3 ms·

Erm, at least in cognitive science consciousness is generally ascribed to most mammals, if it's ascribed to humans at all. Self-consciousness and higher-order c

by drostie 15y ago

Erm, at least in cognitive science consciousness is generally ascribed to most mammals, if it's ascribed to humans at all. Self-consciousness and higher-order consciousness might be more limited terms, but the idea that a dog can really feel pain in some fashion which is meaningful for some of the ways that we can feel pain -- that is not usually disputed.

philh 15y ago
Fair point, but I assume the specific property mike was talking about was closer to self-awareness than to the ability to feel pain.
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  Nope. Self awareness is a property that can be ascribed to numerous species. If you understand evolution, this shouldn't be surprising.
  - philh 15y ago
    "Numerous", sure. I'm aware of dolphins and elephants, and I'm sure there are others. But you specifically said "the vast majority of life", and I don't believe that claim to be true. Am I being downvoted for being wrong, or for missing the point, or what?
    - mike-cardwell 15y ago
      Animals are conscious. A subset of those are self-aware. A subset of those have so far been identified by us as being self-aware. I was discounting a lot of things when I made my "vast majority" claim. Including plants and bacteria etc. I don't know why we're having this argument over semantics. The point of my statement was that humans don't have a monopoly on being "conscious", so the fact that a new life form (an android) becomes conscious, doesn't mean we suddenly have an entirely new situation with regards to consciousness and rights. We already have lots of conscious life forms with absolutely no rights.
      - philh 15y ago
        If we're talking about mere consciousness, then I think this whole thread is missing the point, because I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about self-awareness. If we're talking about self-awareness, your original post was incorrect under any reasonable interpretation of the words "vast majority of life". (I don't consider this arguing over semantics, but I'm not about to get into a semantic argument about the word "semantic"...) That's pretty much the only thing I've been trying to say. "It is not true that the vast majority of life on this planet is self-aware." If your intended point didn't rely on that claim, then fair enough.
        Retric 15y ago
        Self awareness is a fairly simple concept that even things as simple as squid have demonstrated. I have even seen it argued that bumble bee's have a vary simple language. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/apr/05/dancing-bees-show-direction-distance http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/apr/05/danc... However, if your talking about bacteria I would agree that self awareness is probably stretching it. Honestly, I found the 100 year battery the least likely part of the whole process, but it's a tech demo designed do demonstrate crossing the uncanny valley so I think we might be setting the bar a little high.

by drostie 15y ago

philh 15y ago

Fair point, but I assume the specific property mike was talking about was closer to self-awareness than to the ability to feel pain.

mike-cardwell 15y ago
Nope. Self awareness is a property that can be ascribed to numerous species. If you understand evolution, this shouldn't be surprising.
- philh 15y ago
  "Numerous", sure. I'm aware of dolphins and elephants, and I'm sure there are others. But you specifically said "the vast majority of life", and I don't believe that claim to be true. Am I being downvoted for being wrong, or for missing the point, or what?
  - mike-cardwell 15y ago
    Animals are conscious. A subset of those are self-aware. A subset of those have so far been identified by us as being self-aware. I was discounting a lot of things when I made my "vast majority" claim. Including plants and bacteria etc. I don't know why we're having this argument over semantics. The point of my statement was that humans don't have a monopoly on being "conscious", so the fact that a new life form (an android) becomes conscious, doesn't mean we suddenly have an entirely new situation with regards to consciousness and rights. We already have lots of conscious life forms with absolutely no rights.
    - philh 15y ago
      If we're talking about mere consciousness, then I think this whole thread is missing the point, because I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about self-awareness. If we're talking about self-awareness, your original post was incorrect under any reasonable interpretation of the words "vast majority of life". (I don't consider this arguing over semantics, but I'm not about to get into a semantic argument about the word "semantic"...) That's pretty much the only thing I've been trying to say. "It is not true that the vast majority of life on this planet is self-aware." If your intended point didn't rely on that claim, then fair enough.
      - Retric 15y ago
        Self awareness is a fairly simple concept that even things as simple as squid have demonstrated. I have even seen it argued that bumble bee's have a vary simple language. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/apr/05/dancing-bees-show-direction-distance http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/apr/05/danc... However, if your talking about bacteria I would agree that self awareness is probably stretching it. Honestly, I found the 100 year battery the least likely part of the whole process, but it's a tech demo designed do demonstrate crossing the uncanny valley so I think we might be setting the bar a little high.