Does your dog or cat have conscious thought?

"Is there anything that people do that can't be dismissed as "just a reaction"??"

Sure . they design things, they invent things.

I can dismiss that as simply more complex chains of reactions. Chimpanzees and crows design simple tools. We design complex ones. Over time, our designs and inventions have become more abstract and what we like to do diverges more from the reasons for the origin of biological impulses - hey - higher computational ability and more free time...
 
Last edited:
So there can be no yes or no answer to this question. There has to be a whole range of possibilities between "do they" and "don't they". In other words, at one end are things like amoebas, and at the other are things like us. In between is everything else, and everything else will have a degree of self-awareness depending on where it is on the scale.
This is wrong. How could anything be only partly aware of its own existence?

I don't see how this follows, why self awareness and the ability to create agriculture and progress that can extend from that should be so linearly related...

If my dogs do not have it, but develop self awareness tomorrow, with no other mental or physical changes, I don't see how their capabilities could possibly change to any extraordinary degree.

Or we're smarter and capable of more complex and controlling behaviour, regardless of self awareness.

I mean, if dogs are not self aware, but magically became so overnight, albeit remaining the same in all other ways, I don't see how there is any possible way that their level of intelligence and their physical abilities would ever enable them to "conquer! Create things! Build things! ".

I do know my Alsation is very bright and absolutely not happy to be just lying around and chewing things. She needs to explore and to see new things and to hunt. That's goal orientated behaviour, just on a different scale from (not all, either...) humans.

Here's what I think you're missing. Yeah, of course dogs won't wake up one day self-aware and start doing incredible things. We didn't! It has taken us a couple millennia to get where we are today. Humans started as primitive creatures, too. The huge difference that set humans apart from the very beginning, however, is that they were aware of their selves.

But this point isn't worth trying to justify. Dogs will never be self-aware because they have reached the end of their evolution. The only ways they can change from this point forward are small, like better paws for linoleum flooring (or, whatever).

The reason why self awareness and our advancement is a linear relationship is that self-aware beings are the only ones who go above and beyond what nature gives them. Not because they have to, but because they want to. They are aware of their selves, and they want better lives for themselves.
 
This is wrong. How could anything be only partly aware of its own existence?



Here's what I think you're missing. Yeah, of course dogs won't wake up one day self-aware and start doing incredible things. We didn't! It has taken us a couple millennia to get where we are today. Humans started as primitive creatures, too. The huge difference that set humans apart from the very beginning, however, is that they were aware of their selves.

But this point isn't worth trying to justify. Dogs will never be self-aware because they have reached the end of their evolution. The only ways they can change from this point forward are small, like better paws for linoleum flooring (or, whatever).

The reason why self awareness and our advancement is a linear relationship is that self-aware beings are the only ones who go above and beyond what nature gives them. Not because they have to, but because they want to. They are aware of their selves, and they want better lives for themselves.

What's this self-awareness? Is it so great?

Seems to me that self awareness is just one subset of conscious thought ... I'd like to think it's a very small subset because the best feelings in life are when we are so absorbed that we lose ourselves and are utterly unselfconscious.

As Chris said, consciousness isn't on/off like a light but a continuum.
 
What's this self-awareness? Is it so great?

Seems to me that self awareness is just one subset of conscious thought ... I'd like to think it's a very small subset because the best feelings in life are when we are so absorbed that we lose ourselves and are utterly unselfconscious.

As Chris said, consciousness isn't on/off like a light but a continuum.

Perhaps I've been unclear as to the distinction between self-awareness and consciousness. I'm not arguing that animals aren't conscious. They certainly are. But they aren't aware of their consciousness. It's just there.

Self awareness may only be a small part in the psychological workings of beings, but the differences it makes are tremendous. The output of humans has far surpassed the output of dogs, all on account of self awareness.

I still don't see how there can be varying degrees of self awareness or consciousness. Would a proponent of this theory care to explain?
 
I believe they do and I have the t-shirt.

