Is Being Conscious of Having Consciousness What Makes a Species "Intelligent?"

[TZK203]

When I say conscious of having consciousness (or for some, being conscious), I'm talking that you, as the individual, are aware that you exist and are somebody.

No, this is not a self-esteem promoting post, if you are wondering.

Regardless, I suppose I'm asking (in your opinion) if in order to be considered an "intelligent" species, in the sense of being able to formulate language, culture, civilization, etc., would an animal have to be conscious of its existence and know, for a fact, that they are a unique individual? That they exist in a metaphysical sense?

TL: DR: Conscious of being conscious: Is it the prime factor for something to be classified as an "intelligent" species?

[Al Gorefiend]

The problem with theorists who propose lack of consciousness in non-human animals is that, we aren't mind readers. Just as I cannot see and understand how another human sees the world, scientists cannot see how animals do. For all we know, animals are very conscious with a wide range of emotions. It's hard to tell, and the self-awareness mirror test goes only so far.

[Endus]

To a pretty significant degree, these kinds of attempts to define "intelligence" boil down to people trying to find a way to draw a firm line separating homo sapiens from other animal life, to try and demonstrate that we are something different, something better than other life on this planet.

We've demonstrated that other species (great apes, among others) can learn human languages, which is a step above us determining whether their natural communications amount to a language.

Other species have demonstrated problem-solving skills comparable to people's.

Tool-making, likewise, is fairly wide-spread (even if we've refined the process more than any other species).

It's difficult to draw this line because every time we draw it, we find animals on the same side as people, which means the line isn't functional. I'm going to suggest that trying to draw the line in the first place is a fool's errand. We don't need to be the best at everything, in terms of brain capacity, in the same way we don't need to be the strongest animal, or the fastest. It doesn't in any way change who or what we are.

[Independent voter]

Somewhere there's this video of a chimp who's given a mirror. She looks into the mirror and suddenly realizes that it's her in the mirror, you can see the realization come over her face. Lesser monkeys think they are looking at another monkey in the mirror.

I'm going to say a sense of humor is a mark of intelligence. So is figuring out how to make a refrigerator.

[brimdog]

Conscientiousness, as well as the understanding and comprehension of that abstract thought, marks intellect as above instinct.

[Deleted]

I'm not sure what you mean exactly when you say "That they exist in a metaphysical sense", as that implies being in absence of empirical facts; one can't be, if one can't be proven to be. Reason, language were the main arguments used to prove that humans are the superior beings, but in recent years it has been shown - as you may know - that animals are in fact aware and can communicate in different forms of language. A fox can create and detect a trap wich clearly is not instict but some form of intelligence. There are many things that separate us from animals, but they'll remain terribly singular.

[Deleted]

who is to say that other species of animal do not have consciousness ?
and who is to say that an animal with intelligence is not conscious.

Look at ants. Some of the things they manage to do can only be accomplished with some sort of intelligence, would you there for say that they are conscious ?

[Al Gorefiend]

who is to say that other species of animal do not have consciousness ?
and who is to say that an animal with intelligence is not conscious.

Look at ants. Some of the things they manage to do can only be accomplished with some sort of intelligence, would you there for say that they are conscious ?

The fascinating thing about ants is they may have a better degree of cadence than humans. The problem with measuring animal intelligence is that we apply Our standard of what makes something intelligent, and placing ourselves at the top.

Human's intelligence comes from adaptation and ability to retain knowledge, all there is to it. We can adapt to use tools, retain what our ancestors learned and pass it down, and scribe.

Teamwork, the intelligence of working together, is something I think ants and a majority of insects are BETTER than humans at. The ability to cooperate and instantly know that everything should be done in a team. They lack the selfish arrogance of humans, they behave systematically to achieve goals a single one could not possibly do. Look at the skyscrapers humans have accomplished working together, imagine those tenfold if humans had ant might.

Animals are intelligent in their own ways, humans are no exception.

[Belize]

But what if cats are conscious of having consciousness and just tell themselves "Fuck whatever, the dumbass humans will look after my every needs, no need to do anything about the whole sentience thing"!?

[Elegiac]

It's difficult to draw this line because every time we draw it, we find animals on the same side as people, which means the line isn't functional. I'm going to suggest that trying to draw the line in the first place is a fool's errand. We don't need to be the best at everything, in terms of brain capacity, in the same way we don't need to be the strongest animal, or the fastest. It doesn't in any way change who or what we are.

