Jesus Christ This Blew My Mind.

[altpersona]

i say the dog is self aware, just unable to express it in a way we are able to appreciate.

and i do expect morality from the dog. it knows as much about right and wrong as i do. that is to say, there is no right and wrong.

How do you know a dog is self aware enough to understand abstract concepts?  It may be taught to not do A and to do B, but if my experience tells me anything it is that a dog is a simple java programand not an AI.

you say the dog has a limited ability to do X

i say we have a limited ability to observe x.

because we cannot detect it or dont know how to, is not proof against.

[atrocity05]

A dog isn't really self-aware.  It has instincts and acts based on those instincts.  Training of a dog is a pavlovian affair.  Not really moralistic....

[Sunic_Flames]

A dog isn't really self-aware.  It has instincts and acts based on those instincts.  Training of a dog is a pavlovian affair.  Not really moralistic....

Except you can train humans in exactly the same style via a variation of methods.

[atrocity05]

Didn't say you couldn't.  Humans do happen to be self-aware as well though.  There's a reason why someone can claim insanity in court vs knowing he did something wrong and having to take a much harsher penalty.  Choice vs. Instinct

[altpersona]

it really really looks like im repeating my self...

and in fact i am..

so here is to hoping for a different result..

you are unable to detect the dogs self awareness.

that has no relevance to the dog actually being self aware.

further more, the dog my be incapable of detecting your self awareness. it may think that only dogs are self aware and we are just stupid animals.

think of the uncertainty principle... you cant know till you check, and checking changes the results.

the problem is once again with words... we say "self aware" but what is gernally meant is  likes fast cars and thinks chris rock is funny.

from wiki (ya ya, its wiki)
Self-awareness is the explicit understanding that one exists. Furthermore, it includes the concept that one exists as an individual, separate from other people, with private thoughts. It may also include the understanding that other people are similarly self-aware.

our ability to test this is explicitly limited. and until the opposite is true we cannot be certain that even we are self aware.

[atrocity05]

Well, normally, we just stick them in front of a mirror and see if they know it's themselves.  So far, very few things do.  Most varieties of monkeys do I think.  Maybe a few others.

[Omen of Peace]

But maybe you'd need to put present dogs with a "smell" image of themselves. Not all species focus on sight as much as we do. ^^

[atrocity05]

I understand what you're saying, but the test is this.  If they can recognize the fact that when they move, the object in the mirror moves, therefore it must be them, it's self-aware.  A dog has site, and therefore should know that.  That little bit of logic is either there or it isn't...

[altpersona]

this same test says that people are not self aware...

it fails on babies under a certain age...

as i said, because you cant tell dosnt mean it isnt so.

and most species of monkeys fail the test... some apes and a hand full of other things pass that test..

[Ubernoob]

it fails on babies under a certain age...

and babies under a certain age aren't self aware.  That's why you don't get angry at babies for doing stupid things.  They don't have the capacity to know better.

You're proving my point.

[atrocity05]

I'm trying to logically figure out where this proves me wrong alt...

I was wrong on a guess, but I was still close. 

To be fair, it also says that "babies" are not self-aware.  They may very well not be until later in the dev cycle.  I mean, that would make sense if it was a developmental stage type thing...

[altpersona]

um, no and no im not


i personally have been very angry with a baby.. just wait n see..  its just not overly productive..

the capacity to know better and self awareness are not the same thing.

'knowing better' is a learned thing.

dogs can indeed learn to 'know better' not all dogs or people do.

the question is do they know that they exist. i say you cannot prove you exist... or that i exist for that matter.. cogito ergo sum is not enough.

a fundamental problem with the tests we have come up with require assumptions of commonality.

we assume that to be self aware is to be like us in some way... where as a block of wood can be self aware and we have no way of knowing it. its beyond our current ability to detect and maybe comprehend.

we learned that the discovery that gravity is constant from two dissimilar objects be dropped at the same time and hitting the ground at the same time..

its not a bad test... but you can use a bad test to get the same results.. that does not make the bad test accurate... and now a few hundred years later we have found that gravity is not the constant that the drop test showed.. the drop test is imperfect and not wholly accurate..

the same is true of the mirror test, or any observation based test.

lets try this for an analogy.. an empty soduku field. solve it..  fill in the numbers and get the correct answer.. before you can even begin you have to start making assumptions.. such as, its completely empty so its ok for me to start with a 1 in this corner... well no its not ok thats not going to give you the right answer... it will give you an answer but not the correct one.. with out all the information, the tools to properly proceed you have a slim chance of getting the correct result.

the self awareness test is similarly flawed.. we have a tenuous idea of what self awareness even is.. so devising a comprehensive test to find a black or white answer to a grey subject is flawed..

do we know what it is : sorta, maybe
do we konw it when we see it : sorta, maybe
do we konw what it is not : sorta, maybe
can we test for it at all : sorta, maybe
is our data reliable : sorta, maybe
do i exist : sorta? maybe..

this is not 2+2. there is not definitive answer to the question as such..

be it a dog, baby, adult human, rock, empty space* we cannot know if we are able to know what self awareness is much less if something has it or not..

