If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   "The ability to experience positive emotions, like love and attachment, would mean that dogs have a level of sentience comparable to that of a human child." Your dog wants a pony (link switched)   (nytimes.com) divider line 171
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1352 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Oct 2013 at 6:52 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



171 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-06 03:18:12 PM
So because dogs have a dopamine reward system, they are people?

Somebody break the news to these litter box sniffers that virtually all animals have dopamine receptors. If dogs are people, so are cattle, which about put these dog lovers on the same page as vegans.
 
2013-10-06 04:23:46 PM
Um...that is not what sentience is.
 
2013-10-06 04:27:29 PM
Well then parents should be required to keep their kids on a leash when they're out in public, and you can't bring them into restaurants or movie theaters, and you can only take them on airplanes if you stuff them in a kennel and store them in a sound-proofed area, down with the luggage.
 
2013-10-06 04:42:01 PM

FloydA: Well then parents should be required to keep their kids on a leash when they're out in public, and you can't bring them into restaurants or movie theaters, and you can only take them on airplanes if you stuff them in a kennel and store them in a sound-proofed area, down with the luggage.


Sounds good to me.
 
2013-10-06 05:10:22 PM
 
2013-10-06 05:10:35 PM
Well, can't RTFA because I won't log in, but I assume this is just another discovery by scientists who don't have dogs.
 
2013-10-06 05:12:20 PM
Log in? Log in my ass.
 
2013-10-06 05:12:42 PM

simplicimus: Well, can't RTFA because I won't log in, but I assume this is just another discovery by scientists who don't have dogs.



There's something wrong with the link. I'll login and it still won't take me there. I'm not adblocking and allowing all cookies too. But still articlus-interruptus.

This seems to work:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/dogs-are-people-too .h tml
 
2013-10-06 05:14:09 PM

kidakita: Log in? Log in my ass.


Sort of looks like this, I'm guessing:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-06 05:27:54 PM

Ambivalence: Um...that is not what sentience is.


If we applied the same shifting goalpost standards for sentience to humans as you would apply to animals you'd fail the test. But then again, you know that, or would if you were sentient.
 
2013-10-06 05:28:09 PM

RoyBatty: simplicimus: Well, can't RTFA because I won't log in, but I assume this is just another discovery by scientists who don't have dogs.


There's something wrong with the link. I'll login and it still won't take me there. I'm not adblocking and allowing all cookies too. But still articlus-interruptus.

This seems to work:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/dogs-are-people-too .h tml


Thanks, that link works. I was wrong about the scientist not having a dog, but the article is still BS. Dogs do have feelings, and the recognition of who is familiar (i.e. pack member) and not (i.e. not pack members) is a survival necessity for pack animals. I am very fond of my dogs, and in their way they feel something approximating love for the pack members (in my case, myself, my wife, each other and the cat).
 
2013-10-06 05:30:04 PM

doglover: Ambivalence: Um...that is not what sentience is.

If we applied the same shifting goalpost standards for sentience to humans as you would apply to animals you'd fail the test. But then again, you know that, or would if you were sentient.


You really want to open the can of worms that is "what is sentience"?
 
2013-10-06 05:36:48 PM

simplicimus: doglover: Ambivalence: Um...that is not what sentience is.

If we applied the same shifting goalpost standards for sentience to humans as you would apply to animals you'd fail the test. But then again, you know that, or would if you were sentient.

You really want to open the can of worms that is "what is sentience"?


You really think humans can pass the test if we removed language one could understand?
 
2013-10-06 05:44:30 PM

doglover: simplicimus: doglover: Ambivalence: Um...that is not what sentience is.

If we applied the same shifting goalpost standards for sentience to humans as you would apply to animals you'd fail the test. But then again, you know that, or would if you were sentient.

You really want to open the can of worms that is "what is sentience"?

You really think humans can pass the test if we removed language one could understand?


I could still communicate my sentience using prime numbers. Can animals do that?
 
