Are animals sentient?

[CatCat]

Are animals aware of their being? what differentiates us humans from animals? Should animals have rights? do we simply act upon our human sympathy. Or should we not even consider animals.

 

[nabbig2]

Hello CatCat, we meet yet again

I think that animals are certainly aware of their own existence; that is why they seek to keep themselves alive, and stay away from danger.

Humans simply do act upon sympathy for animals. I'm not saying this is wrong.
There are many people who do care about animals and see them as living beings that have emotions. Since many animals provide company to many people, it is reasonable to see people fighting for the rights of animals.


"What differentiates us humans from animals?"

Well to begin with, many people do consider humans, Homo sapiens, to be an animal.

Nevertheless, there are many differences between us and other animals, such as brain intricacy, the extent of reasoning, and not to mention our physical weakness and defficiencies. For example, we have large brains and therefore heads, which not only make giving birth hard, but larger brains also require more oxygen and nutrients.

 

[Jimpy]

I think that animals are certainly aware of their own existence; that is why they seek to keep themselves alive, and stay away from danger.

My understanding is that if you stick an animal in front of a mirror and it knows its looking at itself, it is self aware. If not... it is not self aware.

 

[Varine]

My cat cried the other day when it got locked in the cupboard.

 

[nabbig2]

My understanding is that if you stick an animal in front of a mirror and it knows its looking at itself, it is self aware. If not... it is not self aware.

No, I never said anything like this, I'm not sure where you got this idea.

Anyway, I know that some animals recognize themselves in the mirror, while others do not. Even if an animal does not recognize itself in the mirror, that doesn't mean it does not realize its own existence.

 

[Faust]

A human is human because of speech.

To be sentient, you require three time-dimensions. You store experience, you remember the past. You know where you are, who you are, etc, so you are aware of the present. You can plan far ahead, therefore you recognize future.

If you were an animal, you would be fine with the first two. Basically, if an animal can learn from its experience, and later act differently, therefore becoming more efficient or safe, I consider it sentient.

This applies to mammals and most of the birds if not all.
However a reptile acts solely on instincts, they don't really learn. (I stil luv them lolz).

 

[nabbig2]

A human is human because of speech.

To be sentient, you require three time-dimensions. You store experience, you remember the past. You know where you are, who you are, etc, so you are aware of the present. You can plan far ahead, therefore you recognize future.

If you were an animal, you would be fine with the first two. Basically, if an animal can learn from its experience, and later act differently, therefore becoming more efficient or safe, I consider it sentient.

This applies to mammals and most of the birds if not all.
However a reptile acts solely on instincts, they don't really learn. (I stil luv them lolz).

Well actually, reptiles do not act solely on instinct; they most certainly do learn. An example is my own corn snake; I feed him every monday afternoon. Around that time, he is consistently looking on his little food plate for a mouse to eat, even if there is no mouse there yet. This is not instinct; this is what the snake has learned from experience.

Domestic snakes and lizards also quickly learn to stop biting a person if they learn that biting will not fend the person off. That is how many people keep potentially dangerous reptiles.

 

[Genkora]

We can't really know the answer to this question until we can ask animals if they are self aware.

Of course, there is also debate over the meaning of the word sentient. Some definitions say it just means something that has senses and can feel, which is why sense and sentient are similar. Of course an animal can feel things. But this wouldn't satisfy every definition of sentient.

But even if we proved non-human animals were sentient, what would change? Would you stop eating beef because you now know that the cow acknowledged its own existence? I wouldn't, the psyche of things is irrelevant to the natural flow of things.

 

[Faust]

Hmm. I must agree with you nabbig2.
I based my idea on that reptiles can't "resist" something. There are things that automatically triggers an action or chain of actions, like an alligator snapping turtle will crush its jaws together when he feels something in its mouth.
Same thing with crocodiles. And snakes.
But now it came to my mind, that lions and other big cats kill their zoomaster from time to time.
They are easily seduced by the smell of blood.

And even among humans there are things like that. Although I can't mention any good examples right now o.o


However, I still consider reptiles as far more instinct dependent than any other.
They are so beautiful !

 

[nabbig2]

Hmm. I must agree with you nabbig2.
I based my idea on that reptiles can't "resist" something. There are things that automatically triggers an action or chain of actions, like an alligator snapping turtle will crush its jaws together when he feels something in its mouth.
Same thing with crocodiles. And snakes.
But now it came to my mind, that lions and other big cats kill their zoomaster from time to time.
They are easily seduced by the smell of blood.

And even among humans there are things like that. Although I can't mention any good examples right now o.o


However, I still consider reptiles as far more instinct dependent than any other.
They are so beautiful !

:shades: I love reptiles, too. In fact I went to a reptile expo recently. However, I wouldn't consider them any more instinct dependand than any other Class of animals. All animals (including humans) depend on numerous instincts, and I don't see any reason to believe why reptiles are more instinct dependant than any other animals.
I find reptiles to be very adaptable and capable of learning; tortoises in particular come to my mind.

Not suggesting anything againt you personally, but I find it apalling that many people think of reptiles as simple minded or even stupid. I think it is because most people like fuzzy bunnies and dogs rather than snakes or lizards.

