Home My MySpace Photobook A Survey of Tanna Home of a Creative Writer Poet Book Hardcore College Essays Discovering Paris The Old Revamped Email Me!	The Art of Deceit: a Clue-In for Consciousnes 2006 Deceit appears in the masterful art of words, a smile, a speech from a politician, in a late night game of cards. It is a human characteristic that is often used to separate man from beast, man who has eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and innocent nature, the innocent animal, who has not.. If man’s deception requires a cunning mind to be a good liar, then perhaps if an animal could lie as well, it would, therefore, have the cunning and the mind. An animal’s deception of others would be sufficient for that animal to have consciousness. Consciousness is an internal process that takes information from the world and relates it to the individual in a way in which the creature forms a since of itself and its connection to its environment. There may be other methods to determine if something has consciousness, but if something has the ability to deceive another creature successfully, that is sufficient information to know that it has a conscious mind. It is not be a necessary condition for consciousness: there may be an organism that is not capable of deception but does have an internal representation of themselves and the world. Deception, then, is the deliberate attempt to mislead, and requires a knowledge of the other participates involved, a prediction of their reaction to the deception, and a calculated weighing of benefit and risk. Only through conscious awareness of oneself, others, and the situation, can one be successful at deceiving. To best define deception in terms of nonhuman animals and to yield the best examples, perhaps it is helpful to determine what are and what are not acts of deception. First, the deceiving behavior should not be random occurrence. Random, or chance, occurrence, even if beneficial or appearing deceitful, is not a deceiving act, and must be ruled out on every occasion. One must also rule out that the animal is following some predesigned, or learned, “rule of thumb,” where the animal gives a precalculated response to a given stimuli. Marian Stamp Dawkins best defines a rule of thumb as “simple laws governing animal behavior stripped of any unnecessary connotations of complexity but describe the actual way in which an animal is responding.” (85). A rule of thumb for a beta fish (sometimes referred to as a “Japanese Fighting Fish”) might be to puff up its gills if it sees another male: a given response it a given stimuli. The last possibility to rule out is an act of cueing. A human can cue an animal to do something the human gives some body language indicator, even unknowingly, that the animal can “pick up” on and respond to in a given way. A trained cue in dog showing is for the human to step first with the foot closest to the dog they are handling if they want to the dog to come with them, but to step first with the leg furthest from the dog if they want the dog to stay where it is. In each example I present, I will attempt to rule out each case of undeceiving behavior. There are, however, instances that do qualify as being deceitful. First, an animal should gain something from deceiving another individual. If it does not gain, then there is doubt behind the conscious intensions of the animal, and it is probable that the “deceiving act” is no more than a chance occurrence. Second, the deceiving act should be done as part of an animals’ normal behavior so that it does not look suspicious. Deception works greatest when it is taken as truth, so the deceiving action works best when it can be mistaken for a normal, every-day, behavior. Finally, the lie the deceiving animal commits must be done infrequently so other creatures do not “catch on.” Those measures are essential do determining deceptive behavior, but if I cannot directly connect consciousness to deception, then I will not even need the rule of thumb counterargument to tear my claim asunder. Deception uses all parts of the defining characteristics of consciousness: it defines the individual as a “self” by showing what it wants in order to survive/thrive/obtain pleasure, and it shows that the individual is aware of its place in its surroundings by manipulating them. Those surroundings include other individuals and their inner workings of consciousness. Lesley Roger and Gisela Kaplan describe a theory of mind that relates to higher cognition, and consciousness, to understanding the minds of others: "Knowing what another individual might be thinking or what another individual believes is an important aspect of awareness in humans. In fact, simply knowing that another person can be thinking about something different than we are is an important aspect of higher cognition. This ability to attribute mental states to others is referred to as having a theory of mind." This theory of mind is very important to the deceiver because it allows him to deduce the likely course of action the potentially deceived is going to take. To do this, the deceiver must form an internal