“Cows look calm, but really they are gay nymphomaniacs"

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Either you have some sort of sensation of events beyond something registering in physical memory (or rather, you feel what is in that physical memory), or you do not.

How do I know a sensation is "beyond" something registering in physical memory?

From a biological PoV, I find it hard to believe that human brains should be able to do something that's fundamentally different from what other neocortically endowed critters' can.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

How do I know a sensation is "beyond" something registering in physical memory?

That's the problem - for one, it's not really, and more fundamentally

From a biological PoV, I find it hard to believe that human brains should be able to do something that's fundamentally different from what other neocortically endowed critters' can.

I find self-awareness hard to believe at all, which is why I limit my belief in it to cases where I have a large amount of evidence for it.

[Last Conformist]

Since a human brain obviously can support self-awareness, it seems highly likely to me that chimp brains can too, but, as indicated, the answere whether they actually do doesn't have any particular ethical importance to me.

Anyway, this thread was supposed to be about gay cows. This is the first goolge image hit for "gay cow":

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Since a human brain obviously can support self-awareness, it seems highly likely to me that chimp brains can too, but, as indicated, the answere whether they actually do doesn't have any particular ethical importance to me.

As I said, they haven't demonstrated this self-awareness, and their brains are far more different from mine than other humans' brains are.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Eh, that's what I said. And we are just machines reacting to stimuli.

I didn't ask if you thought that. I stated that you could believe that others are such machines who aren't self-aware.

I happen to *know* that I am a self-aware machine, because I'm aware of it (duh)

Yeah, but I don't know you're aware of it. For all I know, you're a superbly-crafted robot that can mimic all of it what it means to be "human."

For all I know, your sense of self-awareness is dramatically different than mine.

I happen to think that this self-awareness is an emergent property of matter, rather than some dualist thing, and therefore it results from the manner in which my brain operates.

Interesting you should say this. If this be the case, I wonder how you can then assert self-awareness is binary. At what point in evolutionary history did the switch flip from 0 to 1? Homo erectus? Homo Habilus? Austrolopithicus?

If consciousness is an emergent evolutionary trait, it makes little sense to believe it is binary. Indeed, my own experience tells me that isn't the case. I am far more self-aware today than I was when I was 3 years old. I had some self awareness (manifested by memories of the time), but not total self-awareness (since I remember as being rather dreamlike, wherein my actions were not totally under my conscious control).

This suggests that something that operates in practically the same way should also be self-aware. Moreover, I have very strong evidence of other humans being self-aware in that I'm not the first person to come up with the idea - and I find it highly unlikely that an intelligent but non-self-aware machine would come up with the concept of self-awareness. (By this reasoning, any being that claimed it was self-aware, I would probably believe, unless it was clearly just parroting words.)

Again, I doubt this rationale, simply because it is entirely feasible that a skilled engineer with the sufficient technology could create robots who could be programmed to say such things. The world may have been made for my benefit, and all these little human-looking robots sure sound self-aware, but since I don't know for sure, I'll have to assume the aren't.

I have no corresponding evidence for animals, and their brains aren't as similar to mine as other humans' brains are, therefore I don't believe that they are self-aware.

But primate brains are fairly similar to yours, as opposed to other species. And since you can't get the same evidence you have from humans (i.e., them telling you so), is it really wise to assume they aren't self-aware? Seems like an arbitrary distinction based on the fact you don't speak chimp/dog/cat/etc.

My point is, however, that our brains evolved from brains such as theirs. So did our consciousness.

And so we should assume that, unless something suggests otherwise, other things are not self-aware. Without evidence, no belief.

This is only possible if you limit yourself to that one evidence. I think that's very limiting. That animals clearly express emotions, desires, have memories, relationships, etc. is enough to me as evidence that there is a degree of self-awareness there. After all, what use would an automaton have with love?

Consciousness is binary. You are either self-aware or you are not.