2013-10-06 05:53:41 PM

fusillade762: I could still communicate my sentience using prime numbers


How does that convey sentience?
 
2013-10-06 05:54:12 PM

doglover: simplicimus: doglover: Ambivalence: Um...that is not what sentience is.

If we applied the same shifting goalpost standards for sentience to humans as you would apply to animals you'd fail the test. But then again, you know that, or would if you were sentient.

You really want to open the can of worms that is "what is sentience"?

You really think humans can pass the test if we removed language one could understand?


Well, basic problem solving doesn't require language, but then dogs can also perform basic reasoning. Passing solutions along doesn't require language, but dogs can do that as well. Dogs manage to communicate things that dogs find interesting without language.  Dogs have a distinct awareness of self and not-self. I don't think dogs understand mortality as we do.
 
2013-10-06 05:55:45 PM

doglover: fusillade762: I could still communicate my sentience using prime numbers

How does that convey sentience?


Only in a human sense, since mathematics is a human construct.
 
2013-10-06 06:05:28 PM
Account login required. Bzzt, no.
 
2013-10-06 06:11:45 PM

Fallout Boy: So because dogs have a dopamine reward system, they are people?


Because my dog also like cocaine.

Link for people who get the subscription wall:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/dogs-are-people-too. h tml
 
2013-10-06 06:22:15 PM
Did someone say dog and pony?
fc01.deviantart.net
 
2013-10-06 06:38:23 PM

kidakita: Log in? Log in my ass.


That sounds AWFULLY uncomfortable.
 
2013-10-06 06:45:10 PM

doglover: Ambivalence: Um...that is not what sentience is.

If we applied the same shifting goalpost standards for sentience to humans as you would apply to animals you'd fail the test. But then again, you know that, or would if you were sentient.


Sentience, as I define it, is the awareness of self in relation to others. That you are one of many and your actions have consequences for yourself and others.
 
2013-10-06 06:58:45 PM

Ambivalence: Sentience, as I define it, is the awareness of self in relation to others. That you are one of many and your actions have consequences for yourself and others.


And many humans either don't recognize or simply don't care about that.
 
2013-10-06 06:58:58 PM
They trained dogs to voluntarily go into an MRI, then they scanned the dogs brains. And found the dogs didn't like going into the MRI.
 
2013-10-06 06:59:09 PM
The ability to experience positive emotions, like love and attachment, would mean that dogs have a level of sentience comparable to that of a human child.

Which confirms what we suspected all long:  That Baby Boomers are stupider than dogs.
 
2013-10-06 07:02:02 PM
People tend to over-romanticize the human brain while flippantly discounting the brains of other mammals.  Most of the shiat going on in people's heads is based on chemicals flying around.  Love your newborn baby more than anything in the world?  Oxytocin, motherfarker, same as other mammals produce.  No, a dog is never going to write beautiful poetry or build a space shuttle.  Yeah, we have undoubtedly the smartest most complex minds by our own definitions, but we're all based on the same stuff.
 
amo [TotalFark]
2013-10-06 07:04:02 PM

Fallout Boy: So because dogs have a dopamine reward system, they are people?

Somebody break the news to these litter box sniffers that virtually all animals have dopamine receptors. If dogs are people, so are cattle, which about put these dog lovers on the same page as vegans.


If you aren't trolling.... ;) I think it's wrong to call dogs  people, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they don't deserve some minimum level of rights. They do feel emotions, they do have memories, and they do have a sense of self. No, they don't experience these things in the way humans do, because they aren't human, but they do experience them. I wouldn't doubt that many other animals do too, on some level. We aren't particularly special in that department--we are, after all, genetically related to all forms of life, so why shouldn't animals we have other basic traits in common with also have emotional capability?

doglover: simplicimus: You really want to open the can of worms that is "what is sentience"?

You really think humans can pass the test if we removed language one could understand?


