XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.animals.dog, rec.pets.dogs.behavior   
      
   On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 02:01:02 GMT, Barry Blust    
   wrote:   
      
   >dh@. wrote in news:qa4lj11fpgf0pbopgu47e0gv3ansup099v@4ax.com:   
   >   
   >> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 05:52:59 GMT, Barry Blust   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>I'm not certain anyone who has posted to this topic has even a basic   
   >>>understanding of the term 'self-awareness'.  I suggest you all take   
   >>>the time to look this up.   
   >>   
   >>     Can't you explain it, or provide a definition? There's likely to   
   >>     be   
   >> more than on interepretation of what it means, so you might as well   
   >> present the one that you want to use. Right?   
   >>   
   >>>Then this discussion might take on a truly dynamic   
   >>>and relavant tone.   
   >>>   
   >>>Thanks,   
   >>>   
   >>>Barry   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>dh@. wrote in news:sa3ri15rs9r50qmgr8jg1j6saqpbg8ti6r@4ax.com:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005  Goo wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>Consider the mental life of a dog, for example.   
   >>>>>Presumably, dogs have a rich array of experiences (they   
   >>>>>feel pain and pleasure, the tree has a particular   
   >>>>>"look" to it) and they may even have beliefs about the   
   >>>>>world (Fido believes that his supper dish is empty).   
   >>>>>Who knows, they may even have special "inner   
   >>>>>experiences" that accompany those beliefs. However, if   
   >>>>>we assume that dogs are not self-aware in the stronger   
   >>>>>sense,   
   >>>>   
   >>>> we still have no reason to believe they are not self aware   
   >>>> to some extent. In fact, the idea that they are not is quite   
   >>>> a stupid one and is not supported in any way.   
   >>>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   >Self awareness is simply being aware of the self... i.e. knowing one's   
   >attitudes, feelings, traits and behaviors as distinct and unique to one's   
   >self.   
   >   
   >Mook (my mini-doxie) is smart as a whip... yet he is unaware of his   
   >intelligence.   
      
       Intelligence in regards to brain size is still something interesting   
   to me because I don't understand it. If all cells are the same size   
   in different animals regardless of the size of the animal, then a   
   dog the size of a Great Dane is likely to have an incredible number   
   more brain cells than a small dog that's about the size of the bigger   
   dog's brain. So why is it with a brain *that* much bigger, the bigger   
   dog isn't necessarily significantly smarter?   
      
   >He is filled with wondrous instincts, yet he is not aware of   
   >these instincts...   
      
       I don't believe that. They are undoubtedly aware that they can   
   smell, and do it very deliberately. The same is true of hearing and   
   seeing. This is made obvious by dogs in high grass jumping up to   
   see over it.   
      
   >he simply reacts.  No doubt he has thoughts,   
   >communicates and reasons... all valuable brain activities.   
      
       And all things that are evidence that he is aware of things. He   
   is aware of "his" things, and can distinguish them from those of   
   others...again evidence that he has some awareness of himself   
   since he knows his possessions, his territory, etc.   
       He also is aware of different individuals--even different individuals   
   of different species--so he undoubtedly has some concept of   
   individuality, which is great evidence that he should have some   
   concept of his own individuality...of himself...   
      
   >But Mook is not   
   >aware that any of these traits belong to him, are his,   
      
       I don't believe that. I have no reason at all to believe it.   
      
   >or even that he is   
   >somehow unique.   
      
       I also have no reason to believe that. He knows that   
   other things are unique, and that some of them are   
   uniquely "his". He knows that his urine is unique, and he   
   knows where it comes from. He knows that other beings   
   are unique, can distinguish between them, and also their   
   urine, belongings, territory, etc. He has some sort of   
   concepts of all that, and all of them suggest that he   
   should have some concept(s) of his own uniqueness...   
   of himself...as well.   
      
   >If we can agree on this,   
      
       That will be up to you. I've come to my conclusions   
   from observing dogs among other things, and if you   
   consider them and agree then we can agree, but I   
   don't believe I'll be changing my view because of the   
   specific reasons I present.   
      
   >the question of what goes on in Mook's head is   
   >most interesting.   
      
       Yes. He licks himself no doubt. He knows how he   
   likes it. He has more than one mental concept of that   
   job...taste, smell, probably changes in smell and flavor   
   depending on how far he takes it, and things like that.   
   He has a sense of feeling, and probably of a number   
   of feelings. He may very well have a sense of himself   
   doing it, and the reaction it causes in others if people   
   react to him about it. Those are a number of mental   
   concepts from just that one activity, and that's not   
   even all of them. To add to it, his sense of smell and   
   therefore probably taste (imo) is much greater than   
   yours, so he would have much stonger mental concepts   
   of "himself"--that area of himself (and probably every   
   other place he can lick *too*) at the very least. Again   
   evidence that he should have some concept of self.   
   Moving on: now that we've considered that he   
   probably has a numer of mental concepts about that   
   one activity, and very possibly a mental concept or   
   three about himself performing the function, it leads   
   to thinking that he may very well have not only a   
   mental concept of himself but a number of mental   
   concepts of himself performing a number of activities.   
      
       The mirror test does nothing to change my pov,   
   and in fact could quite possibly reinforce it. What   
   we do know is that dogs don't recognise themselves   
   in a mirror, but we don't know why. And I'm not even   
   convinced that no dogs do yet, but not knowing I'll   
   consider that they don't, and we still don't know why.   
   That they have no concept of self seems absurd to   
   me. That they have no concept of their image being   
   able to reflect off of something seems much more   
   likely. The way it possibly reinforces my thinking is:   
   it's possible that their concept of self forbids them   
   from considering the possibility of another of   
   their self and/or of reflections of their self, so it   
   could be that their concept of their self prevents   
   them from understanding the truth. That's just one   
   other possibility, but to me it's more likely than the   
   possibility that they have no concept at all.   
      
   >One aspect of dogs I would like to explore is their   
   >ability to become domesticated or feral within one generation.   
      
       Each dog has the potential within himself, so if his   
   offspring are raised that way it's just all they know.   
   I feel cats have the potential even more than dogs.   
   But it's different with them, because they aren't pack   
   animals.   
      
   >I think   
   >this is a unique survival technique, and one in common with us humans.   
      
       We are more a group animal. My dad would often   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)