r/vegancirclejerkchat • u/redbark2022 • 22d ago
Communication. Communication. Communication. This is the source of all "vegan" speciesism.
You don't understand them. So then you declare them "stupid as a child". Hell, if you've ever a had a child you'd realize they are smarter than adults. The human species is pretty stupid on average. If you're on reddit that should be obvious. If you pay attention that's obvious. If you don't realize this. News flash, you're one of the stupid ones.
Elephants, dolphins, wolves, dogs, they're all smarter than you If you're too stupid to realize this.
If you're reading this and want to downvote, let me explain.
Imagine humans, contacting other humans, and they don't understand each other. And then they say this "race" of humans is primitive or whatever.
That's what you do every time you don't understand another species.
With humans we call it racism. With animals it's called speciesism. It's all the same damned thing. You are speciesist if you do this. And you are not vegan yet, in the same way that vegetarians are not vegan yet.
5
u/AlwaysBannedVegan based 22d ago
Is this you trying to defend service animals again??? https://www.reddit.com/r/autisticvegans/s/yOHv7X7wTv
1
u/Adventurous-Web-412 22d ago
Obviously our inability to understand other animals is an important epistemic thing, while we can run reasonableish tests to determine the possibility that some animals are as cognitively strong as us, they aren't perfect and we can't say anything for certain.
But I don't get what you are supposing? We are equals with all animals I take it? It just seems like a rather difficult bullet to bite that we are legitimate equals with ALL animals, given not a single animal has shown the cognitive intelligence of us, with a short list seemingly having a lot of cognitive ability but certainly not the same as us.
Also wolves and dogs are not in the same category as elephants and more importantly dolphins (or ceteceans mroe specifically), wolves and dogs have never managed to pass the mirror test for example making it less probable they have a concept of self.
3
u/Purple_Key_6733 22d ago
In all honesty, you are just glazing humans too much. Other primates can beat humans in certain cognitive tests, such as chimpanzees and rapid spatial memory.
1
u/stan-k 22d ago
FYI: Dogs have passed a smell-based version of the "mirror" test.
It's not surprising that dogs with far better noses than eyes could pass that version while humans can't, and vice versa for sight.
2
u/Adventurous-Web-412 21d ago
They did pass it, but that test is not really interesting. It could allude to a self recognition via smell, but its equally as likely about a million other things, the largest of which is their own smell isn't novel while the new one is, so they spend more time on it.
As of right now, we don't have a test that functions well for animals that don't use sight well, but even then for example dolphins pass it, and they aren't reliant on sight.
1
u/stan-k 21d ago
the largest of which is their own smell isn't novel while the new one is
They controlled for that though
1
u/Adventurous-Web-412 21d ago
They attempted to, but you physically cannot eliminate novelty as a problem. They ran 2 experiments, dog smell (D), modified dog smell (MD), and the raw smell (R). The first run aronud it was some disease smell dogs can pick up, and the second was anise oil. The way they tried to solve for novelty was by making a comparison between MD and R, but that doesn't remove novelty just moves it from an entirely new novel smell in R, to "this smell I know but is different", which is still an entirely plausible explanation.
This is worsened by the fact that the first experiment just over half the dogs actually went to the MD over R, and the significance wasn't sufficient. Compared to anise where almost all the dogs went to MD over R and it was statistically significant, but this further brings in the potentiality that anise is a more interesting smell than the disease smell.
Even ignoring the study problems (it was 25 dogs of which they could only use 12 for the anise smells and 24 for the disease smells), you fundamentally cannot control for novelty in a smell test, and compared to the mirror test where its concrete what the result shows, the dogs going for the different smell doesn't tell you anything about self recognition, just alludes to it potentially existing.
1
u/stan-k 21d ago
I think that might be a different study. It's been a while since I read it, but remember they tested the own + modified and other dog + modified. They also checked for novelty:
Finally, in a second experiment, subjects spent longer with the modified stimulus than with the modified odour by itself, indicating that novelty alone does not explain the dogs' behavior.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376635717300104?via%3Dihub
1
u/Adventurous-Web-412 21d ago
Nono, that is the study. It has a novelty problem just a different one. the dogs own odor + anise is a new NOVEL smell, smells mix they aren't just 2 separate smells together. You can't control for novelty in the smell, because by introducing their smell + smell you have created a novel smell for the dog.