representation of the potentially deceived’s future actions as they relate to the deceiver’s action, following the definition of consciousness directly. Theory is fine, but a theory without actual evidence must be thrown aside. Here I will examine and analyze two cases of animal deception, one from Marian Stamp Dawkins’ animal consciousness text, Through Our Eyes Only?, about a deceptive baboon, and a field example from my own experience of a Labrador wishing for a nap. Hans Kummer, a Swiss ethologist and behavioral scientist who has studied baboons in the wild for more than 20 years, noted a case in which a female baboon slowly moved away, over a twenty minutes, from the rest of a large group of baboons to a position behind a rock. From the behind the rock, the dominant male in the group could only see her back, the top of her head, and tail. He could not see that she was in fact grooming a subadult male, a practice the dominant male would attack both of them for if he could see what they were doing. Is this, however, deception? First, I must rule out a behavior resulting from cueing, chance occurrence, and rule of thumb. In this situation, cueing is unlikely since Kummer observed this even in the baboon’s natural habitat rather than in a laboratory. No humans were involved in the baboon’s maneuver to cue her to move behind the rock. She probably did not go behind the rock as chance, either, since her movements were slow and deliberate over the twenty-minute time span, which also makes rule of thumb an unlikely explanation since if she simply enjoyed the privacy of the rock she would have directly walked behind it. Rule of thumb indicates that given a stimuli, wanting privacy, there is a given response, go behind a rock, which she did not directly do. She probably knew that the dominant male was watching, and if she went behind the rock to be by herself, she would not be attacked, but if she went behind the rock with another male, she would, thus her surreptitious move behind the rock and careful exposure of her back, head, and tail. To qualify as deception, she must have had a representation of what she wanted, to groom the other male, and what the dominant male would do if he knew of that, to attack, or what he would do if she deceived him, not attack. This is evidence that she has an internal representation of herself, has a theory of mind, and is aware of her place in her surroundings. The second example comes from my life concerning animals that live within my home. Cueing, then, will be harder to rule out since there will be an amount of human interaction. This instance involves two dogs and not enough space for both on a bed. My mother was already in bed for the night and there was not enough room for both the dogs to be in the bed. Normally she sleeps in a larger bed, but on this night, she had to move to the guest bed, which is considerably smaller. Dog number one, who we will call the “yellow dog,” was already on the bed, but the Labrador wanted to be on the bed as well, but since she could not fit, she left the room. Later, she came back, and instead of trying to squeeze on the bed went to look out the window. She looked for a moment, which is not unusual, and after a few seconds began to bark. This alarmed the yellow dog who jumped up and began to bark as well, then ran outside to investigate, as he usually does when his house is threatened by something that warrants a bark. Typically, the Labrador runs out with the yellow dog, but this time she ceased barking and hopped on the bed, settling down for the night. It is hard to think that a human, in the sleeping position, could cue a dog to come into the room and bark. She often barks with people in the room, or even when they are not, and my mother often scolds her for barking. The Labrador probably did not follow a rule of thumb because she violated her common rule of thumb of “run outside with the yellow dog after barking.” There is the possibility that this is a chance occurrence: she barked, the yellow dog ran outside, and she saw an opportunity to have a spot on the bed. I find this unlikely since it was dark outside when this occurred, so she probably did not see anything to bark at (dogs rely more on scent than vision), and again, did not follow her own general rule of thumb. It is possible that she had a representation of what she wanted, a representation of the yellow dog’s mind, and how both fit into the environment of the bed. It appears that she controlled the situation by deceiving the yellow dog and taking his place for the night. Deception, seen by humans over the generations as a stain on humanity, is more useful, it seems, when used by animals. It gives humans a window into the minds of creatures they cannot directly ask about and gives animals a closer relation to human beings. While not all animals deceive, there may be some who still have consciousness, but do show deceptive behaviors. Deception, however, shows that animals seem to have an inner “I,” and inner representation of themselves and the world: they can deceive with a smile, they can deceive with their silent words.

