It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Animals Are As With-it as Humans (Animals Are Conscious)

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:43 PM
reply to post by dontreally

hippy logic

Let me guess you are from thte Reagan era?????

peace to you and yours from a flower child that never lost her love and hope for humanity.
edit on 27-8-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 10:45 PM

Originally posted by dontreally
How do I know?? Do you read often? Plato? Aristotle? Descartes? Hegel? Spinoza? Leibniz? etc etc???

What's with the animosity in your response? It was a simple question, and you know nothing about me, we've never had any encounter in the past for you to justify any of the assumptions you just made, but I'll try to give you a more fair response than you've just given me.

I fail to see what makes these philosopher infallible experts on this issue. Have any of them ever presented any empirical evidence? I can respect Spinoza while he discusses issues of humanity, I'd say pantheism is the most realistic type of god I could believe in, but even that's not a fact, it's a theory. I can't say he's a person I'd turn to for a better understanding of the inner workings of animal minds.

Those men are undeniably great philosophers, but this was never a field they specialized in, this was not their focus. They have nothing more than philosophical theories. Some of them lived in a time where people questioned if animals could even feel pain.

I'm sorry, but you'll need to do more than name off philosophers in a petty attempt to make me look dumb.

This is almost too hackneyed a question to bother answering. LACK OF PROOF!! The theorizing present in the human mind - bears its fruits!

Do you see the world around us? Cities? technology???

I don't think it's hackneyed at all. I think my question is grounded in the truth that we don't really know that much about the inner workings of animal minds. We are still learning about our own, and it's an issue we've spent far more time and resources investigating.

My view that we don't know much, is much more reasonable than your arrogant dismissals.

The fact that humans have technology shows we are smart, I never made a case that suggest otherwise. We have the most highly developed minds that we know of. What does that do to prove other animals lack self awareness? who says that each animal on earth must be on our level to be self aware?

Anybody who makes generalities on what animals are capable of, isn't very knowledgeable on issues of biology or evolution. Some animals can see spectrums of light we can't see. Some flying animals are better than others. Some animals are bioluminescenct. some can change the patterns in their skin on demand. Just because a chameleon isn't as advanced as a cuttle fish in this regard, does not mean that a chameleon's abilities don't exist.

I think the same is likely true with self awareness, maybe they don't take it as far as we do, maybe they don't find value in materialism, or have standing theories concerning quantum mechanics, but that's not the best way of telling if something is self aware. It's a straw-man at best.

Let me anticipate the ready made hippy response: Humans are evil! Look at all the evil we've done!!!

Well, I won't deny that we are in a state of advanced cultural decay - but that will not be remedied by self hate, by looking at man and despising what he's done - and so hating mankind for it..

Imagine 150 years from now. All is reformed. Human habitations have been planned with greater care towards nature. Now look. Do you still deny mans brilliance? Nature bears his mark! While all others creatures are mere appendages of nature, we are able to stand above it - ALONE.

I really hate how so few of you get this. But Skyfloating - the mod - is totally right in disliking the hippy stupidity of the people who post here.
edit on 27-8-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

You know what they say when you assume, it makes an ass out of u and me. I think you're the only one who looks like an ass right now, I hope you don't drag me down with you. What exactly is this rant based on? How could a man who apparently loves philosophy, have this response to a question of what we know? If this is your idea of theorizing, then you suck at theorizing.
edit on 28-8-2012 by mahatche because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:22 PM
BTW dontreally, my original questions still stand. You made a cute comment about me being able to google, but you didn't address the top part of the post.

Just so we are clear, I didn't google it, I recalled it. I frequent science new sites, when you dismissed the possibility of animal justice it made me think of the apes.

Was your animosity a result of you not having an answer to it?

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:24 PM
reply to post by dontreally

It's not about hate, it's about making the logical and informed decision to cease all these obviously destructive activities and embrace the true human potential.
edit on 27-8-2012 by jeantherapy because: whups

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:59 PM
Here's another GREAT example for people who doubt the possibility of self-awareness in other species.