Dogs communicate far more clearly than most people think, and they do it just fine without words. Dad used to have one that would pout when he went hunting without her, complete with huffy sighs and exaggerated movements. If she could have stuck her lower lip out, she would have.
 
2013-10-06 07:15:59 PM

FloydA: movie theaters


I have 3 kids, four and under.

I've been to 8 movies actually in a theater since the first was born and I've never dreamed of taking any of them with me. Ever. All 8 times, some fark-wad had, for some reason, brought their children to the movie. This includes the midnight premier of The Hobbit. I swear to the FSM himself, I sat through the last Batman at a 9:30pm showing, with 3 kids between 4 and 8.

What the fark is wrong with people? Being awful parents aside, why is it acceptable to bring your newborn who WILL start screaming and crying at some point during a 2.5 hour movie because that's longer than they ever sleep at once... what I really cant understand is why movie theaters allow the practice. The other 200 people who paid for the experience on the big screen with the big sound apparently are just supposed to put up with crying children at late night showings of rated-R movies now?


/SIGH
 
2013-10-06 07:25:55 PM
No obvious tag?

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-06 07:26:09 PM

simplicimus: doglover: simplicimus: doglover: Ambivalence: Um...that is not what sentience is.

If we applied the same shifting goalpost standards for sentience to humans as you would apply to animals you'd fail the test. But then again, you know that, or would if you were sentient.

You really want to open the can of worms that is "what is sentience"?

You really think humans can pass the test if we removed language one could understand?

Well, basic problem solving doesn't require language, but then dogs can also perform basic reasoning. Passing solutions along doesn't require language, but dogs can do that as well. Dogs manage to communicate things that dogs find interesting without language.  Dogs have a distinct awareness of self and not-self. I don't think dogs understand mortality as we do.


I don't know if they understand mortality or not, but I have definitely seen dogs go into long-term depressive episodes after another dog they were close to died.
 
2013-10-06 07:26:47 PM

Fallout Boy: So because dogs have a dopamine reward system, they are people?

Somebody break the news to these litter box sniffers that virtually all animals have dopamine receptors. If dogs are people, so are cattle, which about put these dog lovers on the same page as vegans.


And we're done.
 
2013-10-06 07:39:28 PM
This Just In: Neuroscientists are just as vulnerable to anthropomorphizing as the rest of humanity, and they typically SUCK when it comes to the philosophical implications of their work.
 
2013-10-06 07:42:31 PM

simplicimus: Well, can't RTFA because I won't log in, but I assume this is just another discovery by scientists who don't have dogschildren and pretend that their dogs are their kids..


FTFY
 
2013-10-06 07:43:44 PM
I've had dogs all my life.  I have kids.  Suggesting that a dog has the sentience of anything older than, say an 18 month old is idiotic.
 
2013-10-06 07:49:33 PM

RoyBatty: kidakita: Log in? Log in my ass.

Sort of looks like this, I'm guessing:

[i.imgur.com image 603x450]


A lot of people have apparently visited that ass.
 
2013-10-06 07:53:41 PM

Ecliptic: FloydA: movie theaters

I have 3 kids, four and under.

I've been to 8 movies actually in a theater since the first was born and I've never dreamed of taking any of them with me. Ever. All 8 times, some fark-wad had, for some reason, brought their children to the movie. This includes the midnight premier of The Hobbit. I swear to the FSM himself, I sat through the last Batman at a 9:30pm showing, with 3 kids between 4 and 8.

What the fark is wrong with people? Being awful parents aside, why is it acceptable to bring your newborn who WILL start screaming and crying at some point during a 2.5 hour movie because that's longer than they ever sleep at once... what I really cant understand is why movie theaters allow the practice. The other 200 people who paid for the experience on the big screen with the big sound apparently are just supposed to put up with crying children at late night showings of rated-R movies now?


