dk

Domesticated animals dogs exist in a domain controlled by people. There are wild dogs. There are several reasons a dog might becomes vicious, like inbreeding, breeding, and maltreatment. If we measure dogs by degrees of viciousness, I suppose the most vicious dogs are bred and trained for viciousness sake in and of itself. Generally I'd say vicious people consciously breed vicious dogs to suit them.

Nowhere357

I'm not so sure we control this domain...

dk

Breeders consciously select the propositional attitudes and physical characteristics a dog breed exhibits. Hunting, herding, pulling, retrieving, loyalty, dominance and protecting are propositional attitudes all dogs contain. Dogs have been effectively bred to kill rats, pull boats, rescue swimmers, track, chase prey, herd farm animals and protect. I could argue that guide dogs demonstrate a 3rd person perspective, they learn to expand their consciousness around their master. If a dog can see for a blind person then they certainly have a 3rd person perspective.

Nowhere357

Why are you telling me this? I am aware about dogs, genetics, and breeding.

You claim dogs exist in a domain controlled by humans. I ask you what does that mean? First, a dog can rip my throat out, so who is in control? Second, without bacteria we all would die, therefore bacteria control our domain?

dk

You might let a dog rip your throat out, but everybody dies. People participate to some degree in their own destiny because they possess free will, reason and potential. Animals lack free will and reason not consciousness. You can judge yourself to be an animal, but nobody can make you into an animal or a fool.

Nowhere357

What evidence do you have to support "Animals lack free will and reason."?

First, humans are animals. Second, animals can reason. So you are wrong twice at once!

Your last statement has no meaning. Please stop that.

MyKell

Hi guys,
I just realized that this thread exists! I will have to read it all. I just thought I should support nowhere357's answer... Yep, dk, that is complete nonsense,
More to come soon

Wyz_sub10

Here are a few sites that mention this.

http://www.wpunj.edu/cohss/philosoph...el/MIRRORS.HTM

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m11...57/print.jhtml

http://www.petsmart.com/pet_library/..._barking.shtml

I find far more articles talking about how only some apes can recognize themselves in mirrors, and I few talking about testing whether dolphins or elephants can, such as these ones:

http://cogsci.ucsd.edu/~mboyle/cogs1...n-handout.html

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1395/aro010506.html

None of these sources are great, mind you.

One of the problems seems to be that most articles I find deal with the exceptional ability of chimpanzees to recognize themselves, for example. (rather than with the fact that most animals cannot)

One would infer from this that other animals do not recognize themselves.

I found an article that noted a chihuahua raised among cats did not recognize his image in a mirror at all - not even to sniff or bark (the article implied that the dog didn't know he was a dog). This article also mentions a "fight or flight" response to mirror images:

http://www.nwk9.com/dehasse_pupdev.htm

But beyond all of this, the 'litmus test' is rather simple.

Hold your dog or cat up to a mirror. In the case of dogs, they will often sniff, bark or growl.

In the case of cats, they often do not react at all. Oddly, my cat seems to "see" me in the mirror, but not himself.

I'm not suggesting you take my word for it. Find a dog and a mirror and have at it.

Nowhere357

Thank you for the links.

I agree with all these comments. I've noticed cats may see their image, and 'assume' they see another cat. Actually look behind the mirror!

As an aside, my rat reacts violently when it smells the cat, but does not react when it only sees the cat (noses one glass pane apart!)

Another aside: both my cat and dog usually ignore the tv, but sometimes (the cat especially) they react to certain images, and seem to 'watch' for a while.

IMO even humans must 'learn' to recognize their image. I'm thinking of remote tribes, and infants, for examples.

dk

Nowhere357
What evidence do you have to support "Animals lack free will and reason."?
dk:
“lack” means “deficient”. In the context of domain, animals contain deficient reason and free will, hence aren’t culpable for what they do to people, or one another. On the other hand people have sufficient reason and free will, therefore are culpable for how they treat animals, and one another.

posted by dk
People have dominion over animals, and the earth.
Nowhere357
First, humans are animals.
dk:
People can certainly act like animals, but in doing so become degenerates.

Nowhere357
Second, animals can reason. So you are wrong twice at once!
dk:
I never said animals couldn’t reason, but acted with deficient reason.

Nowhere357
Your last statement has no meaning. Please stop that.
dk:
Then let me try to explain. The word “general” in this context implies deduction, moving from the general case to the specific, meaning that any particular “vicious dog” reflects poorly upon the people that bred, abandoned and/or trained the animal.