Consciousness

[Emageht Tsoluoy]

What specifically about human consciousness, separates it from the consciousness of an animals consciousness?

From what i can piece together, all mammalian brain structures follow the same general biological pattern(s).
The human brain is apparently the most complex, although not the largest of the mammalian species.
How can other mammalian brains act so radically different than the way we perceive the world?

Just because a horse can be tamed, does that mean that the horse does not experience joy or sadness?
what about mothers and their foals?
What if instead of 'projecting emotions' onto a creature incapable of them, I just recognise and name what I see?

Kittens can be happy/sad/confused.
Dogs can be happy/sad/confused.
Fish get excited about feeding time.
(ok everyone gets excited about feeding time)

They feel pain too.

Before I knew better, I had my best friend de-clawed. (i am now a strong advocate of banning the practice of declawing)
To this day, whenever by cat licks at the same spot on the same paw for the zillionth time over the course of his life, i see his scars bothering him, that he can still feel the pain (i have had him checked, he is fully healed) of the surgery to this day 15 years later.

Just because something has a smaller brain, and can't experience the world the same way, does not mean that it does not experience the same world, at all.

Cows are mammals.
Cows are really, really, really tasty though.

How can I overcome this dilemma?

I do not know if burgers will ever taste the same again.

/cry

[taliey]

Sentience, learning, language, literacy and recordings, all have contributed to why people's cognitive abilities are considered superior to animals cognitive abilities.

[Underverse]

Consciousness alone does not grant significant moral value.

[Realsykes]

We work on a drastically higher cognitive level.

[Mummbles]

Believing that any single life isn't all that important (but life in general is) has made me feel better. That tasty cow you love eating is also feeding 100 other people, so only in death does it gain any significance. The needs of the many, yo!

[darkmankill1]

Feed off their agony. You can't save everyone for in the end everything will die. If you want to feel better about eating meat, make sure the animals it comes from get treated fairly and have a decent life.

[zephid]

The first thing you need to do is to understand that there is a difference between consciousness and sentience. The difference between "Sentience" and "Consciousness" is that a sentient creature is able to to perceive the external world and understand that it is in fact an external world, while a conscious creature is also self-aware, it has the ability to understand it's own existence.

There are almost no animals that are what we would consider conscious, they are sentient. There are of course a couple of exceptions to this, chimpanzees, elephants and a couple of other animals are close to what we would consider conscious, but the vast majority are not.

[Emageht Tsoluoy]

Ok, but that does not mean joy in a consciousness entity is substantially a different feeling as joy in a sentient entity, does it?

Because an animal can not describe why it is happy, or what happiness is, does not mean that it is incapable of being happy, right?

[Celista]

The first think you need to do is to understand that there is a difference between consciousness and sentience. The difference between "Sentience" and "Consciousness" is that a sentient creature is able to to perceive the external world and understand that it is in fact an external world, while a conscious creature is also self-aware, it has the ability to understand it's own existence.

There are almost no animals that are what we would consider conscious, they are sentient. There are of course a couple of exceptions to this, chimpanzees, elephants and a couple of other animals are close to what we would consider conscious, but the vast majority is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test just linking it for everyone else (you obviously seem aware of the test).

I think that more animals than that likely have self-awareness, the test itself has a bit of a bias because it bases its results on certain assumptions of an animal's behavior. My dog reacts with interest when she watches dog videos on my laptop but looks at the full-length mirror in our house disinterestedly. Dogs do not have hands with which they can examine themselves, like chimps do, or long appendages for self-examination like an elephant. It's possible that there are other species of animals out there that are self-aware, but we do not have yet developed a better test for self-awareness.

Not really on topic but I raised my dog from a puppy and it was fun doing some basic psychological tests on her as you would with children, testing object permanence and how that changed as she got older was fun.

[zephid]

Ok, but that does not mean joy in a consciousness entity is substantially a different feeling as joy in a sentient entity, does it?

Because an animal can not describe why it is happy, or what happiness is, does not mean that it is incapable of being happy, right?

I wouldn't say it's substantially different, but there is a difference. Just the fact that we can understand and analyze our feelings, understand why we feel a certain way etc. not to mention that we can plan ahead, we don't just live in the present like most animals, we also understand that there will be a tomorrow etc. It all makes a difference.

But in the end it's a philosophical question with no real correct answer.

