4 ms·

> a cursory glance at the evidence and a basic application of Occam's razor would suggest the opposite. Care to elaborate/expand? PS: Being downvoted for a si

• lolinder 2y ago
  The evidence: animals exhibit numerous behaviors that resemble our emotional responses in various ways. Anyone who has ever had a pet dog or a cat will have countless anecdotes. The explanation with the fewest moving parts is that our brain and hormonal systems look an awful lot like the brain and hormonal systems of a cat or a dog and therefore the simplest explanation is that cats and dogs have emotions and thought patterns that resemble ours in very meaningful ways. The actual scientific explanations that people tend to put forward (as discussed in TFA) revolve around us projecting our own thoughts and emotions onto the animals. To me that seems substantially less rational than just believing that similar neurological structures produce similar neurological results.
  • mgh2 2y ago
    Are you sure that is not just mimicry of mechanisms left by evolution? Is like saying ChatGPT has conscience because it can talk or "think" like us...are we missing something here? I am not opposing your view, just trying to understand the logic - perplexed by downvotes on a simple question...
    • captainclam 2y ago
      “Mimicry of mechanisms left by evolution” would be a much less parsimonious explanation than just having those mechanisms, i.e. Occam’s razor.
      • byproxy 2y ago
        "Occam's razor" is not some natural law so I fail to understand how invoking it goes towards proving anything.
    • lolinder 2y ago
      I'm not sure about the downvotes, I couldn't even downvote you if I wanted to because you replied to me. I'm operating on the assumption that evolution happened as Darwin described it. As another reply to you notes, darwinian evolution precludes sharp divides between species in favor of a gradual development of complexity over time. A believer in darwinian evolution should expect consciousness and emotions and other mental processes to manifest on a continuum, which means that the question of animal consciousness should be about as controversial as the question of our own consciousness (which is definitely an open topic of philosophical debate but is also impossible to solved with an experiment).
      • jemmyw 2y ago
        Not that I believe this, but there could be an intelligence cliff where you get to a certain level and suddenly consciousness and self awareness appear. That is a mechanism where gradual change could lead to stepped differences.
        • lolinder 2y ago
          Right, but barring evidence against the simpler model we should prefer it to a more complex one.
        • CuriouslyC 2y ago
          There could, but then you would have to explain why some permutations of matter create a new dimension of sensation which previously didn't exist, which then has the ability to reach back into the dimension of matter and exert will on it (are we opening a wormhole to an alternate reality of the soulbots or something??).
          • jemmyw 2y ago
            I'll reiterate that I don't believe it to be the case that animals with smaller brains are not self-aware, but wanted to counter that it HAS to be a smooth gradient of level of consciousness between simpler and more complex brains. It can be stepped. However, if it were the case, you don't need to explain it, only observe it. For example, I think we can say from observation that there needs to be a minimal complexity. n-neurons cannot be self aware and n+1 can. I'm sure it's not just the number, but you get the point. The gradient of self-awareness need not start at the gradient of intelligence, nor need it have the same slope. I don't believe in non-physical explanations. We don't know the mechanism though, so we do actually do need to explain why some permutations of matter, as you put it, (i.e. the permutation in brains) has this sense, and others (matter in rocks, matter in computers?) does not. Although I'd think process, rather than just arrangement.
    • timeon 2y ago
      It is still possible that it is just mimicry. But same for Homo sapiens.
• mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  Ever since Darwin, the scientific view has been descent with modification. We're all branches of the same phylogenetic tree, and many of those branches are very close to us, such as other mammals. We have topologically similar digestive, immune, circulatory, respiratory, nervous, and reproductive systems. While there are important differences between, say, the foods that a cat and a human can digest, the differences in how the overall system works are small compared to the similarities. Therefore, it's a reasonable starting guess that humans and closely-related animals would have many structural similarities in their mental experience, although with some differences. It tilts the balance towards needing evidence that other animals are not conscious, rather than needing evidence that they are. And when we look for evidence, we see intelligence even in branches as far away from us as crows and octopuses, suggesting that maybe consciousness (which we guess might correlate with intelligence) has deep roots in that tree, or else emerges independently quite easily.
  • rrr_oh_man 2y ago
    Speaking of consciousness and tress: https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcs.1578 https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcs.1...
    • mitthrowaway2 2y ago
      There's definitely more going on with trees than we once thought, but I'm at least confident that wherever human consciousness comes from, it certainly must be tied to the nervous system. If we inherited consciousness from our ancestors, then the most distant common ancestor that we could possibly have inherited it from would be at most around the point where we branched from jellyfish. So if trees or other plants are conscious in their own way, then they also must have independently evolved it in their own way; it's not a trait that they share with us based on common heritage alone.