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

Another question based on an observation of my dogs behavior.

One day my dog took a # and had a piece stuck on a hair that she ate, and it was dangling out of her butt. She was trying to bite it off and running with an unusual body language that seemed frantic. After getting the laughter out of my system I decided to try to help, but every time I got close to her she would sit down on it as if she was embarrassed and wouldn't get up to let me help, then she would run away. and frantically try to lick it and rub her butt on the ground before i could catch up again. I followed her around the yard for 15 minutes before I was finally able to help.

I know it can be easy to attribute human behavior incorrectly, but it genuinely seemed like she was experiencing embarrassment. I couldn't stop laughing, it was the one most hilarious behavior I've ever seen out of any of my dogs, it was unusual, and no doubt directly related to knowledge that she had # hanging out of her ass.

If it was indeed embarrassment, isn't that self awareness?

Originally posted by dontreally

As for justice and humor??? Not even. I am willing to recognize those other emotions, but justice - a sense of morality?? You literally think animals have a sense of right and wrong - an actual conscious knowledge that this or that is wrong based on abstract theory?? Keep in mind that emotional responses and abstract reflection upon emotional responses are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

What's your opinion on this?
www.sciencedaily.com...

and this
www.sciencedaily.com...

But I have to ask you how do YOU know there is no abstract theories going through their mind? what is your denial of it based on?

reply to post by smyleegrl


This is not new. At least I hope not. We have already established that plants detect and respond to human emotions/behavior like back in the 50's

oops need to add this...yes, they also know right from wrong...good vs bad....its built right in them... now if anyone calls you dumber than a rock, you will understand (not you smyleegrl...I was speaking in general).
Honestly, I am a little surprised so many people seem surprised by this... this is really old stuff. I get most of my info from the bible and Science is just trying to catch up

reply to post by mahatche


#1 We had to train Lucy not to scoot her bottom onto the space in the chain link fence and poop in our neighbor's yard. Only thing we yelled at her about and she stopped it right away.

#2 She won't go if I'm watching she gives me a real pouty, mad look like, "Do you mind!" So I have to look away.

#3 And I swear on my mother's grave this is true, if she isn't really clean there she will, when she comes inside go to upstairs bath and look at the Pamper Diaper Wipes I keep by the toilet (their just not for babies) and stare at the box until I get one out and she lets me make sure she is clean.

Lucy is a English Pointer and really really as much a clean freak as I am..............and I'm thankful.

But when she gives you "the look" you know. She doesn't very often, she is not a demanding person, oooops I mean dog but she, like all our dogs have their very own distinct personalities.

Odie we had for 15 years, a English Pointer and only once did he ever throw up in the house - in the bathroom in front of the toilet and the toilet seat was down or I'm sure he would have thrown up in the toilet.

Odie was a black and white "show Pointer" (another rescue).

Now while walking our Scruffy and Lucy some French guy told us Lucy was a French such and such type pointer and worth big bucks (she's a throw away, rescue almost gassed).

This guy claims Lucy is a special kind of Pointer that begins with a A? and he asked if we would consider selling her....................I said no, not for all the money in the world.

Scruffy doesn't care who watches and he marks every tree. How can a 23 pound dog mark 50 trees?????

I don't have that much in me

When we walk, Lucy prances and twirls like a ballerina.

Scruffy walks like a bull dog. There is a group of motorcycle guys we pass sometimes and they all call out, "How's killer Scruff today?" He barks back and if they laugh he gets mad so they just smile now.........oh the stories.

Our Odie was a regal gentleman. Probably had 20 or more people stop us and ask about him, he was 72 pounds (not over weight) white with black ticking. A beautiful boy. Very affectionate, very smart but stubborn and strong.

Odie

1991 or 1992 ??? - July 12, 2010

None of my dogs lick their anal orifice, I've trained them not too.

If your dog does, it's recommended to take a clean washcloth or clean rag and put a antiseptic mouthwash on it and rub it around in their mouth to kill the feces germs...........really nasty.

It's also recommended if your dog is a house dog (and IMO all dogs should be) if their bottom is dirty to buy and use a diaper wipe on them just like you would a baby.

I was in nursing so feces germs are nasty and the cause of people living with animals getting sick.

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


My best girlfriend's brother has worked in slaughter for years and the stun guns are not always charged up, and they are on a tight time line schedule they either get a certain number of animals through a hour or they are fired.

You simply do not want to know what goes on in slaughter houses.

It's run for profit and the USDA and "meat/poultry" industry are some of the most powerful lobbyist in DC.

Yes I eat chicken and salmon (although with salmon migrating through Japanese waters I now don't eat salmon). Our chicken comes from a farm upstate and I know the chickens are free range and killed humanely.

I haven't eaten cow, pig, lamb or anything else in quite a while.

