6 ms·

It is a common arrogance, even among "scientists", to assume that no other animal has self awareness or even emotions.

by eagsalazar2 10y ago

ThomPete 10y ago
Can you point to any evidence even in the fringe sciences that would attempt to prove that monkeys have self awareness?
- janpieterz 10y ago
  Not an expert, but it's certainly something that's actively researched... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness#Animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness#Animals
- daveguy 10y ago
  I always thought the mirror test / mark test was a pretty well established test for self awareness, and several animals pass it. It's not particularly fringe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
  - greggyb 10y ago
    Actually, this is called into question in the fine article: > (Incidentally, Gallup's mirror test — removing a paint splotch from your face while looking at a mirror — is not an adequate test of self awareness, even though it is touted as such. We have seen patients who vehemently claim that their reflection in the mirror is "someone else" yet they pass the Gallup test!)
    - daveguy 10y ago
      The point is that awareness testing is not a fringe part of animal behavioral studies. This would be a potential area of research for mainstream animal behavior study (paired mirror tests).
- UlyssesSKrunk 10y ago
  Why would you need the fringe sciences to support the current scientific consensus on something? It's like you're asking for crazy physicists to prove that a feather and hammer will fall at the same speed in a vacuum. Everybody knows that.
icantdrive55 10y ago
I was taught that too. Never bought it then, nor now.
ars 10y ago
> to assume that no other animal has self awareness or even emotions. No other animal other than monkey? I don't think monkeys have self awareness either. It's because animals don't communicate anything about themself, their signals are mostly based on pattern matching and direct response to events. They never communicate anything showing any evidence of an internal state. They only communicate in response to external events, and maybe sensations from their bodies. Even the chimps that did sign language never communicated anything showing any kind of internal state. (For example they never asked questions - events and things simply were.) Emotions though, I agree animals have emotions. For example that sign-language chimp expressed sadness. For animals to have self awareness they would have to show they are "thinking about something" - and I don't mean thinking about a solution to a direct goal for a problem in front of them.
- pharrington 10y ago
  You only respond to external stimulus or sensations from your body. Like in literally every non-biological context, everyone understands that similar systems in similar environments behave similarly. In my layman's understanding of biology, the only difference between human brains and other mammalian brains is neuronal density; all the structure is the same as far as I've read. If the structure is the same, and the behavior and neuronal activity matches what we'd expect from self aware organisms, why reach for a ghost? If you have to keep believing humans are somehow special, then associate that specialness with being the only creature with highly dextrous appendages that evolved with access to trees and metal that also farms.
  - ars 10y ago
    > You only respond to external stimulus or sensations from your body. Oh really? So I never spent time simply pondering why this universe exists? Or why I like the color blue more than green? > In my layman's understanding of biology, the only difference between human brains and other mammalian brains is neuronal density; all the structure is the same as far as I've read. And yet humans are different. That's the puzzle. You can't say "I've solved the puzzle - there is no puzzle!" because there are obvious differences that you can't simply ignore by saying "I don't understand". It doesn't work that way. > If you have to keep believing humans are somehow special, then associate that specialness with being the only creature with highly dextrous appendages that evolved with access to trees and metal that also farms. No thanks. I choose reality instead. Where humans are in fact special, they have self awareness and language, and the ability to argue on the internet. You can go on imagining yourself as a body without a mind if you like, I choose different. Go read Blindsight by Peter Watts, and ponder why we have a mind - the book will show you it doesn't have to be that way, yet it is.
taneq 10y ago
In the surprisingly recent past, "science" has declared the lack of sentience, consciousness, or ability to feel pain in any number of groups, from fish to human infants (no, really, they did open heart surgery on newborn humans without anaesthesia. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/17/opinion/l-why-infant-surgery-without-anesthesia-went-unchallenged-832387.html http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/17/opinion/l-why-infant-surge...). Often there seems to be no evidence behind these declarations beyond the convenience of the conclusions.
- x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
  Well, there's also the fact that anaesthesia may be dangerous to babies and young children. [1] [1] http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20120820/anesthesia-may-harm-childrens-brains http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20120820/anesthesia...
nine_k 10y ago
In 2012, a large group of scientists recognized a number of animals as having consciousness comparable to humans'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Cambridge_Declaration_on_Consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Cambridge... The declaration: http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious...

