Back in the old days I used to argue with the PETA guys about what part animals played in the grand scheme of things.
I was forced to think a bit more about how our world really works.
Awareness IS what all "Intelligent" animals have. The Tiger is more aware than a Human. It sees and knows what is going on in it's world at all times. A dog is a very intelligent being. It is aware of every input and is ten times as aware to smell and sound as a human. And it is able to "remember" consequence as it relates to "action" better than a human. One can train a dog in a single go. Humans must be forced and 'retought' over and over. Unless pain is involved.
To be "aware" is often mistaken for "consciousness". So one must examine the difference very carefully.
Consciousness requires the following conditions (as a very brief list... and worthy of debate...hint, hint) TO BE MET:
1 - Self awarness. A being must view oneself in a mirror with a "certifiable" demonstration that it is viewing "self".
2 - Consequence awareness. A being must be able to view mortally dangerous circumstance based on an understanding of physical law, and not just on past experience.
3 - A being must be aware of it's "mortality".
4 - A being must be capable of language. For without language there is no information exchange. Language can remain undefined, in order to lessen the arguments impact. The logic is that until all methods of information transfer are mapped and documented... it is rather fruitless to define it in absolute terms. Sorry MIT nitwit. <edit> (Noam Chomsky -- who is quite confident that he has defined language in its totallity. giggle.)
5 - As a test of "Self Awareness" a minimum test is the abilty to issue oneself a "name" to seperate itself from it's tribe/group. Again, the logic is unassailable. The very act of "naming" proves awareness. And the acto of doing so with "peers" proves their "conscious state". A dog -- to another dog is an awareness based on sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. A human can get slapped about the head and ears if it tries to get to know a cute woman in a bar based on the methods of a dog. We exchange names and ideas that all relate how we view our "mortality".
While many animals are completely and extremely aware... and can remember, ie, be aware of "what happens" if I do X.... only man can lay out alternate routes to tomorrow. Because the very notion of "yesterday, today and tomorrow" are the very definition of "mortality".
Thank god, our pets have no sense of mortality. That seems the best thing to come out of lacking the fatal understanding of time.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAgree with everything you have here, Animals even have language,
Back in the old days I used to argue with the PETA guys about what part animals played in the grand scheme of things.
I was forced to think a bit more about how our world really works.
Awareness IS what all "Intelligent" animals have. The Tiger is more aware than a Human. It sees and knows what is going on in it's world at all times. A dog is a ...[text shortened]... of mortality. That seems the best thing to come out of lacking the fatal understanding of time.
or the ability to communicate danger to the group.
I saw a demonstration of this in an animal park where they had
this tribe(?) of elephants who had all been born in the park with
no contact with wild elephants. It seems they hear frequencies way
to low for us to detect, I don't know exactly but I am thinking 5 Hz or
so. The scientists recorded these sounds wild elephants make which
causes the herd to bunch up together like wagons against the indians.
So they can generate and hear 5 Hertish signals. So they were
recorded and had specially made speakers capable of faithfully
reproducing those sounds. Then up a hill from the park animals,
unseen, they run the tape generated by the wild bulls.
The park elephants immediately formed a circle, trunks out, kids in,
and generally looking out for trouble.
Now that is an indication of a hard wired warning system unrelated to
learning but it is communications nonetheless.
BTW, what is PETA?
You are correct about animals not needing a sense of mortality, its bad
enough humans have it!
It's difficult to talk about consciousness and language withouth first having a some clear definitions set in place.
If we go with your definition of awareness as a state of emotional alertness to a beings environment. We can then say that consciousness is an understanding of environment based on experience and context.
In this definition I would agree that a tiger and possibly a dog are more emotionally aware than humans. However this is probably because this is all that they do. Humans have far more complex mechanisms in place.
Regarding your points for awareness.
1) Self Awareness - I agree that this is an essential ingredient of consciousness. The understanding of ones self in relation to an object and the abject understanding that an object (including other beings) can bring about changes in ones self is a function of a higher level of conscious understanding. However there are more basal levels to consciousness.
It is interesting to note that a cat does not have these mechanisms. Try placing your hand on one when it's cleaning itself. It will continue to wash your hand as it does its own body. And dogs, well that's another tale.
2) Consequence awareness - I do not agree that this is essential for consciousness and awareness and indeed instinct can satisfy this criteria. Instinct is a pre-programmed synaptic morphology produced by evolution that creates an awareness of physical law and consequence without the need for experience. This is a very interesting topic on exactly how these mechanisms are in place and what, if any retro-mantling mechanisms are able to do this.
