Animal consciousness...Are they really THAT different?

[Justforfun000]

On SB.com I'm in an argument about animal testing. I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't like it, but I know it's necessary. I realize humans have to be held higher then animals (in most circumstances). But I also believe that we have a responsibility to treat them humanely and minimize pain and suffering, especially when being deliberately experimented on, and DOUBLY so when it's cosmetic (if we accept that it's acceptable anyway).

What I want to know though is indirectly related to this. Someone said this:

There are no self-aware animals aside from human beings period, it was more than proven already. The animals who suffer pain DON'T CARE, because they aren't self aware. They are, for all intents and purposes, cleverly programmed bio-robots.

Do you agree? Is this correct by the most current science or is he full of shit? That sounds too extreme to me.

[SCRawl]

What I want to know though is indirectly related to this. Someone said this:

There are no self-aware animals aside from human beings period, it was more than proven already. The animals who suffer pain DON'T CARE, because they aren't self aware. They are, for all intents and purposes, cleverly programmed bio-robots.

Do you agree? Is this correct by the most current science or is he full of shit? That sounds too extreme to me.

That quote sounds, well, silly. The problem is, I don't know if there is any way of testing that hypothesis, since we can't ask the animals how they really felt about being made to suffer.

It seems to me that the real stance of those who advocate of animal testing (a) recognize that animals feel pain, and (b) perform the testing anyways, because it's important. The idea that a creature of some level of intelligence is simply wired to yelp when it suffers is either misguided or merely wishful thinking.

But as I said, there's no way to test this theory.

[LadyTevar]

If animals don't care about the pain they feel, then WHY DO THEY TRY TO GET AWAY FROM THE SOURCE OF THE PAIN?

Step on a dog's tail, listen to it yelp and move away from you. Same for a cat, except the cat won't return to you for several minutes while the dog will 'accept your apology' far quicker.

If an animal didn't care about pain, why do Vets have to hold an animal down just to give it a shot? Why do wounded animals strike out when you touch the injured part?

People who say animals don't feel or don't care about pain are just fuckin' idjits ignoring the evidence of their own eyes.

[Sea Skimmer]

Claiming an animal doesn't care about pain is rather retarded, most more advanced ones, which are inevitably the ones used in testing most certainly do care about and notice pain. Otherwise beating a dog every day wouldn't make it hate and attack you.

[Justforfun000]

I agree with all of you, I'm just hoping someone can throw some science back in his face of some kind. He sounds so incredibly arrogant that it was "more then proven already".

[Shiva Star]

On SB.com I'm in an argument about animal testing. I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't like it, but I know it's necessary. I realize humans have to be held higher then animals (in most circumstances). But I also believe that we have a responsibility to treat them humanely and minimize pain and suffering, especially when being deliberately experimented on, and DOUBLY so when it's cosmetic (if we accept that it's acceptable anyway).

What I want to know though is indirectly related to this. Someone said this:

There are no self-aware animals aside from human beings period, it was more than proven already. The animals who suffer pain DON'T CARE, because they aren't self aware. They are, for all intents and purposes, cleverly programmed bio-robots.

Do you agree? Is this correct by the most current science or is he full of shit? That sounds too extreme to me.

He would be right if we were talking about worms, insects, some fish and frogs, etc. But Mammals and Birds tend to be the most intelligent animals. If he's talking about, say dogs, monkeys or pigs, then he's full of shit. My dog has feelings, she isn't some "Bio-Robot", most of the pets I met seemed to have feelings, even the fish I had 3 years ago, when one of their tank-mates died, they seemed depressed. I agree that some animal testing is and will unfortunatly always be needed for things like drugs and stuff. But you're right that animal testbeds need to be treated humanely if testing is defenatly needed.

[LadyTevar]

I agree with all of you, I'm just hoping someone can throw some science back in his face of some kind. He sounds so incredibly arrogant that it was "more then proven already".

Use the examples I gave you first. Ask him to explain why they react that way.

[Duckie]

Complicated animals can feel pain, but to add a caveat I doubt that things like insects or jellyfish that lack organized, sophisticated nervous systems can feel pain in the first place. Or at least pain as we know it, instead of "Injured Drone Unit W35P1 Pheremone To All Warriors In Range- Attack Target."

[Molyneux]

In addition to all the above -

Humans are not the only species on Earth to have passed several of the tests for sentience.

Chimpanzees, dolphins (and possibly parrots) have passed the mirror test.
Chimpanzees, dolphins and parrots can all learn speech (as well as gorillas, apparently); they may not have developed it independently as of yet, but they possess the capability to understand and utilize it.
Chimpanzees and dolphins have also shown the propensity for learned tool use (termite-gathering sticks for chimpanzees, sponges to protect their beaks for dolphins).

Humans may be the only species that has passed all three tests completely - we're the only species known to have developed language without outside prompting, for one - but we're far from the only species to have a high degree of self-awareness.