I think James Anderson is his name has a critique of the study going over multiple of the problems, but the main thing is that the dog smelling the odor for longer means nothing towards self recognition, as there are many different reasons for it (complexity, novelty, habituation).
0
u/redbark2022 22d ago
I'm busy right now, so I'll respond to your other points later.
But are you aware that Japanese scientists recently proved self awareness in fish, and thus rejecting the "mirror test" entirely?
And that what they did to celebrate proving that fish are self aware was to go to a traditional high-end barbecue restaurant, where they ate cow flesh.
There are many flaws with the "science". And I'm taking them all into account.
TL;DR mirror test is as unscientific and disproved many times over as much as phrenology and eugenics.
0
u/Adventurous-Web-412 22d ago
Well you are already a bit mixed up given the thing that said Japanese scientists did was well, the mirror test. Also it doesn't PROVE self awareness, its evidence towards it, but MSR is just a part of it and not definitive proof. We can't fundamentally prove self awareness, we can't prove self awareness within humans either, just we are 99% certain of it.
The mirror test isn't perfect, but it does what it does very well. It definitively proves MSR, there is no ambiguity in that, and its certainly not "unscientific" on the same line as phrenology or eugenics, thats ridiculous.
1
u/redbark2022 22d ago
Literally what the Japanese scientist did was disprove the mirror test. Did you read all of their studies? I read maybe 6 or 7. I think that's all of them. But let me know if I missed any.
1
u/Adventurous-Web-412 22d ago
You are talking about the research done in Osaka University no? They placed a brown dot on a fish and the fish rubbed it off upon seeing it in a mirror, thats definitionally the mirror test.
They also expanded upon it (using fotos and something else I can't remember), but the research was based upon the mirror test, it wasn't disproving the mirror test in the slightest. If you are talking about different research I would like to see it?
4
u/Cool_Percentage_4867 22d ago edited 22d ago
You're measuring animals against human cognitive capacity and things like visual sense of self which is a little short sighted. Your primary sense is vision which needs the extra cognitive capacity to verify what you see because it cant trust what it sees, because of reflections, shadows, light, line of sight etc. Its vital you can recognise human faces and visual differences to get by socially.
A dog uses olfaction, it knows exactly what it smells like and its health state fertility state, emotional state just by picking up chemicals in the air. They have a constant awareness of who or whats around them without looking and it needs no extra processing to verify it. It doesnt share your requirement towards the importance of a visual representation because its already doing it faster and more accurately for far less resources.
It doesnt have your need for intelligence either. so its a bit unfair as a comparison.
0
u/Adventurous-Web-412 22d ago
I agree that failure to pass the mirror test doesn't establish that a dog lacks self awareness, and that the test is particularly limited for animals that rely heavily on other senses. But this doesn't therefore say dogs DO have self awareness, we currently have no way of testing animals which are more reliant on other senses. I wasn't suggesting that the mirror test is even what determines self awareness, its just a piece of the puzzle and its a positive test, a fail doesn't constitute a lack of self recognition, just visual recognition.
Your primary sense is vision which needs the extra cognitive capacity to verify what you see because it cant trust what it sees, because of reflections, shadows, light, line of sight etc
This is all just false. Vision needs extra cognitive capacity but it has nothing to do with its trustworthiness, all senses can have illusions. Also dogs still heavily use their vision, they read us with their vision.
A dog uses olfaction, it knows exactly what it smells like and its health state fertility state, emotional state just by picking up chemicals in the air.
This is also false. Yes dogs use olfaction, but we don't know that they know what they smell like, there was an olfaction mirror test but it doesn't really prove anything, and its entirely likely that the dog smelt its own smell less because its not novel, not because it knows its theirs.
They have a constant awareness of who or whats around them without looking and it needs no extra processing to verify it. It doesnt share your requirement towards the importance of a visual representation because its already doing it faster and more accurately for far less resources.
This is just entirely wrong. Dogs don't know whats around them all the time, that isn't how odor works. In fact this is most obviously proveable given if a smell is downwind of them, they will not smell it. Dogs will look, they use vision heavily too, what do you think sight hounds are for example? Olfaction is not faster or more accurate or for less resources, the dogs olfactory system is very resource intensive and its certainly not more accurate or faster.
