4 ms·

We are the only mammal with consciousness, which leads to knowledge of the future and the discerning of good and evil. Despite the fact that we still don’t und

We are the only mammal with consciousness, which leads to knowledge of the future and the discerning of good and evil. Despite the fact that we still don’t understand the least about how consciousness arises in our brain, we are nonetheless the only animal that shows this. Even in cases like monkeys recognizing themselves una mirror, no animal seem to go past that and be aware of the future like we do.

robotresearcher 9y ago
> We are the only mammal with consciousness Uh huh.
- Quarrelsome 9y ago
  Well when you find the great badger city where badgers have been able to put aside their differences and work towards common goals together then let me know. I'd love to see it. In the meantime I'll stick with the assumption that there is still some sort of difference.
  - robotresearcher 9y ago
    And you'll call that difference 'consciousness'. OK. Meanwhile, I found a great termite city where termites have put aside their differences and work towards common goals together. Also coral. Their city is a thousand kilometres long.
    - Quarrelsome 9y ago
      I'm not saying that difference is called anything in particular but I can expect wildly different results from interacting with a city than I can from a mound of coral or a termite nest. Don't be so disingenuous with these ideas of abstract equivalence. Yes humans are arrogant sods but there is some sort of reason or reasons (that are likely not to be purely environmental) that have resulted in this outcome where we're having a conversion via electricity across the planet instead spending most our lives trying to roll a breadcrumb around never having a chance to know one another. Something about this gig is different isn't it? Are you genuinely asserting that if we could take the brain of a (insert whatever animal you're considering) and put it in a human shell you wouldn't be able to tell the difference? That's extremely bold.
      - CNJ7654 9y ago
        It sounds like you're confusing conciousness with intelligence, which are two separate concepts entirely
      - hutzlibu 9y ago
        > Are you genuinely asserting that if we could take the brain of a (insert whatever animal you're considering) and put it in a human shell you wouldn't be able to tell the difference? That's extremely bold. He never said that. So don't be surprised if people downvote you, if you use that kind of manipulative arguing.
        Quarrelsome 9y ago
        so what is the argument beyond "humans so arrogant and humdrum"? I'm trying to frame where we are by finding out what we are arguing and what we aren't, if we're not there then where are we? That's not manipulative I'm just trying to fix us to specific points so we can progress. Lets not forget that the parent comment I'm answering is the pithy: > > We are the only mammal with consciousness > Uh huh. Our parent is an unfaithful sarcastic position so I don't see why that gets a pass yet my attempts to solidify the argument justifies this negativity.
        robotresearcher 9y ago
        I've devoted my professional life to understanding how animals work. It's been the most interesting and challenging topic to study that I can imagine. Science and art knows a lot about what animals do, and a little about how they do it. Your opening statement > We are the only mammal with consciousness is rather controversial, and has been for at least a couple of thousand years. Whether it's true or not is one of the great questions humanity has ever considered. We aren't even sure whether the question is meaningful. Everyone sort of understands what it's getting at, but there is no definition of consciousness that is widely agreed upon. As comments by others have said, for almost all human behaviours once considered exclusive to humans we have found animal behaviours that look very similar. So, my faithful commentary on your blithely confident statement that ignores the existence of any debate on this topic is: uh huh.
    - raattgift 9y ago
      There are some really interesting features in some of the constructs of mound-building termites (Macrotermes spp.) Air flow, thermal control, and water management have been the subjects of some research; it's clearly a fertile area for cross-discipline cooperation by human researchers. Whatever one makes of the mental capacity of these individual eusocial animals (they're not too bright; you can lure them into termite windmills), collectively they substantially alter their local environment to their benefit. There are whole valleys full of mounds rising a couple of metres above ground level in places where they are endemic: https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/06/79/d5/55/magnetic-termite-mounds.jpg https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/06/79/d5/55/... https://www.experiencethewild.com.au/Images/CathMound-300-PM.jpg https://www.experiencethewild.com.au/Images/CathMound-300-PM... and here's a a whole mess of such mounds in a field: https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/87121/530935/f/5448597-Magnetic_Termite_Mounds-0.jpg https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/87121/530935/f/5448597-... That's a lot of biomass with a lot of total neurons, and even though aren't as tightly coupled as the ones in our skulls, they still manage to coordinate a lot of constructive activity. I think it's reasonable to wonder if culture and aesthetics emerge as termite numbers grow large.
adictator 9y ago
Consciousness is the central concept of Hinduism and has been researched & discussed for at least 5000 years (conservative estimate). "Sat-chid-ananda" is the description of this consciousness which is always awake and it is the same as within humans as it is with the consciousness of the universe - according to the Vedas.
jdmichal 9y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15048517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15048517 ... "Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates." [0] We've found evidence in some animal or another for pretty much everything we've ever thought was unique about human cognitive abilities. So far, the only unique thing about humans is how broad and powerful our cognition is. [0] http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious.. http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious....
