7 ms·

I find our assumption that other living beings are not self aware fascinating. Simply because we cannot speak a common language we assume creatures are drones

I find our assumption that other living beings are not self aware fascinating. Simply because we cannot speak a common language we assume creatures are drones with no intelligence or emotion, until we can somehow prove otherwise. It almost speaks more to the human psyche than anything else.

JoelMcCracken 6y ago
I find this phenomenon very unusual. I think some people think this way because otherwise nature and society inflicts unimaginable horrors on an incomprehensible number of creatures and that is a truly soul-shaking thing to realize. One thing I think regarding AI is it has shown Is just how complex the behaviors of these “simple” creatures really are.
- ddingus 6y ago
  Make me realize we do not yet have AI. We do have interesting sub systems and they do have great utility. Not to crap on what is done. But my cat can do things nothing we make can.
colincooke 6y ago
I think of it more as an efficiency argument. Does being self aware help with survival? For the sea slug, probably not, for other (higher level) organisms maybe. Is a pareto frontier of awareness? Trading off the increased cognitive ability it likely supplies with the increased energy consumption it requires. Whats interesting about some of these findings is, in addition to of course the pure science of it, that self-awareness may offer more benefits than previously thought. This could have implications beyond biological understanding, perhaps in building AI agents for example.
- ddingus 6y ago
  I believe real intelligence, having independent agency is linked to an organism complex enough to be aware of what it is vs everything else. The self. A computer in a box lacks this. Everything we make lacks this so far. Biotech is going to change that, IMHO. Not sure electro mechanical can get there. At least not yet, though we are getting really good at it.
webwanderings 6y ago
Another fascinating thing is human’s perceived comprehension of aliens. Hollywood and popular literature has always conveyed the notion of someone from other planets, so much so that we have forgotten the others among us. The nature on this planet earth is still as unknown to us as any external planet. Come to think of it, humans are not that great in comprehending themselves and the nature that surrounds them. Our ability to be self-aware is technically relative and not absolute.
bhk 6y ago
I've found that people tend to attribute human emotions and self-awareness to their pets, far beyond what science (or skilled pet trainers) would hold. And then there are other people that attribute these qualities and even the presence of a "soul" to plants, rocks, etc.. As far as the human "psyche" is concerned, I think it's inclined to animism.
- riffraff 6y ago
  Many years ago someone gave a talk on the ever expanding sphere of "things we recognize rights too". One of the interesting point was how we tend to humanize "evil" objects which clearly have no intent: being angry at a mouse that does not work, some software that crashes, or feeling the printer hates us. We do seems to have animism as a built-in mental device.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - eivarv 6y ago
    The human mind is prone to certain types of errors, for sure. Pareidolia and apophenia are other interesting examples.
exo-pla-net 6y ago
It's not an assumption. Self awareness has been scientifically tested in many species, most prominently by using the mirror test: testing if an animal can recognize itself in a mirror by observing if its behavior changes after surreptitiously placing onto its body a mark, which the animal can only see through the mirror. One can argue about the merits of the mirror test, but it's inaccurate to say that scientists are merely making assumptions. They're doing their best to rigorously test self awareness.
- dfischer 6y ago
  They’re doing it within their frame of definitions which is largely evidence of constrained models leaving options unknown outside the realm of reason thereby excluding outliers of surprising potential.
  - the8472 6y ago
    This sounds like critiquing science for not having all answers. Do you have a better approach?
    - dfischer 6y ago
      My critique of is shaded by an irritation of within the both the "non-scientific" community that has been indoctrinated to take what "scientists" say as expert factual irrefutable statements and the "scientific" community that has become not what I'd call scientific and more close to dogma, orthodox, ideological, and or protectionist to break novel grounds. The scientific community is explicitly sanctioned by a centralized order of groups that endorse individuals within a process enforced upon anyone born. You either accept the game and fight to get into "science" or you're not a "scientist." I know plenty of individuals who are more-expert, more scientific than any scientist publishing papers funded by poorly designed incentive structures between education, research, monetary incentive, and survival. There's a lot of "clique politics" within the academia of science and it deeply troubles me. It's largely based on the university system being in control of it and the processes that contribute to that structure. Luckily it does seem to be getting more attention so that is good. Additionally the trend towards self-organization with the internet and wherever that leads us will most likely lead to new structures that allow more freedom of information within science to propagate without as much dependence on centralized entities being corrupted and tainting the scientific process. Outside of that, my critique here is largely based on various modes within Functionalism (theory of mind) > In an analogous manner, the role of mental states, such as belief and desire, is determined by the functional or causal role that is designated for them within our best scientific psychological theory. If some mental state which is postulated by folk psychology (e.g. hysteria) is determined not to have any fundamental role in cognitive psychological explanation, then that particular state may be considered not to exist . On the other hand, if it turns out that there are states which theoretical cognitive psychology posits as necessary for explanation of human behavior but which are not foreseen by ordinary folk psychological language, then these entities or states exist. I think the solve I'm looking for is required on both ends to communicate truth and "fuzziness" of truth. I'm not sure if English and current languages will ever trend towards this because every statement has a value of assigned truth based on existence/to-be. So short-term would be communicating the meme of this through the zeitgeist/noosphere and embed it within the culture - then potentially evolve towards a language that is fuzzy based.
freyr 6y ago
Do most people really assume this? I think it’s more that scientists have tried testing animals for self-awareness for many years, and most animals fail any test they’ve devised. Maybe this is just a failure of testing, but I don’t think it indicates a widespread assumption among the public that animals are emotionless drones.
the8472 6y ago
> I find our assumption that other living beings are not self aware fascinating. Sponges lack a CNS. I am quite confident that they have no self-awareness. C. elegans has 302 neurons. I am fairly confident that it has no self-awareness by any useful definition thereof. At some point a brain will be sufficiently complex for the possibility of self-awareness, but that does not guarantee that it arises. And even when it arises it might be weak (e.g. the animal might have to be given many opportunities to realize it) or only true according to some definitions and not others. So since not all animals have self-awareness it is then a matter of default position. Do you assume they're likely to have it until proven otherwise or vice versa? Considering that by raw numbers there are more simple animals than complex ones the latter position isn't all that unreasonable.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
We also argue whether others outside of our mind are self-aware. And most physicists think free will is bunk and therefore we are not self-aware, everything is an illusion.
- andrei_says_ 6y ago
  I’m not a physicist bu I’ve been observing my choices for years (Advaita practice) and still haven’t noticed anything I could call free will. Unless we agree to call “life long conditioning, genetic makeup, trauma responses, habitual responses, present emotional state, thoughts and beliefs, environment, stimuli, any and all cultural influences, present blood sugar, hormonal levels, pulse, all preferences associated with avoidance of pain and striving for pleasure etc.” and a bunch of other factors which factors are absolutely out of our control, “free will”. Once I started unpacking the phrase it became nonsensical.

