4 ms·

> humans exist along a spectrum and there isn't a sharp cliff where humans are 100% conscious and empathetic but dogs are 0% I disagree, to a certain extent. I

> humans exist along a spectrum and there isn't a sharp cliff where humans are 100% conscious and empathetic but dogs are 0% I disagree, to a certain extent. In my layman terms, I believe "consciousness" is how humans define and differentiate the human mind, so it's exclusive to humans. Other living beings (or even AI) display human-like traits but they should not be defined as "conscious" because that's our own definition of our innate human experience, of how we describe our inner selves. We can grade animals on a scale of human consciousness but the "consciousness" threshold is very high, I believe too high to be awarded to any known species besides our own. Risking becoming a tautology, the "animal consciousness" scale could be a thing, but then it should be a thing on its own.

RoyalHenOil 2y ago
This is not a definition I have ever heard anyone use before, and I suspect that's because the definition is so constrained that it's not useful for scientific or philosophical discussion. If you reserve "consciousness" as a word to be exclusively for humans, what word do you suggest instead when discussing consciousness as experienced by both humans and non-humans? And once you have come up with such a word, how do you plan to convince everyone to give up the common word they have been using for generations and replace it with this new word? I would suggest, instead, that you co-opt a different, less common word for your unusual use case so as to minimally inconvenience everyone else. "Sapient" seems like a much better option to me, since it is derived from "Homo sapiens" and suggestive of something more unique to humans. Or, better yet, coin a new word and stop trying to change the definitions of existing words.
bangaroo 2y ago
how did you arrive at that conclusion? i feel like there's still just an element of "it's this way because it is this way" to this argument. the entire point of the article and the discussion is the fact that we perhaps assume our experience to be unique when it's not. it could be just as possible that animals experience consciousness in the exact way we do but simply have different innate motivations and interests that lead us to believe they're making decisions with less awareness than we do. it's making the assumption that the human approach to living and existing is the correct approach and then everything around us is "below it." reading the article you see that there isn't even a clear understanding of what denotes consciousness, so it seems weird to just say "well whatever it is, it isn't that" based on the arbitrary desire to set our species apart from others.
- ojosilva 2y ago
  Yes, my definition would be more originalist ("because it has been this way") if you may. Consciousness has been a definition of the inner human experience made by humans themselves, regardless of the lack of clear understanding of what precisely denotes consciousness. Can animals experience what we experience? Well, maybe, but that's not consciousness, as I'm reserving that term to define the human inner experience exclusively. In particular, I'm here to argue that a "scale" proposed by parent is not possible. Why? Because the concept itself was born exclusively from the human experience to summarize the undefinable complexities and interactions of the human mind. Given consciousness is undefinable by specific terms and their relationships (ie. there's no "formula"), we can't really assign partial consciousness consistently to other species. We can say "bees play" or "dogs fear" but that can't really be put in a consciousness scale, because what would "10% conscious" even mean? > it could be just as possible that animals experience consciousness in the exact way we do Other species may experience something analogous to consciousness as they also experience complex interactions of different traits in their minds. But it's always going to be their own interaction and I would not call it consciousness. And whatever it is it's definitely not the exact way we do.
  - bangaroo 2y ago
    if they are undefinable and unmeasurable i'd argue you don't understand them well enough to prove or even argue that there aren't similar complexities in other species

RoyalHenOil 2y ago

This is not a definition I have ever heard anyone use before, and I suspect that's because the definition is so constrained that it's not useful for scientific or philosophical discussion. If you reserve "consciousness" as a word to be exclusively for humans, what word do you suggest instead when discussing consciousness as experienced by both humans and non-humans? And once you have come up with such a word, how do you plan to convince everyone to give up the common word they have been using for generations and replace it with this new word? I would suggest, instead, that you co-opt a different, less common word for your unusual use case so as to minimally inconvenience everyone else. "Sapient" seems like a much better option to me, since it is derived from "Homo sapiens" and suggestive of something more unique to humans. Or, better yet, coin a new word and stop trying to change the definitions of existing words.

bangaroo 2y ago

how did you arrive at that conclusion? i feel like there's still just an element of "it's this way because it is this way" to this argument. the entire point of the article and the discussion is the fact that we perhaps assume our experience to be unique when it's not. it could be just as possible that animals experience consciousness in the exact way we do but simply have different innate motivations and interests that lead us to believe they're making decisions with less awareness than we do. it's making the assumption that the human approach to living and existing is the correct approach and then everything around us is "below it." reading the article you see that there isn't even a clear understanding of what denotes consciousness, so it seems weird to just say "well whatever it is, it isn't that" based on the arbitrary desire to set our species apart from others.

ojosilva 2y ago
Yes, my definition would be more originalist ("because it has been this way") if you may. Consciousness has been a definition of the inner human experience made by humans themselves, regardless of the lack of clear understanding of what precisely denotes consciousness. Can animals experience what we experience? Well, maybe, but that's not consciousness, as I'm reserving that term to define the human inner experience exclusively. In particular, I'm here to argue that a "scale" proposed by parent is not possible. Why? Because the concept itself was born exclusively from the human experience to summarize the undefinable complexities and interactions of the human mind. Given consciousness is undefinable by specific terms and their relationships (ie. there's no "formula"), we can't really assign partial consciousness consistently to other species. We can say "bees play" or "dogs fear" but that can't really be put in a consciousness scale, because what would "10% conscious" even mean? > it could be just as possible that animals experience consciousness in the exact way we do Other species may experience something analogous to consciousness as they also experience complex interactions of different traits in their minds. But it's always going to be their own interaction and I would not call it consciousness. And whatever it is it's definitely not the exact way we do.
- bangaroo 2y ago
  if they are undefinable and unmeasurable i'd argue you don't understand them well enough to prove or even argue that there aren't similar complexities in other species