The World without Religion

Actually, the main point would not depend on whether or not animals are conscious. If somebody wanted to say that consciousness begins at a certain level--say, chimps or even dogs--I have no problem with that. I don't think so myself, but the main point is the suddenness of the switch from unconsciousness to consciousness. However, for me to agree they would have to agree that chimps or whatever are totally conscious in the human sense, because that is the only sense there is.John has explained to me what happens when we "see" a picture on the wall. There's a sense in which we don't see it (he went into the physiology of it). What happens when we "see" is a series of automatic physical activities. My point was that, whatever we may call it, if we don't "see" then we certainly have an illusion of seeing the picture. That illusion is the mental leap. Suppose dogs are unconscious. Physically, the same thing happens when they see something as with us (more or less), but it would be very accurate to say they don't actually "see" because there is no mental leap.There can be no consciousness without self-consciousness, without a sense of "me." Why? Because without a sense of "me" we can't "see." We have to be able to realize that what we are looking at is a separate object from the "me." (We never see the "me." The "me" is the point we are looking from).Nor can we imagine, for the same reason. If we are going to imagine something, we have to be able to realize that that is what we are doing (even if we are mistaken about it). Otherwise all you have are a series of automatic physical activities.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
However, for me to agree they would have to agree that chimps or whatever are totally conscious in the human sense, because that is the only sense there is.

---

Why is human-like consciousness the only consciousness there is? How did you come to that conclusion and how does one test it? It doesn't make any sense. My dogs are most definitely aware both of there surroundings and of themselves. I know this because they exhibit all of the behaviors indicative of such. Of course, you could call it a purely Pavlovian response, but I could make the same call regarding human behavior, as did the psychologist B. F. Skinner.

quote:

---

Suppose dogs are unconscious. Physically, the same thing happens when they see something as with us (more or less), but it would be very accurate to say they don't actually "see" because there is no mental leap.

---

You think that dogs don't see? How do you know this? A dog, or anything else, must have a functional mental image of its surroundings or it couldn't stay alive. This image could be constructed from light, vibartion, echolocation, electromagnetism, whatever. But it must exist or the creature would have bearings, no contact with the world it lives in and hence no food and no mates.

quote:

---

There can be no consciousness without self-consciousness, without a sense of "me."

---

Maybe, but self-consciousness is not limited to humans. Some non-human animals have a sense of self.

quote:

---

Because without a sense of "me" we can't "see." We have to be able to realize that what we are looking at is a separate object from the "me." (We never see the "me." The "me" is the point we are looking from).

---

On the one hand you argue that humans are the only conscious animals and on the other you argue that consciousness is a requisite for seeing. Then it follows that animals don't see, which is absurd.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Although I agree completely with your post, it *is* true that humans have the (spontaneous) facility of formal grammatical language, sophisticated tool use, and (societal and individual) behavioral characteristics suggesting cognitive capabilities unique in the animal kingdom. Perhaps there is something there to examine in more detail?I agree completely with your assertion that dogs are definitely self-aware, and in the strictest sense! That is why I avoid them at all costs -- they strike me as frightfully immoral with all their public nudity, defecation, and indiscriminant sexual activity. When I was a boy, our family's dog *absolutely refused* to wear pants. Have these creatures no shame?

Hi zipzip:

quote:

---

Although I agree completely with your post, it *is* true that humans have the (spontaneous) facility of formal grammatical language, sophisticated tool use, and (societal and individual) behavioral characteristics suggesting cognitive capabilities unique in the animal kingdom. Perhaps there is something there to examine in more detail?

---

I think I may be misunderstanding you. Humans have the neurobiological capability of learning formal grammatical language - but it is learned. Same thing with "sophisticated" tool use. However, non-human primates have significant capabilities in both areas as well - simply not to the same degree as humans. And before we pat ourselves on the back for having such a "unique" cognitive capability, perhaps you would care to explain why (and what) you feel we have is "unique" rather than merely a matter of degree? As example, numerous cognitive and behavioral studies have been performed on our nearest cousins in areas such as object relationships, logical progression, association, proto-language capability, etc. Just for reference, please see:Brown, DA, Boysen, ST, 2000 "Spontaneous discrimination of natural stimuli by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)", J Comp Psychol, 114:392-400. This article discusses a fascinating experiment where chimps were able to associate different classes of animals from pictures into "same" and "different" categories (fish with fish, gorillas with chimps, etc) - very similar to what a human would have done in the same circumstances.Schwartz BL, Colon MR,Sanchez IC, Rodriguez IA, Evans S, 2002 "Single-trial learning of "what" and "who" information in a gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla): implications for episodic memory", Anim Cogn, 5:85-90. The article demonstrates associative memory between specific objects and specific people in gorillas.Anyway, my point is that there are has been a lot of work showing that most of our "sophisticated" behaviors are mirrored in much more primitive fashion in non-human animals. We're not all THAT special...

quote:

---

I agree completely with your assertion that dogs are definitely self-aware, and in the strictest sense! That is why I avoid them at all costs -- they strike me as frightfully immoral with all their public nudity, defecation, and indiscriminant sexual activity. When I was a boy, our family's dog *absolutely refused* to wear pants. Have these creatures no shame?