GJS

p.s. Courtesy of the Onion
 

Attachments

  • M-KittenMurder_400x400_2_jpg_400x400_upscale_q85[1].jpg
    M-KittenMurder_400x400_2_jpg_400x400_upscale_q85[1].jpg
    19.8 KB · Views: 114
I still don't see how there can be varying degrees of self awareness or consciousness. Would a proponent of this theory care to explain?

Define more clearly your understanding of what it is to be "self aware"? Some think it's entirely possible that we as a species aren't fully "self aware". We know, for example that people can be hit over the head one day, and then be able to calculate pi for thousands of digits in their head the next day, it's rare, but this type of spontaneous savant-ness has been observed multiple times. This may imply that we really don't use most of our own conscious potential, and aren't as aware of ourselves as we like to think.

I know that's pretty out there, but it serves to help make the previous point. "Self awareness" isn't necessarily a black and white thing.

typo said:
But this point isn't worth trying to justify. Dogs will never be self-aware because they have reached the end of their evolution. The only ways they can change from this point forward are small, like better paws for linoleum flooring (or, whatever).
All evolutionary or genetic changes are relatively small. Dogs as they are today are not philosophers in their own right as far as we know. Fast forward to the future genetic relatives of "dogs" in "x" number of years and who knows what we'll have.

typo said:
The reason why self awareness and our advancement is a linear relationship is that self-aware beings are the only ones who go above and beyond what nature gives them. Not because they have to, but because they want to. They are aware of their selves, and they want better lives for themselves.
Again, this is a somewhat loose and arguable position to take. Example: most social animals "play". The direct benefit to this behavior is much the same as it is for us. Bonding, release from boredom, relaxation. These are examples of things an animal does to improve it's own mental situation. Most pack and social animals even exhibit a direct sense of not only them self and their own status, they understand their role and the roles of those around them, they even have envy and drive to improve their own standing within the pack. If this sounds similar to what we humans do on a much higher level, it's because it's exactly what most of us do.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I've been unclear as to the distinction between self-awareness and consciousness. I'm not arguing that animals aren't conscious. They certainly are. But they aren't aware of their consciousness. It's just there.

Self awareness may only be a small part in the psychological workings of beings, but the differences it makes are tremendous. The output of humans has far surpassed the output of dogs, all on account of self awareness.

I still don't see how there can be varying degrees of self awareness or consciousness. Would a proponent of this theory care to explain?

You may find this interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914172644.htm

Bottom line: higher order animals are not just a collection of instincts but can process information in a similar way to us, just less sophisticated.

Degrees of consciousness - try caring for an elderly parent with dementia for a while and you'll see it. You see the degrees of consciousness falling away bit by bit ...
 
Define more clearly your understanding of what it is to be "self aware"? Some think it's entirely possible that we as a species aren't fully "self aware". We know, for example that people can be hit over the head one day, and then be able to calculate pi for thousands of digits in their head the next day, it's rare, but this type of spontaneous savant-ness has been observed multiple times. This may imply that we really don't use most of our own conscious potential, and aren't as aware of ourselves as we like to think.

I know that's pretty out there, but it serves to help make the previous point. "Self awareness" isn't necessarily a black and white thing.

All evolutionary or genetic changes are relatively small. Dogs as they are today are not philosophers in their own right as far as we know. Fast forward to the future genetic relatives of "dogs" in "x" number of years and who knows what we'll have.

Again, this is a somewhat loose and arguable position to take. Example: most social animals "play". The direct benefit to this behavior is much the same as it is for us. Bonding, release from boredom, relaxation. These are examples of things an animal does to improve it's own mental situation. Most pack and social animals even exhibit a direct sense of not only them self and their own status, they understand their role and the roles of those around them, they even have envy and drive to improve their own standing within the pack. If this sounds similar to what we humans do on a much higher level, it's because it's exactly what most of us do.

Your example of partial self awareness makes sense for the most part, but it is time-based. In other words, when I say a being can't be half self-aware, I don't mean to say it is self-aware one minute, then not self-aware the next. What I'm trying to argue is that a being cannot be partially knowledgeable of its own existence at one moment in time.