You'll find yourself in disagreement there with biologists the world over. I'll quote Mayr for you:

"There is no justification in the widespread assumption that consciousness is a unique human property. Students of animal behavior have brought together a great deal of evidence showing how widespread consciousness is among animals. Every dog owner has had occasion to observe the 'guilt feeling' a dog displays when, in the absence of its master, he has done something for which he can expect to be punished. How far 'down' in the animal kingdom one can trace such signs of conciousness is arguable...However, it is quite certain that human consciousness did not arise full-fledged with the human species, but is only the most highly evolved end point of a long evolutionary history." (Mayr, What Evolution Is, p. 282)

Again, your view of binary consciousness constitutes belief in some magical moment when the switch came on. When was that? Why wasn't it on before?

Actually, it requires a leap of faith to assign consciousness to animals, since there really isn't much to suggest that they have it.

Curious. I would say, given that all traits are results of gradual evolution, that consciousness would most logically be the same. Why do you give this magical role to consciousness but not other traits...like, say, the flagellum? My dear kuci, you seem to be arguing for the irreducible complexity of the conscious mind! Michael Behe would be proud.

Of course, I also dispute your notion that there isn't much to suggest animal consciousness, as do most animal behaviorists.

Such things as demonstrating fear, emotion, etc. - even recognition of itself in a mirror - are not indicative of self-awareness, because a robot that exhibits these reactions to stimuli but is clearly NOT self-aware is easily conceivable.

I can conceive of a robot that claims it is self-aware. That's how far we can take it. But why isn't it reasonable to see such emotions in animals--including what I imagine are "unneccessary" ones, such as love, grief, guilt--and assume there is a degree of consciousness involved?

What use would an automaton have to mourn a dead friend or lover? Seems to me that's an indication right there that there is some animal consciousness, as they can clearly experience a sense of loss.

(In fact, my theory is that it may have to do with the development of empathy to the point where humans can recognize arbitrarily large and arbitrarily organized groups as 'self', a trait that no other animal seems to exhibit.)

You'll have to clarify that for me. I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying animals don't exhibit group recognition?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
As I said, they haven't demonstrated this self-awareness

They have, you've just tailored your definition of it to only include a verbal affirmation to you that another species is self-aware. Hard to find an English-speaking terrier these days!

Perhaps if you looked at their forms of communication more closely, the evidence you claim is lacking will become apparent to you.

[Last Conformist]

BG:

After all, what use would an automaton have with love?

Ask yourself. If I get Kuci's position correctly, he thinks you are one.

BG:

I can conceive of a robot that claims it is self-aware. That's how far we can take it. But why isn't it reasonable to see such emotions in animals--including what I imagine are "unneccessary" ones, such as love, grief, guilt--and assume there is a degree of consciousness involved?

What use would an automaton have to mourn a dead friend or lover?

Love and guilt would seem to have pretty obvious utility in the field of group cohesion. Grief might be a byproduct of the ability to form psychological bonds.

Kuci:

As I said, they haven't demonstrated this self-awareness, and their brains are far more different from mine than other humans' brains are.

Once you've accepted that self-awareness can arise out of a kilo and a half of pretty mundane stuff, your difficulty to believe in it is pretty much irrelevant. It's certainly no firm foundation on which to conclude that a half-kilo of very similar stuff, that can demonstrably do most of what the first chunk can (if sometimes with much less aptitude), doesn't have self-awareness.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
A tree probably "feels" every stroke of the lumberjack's axe. Something happens to tell it, biochemically, that it is being damaged.

No. Plants are localised. There are no nerves or other paths to transmit signals to a central control location. Imagine you have no sensory nerves link to your brain. You won't feel any pain, not even after a large dog bit your arm off.

Originally posted by Elok
Trying to project ideas of "how it feels" will inevitably give you the heebie-jeebies if you think about it long and hard enough

Particularly if you are ignorant about the subject

Originally posted by Elok
I reject all platforms of rights based on ability.

That's just a personal problem.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Yeah, but I don't know you're aware of it. For all I know, you're a superbly-crafted robot that can mimic all of it what it means to be "human."

For all I know, your sense of self-awareness is dramatically different than mine.

Which is my default assumption.

Interesting you should say this. If this be the case, I wonder how you can then assert self-awareness is binary. At what point in evolutionary history did the switch flip from 0 to 1? Homo erectus? Homo Habilus? Austrolopithicus?

If consciousness is an emergent evolutionary trait, it makes little sense to believe it is binary.

Emergent evolutionary trait? I said an emergent property of matter - and as that, it makes a certain amount of sense that it would appear suddenly. (for that matter, wtf does "evolutionary" mean when modifying "trait"?)

