4 ms·
Without touching on the computer bit, feelings certainly have little to do with consciousness. A dog feels feelings. Happiness, fear, etc. We know a simpler org
by appplication 3y ago
Without touching on the computer bit, feelings certainly have little to do with consciousness. A dog feels feelings. Happiness, fear, etc. We know a simpler organism like a beetle has some sense of “feeling”. They respond to their environment and move to safety, resources, etc. Go even simpler and you’re at unicellular organisms, which similarly respond to positive and negative input. Plants also do the same.
Ultimately what is a feeling but a response to environmental stimuli? Why is consciousness necessary in the equation?
- pfannkuchen 3y agoWell I believe the term "feelings" originated with reference to humans, and that is how we conceptualize the term. How humans "feel" does require a conscious agent layer, since that is what is doing the "feeling". What is being "felt" is the chemical signals that are part of an organism's low level behavior control system. Other animals do have the chemical signaling part since they have a similar low level behavior control system. But the chemical signals part is not what constitutes "feelings" in humans, so IMO animals do not have "feelings" per se unless they have a conscious agent to experience the "feelings". It is possible that some other animals do have a conscious agent layer, and those animals could be said to "have feelings", but at present we do not know which animals possess this layer, if any. I think if we say that dogs "have feelings" then we are giving them the benefit of the doubt regarding whether they possess such a layer, in the absence of concrete knowledge on our part. I find it extremely unlikely that plants have a conscious agent layer, because the purpose of this layer is behavior computation, and plants do not have behavior because they lack moving parts.