4 ms·

You said, "Bear in mind"... I chuckled. But seriously, I think there is a range of cognitive ability. Some animals and perhaps fish or reptiles, living or dea

by fnid 17y ago

You said, "Bear in mind"... I chuckled. But seriously, I think there is a range of cognitive ability. Some animals and perhaps fish or reptiles, living or dead, or birds even, are smarter than others, this is probably true, or at least appears to be true from observation. However, the big problem to me is that people think somehow humans are distinct and unique and above aaall other life forms. That consciousness begins and ends in homo sapiens. But, like you alluded to, even within humans, there is a vast range of conscious capabilities.

a-priori 17y ago
Haha, I didn't even see that pun. Good eye :) Let me clarify though: while I don't think humans are much different from the other mammals, I think it's a big stretch to lump us in with fish and reptiles. The key is the neocortex, which is unique to mammals. (Birds are another story that I don't know much about. I'm tempted to think that through parallel evolution at least some species have developed a similar faculty without a neocortex.) More important than variations between people are variations within one person over time. I remember cases when, as a child, I didn't understand what was going on around me. Maybe I did at the time, but I realize now that I didn't. I was still conscious and aware of course, but had a much simpler model of the world that I was working with. I imagine that's what it would be like if you could see what's going on in another mammal's brain -- very similar processes going on, with a simpler model of their environment.
gloob 17y ago
But, like you alluded to, even within humans, there is a vast range of conscious capabilities. I'm not entirely certain that that is what was being alluded to (although feel free to correct me if I'm wildly off base). Some branches of philosophy (especially philosophy of mind, especially philosophical idealism, especially solipsism) that are internally consistent but raise the question of whether consciousnesses other than one's own exist at all. A fairly common question, for instance, when talking about strong AI is: How can we tell if it's conscious? Since we lack any real sort of objective metric for such a thing, there are two plausible answers: 1) We ask it, or 2) We follow our gut and make a guess. Both of these answers have fairly obvious problems with them. All of those problems apply just strongly when we're dealing with the idea of animal consciousness as well, or even with the idea of anything other than oneself being conscious.
giardini 17y ago
fnid says: "the big problem to me is that people think somehow humans are distinct and unique {and _above_ all other life forms). That consciousness begins and ends in homo sapiens." But except for the part I bracketed, the above is pretty much true. There is little evidence of self-awareness in other animals and certainly nothing like what humans display. Along with that, our language ability is unique (Sure I know about signing apes, dolphins, African parrots, et al, wherein minimal language abilities are present). No doubt that animals have emotions. But consciousness? No. Animals other than man live in the "here and now". Other than following genetically-programmed patterns, they neither plan for the future nor reminisce about the past as we do. And that is just fine: that's all they apparently need. Some unique situation (I have no idea what ) must have occurred in man's history for the ability to think outside of the "here and now" to develop. About the bracketed part: I would omit it because I don't think that there is any design where man has any inherently "higher" role/purpose/goal than other animals.
- a-priori 17y ago
  Animals other than man live in the "here and now". That's a very strong claim. Care to back it up, especially in light of the linked article?
  - giardini 17y ago
    The experiment interprets the dolphin's hesitation as "metacognition". But most animals will hesitate and equivocate their action under the right circumstances. Certainly all mammals. Give your dog a treat. When he takes it, immediately pop him on the nose. Offer another treat. If he takes it, pop him harder on the nose. Keep going until he hesitates. Voila, "metacognition"! (Unless you have a pit bull, in which case you may have difficulty reaching the metacognitive level). And the second question: does this equation hold: "metacognition" = "human consciousness".
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  The language examples you gave deal with communicating with us. Animals have been shown to communicate with each other as well, and we don't yet know how complex those communications may be. Also, apes do exhibit evidence of a concept of 'self'.

by fnid 17y ago

a-priori 17y ago

Haha, I didn't even see that pun. Good eye :) Let me clarify though: while I don't think humans are much different from the other mammals, I think it's a big stretch to lump us in with fish and reptiles. The key is the neocortex, which is unique to mammals. (Birds are another story that I don't know much about. I'm tempted to think that through parallel evolution at least some species have developed a similar faculty without a neocortex.) More important than variations between people are variations within one person over time. I remember cases when, as a child, I didn't understand what was going on around me. Maybe I did at the time, but I realize now that I didn't. I was still conscious and aware of course, but had a much simpler model of the world that I was working with. I imagine that's what it would be like if you could see what's going on in another mammal's brain -- very similar processes going on, with a simpler model of their environment.

gloob 17y ago

But, like you alluded to, even within humans, there is a vast range of conscious capabilities. I'm not entirely certain that that is what was being alluded to (although feel free to correct me if I'm wildly off base). Some branches of philosophy (especially philosophy of mind, especially philosophical idealism, especially solipsism) that are internally consistent but raise the question of whether consciousnesses other than one's own exist at all. A fairly common question, for instance, when talking about strong AI is: How can we tell if it's conscious? Since we lack any real sort of objective metric for such a thing, there are two plausible answers: 1) We ask it, or 2) We follow our gut and make a guess. Both of these answers have fairly obvious problems with them. All of those problems apply just strongly when we're dealing with the idea of animal consciousness as well, or even with the idea of anything other than oneself being conscious.

giardini 17y ago

fnid says: "the big problem to me is that people think somehow humans are distinct and unique {and _above_ all other life forms). That consciousness begins and ends in homo sapiens." But except for the part I bracketed, the above is pretty much true. There is little evidence of self-awareness in other animals and certainly nothing like what humans display. Along with that, our language ability is unique (Sure I know about signing apes, dolphins, African parrots, et al, wherein minimal language abilities are present). No doubt that animals have emotions. But consciousness? No. Animals other than man live in the "here and now". Other than following genetically-programmed patterns, they neither plan for the future nor reminisce about the past as we do. And that is just fine: that's all they apparently need. Some unique situation (I have no idea what ) must have occurred in man's history for the ability to think outside of the "here and now" to develop. About the bracketed part: I would omit it because I don't think that there is any design where man has any inherently "higher" role/purpose/goal than other animals.

a-priori 17y ago
Animals other than man live in the "here and now". That's a very strong claim. Care to back it up, especially in light of the linked article?
- giardini 17y ago
  The experiment interprets the dolphin's hesitation as "metacognition". But most animals will hesitate and equivocate their action under the right circumstances. Certainly all mammals. Give your dog a treat. When he takes it, immediately pop him on the nose. Offer another treat. If he takes it, pop him harder on the nose. Keep going until he hesitates. Voila, "metacognition"! (Unless you have a pit bull, in which case you may have difficulty reaching the metacognitive level). And the second question: does this equation hold: "metacognition" = "human consciousness".
TrevorJ 17y ago
The language examples you gave deal with communicating with us. Animals have been shown to communicate with each other as well, and we don't yet know how complex those communications may be. Also, apes do exhibit evidence of a concept of 'self'.