Consciousness, A Discussion

Evidence is the keyword there, I wasn't discussing "how I feel" about it. Earlier in the discussion, there were several posts discussing how we could differentiate between humans that are conscious and P-Zombie dopplegangers, who look and may act to an extent like humans but don't have consciousness. With the difficulty in deciphering that, I'm thinking of what the possible lines of evidence that other species could have left to display that they may in fact have had consciousness. Tool making is about the only one I can think of that is a knockdown argument, but I cannot really think of any evidence that a stegosaurus or a Cambrian era Mollusk could leave behind to suggest it was conscious when held to that criteria.

 

Not obvious at all. Our knowledge of consciousness in other organisms is mostly inferential. I mentioned a few other species that pass the self-recognition test. That's a test for self-consciousness, which is the only kind of consciousness we can test for in other species. Some higher primates, Cetaceans and birds pass the test. As a dog and cat lover, I have intuitive confidence that they have some level of consciousness, but I can't prove it. Octopuses and grey parrots have a high level of intelligence, and some researchers attribute consciousness to them. Physicist Michio Kaku provides a hierarchy of levels of consciousness ranging from reptiles, whose primitive sensations are centered in the brain stem; to non-primate mammals, which have a level of awareness centered in the limbic system; to "higher" primates and Cetaceans, which show signs of self-awareness centered in the prefrontal cortex. (The Future of the Mind, p. 49) These are necessarily more speculative, but supported by expert opinion. http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics/animals-consciousness-mammals-birds-octopus-120824.htm

We are aware of our dreams, even though we may not be aware at the time that they are dreams. Disputes over consciousness in dreamless sleep are a matter of semantics. If consciousness is subjective awareness, as consciousness and sleep specialist, Professor Tononi says it is in the video supra, dreamless sleep is, by definition lack of consciousness. Given this definition, it is as absurd to speak as conscious dreamless sleep, as to talk about white blackness. To continue to assert that consciousness exists in dreamless sleep is to redefine the term and apply it to something very different from what Tononi and the rest of us are talking about--sentience or conscious awareness. But none of us can win a battle over definitions by logic and evidence, and it's futile to continue arguing about it as though we can.

 

What does it emerge from?

 

IF YOU ARE ALIVE AND BREATHING AND EXIST THEN YOU HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS. A Neanderthal doesn't not have Consciousness just because its brain functions weren't as evolved as Humans. What does Consciousness mean to you anyway? Consciousness is having the awareness and capacity to exist. Tool making vs. not is NOT a determining factor in whether you contain Consciousness or not. Remember, Consciousness isn't the same as "having a conscience".

Even if you are born deaf or blind or retarded or ANYTHING, guess what? You still have Consciousness. How do we know this? Because you have Awareness. Because you exist at all.

 

Honestly, what in the fuck are you guys even talking about?

Self-Consciousness isn't the same as Consciousness itself. If an animal is breathing, looking around, and existing THEN IT HAS CONSCIOUSNESS. Like are you guys really being serious right now??? I thought only hardcore Catholics try to argue that animals and babies somehow don't have a Consciousness, which is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life. Consciousness is the very fact of having any awareness WHATSOEVER. You don't develop a Consciousness, you have it right away the moment you are born.

And yes, this is VERY obvious. The most obvious in fact. Despite how ignorant you are being about this, you still have Consciousness too. It is operating in every organism at EVERY MOMENT. There's nothing "out-there" about saying that either. It's as matter of fact as saying that you have two arms the moment you are born. You don't develop them over time.

Tell these "experts" to go back to the kindergarten drawing board because all of the animals that you listed contain Consciousness. If they didn't, they wouldn't even be alive.

And so what about when you smoke pot at night and don't have REM but aren't in dreamless sleep? Do you not have Consciousness here? And where does it go anyway, only to reappear?

This is just a silly argument.

 

Humans self-declare exclusive conciousness !


... we must not think , as the ancients did , that the animals can talk .... Rene' DesCartes


Yes , human exclusivists are excused from thinking . Others may find a mutual and concious interaction
with an animal of the innocent wildlands , even of such practicality as for a homeless man to be guided
unto a good place to make a nest . Birds especially are quite concerned , even compassionately , about
nests .

Finding and recognizing conciousness anywhere and all around is a naturally human experience . In this ,
a shared language of life gets broadly defined . Fish smile . Squirrels drum upon a tree - playing with Time .

Conciousness is emergent when conciousness recognizes You . Otherness is an intersection . Be doubt-
ful of a narrow , exclusive and thus civilized self-awareness that has been taught to you .

