Iranians in space? Islamic Republic's 2nd rhesus monkey into space

[TheMasterOfOrion]

The Iranian state's semi-official Fars News Agency, Iran sent a second monkey to the orbit, brought it back to the Earth and retrieved the animal. Iran's Islamic Clerics and Amadinejad wants to send humans into space by 2019 and the Islamic republic has been ramping up its human space flight efforts in recent years. It fired its first satellite in 2009, is researching aeropsace, nuclear tech, satellite tech and a year later launched a capsule carried by the Kavoshgar-3 rocket containing a rat, turtles and worms, said Fars. Of course the claim is all of this stuff is purely "scientific" research.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

It's as much scientific research as ours was. Really, if they wanted to just develop rocket technology for missiles, they'd develop rocket technology for missiles (as they're doing anyway). Launching into space is a prestige thing to show they're on the world's stage.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Did the iranians have matching monkeys this time?

 

[rhubarbodendron]

I fail to see the necessity for subjecting poor animals to that torture. Surely, nowadays you can just as well do some tests with an empty rocket and measure with sensors in the cabin whether the conditions there would be lethal for a human or not.
Just imagine how scared the poor little chap must have been during this ordeal.

If they really must make tests with living beings then they should pick volunteers. Those could at least decide their own fates. Plus it'd be a more realistic test situation than with a 5 lbs monkey. It'd cost more fuel but that's not exactly a thing that country is short of.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Funny how inflation and sanctions has broken the bank, but Iran is still blowing coin on outer space. Probably so they can drop their bombs on the world, like rocks from a highway overpass ...

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I fail to see the necessity for subjecting poor animals to that torture. Surely, nowadays you can just as well do some tests with an empty rocket and measure with sensors in the cabin whether the conditions there would be lethal for a human or not.
Just imagine how scared the poor little chap must have been during this ordeal.

If they really must make tests with living beings then they should pick volunteers. Those could at least decide their own fates. Plus it'd be a more realistic test situation than with a 5 lbs monkey. It'd cost more fuel but that's not exactly a thing that country is short of.

First the mars one thread, now this one.

Do you enjoy propagandising politically correct slogans that also happen to be completely unproven?
In this case, you put the equal sign between a monkey and a human being, assume a monkey is conscious, etc.

 

[rhubarbodendron]

a monkey very certainly is conscious. And doubtlessly it can feel fear. If you don't feel pity for a helpless creature - *shrug*

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I fail to see the necessity for subjecting poor animals to that torture. Surely, nowadays you can just as well do some tests with an empty rocket and measure with sensors in the cabin whether the conditions there would be lethal for a human or not.
Just imagine how scared the poor little chap must have been during this ordeal.

If they really must make tests with living beings then they should pick volunteers. Those could at least decide their own fates. Plus it'd be a more realistic test situation than with a 5 lbs monkey. It'd cost more fuel but that's not exactly a thing that country is short of.

First the mars one thread, now this one.

Do you enjoy propagandising politically correct slogans that also happen to be completely unproven?
In this case, you put the equal sign between a monkey and a human being, assume a monkey is conscious, etc.

Monkeys are conscious. This is not a controversial statement.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I fail to see the necessity for subjecting poor animals to that torture. Surely, nowadays you can just as well do some tests with an empty rocket and measure with sensors in the cabin whether the conditions there would be lethal for a human or not.
Just imagine how scared the poor little chap must have been during this ordeal.

If they really must make tests with living beings then they should pick volunteers. Those could at least decide their own fates. Plus it'd be a more realistic test situation than with a 5 lbs monkey. It'd cost more fuel but that's not exactly a thing that country is short of.

First the mars one thread, now this one.

Do you enjoy propagandising politically correct slogans that also happen to be completely unproven?
In this case, you put the equal sign between a monkey and a human being, assume a monkey is conscious, etc.

Monkeys are conscious. This is not a controversial statement.

Indeed, the statement is not controversial.
The problem is, monkeys are NOT consicous. They fail to pas even the mirror test - which is merely the starting point.
And no amount of antropomorfizing will change this.

Also, the life of a human being is most definitely more valuable than the life of a monkey.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

First the mars one thread, now this one.

Do you enjoy propagandising politically correct slogans that also happen to be completely unproven?
In this case, you put the equal sign between a monkey and a human being, assume a monkey is conscious, etc.

Monkeys are conscious. This is not a controversial statement.

Indeed, the statement is not controversial.
The problem is, monkeys are NOT consicous. They fail to pas even the mirror test - which is merely the starting point.
And no amount of antropomorfizing will change this.

Wrong.

Also, the life of a human being is most definitely more valuable than the life of a monkey.

No one argued otherwise, but you seem to equate "less valuable" with "worthless."

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Monkeys are conscious. This is not a controversial statement.

Indeed, the statement is not controversial.
The problem is, monkeys are NOT consicous. They fail to pas even the mirror test - which is merely the starting point.
And no amount of antropomorfizing will change this.