*empty space, being... empty, may have a lower probability of being self aware than the others.. but we cant know for sure..

[Ubernoob]

um, no and no im not


i personally have been very angry with a baby.. just wait n see..  its just not overly productive..

the capacity to know better and self awareness are not the same thing.

'knowing better' is a learned thing.

dogs can indeed learn to 'know better' not all dogs or people do.

the question is do they know that they exist. i say you cannot prove you exist... or that i exist for that matter.. cogito ergo sum is not enough.

a fundamental problem with the tests we have come up with require assumptions of commonality.

we assume that to be self aware is to be like us in some way... where as a block of wood can be self aware and we have no way of knowing it. its beyond our current ability to detect and maybe comprehend.

we learned that the discovery that gravity is constant from two dissimilar objects be dropped at the same time and hitting the ground at the same time..

its not a bad test... but you can use a bad test to get the same results.. that does not make the bad test accurate... and now a few hundred years later we have found that gravity is not the constant that the drop test showed.. the drop test is imperfect and not wholly accurate..

the same is true of the mirror test, or any observation based test.

lets try this for an analogy.. an empty soduku field. solve it..  fill in the numbers and get the correct answer.. before you can even begin you have to start making assumptions.. such as, its completely empty so its ok for me to start with a 1 in this corner... well no its not ok thats not going to give you the right answer... it will give you an answer but not the correct one.. with out all the information, the tools to properly proceed you have a slim chance of getting the correct result.

the self awareness test is similarly flawed.. we have a tenuous idea of what self awareness even is.. so devising a comprehensive test to find a black or white answer to a grey subject is flawed..

do we know what it is : sorta, maybe
do we konw it when we see it : sorta, maybe
do we konw what it is not : sorta, maybe
can we test for it at all : sorta, maybe
is our data reliable : sorta, maybe
do i exist : sorta? maybe..

this is not 2+2. there is not definitive answer to the question as such..

be it a dog, baby, adult human, rock, empty space* we cannot know if we are able to know what self awareness is much less if something has it or not..

*empty space, being... empty, may have a lower probability of being self aware than the others.. but we cant know for sure..

TL DR

[altpersona]

atrocity, the point being that the test is flawed so the results are flawed.. we may not even be able to provide a reasonably decent test to perform.. so we cant know for sure one way or the other about anythings ability to understand its existence.

[altpersona]

i see your TL DR and raise you a nya

[atrocity05]

Well, you can redefine terms to mean what you want, but the issue still stands that they fail the current definitions.  Since it's an abstract idea that we came up with, we can damn well say whether or not they pass or fail.

Now, you're right, I can't say anything exists, that's just pointless semantics at the moment.  You should probably assume the standard conditions.  You know, just because everyone else pretty much does.

Also, dogs do not "know better."  It's, I do this and I get smacked, no assumption of what's wrong and right.  Otherwise, they would "know better" without such a threat hanging over them.  Of course, you can also argue that about humans, so maybe we don't "know better" and are just conforming to societal pressures.  Meh.  My point still stands though.

[Sunic_Flames]

I'd say all a human has to do is learn doing x is beneficial and they will do x even if x is stealing other people blind, etc. Right or wrong is irrelevant. Beneficial vs not applies.

[altpersona]

dogs can indeed know better... they are very capable of behaving against there training and expressing fear of repercussions..

all sorts of animals and display the ability to 'know better'

im not redefining any terms.

self aware : i know i exist

we have no way of knowing if the dog knows its exists. we can test it till the cows come home, but unless tests are valid the results are negligible.

a good test must not be based on assumptions.. a good test is based on solid data that has been tested and verified by tests that are based on solid data that has been tested and verified.. ...

back to dogs knowing better...

my dog knows its not supposed to urinate in the house.. but if i leave it locked up too long it will eventually have to go.. and when she does, she goes to a back room and goes..

then when i come home before i find the spot, she behaves appropriately to show that she knew better.. she cowers and goes out side.. before i know of the incident...

also this dog that has a bladder the size of orange county has learned to make small spots that look like our other dog did it.. when she does that she dosnt cower and go out side, she acts like she did nothing... if we had not caught her in the act (with out her knowing we knew) we would not know she could do that..

she acts guilty when she has an accident and lies when she wants the other dog to get in trouble.

there maybe a bit of personification involved, but its minimal..

i also agree largely with sunic...

[fil kearney]

I understand what you're saying, but the test is this.  If they can recognize the fact that when they move, the object in the mirror moves, therefore it must be them, it's self-aware.  A dog has site, and therefore should know that.  That little bit of logic is either there or it isn't...

If you are handed a lump of shit, could you tell by smell alone if it is YOUR shit?

my point: A lot of animals define "mine" by what is associated with that smell. That seems like self awereness to me.

[Ubernoob]

I'd say all a human has to do is learn doing x is beneficial and they will do x even if x is stealing other people blind, etc. Right or wrong is irrelevant. Beneficial vs not applies.

Morality is simply what is good for me now or good for society as a whole later in most cases.  Selfish vs Foresight is usually what it comes down to.

Interesting.