The issue arises because we have different standards of ethics that we apply to humans and non-humans. If there is nothing that functionally divides us from other animals then it removes any rational basis behind a lot of practices that we perpetuate for reasons of convenience.

[Muffinator]

At a basic level, anything that is aware of its own existence and consciousness beyond action/reaction thought processes.

[ringpriest]

When I say conscious of having consciousness (or for some, being conscious), I'm talking that you, as the individual, are aware that you exist and are somebody.

No, this is not a self-esteem promoting post, if you are wondering.

Regardless, I suppose I'm asking (in your opinion) if in order to be considered an "intelligent" species, in the sense of being able to formulate language, culture, civilization, etc., would an animal have to be conscious of its existence and know, for a fact, that they are a unique individual? That they exist in a metaphysical sense?

TL: DR: Conscious of being conscious: Is it the prime factor for something to be classified as an "intelligent" species?

Probably not. Read Peter Watts' novel Blindsight (available on the author's website for free) for an interesting (and brilliantly written) take on the subject.

And as an addendum, consider the concept of the non-self-aware human being "aka. philosophical zombie". Then, ask yourself if our politicians and other so-called "leaders" actually possess empathy. (I don't actually think that most politicians and excutives are p-zombies, just that our systems are horribly broken, but it's still an interesting if terrifying question.)

[Dhrizzle]

Probably not. Read Peter Watts' novel Blindsight (available on the author's website for free) for an interesting (and brilliantly written) take on the subject.

And as an addendum, consider the concept of the non-self-aware human being "aka. philosophical zombie". Then, ask yourself if our politicians and other so-called "leaders" actually possess empathy. (I don't actually think that most politicians and excutives are p-zombies, just that our systems are horribly broken, but it's still an interesting if terrifying question.)

I don't think a lack of empathy is a sign of a p-zombie, they're supposed to be indistinguishable from conscious humans. I'd say they're more likely to be solipsists, believing themselves to be the only truly conscious people and therefore they don't have to empathise with others.

[apepi]

Look at ants. Some of the things they manage to do can only be accomplished with some sort of intelligence, would you there for say that they are conscious ?

Check the Leafcutter ants. They go far and bound just using tools.

The fascinating thing about ants is they may have a better degree of cadence than humans. The problem with measuring animal intelligence is that we apply Our standard of what makes something intelligent, and placing ourselves at the top.

Human's intelligence comes from adaptation and ability to retain knowledge, all there is to it. We can adapt to use tools, retain what our ancestors learned and pass it down, and scribe.

Teamwork, the intelligence of working together, is something I think ants and a majority of insects are BETTER than humans at. The ability to cooperate and instantly know that everything should be done in a team. They lack the selfish arrogance of humans, they behave systematically to achieve goals a single one could not possibly do. Look at the skyscrapers humans have accomplished working together, imagine those tenfold if humans had ant might.

Animals are intelligent in their own ways, humans are no exception.

Reminds of those things ceatures that were fought in Ender's Game. They were like one while being, the queen was the mind of them and commanded them what to do and could react instantly and have the same knowledge of all the other bugs being one separate being.

Somewhere there's this video of a chimp who's given a mirror. She looks into the mirror and suddenly realizes that it's her in the mirror, you can see the realization come over her face. Lesser monkeys think they are looking at another monkey in the mirror.

I'm going to say a sense of humor is a mark of intelligence. So is figuring out how to make a refrigerator.

A parrot can be taught this.

[Damerflinn]

At a basic level, anything that is aware of its own existence and consciousness beyond action/reaction thought processes.

Pretty sure this is pretty much what the definition of "Intelligent" when used as a word comparing different species of life. and I feel like it is a pretty good one, however, I'm sure that there are probably pretty good example of intelligence as a group race, such as with Ants or some other hive minded type animal.

[Dezerte]

I think it helps a lot (e.g. seeing yourself as an individual allows you to think about yourself and relation to the world), but is not strictly necessary for intelligence. Would computers one day possess super-intelligence without being concious? I think it possible. The other issue is defining intelligence, where some may define being concious as being a requirement of intelligence (and now we're back to square one).