Is there a point?

The one spelling error and one syntax error have been fixed (back to the forest…)

Next: Thanks for the fact check on dolphins (re: smudge test); I removed the offending aside–but I will note that I did acknowledge that dolphins are able to recognize themselves, and, further, the smudge test as it was completed with apes/elephants, involved the touching and/or rubbing of the spot…something that the dolphins did/can not do.

Yes, in my mention of brain size, to simplify things, I refer only to absolute brain size (note: I did make the correction and refer to ‘brain size to body mass ratio’)….that said, in GENERAL, brain size (total mass) IS indeed correlated with higher intelligence (as defined by humans).

The fact that you pet attacks its image, is proof of my statement about most animals, not a refutation of it.

Regarding the “self as post hoc rationalization” comment…but this is a definition OF the self, and proves self awareness, a priori. Dig it.

In an earlier draft for this post, I did mention the role of symbolic language in aiding self-awareness (and its meta regressions), but removed it just to keep things from digressing near the end….This fact, though, of our language ability producing meta awareness, is possible through speech also, not simply written, symbolic language…and, regardless, it is a unique feature of a uniquely evolved behavior, which leads to other behaviors, etc…

The picture of the elephants at the top of the post was chosen deliberately, as a bit of irony, so as to prompt the asking: Are the beasts aware that they are being exploited?

The use of animals to aid human labor, or as parts of human cultural traditions is always a sticky wicket, ethically speaking…We might ask: is ALL training of animals by humans (for labor, sport, celebration or even as pets) unethical and cruel to the animal? If we answer ‘yes’ to this, then our ethical view of the world is rather simple, and that’s great. But if we answer ‘no’ to this, then we have to consider situational ethics, and special circumstances…and this does become a slippery slope…but it does acknowledge the shades of gray in considerations of ethical behavior/treatment between animal species (and this is a one-way relationship; it is not extended towards us by any other animal).

The general ethical (meta) question is: If we adopt a superior moral/ethical attitude or relationship toward animals, does this, in fact, prove we are ethically superior?

I don’t have the answer to that. It’s just a question.

Cheers, MR

the level of self-awareness humans possess is based on their ability to create an imagined analog of the “self” in their reflective mindspace. humans use a relatively complex form of symbol manipulation (linguistics, culture) to do this. by holding on to a image of the self and “reality” in their reflective consciousness, humans are able to exhibit traits unlike any other organism – complex deceit, reflecting on the past in order to alter future behavior, and imaging the minds, thoughts, and feelings of other humans.

chimps, for example, are capable of what psychologists refer to as instrumental deceit, or short-term deceit. the awareness for this (and the “self awareness” test in the elephants) are not based in subjective consciousness, but in instrumental learning responses – immediate rewards condition the behavioral reaction – there is no long term conception of the “self” at work.

the study of consciousness in animals is fascinating -i highly recommend the work of Julian Jaynes as well as Dr. VS Ramachandran.

“your conscious life, in short, is nothing but a post-hoc rationalization of things you do for other reasons.”
- ramachandran