3) Awareness of mortality - Tricky one as our understanding of death is so closely embedded in language. I would suggest that we understand death no better than our family pets and that they are no less afraid of it.
4 & 5) Language Capability - Most animals have some language capability. From insects following chemotactic gradients to higher level languages involving tense and grammar. A recent study of dolphins has shown that they are not only capable of understanding words but word order and are able to complete tasks to this effect.
With regard to naming, I think that this is more of a sociological constant of higher societies. Again it highlights the in-depth understanding of ones-self in relation to a group. Humans that have been raised by wolves or dogs have no language and hence no naming but are constued to have some level of consciousness. It is language that enables us to assign names.
I'm not so sure we would get slapped about for using sight, sound, smell and touch to approach a woman. Sight is easy, eye-contact is essential, done correctly we're already halfway there. Given that she's attractive both parties will begin pumping pheromones which we subconsiously pick up on and in the process of bodylanguage, touch may be employed. I think it's possible to pick-up without saying a word. You just gotta be real good.
Finally I think animals have an understanding of tomorrow and yesterday too. A squirrel spends most of its life preparing for tomorrow, either that or it enjoys planting trees.
-Originally posted by oddbobwhat are retro-mantling mechanisms? typo? retro handling? still
It's difficult to talk about consciousness and language withouth first having a some clear definitions set in place.
If we go with your definition of awareness as a state of emotional alertness to a beings environment. We can then say that consciousness is an understanding of environment based on experience and context.
In this definition I would agree ...[text shortened]... rel spends most of its life preparing for tomorrow, either that or it enjoys planting trees.
doesn't make sense.
Squirrels certainly bury food for later use, but they are not the only
ones. Its instinctive, a baby squirrel raised away from its mom and
let loose in the forest will automatically bury food.
The key to this is whether it is taught by the parent.
Dolphins have recently been found to demonstrating the use
of a tool to the young, in this case a sponge held in the mouth
to be able to forage in sharp coral.
Some primates are showing cultural learning of tool use where
some tribes use differant variations depending on how they were
taught by their elders.
These are much more advanced hueristic behavior than a rodent
storing food. But it shows a lot of animals prepare for the future
by whatever means they have.
So far only certain primates, Bonobo and Chimps I think and
Dolpins can pass the self-recognition in a mirror thing.
The great apes might also, they have been given non-verbal
IQ tests and have come out higher than a lot of humans, IQ of 85
or so. They also can recognise and add and subtract numbers but
have more difficulty with counting actual objects.
Also a number of primates can learn sign language which includes
word order.
The only conclusion we can make is animals do just about everything
humans do but we are a bit more complex.
Some birds are seen to solve problems just for the fun of it,
a series of manipulations consisting of having to pull out pins to
open the next door, and so forth, but 7 or 8 of these kind of tests
just to get to a bottle with like, ONE, seed inside, they are not doing
it for the food.
Other birds, like Ravens, have been seen just sliding down a snow
bank on their backs, crawl up to the top and slide down again,
just for fun, no possible other rewards involved.
So doing things just for fun, playing games, solving puzzles,
things that would have horrified anthropologists of 100 years ago
to imagine such activity outside the human race are now known to
be a fact among birds and primates and dolphins.
That stretches the idea of what it is to be human thats for sure.
So that leaves other definitions of what is human:
The ability to kill other humans based on religious beliefs,
Don't think ANY animal would do that.
Kind of puts animals on a higher plane in that respect, eh.
Originally posted by oddbobThank you for your thoughtful post and reply.
2) Consequence awareness - I do not agree that this is essential for consciousness and awareness and indeed instinct can satisfy this criteria. Instinct is a pre-programmed synaptic morphology produced by evolution that creates an awarene ...[text shortened]... d what, if any retro-mantling mechanisms are able to do this.
In 2)... I should have been more definite to exclude the term "Awareness" as that is begging the question of the discussion,ie, "Awareness as opposed to Consciousness". Sorry about that.
What I should have said was "Possession of and certain knowledge of abstract acts consequencial effect on our future."
For example: "I plant a bomb that can be triggered to destroy a beings home and entire family contained in the home. I then explain that as long as nobody eats any of the free food I have left on the porch, the bomb will become harmless in three days."
The home can be the home of Foxes, Chimps, Wolves or humans. I then place delicious snacks on each porch along with a "Holographic" image of me issuing the warning whenever a being approaches the food.
What course of action will be taken by non-conscious beings? What course will a relatively intelligent human take? Besides locking up the kids for three days?
