Private Life of an Animal

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;164729 wrote:

Why we should consider the privacy of animals | Brett Mills | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

So what do you think?
Should we consider privacy the right of an animal?

Maybe first we should consider what kind of experience or awareness animals have and which animal we are talking about?
What is the difference between experience, mind and consciousness?

@prothero,

prothero;164743 wrote:

Maybe first we should consider what kind of experience or awareness animals have and which animal we are talking about?
What is the difference between experience, mind and consciousness?

Is experience here species?
Do we really measure mind and consciousness by the level of the matter of body?
Can we even put our own human selves consciousness above an animals when we cant even really measure the experience mind or consciousness of another human?
I always wondered about the caste system?
What makes a worm below that of a dog?
What makes a human above that of a worm?

@sometime sun,

Any animal that goes out in the public without wearing clothes doesn't deserve privacy.

@sometime sun,

If we are considering ethical issues, perhaps we should consider the ramifications of the fact that he got paid to write that article.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;164755 wrote:

If we are considering ethical issues, perhaps we should consider the ramifications of the fact that he got paid to write that article.

What did it cost you to reply? Smile

@Ergo phil,

Ergo;164753 wrote:

Any animal that goes out in the public without wearing clothes doesn't deserve privacy.

What is a public?
And why are clothes important? Should I get my dog some?

sometime sun;164729 wrote:

So what do you think?
Should we consider privacy the right of an animal?

I think animals should have privacy.
They cannot give consent to us filming them, so it would be best if only done for academic purposes.

@mister kitten,

Begs the question; Do animals feel shame?

I know dogs who wont 'make' if you watch them, is this because they learned by our expressions it is undesirable (trained shame) or is it a form of innate self possession rejection?
Begs the further question is human shame trained?

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;164748 wrote:

Is experience here species?
Do we really measure mind and consciousness by the level of the matter of body?
Can we even put our own human selves consciousness above an animals when we cant even really measure the experience mind or consciousness of another human?
I always wondered about the caste system?
What makes a worm below that of a dog?
What makes a human above that of a worm?

Generally is the level of experience that determines the value we attach to it?
The "realness", the "depth" and the "level" of experience held or induced, say great art versus finger painting, or Beethovens fifth versus white noise.
Reality is in the end made up of experiences not matter.

@prothero,

prothero;164777 wrote:

Generally is the level of experience that determines the value we attach to it?
The "realness", the "depth" and the "level" of experience held or induced, say great art versus finger painting, or Beethovens fifth versus white noise.
Reality is in the end made up of experiences not matter.

Dogs hear on a different higher spectrum vibration than humans does this make their 'experience' of Beethovens fifth higher than ours?
conclusion; experience has little to do with consciousness.
Further conclusion; "reality" has less levelling with consciousness.

@sometime sun,

[QUOTE=sometime sun;164791] Dogs hear on a different higher spectrum vibration than humans does this make their 'experience' of Beethovens fifth higher than ours? [/QUOTE] My dog does not seem to listen attentively to Beethoven. Does yours? Do you think your dogs overall level of experience is the same as yours? Does your dog produce music,art, write poetry or read literature? I agree your dog has experience that is different than yours and that your dogs sense of smell is better than yours, so maybe your dog has better overall olfactory experience but what about the general overall level of awareness, and understanding of the world?
[QUOTE=sometime sun;164791] conclusion; experience has little to do with consciousness. [/QUOTE] If consciousness does not have to do with "experience". What does it have to do with? I would say human like consciousness is a high level of experience, what would you say?
[QUOTE=sometime sun;164791] Further conclusion; "reality" has less levelling with consciousness. [/QUOTE]What do you mean by this? That all of experience is equal?
That the experience of an earth worm is as complex and should be valued the same as that of a human?

@prothero,

prothero I am late to my bed, and do wish to answer you more deftly but for now will settle for, I have no dogs but who is to say I am any higher or more real than one other than another humans say so.
A dog still know when to say 'no'.
I don't talk dog but perhaps they have a lot more than us to say.
Perhaps they know when best to stay still, sit and heal.
Better than us.
This may sound vague but I will try later to explain.
(has something to do with humans who may not be acting when their actions "realities" are no more or less than dogs themselves)
The 'dog' experience.

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;164811 wrote:

)The 'dog' experience.

I, of course, am not opposed to the notion that dogs have mind like experience. After all, I think reality is experiential to the core.
I am also not opposed to the notion that the experience of dogs has some value to them but also to us (mans best friend). My dog always gives the impression of being glad to see me, people not always.
I am however suggesting that we do, in fact must, attach different values to different types of experience and that in general human experience seems to be of higher order and complexity.
After all most of us would save our children before our pets or so I would hope.

@prothero,

prothero;165157 wrote:

I, of course, am not opposed to the notion that dogs have mind like experience. After all, I think reality is experiential to the core.
I am also not opposed to the notion that the experience of dogs has some value to them but also to us (mans best friend). My dog always gives the impression of being glad to see me, people not always.
I am however suggesting that we do, in fact must, attach different values to different types of experience and that in general human experience seems to be of higher order and complexity.
After all most of us would save our children before our pets or so I would hope.

