Complex Un/Sub-Conscious Planning

[Proteus_MST]

And I gave a reason, which you ignore. Again, lizards don't think like that.

We cannot say how Lizards think or don't think (and/or whether they have a consciousness or not).
Cosidering the lack of methods of communication with most other animals (except for humans and some other primates) we have only indirect means of detecting the mental capabilities of non-human animals ... and actually it is a black area where we always make astonishing discoveries.

For example about the complex problem solving strategies employed by cephalopods, the ability to count and use tools that some birds employ, or (as discovered by Helmut Prior at the Ruhr Uiversity in Bochum) also the ability of magpies (and some other birds) to know that the image in a mirror is themselves and not some other bird and, not to forget, the ability to form traditions, to lie and to solve complex puzzles, employed by non-human primates (especially Bonobos ... those types of chimpanzees which love to have sex all the time )

AFAIK Lizards (in contrast to birds or hon-human primates) haven't been researched all too much by neurobiologists or ethologits, so their mental capabilities are still,for the most part, terra incognita (and full of surprises, if you think about the recentdiscovery that they ar capable of imitation learning)

[Kidlicious]

We cannot say how Lizards think or don't think (and/or whether they have a consciousness or not).
Cosidering the lack of methods of communication with most other animals (except for humans and some other primates) we have only indirect means of detecting the mental capabilities of non-human animals ... and actually it is a black area where we always make astonishing discoveries.

For example about the complex problem solving strategies employed by cephalopods, the ability to count and use tools that some birds employ, or (as discovered by Helmut Prior at the Ruhr Uiversity in Bochum) also the ability of magpies (and some other birds) to know that the image in a mirror is themselves and not some other bird and, not to forget, the ability to form traditions, to lie and to solve complex puzzles, employed by non-human primates (especially Bonobos ... those types of chimpanzees which love to have sex all the time )

AFAIK Lizards (in contrast to birds or hon-human primates) haven't been researched all too much by neurobiologists or ethologits, so their mental capabilities are still,for the most part, terra incognita (and full of surprises, if you think about the recentdiscovery that they ar capable of imitation learning)

No. We compare the brains of reptiles and humans together. We know the part of the human brain that is associated with consciousness and reason. We flat out know that lizards do not have a conscious mind.

[Lorizael]

I would say the importance is that conscious plans make it "mine". There's evidence that people presented with the same option will be more likely to act it out if they feel it is their own idea rather than if they view it as being someone else's idea.

Also, more neurons involved. If there are areas of the mind that are conscious and those that are subconscious, then having them both work on problems just gives more computation power.

I think this gets into a question of what came first, though. Can you even have a sense of identity without consciousness? If not, then consciousness can't evolve for the benefit of providing a sense of ownership over ideas. A sense of ownership has to come first, which requires consciousness, which means consciousness requires some other evolutionary advantage.

(Of course, that assumes, possibly falsely, that consciousness is an on/off thing, that a creature either has or doesn't have. If consciousness is a complex, evolved module, then it probably didn't spring out of nowhere. That means we should be able to look to "lesser" animals and find less developed types of consciousness. But what would that even look like, and how could we test for it?)

[Aeson]

Yah, I can't say how it evolved to be that way. Maybe consciousness is just a side-effect of some other useful change. Or it could even be that consciousness was dumbed down at some point to relieve our ancestors of having to be conscious of redundant tasks, free up focus, increase multitasking, etc. Whether the chicken or the egg, both require a "mine" component to keep us from rejecting the subconscious work that's being done, or even revolting against it.

[Kidlicious]

Subconscious thinking fits better into the evolutionary model. It seems to be purely primal. I don't believe that it results in thinking about thinking about philosophical matters which more often put the survival of the species on the back burner.

[Proteus_MST]

No. We compare the brains of reptiles and humans together. We know the part of the human brain that is associated with consciousness and reason. We flat out know that lizards do not have a conscious mind.

http://fcmconference.org/img/Cambrid...sciousness.pdf

(While it doesn't specifically mention the family of Lizards, it doesn't exclude them and also specifically says that th absence of a Neocortex is no reason for the asssumption of non consciousness ... not to forget that he presence of imitation lerning (to which I linked before) also hints at the presence of mirror neurons in Lizards ... something in a way also connected with consciousness in primates)

[Kidlicious]

http://fcmconference.org/img/Cambrid...sciousness.pdf

(While it doesn't specifically mention the family of Lizards, it doesn't exclude them and also specifically says that th absence of a Neocortex is no reason for the asssumption of non consciousness ... not to forget that he presence of imitation lerning (to which I linked before) also hints at the presence of mirror neurons in Lizards ... something connected with consciousness in primates)

No animal has the ability to think like a human. We know this because they do not have a neocortex like a human. Lizards have no neocortex at all. Even if they are capable of conscious thought it's not the kind I was talking about (double-thinking).

