4 ms·
To prove this would require being able to very clearly define consciousness, but we know that consciousness is not “a thing”— it’s rather “a collection of thing
by epgui 2y ago
To prove this would require being able to very clearly define consciousness, but we know that consciousness is not “a thing”— it’s rather “a collection of things”, and it’s not either there or not; rather it’s largely a question of degree. And I don’t just mean this as inter-species variation either: even if we only look at humans, humans exhibit the whole spectrum and/or patchwork of states of consciousness, both developmentally and pathologically. And to some extent, physiologically too.
I find it annoying how we’re even entertaining the idea that animals wouldn’t be conscious. Like what does that even mean?
All these people who aren’t convinced that animals are conscious… I’d really like to know what specific behaviour would convince them one way or another. Pick pretty much any behaviour, and you’ll find animals (and even insects) displaying it.
- delecti 2y agoI can't help but believe that people who think animals aren't conscious are starting from that assumption. If you start from the belief that there's some inherent "human-ness" (soul, etc), then nothing you see will convince you that animals have it too.
- panarky 2y agoCould you prove that another person is conscious? Could you prove that you are conscious?
- delecti 2y agoI can prove that I am conscious, at least to my satisfaction, because I can think the thought "I am conscious". Outward behavior of other humans also proves to my satisfaction that they're conscious. And when interacting with animals, I see many of the same qualities that lead me to believe other people are conscious, with the difference largely being a matter of degree.
- epgui 2y agoBefore you can prove anything about consciousness, even "to your satisfaction" or in relation to yourself, you would need to propose a clear and unambiguous definition of it.
- ang_cire 2y agoPeople out there with so little to feel good about they got to pretend animals don't think to feel better about themselves. Anthropocentrism is a hell of a drug.
- klyrs 2y agoMy understanding of the history here is that scientific understanding of the nature of animals was based on folklore, attributing supernatural properties to animals and their behavior. Scientists agreed to throw all that out, and rightfully so, in preference for an evidence-based approach. And what we're seeing today, is that despite a couple centuries of assuming that animals are pure instinct-driven automatons, we have tons of evidence that they are individuals with intelligence, memory, feelings, preferences and even language. Where "they" spans the range from bees to whales. The assumptions of the recent centuries weren't so much anthropocentric, but a rejection of folklore as literal truth. While some are still attached to an anthropocentric worldview, that perspective seems dead among people who study animal behavior.
- epgui 2y agoI have a few nits to pick here... > scientific understanding of the nature of animals was based on folklore Popular, pre- or proto- scientific understanding perhaps, but not scientific understanding per se. > despite a couple centuries of assuming that animals are pure instinct-driven automatons, we have tons of evidence that they are individuals with intelligence, memory, feelings, preferences and even language These things are not mutually exclusive. The words "intelligence", "memory", "feelings", "preferences" and "language" can refer to purely automatic/mechanical processes, even when we're speaking in reference to humans. There's no real reason why we need non-mechanistic magic to explain the human experience. The two ideas are compatible: animals are conscious, and humans are "just" really complex machines. It's all the same stuff, viewed from different lenses. > The assumptions of the recent centuries weren't so much anthropocentric They were, and they still are. Folklore itself is for the most part very anthropocentric.
- DangitBobby 2y agoThe human attitude towards our relationship with animals cannot be described as anything other than anthropocentric for the vast majority of people. Whether the origin of that attitude is due to the rejection of certain traditions assuming animals to be sacred or the adoption of traditions treating humans as sacred, it exists, and causes horrific mistreatment of animals on a global scale.
- jjtheblunt 2y ago> I find it annoying how we’re even entertaining the idea that animals wouldn’t be conscious. Like what does that even mean? it means that "science" has been infiltrated with grifters living off research grant gravy trains producing conjectures entirely obvious for hundreds of thousands of years...and reproduced by the previous round of grifters a handful of years earlier. i say that as someone who sees these faux revelations recur every few years. it's ridiculous...as if we're as a species not conscious of the pattern, ironically.
- epgui 2y agoThat's for the most part nonsense / a distorted perspective on what happens in science... and I say this as someone who used to be a biochemist.