- blueprint 9y ago
  You're falling for the assumption the brain's role is generating consciousness. It could also not do so yet still be part of an organism which is conscious. I can say that confidently because I understand how consciousness is generated. I could easily say it here and have in the past. Sure, I'll be downvoted by idiots who do not know whether I do or do not know how consciousness works, but are instead acting on their instincts and emotions. But perhaps there's at least one person in the world who is truthful enough not to have to downvote and to instead ask themselves the question of what it would take for what I assert to be true.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
    What is consciousness? I don't believe that it's universally accepted that it even exists amongst rsearchers. Even those who believe it exists have trouble defining it.
    - blueprint 9y ago
      I emailed you
nkoren 9y ago
Apes are demonstrably aware of the future: https://www.livescience.com/2620-humans-apes-plan.html https://www.livescience.com/2620-humans-apes-plan.html And also demonstrably have a sense of morality: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/19/health/chimpanzee-fairness-morality/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/19/health/chimpanzee-fairness...
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  Even rats have demonstrated empathy in the form of aiding other rats out of bad situations knowing they will receive no reward for their troubles. A skeptic might say that such behavior is simply part of any social animal's instinct, for various reasons, to which I ask: other than being able to rationalize our behavior, what makes human demonstrations of empathy different?
- DeusExMachina 9y ago
  Yes, chimps dictators don’t fare well. That’s not what I meant. Chimps don’t have a complex set of morals about which they discuss and evolve with time. I didn’t say we know for sure what is good or what is not. But we can abstract the concepts and evolve our morals. Chimps will never get to debate about gay marriage or other “chimp” rights.
  - nkoren 9y ago
    You're moving the goalposts, but are still wrong. I don't have time to dig up the references, but there are plenty of studies showing that apes (and other animals) can develop arbitrary culturally-transmitted "taboos", with violation of those taboos provoking dissent and general politicking. We can't speak to the depths of such a debate, because we can't participate in the debate. It's an (inter-)subjective matter for the animals involved; all we can do as external observes is be objective. But this then leads us into a categorical error: because we can describe a behaviour using objective language, we therefore decide that it in fact contains no subjectivity; eg., is not truly conscious. We used to mis-apply this logic to so-called "inferior" human cultures, denying their humanity because we couldn't get inside their minds. This was wrong, and led to great evil. Until recently, we've applied the same thinking to animals -- but it's just as wrong. There are a shrinking number of Descartian holdouts, and I guess you're one of them. But all evidence and logic is against you.
saguro 9y ago
> discerning of good and evil Humans don't have such a capacity. The notions of 'good' and 'evil' have historically been in flux and went through many huge changes. Modern humans consider the typical behaviors of past humans as 'evil'. Vikings - rape after conquering is good. People today: that's evil. India until 2 generations ago - arranged marriage is good. Today that's evil. Homosexuality - has oscillated many times between good and evil. In fact, different geographic regions will still have polar opposite views on this today.
- nkoren 9y ago
  > India until 2 generations ago - arranged marriage is good. Today that's evil. Suggest you do some homework. Something like 80%-90% of marriages in India are still arranged. And most people are pretty happy with this situation, or at least no more miserable than "Love marriages" -- which remain highly controversial -- would make them.
  - saguro 9y ago
    The definition of 'arranged marriage' today has been neutered. Until 2 generations ago, arranged marriage meant that women had absolutely no say in their marriage - it was at the decision of the parents and to further the desires of the parents. Today, arranged marriage means that the woman's parents will present her with prospective marriage partners but leave the decision making to her, including veto or asking the parents to 'arrange' for a man that the woman fancies - kind of like Tinder but the matching algorithm is parents. That version of arranged marriage is straight up better than the (serious) dating scene in westernized countries. The original version is definitely considered evil by today's morals.
    - nkoren 9y ago
      Okay, you have an alright understanding of the contemporary meaning of the term "arranged marriage" in that case. I find that sticking with contemporary parlance really helps avoid misunderstanding. The term you presumably meant to use -- in today's language -- would be "forced marriage". In which case: agreed!
52-6F-62 9y ago
While I sit more on the fence with a lot of the discussions in this overall thread, you're increasingly being proven wrong in this aspect. For instance, prairie dogs are shown to have a descriptive language: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/prairie-dogs-language-decoded-by-scientists-1.1322230 http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/prairie-dogs-language-deco... I highly recommend reading that one because it's funny and fascinating. Expt: Also remarkable was the amount of information crammed into a single chirp lasting a 10th of a second. "In one 10th of a second, they say 'Tall thin human wearing blue shirt walking slowly across the colony.'" -- Many Helens—err....—scientists agree: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5937356/prominent-scientists-sign-declaration-that-animals-have-conscious-awareness-just-like-us https://io9.gizmodo.com/5937356/prominent-scientists-sign-de...

robotresearcher 9y ago

> We are the only mammal with consciousness Uh huh.