[outcast]

seems this chap has never heard of Bonobo's, widely regarded as the second most intelligent species on the planet. I've seen documentaries on them, where they've been taught a kind of pictoral language with somewhere around 500 words (and they have been known to creatively combine words to denote new things they encounter), in one instance handlers asked one of them what death would be like, and the bonobo replied that it was like being alone in a dark cave. that requires a pretty advanced ability for abstract thought and the ability to imagine a situation other than the one they are currently experiencing. which is ofcourse, extremely impressive.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Chimps have the intelligence of a 5-yr-old, from what i understand. That's pretty advanced, or seems to me--i'd imagine that's intelligent enough to feel emotions, pain, be fully self-aware, abstract thought. Of course it might not be precisely the same, they are a different species, but seems to be close enough to debunk the 'bio-robots' theory.

[Duckie]

The fact that Koko the Gorilla can sign "Like Banana. Kitty My Friend" or something similar is also a good example of emotional sophistication in animals, which would increase their ability to recieve pain.
(How many hedgehogs cry after being rejected, or lose a treasured object?)

[Justforfun000]

Oh you'll LOVE these in-depth responses.

For most of this I simply copied your responses to see what he'd say. Apparently we're all wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justforfun000
Oh really? Evidence please...

It goes the other way around, you are supposed to provide evidence FOR sentience. Absolutely NONE was found in any animal up to date (save for relatively large intellectual capacity in animals such as monkeys and dolfins, which is not the same as self awarness anyway).

Quote:
Humans are not the only species on Earth to have passed several of the tests for sentience.
Chimpanzees, dolphins (and possibly parrots) have passed the mirror test.
Chimpanzees, dolphins and parrots can all learn speech (as well as gorillas, apparently); they may not have developed it independently as of yet, but they possess the capability to understand and utilize it.

Learning has nothing to do with self awarness.

Quote:
Chimpanzees and dolphins have also shown the propensity for learned tool use (termite-gathering sticks for chimpanzees, sponges to protect their beaks for dolphins).

Again, nothing to indicate self-awarness.

Quote:
Humans may be the only species that has passed all three tests completely - we're the only species known to have developed language without outside prompting, for one - but we're far from the only species to have a high degree of self-awareness.

You'd be right if you replaced that word with "intelligence" which is =/= self-awarness.

Quote:
Claiming an animal doesn't care about pain is rather retarded, most more advanced ones, which are inevitably the ones used in testing most certainly do care about and notice pain. Otherwise beating a dog every day wouldn't make it hate and attack you.

You don't need to resort to self-awarness to explain such simple behaviours. The dog is attacking a percieved threat, what do you have to prove that the dog actually understands anything of what's going on, instead of acting on pure pre-programmed reflexes? (which include the ability to learn new things, ie Pavlov)

Quote:
Step on a dog's tail, listen to it yelp and move away from you. Same for a cat, except the cat won't return to you for several minutes while the dog will 'accept your apology' far quicker.

So? Different animals react to the same stimulations differently as a result of their differing physiology. Not to mention that dogs have been bred to be loyal for millenia, while cats weren't.

Quote:
If an animal didn't care about pain, why do Vets have to hold an animal down just to give it a shot? Why do wounded animals strike out when you touch the injured part?

Survival instinct?

Quote:
If animals don't care about the pain they feel, then WHY DO THEY TRY TO GET AWAY FROM THE SOURCE OF THE PAIN?

Survival instinct?

I don't think it'd be very hard to create a program that simulates all those behaviours, and then conclude that the program is therefore self-aware.

Quote:
Because some people might feel they made themselves LESS then human beings by doing such despicable acts that even the animal kingdom has no comparison of evil behaviour.

"Evil"? Whose evil? Do you consider cannibalism evil, for example? Cause animals practice that. Would you consider eating your own offspring as evil? Animals do that too. Simply killing humans for causes other than food, and on a larger scale, does not make humans somehow more "evil" than animals acting on pure instinct.

Quote:
Secondly, you will ALWAYS get better results testing humans since that is what you are trying to figure out it in the FIRST place.

But then you'll be hurting HUMANS, which would be immoral. Hurting animals is not, and should not be immoral.

[wolveraptor]

Not being self-aware != not caring about pain. Any mobile animal cares about pain in the sense it tries to escape/react to the source. And of course, the examples of chimps, bonobos, parrots and dolphins have been provided as examples of semi-sentience/sapience.

So yes, he's full of shit.

[Justforfun000]

Shit, some of those quotes he's responding to might not make sense with out my post. For simplicities sake, the thread is here:

http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthrea ... 965&page=4

You can quote SB...they aren't a threat ~GR

[Ghost Rider]

Actually you should've caught him on this regard...self awareness is at heart do you recognize yourself, it has nothing to do with that animals that may have little to no self awareness can react to stimuli.

