 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Immortal Wombat
|
 |
in perpetuity
Dec 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Sammy is embarrassed. A few months ago, Sammy might have happily danced in front of a dozen adults, but now his reaction to the all the attention is different. He's showing what's called "exposure embarrassment," a feeling that comes when children are aware that they have become the object of other peoples' attention. His father, seeing this embarrassment, takes Sammy out of the spotlight and together they play with a toy.
For parents and caregivers, Sammy's new reaction to his family's pride is a moment worth celebrating. Sammy's embarrassment shows that he has reached an important new stage in his emotional development. He's become more self-aware, and that's quite an achievement.
With this new self-awareness, Sammy also experiences new emotions like empathy and envy.
The rouge test.
Most babies love mirrors. If you hold a baby in front of a mirror, she may smile, pat the glass, or even try to lick her reflection. She might see you in the glass and give you another big, heartwarming smile.
Mirrors also make great scientific tools, helping us understand when children reach new levels of self-awareness and how certain emotions develop.
In one experiment, researchers asked a group of mothers and their babies, aged 9 to 24 months, to play in front of a mirror. First, the researchers watched to see how each baby acted when placed in front of a mirror. Next, each of the mothers pretended to wipe dirt off her baby's face—but they were really putting a small dab of rouge on the tip of the baby's nose. Then the babies were placed in front of the mirror again, to see what they would do. Would they notice the red spot on their noses? Would they recognize that something was different about their faces and try to wipe the red spot off? (Lewis & Brooks-Gunn, 1979).
Reflections in the mirror.
Before they're 15 months old, babies don't seem to recognize themselves as themselves in the mirror. These young babies stared at their reflections and may have found the face familiar to them, but they didn't react differently when they saw the red spots on their noses. By 24 months, every baby tried to touch or wipe his/her nose. These babies knew that they were the same as the baby in the mirror! They had reached a new level of self-awareness.
Researchers also studied children's self-awareness as a way to learn about emotions like exposure embarrassment. First, they used the rouge test to see which of the babies tried to touch or wipe the red spots on their noses. Then they overly complimented the children to see if they would get embarrassed. For example, the children were told many times that they were smart, cute, had beautiful hair and lovely clothes. Other children were asked to dance in front of a group of unfamiliar adults. The children who touched their red noses in the mirror were the only ones who showed exposure embarrassment. Those who didn't touch their noses did not show signs of being embarrassed (Lewis et al., 1989). |
Read something other than a thread.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yay! Misquoting me, and not even choosing something relevent, and then using it as an ad hominem! |
Its not a misquote- you just could not form a good arguement.
quote:
Read the thread. Don't be a dumbass.
I'm not even going to bother to repeat my arguments. I'll just let you be a ****ing moron for not even bothing to see that I've pointed out why this is completely irrelevent three or four times in this thread. |
You are wrong, That simple. You have NOT pointed out why its irrelevant, you have made an arguement, but that arguement is flawed.
A human being is no more aware of the meaning of pain that any other animal. Pain is a sensation telling the body something is very wrong, dangerous, and must be avoided. That is the same for people or animals. That human beings will be able to further trace the cause of the pain, or may decide to do something painful, which animals won;t do, are signs of a higher sentience. But your arguement is still non-sensical, because we are talking about an ethical concern.
Your arguement is nto particulalry strong on why the sensation of pain for an animal is different from yours. The most you can show is that a person can understand the pain more- but the point of pain is NOT understanding- it is a warning of danger.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Do you understand the meaning of sentience and self-awareness? It has NOTHING to do with intelligence (well, they may be correlated in reality, but there is no necessarry connection). Sentience is the feeling of touching something, the fact that you see the signals from the nerves in your eye. It's consciousness. It's what religious people call the soul. Animals are no more sentient than rocks or robots. |
I am sorry, but you are in the realm of utterly unproveable mumbo-jumbo, that or religion, which I thought you were not a supporter of.
In fact, I am really at a loss you could even consider this.
Animals,especially mammals, have complex nervous systems- to compare them to rocks is an absurdity. As for the robot comparison- but the fact is animals take in an experience sensual stimuli just like human beings: human beings evolved from apes, so you simply can not provide any evidence about this.
In essence, you are making a religious arguement, an article of faith. Well, i don't buy, and you have no evidence, and you sure as hell don't have a possible logical arguement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The difference is that a fox doesn't.
Electrons don't "feel" being pushed by electric charges. A robot doesn't "feel" a touch sensor being triggered. They are not sentient. Neither are foxes. |
If dogs don't "hear", "see", "smell", "feel", and are not "aware", then explain this.
How can a dog be trained, through threat of violence, to sniff a scent, remember it, and then track it on command in order lead a person to it.
First, by being able to be trained through violence, the dog shows an awareness of the potential pain and an understanding of the abstract scenario created when a human will beat it for doing or not doing something that would otherwise not be in the dog's nature or interest.
Second, by being able to act on the commands given by a human, the dog shows recognition of specific sounds and the ability to learn a sound it has never heard before and then associate it with a meaning.
Third, the dog is likewise able to reconize a specific scent and remember it, and then filter out all other scents - even ones that would be instinctually compelling to it - and then track the scent.
Fourth, when tracking the dog is able to see and analyze it's surroundings and if, having gone out of sight of it's master, can stop or turn around and find the person again so that he can continue leading them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Unless you aren't sentient!  that would be why you don't get it!
The experience of self-awareness is inherent to any self-aware being. You can't communicate it, any more than you can communicate what red looks like. |
 Christ!
Being self-aware is not the same as being sentient- sentient is feeling-feeling is experiencing sensual stimuli- slugs sense light-they have that much sentience.
Animals sense-that is a freaking scientifically proven fact- I don;t think any biologist worht a damn would ever say that an animal, specially a mammal, can't feel stimuli.
As for communitcating what red it- you know what? NO ONE CAN! That is the point of empathy. You seem to have gone on the same line as Descartes, but unwilling to go to the logical conclusion he reached, which is that you as a mind simply can't be sure of anything other than your own sentience.
The fact is that I really have no way of knowing what you see when something I see as red is flashed in front. I can only assume it is the same, but I will never really know, and language is the only thing that allows for bridging this gap. BUt in the end, all that we have left is empathy and sympathy and to assume that other people experience like we do.
That same empathy applies to animals and pain, because the only evidence I have is that animals experience pain like I do. For me to ignore this arbitrarily means I might as well pour acid on you,c ause for all I know, you have no more sentience than a rock.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-11-2004 01:01
|