This is a rather cumbersome example. A better might be the "rule of law" in it's abstract sense. A conscious being is capable of studying the consequence of conscious act. All the legaleze in the world won't deter a Chimp from a deed that it feels can be accomplished.
Maybe this (#2) is too abstract? I don't know. I was inventing this on the fly. Might need further thought. There just seems to be a tremendous line here that deals with "guilt and morality" in ways we have not even discussed yet.
Mike
Originally posted by oddbobReally? Now to me that is a truly "astounding" declaration. I have an absolute understanding of death. Even after smelling and jumping on and about her dead "mate", a dog still wags it's tail and wants to chase the ball. This can be a bit "alarming" to people totally torn up by the passing of a pet. "Oh. Poor muffy. What will she ever do without poor old fido! Woe is me."
3) Awareness of mortality - Tricky one as our understanding of death is so closely embedded in language. I would suggest that we understand death no better than our family pets and that they are no less afraid of it.
Well, Old muffy will sniff the corpse and wag her tail and want to play.
At least in my personal experience. And god forbid you break out a "treat". Old muffy will roll over and play dead and sit and do the whole routine for that little bit of food, treating the corpse the same way in death (extreme jealousy of it getting the treat) as she did when old fido was actually in competition for the food.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThis is Interesting. This would mean that no Single consciousness can exist, effectivly killing creationism (Monoteistic at least). Nice.
4 - A being must be capable of language. For without language there is no information exchange. Language can remain undefined, in order to lessen the arguments impact. The logic is that until all methods of information transfer are mapped and documented... it is rather fruitless to define it in absolute terms. Sorry MIT nitwit. <edit> (Noam Chomsky -- who is quite confident that he has defined language in its totallity. giggle.)
By the way, can you explain how the *method* of information transfer is relevant to defining language?
I feel that if you dont define language you have to throw out the entire condition, since you are trying to make a definite definition of another concept based on it.
I'll also throw in a "the sound in the forrest" thought:
Does communication *require* a sender and a reciever, and if so what happens in cases of missunderstandings?
A "recording" of the past or "anticipation" of the future are just imaginary and/or undefined abstracts. We know the past is real because we "remember" it. Oh? Really? Prove it. We know the future is real because we are "alive". Oh? Really? Prove it.Starvalley, did you say you have an absolute understanding of death? I don't think any of us do until we experience it and chances are we won't even then. How do we know death isn't a self introduced plot to make reality bearable.
Originally posted by chasparosThis is Interesting. This would mean that no Single consciousness can exist, effectivly killing creationism (Monoteistic at least). Nice.
This is Interesting. This would mean that no Single consciousness can exist, effectivly killing creationism (Monoteistic at least). Nice.
By the way, can you explain how the *method* of information transfer is relevant to defining lan ...[text shortened]... eciever, and if so what happens in cases of missunderstandings?
Unless we admit that we-- and hence others -- DO talk to ourselves and reason with ourselves. This goes to the reason for leaving "information methods" and hence "language" undefined for the sake of the bigger argument. Is "reasoning with ones self" information interchange? Is it then a "method"?
I say that it is. The reason is circular, but it goes back to the fact that I recognize myself as a real and unique being in the mirror.
By the way, can you explain how the *method* of information transfer is relevant to defining language?
In the sense that if you define "language" in an absolute sense, you must be a dog, an octopus, a dolphin and a chimp as well as being a human. And you must be all the intelligent agents abroad in the universe. To define it at this point is to define it only as a Homo Sap.
I feel that if you dont define language you have to throw out the entire condition, since you are trying to make a definite definition of another concept based on it.
What you are doing then is reducing the domain of "consciousness" the the one species that we MIGHT be able to provide a definition of "language". I was just submitting the idea that we may want to consider postponing a strict definition of "language" so as to not "rule out" other species of animals as candidates for "Consciousness".
I'll also throw in a "the sound in the forrest" thought:
Does communication *require* a sender and a reciever, and if so what happens in cases of missunderstandings?
No. One can contemplate ideas quietly with oneself. This type of communication is probably how most "intelligence" and "innovation" and "progress" is made by any species.
But this act also separates the merely "Aware and intelligent" being from the "conscious" being. I truly believe that only a conscious being can argue logically with itself, and discard "learned traits" through sheer will of intellect.
Originally posted by oddbobI should have said that I feel and think that I understand death as well as one can.
Starvalley, did you say you have an absolute understanding of death? I don't think any of us do until we experience it and chances are we won't even then. How do we know death isn't a self introduced plot to make reality bearable.