Quarrelsome 9y ago
Well when you find the great badger city where badgers have been able to put aside their differences and work towards common goals together then let me know. I'd love to see it. In the meantime I'll stick with the assumption that there is still some sort of difference.
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  And you'll call that difference 'consciousness'. OK. Meanwhile, I found a great termite city where termites have put aside their differences and work towards common goals together. Also coral. Their city is a thousand kilometres long.
  - Quarrelsome 9y ago
    I'm not saying that difference is called anything in particular but I can expect wildly different results from interacting with a city than I can from a mound of coral or a termite nest. Don't be so disingenuous with these ideas of abstract equivalence. Yes humans are arrogant sods but there is some sort of reason or reasons (that are likely not to be purely environmental) that have resulted in this outcome where we're having a conversion via electricity across the planet instead spending most our lives trying to roll a breadcrumb around never having a chance to know one another. Something about this gig is different isn't it? Are you genuinely asserting that if we could take the brain of a (insert whatever animal you're considering) and put it in a human shell you wouldn't be able to tell the difference? That's extremely bold.
    - CNJ7654 9y ago
      It sounds like you're confusing conciousness with intelligence, which are two separate concepts entirely
    - hutzlibu 9y ago
      > Are you genuinely asserting that if we could take the brain of a (insert whatever animal you're considering) and put it in a human shell you wouldn't be able to tell the difference? That's extremely bold. He never said that. So don't be surprised if people downvote you, if you use that kind of manipulative arguing.
      - Quarrelsome 9y ago
        so what is the argument beyond "humans so arrogant and humdrum"? I'm trying to frame where we are by finding out what we are arguing and what we aren't, if we're not there then where are we? That's not manipulative I'm just trying to fix us to specific points so we can progress. Lets not forget that the parent comment I'm answering is the pithy: > > We are the only mammal with consciousness > Uh huh. Our parent is an unfaithful sarcastic position so I don't see why that gets a pass yet my attempts to solidify the argument justifies this negativity.
        robotresearcher 9y ago
        I've devoted my professional life to understanding how animals work. It's been the most interesting and challenging topic to study that I can imagine. Science and art knows a lot about what animals do, and a little about how they do it. Your opening statement > We are the only mammal with consciousness is rather controversial, and has been for at least a couple of thousand years. Whether it's true or not is one of the great questions humanity has ever considered. We aren't even sure whether the question is meaningful. Everyone sort of understands what it's getting at, but there is no definition of consciousness that is widely agreed upon. As comments by others have said, for almost all human behaviours once considered exclusive to humans we have found animal behaviours that look very similar. So, my faithful commentary on your blithely confident statement that ignores the existence of any debate on this topic is: uh huh.
  - raattgift 9y ago
    There are some really interesting features in some of the constructs of mound-building termites (Macrotermes spp.) Air flow, thermal control, and water management have been the subjects of some research; it's clearly a fertile area for cross-discipline cooperation by human researchers. Whatever one makes of the mental capacity of these individual eusocial animals (they're not too bright; you can lure them into termite windmills), collectively they substantially alter their local environment to their benefit. There are whole valleys full of mounds rising a couple of metres above ground level in places where they are endemic: https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/06/79/d5/55/magnetic-termite-mounds.jpg https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/06/79/d5/55/... https://www.experiencethewild.com.au/Images/CathMound-300-PM.jpg https://www.experiencethewild.com.au/Images/CathMound-300-PM... and here's a a whole mess of such mounds in a field: https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/87121/530935/f/5448597-Magnetic_Termite_Mounds-0.jpg https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/87121/530935/f/5448597-... That's a lot of biomass with a lot of total neurons, and even though aren't as tightly coupled as the ones in our skulls, they still manage to coordinate a lot of constructive activity. I think it's reasonable to wonder if culture and aesthetics emerge as termite numbers grow large.

adictator 9y ago

Consciousness is the central concept of Hinduism and has been researched & discussed for at least 5000 years (conservative estimate). "Sat-chid-ananda" is the description of this consciousness which is always awake and it is the same as within humans as it is with the consciousness of the universe - according to the Vedas.

jdmichal 9y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15048517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15048517 ... "Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates." [0] We've found evidence in some animal or another for pretty much everything we've ever thought was unique about human cognitive abilities. So far, the only unique thing about humans is how broad and powerful our cognition is. [0] http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious.. http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious....

