So, for debate:ST88 wrote:Consciousness is just a by-product of natural selection.
What is consciousness?
How did the consciousness arise by natural selection?
Is consciousness a by-product of natural selection?
Moderator: Moderators
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20832
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 213 times
- Been thanked: 362 times
- Contact:
Is consciousness a by-product of natural selection?
Post #1I would like to pick up on a statement that ST88 made.
What is consciousness?
How did the consciousness arise by natural selection?
What is consciousness?
How did the consciousness arise by natural selection?
Post #11
When people espouse this kind of view about animal intelligence and make far-reaching claims about "cognition" for which there is absolutely no evidence, I have to ask: what is this big, fancy brain in my head for, anyway? Crossword puzzles?juliod wrote:I don't agree. I don't think we'll reach a consensus for this thread in any case.Put perhaps too simply, I believe there to be a "cognitive threshold" that humans long ago passed in their evolution, which no other animal even approaches.
In my post I mentioned predatory cats. It's not clear to me that we can claim they are "less cognative" than we are. Stalking, hiding, approach-by-stealth, etc, are all indicative of extreme congnition. And with their hightened senses, I suspect that they bring "awareness" to a level where they regard us as those slow, dull ape-creatures who need a whole group to hunt a dead hyena (but gee aren't there a lot of them around these days...).
DanZ
Most animals, especially the "higher mammals", have a suite of highly effective, specialized instincts suited to their niche, a legacy of the natural selection undergone by their ancestors. These behaviors look "smart," because they are. But the "intelligence" is distributed throughout the historical process of the animal's evolution; it is the sum result of billions of blind, dumb selections that the tiger is good at hiding and stalking, etc. The proto-tigers that weren't as good at those things didn't survive to reproductive age. The "intelligence" is simply not in the tiger's head. He doesn't need it. It's a crucial point, because, valuing consciousness as we humans do, as our identity, as a marker of "personhood", it's easy for us to fall in the trap of assuming that it's the only way to make decisions or get things done. It's not. In fact, I believe it would be nothing but a hinderance for the tiger to have other things to think about while he was stalking his prey.
-
juliod
- Guru
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
- Location: Washington DC
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #12
When I heard people making claims like "absolutely no evidence" in regards to animal intelligence, I wonder what planet they live on.When people espouse this kind of view about animal intelligence and make far-reaching claims about "cognition" for which there is absolutely no evidence, I have to ask: what is this big, fancy brain in my head for, anyway? Crossword puzzles?
In any case, the question was not "intelligence", whatever that is, but "consciousness", whatever that is.
What would an animal more conscious than humans be like? The best answer I can think of is that the animal would be more aware than we.
Not a few animals have better sight, hearing and smell than dull, slow Homo sapiens. Many advanced predators have brains that recieve much more information every second that ours. That they are able to use that information is surely a sign of superior "consciousness".
Why do we have such big brains in relation to our size? Maybe we are another example of those hypertrophied specialists (like giraffes) that have gone so far down a particular niche that they are reaching a dead end?
DanZ
Post #13
How can you claim that WE dont work exactly the same ?Squirrels collecting food, birds building nests or migrating, and a host of seemingly "intelligent" animal behaviors are a clear example of adaptive behaviors driven by "hard-wired" instincts, not remotely close to the human ability to project into the future and plan accordingly.
Our "complex" thoughts can simple be "hard-wired". Ever thought about that then ?
Have I said anything else about it ?As far as avoiding death, by your argument, bacteria are conscious, since they move toward food and away from harmful substances.
Size does not equal consciousness dear.
Last edited by LillSnopp on Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20832
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 213 times
- Been thanked: 362 times
- Contact:
Post #14
juliod wrote:
In any case, the question was not "intelligence", whatever that is, but "consciousness", whatever that is.
Right, we're not arguing about "what is intelligence?", but "what is consciousness?".
And before we can debate meaningfully on consciousness, we need to all generally agree on what we are talking about. I would suggest that we first start with published definitions of consciousness. Then we can refine those definitions and then try to come up with a working definition for this thread. One thing that we should not start with is our personal definitions of consciousness, otherwise, the definitions would be too subjective for debate.
