Are animals self aware?

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Arsynic

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Arsnyc,

I would like you to cite one objective behaviour in humans that couldn't be explained by the same stimulus-response models used to explain animal's behaviour.

In fact, the only behaviour humans exhibit that suggests that we are any more than "reflex-bots" is that fact that we claim to think, dream, feel, ponder, pray. We tell each other that we are more than "just the size of our brains."

If you could find a common linguistic ground, how do you know that animals wouldn't do the same?

Edit: clarity.

Animals can't display love.

My dog it sad when I leave and happy when I return. These emotions are pretty obvious and common to many animals, without love they would not exist.

Animals don't have wisdom (acting on new information in different ways).

When we moved in to our new house, my dog knew right away which doors lead outside without having gone through them before. This is not simply reactionary behavior, it is applying existing knowledge to new situations. She didn't know those specific doors led outside, but they were "like" doors in the old house she knew went outside, so she assumed these doors led out as well.

Animals have no concept of abstract ideas such as justice.[q/]
Animals understand "yours" vs "mine". My dog will defend "her" yard with a vengence, but will meekly back down if another dog does the same in their own yard. My dog will eat her food, but will not take "my" food even if it is in reach.

It's being cognizant of abstract, non-concrete ideas and thoughts that seperates humans from animals. These things are evidence of the dual nature of human beings. The fact that we can think outside of this "box" means that there exists a realm outside of it that we're connected to. We haven't even reached a tenth of our capacity as a unique race.

You make a BIG leap there. Our brains are certainly more advanced, but that just means our "box" is bigger, or diffeent, than the one animals operate in. There is no need for an "outside realm".

 

[Todd33]

We haven't even reached a tenth of our capacity as a unique race.[/q[

You are starting to sound like Hitler.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Todd33

We haven't even reached a tenth of our capacity as a unique race.[/q[

You are starting to sound like Hitler.

Oh no, someone just pulled out the "H"-bomb...




(waits for thread to go further downhill...)

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: rchiu

anti-abortion and support killing for food is two totally different things. In the food chain, there are herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores such as human. Are you saying carnivores are bad just because that species happens to kill for food? It is actually this food chain that keeps the balance on this earth so that no one species' population grows out of proportion, so killing for food is just the way of nature.

On the other hand, none of the species kills their own kind. Even the carnivores don't eat their own for food. It is the nature of any species to care for their off springs. IMHO killing our own kind of anything is against the nature of things, that's why we have all kinds of law to prevent murder, I think everyone agrees on that. The only debate is if fetus is human, and if fetus should be protected just as a grown human being.

Actually, cannibalism is common among animals for example those of the scavanger habit:
opossum

They said we're all starstuff but actually we are meshes of collagen and protein, tasty as preparation allows.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: Arsynic

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Arsnyc,

I would like you to cite one objective behaviour in humans that couldn't be explained by the same stimulus-response models used to explain animal's behaviour.

In fact, the only behaviour humans exhibit that suggests that we are any more than "reflex-bots" is that fact that we claim to think, dream, feel, ponder, pray. We tell each other that we are more than "just the size of our brains."

If you could find a common linguistic ground, how do you know that animals wouldn't do the same?

Edit: clarity.

Animals can't display love. Animals don't have wisdom (acting on new information in different ways). Animals have no concept of abstract ideas such as justice. It's being cognizant of abstract, non-concrete ideas and thoughts that seperates humans from animals. These things are evidence of the dual nature of human beings. The fact that we can think outside of this "box" means that there exists a realm outside of it that we're connected to. We haven't even reached a tenth of our capacity as a unique race.

And you know this because?....:roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Arsynic

Animals can't display love. - Neither can humans, only think they do.

Animals don't have wisdom (acting on new information in different ways). - Neither do humans.

Animals have no concept of abstract ideas such as justice. - Certainly neither do humans

It's being cognizant of abstract, non-concrete ideas and thoughts that seperates humans from animals. These things are evidence of the dual nature of human beings. The fact that we can think outside of this "box" means that there exists a realm outside of it that we're connected to. - Animals can guess too.