Every morning this chimp stockpiles stones that he uses to pelt his human observers at the zoo. He also hides the stones under logs and piles of hay in order to surprise people. it shows foresight and planning. He also deceives people by inhibiting dominance displays, and acting like he is calmly eating an apple while he moves into throwing range.

Please don't ignore the article, read it with out prejudice. This chimp is probably the best insight science has into animal foresight. This is an actual scientific paper.

If the first link is to scientific for your liking, here is a more straight to the point article discussing the chimps behaviors.

what feelings are motivating him?
edit on 28-8-2012 by mahatche because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2012 by mahatche because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2012 by mahatche because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:03 AM
You know, I actually agree with you on some points you make, dontreally, but feel so repulsed by the distasteful hostility they drown in, I kind of don't want to acknowledge them and associate myself with you in others' minds!
You can call it "sardonic" if it makes it sound more mature than it is, but it doesn't change it's lack of efficiency in getting across to others and gaining acknowledgment.

But here is something I agree with-

Originally posted by dontreally

Dogs are conscious, but you confuse an instinctual consciousness for a reflection upon instinct. The act of reflection is an expression of the "I" - the I which looks upon determinate realities. Dogs may observe, and they may utilize such stimuli they take in for some specific purpose - but it is always instinctual in it's origins. It's always serving some basic instinct.

But also would add that I think even for humans, all behaviors are instinctual in origin too.

We just have that added mental ability to observe the self and make up conceptual nonsense to explain our actions.
Like tell ourselves they were born from a sense of "justice" when they actually were just born from a competative social instinct for hierarchial position, or defending our group,

Or that it was born from "humor", when it actually came from a pro-creational drive to seduce a potential mate, or gain admittance to a herd, or gain some food from another- (or back to the jockeying for a hierarchial position.)

We have the ability, the "I", to lie to ourselves, about our basic nature and motivations, and create an ego.
A false representation of who and how we are in reality.

That may be the biggest divide between human and other animals.
edit on 28-8-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 07:18 AM
Comment withdrawn.

edit on 28-8-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:07 AM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:22 AM
reply to post by smyleegrl

I raise animals for a living – dairy cows and goats. As for meat – I raise all kinds; chickens, ducks, geese and a couple of steer every year.

I know animals have feelings – sure they do, they feel fear and pain and even in some cases sorrow and longing. My dairy cows have a complex herd structure and have “friendships” in that they tend to hang in little cliques just like we did in high school. Now all that said; they don’t have human feelings and are in the end property and ultimately – food.

Also, note that not all animals raised for food are treated inhumanely. Eating meat animals is not cruel; treating them with no respect and deplorable conditions that stress them before and at the time of slaughter is…

In my opinion everyone who can, should raise and harvest their own food locally. Respect for the process makes me appreciate the sacrifice the animals are making. However, if one cannot then they should at least take the care to know where their food comes from. Not all producers raise animals in factory conditions. I abhor factory farms.

If you want to make an impact to change the reliance on factory farming find a local producer and support his operation – it will cost you more but anything worth doing is worth doing right.

For example - I raise all my own meat and run a dairy as well. I challenge you to find anything inhumane about my organic free range dairy operation. My ladies bovine and caprine alike are very well cared for.

No tail docking, all organic hay and fodder they roam 40 acres to their whims but return to the barn on their own for business twice a day. They have the best of everything from barn to stalls to pre-natal care. I give the girls all one year of every three off from pregnancy as well on a rotational basis. I am in the business to make money - sure but I am lucky I have military retirement to fall back on so sometimes I make decisions other dairymen wouldn't. I tend to go to extreme lengths to get vet care for the girls where other dairymen tend to write them off for slaughter pretty quickly.

All my animals are hormone free and raised free range on grass, organic fodder. They tend to be smaller and it takes longer for them to make weight but lead more natural lives… the ducks and geese have a 2 acre pond and I keep no single animal of any species to make sure they have normal social lives.