OK, does anyone have anymore published definitions of consciousness?
Post #15
consciousness (according to Wikipedia: Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. In common parlance, consciousness denotes being awake and responsive to one's environment; this contrasts with being asleep or being in a coma.
Consciousness is notoriously difficult to define or locate. Many cultures and religious traditions place the seat of consciousness in a soul separate from the body. Conversely, many scientists and philosophers consider consciousness to be intimately linked to the neural functioning of the brain.
Unsolved problems in biology: What is consciousness or the self? Why is it necessary for many animals (especially mammals) to sleep, or to dream? What are the inheritable characterisitics of intelligence? What are the correlations between intelligence and sex? Is intelligence affected by the geomagnetic field?
An understanding of necessary preconditions for consciousness in the human brain may allow us to address important ethical questions. For instance, to what extent are non-human animals conscious? At what point in fetal development does consciousness begin? Can machines ever achieve conscious states? These issues are of great interest to those concerned with the ethical treatment of other.
WordWebs:
1. An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation "he lost consciousness".
2. Having knowledge of "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"
Consciousness is notoriously difficult to define or locate. Many cultures and religious traditions place the seat of consciousness in a soul separate from the body. Conversely, many scientists and philosophers consider consciousness to be intimately linked to the neural functioning of the brain.
Unsolved problems in biology: What is consciousness or the self? Why is it necessary for many animals (especially mammals) to sleep, or to dream? What are the inheritable characterisitics of intelligence? What are the correlations between intelligence and sex? Is intelligence affected by the geomagnetic field?
An understanding of necessary preconditions for consciousness in the human brain may allow us to address important ethical questions. For instance, to what extent are non-human animals conscious? At what point in fetal development does consciousness begin? Can machines ever achieve conscious states? These issues are of great interest to those concerned with the ethical treatment of other.
WordWebs:
1. An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation "he lost consciousness".
2. Having knowledge of "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"
Post #16
How i see it:
So far, according to definitions, Consciousness is not something exclusively for Homo Sapien Sapien. Most of it can be applied to animals if exclude any religious elements, which are opinions, and not absolute.
And as the entire thread was based on if Consciousness was a bi-product of natural selection, puts us in a predicament, as its not exclusive to us.
So far, according to definitions, Consciousness is not something exclusively for Homo Sapien Sapien. Most of it can be applied to animals if exclude any religious elements, which are opinions, and not absolute.
And as the entire thread was based on if Consciousness was a bi-product of natural selection, puts us in a predicament, as its not exclusive to us.
Post #17
<Edit: addressed to juliod, sorry I didn't quote, but the thread kind of took off while I was posting>
I would like to suggest that you may have sentimental reasons for wishing that animals were conscious.
Perhaps you feel that human beings are arrogant in the "top dog" position we occupy right now in the global ecology we are so busy wrecking. I'm right there with you, but I don't see myth-mongering as a palliative for our arrogance or our recklessness as a species.
Perhaps you love animals (as I do), and choose to anthropomorphize them as a way to love them better or feel closer to them (as I do not).
But I would like to ask you to consider my position, not through the lens of your sentimental regard for non-human animals, but as an honest attempt to understand the truth of the matter. We don't help animals, or ourselves, by making up comforting stories about them.
As regards "better senses" "more information" and "greater awareness," I believe we are at a point where you should provide some documentation for your position. I don't deny that many animal species make use of a wider range of sensory information than we do. After all, bats echo-locate, fish have electroreceptors. But are they really "more aware" or are they "differently aware"? Are they "aware" at all, in the way that we mean when we say that we are "aware" of something? It gets into some pretty sticky philosophical territory if you want to talk on purely theoretical grounds, but I believe that the study of evolution and animal behavior offers us some good, emprical, reasons to believe that they are not. And, yes, smart alec, I came to that conclusion right here on earth.
As regards nitpicks about "intelligence" and "consciousness", your adding "whatever that is" to the term pretty much precludes you, logically, from insisting that my definitions were wrong. You were talking about animal intelligence when you were talking about the big cats. If you would like to offer definitions of the terms, we can use those for further discussion. It doesn't much matter to my position, as long as we're consistent about what we'll call what.
