[Emu]

That most animals dont have a concept of self?
Well they probably don't. Chimpanzees, Oranguatans, and Human Beings; thats it baby.

How do you know? How do I know that you have a concept of self?

Until then, it is my belief that any living being is aware of its own presence.

Even plants? or bacteria? (just curious)

[Supes]

WFMO?

I'm bettting What Freaks Me Out, but for you barend I revised it in my own mind to What Fucks Me Over!

[Supes]

What exactly about my post do you disagree with?

That most animals dont have a concept of self?
Well they probably don't. Chimpanzees, Oranguatans, and Human Beings; thats it baby.

So human beings do but baby human beings don't? Interesting! Will get to that in a second.

That tiny babies dont have a concept of self?
Well, they dont, not until age 2, Baby!

And where does that delectable piece of fact come from? It's not a matter of having a concept of self, it's a matter of information processing. The amount of data being processed by a child from birth to 3 years old would completely shut down an adult - information overload. It's not that they don't have a concept pf self, it's that they are developing a coherant conception of themselves and the world around them.

That its okay to kill something that lacks a concept of self?
Well it is. If something doesnt even know it exists, then its very hard to imagine it experiencing anything. The experiences would be like a performance on an empty stage with no one to watch them; they'd be meaningless.

Completely absurd and the analogy is even worse. Making sure that we are clear what I'm arguing. You've made statements around babies and I'm using this line of argument. You have provided absolutely no evidence that a baby is not aware that it exists and quite contrary to your statement a baby is experiencing and processing a massive amount in the way of experiences. So to use your own anaology the experience of a baby would be more like the Opening of the Sydney Olympic games with a billion people watching it. Not this empty stage your referring to. When did you figure that we start to learn and experience things - after age 2? If you want to use this arguement that you can kill babies then you had best prepare yourself for a very long stint in jail, or depending where you are located a very short life before your own execution.

I will concede that if it is an inanimate object then you can go ahead and kill it because it does not have any sort of consciousness. I can't speak for plants etc as I really haven't had the experience with these types of organisms to draw any conclusions.

[Rory]

Gah, evidence. Well, I'm not at the computer I use in college right now, so I can't give you any sources right now, but take out books on animal and infant consciousness. Thats a good start.

Okay, as far as animal consciousness goes, I'll admit that the evidence is a little shaky. Human consciousness, less so.

A few things have led many philosophers and psychologists to conclude that infants do not have a concept of self until around age two.
1. They don't recognize themselves in the mirror until around age two.
2. At the same time they start recognizing themselves in the mirror, the way they talk about themselves and the world around them starts to change dramatically. They are more likely to talk about how they feel, they get better at distinguishing their actions and emotions from other's, stuff like that. This sort of development continues until age 7 or so, which is when a child's concept of self becomes fully developed. But the evidence for a rudimentary concept is there around the age of 2.

Animals:
Well, with animals, psychologists mainly rely on the mirror test. Basically, if the animal seems to recognize itself in the mirror, can use a mirror as a tool to inspect parts of its body, for example, it seems to follow that it might have a concept of self. A vast majority of animals fail this test; they either ignore the mirror, or treat it like some other animals.

How do you know? How do I know that you have a concept of self?

behavior baby. I act like I have a concept of self; therfore its a good bet that I do. We've never met in real life, so thats all you really have to go on.

Something someone said about cat's that rory doesnt remember and is too lazy to look up

I think you should take another look at your cat, because empirical studies have been conducted on a variety of animals, including cats, and have concluded that they DO NOT recognize themselves in the mirror. So, either your cat is the most wicked smart cat ever, you are mistaken, or the scientists are wrong.

Completely absurd and the analogy is even worse.

Well, the analogy of the stage performing with no one there to see it is your classic Cartesian Theatre, except without the audience member. If you think of the concept of self as the "inner observer"(even though this is just sort of an illusion) that receives all perceptual phenomna (like vision, touch, etc) and initiates all conscious action (like running, jumping, turning ones head, speaking, etc), then the analogy works rather well.

So to use your own anaology the experience of a baby would be more like the Opening of the Sydney Olympic games with a billion people watching it. Not this empty stage your referring to.

Wait, did I say empty stage? If I did, I sincerely apologise. No, the stage is full of people. People dancing, juggling, eating bears, etc. There's just no audience member, no inner self to see whats going on. Its like all this perceptual input is flying through the baby's head with no inner self to actually witness anything. I rather like the analogy...

I remember things from when i was 2!!!