They all come and go as they please until the one sad day I humanely kill and process them for food. I respect my animals and treat them with dignity even the ones I eat. It is a sad day when I harvest my food. Killing anything is a burden – I could never be a butcher and do it day in day out. It would be too heavy a burden for me personally.

I try to make the process as stress free as possible by separating the kill area from the staging area so the animals cannot witness the actual kill. The processing area is separated as well so that they don’t see that even for the brief moment before they die. Clean kills are important and respectful.

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:00 AM
reply to post by Golf66

I don't think that anyone here (well almost no one) disagrees that animals are a food source.. I myself have admitted that I consume red meat, and even kill to get it. Heck I'm going bow hunting Saturday (and for the animal fanatics in here don't worry I'll make it as painless as possible) for my yearly game meat supply.

The topic is whether or not animals are aware of their own existence.. I argue that many of them I'm sure have a sense of self. Some can recognize their own existence. I know I myself have raised animals and have stalked animals that even now am sure had a sense of self.

I do commend you for not treating your cows with growth hormones. I myself go out of my way to purchase dairy products from cows not treated with hormones. To be honest the price isn't even all that much more either and some grocery chains sell it by default. I'm glad even the farmers understand the importance of organic (well you know what I mean) dairy.

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:52 AM
Could you imagine what people would look like if everyone hunted their own wild game? First of all eating less meat would just be a natural side effect. You might also be more fit if you are gathering your own food. Nobody has ever been able to explain to me why so many animals must live a demeaning cage life so that certain humans may realize their goal of transforming their human body into a hut body? Taking more from the Earth than you need may prove to be a mistake at the least and highly immoral and destructive at the most. Oh and I know that it's impossible for everyone to hunt wild game now that we have so many people around, I was just visiting the land of make-believe there.

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by ofhumandescent

Hey human, liked your choice of music. Found this one that shows working together and sharing...

And this one about self-awareness:

edit on 28-8-2012 by intrptr because: additional YouTube

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by ofhumandescent

Its strange to me that people are even discussing this as if it was possible that they are not conscious.

I mean, Im not even open to the possibility that they are not because I have had many pets and been around many animals. Its like trying to convince me that the air is not breathable after a life of breathing it.

edit on 28-8-2012 by PrimitiveWorld because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:45 PM

Originally posted by PrimitiveWorld
reply to post by ofhumandescent

Its strange to me that people are even discussing this as if it was possible that they are not conscious.

I am not sure that anyone is really claiming that.. I dont speak for anyone, but the way I understand it, others are discussing degrees of being conscious.

In my mind, however, something is either conscious or it is not. There is even the possibility that there is nothing that is not "conscious." The differences stem from the physical capabilities of the species in question.

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:16 PM
reply to post by smyleegrl

Great thread smylee and who knew, except many animal lovers who have experienced and witnessed suspected consciousness amongst animals.
A couple of vids came to mind, in the spirit of reuniting.

If your eyes are still dry, well you might not be an animal person. Mine, are streaming.

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 04:52 PM
reply to post by smyleegrl

I've always known animals are consciously aware, at least every pet I've ever owned was.

My cats display their emotions on their face. I can look at them and tell what mood they are in. I can feel when my female cat is depressed, or feels sick, or just wants attention from me.

I think dolphins are as smart, and aware, as humans, based on all the studies.

Yes, this is probably some funded project to get money for research. Why don't they save all that money and just ask some "common" folk the question? It's highly apparent to me.

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:01 PM
reply to post by speculativeoptimist

Oh my! What heart-touching videos! Made me cry! Thanks for sharing.

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:21 PM
reply to post by ofhumandescent


I just consider the thinking in this thread to be an example of crude sentimentality.

Nobody denies the presence of consciousness in animals. What I - and any sane person - challenges, is the idea that we and animals share a 'similar' consciousness.

Animals are just not self conscious. Deal with it. They do not have the power to observe themselves: to go outside themselves - outside their instincts - and watch themselves as they act. That is a purely human ability. This ability is what accounts for the ability to reflect - to make moral decisions, to recognize humor etc.