The Art of Deceit: a Clue-In for Consciousnes

2006

Deceit appears in the masterful art of words, a smile, a speech from a politician, in a late night game of cards. It is a human characteristic that is often used to separate man from beast, man who has eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and innocent nature, the innocent animal, who has not.. If man’s deception requires a cunning mind to be a good liar, then perhaps if an animal could lie as well, it would, therefore, have the cunning and the mind. An animal’s deception of others would be sufficient for that animal to have consciousness.

Consciousness is an internal process that takes information from the world and relates it to the individual in a way in which the creature forms a since of itself and its connection to its environment. There may be other methods to determine if something has consciousness, but if something has the ability to deceive another creature successfully, that is sufficient information to know that it has a conscious mind. It is not be a necessary condition for consciousness: there may be an organism that is not capable of deception but does have an internal representation of themselves and the world. Deception, then, is the deliberate attempt to mislead, and requires a knowledge of the other participates involved, a prediction of their reaction to the deception, and a calculated weighing of benefit and risk. Only through conscious awareness of oneself, others, and the situation, can one be successful at deceiving.

To best define deception in terms of nonhuman animals and to yield the best examples, perhaps it is helpful to determine what are and what are not acts of deception. First, the deceiving behavior should not be random occurrence. Random, or chance, occurrence, even if beneficial or appearing deceitful, is not a deceiving act, and must be ruled out on every occasion. One must also rule out that the animal is following some predesigned, or learned, “rule of thumb,” where the animal gives a precalculated response to a given stimuli. Marian Stamp Dawkins best defines a rule of thumb as “simple laws governing animal behavior stripped of any unnecessary connotations of complexity but describe the actual way in which an animal is responding.” (85). A rule of thumb for a beta fish (sometimes referred to as a “Japanese Fighting Fish”) might be to puff up its gills if it sees another male: a given response it a given stimuli. The last possibility to rule out is an act of cueing. A human can cue an animal to do something the human gives some body language indicator, even unknowingly, that the animal can “pick up” on and respond to in a given way. A trained cue in dog showing is for the human to step first with the foot closest to the dog they are handling if they want to the dog to come with them, but to step first with the leg furthest from the dog if they want the dog to stay where it is. In each example I present, I will attempt to rule out each case of undeceiving behavior.

There are, however, instances that do qualify as being deceitful. First, an animal should gain something from deceiving another individual. If it does not gain, then there is doubt behind the conscious intensions of the animal, and it is probable that the “deceiving act” is no more than a chance occurrence. Second, the deceiving act should be done as part of an animals’ normal behavior so that it does not look suspicious. Deception works greatest when it is taken as truth, so the deceiving action works best when it can be mistaken for a normal, every-day, behavior. Finally, the lie the deceiving animal commits must be done infrequently so other creatures do not “catch on.”

Those measures are essential do determining deceptive behavior, but if I cannot directly connect consciousness to deception, then I will not even need the rule of thumb counterargument to tear my claim asunder. Deception uses all parts of the defining characteristics of consciousness: it defines the individual as a “self” by showing what it wants in order to survive/thrive/obtain pleasure, and it shows that the individual is aware of its place in its surroundings by manipulating them. Those surroundings include other individuals and their inner workings of consciousness. Lesley Roger and Gisela Kaplan describe a theory of mind that relates to higher cognition, and consciousness, to understanding the minds of others:

"Knowing what another individual might be thinking or what another individual believes is an important aspect of awareness in humans. In fact, simply knowing that another person can be thinking about something different than we are is an important aspect of higher cognition. This ability to attribute mental states to others is referred to as having a theory of mind."

This theory of mind is very important to the deceiver because it allows him to deduce the likely course of action the potentially deceived is going to take. To do this, the deceiver must form an internal representation of the potentially deceived’s future actions as they relate to the deceiver’s action, following the definition of consciousness directly.