I now do a Vegan Protein Powder but my dogs still need their regular dog food that contains meat. Dogs are descendants from wolves and meant to be carnivorous according to the several vets I have spoken with and the research I have done.

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by jeantherapy

 

I am unsure how I am pissing in my own pond

Well in a rather literal sense as humans we are failing to stop our peers from dumping thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals into the oceans. How is that for starters?

Mourning elephants


What do you make of this bird species that has a unique signal it only uses for humans? Is this cooperative understanding a part of consciousness?


What's the hippos motive?


Is her motherly instinct simply being confused? or is there more to it? and how do we know?

reply to post by dontreally

The question is, does a dog do these things because she's been trained to do them - because she descends from a breed of dog that excels in these tasks - and so performs these actions with a nonsensical sense of need - an imitation of human responsibility - or do they recognize the importance and thus need of such tasks?

No. Not nonsensical......not even "trained"...
I don't "train" my dogs to do anything....they pick up tasks on their own....
They choose their own tasks, and carry them out quite well....

"Imitation of human responsibility"? Nope. Sorry.
They recognize the importance, and thus they do their job.

reply to post by mahatche

But I have to ask you how do YOU know there is no abstract theories going through their mind? what is your denial of it based on?

Oh...so you can use google: Bravo

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

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???

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.

reply to post by wildtimes

I don't "train" my dogs to do anything....they pick up tasks on their own....

Oh of course. Have they built their own societies as well? Is there a dog code - like in all dogs go to heaven? Is this where you get your fancy ideas from?

They recognize the importance, and thus they do their job.

And of course you can't enunciate how you know that: womens intuition?? Very scientific of you.

reply to post by dontreally

Oh of course. Have they built their own societies as well? Is there a dog code

Yes, there is a dog code.

"Can't enunciate it"?
*sigh*
I just did "enunciate it". "Women's intuition"? No, it's about paying attention to how they respond to certain stimuli, and how they behave as a member of a "family" (pack, whatever you want to call it).
Sorry, but, IMO, you are mistaken about the capabilities of dogs.



Wow, dude, you are being really snippy and confrontational about this. And I have no idea why.....
if you know dogs, you know what I (and others) are talking about.

No need to be nasty.

Originally posted by dontreally
Have they built their own societies as well? Is there a dog code

Maybe I am completely misunderstanding the point you are trying to make, but..

A dog's "society" is called a pack.

Not sure exactly you mean by code, but they do communicate and respond to said communication. You know, barks/whines/howls/body language, that sort of thing.

Before you raise your hackles, I am not generally a fan of animal activists, at all. I also find it endlessly humorous that pictures of peoples individual pets ALWAYS find their way into threads. Im guessing they didnt even ask permission... I am certain they (the pet) didnt give it, regardless!

Like in most topics, the extreme ends of the opinion spectrum can be summarily discarded.

Anyway, this type of news is certainly no surprise to me. I have no doubt animals are as "conscious" as animals (er.. I mean humans). We just all interact through the physical tools that are available to us.

As far as humane treatment because of this? Certainly not. As someone else said, we treat people inhumanely. I dont think being conscious has anything to do with it.

reply to post by wildtimes

Sorry, but, IMO, you are mistaken about the capabilities of dogs.

There was an important line that I think you overlooked.

if you know dogs, you know what I (and others) are talking about.

That is because you (and others) are using hippy logic - which is logic that doesn't take into account any facts that gainsay you're deep seeded partiality to seeing everything in a wonderful grey unity; where differences do not exist.

Next people will say plants are as conscious as we are; whats to stop them if they can't comprehend that dogs and other animals - who may be conscious, in that they experience the world - are not conscious as we are conscious.

To say we are the same - which is what you are arguing - whats the common denominator here?? Consciousness?? That's an extremely vague thing to say. Why not go a step further and say all is conscious, despite evidence to the contrary?

I have a very loving and intimate connection with my dog maggy. You would be astonished - I'm sure, since you take me for some sort of atheist animal hater - how I treat her. I'm also very well educated. I have a degree in psychology, and avidly study the works of logotherapy - Viktor Frankls school of psychoanalysis - so I really have no dearth of experience in analyzing and inferring dynamics expressed through outer behavior.

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.

The craziest thing you said by far was humor and justice - that dogs act for reasons of justice and experience humor. That is absurd. I challenged that assertion on solid grounds: Humor is the recognition of a concept - an idea - that was found to be humorous. You think dogs recognize ideas - concepts - and respond gleefully to them? How? Is there humor different from ours?? If it's different, it isn't humor - since humor refers to recognition of concepts - often dichotomous in nature - that arouses laughter. Humor in itself is a fairly sophisticated ability. Dogs definitely respond well to happiness and joyousness. My cousin brought his dog to the cottage in the summer and it was a pleasure to watch scotty - a dalmation - skip in and out of the water when we tried to encourage him to come in. He came in, but then left. As we began laughing more at him he built up the courage to come in. What happened was this: he recognized - at an unconscious and emotive level - our positive response to his behavior, which encouraged more of that behavior. Still, he was afraid, and cautious, for probably good reasons.