[Nasuem]

I wouldn't say it's substantially different, but there is a difference. Just the fact that we can understand and analyze our feelings, understand why we feel a certain way etc. not to mention that we can plan ahead, we don't just live in the present like most animals, we also understand that there will be a tomorrow etc. It all makes a difference.

But in the end it's a philosophical question with no real correct answer.

What would you call building nests if not planning ahead? How well do people really analyze why they feel a certain way? I feel like 60% of the population wouldn't be popping all kinds of anti depressants and investing heavily in self help bullshit this were the case. Animals might not know the word tomorrow but they hunt and gather and nest illustrating some concept of linearity.

There is a very easy answer brought to you by Sam Harris. I'm paraphrasing but picture a world where every living thing is in the worst possible agony imaginable. That would be considered bad by any standard. So any lessening of that agony has to be seen as a positive. There. The less pain every living thing feels the better the world is, question answered.

[Doctor]

Only human consciousness can ask "What is God?".

[zephid]

What would you call building nests if not planning ahead?

Instincts. Not conscious thought.

How well do people really analyze why they feel a certain way? I feel like 60% of the population wouldn't be popping all kinds of anti depressants and investing heavily in self help bullshit this were the case.

Some people might not do, but at least they can do it. That's the important part.

Animals might not know the word tomorrow but they hunt and gather and nest illustrating some concept of linearity.

They do it because they are hungry right now, they are acting on instincts. It's kinds like "I'm hungry, I need food, I go hunt" it's not "I might get hungry in a while so I better hunt so that I have food when I want it later". They are purely acting on instinct, not conscious thought.

There is a very easy answer brought to you by Sam Harris. I'm paraphrasing but picture a world where every living thing is in the worst possible agony imaginable. That would be considered bad by any standard. So any lessening of that agony has to be seen as a positive. There. The less pain every living thing feels the better the world is, question answered.

But that thought experiment are basing it's conclusion on that everything feels the same amount of pain and feels it the same way for everyone, and that might not be true.

[Nasuem]

Instincts. Not conscious thought.


Some people might not do, but at least they can do it. That's the important part.


They do it because they are hungry right now, they are acting on instincts. It's kinds like "I'm hungry, I need food, I go hunt" it's not "I might get hungry in a while so I better hunt so that I have food when I want it later". They are purely acting on instinct, not conscious thought.


But that thought experiment are basing it's conclusion on that everything feels the same amount of pain and feels it the same way for everyone, and that might not be true.

Granted the urge to hunt is more fulfilling an immediate need although it can also be opportunistic, not to mention the manner in which animals can coordinate while hunting seems above what I would consider instinctual. Too many moving parts. Identifying a beneficial mode of operation.

That word I also have never heard explained clearly. Instinct. Building a nest is instinct when an animal does it but a conscious decision when we do? We both gather wood, pick a spot, and construct but there are these clearly defined lines between ours and their motivations. Have you ever thought about what it would be like if you didn't speak or know a language? Would you put it together to construct shelter without knowing the word shelter? Obviously people did, as we evolved. So without knowledge of language how would you separate the two actions? Before people had language we had caves we hid in. How can it be a conscious plan in that instance where there is no material with which to internally plan?

Lastly, Sam's argument doesn't require any knowledge of how different life forms feel pain or to what levels in comparison with our own. Reread it. The worst pain they can experience and we can experience. Any subtraction of that is positive. Half the pain I feel getting cut and apply it to a cow. Reduce that pain. Overall suffering is reduced. The thought experiment stands.

[Goobadin]

Granted the urge to hunt is more fulfilling an immediate need although it can also be opportunistic, not to mention the manner in which animals can coordinate while hunting seems above what I would consider instinctual. Too many moving parts. Identifying a beneficial mode of operation.

That word I also have never heard explained clearly. Instinct. Building a nest is instinct when an animal does it but a conscious decision when we do? We both gather wood, pick a spot, and construct but there are these clearly defined lines between ours and their motivations. Have you ever thought about what it would be like if you didn't speak or know a language? Would you put it together to construct shelter without knowing the word shelter? Obviously people did, as we evolved. So without knowledge of language how would you separate the two actions? Before people had language we had caves we hid in. How can it be a conscious plan in that instance where there is no material with which to internally plan?

Lastly, Sam's argument doesn't require any knowledge of how different life forms feel pain or to what levels in comparison with our own. Reread it. The worst pain they can experience and we can experience. Any subtraction of that is positive. Half the pain I feel getting cut and apply it to a cow. Reduce that pain. Overall suffering is reduced. The thought experiment stands.

