've read, seen, and conducted too many experiments to believe for even a nanosecond that mice don't "know" things, especially avoidance of danger and fear.

[someguy]

ah, gotcha. thanks.

 

 

 

I think we are defining the word "decision" differently. Let me ask you a question - what, then, do you think is the difference in mentality between a plant and an animal? The difference between the "decisions" as made by an amoeba, and those made by the squirrel? Is it simply a matter of complexity?

 

well i don't know much about amoeba's but i would think that amoebas don't have emotional control, i would guess they are more like random life forms. they don't seem to sense food and seek it, they sort of just bump into it. plus i'm not sure about squirrels, but many animals are born with emotions and also they can have them conditioned. animals begin by fearing many other animals but once they stay around the other animals, get randomly closer and closer and the animal never approaches them, they do not get the sudden rush of fear, and they get conditioned to be able to be closer to the other animals. insects i don't think can do this. maybe some animals can't i'm not sure, i know even chickens can, not sure about cows or squirrels.

[Paralith]

well i don't know much about amoeba's but i would think that amoebas don't have emotional control, i would guess they are more like random life forms. they don't seem to sense food and seek it, they sort of just bump into it. plus i'm not sure about squirrels, but many animals are born with emotions and also they can have them conditioned. animals begin by fearing many other animals but once they stay around the other animals, get randomly closer and closer and the animal never approaches them, they do not get the sudden rush of fear, and they get conditioned to be able to be closer to the other animals. insects i don't think can do this. maybe some animals can't i'm not sure, i know even chickens can, not sure about cows or squirrels.

 

so can we agree that a squirrel probably has a significantly different level of mental presence than a plant or an amoeba? though you consider the term consciousness to be the same as self-awareness, i think that most people would consider the word consciousness to indicate a level of awareness at least like that of a squirrel, which is why we feel that consciousness and self-awareness are different. we're just defining the terms differently, I think.

[someguy]

And I don't think this is accurate, so I asked you to support it with evidence. I know what you're saying, but I disagree with it.

 

 

Well, thank you for saying this... really. However, I wasn't offended, nor did I take offense (Let me recipricate by apologizing to you. I am a real hard ass sometimes, and it's big part of my being. Works well in the board room, but sometimes not in the forums). Even if you offended me though, I've got a thick skin... I just bite back.

 

 

Seriously, I think you're wrong about the mice. I'm confident that I'm correct. I've read, seen, and conducted too many experiments to believe for even a nanosecond that mice don't "know" things, especially avoidance of danger and fear.

 

i know what you mean. me too i have seen the same evidence. i have seen animals act and react. but i have also seen flies act when i go to hit them and mosquitos come to bite me. i have seen plants that react to touch. i think you would agree with me that plants do not 'know' they are being touched. the venus flytrap does not 'know' a fly has landed on it. right? yet it closes on the fly. therefore, i think that if plants can act and react to stimulus without knowing of the stimulus and being aware of it, there is an opening for the possibility that other life forms can sense and detect and react without the capicity of 'knowing' what is happening. just acting with a blank mind. though acting in complex ways according to the environment.

 

here is one kind of example. i know it alone is not conclusive, but just an example.

 

i have a parrot that when it is scared flies away. but only when it is scared. we don't need to clip its wings. it doesn't realize it can fly. it doesn't know it can fly. it just reacts as flying when it is scared. a human being would figure it out that when it moves its arms it stays in the air longer and doesn't plummet to its death. the parrot cannot. it knows not of falling, it doesn't realize that anytime it wants it can command flight and go wherever, it will only fly when fear tells it to.

 

you don't need to teach an infant how to swim, you just need to put in the water. it will figure it out.

 

so can we agree that a squirrel probably has a significantly different level of mental presence than a plant or an amoeba? though you consider the term consciousness to be the same as self-awareness, i think that most people would consider the word consciousness to indicate a level of awareness at least like that of a squirrel, which is why we feel that consciousness and self-awareness are different. we're just defining the terms differently, I think.

 

that maybe so, but ya i certainly agree that humans are more complex than most animals at least, most animals more complex than most reptiles, i'm not totally sure but i don't think reptiles can be conditioned so you wouldn't be able to teach them tricks. it seems that way to me. reptiles more advanced than insects, insects more than plants, plants more than cells, cells more than matter.

 

 

 

if you imagine what it would be like to be yourself but all alone in the forest since you were a baby. how much would you know? how much would you figure out on your own? we know so much from generations of knowledge, from very rare great men like Newton and Einstein and whatnot, over years and years one learning from a previous one. we even are able to think better because we have designed language. without language and all those things, perhaps it would be difficult to distinguish one of us from a great ape. we are not that different from the ape. years and years of learning thanks to language has separated us. language is powerful, but we are certainly psychologically more advanced than the majority of other animals.