Indeed, my own experience tells me that isn't the case. I am far more self-aware today than I was when I was 3 years old. I had some self awareness (manifested by memories of the time), but not total self-awareness (since I remember as being rather dreamlike, wherein my actions were not totally under my conscious control).

Or your memory of being 3 isn't all that good. My bet is it's an artifact of human memory - you don't remember anything from when you were two, but it doesn't mean you weren't self-aware.

But primate brains are fairly similar to yours, as opposed to other species. And since you can't get the same evidence you have from humans (i.e., them telling you so), is it really wise to assume they aren't self-aware? Seems like an arbitrary distinction based on the fact you don't speak chimp/dog/cat/etc.

Yes, well, it's not arbitrary. That I'm not capable of gathering certain evidence doesn't mean that I should assume the evidence is present, any more than the fact that I can't resolve things on the scale a trillionth the size of an electron means I should assume that there are even more fundamental particles of that size.

This is only possible if you limit yourself to that one evidence. I think that's very limiting. That animals clearly express emotions, desires, have memories, relationships, etc. is enough to me as evidence that there is a degree of self-awareness there. After all, what use would an automaton have with love?

Not at all. And, as TLC said - ask yourself. You're an automaton. Emotions, desires, memories, and relationships are not evidence of self-awareness. Computers have memories. A robot could be said to have desires and in some cases even emotions. And, hell, computers in a peer-to-peer network sharing files have relationships that even involve positive and negative "feelings" about the other computer!

You'll find yourself in disagreement there with biologists the world over. I'll quote Mayr for you:

"There is no justification in the widespread assumption that consciousness is a unique human property. Students of animal behavior have brought together a great deal of evidence showing how widespread consciousness is among animals. Every dog owner has had occasion to observe the 'guilt feeling' a dog displays when, in the absence of its master, he has done something for which he can expect to be punished. How far 'down' in the animal kingdom one can trace such signs of conciousness is arguable...However, it is quite certain that human consciousness did not arise full-fledged with the human species, but is only the most highly evolved end point of a long evolutionary history." (Mayr, What Evolution Is, p. 282)

Again, your view of binary consciousness constitutes belief in some magical moment when the switch came on. When was that? Why wasn't it on before?

None of that quote has anything to do with consciousness and everything to do with emotion. Behavior cannot be evidence for consciousness unless it is the communication of the concept of consciousness without prior exposure.

Curious. I would say, given that all traits are results of gradual evolution, that consciousness would most logically be the same.

The first part isn't true.

Why do you give this magical role to consciousness but not other traits...like, say, the flagellum? My dear kuci, you seem to be arguing for the irreducible complexity of the conscious mind! Michael Behe would be proud.

I'm clearly not - everyone's mind is different, so it's clearly not the precise arrangement that is important, but the pattern. There clearly is a different pattern in humans than in, say, chimps, and so I see nothing to suggest that chimps would be self-aware.

Of course, I also dispute your notion that there isn't much to suggest animal consciousness, as do most animal behaviorists.

The only behavior that can suggest self-awareness is communication of the concept of self-awareness without previous exposure to the idea. Everything else is easily reproducible with things that are clearly not self-aware.

I can conceive of a robot that claims it is self-aware. That's how far we can take it. But why isn't it reasonable to see such emotions in animals--including what I imagine are "unneccessary" ones, such as love, grief, guilt--and assume there is a degree of consciousness involved?

What use would an automaton have to mourn a dead friend or lover? Seems to me that's an indication right there that there is some animal consciousness, as they can clearly experience a sense of loss.

As TLC said, the utility of this is obvious in evolutionary terms. Love = reward for certain behavior that is successful from an evolutionary standpoint, grief = pain (to be avoided) felt at an event that is bad from an evolutionary standpoint. They serve to maintain the group.

You'll have to clarify that for me. I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying animals don't exhibit group recognition?

I'm saying they don't have the ability to organize themselves into arbitrarily large and arbitrarily organized groups, and to recognize the interests of those groups and the individuals within them as not merely coinciding with their interests, but as being their interests.

No. Plants are localised. There are no nerves or other paths to transmit signals. Imagine you have no sensory nerves link to your brain.

