7 ms·

This is a political statement based on speculation, not a scientific breakthrough based on evidence. And what it's really about is animal rights (and perhaps gr

This is a political statement based on speculation, not a scientific breakthrough based on evidence. And what it's really about is animal rights (and perhaps grant money for 'consciousness' research). Scientific and philosophical footwork are entirely lacking here, and the body is a random committee with no special authority to declare anything. Among the weird suggestions of this document are that birds show a "parallel evolution of consciousness," implying that our common ancestors (ancient amniotes, lizardy things) were not conscious; also that whole classes of amniotes are not conscious. The idea that reptiles and possibly certain kinds of mammals are unconscious automata, while we and birds are conscious, is at least worth raising an eyebrow over.

vacri 14y ago
Nice hand-waving dismissal. You clearly haven't been tracking recent scientific research in the area - corvids and parrots have been shown to have these responses for quite some time now. The rest of the stuff in the declaration is humdrum stuff that has been accepted for decades. Yes, it may be political, but that's most likely because the field doesn't have any layman-recognisable heavyweights like CERN to say "professional opinion on the matter says -foo-". The idea that reptiles and possibly certain kinds of mammals are unconscious automata This is why I think the term 'consciousness' has a problem with conflation, because it leads to responses like this. Just because an entity does not have the 'consciousness' they are talking about does not make then an 'unconscious automata'. You're mixing terms from different contexts.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  You clearly know little about the field if you have never talked to a bird researcher (neurobiologist, ethologist, psychologist) who would question the cavalier application of the word 'consciousness' to more-or-less arbitrary bird behaviors. The behavior you are talking about is not 'latest' or even new. But I can point at any behavior to indicate anything, if my concepts do not have any real relationship to explaining how the behavior is produced or its evolutionary function. Which consciousness doesn't. You are hand-waving at "latest research" to solve an actually insoluble problem: of nailing down what consciousness is, and also of developing philosophical consensus around that concept. Apparently you think that a random committee vote will do the job. That is the only recent development here, and it isn't scientific. What you have is some fairly arbitrary experiments with a note attached to them saying 'consciousness!' The issue of consciousness was never about this. "Parallel evolution" implies that the feature at issue was not present in the common ancestors, and probably isn't present in all the descendants of those common ancestors. This is a deeply weird assumption for which there is NOT scientific evidence. Yet it made its way into this hokey little document, making it abundantly clear that its claims have not seen any serious kind of review. Your complaint about "conflation" is the tip of the iceberg - consciousness is such a vague concept, and so well detached from observables, that you will never see an end to such problems. In the "best" case you will choose some behavior (such as preening in a mirror) and flatly assert that it is consciousness - while you will get others to agree on the preening you won't get them to agree on the consciousness, leaving you with a pile of data concerning just plain preening.
  - vacri 14y ago
    bird researcher ... who would question the cavalier application of the word 'consciousness' to more-or-less arbitrary bird behaviors Yeah, despite all your defensive text, you haven't actually been tracking recent research if you come up with a statement like this. Ironically, you call as your line of authority some of the kinds of professions who signed the declaration you later denigrate. I guess you could go 'No True Scotsman' on them and say that they're not real neurobiologists... In the "best" case you will choose some behavior (such as preening in a mirror) and flatly assert that it is consciousness Seriously, you're simply strawmanning something you don't like. 'Flatly assert'? Utter strawman.
azakai 14y ago
> This is a political statement based on speculation, not a scientific breakthrough based on evidence. And what it's really about is animal rights (and perhaps grant money for 'consciousness' research). If so, then it is striking, since animal research is fundamental in neuroscience. > Scientific and philosophical footwork are entirely lacking here That's unfair. The people there have enormous records of scientific accomplishment. > Among the weird suggestions of this document are that birds show a "parallel evolution of consciousness," implying that our common ancestors (ancient amniotes, lizardy things) were not conscious; also that whole classes of amniotes are not conscious. Indeed, that is troubling.

vacri 14y ago

Nice hand-waving dismissal. You clearly haven't been tracking recent scientific research in the area - corvids and parrots have been shown to have these responses for quite some time now. The rest of the stuff in the declaration is humdrum stuff that has been accepted for decades. Yes, it may be political, but that's most likely because the field doesn't have any layman-recognisable heavyweights like CERN to say "professional opinion on the matter says -foo-". The idea that reptiles and possibly certain kinds of mammals are unconscious automata This is why I think the term 'consciousness' has a problem with conflation, because it leads to responses like this. Just because an entity does not have the 'consciousness' they are talking about does not make then an 'unconscious automata'. You're mixing terms from different contexts.

slurgfest 14y ago
You clearly know little about the field if you have never talked to a bird researcher (neurobiologist, ethologist, psychologist) who would question the cavalier application of the word 'consciousness' to more-or-less arbitrary bird behaviors. The behavior you are talking about is not 'latest' or even new. But I can point at any behavior to indicate anything, if my concepts do not have any real relationship to explaining how the behavior is produced or its evolutionary function. Which consciousness doesn't. You are hand-waving at "latest research" to solve an actually insoluble problem: of nailing down what consciousness is, and also of developing philosophical consensus around that concept. Apparently you think that a random committee vote will do the job. That is the only recent development here, and it isn't scientific. What you have is some fairly arbitrary experiments with a note attached to them saying 'consciousness!' The issue of consciousness was never about this. "Parallel evolution" implies that the feature at issue was not present in the common ancestors, and probably isn't present in all the descendants of those common ancestors. This is a deeply weird assumption for which there is NOT scientific evidence. Yet it made its way into this hokey little document, making it abundantly clear that its claims have not seen any serious kind of review. Your complaint about "conflation" is the tip of the iceberg - consciousness is such a vague concept, and so well detached from observables, that you will never see an end to such problems. In the "best" case you will choose some behavior (such as preening in a mirror) and flatly assert that it is consciousness - while you will get others to agree on the preening you won't get them to agree on the consciousness, leaving you with a pile of data concerning just plain preening.
- vacri 14y ago
  bird researcher ... who would question the cavalier application of the word 'consciousness' to more-or-less arbitrary bird behaviors Yeah, despite all your defensive text, you haven't actually been tracking recent research if you come up with a statement like this. Ironically, you call as your line of authority some of the kinds of professions who signed the declaration you later denigrate. I guess you could go 'No True Scotsman' on them and say that they're not real neurobiologists... In the "best" case you will choose some behavior (such as preening in a mirror) and flatly assert that it is consciousness Seriously, you're simply strawmanning something you don't like. 'Flatly assert'? Utter strawman.

azakai 14y ago

> This is a political statement based on speculation, not a scientific breakthrough based on evidence. And what it's really about is animal rights (and perhaps grant money for 'consciousness' research). If so, then it is striking, since animal research is fundamental in neuroscience. > Scientific and philosophical footwork are entirely lacking here That's unfair. The people there have enormous records of scientific accomplishment. > Among the weird suggestions of this document are that birds show a "parallel evolution of consciousness," implying that our common ancestors (ancient amniotes, lizardy things) were not conscious; also that whole classes of amniotes are not conscious. Indeed, that is troubling.