 

there is something about us that is more developed and more complex than most other animals. something that even apes have that other animals do not. what else could it be but the capacity to know?

[iNow]

but i have also seen flies act when i go to hit them and mosquitos come to bite me. i have seen plants that react to touch. i think you would agree with me that plants do not 'know' they are being touched. the venus flytrap does not 'know' a fly has landed on it. right?

I'm really not sure. If I were to be perfectly honest, I'd say no, I do think they "know" they are being touched. I tend to be a bit "strange" in this regard though. I attribute consciousness and life to much more than most in the biological sciences.

 

i have a parrot that when it is scared flies away. but only when it is scared. we don't need to clip its wings. it doesn't realize it can fly. it doesn't know it can fly. it just reacts as flying when it is scared.

 

This is the difference between a conditioned response and an evolved survival mechanism, and breaks from our conversation regarding the self-aware.

[someguy]

I'm really not sure. If I were to be perfectly honest, I'd say no, I do think they "know" they are being touched. I tend to be a bit "strange" in this regard though. I attribute consciousness and life to much more than most in the biological sciences.

 

 

 

This is the difference between a conditioned response and an evolved survival mechanism, and breaks from our conversation regarding the self-aware.

 

what is the difference? isn't it possible that the simple fact of knowing of our emotions and the possibility that due to our ability to know, can disobey our emotions, the fact we are self aware. isn't it possible that those things mislead us into thinking that these two things are separate?

 

what if we could not know? what if you could not know about nutrition? how would you know what to eat?

 

wouldn't you just smell a thing and get hungry and feel like eating it? incidentally that's why i would recommend the diet of eating only foods that do not contain artificial flavours, because artificial flavours can trick you into eating something that is not really food. or rather that is unhealthy. just because you don't die when you eat it i don't think that makes it food, but that's for another day i guess.

 

would you eat bark in nature without knowledge? what if it was full of artificial flavours? perhaps you would get indigestion or something. but wouldn't that be similar to eating mcdonalds?

 

if you knew nothing how would you know not to walk off of cliffs? gravity was not figured out until well into mankind. i mean really no capacity to know, as in you couldn't know from observing someone else plummeting to death. complete blank mindedness.

 

if you could really not know anything what would you do?

 

I would guess you would act on emotions alone.

 

isn't it convenient that all of our emotions and feelings, sex drive, hunger, fear of heights, comfort in warmth, feeling of a full stomach, and many others, are conveniently exactly the types of emotions that would guide us to survival?

 

could it be a coincidence? or is this how nature has designed us, via evolution, to be able to survive? even with the opportunity to be conditioned, for example, not to fear things that have been 'proven' harmless.

 

couldn't it be our self-awareness that is solely responsible for our ability to feel the fear and do it anyways?

 

isn't it possible that our self-awareness and our ability to know are essentially the same thing?

[iNow]

Your post was rather dense with questions. I'll do what I can to parse it.

 

what is the difference?

A conditioned response must be learned. It is the result of reinforcement and repetition. An evolved survival mechanism is not conscious, but is a physiological response to environmental stimuli (think of how you don't have to think to pull your hand away from a hot burner on a stove).

 

isn't it possible that the simple fact of knowing of our emotions and the possibility that due to our ability to know, can disobey our emotions, the fact we are self aware.

Can you rephrase this? I'm not sure I follow. However, as I pointed out to Pioneer earlier, disobeying our emotions is the direct result of prefrontal cortical inhibition of the limbic system. It has absolutely nothing to do with awareness of self, and everything to do with neuroanatomical structure. The initial response comes from the amydalal/limbic center of the brain, which helps to release "fight or flight" chemicals, and then the prefrontal cortex is "asked" to review the stimuli and determine if the response is appropriate... enhancing it if needed, and shutting it down if not.

 

isn't it possible that those things mislead us into thinking that these two things are separate?

What two things? Try to remember that I'm not in your head with you having these thoughts. You need to articulate yourself in such a way that I can understand the point you are making.

 

Anything is possible, but some things are more probable than others. Also, nothing misleads us unless we let it. We control what we think and feel, at least to the extent that we control interpretation of the incoming stimuli. There will be physiological response without interpretation, but this is exactly where prefrontal cortical inhibition of the limbic system comes into play. It would really suck if we got so petrified that we couldn't move every time we tried to cross the street.

 

 

what if we could not know?

You still haven't defined "knowing." Also, if you are supporting the position that only humans are self-aware, how does this line of reasoning further your cause?

 

what if you could not know about nutrition? how would you know what to eat?