 

I think the brain, and by that meaning all the parts: 4 lobes, 2 hemispheres, Billions of Neurons. Since all brains are not the same and moreover my observations from other species, I presume consciousness is gradiated too,. Meaning I don't think a cat or dog is "as conscious" as a human, particularly in terms of being able to analyze thoughts, utilize symbols, manipulate the external world, many of those aspects which we seem to rest so heavily on when having this discussion, which is likely predominantly due to the discrepancies in the neocortex between species. However, I do think these animals have some sort of mental experiences of the world that is beyond automation that could be considered consciousness but it likely gets cruder and cruder if we go 'down' the evolutionary ladder to reptiles, bugs, etc. to where it's stretching the definition.

More research probably needs to be done if you're looking for an answer more specific than that. The sparse amount I know about the CEO model Okiefreak posted and "The Fame" model I've seen Daniel Dennett discuss, leads me to believe there likely is more disparate parts which work to make the seemingly unified whole of consciousness go. One of the issues that I've mentioned before (maybe not in this thread) is that ethical concerns are likely a roadblock to better understanding consciousness from this view. Neuroscientists can pretty much only be reactive to exploring the affects that significant changes in the brain have on consciousness, like they can only discover aspects of such changes in phenomenal awareness when a patient is suffering from neurological damage or disease. Most proactive approaches to consciousness in this manner, (for instance say we wanted to rewire portions moving from the occipital lobe, responsible for vision, with a portion from the temporal love, responsible for memory) have to be performed on other species. But going by my gradiated notion of consciousness, there is an inherent flaw in this approach, certainly at least an incomplete model, if we're attempting to extrapolate any of those findings to human consciousness.


Kind of a long winded response to your question but I figure type out those ideas while I'm thinking of them.

 

You're trying to be way too complicated about something very simple. Consciousness isn't a result of brain function or evolution. If you exist, then you have Consciousness. Whether you can self-reflect on it or not, your very existence or awareness is what Consciousness is.

 

Well that is circular reasoning, which I am trying to avoid. It's a very complex subject, which remains elusive in some manner to everyone. I don't think anything I am saying is overly complicated in regards to the phenomena.

 

Then if you don't have Consciousness but are alive then what do you have??? I'm not the one also circularly trying to argue that Consciousness doesn't continue after Death. How can you have this argument and also even consider that some organisms while alive might not have Consciousness?

Self-reflection, which is a result of the evolution of the Ego-Consciousness of organisms, isn't equated to Consciousness itself.

It's not actually complicated whatsoever...it's only portrayed as complicated because this is the result of being overly-educated. This is like the most simple of simple. So simple that somehow the over-educated mind misses its obviousness.

 

Because I am not going by your circular reasoning of what consciousness is, to see the issue that from a different view using some of your previous statements. Since according to you "babies and other animals don't have it", how does 'self-consciousness' come about?

 

self-Consciousness results from being alive in culture and society. It's a part of growing up and being raised by your parents and having them call you by your name to the point that you turn around and respond at a certain point. Then begins the "that toy is mine!" phase of Ego identification. But there is a certain period in a baby's development where it hasn't formed its sense of identity, AKA Ego, yet. And yet, it's still obviously a CONSCIOUS BEING. If it bumps its head, it starts crying. If it didn't have any Consciousness whatsoever, then it wouldn't be alive.

 

Other animals fight over food, mates, territory, how are they not self-conscious?

 

Whether they have a sense of Ego or not, they have Consciousness. Correct?

 

At the end of the day I can't tell you whether they can contemplate their own unique existence or not because I am not a dog. But let's pretend they are able to, obviously they have Consciousness. If they aren't able to, they obviously still have Consciousness.

 

Don't deflect, answer the question...

 

I am answering the question. They may be self-conscious by deciphering in their own language their own packs, etc. What is your point now? Are they aware? Yes. Can they contemplate their own existence? You'll have to ask them. Whether they can or can't, do they have Consciousness? Of course they do.

 

Now you're changing your mind based on a couple questions?

That leads me to believe you do not have very developed ideas in regards to this phenomena, which circular reasoning aside, may be one reason I'm unlikely to ascribe to most of your self-proclaimed "simple" ideas regarding consciousness.

 

This question leads me to believe that you are dodging the obviousness of it. We can know that both baby animals and humans don't respond to their name. They also don't say "hello, my name is ...". Whether adult dogs can do this or not is a matter of debate. Since no human knows dog language, we don't know if they call each other by names or not.

The question is, whether they can or can't do this, do they have even a very simple awareness? If you say no, you need to explain, because to be alive is to be aware.

 

Have I said no?