Anyways, I don't want to beat a dead horse, it's pointless. Animals do not have humor (although chimpanzees might have some rudimentary inkling of it) and they especially do not have justice. That experiment you tried only proved the most animalistic of emotions: jealousy. My dog gets jealous all the time - especially for attention, which she craves.

No need to be nasty.

I get sardonic when I lose patience.

reply to post by Serdgiam

Not sure exactly you mean by code, but they do communicate and respond to said communication. You know, barks/whines/howls/body language, that sort of thing.

Obviously I was mocking her.

The society I referred was a theoretic society. Human society is an example of abstract theory impinged on external conditions. Animal "society" is instinctual. They are inborn with it. They do not "think it up" - but are given it by God - or nature.

Anyway, this type of news is certainly no surprise to me. I have no doubt animals are as "conscious" as animals (er.. I mean humans). We just all interact through the physical tools that are available to us.

So they are "as conscious" - as humans?? Oh.. i mean animals (humans)??? That right there shows me what you think of humans. I guess you don't need much of an impetus to carry you to the conclusion that there is nothing particularly special about man - since that idea is the cultural edifice of Judaism - which those who reject it's ethical standard relentlessly inveigh against.

Its all politics. Regardless of what the evidence shows (which should be empirically obvious) there will be complicit scientists who will add to the ever increasing 'evidence' against the old world order i.e. the Judeo-Christian ethic.

homosexuality - Its genetic! chemical! despite evidence showing that ones thinking influences chemical production, and thus 'genetic' structures.

animals have rights - despite the fact that rights - Hegel being the modern founder of the theory of rights - requires knowledge of rights i.e. the ability to reflect upon rights, which animals most obviously do not have.

But still these relentless, unscrupulous 'scientists' with their political incentives try to skew the picture.

It really is as I say it is. The New world Order, more than anything, is the replacement of the old world order - of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

But alas, the legions of conspiracy "experts" know almost nothing about this - being occupied instead with aliens, ufos, new age spirituality etc

Originally posted by dontreally
So they are "as conscious" - as humans?? Oh.. i mean animals (humans)??? That right there shows me what you think of humans. I guess you don't need much of an impetus to carry you to the conclusion that there is nothing particularly special about man

There are quite a few assumptions in your post. Do tell, what do I think of humans? I just happen to think that "specialness" is not derived from anything physical. I understand you might feel differently, and I do respect that.

animals have rights - despite the fact that rights - Hegel being the modern founder of the theory of rights - requires knowledge of rights i.e. the ability to reflect upon rights, which animals most obviously do not have.

Does a one month old child have any rights in your view?

It really is as I say it is. The New world Order, more than anything, is the replacement of the old world order - of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

If the world as it stands, or even historically, is representative of the Judeo-Christian ethic then I am all for it. Of course, I do not think it is. In fact, if everyone were to follow the ten commandments, or the two commandments of Jesus, that would itself usher in a New World Order vastly different from what exists today, or what has ever existed in human history.

Anyway, I feel animals are significantly more capable than they are given credit for. And I do consider humans to be an animals.

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by StalkerSolent

 

Well I would have to agree with you to a point.. I'm a hunter and to be honest I'd just be lying to myself were I to stop eating red meat...

I will say though some animals certainly have proven themselves to be extremely intelligent and I believe self aware.. Now they may not be as intelligent as humans but I've known several hunting dogs that would make you wonder...

I think I can understand your position. I guess it depends on how you define self-aware; I think dogs are aware of their own tail, but I doubt they think "I think, therefore I am." I don't think they could think the first bit
With that being said, though, I doubt dogs worry about tipping over small islands by overloading them with troops. If you measure intelligence not by brainpower, but what you actually DO with it, I then maybe some dogs are more productive than some people...

Food shortages could force world into vegetarianism, warn scientists Water scarcity's effect on food production means radical steps will be needed to feed population expected to reach 9bn by 2050

Adopting a vegetarian diet is one option to increase the amount of water available to grow more food in an increasingly climate-erratic world, the scientists said. Animal protein-rich food consumes five to 10 times more water than a vegetarian diet. One third of the world's arable land is used to grow crops to feed animals. Other options to feed people include eliminating waste and increasing trade between countries in food surplus and those in deficit. "Nine hundred million people already go hungry and 2 billion people are malnourished in spite of the fact that per capita food production continues to increase," they said. "With 70% of all available water being in agriculture, growing more food to feed an additional 2 billion people by 2050 will place greater pressure on available water and land." The report is being released at the start of the annual world water conference in Stockholm, Sweden, where 2,500 politicians, UN bodies, non-governmental groups and researchers from 120 countries meet to address global water supply problems.

