You assume so.
An interesting approach, but animals are definitely _in_ the reality I asked people to question - without refering to reality.
Am I redefining reality? Or am I simply reminding you that at the point you think you know reality, you must also be prepared to believe?
On second thoughts, your post may in fact be a cunning suggestion that animals indeed live in reality without refering to reality, and indeed, how would I know? Cunning, very cunning.
What do others think? Is this fair?
I think I would rather believe that animals are slave to reality as that which refers to itself, than free from it. The evidence that points to that is simply that they never attempt to do anything that does not in some way relate to reality. If I said this with authority, most of you would no doubt believe it.
On the other hand, I could point out that an ant infected with a fluke (type of germ), will spontaneously start climbing a piece of grass while the fluke works its way into the ants brain... at task with seemingly no relation to reality. But then I could just say the same thing back to you, the ant is responding to the reality of the fluke.
Do you see what I am doing here? The trend has basically been to say there is no denying reality, but in fact, I can, over and over again. I'm not trying even to be rude, it's just a nuance of interpretation.
EDIT: For all concerned you may wish to read the recent edits to the start of this thread, for clarification.