[Kidlicious]

Also animals that have emotions always follow their emotions. But humans use reason to make decisions that make them have negative feelings.

[Proteus_MST]

Also animals that have emotions always follow their emotions. But humans use reason to make decisions that make them have negative feelings.

Wrong.
Your knowledge about ethology/neuoscience seems to be stuck in the 80s.

At last in non-human primates it is well known meanwhile, that they possess the necessary self-control to withstand the pressure of immediate gratification (in order to wait for bigger rewards), similar to humans (with other words, they don't always follow their emotions)

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/05/nonhuman-animals.aspx

(In fact, field research and also research on "talking" Bonobos and Gorillas (like Kanzi and Koko) show that, at least higher primates, possess almost all capabilities that, some time ago, we saw as exclusive to humans ...the only exception seems to be the autonomous asking of questions)

[Proteus_MST]

No animal has the ability to think like a human. We know this because they do not have a neocortex like a human. Lizards have no neocortex at all. Even if they are capable of conscious thought it's not the kind I was talking about (double-thinking).

I don't know who is "we" in your statement, but it surely doesn't include any neuroscientists.
The Cambridge declaration exactly says that the absence of a Neocortex is no reason for the assumption of the absence of consciousness.
And this declaration has been made by neuroscientists with years of experience in the field.

Yes, the consciousness of non-human animals may be different from humans, and their behavior may lack some of the qualities that humans possess ... but that doesn't means that non-human animals (including Lizards) don't possess a consciousness (as you claimed )

Forfurther reading:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/self-awareness-with-a-simple-brain/

[Kidlicious]

Wrong.
Your knowledge about ethology/neuoscience seems to be stuck in the 80s.

At last in non-human primates it is well known meanwhile, that they possess the necessary self-control to withstand the pressure of immediate gratification (in order to wait for bigger rewards), similar to humans (with other words, they don't always follow their emotions)

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa...n-animals.aspx

(In fact, field research and also research on "talking" Bonobos and Gorillas (like Kanzi and Koko) show that, at least higher primates, possess almost all capabilities that, some time ago, we saw as exclusive to humans ...the only exception seems to be the autonomous asking of questions)

I was not considering food cravings as emotions. What I was talking about is emotion based values. Those primates valued food. Show me a primate that fasts for spiritual reasons.

[Kidlicious]

I don't know who is "we" in your statement, but it surely doesn't include any neuroscientists.
The Cambridge declaration exactly says that the absence of a Neocortex is no reason for the assumption of the absence of consciousness.
And this declaration has been made by neuroscientists with years of experience in the field.

Yes, the consciousness of non-human animals may be different from humans, and their behavior may lack some of the qualities that humans possess ... but that doesn't means that non-human animals (including Lizards) don't possess a consciousness (as you claimed )

Forfurther reading:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-simple-brain/

That's fine but let's not get distracted. We're talking about human thinking. So don't compare apples to oranges.

[Kidlicious]

We cannot say how Lizards think or don't think (and/or whether they have a consciousness or not).
Cosidering the lack of methods of communication with most other animals (except for humans and some other primates) we have only indirect means of detecting the mental capabilities of non-human animals ... and actually it is a black area where we always make astonishing discoveries.