Some extremely naive poster I was speaking to earlier in this thread had the naivete to think that her dogs were moral because of an "experiment" she set up in which dog dog reacted badly to being given less than her fellow dog. Instead of reasoning what is obvious to any teenager - that dogs are the most jealous creatures on earth, being scavengers, after all, she had the absurdity to think his baffled expression meant "He has more - that isn't RIGHT!" and not the actual "I want what he/she has". The dog merely noticed that he had less, and, being able to compare to what he was given, became jealous. This wasn't an example of reflection and awareness of equity - that he was entitled to what the other dog was given, but a crude, base and instinctual response to having less: his stomach - his/her lust for food, compelled him to respond. Not a sense of right.

This is so bloody obvious, so clear to any animal psychologist, to a philosopher, to anyone who has anything deserving of being called an education, that it is nothing but sad that ATS has people here arguing inanities that animals are self conscious, moral, etc - and that I have to go through rudimentary dialectics to explain how that isn't so. And then, to make it even more upsetting - or flabbergasting - instead of accepting my arguments, more stupidity is retorted, of me not being able to appreciate the full depth of "animal sentience".

In fact, only a proper understanding of an animals sentience should be sought for. We mustn't be over-zealous, sentimental, and project onto animals ideas which simply aren't present in their behavior patterns.

I love my dog - I know she loves me - but she is never going to be able to reflect upon that love and realize it in it's full meaning. I am fine with that. I love that they are different. But they are NOT the same as man. Man is a superior being with abilities that obligate him to take special care and love for animals and nature. But i never lose sight of the differences that exist.

Some of the worst violators of human rights have been animal lovers, nature lovers, vegetarians - such as the Nazis, who enacted laws against animal experimentation, promoted vegetarianism - and yet - their own contempt for humankind led them to experiment on human beings, exterminate human beings: why?? Because they never thought man was anything special - which contradicts facts of our everyday experience, of the wonders that man has accomplished, of the amazing good (and evil) man can do. We are a powerful species, invested with powers no other creatures possess. We can make the world infinitely worse, and likewise, we can make it infinitely better. Such is our condition. Animals make no difference. And people accord them credit for this, when it is hardly meritorious.

I love man because of what he can do. He deserves condemnation for his moral laxity, and likewise, credit and praise for his goodness. It is easy to get along with animals. Show them love and care and it goes smoothly. No effort need be expended. Its a cinch. Man on the other hand forces us to TRY - to work on ourselves, on our egos, on our insecurities and beliefs. This very fact shows that man in his social relations is forced to go beyond himself, to seek the other, God; it's not nature which forces this question upon us, but other men.
edit on 31-8-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:26 PM
I have never forgotten this since I read it years ago:

"I had two male chimps, they lived next door to each other in separate cages before I used one as a [heart] donor. When we put him to sleep in his cage in preparation for the operation, he chattered and cried incessantly. When we removed the body to the operating room, the other chimp wept bitterly and was inconsolable for days. The incident made a deep impression on me, and I vowed never again to experiment with such sensitive creatures".
- Dr Christian Barnard, the world’s first human-to-human heart transplant surgeon after killing a chimpanzee to use as a heart donor

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:30 PM

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by psyko4570

But can we at least consider that an animals conciousness and mode of operation is simply different and not a lesser one?

Why? In fear of offending the animals? What you're saying sounds akin to saying "can't we agree that the 4th dimension is not a lesser dimension than the 3rd dimension"? No we can't. The experience of the 4th dimensions SUBSUMES and INCLUDES the 3rd dimension.

Likewise, the animal experience is perfectly deducible to man, while the experience of man is alien to the knowledge of the animal.

Does that make them less human justifying thier death to make more room for those of us that are 'superior' to them?

Saying animals do not possess human abilities, or that their conscious experience isn't identical with ours, is not the same as advocating Eugenics.

Actually I asked if we could consider that the above mentioned conclusion could possibly be incorrect? If the answer is no then we have nothing further to discuss due to extreme arrogance and the inability to explore a different possibility.

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in