15 Jun '15 14:29>
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-self-awareness-unique-mankind.html
Another notch against the so-called uniqueness of mankind over the animal world.
Another notch against the so-called uniqueness of mankind over the animal world.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhile I certainly wouldn't rule out any non-human animals having what we call "self awareness" and while I would like to believe the conclusion said by the link is rational, I an afraid don't see how it could be rational. The link says:
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-self-awareness-unique-mankind.html
Another notch against the so-called uniqueness of mankind over the animal world.
Originally posted by humyI don't think they would define animal self awareness in those two way, since they both imply a higher level of intelligence than self directed action would imply.
While I certainly wouldn't rule out any non-human animals having what we call "self awareness" and while I would like to believe the conclusion said by the link is rational, I an afraid don't see how it could be rational. The link says:
"The study's key insight is that those animals capable of simulating their future actions must be able to distinguish betwe ...[text shortened]... wareness" when you say it?
(these questions are relevant to the research I am currently doing )
Originally posted by sonhouseI think what you naturally mean by "self awareness" is not what I naturally mean by it. What you refer as "self awareness" there, I would more generically categorize as "extremely intelligent" which doesn't mean quite the same thing to me.
I don't think they would define animal self awareness in those two way, since they both imply a higher level of intelligence than self directed action would imply.
The ability to analyze one's own thoughts is surely a much higher level of consciousness than just deciding on which branch to jump to if you were a rodent climbing a tree.
I would say sel ...[text shortened]... ink that also is a sign of self-awareness.
Just saw that experiment on 60 minutes yesterday.
Originally posted by humyWell, one test is the mirror test, do they recognize themselves in a mirror. Not many animals do.
I think what you naturally mean by "self awareness" is not what I naturally mean by it. What you refer as "self awareness" there, I would more generically categorize as "extremely intelligent" which doesn't mean quite the same thing to me.
I certainly don't doubt for a moment that dolphins, whales and elephants have the ability to plan and theorize and think ...[text shortened]... t I bet there is an ingenious complex way that I have yet to devise (and probably never do so ).
Originally posted by FabianFnasActually, we didn't really 'invent' mirrors. When you look at still water you can see some of your reflection there so that had to be the inspiration for the mirror, and early ones were just polished metal so that had to have been noticed 4000 years ago or more, as soon as they developed brass, I'm sure they knew how to polish it to a sheen. There are also minerals that are highly reflective coming right out of the ground, like Galena crystals, Iron Pyrites and sulfur pyrites and so forth. We didn't so much invent mirrors rather just improving on a known natural effect.
Humans have self-awareness, as far as we know. Because we define 'self-awareness as 'that kind of self-awareness that we have'.
So when we discuss self-awareness among animals, we just compare their self-awareness with ours, nothing more.
The mirror test is one example of a test of self-awareness. Humans know what a mirror is (go figure, we invented ...[text shortened]... s, not relating to the human self-awareness, then this question is worth discussing. Not before.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou're right, we didn't invent the mirror effect.
Actually, we didn't really 'invent' mirrors. When you look at still water you can see some of your reflection there so that had to be the inspiration for the mirror, and early ones were just polished metal so that had to have been noticed 4000 years ago or more, as soon as they developed brass, I'm sure they knew how to polish it to a sheen. There are also ...[text shortened]... and so forth. We didn't so much invent mirrors rather just improving on a known natural effect.
Originally posted by FabianFnasOur self-awareness comes with language skills and not many animals have that. Dolphins most likely, elephants? There is a big gap between communications and language. Communication: SQQUUEEK, enemy near, for instance but that is about it, Here be food. No real language.
You're right, we didn't invent the mirror effect.
But the rest you agree with?
Originally posted by sonhouseExactly. No animals have the same self awareness as humans.
Our self-awareness comes with language skills and not many animals have that. Dolphins most likely, elephants? There is a big gap between communications and language. Communication: SQQUUEEK, enemy near, for instance but that is about it, Here be food. No real language.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe title is a bit misleading. Self-awareness has been observed in many different animals, long ago. It's simply the ability to recognise that you are a different individual from those around you. What they're doing here is suggesting that the evolutionary origins of autonoetic consciousness (i.e. the human ability to imagine ourselves in different situations in the past, present and future, and our ability to analyse our own thoughts), lies in the ability to do internal and external foraging (which requires a very basic sense of self).
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-self-awareness-unique-mankind.html
Another notch against the so-called uniqueness of mankind over the animal world.
The aim of the present work has to been to explore the relationship between external foraging and internal foraging, and the potential consequences of the latter for understanding the evolution of autonoetic consciousness or self-awareness. Notably, we have arrived at something like a self, the p-self, which is not derived from many of the elegant and rich accounts of consciousness (e.g., Metzinger, 2004; Markowitsch and Staniloiu, 2011; Panksepp, 1998). Rather, the p-self solves a particular kind of problem created by cognitive systems capable of internal foraging, and specifically embodied prospective foraging.
Originally posted by FabianFnasIf he answered back "yes" then he may be intelligent although he may be an arrogant dog in which case you should put him down a peg.
I asked my dog once if he was intelligent
Originally posted by humyDid anyone see the Anderson Cooper piece on 60 minutes last Sunday?
If he answered back "yes" then he may be intelligent although he may be an arrogant dog.
If he answered back "no" then he still may be intelligent but he may be being far too modest.