Theory is fine, but a theory without actual evidence must be thrown aside. Here I will examine and analyze two cases of animal deception, one from Marian Stamp Dawkins’ animal consciousness text, Through Our Eyes Only?, about a deceptive baboon, and a field example from my own experience of a Labrador wishing for a nap.

Hans Kummer, a Swiss ethologist and behavioral scientist who has studied baboons in the wild for more than 20 years, noted a case in which a female baboon slowly moved away, over a twenty minutes, from the rest of a large group of baboons to a position behind a rock. From the behind the rock, the dominant male in the group could only see her back, the top of her head, and tail. He could not see that she was in fact grooming a subadult male, a practice the dominant male would attack both of them for if he could see what they were doing. Is this, however, deception? First, I must rule out a behavior resulting from cueing, chance occurrence, and rule of thumb.

In this situation, cueing is unlikely since Kummer observed this even in the baboon’s natural habitat rather than in a laboratory. No humans were involved in the baboon’s maneuver to cue her to move behind the rock. She probably did not go behind the rock as chance, either, since her movements were slow and deliberate over the twenty-minute time span, which also makes rule of thumb an unlikely explanation since if she simply enjoyed the privacy of the rock she would have directly walked behind it. Rule of thumb indicates that given a stimuli, wanting privacy, there is a given response, go behind a rock, which she did not directly do. She probably knew that the dominant male was watching, and if she went behind the rock to be by herself, she would not be attacked, but if she went behind the rock with another male, she would, thus her surreptitious move behind the rock and careful exposure of her back, head, and tail.

To qualify as deception, she must have had a representation of what she wanted, to groom the other male, and what the dominant male would do if he knew of that, to attack, or what he would do if she deceived him, not attack. This is evidence that she has an internal representation of herself, has a theory of mind, and is aware of her place in her surroundings.

The second example comes from my life concerning animals that live within my home. Cueing, then, will be harder to rule out since there will be an amount of human interaction. This instance involves two dogs and not enough space for both on a bed. My mother was already in bed for the night and there was not enough room for both the dogs to be in the bed. Normally she sleeps in a larger bed, but on this night, she had to move to the guest bed, which is considerably smaller. Dog number one, who we will call the “yellow dog,” was already on the bed, but the Labrador wanted to be on the bed as well, but since she could not fit, she left the room. Later, she came back, and instead of trying to squeeze on the bed went to look out the window. She looked for a moment, which is not unusual, and after a few seconds began to bark. This alarmed the yellow dog who jumped up and began to bark as well, then ran outside to investigate, as he usually does when his house is threatened by something that warrants a bark. Typically, the Labrador runs out with the yellow dog, but this time she ceased barking and hopped on the bed, settling down for the night.

It is hard to think that a human, in the sleeping position, could cue a dog to come into the room and bark. She often barks with people in the room, or even when they are not, and my mother often scolds her for barking. The Labrador probably did not follow a rule of thumb because she violated her common rule of thumb of “run outside with the yellow dog after barking.” There is the possibility that this is a chance occurrence: she barked, the yellow dog ran outside, and she saw an opportunity to have a spot on the bed. I find this unlikely since it was dark outside when this occurred, so she probably did not see anything to bark at (dogs rely more on scent than vision), and again, did not follow her own general rule of thumb. It is possible that she had a representation of what she wanted, a representation of the yellow dog’s mind, and how both fit into the environment of the bed. It appears that she controlled the situation by deceiving the yellow dog and taking his place for the night.

Deception, seen by humans over the generations as a stain on humanity, is more useful, it seems, when used by animals. It gives humans a window into the minds of creatures they cannot directly ask about and gives animals a closer relation to human beings. While not all animals deceive, there may be some who still have consciousness, but do show deceptive behaviors. Deception, however, shows that animals seem to have an inner “I,” and inner representation of themselves and the world: they can deceive with a smile, they can deceive with their silent words.