Why go through the rigamorale of his bullshit and catch him on the primary that he hasn't showed any proof that animals aren't aware of pain or stimuli and his bullshit claims that they are just reacting to a pre-programmed response.

[Zero]

This guy's a jackass. My dog is as much a bio-robot as I am. We've evolved to respond to certain stimulus in certain ways, including emotional responses, and thoughts. We're the same way as the dog, in that respect, and I don't see why he doesn't see their pain as as severe simply because they aren't human... but maybe I should go to SB.net, and see this..

[18-Till-I-Die]

seems this chap has never heard of Bonobo's, widely regarded as the second most intelligent species on the planet. I've seen documentaries on them, where they've been taught a kind of pictoral language with somewhere around 500 words (and they have been known to creatively combine words to denote new things they encounter), in one instance handlers asked one of them what death would be like, and the bonobo replied that it was like being alone in a dark cave. that requires a pretty advanced ability for abstract thought and the ability to imagine a situation other than the one they are currently experiencing. which is ofcourse, extremely impressive.

Now i just want to say as i was reading this, that this info reallys truck me. Highlighted part especially. Wow, that is...i mean, isnt that completely sentient? I mean that is really startling to read.

[wolveraptor]

Notice how he repeatedly claims hurting humans is immoral, like that's an absolute rule. I suspect most people in the wold who've heard anything about Hitler wouldn't be bothered at all by his pain and suffering, for example.

Ask him to define self aware, and ask him why only self-aware creatures are deserving of any sort of humanitarianism. Dogs recognize when you are being nice to them, and when you're attacking them. To claim they act on instinct alone is idiotic, as that would imply that they've biologically adapted to each situation they encounter, which would imply an extreme uniformity of experiences. Instincts are with you from birth. If that's all they act on, how are war dogs, regularly placed in dangerous situations for a purpose the dogs couldn't understand, trained? How are dogs trained at all if all they act on are instincts. Much of a dogs training countermands those instinct, as can life experiences. A dog regularly attacked by other dogs would override it's instinct to be sociable and shun other dogs (this does not apply to specially bred fighting dogs). A dog trained not to chase small, fast-moving creatures (which appear much like prey) is ignoring a visceral response.

He's a moron.

[Zero]

Now i just want to say as i was reading this, that this info reallys truck me. Highlighted part especially. Wow, that is...i mean, isnt that completely sentient? I mean that is really startling to read.

What I wonder is, why do we imagine death being dark? I mean, it's supposedly when thought ends, so I don't see why darkness is what we seem to expect. I talked to a four year old who's grandmother had recently died, and he seemed to expect the same thing... darkness.

[Duckie]

What I wonder is, why do we imagine death being dark? I mean, it's supposedly when thought ends, so I don't see why darkness is what we seem to expect. I talked to a four year old who's grandmother had recently died, and he seemed to expect the same thing... darkness.

Because we are told to compare Deat to an everlasting Sleep, or simply form the impression from our eyes being closed. Both are dark.


He's a sophist, saying "You can't ultimately prove that we aren't in the matrix that imitates the world through a computer program utterly perfe- I mean, that animals aren't clever robots designed to imitate feelings utterly perfectly." What a moron.

[Gustav32Vasa]

Now i just want to say as i was reading this, that this info reallys truck me. Highlighted part especially. Wow, that is...i mean, isnt that completely sentient? I mean that is really startling to read.

What I wonder is, why do we imagine death being dark? I mean, it's supposedly when thought ends, so I don't see why darkness is what we seem to expect. I talked to a four year old who's grandmother had recently died, and he seemed to expect the same thing... darkness.

Darkness = the unknown.

[NecronLord]

They are, for all intents and purposes, cleverly programmed bio-robots.

So are humans.

[18-Till-I-Die]

He's a sophist, saying "You can't ultimately prove that we aren't in the matrix that imitates the world through a computer program utterly perfe- I mean, that animals aren't clever robots designed to imitate feelings utterly perfectly." What a moron.

Yes which has to beg the question...if they imitate feelings perfectly, do they not have feelings. Or am i being too metaphysical?

[Zero]

Because we are told to compare Deat to an everlasting Sleep, or simply form the impression from our eyes being closed. Both are dark.

This chimp wasn't, I imagine, largely part of our society, and had likely never heard such comparisons. I don't understand why a chimp would have the same notions of death as I do if he isn't part of the same society that I am... although I suppose I don't know that this is the case. Even so, it seems quite odd.

He's a sophist, saying "You can't ultimately prove that we aren't in the matrix that imitates the world through a computer program utterly perfe- I mean, that animals aren't clever robots designed to imitate feelings utterly perfectly." What a moron.

Besides, he ignores the fact that we're the same thing. A perfect simulation of emotion IS emotion. Bloody fools.