Well, first of all, that doesn't really go against what I'm saying. If anything, it rather fits with it. People develop a concept of self around the age of 2; your earliest memories are around the age of two... Secondly, memories are shaky things; they frequently change, and sometimes they are completely made up! For example, if I saw pictures from my 1st birthday, and my mother always described it in vivid detail, I might actually construct a memory of my 1st birthday, even though I was much to young to remember it. Theres a rather famous example of memory fabrication actually. It involves a women, a sledge hammer, a wall, and an angry (or not so angry) uncle. Long story short, some girl has a distinct memory of witnessing an event that she: A. never attended, and B. remembered "wrongly," that is the event happened for a completely different reason than she remembered.

With all that said, I think I should make it clear that I was a bit rash about my judgements about people and animals. I think the evidence is fairly convincing (though Im not entirely sold) that animals and infants under the age of two don't have a concept of self. Now, assuming they don't, I think you can agree that would be a big deal. If something doesn't have an "inner self," then whats going on in there head? I have trouble imagining it. Theres no "person" (though, as i sort of said before, the concept of self is sort of an illusion we have about how our minds work, anyway) inside to receive all that perceptual input! Its just flying about...

As a side note, Daniel Dennet argues that a concept of self developes at an early age (around two) due to social factors, and is especially enhanced by language.

I think an important thing to keep in mind when creating an ethical system is what can feel, and what it means to feel. A concept of self seems fundamentally linked to this topic.

When deciding whether or not its okay to eat meat, for example, we should consider what the cow experiences. Does it have a concept of self? Does it have any concept of the future? Does it have a desire that its future states are met? Does it feel in any way that can truly be called "feeling," as we define the term? If the answer to these questions is no, then perhaps it is okay to kill the cow and eat it. I think we should be open to that possibility.

[Mist]

A vast majority of animals fail this test; they either ignore the mirror, or treat it like some other animals.

I ignore my reflection and/or pretend it's someone else.

some girl has a distinct memory of witnessing an event that she: A. never attended, and B. remembered "wrongly," that is the event happened for a completely different reason than she remembered.

Blade Runner with an added sledge hammer, wall, and uncle?

This post has been edited by Mist: 17 June 2004 - 07:13 PM

[Amber-Nicole]

I would have to say that my kitties recognize themselves in the mirror too.

Animals are quite intelligent, and I do believe they have souls. As to why you would even start this whole mess about killing animals, Rory, I do not know. It's a horrible thing to say. I know I'm not the only animal lover on this forum. I hate to think about animal cruelty and all of that stuff. My kitties are a big part of my life. Perhaps you should back down from this topic and find something else to argue about? I seriously doubt that you will find anyone here that will agree with you that killing or harming animals and babies is an okay thing to do, and quite frankly, it makes me sick to think about such things.

[Despondent]

back to topic, I've been wanting to post this for some time. wasn't sure quite where.

the morning of the 911 attacks, I had a premonition. I'm not kidding, as I got up and went in the hallway I had this remembrance of the scene from independence day. You know, the one early on where the people just stare into the sky aghast? Will Smith gets out of bed or goes outside and everyone is just amazed at the spacecraft above them. That scene flashed in my mind with a sense of dread.

15 minutes later, I was driving in to work and the radio told me the first plane had hit the tower. It wasn't until later in the day that I realized how what I was remembering was quite similar to the way people in NYC just stood and watched the towers burn, overcome by the shocking scene above them.

and of course when the towers fell, people started making analogies to the scenes in ID4 of urban destruction.

It was real weird, kind of a feeling of dread that I've wanted to express. thanks for the topic.

--

sometime months later I had a similar feeling getting into my car to head to work. Not dread but... ok-you'll understand this. A lessened Ben's response to Alderaan. Later I found out it was the National Day of Prayer.

[Rory]

"Animals are quite intelligent, and I do believe they have souls. As to why you would even start this whole mess about killing animals, Rory, I do not know. It's a horrible thing to say. I know I'm not the only animal lover on this forum. I hate to think about animal cruelty and all of that stuff. My kitties are a big part of my life. Perhaps you should back down from this topic and find something else to argue about? I seriously doubt that you will find anyone here that will agree with you that killing or harming animals and babies is an okay thing to do, and quite frankly, it makes me sick to think about such things."

See, this is the biggest thing I am trying to combat, a blind acceptance that animals think and feel in ways very similar to our own. What you are having is an emotional reaction; you see your kitties rolling around, and looking at you with their kitty eyes, and you think "they must be intelligent. they must see the world in the same basic way that I do." But thats not necessarily true.

I'm not looking for people to automatically jump on my band wagon; I am merely looking for people to start questioning why they place a value on animal and infant life. Is it because infants and animals see and experience the world the same way we do? If so, wouldn't it be a good idea to actually go and find out whether thats true?

