Are animals self-aware?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

When the Flames are on, he stays in the room with me while I watch the game (I think he's a big Harvey fan). When the Oilers are on, he usually wants to go out and take a dump.

I taught my Golden Retriever to growl when "Edmonton Oilers" is mentioned.

About as menancing as a Golden Retriever gets, though.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Anyhow, as for "self-awareness", what about bears (or a lot of other animals, but I'll use bears) and the whole "it's not a good idea to get between a mother bear and her cub" thing? I don't know where you draw the line between plain old instinct and "self awareness" but it seems to me that the mama bear and the bear cubs all are aware that they are part of a family and wouldn't that signify "self-awareness"?

Obviously animals recognize what is familiar to them, and this IS INSTINCTIVE. The familial relationships that animals have is probably better understood in terms of the instinct for survival. A mother bear is conditioned to be a mother biologically, and she exercises this function through nurturing and protecting her offspring. It facilitates the survival of the species, something she cannot cognify, but something she has been conditioned to perform through eons of evolution.
I do not know much about bear behaviour, but I would assume—as is the case with most species—that once a cub is old enough to lookafter itself, the familiar relationship with its mother ends. If there truly were feelings involved in this relationship, I would expect a bear to at least visit its mother from time to time; but I expect that most bears are not even accustomed to sending post-cards to their parents.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The mama obviously has an emotional attachment to the cubs, and the cubs obviously know where they fit in the world.

We project emotions onto animals as a way to describe their responses in terms with which we can relate. There is nothing obvious at all about the presence of emotions in a bear. Only that they exhibit behaviours which we would construe as emotive, because homosapiens are insatiably DRIVEN by their emotions. When bears observe us, they probably would expect that every task, behaviour, and response to stimulae is performed out of the same instinctive survival mechanism that they experience. But on the contrary, when you kiss your wife (girlfriend?); when you play tackle-football; when you wash your windows; when you laugh; when you type on your computer keyboard, it is not the result of your pursuit of survival.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And this one is probably all "instinct" but you could look at a bear fattening himself up for the winter snooze and come to the conclusion that he's planning for the future. Maybe. Planning for (and even realizing you have one) the future would = self-awareness.

I disagree. If this were indeed the case, then it would be necessary for bears to learn the importance of hybernation. as I understand it bears are instinctively conditioned fore hybernation through behavioural mechanisms. this is quite a different matter than what you are suggesting. Future planning requires a decision making process; for bears, there is no decision to be made, they simply do as they have been conditioned to do.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Neato topic. I can't really understand why it's debatable that animals have emotions though. It seems pretty clear to me.

As previously noted, I believe animals exhibit responses and behaviours which we anthropopathically project and interpret to be emotions. I don't believe it is beyond the pale of debate, but that is not to say I do not believe that animals have emotions. If they do, it is in a very limited and simple sense. I can tell when my dogs are happy or depressed, but by the same token, I cannot provoke my dogs to "feel" a certain way. Quite simply, my presence in conjunction with their good health will ALWAYS result in their acceptance of their circumstances as appropriate, which makes them appear "happy". When they are sick or if I or my wife is away from the house, they behave in a manner consistent with "sadness". There are a number of mitigating factors which effect the simple state of the matter, but by and large, animals are almost perpetually what we would call "happy", anless something is amiss. Does this constitute emotion? or is it merely something which we have labeled as such because of our own profound emotional attachment with our animals?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Ah yes Classical conditioning theory, but Text, you also bring up the more philisophical point of are human beings just comprised to various operant and classical conditioning responses?

This is a horribly complicated and deeply dissatisfying problem with conditioning theory as I have presented it, but human beings do distinguish themselves from the rest of the animal kingdom (please correct me if I am wrong on this count) in their capacity to present emotively in a variety of highly complex situations. Aesthetic and moral stimulae, spiritual awareness, and simple communication will all evoke emotional responses. Is this learned or conditioned behaviour? Who knows? At the very least, I believe that the intricacies and varieties of human emotional expressions are enough to distinguish these from established animal patterns of behaviour as unique.

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Obviously Text, we'll never be able to see inside an animal's head any time soon and know whether or not they think about the future (is their any particular way to know that even for a fact?). I mean a squirrel gathers reserves of nuts, a bear eats a lot of food in order to prepare for the long hibernation period, I guess in some ways that is future oriented.

Obviously, but unless there are a number of case examples of deviant behaviour for well established patterns in the animal kingdom, I believe it is safe to assume that hybernation, and food gathering are best understood as instinctive behaviours. As previously mentioned, bears—and squirrels for that matter—do not "plan", they merely do.

[CaramonLS]

Well Text, I'd like your opinion about my Cat who I talked about on the first page. I swear he was exhibiting a state of depression because his sister went missing, and for an extended period of time. As well as his apparently sadness when I moved out of the house.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Well Text, I'd like your opinion about my Cat who I talked about on the first page. I swear he was exhibiting a state of depression because his sister went missing, and for an extended period of time. As well as his apparently sadness when I moved out of the house.

His world and his circumstances were dramatically altered by the absence of one of his packmates. Is it depression? Or is he merely exhibitting behaviour that looks to us as emotive? I project emotions onto my pets regularly, but just because I interpret their behaviour anthropopathically does not mean they necessarily are expressing "feelings". While I do believe there is something like emotions that (some) animals of the lower orders experience, I would expect that these bahaviours are more accurately described as states of either "satisfaction" or "dissatisfaction". But because it makes me feel better to know that my pets have feelings for me, it is much more fulfilling to label their responses to their circumstances with human emotions.
Regardless of how your cat appears in certain situations, I do not believe that you or anyone can prove that animals are capable of emotional responses; at least not to the same degree as human beings.