Animals play because it gives them pleasure. You and I can sit here, watching a dog play with a toy, saying, "Oh, look at him having fun!" But the dog doesn't know it's having fun. I don't think animals understand their roles in a group; they just do what their brains tell them to do based on the data around them. I don't think animals envy. That's a common human feeling that you are applying to dogs.

You may find this interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914172644.htm

Bottom line: higher order animals are not just a collection of instincts but can process information in a similar way to us, just less sophisticated.

Degrees of consciousness - try caring for an elderly parent with dementia for a while and you'll see it. You see the degrees of consciousness falling away bit by bit ...

Interesting article (I used to visit Science Daily all the time; I'd forgotten it!), I'm curious to read up on future findings.

I'm still not convinced that they are self-aware because of their powerful processing abilities. The article said metacognition and self awareness are linked in some way, but it wasn't specific. Maybe because we don't know. Like I said before, I agree that animals are conscious, constantly processing the world around them. My stance is that they don't know they're doing it.
 
But the dog doesn't know it's having fun...

I disagree , I believe the dogs kows, when you remove the toys, it's the same thing that happen when we do it to our kids, you have to tame them, they know they were having fun and try to carry on, WE tell them to stop having the fun. :)

I don't think animals envy. That's a common human feeling that you are applying to dogs...

I can tell you that my dog does envy my sandwich, you can tell just by the look on his face. :)
 
Last edited:
Your example of partial self awareness makes sense for the most part, but it is time-based. In other words, when I say a being can't be half self-aware, I don't mean to say it is self-aware one minute, then not self-aware the next. What I'm trying to argue is that a being cannot be partially knowledgeable of its own existence at one moment in time.
You'll have to clarify a bit, that doesn't make sense to me. How can a thinking social animal not be aware of it's own existence?

Animals play because it gives them pleasure. You and I can sit here, watching a dog play with a toy, saying, "Oh, look at him having fun!" But the dog doesn't know it's having fun.
This is a little weird. What makes you think a dog doesn't know what itself is doing at any given time? Playing is a perfect example because it serves very little genetic, food drive, or evolutionary function. They do it precisely because like us, they have complex brains, a sense of self, and get bored.

I don't think animals understand their roles in a group; they just do what their brains tell them to do based on the data around them.
If that were the case and the brain controlled the animal instead of the other way around, how could each animal be so unique in it's personality, taste in food, temperament, etc. I really am curious to understand why you insist they are so simple. It seems extremely obvious to me that they are at core really not that simple, each is entirely unique. Of course, the species shares it's genetic goals. Survival, sex, and status. Then again, at core, that's exactly what humans are after as a species as well. What makes us different from one another is our complex brains and personalities that go with them.

I don't think animals envy. That's a common human feeling that you are applying to dogs.
Of course they do. Envy is a basic component of any social animal, especially a pack mentality driven animal. They literally understand where they are personally within the pack. They know which members have better standing and envy the benefits of that standing. Envy itself is a very complex emotion, and many times even humans don't realize how envious they're being... It's what our brains tell us to do. Covet a better situation.

Here's a study article with some interesting findings, including controls.
http://www.livescience.com/3124-dogs-feel-envy.html

The tests performed showed rather clearly that the dogs outright knew when the other dog was getting a better reward for the same action, and it upset them visibly, even to the point where they made the decision to stop performing the act and changing behavior towards the other dog out of jealousy.

My stance is that they don't know they're doing it.
I'm still curious what evidence supports this theory. How would it benefit any complex brain animal to not understand what it's doing and what it's current goals are?
 
This thread has proven very interesting to me. Very good points across the board. I think I've come to the unscientific conclusion that indeed, your cat or dog does have conscious thought. It may not be on the same level as us, but I think that basically, they know the score. I can see the decision making process when I open the door for my cat to go pee and there is a foot of snow. Their brains are small for sure, but it seems to me that my cat goes through pretty much the same thought process as me. "Hmm it's cold out there, do I really want to go out now or shall I wait....Well the snow isn't melting anytime soon and my bladder is complaining, so I guess I'll have to suck it up and freeze".

I don't think gerbils (for instance) are on the same level as domesticated animals, but what do I know....
 