 

[Faust]

They have simpler and smaller brain. That is all.

Oh, and one important thing.
When you teach a mammal a trick for example, you can do that by offering a treat, or threating it with pain or something similar.

I've yet to seen any "trick" done by a reptile that is indeed taught, and not baited. You can give them anything or threaten them with any pain, I don't think they will do what you want.
All reptile related things involve constant baits, as far as I see.

Animals are not stupid. They are perfect, in their own way. Unlike people. >_>

 

[nabbig2]

They have simpler and smaller brain. That is all.

Oh, and one important thing.
When you teach a mammal a trick for example, you can do that by offering a treat, or threating it with pain or something similar.

I've yet to seen any "trick" done by a reptile that is indeed taught, and not baited. You can give them anything or threaten them with any pain, I don't think they will do what you want.
All reptile related things involve constant baits, as far as I see.

Animals are not stupid. They are perfect, in their own way. Unlike people. >_>

Well, sorry I don't have any official source to cite, but I'll tell you anyway that you reptiles are very capable of being taught to do tricks, especially lizards. You can either reward them for food or signal them to do specific actions. You don't have to threaten a reptile or tempt it with food for it to o something. Nevertheless, you are right in the sense that it is much easier to train mammals to do tricks and such. It takes a lot longer to train an iguana than a dog, for example.

However, keep in mind that dogs have been bred in coexistence with humans for literally thousands of years. They have been selectively bred to comply with human orders, and that is why they can be "taught" so easily. Other mammals have also been captively and selectively breed for a very long time such as cats, rabbits, and rodents, whereas reptiles have only recetly been bred in captivity, and are more "wild". I'm sure over hundreds and thousands of years, reptiles could be more easily trained as well.

"Animals are not stupid. They are perfect, in their own way. Unlike people."

-I concur.

 

[Faust]

Can you teach your what reptile to do what tricks over what time if you can only induce him or her with treats while learning, and not performing?

 

[Varine]

Can you teach your what reptile to do what tricks over what time if you can only induce him or her with treats while learning, and not performing?

Well some people are the same way. Have you tried to get a really fat guy to move without a treat? No offense to fat guys who don't move.

 

[Faust]

Rotfl

You must have misunderstood. Of course teaching requires treating with (usually) food.

I meant I want to know how much time it takes to get your reptile finally do what you want WITHOUT the treat.

 

[King TonGoll]

they say it is language that seperates us from the animals.
We can record, and threw that recording ability we can show and teach, and unify each other.
having said that, animals have forms of communication, and the only way to be able to communicate with another entity is to first acknowledg your own being, for how can you notice anything else's being before you do your own?

i mean surely you can see things, but you cant feel them, you can feel you, and if you have ever touched a animal you know they feel.

as for rights, you cry, you get angry, you get sad, mourn the dead, and depress, so do animals so what seperates us?

i don't see anything other then our ability to manipulate them. they are like uneducated soldiers, theyll do your bidding if you can find a way to mind controll them.

 

[Faust]

You know, there are parasites which do the same

 

[TheDamien]

Computers can communicate, but that doesn't make them sentient (or maybe it does). This debate is useless if people are just going to work from their guts.

 

[King TonGoll]

Computers can communicate, but that doesn't make them sentient (or maybe it does). This debate is useless if people are just going to work from their guts.

computers are not sentient due to not being alive, or, atleast not in thier current state, not having the capacity to generate feeling, emotion, or free thought.

im not going off gut, it is human kinds greatist achievement, the fact that we can communicate.

and for the most part, computers are terminols for humans to comunicate with each others, theres no comunication going on that a human did not start or start a pathway for it to start.

for example, two computers could be relaying information on bank account billing etc etc, this could be automated by a program, but some man made the program, and some people are making the billing request.

but humans, we talk, we put thoughts together with words, these words are the basist, could you describe something without communicating? no you can't. without words or text, or hand gestures or other sounds or any form of communication you could not.

thats no gut deal there. thats fact.

 

[TheDamien]

computers are not sentient due to not being alive, or, atleast not in thier current state, not having the capacity to generate feeling, emotion, or free thought.

You have basically said that computers are not sentient because they are not sentient. How do you know this is the case?

im not going off gut, it is human kinds greatist achievement, the fact that we can communicate.

I refer to the fact that no effort is being made to establish a rigorous criteria or basis for how sentience might be observed, and what the minimum characteristics (if any) of a sentient being might be.

and for the most part, computers are terminols for humans to comunicate with each others, theres no comunication going on that a human did not start or start a pathway for it to start.

for example, two computers could be relaying information on bank account billing etc etc, this could be automated by a program, but some man made the program, and some people are making the billing request.

Why is this relevant? It doesn't matter who designed the machines, or who is utilizing them. Their characteristics are the same. If computers were made to communicate spontaneously, would they suddenly become sentient? It is doubtful.

but humans, we talk, we put thoughts together with words, these words are the basist, could you describe something without communicating? no you can't. without words or text, or hand gestures or other sounds or any form of communication you could not.

We know that humans put thoughts into words because we experience this process ourselves. As an observer, how can you distinguish between communication that reflects sentience, and communication which does not?