/SIGH


Simple solution would be a 'must be this tall to go on this ride' type thing on admission, with a few bums to enforce the new rule, give them security outfits and a taser maybe.
Or 'you must weigh this much' instead, no need for goons, just a pad under the rug as you walk through the door, if you weigh less than say two hundred pounds then you're probably an infant and you get set on fire and blasted off into orbit around something, just not earth.
As for dogs, they are humans. They sit on their ass on the couch the same as humans and they eat human food, they do that freaky walking on their all fours thing but maybe they're so baked they can't stand.
 
2013-10-06 07:54:13 PM
His work is interesting, but his conclusions about animal-personhood in a legal sense sounds like a PETA brochure, and I'd love to see how he convinces the entire developing world to give up their livestock.

I love dogs, but they aren't people. I'd be on board to giving up certain pets if their emotional and intellectual capabilities were proven to be much greater than is commonly understood, but to give them the same status as people in our legal code? I think not.
 
2013-10-06 07:58:12 PM

kidakita: Log in? Log in my ass.


In your ass?
 
2013-10-06 07:58:38 PM
well, i've seen people take their dogs (not seeing eye or assistance dogs) to class with them, so what's new?

if your pooch is that important to you, you're in Trouble.
 
2013-10-06 08:00:41 PM
A Society that worships its pets treats its citizens like sh*t.  there is a direct correlation between how well pets/animals are treated in comparison to people, and how depraved that society is.

sounds like America.  greatest country on earth. well, the TV said so anyway.
 
2013-10-06 08:07:35 PM

Ambivalence: doglover: Ambivalence: Um...that is not what sentience is.

If we applied the same shifting goalpost standards for sentience to humans as you would apply to animals you'd fail the test. But then again, you know that, or would if you were sentient.

Sentience, as I define it, is the awareness of self in relation to others. That you are one of many and your actions have consequences for yourself and others.



My definition of sentience is not chasing the dot of the laser around like a crazed maniac.

Dogs may indeed be on the level of children, very very small ones, or retarded but somewhat older ones.  That's about it.

Other than that:

Fallout Boy: So because dogs have a dopamine reward system, they are people?


This.  Being able to be trained and retain it for a long time is not a sign of intelligence on par with humans, it's more on par with a computer.

Dogs are no more special or human than are rats, coyotes, elephants, or horses.  Many mammals are pack animals with rudimentary emotions, reliance on others.  For every dog that's loyal to the point of being depressed when an owner dies, you'll get one that will gnaw on the corpse as soon as it won't defend itself, and one that will go up to any given human for a treat or just a quick pet regardless of the wishes of the owners.

In fact, that depression should be seen with open eyes.  Much of that is sometimes not so much emotion, but inability to cope without an alpha, who had previously provided all direction and meaning.  There's a whole pack mentality that dogs still very much have.  There's also a lot of inbreeding and breading for X, regardless of the quality of Y.

So, more like rednecks or english people.
/snerk

Sure, you can love your dog, but anthropomorphizing it openly makes you out to be a nutcase.  Love it like you would other people's kids(whom you never implicitly trust, but they're cute, so what the hell), not like your own kids that can do no wrong.  That's the level of difference here between sanity and off-kilter.
 
2013-10-06 08:09:10 PM

Ambivalence: doglover: Ambivalence: Um...that is not what sentience is.

If we applied the same shifting goalpost standards for sentience to humans as you would apply to animals you'd fail the test. But then again, you know that, or would if you were sentient.

Sentience, as I define it, is the awareness of self in relation to others. That you are one of many and your actions have consequences for yourself and others.


So dogs are sentient to you.
 
2013-10-06 08:16:15 PM

deadsanta: His work is interesting, but his conclusions about animal-personhood in a legal sense sounds like a PETA brochure


It's an inevitable result of this revelation.

And it just occurred to me this entire issue is not unlike the slavery debate. With people claiming blacks are sub human so it's ok to exploit and kill them. People were equally resistant to thinking black people had the same range of emotions as white people.

deadsanta: I'd love to see how he convinces the entire developing world to give up their livestock.