Some peoples pets are their children, does this make the human 'owner' their species or does it elevate the pets species into the experiential human?
Any animal I have ever had under my roof has been given the courtesy of their own experience of me, and believe me when I tell you when a rat is pissed off with a human when he has been treated on an equal footing of experience and respect the teeth are sharp and sertain, but when given an equal punt at love the notion of him being a rat are lost completely. (I'm being vague again, sorry)
Can you train inferiority or elevatory?
Do we not all if given the chance no matter the species know us all to be equal, even if it still means we wish to prove ourselves to the other?
What if like me I only position them when it is for their safety and at all other times they are given the same respect and turn as me?
You would be surprised my findings of self possession I witnessed in my little guys.
It is funny how much easier it is to show love and affection when you find you are on par with that which may provide your food but you still provide the company.
Rats are just fascinating creatures though.

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;164764 wrote:

Begs the question; Do animals feel shame?

I know dogs who wont 'make' if you watch them, is this because they learned by our expressions it is undesirable (trained shame) or is it a form of innate self possession rejection?
Begs the further question is human shame trained?

I think it begs a deeper, more human question: Why do we feel the need to project ourselves onto animals in any way possible; even if we must resort to wild speculation (as is the case of this article). Why should we expect that a polar bear would know that the humans are wielding cameras that can record them when tribal humans who have not been exposed to modern technology would not think such a thing? It's pure, ill-conceived, lazy minded claptrap. I suppose you might be able to eventually tech a gorilla that it is being filmed, but there are too many abstract concepts to convey in order for it to get a real sense of what is happening to it. Take, for instance, the idea that millions of people have boxes in their homes with 'pictures' of the polar bear being sent as data through wires, and then try explaining the social significance of the whole ordeal to give it proper context.

The only reasonable point in the whole article was that we might want to be careful sticking objects into animal's burrows so as not to disturb them. This is not for privacy's sake, but because placing unwieldy foreign objects in the animal's burrow could potentially cause real harm.

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;164729 wrote:

Why we should consider the privacy of animals | Brett Mills | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

So what do you think?
Should we consider privacy the right of an animal?

What an odd topic, thanks for the new twist.

On the surface, I'd say "No". But this is one of those cases where answering the why to either answer has a lot more value than just the superficial issue.

We value privacy, but to anthropomorphize the issue and project that value onto animals is faulty. Where we have any basis or evidence to reasonably believe an animal desires privacy, then yes; we should respect that. The problem is how might we come to that conclusion? Their behavior - by and large - shows us no outward manifestations that they desire this. The dog is a good example: They'll mate whenever, wherever and without apparent thought to the situation or other creatures present. Given this, why would anyone suppose they want their privacy?

The mole in the burrow is a good illustration: Does he care that he's being watched or might he care that his den now has this light, this device taking up space. In the one case its iffy without any real correlation to what we know. In the other, we can see their efforts to move around or perhaps shield themselves (or young) from the light or physical imposition.

Clearly, two separate issues that I sense are being mixed here.

As a spinoff thought to this question: The reasons we want privacy are different for different occasions and situational settings. In some its socialized shame while others have a solid, reasonable basis in self-preservation. One shouldn't paint the whole subject with the same brush.

Thanks

@sometime sun,

I once saw a cub squirrel on its side and clunched up in a ball near a rat poison box. It had ostensibly eaten the poison and was dying. As I stared at it the squirrel repositioned itself and placed its furry tail over its faced and tightened his curled body away from me.

To me, that squirrel wanted its privacy while in the grips of death.

It was a poignant moment for me in relation to the Creation.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;165641 wrote:

I think it begs a deeper, more human question: Why do we feel the need to project ourselves onto animals in any way possible; even if we must resort to wild speculation (as is the case of this article). Why should we expect that a polar bear would know that the humans are wielding cameras that can record them when tribal humans who have not been exposed to modern technology would not think such a thing? It's pure, ill-conceived, lazy minded claptrap. I suppose you might be able to eventually tech a gorilla that it is being filmed, but there are too many abstract concepts to convey in order for it to get a real sense of what is happening to it. Take, for instance, the idea that millions of people have boxes in their homes with 'pictures' of the polar bear being sent as data through wires, and then try explaining the social significance of the whole ordeal to give it proper context.

The only reasonable point in the whole article was that we might want to be careful sticking objects into animal's burrows so as not to disturb them. This is not for privacy's sake, but because placing unwieldy foreign objects in the animal's burrow could potentially cause real harm.

The only thing I have gotten from it so far is wondering if human privacy is as much claptrap as that of any animal?
You also forget that although they are not as precise or deft or delicate as we, animals anthropomorphise and project themselves as humans, humans as themselves.
Is human or any animal behaviour anything other than training and situational?

Philosophy Forum

Private Life of an Animal

Quick Links

My Account

able2know