JoelMcCracken 6y ago

I find this phenomenon very unusual. I think some people think this way because otherwise nature and society inflicts unimaginable horrors on an incomprehensible number of creatures and that is a truly soul-shaking thing to realize. One thing I think regarding AI is it has shown Is just how complex the behaviors of these “simple” creatures really are.

ddingus 6y ago
Make me realize we do not yet have AI. We do have interesting sub systems and they do have great utility. Not to crap on what is done. But my cat can do things nothing we make can.

colincooke 6y ago

I think of it more as an efficiency argument. Does being self aware help with survival? For the sea slug, probably not, for other (higher level) organisms maybe. Is a pareto frontier of awareness? Trading off the increased cognitive ability it likely supplies with the increased energy consumption it requires. Whats interesting about some of these findings is, in addition to of course the pure science of it, that self-awareness may offer more benefits than previously thought. This could have implications beyond biological understanding, perhaps in building AI agents for example.

ddingus 6y ago
I believe real intelligence, having independent agency is linked to an organism complex enough to be aware of what it is vs everything else. The self. A computer in a box lacks this. Everything we make lacks this so far. Biotech is going to change that, IMHO. Not sure electro mechanical can get there. At least not yet, though we are getting really good at it.

webwanderings 6y ago

Another fascinating thing is human’s perceived comprehension of aliens. Hollywood and popular literature has always conveyed the notion of someone from other planets, so much so that we have forgotten the others among us. The nature on this planet earth is still as unknown to us as any external planet. Come to think of it, humans are not that great in comprehending themselves and the nature that surrounds them. Our ability to be self-aware is technically relative and not absolute.

bhk 6y ago

I've found that people tend to attribute human emotions and self-awareness to their pets, far beyond what science (or skilled pet trainers) would hold. And then there are other people that attribute these qualities and even the presence of a "soul" to plants, rocks, etc.. As far as the human "psyche" is concerned, I think it's inclined to animism.