It's a long story. Or put another way... "I don't fear death and can laugh at it openly." It's just a part of being an animal. As we all are, and having had an intelligent discussion with oneself about the matter.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyDarn... Wrote in the wrong box :-)
Unless we admit that .....n interchange? Is it then a "method"?
{Edited a couple of times to get boldtags to work}
Unless we admit that we-- and hence others -- DO talk to ourselves and reason with ourselves. This goes to the reason for leaving "information methods" and hence "language" undefined for the sake of the bigger argument. Is "reasoning with ones self" information interchange? Is it then a "method"?
Well, no, as I see it (humbly). That would be information processing. Information allready aquired being analysed and tested to the extent of the analysing beings intelligence, drives and awareness.
In the sense that if you define "language" in an absolute sense, you must be a dog, an octopus, a dolphin and a chimp as well as being a human. And you must be all the intelligent agents abroad in the universe. To define it at this point is to define it only as a Homo Sap.
This is sheer nonsens. I'm not trying to be offensive, but if you or anyone else partaking in this discussion accept this then it ends the discussion. If we are not allowed to "inflict" human concepts on animals as such they apply to us there is no point in talking about awareness or consciousness either. Language is a human concept, but behaviour in animals can be observed that fit the definition. Toss that argument. It just has no validity. At all.
What you are doing then is reducing the domain of "consciousness" the the one species that we MIGHT be able to provide a definition of "language". I was just submitting the idea that we may want to consider postponing a strict definition of "language" so as to not "rule out" other species of animals as candidates for "Consciousness".
No. I'm just saying that if you want to include the condition of language capabilities, then language HAS to be defined. Else it will have the same inpact as saying: "Must have capability for religion, in cases of religion being an undefined concept". Or something such. Will also by default include ALL creatures, since "religion" in this case is undefined.
No. One can contemplate ideas quietly with oneself. This type of communication is probably how most "intelligence" and "innovation" and "progress" is made by any species.
But this act also separates the merely "Aware and intelligent" being from the "conscious" being. I truly believe that only a conscious being can argue logically with itself, and discard "learned traits" through sheer will of intellect.
As i said earlier this is merly information processing. Not communication. No new information can be created from examining old information. Should new information be discovered there is a fallacy. Any logically sound conclusion is the same as its starting points. In processing (thinking,reasoning, arguing) all we do is take diffrent pieces of information an try to fit them together. And I make the unfounded statement that the ease by which this is done is intelligence.
Originally posted by chasparos[/b]So... You don't "communicate" with yourself. You just Process what hits your five senses? I communicate with myself. I set up a filter and agree with myself (just as a piece of software does) on what will be allowed into any "processing". If I don't do this, then I am confronted with the mess of constant irrelevency. When I read a novel, as an example, it might contain 50 ideas that are new to me, 50 that I am aquainted with and 50 that are there that I miss "instantly recognizine" for whatever reason.
This is sheer nonsens. I'm not trying to be offensive, but if you or anyone else partaking in this discussion accept this then it ends the discussion. If we are not allowed to "inflict" human concepts on animals as such they apply to u ...[text shortened]... inition. Toss that argument. It just has no validity. At all.
[b]
Should I later decide to process and analyze one of these ideas, the 50 that I failed to recognize might suddenly jump out at me and demand that I review it. Isn't this a type of communication? If not, then why do I so often set straight up in bed and then lay awake thinking about ideas that come "out of nowhere"?
Further... should I decide to re-think one of the fifty "known" ideas that I did recognize... I must assemble a list of "its" (the subject ideas) traits as to relevency, especially in context of "new or innovative" usage as I communicated it to my memory at reading. When I have communicated to myself these new parameters, assessed their relavance and location in the package... THEN i can process it consciously. If I just have a daydream about it all... that isn't conscious thought. Is it? It sure ain't the way I consciously think of things.
I will argue that without a conscious conversation with self, consciousness isn't possible. Dream world ain't so bad though. That is where most artistic people live. Not a bad thing at all. Just not as robust as a person who can converse with oneself in a conscious fashion. Do you really think a conscious being could ever care about "fashion" for example? I can see no way for that to happen.
A new Idea for you to consider might be the idea that you insist on defining all communication, even though we might live in a galaxy with 10,000 other conscious races of beings from other planets. And that doesn't count the universe(s) in total.
Or are they all "animals" as you say, even though we have not yet made their aquaintance?
As to being "offensive" I realize you are not trying. Some are able to accomplish it with no effort at all.