Some people didn't want to let their slaves go, but they did. We can grow meat in labs now anyway, so it's not even an anti-meat thing. People will still have their meat, but not through factory farming of animals.
 
2013-10-06 08:16:40 PM

Friskya: kidakita: Log in? Log in my ass.

That sounds AWFULLY uncomfortable.


It's from the Bible "Jesus said 'don't point out the speck in your brother's eye, until you get that stick out of your ass'"

/or something
 
2013-10-06 08:21:51 PM

J. Frank Parnell: deadsanta: His work is interesting, but his conclusions about animal-personhood in a legal sense sounds like a PETA brochure

It's an inevitable result of this revelation.

And it just occurred to me this entire issue is not unlike the slavery debate. With people claiming blacks are sub human so it's ok to exploit and kill them. People were equally resistant to thinking black people had the same range of emotions as white people.

deadsanta: I'd love to see how he convinces the entire developing world to give up their livestock.

Some people didn't want to let their slaves go, but they did. We can grow meat in labs now anyway, so it's not even an anti-meat thing. People will still have their meat, but not through factory farming of animals.


What's the slavery equivalent of a Godwin?
 
2013-10-06 08:31:40 PM
I think the real problem is people trying to place too much value on life.

Animals, to them, can't be as sentient as humans because that would make human society absolutely awful and their feelings would get hurt.

Meanwhile, they forget how brutal nature is. We'd still eat steak if cows were fluent in multiple languages and fond of shakespeare. We're the top of the food chain, not seperate from it. Ants might outcompete beetles a million times over, but they're still both insects.
 
2013-10-06 08:34:41 PM

simplicimus: doglover: simplicimus: doglover: Ambivalence: Um...that is not what sentience is.

If we applied the same shifting goalpost standards for sentience to humans as you would apply to animals you'd fail the test. But then again, you know that, or would if you were sentient.

You really want to open the can of worms that is "what is sentience"?

You really think humans can pass the test if we removed language one could understand?

Well, basic problem solving doesn't require language, but then dogs can also perform basic reasoning. Passing solutions along doesn't require language, but dogs can do that as well. Dogs manage to communicate things that dogs find interesting without language.  Dogs have a distinct awareness of self and not-self.  I don't think dogs understand mortality as we do.


I am not so sure. I think those of us that are not psychopaths can agree that it is morally reprehensible to pick on or torture others weaker than ourselves. Similarly, we have all seen stories of animals of different races defending the ones weaker than themselves against a more powerful agressor. I do think some animals are capable of moral judgement on a basic level, but I also think that may be greatly influenced by their masters/owners/staff morality.

/just MHO
 
2013-10-06 08:36:02 PM

gnosis301: kidakita: Log in? Log in my ass.

In your ass?


everyone has their own fetish... ya know?
 
2013-10-06 08:38:48 PM

J. Frank Parnell: deadsanta: His work is interesting, but his conclusions about animal-personhood in a legal sense sounds like a PETA brochure

It's an inevitable result of this revelation.

And it just occurred to me this entire issue is not unlike the slavery debate. With people claiming blacks are sub human so it's ok to exploit and kill them. People were equally resistant to thinking black people had the same range of emotions as white people.

deadsanta: I'd love to see how he convinces the entire developing world to give up their livestock.

Some people didn't want to let their slaves go, but they did. We can grow meat in labs now anyway, so it's not even an anti-meat thing. People will still have their meat, but not through factory farming of animals.


Yeah we can grow a hamburger in a lab... for around half a million dollars, with no promise of that technology being affordable and approved by regulatory agencies anytime in the next 30 years. And that's a laboratory/factory environment, you see that catching on in, say, sub-Saharan Africa?
 
2013-10-06 08:39:58 PM
abitofauldmaths.org *

*not to be used rectally
 
Displayed 50 of 171 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report