There are two times in the human lifespan that are most instructive when it comes to understanding degrees of consciousness - watching a baby grow and watching and old person decay. You see the changes bit by bit.

There are an awful lot of humans out there whose concsciousness is less advanced than dogs, cats, pigs, monkeys, dolphins and so on, ie. babies, dementia patients and people with severe brain damage / intellectual disabilities.

Often the lines we draw are fuzzier than we think ...
 
This is wrong. How could anything be only partly aware of its own existence?

Plenty of people are making very good arguments on both sides in this thread. Like so many other big questions, ultimately I don't think any of us will ever know the definite answer.

I'm just making a very simple point that can be applied to this or any other question. NOTHING can be yes/no, either/or. Once you set up two poles to reference, and try to understand ANYTHING, you become aware of everything that lies between them. For example, take day and night: They're opposites, and at some point one turns into the other. But is it a sudden on/off switch between the two? No, there's a whole, slow transition from one to its opposite. Or take colors: Exactly where does blue turn into purple? Half way? Sounds logical, but different people see colors differently, and will place that mid point differently.

Or let's take something more difficult, like LIFE. That seems easy at first glance; you're either dead or alive, right? Nothing really between them, is there? But there is. And once you look past the simple on/off of it, you see there's a whole range of properties to life. A baby is fresh, brand-new. It's flexible, its skin glows, it has inexhaustible energy to cry until it's fed or comforted. But an old person is inflexible, dry, brittle, easily exhausted by the slightest thing. It's parts are failing and at some point will fail. But again, where exactly do you draw the line? Sure, you can say "well, the person is dead when their life processes stop." Yeah, but they've been in the process of stopping for a long time before they do stop completely. And going back to the baby, exactly at what point did it cross from no-life to life?

It might sound New Age-y and all that, but it's nonetheless true. The philosophical idea dates back thousands of years, but it's borne out by cutting-edge quantum theories.

So I'm not "wrong". I might be wrong. I might be right. I might be both at the same time. Who knows? Not me. All I know is that, every time I find an answer, it only creates another question.
 
Last edited:
Often the lines we draw are fuzzier than we think ...

And they're arbitrary. I think those lines work best when they are fuzzy, temporary, just markers to help us move beyond them. You move them to a different place as your understanding grows.

Line drawing is a fundamental thing that humans do that has its advantages, but it can also have big disadvantages. I don't understand why some people insist that the lines they draw are permanent, especially the lines that other people have drawn for them!
 
This is wrong. How could anything be only partly aware of its own existence?



Here's what I think you're missing. Yeah, of course dogs won't wake up one day self-aware and start doing incredible things.

They wouldn't be biologically capable of doing those incredible things regardless of self awareness. Unless they evolved dramatically in other areas. My entire point; which hasn't been dealt with or mentioned in your reply, is that their level of intelligence and their physical abilities would ever enable them to "conquer! Create things! Build things! " regardless of self awareness. Other evolutionary pressures must occur for a long time to get to that.

we didn't! It has taken us a couple millennia to get where we are today.

Several millenia ago we biologically had the same basic level of intelligence and physical abilities. This doesn't tackle my point in any way.

Humans started as primitive creatures, too. The huge difference that set humans apart from the very beginning, however, is that they were aware of their selves.

The huge difference was that factors were in place, including intelligence and opposable thumbs, to develop agcriculture. Self awareness may be critical in this as the sole turning point - but maybe not. I was self aware long before I was effective in other ways. Nowhere whatsoever does anything you say deal with or refute "hey, what if self awareness predated those other abilities?"

The reason why self awareness and our advancement is a linear relationship is that self-aware beings are the only ones who go above and beyond what nature gives them. Not because they have to, but because they want to. They are aware of their selves, and they want better lives for themselves.

Sorry I just can't figure how this follows at all. I see the premise and the conclusion, but the connective tissue seems to be missing completely. Again, nowhere whatsoever does anything you say deal with or refute "hey, what if self awareness predated those other essential abilities?" which was the point, or indeed the other specifics in my post. If self awareness pre-dates those abilities, your assertion suddenly makes no sense whatsoever.