[HalifaxDrunk]

Originally Posted by spydermal

I just asked my dog, she’s going to check with the neighbor’s cat.

As a followup I just checked with my dog, he was busy combing his fur in a mirror and said he was too busy contemplating his future plans to answer me right now...

[flamesfanforver]

In my opinion being "self aware", means you question your existance. For example if a dog was self aware he would wonder how he was different than his owners and how he got where he is ect....

[Reggie Dunlop]

My cat did my taxes.

[FFR]

In regards to the emotional connection between Mama bears and cubs...I believe that the reaction to protect the cubs is not one of emotion but of striving to protect her offspring. All animals live to reproduce and continue on their genes. They fight back when that is jeopordized.

Apes and monkeys on the other hand have demonstrated what is interpreted to be emotion upon the loss of their children. One reasoning for this is because of the huge investment that Apes put into raising their children...not much unlike humans. Bears do have a commitment to raise their young but the amount of attention and relative helplessness is significantly less than those in the ape family.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Only cute animals that we don't slaughter on a massive scale for self gratifying food consumption are self aware.

i hate dogs ... but get over yourself.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by spydermal

I just asked my dog, she’s going to check with the neighbor’s cat.

Your dog wants steak.






(10 points for anyone who gets the reference.)

[Kybosh]

I'm not sure if my dog is self-aware but she is definately smarter than me. A couple days ago we walked near a construction site and she decided to go play in a deep tire tread filled with mud and water. It was disgusting. Today I forgot all about the tire tread but she sure didn't and as we walked by again she got even more filthy. I'm an idiot.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Your dog wants steak.






(10 points for anyone who gets the reference.)

Fark.com

[octothorp]

Of course humans have more emotions than animals, but it's more a reflection of our social structure. We are by far the most socially dependent species on earth. Take an average individual of any other social creature, drop it in the middle of nowhere, and it'll likely survive. The average human will be dead in a matter of days or weeks. The more socially complex the animal, the more emotion: dogs and cats (and wolves and lions) have a wide range of visible emotions; bears, (not really social) or, say bison (social, but not socially complex) exhibit less emotion. Dogs have no need for an emotion like envy, because it's destructive to their pack mentality. They do, however, have social need for an emotion like regret; they use it to demonstrate when they understand they've overstepped their role. Humans, on the other hand, have evolved a complex social structure where envy is a useful emotion, driving us to compete with others beyond need for survival or for play.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by spydermal

I just asked my dog, she’s going to check with the neighbor’s cat.

HAHAHAHA!!

[White Doors]

When pets start committing suicide I'll believe that they are self aware.

By the way, great posts Text, hard to argue with that. I have an Olde English Bulldogge and all bulldogs, are not very smart. She has been a breeze to train. Sometimes smart dog's aren't the way to go. I grew up with a Lab Retriever and that dog was smart, but also got into alot of trouble.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I have an Olde English Bulldogge and all bulldogs, are not very smart. She has been a breeze to train. Sometimes smart dog's aren't the way to go. I grew up with a Lab Retriever and that dog was smart, but also got into alot of trouble.

A very astute observation that I have suspected for some time to be true. This is exactly why Golden Retrievers—the airheads of the canine domain—are so exceptionally easy to train. A dog's (higher) intelligence will presume an ability to respond more quickly and abstractly to stimulae; unlike Golden Retriever's whose sole purpose seems to be to follow instructions. Some of our smarter dogs have been difficult to train simply because they seem to learn so much more than simply how to respond appropriately to our commands.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

A very astute observation that I have suspected for some time to be true. This is exactly why Golden Retrievers—the airheads of the canine domain—are so exceptionally easy to train. A dog's (higher) intelligence will presume an ability to respond more quickly and abstractly to stimulae; unlike Golden Retriever's whose sole purpose seems to be to follow instructions. Some of our smarter dogs have been difficult to train simply because they seem to learn so much more than simply how to respond appropriately to our commands.

What are you talking about? Golden retreivers are renouned as one of the most intelligent breeds.
per Wikipedia

Ranking of dogs by breed

Brightest Dogs

1. Border Collie
2. Poodle
3. German Shepherd
4. Golden Retriever
5. Doberman Pinscher
6. Shetland Sheepdog
7. Labrador Retriever
8. Papillon
9. Rottweiler
10. Australian Cattle Dog
    Welsh Corgi (Pembroke)

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

What are you talking about? Golden retreivers are renouned as one of the most intelligent breeds.
per Wikipedia

But the author is using a methodology of obedience and trainability (as opposed to, say problem solving). Just as Textcritic said, Golden retrievers are very easy to train because they are single-mindedly devoted to following commands. Doesn't necessarily equate with intelligence, even with the guy who administers the test calls it an 'intelligence test'.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by octothorp

But the author is using a methodology of obedience and trainability (as opposed to, say problem solving). Just as Textcritic said, Golden retrievers are very easy to train because they are single-mindedly devoted to following commands. Doesn't necessarily equate with intelligence, even with the guy who administers the test calls it an 'intelligence test'.

I call shenanigan. Of all the retrievers I know, they have been highly intelligent based on any criteria. I don't think that just because they follow commands and are easier to train, they suddenly aren't intelligent. Isn't the ability to learn a trait on intelligence?

If Golden retrievers were not intelligent, then they would not make very good guide dogs; a position where they must evaluate the circumstances or risk walking their owner into traffic.