Is everyone on this thread a vegetarian? If not, then I'd imagine there must be some people who agree with me, if only a little bit. I'm sure we can all agree that grinding a person up for food is wrong. But the same thing is done to cows every day. Why is that? I would say its grounded in our belief that cows experience the world in a vastly different way than we do (perhaps to the point where they can't even be said to "feel").

Now, that isn't to say I should have the right to go out and kill your kitties. That would cause you undo emotional harm, if nothing else.

The thing with infanticide, especially when dealing with very young infants (say newly born) is that it becomes a very important issue indeed, especially when dealing with the abortion debate. The only difference between a newly born infant, and one in the womb is a few seconds. And from there to conception, there is no signifigant turning point in the development of an infant; its a very gradual process. I argue that the signifigant turning point happens around 2 years of age, when children develope a concept of self. You might argue differently, but you would do well to keep in mind that a woman's health is at stake.

[Just your average movie goer]

Fucking hell, Rory - I just had a quick glance through this and saw that you were arguing that animals do not have a concept of self based on the fact that... they can't recognise themselves in the mirror? This is the be-all and end-all of testing living things for sentient activity?


Okay, I agree with some of the other things you made - but that argument isn't worth a cent in a debate.

I agree with people questioning why they value some animals over others though. I'd say the reason for that is tradition. When we were roaming the wild, thousands of years ago, a dog was something that kept us company while we killed wild boars and things like that. This stuff stays with us through inherited memory (which you must have heard of at some stage or another) and so today, we keep dogs as pets and eat roast pork.

With abortion however, I have no argument with what you're saying. Abortion is something that should be completely legal everywhere in the world -

1. Going through a pregnancy, the birth process and raising a child is a pretty big thing and the woman should be able to choose if she wants to do that or not.

2. Bringing an unwanted baby into the world is not a nice alternative. Sometimes, it can too difficult for a family to raise a child - in which case, such a child is going to have a pretty horrible start to life.

3. In my opinion, a woman's health and well-being should always take precedence over the health and well-being of an unborn feotus inside her.


So I agree with you about abortion. I still think you're a shit stirrer though.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 18 June 2004 - 07:09 AM

[Rory]

"Fucking hell, Rory - I just had a quick glance through this and saw that you were arguing that animals do not have a concept of self based on the fact that... they can't recognise themselves in the mirror? This is the be-all and end-all of testing living things for sentient activity?"

Okay, first of all, you clearly didn't read very far through my post at all, or you would have seen that the age infants start recognizing themselves in mirrors correlates almost exactly with a dramatic change in their language, and how they talk about themselves. Therefore, it seems like whether an animal recognizes itself in a mirror might actually be a good way to determine if an animal has a concept of self, in the absense of language.

Second of all, I merely said that it might be a good indicator.

Your ignorance never ceases to surprise me, Just Your Average Movie Goer. You think I'm pulling this out of my ass? How many books on Animal Consciousness have you read? You do know that the mirror test is widely used by a variety of animal psychologists, right? And, though it is controversial, many people agree that the mirror test seems to provide a good way to test for self consciousness.

"Alright, whatever, mate. Perhaps I had you wrong. Maybe you're not a shit-stirrer. Maybe you're just an idiot."

This is the biggest problem I have with you. Instead of relying on logical arguements, you frequently resort to petty, and often disgusting insults (shit stirrer, come on!). Thats a poor way to argue, my friend. Take a look back at the George Lucarse board, and just Count the number of times you made snide, or just outright mean comments to me and Mike. You claim you are just kidding with Mike, but frequently calling someone's arguements "stupid" doesn't seem very funny to me. Its mean. Of course, you dont pretend to be kidding with me; you show open hostitlity towards me, going as far to say that I shouldn't be posting on the forum, and that it was a lot better before I came along. And for what? Because I express a point you disagree with? Because I don't stop posting, even when you outright insult me? If you disagree with someone, thats fine; I do it every day. But don't call his or her arguement stupid; just explain what you think is wrong with it.

[Just your average movie goer]

Rory, I argue with a lot of people on this forum but I like everyone else. However, I DON'T like you. Sorry, I shouldn't get personal. I won't call you a shit stirrer again.

However, reading everything you said about the mirror test in your follow up post still does nothing to convince me that it's a good test.

The mirror test can only prove how well an animal understands its environment. At best, it could be used to test intelligence but I don't think that's really fair as it's got no idea what a mirror is and it could look a lot like a window.

Also, many household pets probably fail it because they probably don't think of themselves as dogs and cats. They most likely think of themselves as being people.

We can't know for sure what's going on inside their heads - but a mirror isn't the way to find out.

[Just your average movie goer]

If you disagree with someone, thats fine; I do it every day. But don't call his or her arguement stupid; just explain what you think is wrong with it.