---

I would argue that dogs are NOT self aware - show a dog itself in a mirror, and it will identify the image as another dog - not itself. On the other hand, CATS are by far and away the best argument for the existence of pure evil I've ever encountered.

Quetzal, my hypothesis is that the only definition you need for consciousness is "self-awareness." If you have that you are fully conscious; if you don't have it you are not conscious at all. So a dog either has self-awareness or he is not conscious at all. As far as seeing, I am not suggesting that the dog's eyes don't work. They work perfectly fine. It all depends on what you mean by seeing.John said that humans do not "see" (in a sense). I think his idea is wrong with regard to humans, but correct with regard to animals.But as regards animals, my hypothesis is as follows:Some animals may very well be conscious--if they are they are fully conscious (they have self-awareness). If not, they have none. Your point about their inability to function if they have no consciousness does not hold, since insects presumably are not conscious and they function just fine. Birds build nests--a pretty complicated procedure--do you want to argue that birds have self-awareness, that they are thinking about their nest-building and wondering if they put it in the right place, etc? Because that is what they would be doing if they are conscious.

Hi robin,I think you're confusing me with someone else. I never said (or at least I don't think I did) that an organism can't function without consciousness in the sense of self-awareness. That certainly isn't my position, in any event. My stance is that "consciousness" in the sense of higher cognitive function is a continuum, and is shared in decreasing order of capability by many other organisms. Humans are pretty much at one end of that continuum on Earth (but not necessarily in the universe as a whole). My challenge to you was to show otherwise: that there was some distinct and unique facet of humanity that sets us apart. If your position is that self-reference is the only requirement, well then we have a lot of company...

If you wish to affirm that many species are self-aware, I will grant that provisionally. My contention is that consciousness has to be a threshold and not a continuum. The reason is that it is not possible for a being to be aware of something else but not aware of itself. And once you are aware of yourself you are aware that there is an environment outside of the "me." You are able to separate the "me" from the not-me. Indeed, you might be confused about whether your paws, say, are part of your body or not, but that makes no difference. What you are aware of is your "self," not necessarily your body. You may not know what any of these things are outside the self--it makes no difference for full consciousness to be. So dogs could have self-awareness and still not recognize the figure in the mirror, but the reason is that they don't know what mirrors do, not that they don't have a sense of self.But what is it that this being of whatever species can do if he has self-awareness? All sorts of things. For example, he can remember (indeed, without memory there would be no sense of self). But not only that. If he can remember he has a sense of time and if he has a sense of time he can visualize the future and know that that is what he's doing. Self-awareness opens all mental doors. That is why consciousness is a threshold.But since we cannot look into a dog's mind to know for sure what is going in there, we can ask ourselves, looking from the outside, what is that animals lack that humans have that creates the vast differences in their abilities? The answer is language, by which I mean the ability create sentences you have never heard before. My contention here is that language is dependent on self-awareness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by zipzip:
Although I agree completely with your post, it *is* true that humans have the (spontaneous) facility of formal grammatical language, sophisticated tool use, and (societal and individual) behavioral characteristics suggesting cognitive capabilities unique in the animal kingdom. Perhaps there is something there to examine in more detail?

---

Humans no doubt use cognitive tools more than any other critter on the planet, certainly, though some animals come close.

quote:

---

I agree completely with your assertion that dogs are definitely self-aware, and in the strictest sense! That is why I avoid them at all costs -- they strike me as frightfully immoral with all their public nudity, defecation, and indiscriminant sexual activity. When I was a boy, our family's dog *absolutely refused* to wear pants. Have these creatures no shame?

---

Wow. Those are all the reasons I like them. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

If you wish to affirm that many species are self-aware, I will grant that provisionally. My contention is that consciousness has to be a threshold and not a continuum. The reason is that it is not possible for a being to be aware of something else but not aware of itself. And once you are aware of yourself you are aware that there is an environment outside of the "me." You are able to separate the "me" from the not-me. Indeed, you might be confused about whether your paws, say, are part of your body or not, but that makes no difference. What you are aware of is your "self," not necessarily your body. You may not know what any of these things are outside the self--it makes no difference for full consciousness to be. So dogs could have self-awareness and still not recognize the figure in the mirror, but the reason is that they don't know what mirrors do, not that they don't have a sense of self.