Wrong.

Here you go:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001024
A synthesis of several papers.

Also, the life of a human being is most definitely more valuable than the life of a monkey.

No one argued otherwise, but you seem to equate "less valuable" with "worthless."

Spirit of Christmas Present argued 'otherwise' in her initial post I responded to.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

And yet...

Seems it doesn't occur to you that the mark test itself may be unreliable for determining self-awareness.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

And yet...

Seems it doesn't occur to you that the mark test itself may be unreliable for determining self-awareness.

Of course it's not reliable. That's why it's viewed as reliable by all behavioural scientists, etc - as their papers show.

And the paper you linked to in the quoted post is supposed to prove monkeys posses consciousness? Really?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

And yet...

Seems it doesn't occur to you that the mark test itself may be unreliable for determining self-awareness.

Of course it's not reliable. That's why it's viewed as reliable by all behavioural scientists, etc - as their papers show.

Even young children fail the mirror test, so one would imagine behavioral scientists should be aware of its limitations.

"Fails the mirror test == not self-aware" is a pretty bold assertion.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

And yet...

Seems it doesn't occur to you that the mark test itself may be unreliable for determining self-awareness.

Of course it's not reliable. That's why it's viewed as reliable by all behavioural scientists, etc - as their papers show.

Even young children fail the mirror test, so one would imagine behavioral scientists should be aware of its limitations.

"Fails the mirror test == not self-aware" is a pretty bold assertion.

One accepted as true by the scientific community - based on the available evidence.

And yes, children up to 18 months fail the mirror test.
You don't think you were born having all the faculties of an adult human available, yes? This applies to consciousness, as well.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Of course it's not reliable. That's why it's viewed as reliable by all behavioural scientists, etc - as their papers show.

Even young children fail the mirror test, so one would imagine behavioral scientists should be aware of its limitations.

"Fails the mirror test == not self-aware" is a pretty bold assertion.

One accepted as true by the scientific community - based on the available evidence.

And yes, children up to 18 months fail the mirror test.
You don't think you were born having all the faculties of an adult human available, yes? This applies to consciousness, as well.

This consensus you speak of doesn't actually exist. Animal consciousness remains an active area of research. While there are some species we are quite sure have human-like consciousness, in the sense that we can observe it in ways similar to observing human consciousness, results become much less certain once you look to lower primates and other mammals.

The mirror test is also ultimately a vision test that ignores other senses which may be more important for self-recognition.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Even young children fail the mirror test, so one would imagine behavioral scientists should be aware of its limitations.

"Fails the mirror test == not self-aware" is a pretty bold assertion.

One accepted as true by the scientific community - based on the available evidence.

And yes, children up to 18 months fail the mirror test.
You don't think you were born having all the faculties of an adult human available, yes? This applies to consciousness, as well.

This consensus you speak of doesn't actually exist.

Give a link that proves this bold assertion of yours.

The paper I linked to - itself a synthesis of several papers - proves the contrary, by drawing its conclusions about consciousness from the mirror test.

Animal consciousness remains an active area of research. While there are some species we are quite sure have human-like consciousness, in the sense that we can observe it in ways similar to observing human consciousness, results become much less certain once you look to lower primates and other mammals.

Results don't euphemistically become 'less certain' when we look at lower primates, etc, Solstice. Results become negative.

The mirror test is also ultimately a vision test that ignores other senses which may be more important for self-recognition.

Monkeys do have sight - and, as for all primates, it's a sensing organ second to none.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

One accepted as true by the scientific community - based on the available evidence.

And yes, children up to 18 months fail the mirror test.
You don't think you were born having all the faculties of an adult human available, yes? This applies to consciousness, as well.

This consensus you speak of doesn't actually exist.

Give a link that proves this bold assertion of yours.

The paper I linked to - itself a synthesis of several papers - proves the contrary, by drawing its conclusions about consciousness from the mirror test.

Animal consciousness remains an active area of research. While there are some species we are quite sure have human-like consciousness, in the sense that we can observe it in ways similar to observing human consciousness, results become much less certain once you look to lower primates and other mammals.

Results don't euphemistically become 'less certain' when we look at lower primates, etc, Solstice. Results become negative.

The mirror test is also ultimately a vision test that ignores other senses which may be more important for self-recognition.

Monkeys do have sight - and, as for all primates, it's a sensing organ second to none.

This conversation has become boring, so I will simply spell it out for you:

Self-awareness/consciousness is not a binary either/or proposition, but represents a spectrum of cognitive and sensory capabilities and responses. The mirror test is useful only at a high level of consciousness/self-awareness, and becomes less useful in species where self-awareness does not manifest similarly to the way it does in humans (which is not the same as it not manifesting at all, which is your assertion.)

You are welcome to look into the subject further on your own time.

 

[gturner]

Is a fundamentalist theocratic totalitarian Iranian jihadist military monkey capable of self-reflection? That is the question.