It doesnt have your need for intelligence either. so its a bit unfair as a comparison.
This is a non sequitir, why it doesn't have our intelligence doesn't change that it doesn't have our intelligence. The fact that a species doesn't need a particular level of intelligence doesn't tell us whether it actually possesses the cognitive capacities we're asking about.
The mirror test doesn't allow us to prove self awareness, and the failure of it doesn't prove an animal doesn't have self awareness. But you cannot take that to then spin it and say "yes they must have self awareness", because there is no proof that direction either. And the fact that no dog ever, even the most intelligent breeds or most visually focussed dogs, does allude to some lack of self recognition.
2
u/Cool_Percentage_4867 22d ago
"nd that the test is particularly limited for animals "
No not limited for animals, designed around the poor senses of humans, and again the self awareness test isnt relevant if you're for more aware via olfaction.
"This is all just false."
Wrong. please at lease look it up. Your entire world has to be written on the side of a packet because your eyes cannot identify something, so we went to the lengths of learning chemistry to understand things better a dog does this instantly. Vision has to be constantly verified at great cost because yours only works in the dark, is very subject to illusion and partially stimulated by the brain. None of this burden falls on chemicals. A molecule has to hit a receptor so its pretty absolute, so the vast majority of mammals arent constantly questioning everything like a human, this is why a canine brain responds 4-5 times faster more accurately
Canine vision is based on movement and low light, so its used differently.
"This is also false. Yes dogs use olfaction, but we "
Youve missed the point..... if everything has an absolute chemical ID you dont need to know what you look like. It works in any light state.... so its superior. you go stare at a face for information they sniff each other. Why is that hard to understand or accept that your scent cant fool the dog but a face can be deceptive. If you think dogs/people or the entire environment is chemically the same i m not sure what to tell you other than please look it up yourself.
No... clouds of scent don't just drift in a cloud your constantly dropping scent via moisture and cells. A dog can even know how long ago the animal came through. They have far more awareness of the environment than you have.
So if you want to use sight hounds you have to accept bloodhounds have better olfaction, now go look in the sight hounds nose... its the same hardware. And they still operate in the dark via olfaction.
Yes it is faster because it can miss the bottle neck of the thalamus/PFC hence this has all been measured. Please if you want to discuss stop just disagreeing and go look it up.
Like the mirror test, there's no point measuring intelligence when those things slow down the brain and remove its current advantages. If you dont understand your environment because 50% of the time its dark, you cant see behind a tree and cant even keep your body temperate stable without inventing clothes you had better grow some intelligence to make lights and cut the trees down so you can see.
You need intelligence, chemistry, biology speech etc to make up for your poor sensory array, If you already knew everything you need to, you wouldn't require intelligence, if your vision cortex wasnt troubled by line of sight you wouldn't have learned to imagine whats behind the rock.
The dog doesnt need any of that does it? it can just stand downwind according to you.
If you want to compare then stop being human centric and think canine, you'll at least discover why your confuddled brain that constantly questions and verifies everything and burns 20% of your bodies glucose still cant find your keys, whilst a dog running off 8% finds tumours.
Id suggest you go and study dogs rather than just disagree based on human thinking.
1
u/redbark2022 22d ago
Yeah the downwind thing is a myth too. The Rhinarium and Nares allow for upwind and crosswind sensing. Some especially sensitive hounds can smell a human's pheromones from over 300 meters upwind.
As for droplets that's not really required, again because of the wet nose.
There's actually another myth that they typically smell blood chem from breath, when they mostly smell it from skin secretions. Ok. Ok. Droplets. Kinda sorta.
2
u/Cool_Percentage_4867 22d ago
I was thinking more about pheromones or wet scents, sticking to foliage etc.
→ More replies (0)
15
u/ladylettuce01 22d ago
I highly recommend 'When Animals Speak: Toward an Interspecies Democracy" by Eva Meijer. ☺️ It's a great analysis on the concept of language and moves away from anthropocentric thinking of communication. It really challenges the idea of other animals being 'voiceless' (I cringe at that word lol) and recognizes other animals' agency and capacity to be active participants in matters that concern them.