We haven't even reached a tenth of our capacity as a unique race. - Sadly we probably never will.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Todd33

We haven't even reached a tenth of our capacity as a unique race.

You are starting to sound like Hitler.

Oh no, someone just pulled out the "H"-bomb...




(waits for thread to go further downhill...)

That Hitler theory (whatever it's called) ignores the fact that Hitler is a good analogy because everyone knows about him, and he's an extreme enough example to make a point. Argument by analogy is always suspect of course, but the point of analogies is to simplify arguments when someone doesn't understand the specifics. Using a larger than life bad guy like Hitler helps.

Yes, too much thought put into THAT post

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Arsynic

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Arsnyc,

I would like you to cite one objective behaviour in humans that couldn't be explained by the same stimulus-response models used to explain animal's behaviour.

In fact, the only behaviour humans exhibit that suggests that we are any more than "reflex-bots" is that fact that we claim to think, dream, feel, ponder, pray. We tell each other that we are more than "just the size of our brains."

If you could find a common linguistic ground, how do you know that animals wouldn't do the same?

Edit: clarity.

Animals can't display love. Animals don't have wisdom (acting on new information in different ways). Animals have no concept of abstract ideas such as justice. It's being cognizant of abstract, non-concrete ideas and thoughts that seperates humans from animals. These things are evidence of the dual nature of human beings. The fact that we can think outside of this "box" means that there exists a realm outside of it that we're connected to. We haven't even reached a tenth of our capacity as a unique race.

My animals display quite alot of affection, and between them (my GF has alot) they demonstrate quite alot of personal likes and dislikes. Can you point to one behaviour we associate with love that is not reproduced in animals?

As for justice, there was recently a study where two chimps were kept in the same cage, or at least within line of sight of each other. Each was fed by way of teaching them to press a lever in order to get food. Thing was, one of the chimps had to work harder (by pressing the lever more times) than the other for the same amount of food. After awhile, he started demonstrating behaviour ranging from despondency to outright aggression. This seems to me that he has a certain notion of fairness, which is the first step into justice. In fact, social psychologists posit that one of the only universal human moral code is Reciprocity, where one is rewarded commensurate with one's output. If you think about it, almost every law we have on the books stems from that one principle, from murder to pharmaceutical intellectual property rights.

As for wisdom, please describe to me what a "wise" behaviour looks like. Point out one wise act. If you can, I think I could find an example of this in the Animal world.

The only real way we know that we have abstract reasoning is the fact that we can communicate our reasoning to each other. It's quite possible that animals have this ability to a certain degree.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Certain mammels are. They use the mirror test. Most animals think they see another animal, dolphins and most primates know that it is their reflection.

We are all animals. Humans are on the same evolutionary path as chimps, our DNA differs by less than 3%. We branched off about 7 million years ago based on DNA tracking. Are humans worth more? Not to me. We are just a desctructive intellegent and self centered chimp. All we do is wage constant war. Sad really.

Now I'm waiting for a bible thumper to say "I'm no monkey, God made me, bla bla bla".

Wow, talk about a troll! Not all skeptics of evolution are bible thumpers.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: rchiu
On the other hand, none of the species kills their own kind. Even the carnivores don't eat their own for food. It is the nature of any species to care for their off springs.

Totally untrue. The documented example among species of cannibalism between adults, and the killing of off spring, either selective or wholsale, are so widespread as to make your statement laughably wrong.

 

[oreagan]

A clarification: Evolution is a factual occurance and can be witnessed in a petri dish under a microscope. The theory that humans evolved from apes is unproven, though it is very heavily hinted at by an awful lot of evidence.

That said, I find it much more reprehensible to kill a dog than a pig because I admire the qualities of a dog more than those of a pig and, additionally, my culture says that that's the case. I don't bother to put a lot of thought into it. Pigs taste nice, cow and chicken and fish are tasty as well. I've spent too much time on my uncle's farm to put too much introspection into the matter.