For example about the complex problem solving strategies employed by cephalopods, the ability to count and use tools that some birds employ, or (as discovered by Helmut Prior at the Ruhr Uiversity in Bochum) also the ability of magpies (and some other birds) to know that the image in a mirror is themselves and not some other bird and, not to forget, the ability to form traditions, to lie and to solve complex puzzles, employed by non-human primates (especially Bonobos ... those types of chimpanzees which love to have sex all the time )

AFAIK Lizards (in contrast to birds or hon-human primates) haven't been researched all too much by neurobiologists or ethologits, so their mental capabilities are still,for the most part, terra incognita (and full of surprises, if you think about the recentdiscovery that they ar capable of imitation learning)

What of Megan, the chimp who wiped the ink off her forehead? Is she showing evidence of advanced consciousness? Gordon Gallup argues that for an animal to recognize itself in a mirror, it must have self-awareness in a form not so different from our own. He is impressed by the observation that great apes are the only mammals to show self-recognition in a mirror (although in the 1980s, Robert Epstein, Robert Lanza and B.F. Skinner demonstrated that, with training, even pigeons can pass Gallup's mirror test, which means it may not be so tough).

The problem with Gallup's interpretation is that there are people who cannot recognize themselves in mirrors, and yet nobody doubts they are fully self-aware. Blind people cannot recognize themselves in mirrors but we have plenty of other indications that they are self-aware. People brought up in communities that do not have mirrors do not instantly recognize themselves when they are first shown their own reflection. There is also a form of brain damage called prosopagnosia, which leads to an inability to recognize faces. In extreme forms of prosopagnosia, the patient may not even recognize his own reflection.

Conversely, there are people who have problems with self-awareness, but who recognize themselves in mirrors normally. People who suffer from autism have an impaired ability to see themselves as others view them, and yet they recognize themselves in a mirror with no problem.

In light of these revelations, it does not make sense to treat mirror recognition in chimps as a measure of self-awareness.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199911/do-animals-think

[Proteus_MST]

The example about blind people actually is a false analogy.
It is clear that, of course, you have to possess the necesssary sensory perceptive capabilities in order to react to perceptions of this sensory input

Actually there is a joke among biologsts about similar false analogies:

A biologist researches the ability of cockroaches to sense wind puffs (which they can via the cerci at their backside).
1. Cockroach with 6 intact legs flees from windpuff. Ability to sense wind puffs present
2. (after removal of 2 legs) Cockroach with 4 intact legs flees from wind puffs. Ability to sense wind puffs present
3. (after removal of another pair of legs) Cockroach with 2 intact legs flees from wind puffs. Ability to sense wind puffs present
4. (after removal of the last pair of legs) Cockroach with 0 intact legs doesn't flee from wind puffs. Ability to sense wind puffs not present

Conclusion:
After removal of all legs, the cockroach loses its ability to sense wind puffs

(which, of course, is a false analogy, as it just loses its abiility to react on those wind puffs)


Regarding higher primates there are actually many many more evidences that point at self awareness (and awareness of others), especially from research on Kanzi and Koko.

For example Koko, when she was informed that her pet cat had been hit by a car and died, expressed sadness.
On another occasion Kokos caregiver came late to an appointed session. When Koko expressed anger/sadness about her being late she explained to Koko, that she was late because she was at a Doctor and got informed that she is pregnant. When informed about this, Koko expressed joy for her custodian and understanding abut her state.

These things (and many others) don't seem possible to me without a degree of self awareeness and awareness of (the inner state) of others.

So, for me, there isn't much doubt that humans aren't the only higher primates, who possess self awareness

Regarding the thread topi, I should also mention that higher non-human primates also possess the ability to form relatively complex strategies in order to get to food (or other things) they desire, as was confirmed in lots of experiments (in which they actually had no way to just use trial and error, but rather had to form a strategy in their mind, before actually acting on it)

[Proteus_MST]

I was not considering food cravings as emotions. What I was talking about is emotion based values. Those primates valued food. Show me a primate that fasts for spiritual reasons.

There are many primates who fast for spiritual reaons. But I guess all of them belong to the genug Homo sapiens sapiens.

But more exactly:
As I said, one interesting difference between humans and otheer primates seems to be, that non-human primates don't seem to possess the desire to autonomously ask questions.

And actually this (the curiosity/desire to ask questions) is, what actually started the whole spirituality/religion business in humans.
Humans saw a Flash in the sky ... and suddenly a tree was on fire ... they wondered why and came to the conclusion that there must be some invisible/divine persona that is responsible for lightnings (and may have to be satisfied via sacrifices in order to not hit the camp of the humans)

From simple questions like those, the whole "cultural evolution" of humans started and finally led to society as we know


With the lack of curiosity/desire to ask questions on their own, it seems like other primates seem to lack the ignition spark that could start such a cultural revolution on their own