It is a common arrogance, even among "scientists", to assume that no other animal has self awareness or even emotions.

ThomPete 10y ago

Can you point to any evidence even in the fringe sciences that would attempt to prove that monkeys have self awareness?

janpieterz 10y ago
Not an expert, but it's certainly something that's actively researched... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness#Animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness#Animals
daveguy 10y ago
I always thought the mirror test / mark test was a pretty well established test for self awareness, and several animals pass it. It's not particularly fringe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
- greggyb 10y ago
  Actually, this is called into question in the fine article: > (Incidentally, Gallup's mirror test — removing a paint splotch from your face while looking at a mirror — is not an adequate test of self awareness, even though it is touted as such. We have seen patients who vehemently claim that their reflection in the mirror is "someone else" yet they pass the Gallup test!)
  - daveguy 10y ago
    The point is that awareness testing is not a fringe part of animal behavioral studies. This would be a potential area of research for mainstream animal behavior study (paired mirror tests).
UlyssesSKrunk 10y ago
Why would you need the fringe sciences to support the current scientific consensus on something? It's like you're asking for crazy physicists to prove that a feather and hammer will fall at the same speed in a vacuum. Everybody knows that.

icantdrive55 10y ago

I was taught that too. Never bought it then, nor now.

ars 10y ago

> to assume that no other animal has self awareness or even emotions. No other animal other than monkey? I don't think monkeys have self awareness either. It's because animals don't communicate anything about themself, their signals are mostly based on pattern matching and direct response to events. They never communicate anything showing any evidence of an internal state. They only communicate in response to external events, and maybe sensations from their bodies. Even the chimps that did sign language never communicated anything showing any kind of internal state. (For example they never asked questions - events and things simply were.) Emotions though, I agree animals have emotions. For example that sign-language chimp expressed sadness. For animals to have self awareness they would have to show they are "thinking about something" - and I don't mean thinking about a solution to a direct goal for a problem in front of them.

pharrington 10y ago
You only respond to external stimulus or sensations from your body. Like in literally every non-biological context, everyone understands that similar systems in similar environments behave similarly. In my layman's understanding of biology, the only difference between human brains and other mammalian brains is neuronal density; all the structure is the same as far as I've read. If the structure is the same, and the behavior and neuronal activity matches what we'd expect from self aware organisms, why reach for a ghost? If you have to keep believing humans are somehow special, then associate that specialness with being the only creature with highly dextrous appendages that evolved with access to trees and metal that also farms.
- ars 10y ago
  > You only respond to external stimulus or sensations from your body. Oh really? So I never spent time simply pondering why this universe exists? Or why I like the color blue more than green? > In my layman's understanding of biology, the only difference between human brains and other mammalian brains is neuronal density; all the structure is the same as far as I've read. And yet humans are different. That's the puzzle. You can't say "I've solved the puzzle - there is no puzzle!" because there are obvious differences that you can't simply ignore by saying "I don't understand". It doesn't work that way. > If you have to keep believing humans are somehow special, then associate that specialness with being the only creature with highly dextrous appendages that evolved with access to trees and metal that also farms. No thanks. I choose reality instead. Where humans are in fact special, they have self awareness and language, and the ability to argue on the internet. You can go on imagining yourself as a body without a mind if you like, I choose different. Go read Blindsight by Peter Watts, and ponder why we have a mind - the book will show you it doesn't have to be that way, yet it is.

taneq 10y ago

In the surprisingly recent past, "science" has declared the lack of sentience, consciousness, or ability to feel pain in any number of groups, from fish to human infants (no, really, they did open heart surgery on newborn humans without anaesthesia. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/17/opinion/l-why-infant-surgery-without-anesthesia-went-unchallenged-832387.html http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/17/opinion/l-why-infant-surge...). Often there seems to be no evidence behind these declarations beyond the convenience of the conclusions.

x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
Well, there's also the fact that anaesthesia may be dangerous to babies and young children. [1] [1] http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20120820/anesthesia-may-harm-childrens-brains http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20120820/anesthesia...

nine_k 10y ago

In 2012, a large group of scientists recognized a number of animals as having consciousness comparable to humans'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Cambridge_Declaration_on_Consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Cambridge... The declaration: http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious...