4 ms·
> I reject panpsychism as going against common sense; I think there probably are very simple (read: small) animals that aren't conscious. Yes, I can definitely
by lolinder 2y ago
> I reject panpsychism as going against common sense; I think there probably are very simple (read: small) animals that aren't conscious.
Yes, I can definitely agree with this. I'm more reacting to the idea that it's somehow an unresolved scientific question whether dogs and cats and other mammals have emotions.
There isn't a sufficiently large difference in neurology between humans and other mammals for me to believe that they're entirely unconscious machines while we're not.
> I think most animals are conscious but a qualitative distinction between humans and animals is very reasonable. Animals didn't land on the moon or discover quantum mechanics. Whatever it is that allowed humans to accomplish things like that is a worthy basis of a distinction.
Yes, it's a worthy basis of distinction, but is it a qualitative one or a quantitative one? Do we possess intelligence that is orders of magnitude higher than the next smartest mammals, or do we actually possess something that other mammals have none of?
It's not clear to me that landing on the moon and discovering quantum mechanics require a different kind of mental process than building a beaver dam or discovering a use for medicinal herbs. That feels more to me like the same sort of thing multiplied a thousand fold.
And if it is the same sort of thing, then we're not projecting emotions onto our dogs, our dogs actually do have emotions of the same general sort that we do.
- slowmovintarget 2y agoDogs definitely have Theory of Mind. There was a study done that placed a treat in a room where the dog was instructed not to eat it. A handler was in the room with the dog. When the lights were turned out, the dogs would eat the treat, because they knew that the human couldn't see in the dark.
- squigz 2y agoWouldn't another explanation be that the dog thought the human literally didn't exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- slowmovintarget 2y agoNo, because the dog could smell and hear the human, just like they could smell the treat.
- lolinder 2y agoFrankly, as a parent of three I'm not at all convinced that human infants lack object permanence, much less adult dogs. I've never observed anything in my infants that would indicate they lost track of something's existence, and I've seen plenty of things that suggest the opposite. See also the section of that article entitled "Contradicting evidence".
- slowmovintarget 2y agoAs a parent also, I think it simply varies from child to child. There is a point in time between vision developing and object permanence being learned where peek-a-boo is absolutely magic.
- lolinder 2y agoPeek-a-boo is a ton of fun with infants but I don't buy the explanation that it has to do with object permanence. At the same stage where peek-a-boo is hilarious my kids have also each been perfectly capable of watching me hide something and then going looking for it.
- newzisforsukas 2y agoOr they tried the strategy in the past, and they had learned behavior that by eating things at night, they can get away with it. If you read the methods of this study, they used dogs that lived as pets [1]. 1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347210004033 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00033...
- llamaimperative 2y agoAnd how do you think humans acquire a theory of mind other than learning behaviors and figuring out what works and what doesn’t?
- mannykannot 2y agoThe question is one of what has been learned. It seems possible that an animal could learn, from experience, that outcomes can be different depending on whether it is light or dark, without developing any intuition as to why that might be so. I'm all for the 'consciousness as a spectrum' view, but as TFA says, anyone looking for a eureka moment [in this matter] will be disappointed.
- stoperaticless 2y agoBut sadly they dont have theory of rope.
- bongodongobob 2y agoHilarious comment. Without fail, my neighbor's dog wraps himself around the tree within 30 minutes of being outside. It's been 2 years now, and he just can't get the hang of it.
- zeekaran 2y agoCats do the same thing if you take them outside on a leash. My cat is dumb enough to get tangled, but smart enough to know that I will guide her in reverse every time.
- Heronymus_Anon 2y ago> just can't get the hang pun intended?
- mikestew 2y agoOddly, I’ve found that pit bulls won’t wrap themselves around a tree. We’ve had several in our house that are/were walked daily, and we volunteer at a dog shelter where my wife and I walk other pit bulls on a regular basis. There are exceptions, but my experience is that the vast majority will not let anything (like a tree) between themselves and their handler if on leash. Just when I think “ah, ha! You’re going to do it…”, they will course correct and go around to avoid trouble. It’s the oddest thing. I have never come up with a plausible theory, but it sure is nice. (And it is not our dog handling, as our control groups are happy to wrap circles around a tree.)
- throwaway2037 2y agoI am not an pet owner. Are you saying that other breeds do this, but pit bulls are exceptional in this manner? If yes, do you have any thoughts why?
- farhaven 2y agoI mean, I'm pretty sure rats also have a theory of mind. My data point is exactly one of the little buggers who used to be my pet. Whenever he was running around my room, he'd peek around to see if I was looking at him before jumping on the couch. If he couldn't see me, he'd jump. If he could, he wouldn't.
- mr_toad 2y agoBut most humans would have a more complex theory of the mind - they’d realise who would get the blame when the lights were turned back on.
- hnfong 2y ago> It's not clear to me that landing on the moon and discovering quantum mechanics require a different kind of mental process than building a beaver dam or discovering a use for medicinal herbs. To the contrary, I do think landing on the moon and QM requires a different kind of mental process than a beaver. However, the problem is that this implies that consciousness is a function of intelligence, and if only exceptional intelligence is sufficient evidence of consciousness, then would less intelligent people be considered having no consciousness, just like animals? If one entertains the additional argument in the form of "all humans are the same, and some are shown to be smart (spaceships, QM, etc), thus all humans are conscious", then the question becomes why don't we apply the logic to all animals/mammals/apes, since it's clear the biologically we are constructed with the same parts?
- shinycode 2y agoMy cat can’t comprehend code written on my screen and the world that is internet. Maybe other being exists and our notion of intelligence would collapse the same way a cat can’t possibly understand what internet is. Compared to them, would we be conscious beings ? Would they consider us conscious beings ?
- jaharios 2y ago>My cat can’t comprehend code written on my screen and the world that is internet. My grandma is the same.
- shinycode 2y agoYour grandma can comprehend but maybe don’t want to. We know humans are equipped with what’s needed to comprehend. Or maybe some humans might never comprehend some things and it raises the question : « does all humans have the same consciousness ? ». My take is organic breathing = consciousness. There may be different levels of it. Otherwise it’s like trying to say all colors can be trimmed down to two values, black and white. There is a variety of consciousness and the definition we try to make of it orient the whole debate. It will never be the same between humans and animals but it doesn’t mean because it’s not human it doesn’t exists.