Hunting techniques, nest building, etc.... While complex, are not abstractly developed. That's the key. Self-awarness and abstract thought are what distinguish humans from all other species.

You mention language, and building without it... But, fundamentally, it is our ability to develop language that makes the difference. Fire. String. Language. Most important milestones in humanity.

[Deleted]

Only human consciousness can ask "What is God?".

1) You can't know this since animals can't communicate complex ideas easily.

2) Certainly an AI will be able to come up with the concept of deities and other fictitious beings.

3) As far as we understand it, humans are the only beings we know of that tell complex stories to eachother that can be understood and remembered.

If your question was more profound but ill-phrased, as in: "where do we come from ?", then yes, it requires a highly evolved brain to ask that question, but thinking it's only humans that think this thought is presumptuous and very likely false.

[Independent voter]

Chimp recognizing the image it sees in the mirror is himself, a test of self awareness. Starts at @ 2 mins or so.

[Vizardlorde]

we cant even reach a consensus on the definition of consciousness

[Goobadin]

we cant even reach a consensus on the definition of consciousness

People often confuse Consciousness and Self-awarness. One is awareness of the one's environment and body, the other an awareness of that awareness.

Much confusion from conflating the concepts.

[Thrif]

Consciousness was a huge topic of my university degree, and my professor was one highly recognized within the field who also, during that time, wrote his own book on this very subject, so I'll gladly share some insight into it, although the main gest of it will always be "we don't know." Because frankly, there are a few scientific fields that we really just don't know much about, and consciousness is one of them.

What specifically about human consciousness, separates it from the consciousness of an animals consciousness?

We don't know if animal have consciousness. We don't know how consciousness arises, or how it works, what mechanics makes it possible, or anything else. There are two probable answers to this, none if which has been proven though. They are either 1) Most animals doesn't have consciousness (disregarding some great apes and other possibilities), it's a product of the prefrontal cortex along with many other "higher" levels of cognition such as planning, social awareness and decision making. Or 2) Animals have a "lesser" version of consciousness, they still have a "self" in some sense, and there is something there that feels pain and happiness and such, which would happen if consciusness is a product of the entire brain.

The problem is that we really don't know if consciousness is a product of the brain as a whole, or in a specific place. If it's in a specific place it's most likely the prefrontal cortex. For example, there is this experiment where they paint a wierd dot on an animals forehead, and then have them look in the mirror. If the animal touches it's own forehead to remove or feel the dot, then it has some idea of it's own existance as a single being. Only a few animals managed this test, not surprisingly the ones we currently believe to be intelligent such as great apes and birds. Also elephants, if I remember correctly.

From what i can piece together, all mammalian brain structures follow the same general biological pattern(s).
The human brain is apparently the most complex, although not the largest of the mammalian species.
How can other mammalian brains act so radically different than the way we perceive the world?

Just because a horse can be tamed, does that mean that the horse does not experience joy or sadness?
what about mothers and their foals?
What if instead of 'projecting emotions' onto a creature incapable of them, I just recognise and name what I see?

Kittens can be happy/sad/confused.
Dogs can be happy/sad/confused.
Fish get excited about feeding time.
(ok everyone gets excited about feeding time)

They feel pain too.

Before I knew better, I had my best friend de-clawed. (i am now a strong advocate of banning the practice of declawing)
To this day, whenever by cat licks at the same spot on the same paw for the zillionth time over the course of his life, i see his scars bothering him, that he can still feel the pain (i have had him checked, he is fully healed) of the surgery to this day 15 years later.

Just because something has a smaller brain, and can't experience the world the same way, does not mean that it does not experience the same world, at all.

Cows are mammals.
Cows are really, really, really tasty though.

No, you are emotionally compelled into thinking that they have a consciousness. You really have no idea, and neither does the scientific community. And before you say that you can see a cat getting hurt, yes you can see the primitive reaction to getting hurt, but that in no way means that there is a consciousness there to notice it. All living organisms react to outside stimuli. If you pull the leg of a spider it'll go mad and desperately try to run away, as if it was feeling pain, although insects and such have a very big probability of not having a consciousness. Could easily be the same with cats - we don't know.

How can I overcome this dilemma?

I do not know if burgers will ever taste the same again.

/cry

There's no dilemma - try to not hurt animals. Because since we don't know if they have consciousness, the humane thing to do is assume that they do, and treat them appropriately. Where you wanna draw that line is up to you though. Not torturing kitties is easy, but to avoid all meat is another thing. And for another debate.