Well, I always start with that approach. But there are some people who do not see logic -

for example, a Creationist once told me that the reason why he believed in Creationism and thought the theory of Evolution was rubbish was because "there [was] no evidence for Evolution." He disagreed with something because there was no evidence, while the thing he chose to believe with unshaking conviction was something that could not be proven.

In these cases, logical arguments fall apart. You cannot reason with people who argue like this. And the best thing to do is walk away. However, I do have a bit of mean side to my personality so I sometimes say a snide remark before I leave. I don't dislike stupid people par se - but some of them really get on my nerves.

You, my friend, come across as being too smart for this. I don't think you're stupid, not at all. And although I call your arguments stupid, I don't think they were formulated in an unintelligent thought process.

No, what gets me about you is I think you argue in a way that is malicious. I don't know you so I can't say this with any certainty but I think you enjoy pestering people long past the point that your own argument has been defeated. If an objective judge viewed our debate in the George Lucarse thread, you would have lost a long time ago. Part of me suspects you know this, because I think you're actually quite an intelligent guy. I think what was going on was that you were deliberately trying to irritate me. If so, congratulations. Mate, it doesn't take much to make me bite. I've got a lifetime of friends, relatives and other acquaintances who could testify to that. So if firing me up is some kind of game to you, then may I kindly suggest, I'm too easy for it to be worthwhile.

For the record, I'd just like to say that really enjoyed this forum and got on well with everyone before I came across you. That's not compelling evidence for what I am about to say - but I'd suggest that says more about you than it does about me.

I came here for fun and interesting discussions with people and I do like the occasional spar. And with Mike, sparring has always been fun. We both enjoy it - and we always got along. But with you, there's something more malicious at work.

You were the first one on the board who actually had a personal dig at me, Rory. You're the one who started this unpleasant flaming business.

So I have a little request for you. Could you kindly back off and give me some peace? I'll try to stay clear of you in future and you can try to stay clear of me.

I thought you were supposed to be a Lance and Eskimo boy, anyway. Leave me in peace.

- Movie Goer

[Rory]

"Rory, I argue with a lot of people on this forum but I like everyone else. However, I DON'T like you. Sorry, I shouldn't get personal. I won't call you a shit stirrer again."

Well, I don't like you either, but I appreciate the gesture.

"The mirror test can only prove how well an animal understands its environment. At best, it could be used to test intelligence but I don't think that's really fair as it's got no idea what a mirror is and it could look a lot like a window."

Well, actually how well an animal understands its environment, specifically its understanding of its self in its environment, is what a rudimentary concept of self is all about, nothing more, nothing less. An animals ability to recognize its self in a mirror demonstrates this ability; if it has the ability to look at the mirror and use it as a tool to explore itself and its place in the environment, thats what matters. If it can't, theres no good reason to think it has a concept of self.

"Also, many household pets probably fail it because they probably don't think of themselves as dogs and cats. They most likely think of themselves as being people. "

Im a little confused by this. Even if they think of themselves as people, they would still think of themselves as furry little people right? So, upon seeing their furry face in the mirror, moving when they move, meowing when they meow, they should be able to recognize themselves.... if they have a concept of self.

[Rory]

First of all, no I'm not going to give you space. If you say something I disagree with, I will say so. If you want, stick to the more boring topics; I tend to ignore those.

Secondly, I'm not being malicious; I believe what I say and I'm willing to argue about it.

"If an objective judge viewed our debate in the George Lucarse thread, you would have lost a long time ago."

Bullshit. That's simply not true. My points were valid, and I wouldn't have posted them unless I thought so. I think an objective viewer would have decided you were taking an extreme view that you couldn't adequetly defend.

[Laura]

As someone who knows Rory I can tell you that he does enjoy continuing an argument as long as he feels he has a point to make. So if you argue against his argument, he'll argue right back. If you truly don't want to continue, don't give him something to argue with. Here are some handy phrases that may help you:

"I don't like arguing with you. Let's just talk about something else. [new topic]"

"I'm afraid I will always disagree with you, and I feel this argument is just retreading old ground at this point. We've both made our points, so let's just talk about something else. [new topic]"

"You've clearly done some research for school on this subject. Let's return to the argument when I'm better prepared. Anyway. [new topic]"

"[new topic]"

"..." (stony silence)

Please do not resort to name-calling and telling people they shouldn't be on the board. Friendly arguments are one thing, but this is getting hurtful, and it's not making the board a very nice place. Part of the reason for the L&E board to join with the Chefelf board and the others in "Chefelf Night Life" was to foster community, and to encourage cross-board posting, which it has done successfully; but people from different boards start getting into "tangles" will make the Chefelf Night Streets unsafe for some of its more cuddly, conflict-avoidant creatures.

So let's get out there and show each other respect!