Humans are not the only ones who go above and beyond "what nature gives them", if that means toolmaking and trying to lead a more stimulating life. But we are further along the continuum in those areas by a mile, no doubt about that; from which it doesn't follow "well then they can't be aware of their own existence at all".

If it just means "technological post agricultural civlisation!" then we'\re just stuck with a bunch of non sequiturs to justify how this means humans are self aware and no other animals are.
 
Last edited:
You'll have to clarify a bit, that doesn't make sense to me. How can a thinking social animal not be aware of it's own existence?

This is a little weird. What makes you think a dog doesn't know what itself is doing at any given time? Playing is a perfect example because it serves very little genetic, food drive, or evolutionary function. They do it precisely because like us, they have complex brains, a sense of self, and get bored.

If that were the case and the brain controlled the animal instead of the other way around, how could each animal be so unique in it's personality, taste in food, temperament, etc. I really am curious to understand why you insist they are so simple. It seems extremely obvious to me that they are at core really not that simple, each is entirely unique. Of course, the species shares it's genetic goals. Survival, sex, and status. Then again, at core, that's exactly what humans are after as a species as well. What makes us different from one another is our complex brains and personalities that go with them.

Of course they do. Envy is a basic component of any social animal, especially a pack mentality driven animal. They literally understand where they are personally within the pack. They know which members have better standing and envy the benefits of that standing. Envy itself is a very complex emotion, and many times even humans don't realize how envious they're being... It's what our brains tell us to do. Covet a better situation.

Here's a study article with some interesting findings, including controls.
http://www.livescience.com/3124-dogs-feel-envy.html

The tests performed showed rather clearly that the dogs outright knew when the other dog was getting a better reward for the same action, and it upset them visibly, even to the point where they made the decision to stop performing the act and changing behavior towards the other dog out of jealousy.

I'm still curious what evidence supports this theory. How would it benefit any complex brain animal to not understand what it's doing and what it's current goals are?
It is possible for an animal to not be self-aware. I don't know how to explain my position any further. I don't think dogs get bored; I think they have no other necessary survival tasks on their agenda (eating, sleeping, excreting), so they choose to be pleasured by playing. I think personality is based on DNA, which is different for every creature.

That experimentation is cool.

Animals don't need to know or understand what they're doing, they just do it.

Plenty of people are making very good arguments on both sides in this thread. Like so many other big questions, ultimately I don't think any of us will ever know the definite answer.

I'm just making a very simple point that can be applied to this or any other question. NOTHING can be yes/no, either/or. Once you set up two poles to reference, and try to understand ANYTHING, you become aware of everything that lies between them. For example, take day and night: They're opposites, and at some point one turns into the other. But is it a sudden on/off switch between the two? No, there's a whole, slow transition from one to its opposite. Or take colors: Exactly where does blue turn into purple? Half way? Sounds logical, but different people see colors differently, and will place that mid point differently.

Or let's take something more difficult, like LIFE. That seems easy at first glance; you're either dead or alive, right? Nothing really between them, is there? But there is. And once you look past the simple on/off of it, you see there's a whole range of properties to life. A baby is fresh, brand-new. It's flexible, its skin glows, it has inexhaustible energy to cry until it's fed or comforted. But an old person is inflexible, dry, brittle, easily exhausted by the slightest thing. It's parts are failing and at some point will fail. But again, where exactly do you draw the line? Sure, you can say "well, the person is dead when their life processes stop." Yeah, but they've been in the process of stopping for a long time before they do stop completely. And going back to the baby, exactly at what point did it cross from no-life to life?

It might sound New Age-y and all that, but it's nonetheless true. The philosophical idea dates back thousands of years, but it's borne out by cutting-edge quantum theories.

So I'm not "wrong". I might be wrong. I might be right. I might be both at the same time. Who knows? Not me. All I know is that, every time I find an answer, it only creates another question.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. The things you're referencing aren't comparable to self awareness. The spectrum of age, from young to old, can't be compared to the spectrum of self awareness, because there isn't one. Well, maybe there is, but I don't think so. It just doesn't make sense; you're telling me a being can be aware of itself and not be aware of itself at the same time?