blueprint 9y ago
You're falling for the assumption the brain's role is generating consciousness. It could also not do so yet still be part of an organism which is conscious. I can say that confidently because I understand how consciousness is generated. I could easily say it here and have in the past. Sure, I'll be downvoted by idiots who do not know whether I do or do not know how consciousness works, but are instead acting on their instincts and emotions. But perhaps there's at least one person in the world who is truthful enough not to have to downvote and to instead ask themselves the question of what it would take for what I assert to be true.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
  What is consciousness? I don't believe that it's universally accepted that it even exists amongst rsearchers. Even those who believe it exists have trouble defining it.
  - blueprint 9y ago
    I emailed you

nkoren 9y ago

Apes are demonstrably aware of the future: https://www.livescience.com/2620-humans-apes-plan.html https://www.livescience.com/2620-humans-apes-plan.html And also demonstrably have a sense of morality: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/19/health/chimpanzee-fairness-morality/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/19/health/chimpanzee-fairness...

AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
Even rats have demonstrated empathy in the form of aiding other rats out of bad situations knowing they will receive no reward for their troubles. A skeptic might say that such behavior is simply part of any social animal's instinct, for various reasons, to which I ask: other than being able to rationalize our behavior, what makes human demonstrations of empathy different?
DeusExMachina 9y ago
Yes, chimps dictators don’t fare well. That’s not what I meant. Chimps don’t have a complex set of morals about which they discuss and evolve with time. I didn’t say we know for sure what is good or what is not. But we can abstract the concepts and evolve our morals. Chimps will never get to debate about gay marriage or other “chimp” rights.
- nkoren 9y ago
  You're moving the goalposts, but are still wrong. I don't have time to dig up the references, but there are plenty of studies showing that apes (and other animals) can develop arbitrary culturally-transmitted "taboos", with violation of those taboos provoking dissent and general politicking. We can't speak to the depths of such a debate, because we can't participate in the debate. It's an (inter-)subjective matter for the animals involved; all we can do as external observes is be objective. But this then leads us into a categorical error: because we can describe a behaviour using objective language, we therefore decide that it in fact contains no subjectivity; eg., is not truly conscious. We used to mis-apply this logic to so-called "inferior" human cultures, denying their humanity because we couldn't get inside their minds. This was wrong, and led to great evil. Until recently, we've applied the same thinking to animals -- but it's just as wrong. There are a shrinking number of Descartian holdouts, and I guess you're one of them. But all evidence and logic is against you.

saguro 9y ago

> discerning of good and evil Humans don't have such a capacity. The notions of 'good' and 'evil' have historically been in flux and went through many huge changes. Modern humans consider the typical behaviors of past humans as 'evil'. Vikings - rape after conquering is good. People today: that's evil. India until 2 generations ago - arranged marriage is good. Today that's evil. Homosexuality - has oscillated many times between good and evil. In fact, different geographic regions will still have polar opposite views on this today.

nkoren 9y ago
> India until 2 generations ago - arranged marriage is good. Today that's evil. Suggest you do some homework. Something like 80%-90% of marriages in India are still arranged. And most people are pretty happy with this situation, or at least no more miserable than "Love marriages" -- which remain highly controversial -- would make them.
- saguro 9y ago
  The definition of 'arranged marriage' today has been neutered. Until 2 generations ago, arranged marriage meant that women had absolutely no say in their marriage - it was at the decision of the parents and to further the desires of the parents. Today, arranged marriage means that the woman's parents will present her with prospective marriage partners but leave the decision making to her, including veto or asking the parents to 'arrange' for a man that the woman fancies - kind of like Tinder but the matching algorithm is parents. That version of arranged marriage is straight up better than the (serious) dating scene in westernized countries. The original version is definitely considered evil by today's morals.
  - nkoren 9y ago
    Okay, you have an alright understanding of the contemporary meaning of the term "arranged marriage" in that case. I find that sticking with contemporary parlance really helps avoid misunderstanding. The term you presumably meant to use -- in today's language -- would be "forced marriage". In which case: agreed!

52-6F-62 9y ago

While I sit more on the fence with a lot of the discussions in this overall thread, you're increasingly being proven wrong in this aspect. For instance, prairie dogs are shown to have a descriptive language: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/prairie-dogs-language-decoded-by-scientists-1.1322230 http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/prairie-dogs-language-deco... I highly recommend reading that one because it's funny and fascinating. Expt: Also remarkable was the amount of information crammed into a single chirp lasting a 10th of a second. "In one 10th of a second, they say 'Tall thin human wearing blue shirt walking slowly across the colony.'" -- Many Helens—err....—scientists agree: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5937356/prominent-scientists-sign-declaration-that-animals-have-conscious-awareness-just-like-us https://io9.gizmodo.com/5937356/prominent-scientists-sign-de...