I would probably eat whatever was around me that was edible. I would have to teach myself what was and what was not edible through trial and error. Even ameoba eat the things around them that are edible.

 

wouldn't you just smell a thing and get hungry and feel like eating it?

Maybe. BBQ comes to mind pretty quickly, and women too. Yummy.

 

incidentally that's why i would recommend the diet of eating only foods that do not contain artificial flavours, because artificial flavours can trick you into eating something that is not really food. or rather that is unhealthy. just because you don't die when you eat it i don't think that makes it food, but that's for another day i guess.

While off topic, this is interesting. However, wouldn't you die sooner if you were to avoid eating it entirely? Let's say you had no food choices. All you had was this artificially flavored unhealthy food. Although this isn't great in terms of sustainment, aren't you better off in the short-term eating it than nothing at all? Treat that is rhetorical, and hopefully thought provoking.

 

would you eat bark in nature without knowledge?

What does this even mean? Of course I would "know" I'm eating it. If I was hungry and felt the bark would help me survive the night, then I'd eat it.

 

what if it was full of artificial flavours?

What, the bark? Who cares what it tastes like if it provides my body with energy and the ability to keep living?

 

 

perhaps you would get indigestion or something. but wouldn't that be similar to eating mcdonalds?

Again, what are you talking about? How does this, in any way, shape, or form, relate to self-awareness and the experience of pain by non-humans?

 

if you knew nothing how would you know not to walk off of cliffs?

Well, if I truly "knew nothing," then by default I wouldn't "know" not to walk off cliffs. However, the animals that did not "know" this died, did not pass on their genes to offspring, and those that did "know" this did pass on their genes to offspring. So, each of us are the children of successful ancestors, and we have an inherent "knowledge" to avoid the cliffs. Even babies avoid heights without being taught. There is little difference in animals. The mechanisms that are successful get passed on, those that are not successful... do not. Surely, you are not suggesting that all non-humans would tumble over the cliff... unless they were a monkey or a dolphin.

 

gravity was not figured out until well into mankind.

I will bet you a million dollars that there was once a caveman who understood gravity after falling off a cliff... during those timultuous few seconds before he splattered across the ground. However, again... how is this relevant?

 

i mean really no capacity to know, as in you couldn't know from observing someone else plummeting to death. complete blank mindedness.

I ask again. Will you please define what you think it is "to know?"

 

if you could really not know anything what would you do?

Oh... come on, man. This was an underhanded pitch, and it's embarrassing to hit it out of the park...

 

I wouldn't know.

 

I would guess you would act on emotions alone.

Emotions play a very integral part of knowledge. You, however, are trying to seperate acting on "knowledge" from acting on "emotion." This is not how things work. Why are you suggesting this?

 

isn't it convenient that all of our emotions and feelings, sex drive, hunger, fear of heights, comfort in warmth, feeling of a full stomach, and many others, are conveniently exactly the types of emotions that would guide us to survival?

Yes. It is convenient. Those are more salient, hence, we don't have to work as hard to pass on our genes.

 

could it be a coincidence? or is this how nature has designed us, via evolution, to be able to survive?

I'll take choice B for $1200, Alex.

 

even with the opportunity to be conditioned, for example, not to fear things that have been 'proven' harmless.

 

couldn't it be our self-awareness that is solely responsible for our ability to feel the fear and do it anyways?

See comments above about 1) prefrontal cortical inhibition, and 2) your not yet defining "self-awareness." You honestly think that a gazelle being chased by a lion is not self-aware when it runs like hell in the opposite direction? You honestly think that when a fish tries to remove itself from the mouth of a whale, it's not self aware? You honestly think that when a squirrel runs from the dog it's not self aware? You honestly think ellipsis...

 

isn't it possible that our self-awareness and our ability to know are essentially the same thing?

If this is your premise, then I suggest, based on the merits of this premise, that the trees of the forests and all of the life forms within, above, and below them also "know."

[Paralith]

I have a question for you, someguy. What do you think about animals that grieve? Dogs are a well known case since they exist in such close contact with humans. When there are two dogs in a household and one of them dies, the other will grieve. For no reason other than the loss of this individual, their behavior changes - they move less, they sleep more, they eat less, sometimes there are even physical changes like the graying of their fur. They look for the other dog. This may be attributable to reflection of the emotions of the humans in the house, but then the dog usually perks back up sooner than the humans do. How would you explain this in terms of simple reaction to the environment? This surely wouldn't have been a favored behavior in the wild - wolves that stop eating just because one of their member is gone aren't doing themselves any favors.