Yeah I began a permaculture food forest garden -- using humanure compost promoted by the Swedish Environment Institute as "ecological sanitation." It's amazing how much food people can grow when relying on their own waste for creating micronutrients.

reply to post by mahatche

Thanks for those revelaing videos. I found this one.
Disregard the Wall street comment at the end.

This one shows that animals understand fairness and how they react to injustice.

reply to post by jeantherapy


Only one star when you should have 2,000.

Let's see I'll just run a few things off the top of my head.

The BP Oil Gusher (it was never a spill)
There's also a oil leak that's been going on in I think South Africa for the past 30 years from drilling
Nuclear testing
Coal being used in China at a unbelievable amount
The logging of millions upon millions of acres of trees - trees are the lungs of our planet.
Chernobyl
Fukushima
Animals going extinct by huge numbers every day because of our ignorance and apathy.
Google "Pacific Garbage Patch" there is a plastic and other non-degradeable objects. An island bigger than the size of Texas in the Pacific.
Right outside my house on any given day are McDonald, Taco Bell, soda cans, beer bottles, people just throw out of their car - AH's. ---DISRESPECT FOR OUR PLANET---
Humans have ruined our air, our soil, our oceans, our rivers, our lakes, (speed boads emit gas/petro polluting the lakes and rivers). My girl friends Aunt B would not allow any speed/motor boats on her lake and there were 1,000 really cute little frogs and turtle all over (also bears, deers, bunnies, squirrels, moles, possums and a couple other creatures (mammel) that I have no idea what they were.

We have pooped in the only bed we have to sleep in and anyone that can't see that fact is either living in denial or blind.

Our O2 (good for humans) level has fallen sharply pretty soon TPTB will charge us for O2 like in Total Recall when they (like the oil companies) are the very ones that screwed up the delicate balance to begin with.

We have military weapon systems (like HAARP) that are possibly playing with our weather, upper stratosphere, opening up our ozone layer, it's like our planet is being re-terraformed.

Anyone that can't see the devastation homo sapiens are doing to this beautiful beautiful gorgeous planet is crazy.

I won't even get into the people having too many babies or how you have to grow enough food to feed one cow that feeding that one cow, the same space could grow enough food (vegetables) to feed 100 people. But some people are spoiled children and have to have their 12 oz steak (three times the amount of protein needed to sustain the human body)

People like in America, the UK and soon China are eating way too much meat.

Yes we need meat, sorry but my doctor says our intestines, our body is such we need mainly veggies, fruit, nuts and grain but yes we need some (not a lot) of animal protein.

Too many cows, pigs, sheep and pigs pollute our water tables.

I could go on and on.

We humans DO NOT OWN THIS PLANET. It was lent to us and we were meant to be the stewards of this planet.

Well we've done a shi**y job of it.

A down right horrible job of allowing the few to rape the many and our planet.

If you have pastures or land you are not using for farming, PLANT SOME TREES - Plant a lot of trees.

Without trees our planet is going to turn into a desert.



It all boils down to a total lack of respect for each other and our beautiful planet (yes said that before but she is one beautiful rock floating in space).

Earth, our beautiful Earth......................and we are raping and desecrating her.

Originally posted by redhorse

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by redhorse


Sentience is highly circumstancial I think. My horse is self aware, and overall just as "conscious" as I am. I don't think that all animals are like this however;

If one reads the article in question and further ones about this study, it becomes clear that what is being refered to as "consciousness" is affect- the ability to feel; to have emotions, in response to perception.

Then please read the rest of my post, and address the part where I am critical of these studies that define "consciousness" or "sentience" or whatever quality they are trying to pin point by cherry picking criteria to skew their results (either way frankly).

I did read the article, and this study is no exception to that trend. It seems to me that either you did not read my post completely, or you are cherry picking aspects yourself to skew perceptions in an attempt to make a point.

I will stand by what I said. Consciousness is circumstantial in the individual that may or may not possess it, and subjective in who may have it and how the observer attempting to find it defines such things. .

Whoa! There was only one tiny part at the top of my post that was inspired by something you said, the rest was not a comment to or for you!

I was only making an observation about what the study was attempting to determine because I saw many people sort of refering to "consciousness" with differing concepts in mind of what that meant, and so, what this article is talking about.

I'm sorry I didn't make a more clear indication that my participation was a generalized injection into the discussion instead of a criticism of you in particular.

It seems this subject is of such volatile emotional association for so many, doesn't it? Approaching it must be done like walking on eggshells. I wonder why??