4 ms·

My friend. I'm sad to say, that's not how science works.

pvaldes 10y ago
Ok, I'll rephrase it. Becoming a scientist is so incredibly hard that for the 99% or scientists in the planet there is absolutely neither point nor desire into spend their huge inversion validating the 2.0 version of old uninteresting themes linked with pseudo-religious connotations. We are instead thinking about cancer and other diseases, biological invasions, contamination, climate change, and how explore, discover and save new animals and plants. Each one of this problems could fill several lives. Do you feel that your turtle pet is so smart that could read your mind? Sorry if I'm being rough, but honestly... I don't care. We are trying to fight against the sixth extinction here.
- robbrown451 10y ago
  Whether or not it is an appropriate thing for science to discuss is a separate issue from whether it has utility. There are plenty of things of limited utility that scientists spend time on, and I'm fine with that. On the other hand, I don't think this is a scientific question.
- chillwaves 10y ago
  Perhaps if you valued the philosophy of considering lower intelligence as more than resources to be exploited, we would not have so many problems to solve in the first place. To expand, there is value in nature and the existent ecosystems in ways that are not immediately apparent. The perspective of mankind subjugating nature, conquering our planet is in my mind the root cause of the disruptions creating the extinction event you allude to. Consider there is value in caring about these sort of questions.
  - pvaldes 10y ago
    "If you embrace (our) philosophy the world would became sin-less and a paradise again, just because". Yeah, I've heard this before. Illusory correlation.
- jly 10y ago
  This seems incredibly short-sighted to me. Many of those things we are 'thinking' about that you listed above are issues that humans created, partly because of our lack of respect and knowledge of the other living things on our planet. Perhaps trying to understand them should be something we spend more time on and not less.
- b1daly 10y ago
  Maybe it's my old "moral relatavism" kicking in, but the point of view you espouse here seems to have at its core an extreme utilitarianism. As if saving the quantity of lives trumps all other concerns of existence. That's fine and all, but I choose other, less rigid ways of looking at things like to study of consciousness. On a practical level, the study of consciousness seems to promise real world benefits. on a more mystical level, it's an extension of our desire to understand the fantastic experience of being alive. It is interesting to note how often the need for "consciousness raising" is connected to strategies for environmental preservation. On the topic of the OP, extending to argument that other human consciousnesses exist to animals seems entirely sensible. We share so much biology and physiology with the higher animals, as well as behavior, it seems strange to exclude the experience of "self" from animal behavior. As someone noted, the fact that animals dream strikes me as a compelling argument the the animal has a psychological construct of self. I live with a very smart dog, and am continually fascinated by sharing my life with another being, who is non-human. One of the things that I find interesting is noticing how my dog has its own mental construct of physical reality. She is highly attuned to things that interest her, that she has a mental construct for. So she will become quite focused on a fly, buzzing around the room. But she seems to have very little awareness of cars, paying them little to no attention. Unless the it is a stopped car with door open, then she tunes right in. It's informative to me in trying to understand my own lived experience of reality, and how heavily filtered it is enable experiencing the constant sensory input to my brain as more than an overwhelming stream of pure sensory data, rushing in at a far greater rate than my conscious brain could ever process.

Ok, I'll rephrase it. Becoming a scientist is so incredibly hard that for the 99% or scientists in the planet there is absolutely neither point nor desire into spend their huge inversion validating the 2.0 version of old uninteresting themes linked with pseudo-religious connotations. We are instead thinking about cancer and other diseases, biological invasions, contamination, climate change, and how explore, discover and save new animals and plants. Each one of this problems could fill several lives. Do you feel that your turtle pet is so smart that could read your mind? Sorry if I'm being rough, but honestly... I don't care. We are trying to fight against the sixth extinction here.

robbrown451 10y ago
Whether or not it is an appropriate thing for science to discuss is a separate issue from whether it has utility. There are plenty of things of limited utility that scientists spend time on, and I'm fine with that. On the other hand, I don't think this is a scientific question.
chillwaves 10y ago
Perhaps if you valued the philosophy of considering lower intelligence as more than resources to be exploited, we would not have so many problems to solve in the first place. To expand, there is value in nature and the existent ecosystems in ways that are not immediately apparent. The perspective of mankind subjugating nature, conquering our planet is in my mind the root cause of the disruptions creating the extinction event you allude to. Consider there is value in caring about these sort of questions.
- pvaldes 10y ago
  "If you embrace (our) philosophy the world would became sin-less and a paradise again, just because". Yeah, I've heard this before. Illusory correlation.
jly 10y ago
This seems incredibly short-sighted to me. Many of those things we are 'thinking' about that you listed above are issues that humans created, partly because of our lack of respect and knowledge of the other living things on our planet. Perhaps trying to understand them should be something we spend more time on and not less.
b1daly 10y ago
Maybe it's my old "moral relatavism" kicking in, but the point of view you espouse here seems to have at its core an extreme utilitarianism. As if saving the quantity of lives trumps all other concerns of existence. That's fine and all, but I choose other, less rigid ways of looking at things like to study of consciousness. On a practical level, the study of consciousness seems to promise real world benefits. on a more mystical level, it's an extension of our desire to understand the fantastic experience of being alive. It is interesting to note how often the need for "consciousness raising" is connected to strategies for environmental preservation. On the topic of the OP, extending to argument that other human consciousnesses exist to animals seems entirely sensible. We share so much biology and physiology with the higher animals, as well as behavior, it seems strange to exclude the experience of "self" from animal behavior. As someone noted, the fact that animals dream strikes me as a compelling argument the the animal has a psychological construct of self. I live with a very smart dog, and am continually fascinated by sharing my life with another being, who is non-human. One of the things that I find interesting is noticing how my dog has its own mental construct of physical reality. She is highly attuned to things that interest her, that she has a mental construct for. So she will become quite focused on a fly, buzzing around the room. But she seems to have very little awareness of cars, paying them little to no attention. Unless the it is a stopped car with door open, then she tunes right in. It's informative to me in trying to understand my own lived experience of reality, and how heavily filtered it is enable experiencing the constant sensory input to my brain as more than an overwhelming stream of pure sensory data, rushing in at a far greater rate than my conscious brain could ever process.