 

Now, I leave the exact depth of understanding up to interpretation, as well as how long the memory of the loss really lasts. But I do think that for some period of time at least, the dog does have some awareness that their friend is gone. Otherwise I think they'd just happily gobble up more food and more attention left for them now that the other guy is out of the way.

[iNow]

Elephants too. At least using that example, you take conditioning and "learning it from humans" completely out of the equation.

[Paralith]

I was going to add elephants, but I wasn't sure if they were too close to self-awareness on someguy's scale to represent the capabilities of most animals.

[lucaspa]

yes you can. it is for one necessary in order for evolution to be able to have given us emotions. second a mouse never works anything out. there is a saying fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me. well you can fool a mouse as many times as you want and it will never figure out it is being fooled, it will only be conditioned to longer act that way, and i'm not even sure if that will happen with a mouse.

 

What's the difference between "conditioned" and "learning"? Mice are routinely used in studies on learning, which means they "figure it out".

 

i can know that humans are self-aware, I can know that dolphins are and that monkeys are.

 

In each case, how do you know? Humans you can determine by language. Some chimps have been taught sign-language and we have language in common. We don't with dolphins.

 

obviously nobody really knows exactly the physical functionning of the brain in sufficient detail to ascertain whether or not an animal is self aware or not. however, if you look at behaviour you can know.

 

What behavior specifically tells you that the animal is "self-aware". Couldn't you correlate that behavior with PET scans of the brain and thus correlate the behavior to specific physical functioning of the brain? Then wouldn't you be able to use the functioning of the brain to tell you if the animal was self-aware?

 

what behaviour would you propose is unique to self aware beings?

 

What behavior do you? You stated above that you "knew" of 3 animal species that were self-aware. Then you stated that you could can know that a species in self-aware by looking at behavior. Therefore, you must have some behavior in mind that you "know" is unique to self-aware beings.

 

i have seen plants that react to touch. i think you would agree with me that plants do not 'know' they are being touched. the venus flytrap does not 'know' a fly has landed on it. right? yet it closes on the fly. therefore, i think that if plants can act and react to stimulus without knowing of the stimulus and being aware of it, there is an opening for the possibility that other life forms can sense and detect and react without the capicity of 'knowing' what is happening. just acting with a blank mind. though acting in complex ways according to the environment.

 

On a biochemical level, how does a venus flytrap react? How about a mouse?

 

Let me propose a criteria for you: change the stimulus and see if the entity can learn a new behavior.

 

For example, a venus flytrap closes on an insect. It does so for food, but doing so involves energy expenditure. So, construct a "fly" from metal and see if the venus flytrap always closes. If it does, then it is just reaction to stimulus without being able to discriminate.

 

OTOH, if you take a mouse it will learn in new situations. For instance, it can learn that pushing one lever gives food while pushing the lever next to it gives food and an electric shock. It can discriminate between stimuli (food) and decide which stimulus it will react to.

 

you don't need to teach an infant how to swim, you just need to put in the water. it will figure it out.

 

You end up with a lot of dead babies that way! When babies are taught to swim, an adult is there to initially support them until they figure it out. Otherwise, the baby won't figure it out until after it has sunk to the bottom of the pool and drowned!

 

if you imagine what it would be like to be yourself but all alone in the forest since you were a baby. how much would you know? how much would you figure out on your own?

 

Not since you were a baby. Human babies need a lot of parenting. But from the age of 7 or 8, the child would figure out quite a bit. Including some things that Einstein didn't know how to do: such as knap flint or make rope.

 

Remember, our skill set is necessarily what our ancestors knew. As technology changes skills are lost. When the first stone tools were discovered, it took anthropologists a couple of decades to recover stone working skills.

 

we are not that different from the ape.

 

No, we aren't. It appears that we have 2 adaptations:

1. The ability to make tools to make tools.

2. The ability to manipulate abstract ideas and to make fine sounds.

 

Both are small adaptations (the last involves a small change in just one gene) but have huge technological implications.

 

there is something about us that is more developed and more complex than most other animals. something that even apes have that other animals do not. what else could it be but the capacity to know?

 

See above. Many species seem to have "the capacity to know". That isn't enough for technology. For instance, you think dolphins are self-aware and perhaps intelligent. However, can they produce our technology? Nope. Why not? No hands.

 

isn't it convenient that all of our emotions and feelings, sex drive, hunger, fear of heights, comfort in warmth, feeling of a full stomach, and many others, are conveniently exactly the types of emotions that would guide us to survival?

 

You gave a short list, but are those ALL of our emotions? How about compassion? Love? Sex drive is necessary for us to survive, but love? Do we have to "love" in order to mate?

 

And what about altruism? The type of altruism that drives us to sacrifice for the benefit of people who are not related to us? How does that set of feelings help us survive?