Why do some people argue that animals aren't conscious? It's obvious their minds don't work the same way ours do in many ways, but how is that evidence they aren't conscious? It's almost like people want an excuse to treat animals like shit, because if they aren't living beings with thoughts and emotions, that makes them expendable.
>Inb4 anthropomorphizing
Fuck off
>>2087370
You must not have a good explanation if all you can muster is "Fuck off". Wonderful debate.
You should pursue a career in politics.
>>2087372
I say that because this topic attracts the worst shitposters on this board like flies to shit.
Now fuck off.
>>2087374
Fine, I'll take my discussion elsewhere if it's bugguy you're worried about.
And I don't consider myself to be a shitposter.
I think we first have to settle on exactly what "concious" means.
>>2087376
Bugguy and all the other shitty tripfags on this board. It is 100% shitposting because you knew this wasn't going to end well. If you didn't, you're just retarded.
>>2087368
>Why do some people argue that animals aren't conscious?
because /an/ throws a raging shit fit when confronted with the truth, and that's funny.
You should ask them about outdoor cats and really have some fun.
I think Darwin said something to the affect animals' intelligence differs from us by magnitude rather than kind.
>>2087502
seems doubtful since Darwin considered (white, male) humans to be above all animals entirely.
not that intelligence is the same as consciousness, but whatever.
>>2087368
one of the biggest mistakes people can make when examining an animals 'psyche', aside from anthropomorphisizing, is assuming all consciousness would resemble ours.
evolution has proven time and again there are multiple answers to the same problem, multiple ways to reach the same solution, wings, legs, eyes, lungs, etc
who's to say brains are any different?
>>2087506
He said(I think it was near the end of The Descent of Man) that he was more proud of being related to the noble monkeys, than to the savage polynesians.
>>2087550
>wings, legs, eyes, lungs, etc
terrible examples since every single one of those is recognizable.
if you're going to pretend consciousness evolved in a way we can't recognize you need to point to animals that fly around on wings we don't recognize, or breathe with lungs we can't identify, or walk on legs we can't see.
>>2087554
We barely understand consciousness in our own species, m8, how do you observe and quantify it in something that doesn't even talk?
>>2087556
>We barely understand consciousness in our own species, m8,
>We
>how do you observe and quantify it in something that doesn't even talk?
this is a question for Wikipedia, methinks.
>>2087561
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Measurement
>>2087563
Precisely!
thank you.
>>2087563
the mirror test is interesting, but not totally reliable, it depends on too many 'ifs', which sucks because it always seems like the definitive 'go to' test for consciousness/self awareness in non-humans.
obviously it does work and its pretty easy to tell when an animal is self aware with it, but the 'or not' space is a bit more murky.
For example, dogs will fail this test, some will bark at the mirror thinking its another dog, yeah, but others don't seem to care and wont even acknowledge the dog in the mirror. which, if it didn't understand the dog in the mirror was itself, why would it choose to ignore it?
A dog can clearly see the mirror, and if it didn't recognize the image as itself, it should react the way any dog does when seeing another dog (which, like I said, some do) but its weird to think that, just because an animal doesn't show interest in their reflection, it means they aren't self aware.
Dogs can also use mirrors to find objects normally out of sight, so they can grasp it's a reflective surface. Dogs are also perfectly capable of recognizing their own scent, and prioritize scent recognition well over sight, so to say dogs aren't self aware based on one test seems to be a bit of a leap.
>>2087569
>prioritize scent recognition well over sight,
I've shown you the only study on this subject in existence.
as you'll recall, visual cues trumped scent in every case.
>>2087569
Finally.
Someone else that fucking gets it.
>>2087578
what are you talking about?
9.9 out of 10 /an/ users think this.
which is why it's such an effective troll thread.
>>2087572
did you miss the word 'recognition'?
>>2087580
Just wait for bugguy and his "squad".
>>2087582
oh, so you think "recognition" only means recognizing other animals of the same species?
got it
your argument fails either way because several animals that don't rely primarily on vision DO pass the mirror test.
and even if we agree with you that the mirror test is useless, that just means you have no way of recognizing consciousness in other animals, which doesn't give a rational person reason to think it exists.
>>2087583
as far as I can tell his "squad" as you call me, is one person and I was here years before he showed up.
>>2087585
why would my argument fail? it dosn't change the fact dogs can understand mirrors reflect, that dogs recognize their own scent, etc
All I'm saying is that the mirror test relies too much on whether or not the animal even cares that the reflected image is themselves. it relies on the animal being inquisitive enough to try to investigate and learn more, and isn't totally reliable to test self awareness.
>>2087593
>why would my argument fail?
because if you say dogs fail the mirror test because they rely on non-visual cues to identify dogs, you're making an absolute statement.
(Implied: ALL dogs fail the mirror test because of relying on non-visual cues, ALL animals that rely on non-visual cues fail the mirror test, NO animals that pass the mirror test will rely on visual cues)
this is false. Animals that rely on non-visual cues to identify each other pass the mirror test, so you failed to explained why dogs don't.
>>2087596
Never said none 'o that shit, m8.
>>2087593
>All I'm saying is that the mirror test relies too much on whether or not the animal even cares that the reflected image is themselves
this is a different argument.
it's pretty easy to crush by asking WHY do some animals care then? and why does their entire species care when closely related species don't? Shouldn't caring be an individual thing, not a species trait?
why would an entire species evolve to care if it has a red dot on its face while others don't? And why would those "caring" species just happen to be the most intelligent of their lineage?