---

I think we're getting wrapped around the axle here for no reason. I would state that consciousness or "self awareness" as you've defined it would be nearly universal to one extent or another - and hence a continuum. You won't get any argument from me that any organism that has a central nervous system can to a greater or lesser degree differentiate external from internal stimuli. If not, it would be unable to interact with its environment (or maybe I'm still not understanding your point). On the other hand, "intelligence" would seem to require something more. Chimps, gorillas, and dolphins (at least) share with humans the ability to have a unique "self identity" - able to understand that the image in the mirror is representative of itself. All these organisms can relate the representation to the reality. This is taken as a sign of higher cognition. A dog cannot recognize itself in a mirror - it just appears to it to be another dog (and possible competitor). If you stand next to your dog in front of a mirror, it will just become confused (try it, it's a weird experience). It can see the reflection, but can't figure out what it's looking at.

quote:

---

But what is it that this being of whatever species can do if he has self-awareness? All sorts of things. For example, he can remember (indeed, without memory there would be no sense of self). But not only that. If he can remember he has a sense of time and if he has a sense of time he can visualize the future and know that that is what he's doing. Self-awareness opens all mental doors. That is why consciousness is a threshold.

---

There are a myriad of organisms that are capable of learned behaviors, from humans to songbirds to rodents. This learning implies some capability for memory. Now I fully agree with the idea that intelligence implies an ability to anticipate future events (plan), and extrapolate consciously a pattern of future action. This another thing we share with chimps, and to a much lesser extent with gorillas. You might be able to make a case that this particular ability is a pre-requisite for being considered "conscious" in the sense you appear to be using the term. However, since it is present in a gradation from human-level to gorilla-level, once again it adds credence to my assertion that consciousness is a continuum, not an either/or situation.

quote:

---

The answer is language, by which I mean the ability create sentences you have never heard before. My contention here is that language is dependent on self-awareness.

---

Considering that language in humans in merely a formalized structure of vocalizations that allow the transmission of information between a sender and receiver, once again we are dealing with something of a continuum. Now, the ability to communicate complex, abstract conceptualizations may very well be unique to humans (the jury is still out). However, the discovery of proto-language in the great apes, and apes' ability to learn at least the rudiments of human-designed sign language (and "invent" new combinations of learned symbols to transmit ideas that weren't taught), as well as documented ability to "teach" sign language to other apes (although I think the experimental results may be equivocal since they haven't been replicated successfully), means that once again we are no better than really clever monkeys. There is NO dividing line that is as hard and fast as you'd like to believe - or at least you have not demonstrated one.[edited to add the word "no" in the last sentence.][This message has been edited by Quetzal, 12-06-2002]

Thank you for an excellent and dignified reply to my post. It only seems natural that animals other than humans display many of the same characteristics that we do. Animals are very good at being what they are. Nothing is a better dog than a dog, and it is highly specialized for its particular niche, which requires complex cognitive capabilities on many levels. The same with gorillas, marine mammals, and even birds (which I think have some of the most startling cognitive capabilities).But a few points. Human children exhibit spontaneous syllabic vocalizations that appear to be precursors of formal grammatical language. There is clearly a critical period in which language training must occur. But the human brain is primed for this training and has the inherent capability to acquire human language at an amazing rate with all its abstractions and complex vocalizations. A child raised on its own in the wild (for instance, the Jungle book) will not develop language because language is a group behavior. But the evidence points to the fact that human children have highly developed cognitive capabilities specificially tailored for human language acquisition and usage. To say that the requirement of training proves that humans do not have the facility of spontaneous formal grammatical language is missing the point. As a group, humans must have the facility of spontaneous language or language would not be a feature of human society (there is nobody to train us).Certain non-human primates (e.g. Koko) appear to have some grasp of formal language, although they must be trained intensively by humans. The matter of degree is the key and that is the difference between Koko's eloquent "banana eat" and the something more that we prize so highly in aspiring human authors.That said, humans are unique in a number of cognitive areas. These include the facility for language, complex abstract reasoning, and sophisticated tool design and use (technology). Some of these are a matter of degree, but then we are unique in the degree to which we display these particular capabilities.But perhaps the most important display of the fundamental difference between humans and other animals is the more general notion of our adaptive capabilities. Humans are found on every continent, under the sea, high in the atmosphere, and in space. At times we have wandered around on another planetary body and returned to Earth none the worse for wear. We do not merely adapt rapidly to environments which are similar enough, we adapt rapidly to environments which (arguably) cannot harbor life at all (e.g. deep space). We can do this on a very short time scale independent of physical adaptation required of most other animals.