Edit: Also, we are not the only species to wage wars. Certain varieties of ants do as well, and possibly other types of creatures.

 

[Kibbo]

oregan,

Chimps have been known to wage "tribal" war for choice territory, as well as to kidnap female and children slaves. They're not so different from us, cute little buggers. Ooops, another thing we have in common.

To paraphrase Jules, a pig is a filty animal, but a dog has personality.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: rchiu
On the other hand, none of the species kills their own kind. Even the carnivores don't eat their own for food. It is the nature of any species to care for their off springs.

Totally untrue. The documented example among species of cannibalism between adults, and the killing of off spring, either selective or wholsale, are so widespread as to make your statement laughably wrong.

Really, does those document determined that it is the norm for species to practice cannibalism and killing of off spring? I mean even among human, there are some sick people who killed and ate their victim, but it doesn't mean that's what all human go around and do all day. Under many circumstances, animal kills their own, even human have war and kill each other, and there are laws that allow people to kill in self-defense.

What I meant was that it is not the norm for any species to eat their own kind, and that is totally different from eating others in the food chain for survival. Human has been eating both animal and vegetable since the beginning of the time. To think about if it is morally correct to eat living thing for food is a little silly, and to compare it to killing fetus (again, fetus being the same as human is up to debate) is just absurd.

 

[Kibbo]

Richu,

Many animals kill and eat each other, or even their young, as a matter of course. This happens expecially in regions where resources are scarce. This could be justified evolutionarily by saying that the mother is proven to be able to fend for herself, and to reproduce. So, if resources are scarce, it is in that species' own interest to eat its young, because it's better to grant resources to a proven quantity than to an "X" factor that may not be able to reproduce, or to survive 'till reproductive age. Very common among higher carnivores where each animal needs alot of space in order to survive.

A similar justification could be used for the evolutionary benefits of cannibalistic practices among tribal groups. It seems uncivilized now, but our societies evolved in relative plenty.

Also, see my above post regarding Chimpanzee Wars.

The natural world is a brutal place, and you'd be surprised at what goes on there.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: rchiu
What I meant was that it is not the norm for any species to eat their own kind, and that is totally different from eating others in the food chain for survival.

Au contraire!

Prarie dogs are cute, cuddly-looking critters. They're also the social butterflies of the rodent world, living, working, and playing together in vast underground colonies. "It looks like a peaceful society," said John Hoogland, a biologist at the University of Maryland, "and for 11 months of the year it is."

Then breeding season arrives. For about six weeks each year, black-tailed prairie dogs become cannibals and eat members of their own species.

Cannibalism isn't just the stuff of Hannibal Lecter movies. In nature, it's part of life, practiced by everything from lowly bacteria to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee.
----------------------------------

It is one of the most distressing and incomprehensible behaviors a human can witness: a pet rat killing infant rats, a mother consuming her own offspring. Humans today have a such a strong taboo against killing human infants, their own or those of other people, that such behavior in a pet is appalling. ~

Infanticide, or pup-killing, is found in many species, including rats. In rats, the infanticidal animal may be the mother, a strange male, or a strange female. Each of these may commit infanticide for different reasons. Most infanticide is directed at newborn rats.
_________________________

A cannibal is an animal that feeds on others of its own species. This is not an unnatural characteristic: around 140 different species show cannibalistic tendencies under various conditions. ~

Among species that produce many offspring, such as frogs, cannibalism of siblings helps ensure that some young develop into adults, thus continuing the species. Cannibalism appears to be an inherited trait in some species. ~

Many species of gull that nest in large colonies cannibalize eggs and young. When it is sporadic, this behavior may be a response to crowding, but some gulls throughout the breeding season live entirely on the eggs and chicks of their own species. The chief perpetrators tend to be males without young of their own. ~

Cub killing among lions: Of the higher mammals, the lion shows the most definite cannibalistic tendencies. There have been many reports of male lions killing and then sometimes eating young cubs. ~

The males of several primate species, including the common langur, also practice infanticide.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: rchiu
What I meant was that it is not the norm for any species to eat their own kind, and that is totally different from eating others in the food chain for survival.