Intelligence breeds better hygiene?
Once glance at your bedroom and we know that's not true.
>>2087599
>Dogs are also perfectly capable of recognizing their own scent, and prioritize scent recognition well over sight,
if that wasn't you then it wasn't your argument I was talking about.
>>2087600
because some animals are more inquisitive than others? Maybe? It's not hard to figure out.
>>2087612
sure, that's a possibility.
I'd agree all of the animals that pass the mirror test are inquisitive.
do all inquisitive animals pass the mirror test?
No?
then that doesn't seem like a working explanation.
>>2087614
The mirror trst relies on
a) the animal in question being able to recognize itself in the first place
and
b) the animal is inquisitive enough to want to investigate and learn more
>>2087617
so you're saying that 99.99999% of animals fail the mirror test because they're not interested in a foreign object on their face?
>>2087617
I mean, you have to wonder why they don't care about a foreign object on their face but will groom it off if they notice it on any other part of their body.
"Nociception".
bruh havent you seen animorphs
yfw manta rays just passed the mirror test
>>2087550
>>2087554
There have been various examples of these appendages taking different forms; a bats wing, a bird’s wing and a fly's wing are all very different though all do the same task even if it developed in different ways. This is easier to see then how an animal’s psyche has developed, though still shows how there are different paths to the goal, in this case flying.
>>2088215
in every case flying is recognizable though.
Just like we know different animals took different evolutionary paths to consciousness, but in every case that consciousness is apparent.
>>2088226
that's kinda the point of the thing. If they don't find the image worthy of inspection they don't have a concept of self. Because most animals spend huge amounts of time inspecting themselves. Mostly with their tongues.
Conscious isn't required to survive
Just being the strongest and most adapted of the specie
>>2087506
Be that as it may. He based his claim on the race's achievements, there were no Jews to brainwash the population into believing all human races are the same.
He was right about non human intelligence as well, all evidence points towards magnitude being the key factor, which is why koko the gorilla had an iq higher than Ethiopians and aboriginals.
I thought bugguy would be here by now to spice things up. Oh well.
>>2087488
Also shelter dogs.
>>2088331
but again, thats assuming that if they aren't interested, they must not be aware, and assuming all consciousness looks the same.
.. but that does raise an interesting point, if a dog could use a mirrror to more effectively lick its balls, would it?
if mirrors worked like portals, and a dog learned to position itself in the portals to lick itself easier, would that be a demonstration of self awareness? learning that the sack in front of it was the sack of itself, and positioning itself just so?
I'm not being facetious here, this is an actual thought.
>>2088832
Dogs have been shown to understand how to use mirrors to locate objects.
>>2088832
>thats assuming that if they aren't interested, they must not be aware,
no, if they aren't interested in a spot where they can see it then the test is inconclusive.
but if they're interested in a spot where they can see it and disinterested in a spot they can only see in the mirror then they aren't actually disinterested at all.
they just fail the test.
> assuming all consciousness looks the same.
yes, absolutely. If it looks different we'll give it a different name. It won't be consciousness.
>a dog learned to position itself in the portals to lick itself easier, would that be a demonstration of self awareness?
it might be. As long as it figured it out spontaneously rather than through trial and error I'd think so.
>>2087784
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2081640-manta-rays-are-first-fish-to-recognise-themselves-in-a-mirror/
I kind of think the mirror test is a load of shit because aboriginees (think that's what they are called) have been known to fail the mirror test. But they are human.
So no, until they come up with a better test, I will not give anything with 'mirror test' in it the credit it wants.
>>2088979
>But they are human.
being part of a species that usually passes the test doesn't mean you automatically will.
human children don't pass the mirror test either.
it's possible some people aren't aware of themselves. They're still human. Being particularly stupid doesn't change your species.
Many animals aren't conscious. It's almost as frustrating to see people advocating for the ethical treatment of individual insects when they're just automitons and don't even have the capacity to suffer. Of course we should value them for the too often understated role they have in ecologies they play, just sayin.
>>2088983
But it does change how you should be treated. The only real difference between humans and other animals is our capacity for higher level thinking.
And then the entire internet was genocided.
>>2088989
>But it does change how you should be treated.
how we treat other humans and other animals has very little to do with consciousness.
you aren't allowed to abuse unconscious people even if they'll never regain consciousness. Nor are you allowed to torture animals that probably can't suffer anyways.
and humans are valued by humans over other animals because of self-interest and little else.
>>2088991
I'm not talking about what is the case, I'm talking about what should be the case. Apes deserve more rights than sime retarded people in my book. Humans are obviously going to value a vegetable though if it looks evenly remotely genetically similar to themselves because our biology is hard wired to.
>>2088993
>Apes deserve more rights than sime retarded people in my book.
I think most people would agree as long as they're not starving and have apes to hunt.
Severely retarded people have basic human rights but very few actual legal rights of personhood. Even crazy people are usually stripped of a ton of rights that you and I take for granted. Children as well have very few rights normally granted to adults. It's more for their protection than anything though. We assign someone else to take care of children and the mentally incompetent, much like apes in captivity have caretakers that are legally responsible for certain levels of care.