Doesn't matter. Why couldn't they have localized consciousness?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Such things as demonstrating fear, emotion, etc. - even recognition of itself in a mirror - are not indicative of self-awareness, because a robot that exhibits these reactions to stimuli but is clearly NOT self-aware is easily conceivable.

I disagree. Any entity that can recognise itself is clearly self-aware. You can't get a more direct indication of self-awareness than, "Ah, that's me! "

[Kuciwalker]

Eh, UR, it'd be extremely simple to program a robot to, say, turn on an LED when a video camera attached to the front saw the robot's reflection. The same program, with just a differant image file, could recognize something else - and since consciousness resides in the program, you'd have to say that all image-recognition software is self-aware

[Ben Kenobi]

BK: I don't think that "feeling pain" is adequate criteria for being considered a person, since it would presumably apply to any vertebrate with a nervous system. Remember my lifeform - person(a) - being distinction? I think that would be applicable here.

Not really the point. The point is being made that organisms without a developed brain structure ought to be given equal consideration to those who do have such structure.

In this, you can say one ought to respect other forms of life, because they are like us.

[Whaleboy]

But there's no reason for that... it's rather like your notion that an embryo should be considered human: there is no evidence that what is essentially a biological machine with nothing to the contrary should be considered human. And what is human in this respect? It would seem that being subject to civilisation and the presumption of free-will is the usage here.

Now, if one wants to make a subjective "karma" style do-unto-others argument, then fine, but it's not sufficient to prescribe here since no-one is explaining why this is categorical, see above.

My own view on this matter is that the lifeform-being distinction should work on consciousness, with raw intelligence or measurable brainpower being indicative of consciousness, rather like a singularity (a term someone used in a thread that I attacked them for, but realised afterwards it was perfect ). However, the implications of this are enormous; if we ascribe to them consciousness then it follows that they are entitled to certain rights, i.e., the right not to be eaten and so those who do not wish to be vegan will be forced to eat small mammals and KFC.

Obviously that's an undesirable outcome, but just that it is so doesn't prove it wrong, but it gives us a context to take the argument forward. What are we really doing with the word "consciousness"? Our Kant come Mill logic is great for civil rights, analytic philosophy etc, but if it's taken forward to its conclusion civilisation becomes somewhat self-defeating, so look at civilisation.

We apply the term "consciousness" to ourselves universally because it, as a concept fits well within our ideas of civilisation, others, and the "self". It spurs us to find cures for diseases when ecologically speaking most of us should die out... probably comes out of the caring/killing chimp complex when taken forward to the perverse level of technological and social progress we have made from our evolutionary past.

To have the condition of consciousness is to apply a human term, and a "civil" one at that, but most other animals do not have this notion. Sure, they're conscious, but so what? There is something I'm missing between the conscious predicate -> and the "don't kill" subject. We must remember that human does not mean civilised, and civilised doesn't necessarily mean human.

We *are* omnivores and part of the reason for our evolutionary success is the fact that we eat lots of protein to support our brains. We are subject to a food web and ecology just like every other living thing on this planet and I think there is a limit to the application of our civilised logic and idea of consciousness.

Could you say that line runs between humans and other animals, or human-like animals (specifically chimps and perhaps a couple others primates)? I don't know. Certainly my logic shouldn't and couldn't be used to justify undue and unnecessary suffering to animals, nor measures for our own civil benefit that impact heavily on the environment (though I suspect the encroach of humanity and civilisation will do this nonetheless because we suck so much). But I think that a quick bullet to the back of the head of a cow, is perfectly reasonable for a source of food and BDSM gear.

[Odin]

Kuci falls victim to Anthropocentrism.

Other apes are definitely self-aware, Chimps recognize themselves in the mirror, a monkey would view the image in the mirror as a rival. Most of the differences we have with other apes is mostly a question of degree, not of kind.

[Elok]

A tree can sense it is damaged. If it couldn't, it would not be able to heal its own wounds as all organisms do, nor would trees be able to react to pests by releasing tannins. It's not "pain" in the same sense as that provided by nerves, but why bother with nerve-based discrimination? The tree can sense it has been hurt, and saying it doesn't feel pain just because it lacks cognitive abilities is insensitive!*

*(said facetiously; do not be dense enough to take it seriously.)