Au contraire!

Prarie dogs are cute, cuddly-looking critters. They're also the social butterflies of the rodent world, living, working, and playing together in vast underground colonies. "It looks like a peaceful society," said John Hoogland, a biologist at the University of Maryland, "and for 11 months of the year it is."

Then breeding season arrives. For about six weeks each year, black-tailed prairie dogs become cannibals and eat members of their own species.

Cannibalism isn't just the stuff of Hannibal Lecter movies. In nature, it's part of life, practiced by everything from lowly bacteria to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee.
----------------------------------

It is one of the most distressing and incomprehensible behaviors a human can witness: a pet rat killing infant rats, a mother consuming her own offspring. Humans today have a such a strong taboo against killing human infants, their own or those of other people, that such behavior in a pet is appalling. ~

Infanticide, or pup-killing, is found in many species, including rats. In rats, the infanticidal animal may be the mother, a strange male, or a strange female. Each of these may commit infanticide for different reasons. Most infanticide is directed at newborn rats.
_________________________

A cannibal is an animal that feeds on others of its own species. This is not an unnatural characteristic: around 140 different species show cannibalistic tendencies under various conditions. ~

Among species that produce many offspring, such as frogs, cannibalism of siblings helps ensure that some young develop into adults, thus continuing the species. Cannibalism appears to be an inherited trait in some species. ~

Many species of gull that nest in large colonies cannibalize eggs and young. When it is sporadic, this behavior may be a response to crowding, but some gulls throughout the breeding season live entirely on the eggs and chicks of their own species. The chief perpetrators tend to be males without young of their own. ~

Cub killing among lions: Of the higher mammals, the lion shows the most definite cannibalistic tendencies. There have been many reports of male lions killing and then sometimes eating young cubs. ~

The males of several primate species, including the common langur, also practice infanticide.

Hehe, I see somebody has been hitting the google......from the same web page you got the information from:
Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates, often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.

Cannibalism is not the result of a predators efficiency, but the opposite. Few of the top flesh eaters, such as wolves and tigers, ever eat those of their own kind. Even those that do, like the spotted hyena, are usually passive cannibals. Cannibalism is more common among lower animals such as the preying mantis, when they may not be able to distinguish between relatives and prey.

Again, I made an overly general statement that animal does not practice canibalism or kill their own kind, and I stand corrected. I agree that animal, or even human can kill their own under many circumstances, such a over population, lack of food, or simply self-defense. What I am trying to say is that it is not a normal practice, and that is totally different from eating other animal in the food chain to survive. You maybe able to find 140 out of tens of thousands of species that shows cannibalistic tendencies under various condition, but I challenge you to find one species that practice cannibalism regularly and as a way of life.

The topic is about if eating animal is moral and if it equates to abortion. I am trying explain that eating animal is in human nature, just like any meat eating species, and it is what human being have been practicing since the beginning for survival. While abortion, if fetus is defined as human being, is not a natural behavior and can't be equated to something people do every day, which is eating meat.

 

[glugglug]

Are plants self aware? How can you tell without being able to communicate with them? Where do you draw the line exactly?

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Arsynic

Originally posted by: Stunt
Arsynic, so animals are unable to express feelings and emotion?
I assume you are against abortion...do you endorse killing of animals for food?

Are you against killing people for food?

No but i support a woman's right to choose.

In my opinion you can't be anti-abortion and support killing for food.

The lead into this thread is that there is a debate to consider that animals might not be so much different than humans...

anti-abortion and support killing for food is two totally different things. In the food chain, there are herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores such as human. Are you saying carnivores are bad just because that species happens to kill for food? It is actually this food chain that keeps the balance on this earth so that no one species' population grows out of proportion, so killing for food is just the way of nature.