Really, senses, perception and awareness (as opposed to the strictly cognitive elements of consciousness) are another whole side of my argument that I am most eager to open up. But I would actually like a response as regards your potentially sentimental motivations. Because if you're not going to engage in a debate where cherished beliefs are set aside, "for the sake of argument", then there's really no point trying to convince you.
I would like to suggest that you may have sentimental reasons for wishing that animals were conscious.
Perhaps you feel that human beings are arrogant in the "top dog" position we occupy right now in the global ecology we are so busy wrecking. I'm right there with you, but I don't see myth-mongering as a palliative for our arrogance or our recklessness as a species.
Perhaps you love animals (as I do), and choose to anthropomorphize them as a way to love them better or feel closer to them (as I do not).
But I would like to ask you to consider my position, not through the lens of your sentimental regard for non-human animals, but as an honest attempt to understand the truth of the matter. We don't help animals, or ourselves, by making up comforting stories about them.
As regards "better senses" "more information" and "greater awareness," I believe we are at a point where you should provide some documentation for your position. I don't deny that many animal species make use of a wider range of sensory information than we do. After all, bats echo-locate, fish have electroreceptors. But are they really "more aware" or are they "differently aware"? Are they "aware" at all, in the way that we mean when we say that we are "aware" of something? It gets into some pretty sticky philosophical territory if you want to talk on purely theoretical grounds, but I believe that the study of evolution and animal behavior offers us some good, emprical, reasons to believe that they are not. And, yes, smart alec, I came to that conclusion right here on earth.
As regards nitpicks about "intelligence" and "consciousness", your adding "whatever that is" to the term pretty much precludes you, logically, from insisting that my definitions were wrong. You were talking about animal intelligence when you were talking about the big cats. If you would like to offer definitions of the terms, we can use those for further discussion. It doesn't much matter to my position, as long as we're consistent about what we'll call what.
Really, senses, perception and awareness (as opposed to the strictly cognitive elements of consciousness) are another whole side of my argument that I am most eager to open up. But I would actually like a response as regards your potentially sentimental motivations. Because if you're not going to engage in a debate where cherished beliefs are set aside, "for the sake of argument", then there's really no point trying to convince you.
Last edited by CJO on Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post #18
First, I will thank you not to patronize me.LillSnopp wrote:
How can you claim that WE dont work exactly the same ?
Our "complex" thoughts can simple be "hard-wired". Ever thought about that then ?
Have I said anything else about it ?As far as avoiding death, by your argument, bacteria are conscious, since they move toward food and away from harmful substances.
Size does not equal consciousness dear.
I can claim that we don't work exactly the same because our higher nervous system is the most complex matter in the universe, and plasicity is its hallmark. All those interconnections in the cortex are in fact there for a reason, and it is: complex thoughts are exactly that, and could not be hardwired. Note that I am not claiming that humans don't also have instincts, I am claiming that non-human animals do not have "thoughts."
Lack of size, on the other hand, can preclude consciousness of a sort that requires a nervous system.
Post #19
You are stating this as if it's a fact, but I say it is not true. Debate. Give reasons. Back up your position. Refer to the parts of the definitions you think support what you are saying.LillSnopp wrote:How i see it:
So far, according to definitions, Consciousness is not something exclusively for Homo Sapien Sapien.
Post #20
Just read the definitions provided:(1)You are stating this as if it's a fact, but I say it is not true. Debate. Give reasons. Back up your position. Refer to the parts of the definitions you think support what you are saying.
self-awareness (We all know we exist, so no rhetorical jibberish please)
sentience (We all live in this world, but we may perceive it differently, but are aware, we all feel we all perceive)
the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment (Animals most definitely do this to)
If you do not go into religious dogma, animals have it. I think you want to try to make us superior in some sort of way, giving us something ´no one else have´. It´s like trying to argue that humans only have a ´soul´.
Please give me your explanation in what way Animals would not have these things? And in what way we have them in comparison.
1* You cant blame me for accepting the Truth. Question is, why cant you?