Hi zipzip,I completely agree with everything in this post except the last paragraph (see below). My contention has been all along on this thread that our allegedly "unique" human abilities/capabilities represent one end of a continuum of capability. We ARE different in our ability to fully utilize higher cognitive functions. However, it is a question of degree rather than "kind", as you noted.

quote:

---

But perhaps the most important display of the fundamental difference between humans and other animals is the more general notion of our adaptive capabilities. Humans are found on every continent, under the sea, high in the atmosphere, and in space. At times we have wandered around on another planetary body and returned to Earth none the worse for wear. We do not merely adapt rapidly to environments which are similar enough, we adapt rapidly to environments which (arguably) cannot harbor life at all (e.g. deep space). We can do this on a very short time scale independent of physical adaptation required of most other animals.

---

I would argue with this interpretation by saying that it is not humans that have a unique adaptive ability, but rather than we have an extraordinary capability to adapt the environment to us - or in the case of completely hostile environments such as under the seas or in outer space, we have developed the ability to carry a bit of our environment with us. The actual adaptive response humans have undergone due to environmental pressures (such as the relatively minor physical/genetic adaptations to life in the Arctic) are no more and no less than those which any other animal has been able to accomplish in (roughly) the same amount of time. You might find this article, Niche Construction, Biological Evolution and Cultural Change an interesting way of looking at the subject. Please note that I'm not completely convinced they make an irrefutable case on the cultural evolution side. However, the many examples from the paper on animals - including humans - modifying their environment to suit their needs and the comparisons that can be drawn is a good frame of reference from an ecological standpoint. I think it serves to illustrate my point fairly well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
I would argue that dogs are NOT self aware - show a dog itself in a mirror, and it will identify the image as another dog - not itself. On the other hand, CATS are by far and away the best argument for the existence of pure evil I've ever encountered.

---

Hmmm... the dog part was my contribution so...I don't think my pups have ever encountered a mirror, but that does sound like great fun. (oh yes it was!!! hehehehehe!!! BTW, my dogs agree with you) But I am not convinced that this is a clincher for the claim that dogs are not self-aware. If I am not mistaken, the recognition of one's reflection is learned, even among humans. I'm betting that if I leave that mirror sitting on the floor they'd eventually figure it out. What I base my opinion of doggie self-awareness upon is the way they react when they've done something wrong, even when I don't know about it and even if I have been gone all day and many hours have passed sinced the dirty deed. They give themselves away. This requires some cognitive sense of self.As for cats.... yeah, pure evil, but they are SO cute when they stick a canine tooth all the way through your fingernail.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Could it be that you, John, are engaging in a sentimentality about your pets (I share the feeling)? If they are self-aware, then what is missing from their brains? Why do they not do what people do? You know something that all little kids do? They draw pictures. Why don't dogs do this? You might say, they are not physically equipped, but they could do it in a doggy way. They could draw little pictures with their paws in the mud. Why don't they do this? What is missing from their make-up?I think what is missing is mentality. You tell me.Quetzal, if dogs are not self-aware and chimps are, does that not suggest a sudden break rather than a continuum? Do chimps draw pictures?Zipzip, is it a difference in kind or a difference in degree? You seem a little equivocal on the subject, unless i misunderstand you.[This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-06-2002]

It seems to me that technology has become a defining characteristic of our species. The little bit of environment I bring along with me into space represents my unique human ability to adapt to a new environment. The spacesuit is just another form of human skin that instead of evolving biologically over eons, we evolve rapidly through the use of technology. It isn't biological, but so what? It is still as much a part of us as any other organ or appendage, and just as vital to survival.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
Could it be that you, John, are engaging in a sentimentality about your pets (I share the feeling)?

---

I am sentimental about my pups, but I do not think I am anthropomorphizing them.

quote:

---

If they are self-aware, then what is missing from their brains?

---

Nothing. We have essentially the same brains, but different configurations of the various parts.

quote:

---

Why do they not do what people do?

---

My point, robinrohan, is that they do do many of the things that people do.

quote:

---

You know something that all little kids do? They draw pictures. Why don't dogs do this? You might say, they are not physically equipped, but they could do it in a doggy way. They could draw little pictures with their paws in the mud.

---

And you start this post with the suggestion that I am anthropomorphizing my dogs?You might as well ask why ants don't make termite hills, or why cats don't burrow underground. Or why we in the US don't eat our dead?

quote:

---

I think what is missing is mentality.

---

Meaning what exactly? (I am almost afraid to ask)

quote:

---

You tell me.

---

If it were only that easy.

quote:

---

Quetzal, if dogs are not self-aware and chimps are, does that not suggest a sudden break rather than a continuum?

---

Dogs and chimps are not side by side on the continuum. The difference appears like a break because all the intermediates are missing.

quote:

---

Do chimps draw pictures?

---

Yes, actually they do draw primitive pictures. Page not found | Animal Welfare Institute------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com