On the other hand, none of the species kills their own kind. Even the carnivores don't eat their own for food. It is the nature of any species to care for their off springs.

Not true. Crocodile mothers kill and eat their babies. The inexperienced new mothers, when they aren't gentle enough and crush the baby. They will then eat it.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Arsynic

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Arsnyc,

I would like you to cite one objective behaviour in humans that couldn't be explained by the same stimulus-response models used to explain animal's behaviour.

In fact, the only behaviour humans exhibit that suggests that we are any more than "reflex-bots" is that fact that we claim to think, dream, feel, ponder, pray. We tell each other that we are more than "just the size of our brains."

If you could find a common linguistic ground, how do you know that animals wouldn't do the same?

Edit: clarity.

Animals can't display love. Animals don't have wisdom (acting on new information in different ways).

I don't think that's totally true, you're too vague here. For the last few days, 5 kittens and a mother cat have been living in my backyard. The first day the mother was quite aggressive and hissed at me when I went outside. When she started to realize I was of no harm and was their source for food and water, she became friendly and so did her kittens. And you might say it is instinct to protect and care for their children (she hissed at me and circled the kittens to keep me away the first day), but isn't that same instinct what you would call a human mother's love for her children?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Arsnyc,

I would like you to cite one objective behaviour in humans that couldn't be explained by the same stimulus-response models used to explain animal's behaviour.

We prepare for death.

Ever hear of the Elephant graveyard? A dog going to be alone to die? Many studies have shown communnities of animals showing grief, and altering their behaviour before death.

Yes, but show me an example of an animal having a fear of death. Something outside of the survival instinct that animals show, perhaps.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

It? doesn?t matter; hypocritical pro-abortion anti-meat nuts will continue to walk the earth, eating their fetus burgers.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Arsnyc,

I would like you to cite one objective behaviour in humans that couldn't be explained by the same stimulus-response models used to explain animal's behaviour.

We prepare for death.

Ever hear of the Elephant graveyard? A dog going to be alone to die? Many studies have shown communnities of animals showing grief, and altering their behaviour before death.

Yes, but show me an example of an animal having a fear of death. Something outside of the survival instinct that animals show, perhaps.

Show me one objective behaviour that demonstrates that in humans. I know I lay awake at night, terrified by my mortality, but the only way you could know what the source of my fear is is if I told you. Animals may experience similar fears. How do you know they lack the capacity to know of death? Have you asked one? Show me one non-linguistic behaviour in humans that shows "fear of death."

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Arsnyc,

I would like you to cite one objective behaviour in humans that couldn't be explained by the same stimulus-response models used to explain animal's behaviour.

We prepare for death.

Ever hear of the Elephant graveyard? A dog going to be alone to die? Many studies have shown communnities of animals showing grief, and altering their behaviour before death.

Yes, but show me an example of an animal having a fear of death. Something outside of the survival instinct that animals show, perhaps.

Show me one objective behaviour that demonstrates that in humans. I know I lay awake at night, terrified by my mortality, but the only way you could know what the source of my fear is is if I told you. Animals may experience similar fears. How do you know they lack the capacity to know of death? Have you asked one? Show me one non-linguistic behaviour in humans that shows "fear of death."

I can think of a few examples, but you first.

Yes, but show me an example of an animal having a fear of death. Something outside of the survival instinct that animals show, perhaps.

 

[Kibbo]

My point was that all human behaviours that are exhibited are part of the survival instinct. Or, are communicated through language. And I cite the dog example again. I don't see how that is part of the survival instinct.

Your turn.

(I'm feeling a little punchy today. Too much coffee, not enough sleep.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
My point was that all human behaviours that are exhibited are part of the survival instinct.

How about crying or laughing?

Or, are communicated through language.

again, crying or laughing.

And I cite the dog example again. I don't see how that is part of the survival instinct.

I don't either, and also don't see how it can be seen as a fear of death.

(I'm feeling a little punchy today. Too much coffee, not enough sleep.

<-------- feeling punchy also. Too much sleep, not enough coffee.