riffraff 6y ago
Many years ago someone gave a talk on the ever expanding sphere of "things we recognize rights too". One of the interesting point was how we tend to humanize "evil" objects which clearly have no intent: being angry at a mouse that does not work, some software that crashes, or feeling the printer hates us. We do seems to have animism as a built-in mental device.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- eivarv 6y ago
  The human mind is prone to certain types of errors, for sure. Pareidolia and apophenia are other interesting examples.

exo-pla-net 6y ago

It's not an assumption. Self awareness has been scientifically tested in many species, most prominently by using the mirror test: testing if an animal can recognize itself in a mirror by observing if its behavior changes after surreptitiously placing onto its body a mark, which the animal can only see through the mirror. One can argue about the merits of the mirror test, but it's inaccurate to say that scientists are merely making assumptions. They're doing their best to rigorously test self awareness.

dfischer 6y ago
They’re doing it within their frame of definitions which is largely evidence of constrained models leaving options unknown outside the realm of reason thereby excluding outliers of surprising potential.
- the8472 6y ago
  This sounds like critiquing science for not having all answers. Do you have a better approach?
  - dfischer 6y ago
    My critique of is shaded by an irritation of within the both the "non-scientific" community that has been indoctrinated to take what "scientists" say as expert factual irrefutable statements and the "scientific" community that has become not what I'd call scientific and more close to dogma, orthodox, ideological, and or protectionist to break novel grounds. The scientific community is explicitly sanctioned by a centralized order of groups that endorse individuals within a process enforced upon anyone born. You either accept the game and fight to get into "science" or you're not a "scientist." I know plenty of individuals who are more-expert, more scientific than any scientist publishing papers funded by poorly designed incentive structures between education, research, monetary incentive, and survival. There's a lot of "clique politics" within the academia of science and it deeply troubles me. It's largely based on the university system being in control of it and the processes that contribute to that structure. Luckily it does seem to be getting more attention so that is good. Additionally the trend towards self-organization with the internet and wherever that leads us will most likely lead to new structures that allow more freedom of information within science to propagate without as much dependence on centralized entities being corrupted and tainting the scientific process. Outside of that, my critique here is largely based on various modes within Functionalism (theory of mind) > In an analogous manner, the role of mental states, such as belief and desire, is determined by the functional or causal role that is designated for them within our best scientific psychological theory. If some mental state which is postulated by folk psychology (e.g. hysteria) is determined not to have any fundamental role in cognitive psychological explanation, then that particular state may be considered not to exist . On the other hand, if it turns out that there are states which theoretical cognitive psychology posits as necessary for explanation of human behavior but which are not foreseen by ordinary folk psychological language, then these entities or states exist. I think the solve I'm looking for is required on both ends to communicate truth and "fuzziness" of truth. I'm not sure if English and current languages will ever trend towards this because every statement has a value of assigned truth based on existence/to-be. So short-term would be communicating the meme of this through the zeitgeist/noosphere and embed it within the culture - then potentially evolve towards a language that is fuzzy based.

freyr 6y ago

Do most people really assume this? I think it’s more that scientists have tried testing animals for self-awareness for many years, and most animals fail any test they’ve devised. Maybe this is just a failure of testing, but I don’t think it indicates a widespread assumption among the public that animals are emotionless drones.

the8472 6y ago

> I find our assumption that other living beings are not self aware fascinating. Sponges lack a CNS. I am quite confident that they have no self-awareness. C. elegans has 302 neurons. I am fairly confident that it has no self-awareness by any useful definition thereof. At some point a brain will be sufficiently complex for the possibility of self-awareness, but that does not guarantee that it arises. And even when it arises it might be weak (e.g. the animal might have to be given many opportunities to realize it) or only true according to some definitions and not others. So since not all animals have self-awareness it is then a matter of default position. Do you assume they're likely to have it until proven otherwise or vice versa? Considering that by raw numbers there are more simple animals than complex ones the latter position isn't all that unreasonable.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

We also argue whether others outside of our mind are self-aware. And most physicists think free will is bunk and therefore we are not self-aware, everything is an illusion.

andrei_says_ 6y ago
I’m not a physicist bu I’ve been observing my choices for years (Advaita practice) and still haven’t noticed anything I could call free will. Unless we agree to call “life long conditioning, genetic makeup, trauma responses, habitual responses, present emotional state, thoughts and beliefs, environment, stimuli, any and all cultural influences, present blood sugar, hormonal levels, pulse, all preferences associated with avoidance of pain and striving for pleasure etc.” and a bunch of other factors which factors are absolutely out of our control, “free will”. Once I started unpacking the phrase it became nonsensical.