XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.aquaria.freshwater.goldfish,   
   rec.pets.dogs.behavior   
      
   On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:23:43 -0400, Logic316  wrote:   
      
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>     Question: Has anyone ever managed to get a dog   
   >> to understand that it can see its reflection in a mirror,   
   >> and if so, did it appear to experience a great revelation   
   >> about its own existence at the instant it learned to do so?   
   >   
   >At this point, at the risk of getting a bit personal, I have to conclude   
   >that we have a B.S. artist and a troll on our hands   
      
       That's because what I say you find absurd, but let me assure you   
   that what you say seems equally if not more absurd to me. I and other   
   people I know have been laughing at and ridiculing the idea that   
   animals have no self awareness, since I was a child watching them   
   show signs of self awareness. I have considered the idea ignorant,   
   shallow, but pathetically amusing since the first time I heard it. Now   
   that I find the idea I already thought of as ignorant, etc, is based on   
   the non-too-surprising fact that most animals don't understand reflection,   
   well....of course it just seems that much more ignorant, shallow, and that   
   much more pathetic instead of amusing.   
      
   >who debates more   
   >like a backwoods evangelist than a scientist, appealing to rhetoric and   
   >semantics rather than hard data. DH has pretty much ignored my numerous   
   >posts and the reference URLs which I have provided, and is obstinately   
   >arguing in circles repeating the same questions which I've already   
   >answered.   
      
       My mistake on that then. Let's just get down to the foundation. I'll ask   
   two simple questions here, and if you explain then maybe I can finally   
   get it:   
      
   1. How do you think dogs learn to understand reflection?   
   2. How do you think bettas learn to understand reflection?   
      
   >I'm afraid he has already made up his mind a long time ago   
      
       Haven't you?   
      
   >and   
   >will never consider yielding his position on this topic no matter what   
   >anybody says :-/   
      
       So far all you've done is say that not understanding they're   
   looking at a reflection of themselves, somehow means that they   
   have no concept of themselves. But! You have not explained   
   why that possibility is the only possibility. I believe it's far more   
   likely that they have no concept of reflection, than that they have   
   no concept of themselves. That's because I don't understand how   
   they could learn what reflection is (but maybe I'll understand after/if   
   you answer my questions), but I can easily understand ways they   
   can get a concept(s) of themselves.   
      
   >You know DH, you don't have to admit that you might be wrong if it's   
   >THAT embarrassing for you,   
      
       I might be wrong.   
      
   >or if you just don't quite understand the   
   >experiments Rudy and I have mentioned.   
      
       I don't see how the experiments you and Goo have mentioned,   
   show that animals are not aware of themselves. As yet I can only   
   see how the experiments you and Goo have mentioned, show that   
   animals may not understand reflection.   
      
   >You could simply say something   
   >like "you people make some interesting points,   
      
       I await them.   
      
   >but I don't think the   
   >evidence is fully conclusive either way, I just feel in my own personal   
   >opinion that animals must at some level have a sense of self-awareness"   
      
       I believe it's necessary to the survival of some if not all of them.   
   If not all of them, it is an evolutionary development and stronger   
   in more advanced animals, but present to some degree in most   
   if not all, imo.   
      
   >and just leave it at that, and you could back out gracefully and not   
   >lose anybody's respect. But all you do is like to do is argue.   
      
       Of course it's the same old 'I believe you do too' sort of thing. What   
   if you're wrong? What if they really do have a concept of themselves,   
   but just don't understand reflection? What if it is an evolutionary   
   development that really exists? How could you learn the truth if that's   
   what it is?   
      
   >- Logic316   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >"I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and   
   >give the wrong answers."   
      
       Another possibility is that sometimes the researchers reach the   
   wrong conclusions.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)