They wouldn't be biologically capable of doing those incredible things regardless of self awareness. Unless they evolved dramatically in other areas. My entire point; which hasn't been dealt with or mentioned in your reply, is that their level of intelligence and their physical abilities would ever enable them to "conquer! Create things! Build things! " regardless of self awareness. Other evolutionary pressures must occur for a long time to get to that.

Several millenia ago we biologically had the same basic level of intelligence and physical abilities. This doesn't tackle my point in any way.

The huge difference was that factors were in place, including intelligence and opposable thumbs, to develop agcriculture. Self awareness may be critical in this as the sole turning point - but maybe not. I was self aware long before I was effective in other ways. Nowhere whatsoever does anything you say deal with or refute "hey, what if self awareness predated those other abilities?"

Sorry I just can't figure how this follows at all. I see the premise and the conclusion, but the connective tissue seems to be missing completely. Again, nowhere whatsoever does anything you say deal with or refute "hey, what if self awareness predated those other essential abilities?" which was the point, or indeed the other specifics in my post. If self awareness pre-dates those abilities, your assertion suddenly makes no sense whatsoever.

Humans are not the only ones who go above and beyond "what nature gives them", if that means toolmaking and trying to lead a more stimulating life. But we are further along the continuum in those areas by a mile, no doubt about that; from which it doesn't follow "well then they can't be aware of their own existence at all".

If it just means "technological post agricultural civlisation!" then we'\re just stuck with a bunch of non sequiturs to justify how this means humans are self aware and no other animals are.
You're right, they wouldn't have the physical or mental capacity to do certain things, with or without self awareness. But I mentioned that it took humans a long time to get to where they are as a contrast to dogs, which have been along for the ride the entire time (in any of several evolutionary states, just like us), and have not produced what we have produced. Okay, so, apart from self awareness, they still would have had biological limitations. However, I still think that if dogs had been self-aware all along they would have made more progress. Perhaps not progress like we have made, but... who knows?

Thanks for the brain food, guys! I'm runnin' out of counter arguments...
 
I don't think dogs get bored; I think they have no other necessary survival tasks on their agenda (eating, sleeping, excreting), so they choose to be pleasured by playing. I think personality is based on DNA, which is different for every creature.

You're just guessing and, believe me, dogs get bored. They crave stimulation as we do. And like many kids and teens, when they get bored they get up to mischief.


Animals don't need to know or understand what they're doing, they just do it.

I question how much people know what they're doing - the ramifications of what we do, fully understanding the cause and effect of our actions ... I think almost everyone only has a small glimpse into their existence.

Just think of the knowledge of the land - the flora and fauna, nature's rhythms, its vagaries in certain locales, its connections - so much was lost when we decimated indigenous societies and industrialised on the land. I'm not suggesting we are inferior to tribal people, just noticing that they did know things we didn't and that's just a tiny percentage of what people don't understand.

Think Donald Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns ...


Thanks for the brain food, guys! I'm runnin' out of counter arguments...

For whom are you advocating? Mayhap a red horny guy with a tail? ... :)
 
For whom are you advocating? Mayhap a red horny guy with a tail? ... :)

Hey! Haha. The theory of humans being the only self-aware beings is a very Catholic mode of thinking. No, I'm not Catholic, but I'm not the devil either!
 
Hey! Haha. The theory of humans being the only self-aware beings is a very Catholic mode of thinking. No, I'm not Catholic, but I'm not the devil either!

No, of course not, his advocate :)

If super-advanced aliens visited earth we'd be hoping they tried to empathise with us and not treat us like animated objects, which is basically how people have often treated animals - and even treated each other, eg. when "civilised" nations took over the lands of tribal people. The Spaniards and the Portuguese were the most harsh ... Catholic countries ... hmmm (my mother and grandfather were Catholic so I'm not Catholist)
 
My cat acts like a dog. She was a kitten raised with two German Shepherds. She plays with them just like she is a dog too... I wonder if she thinks that she is a German Shepherd?
 
Back
Top