Quote:
Originally posted by asaris
I don't really believe in souls either. While I don't think you can explain consciousness by some scheme that reduces it to the merely material, it seems to me that some theory of emergent properties that supervene on the material has a pretty good chance of working. So, by Occam's Razor, souls are out.
I don't think that any animals other than humans are conscious (or sentient, or whatever you want to call 'self-awareness'). I'm at least slightly familiar with the arguments for apes/elephants/whatever being coscious, but I haven't seen any convincing arguments. Do they feel pain? Sure. Are they aware that they are feeling pain? Not in the same sense as humans.
|
Do you believe I am conscious?
If so, can you prove it?
No.
Why do you believe I am conscious?
Because:
a) You can observe its effects.
b) YOU are conscious. There appears to be no fundamental difference between you or I, so by extrapolation you can assume that I too am also conscious.
We can observe the effects of a consciousness in many animals. So that's a), what fundamental difference is there between us and animals? None, imho. I mean we are all related! Are you suggesting that a man-ape was born which suddenly was consciousness, where his/her parents were mere automata? Is consciousness really THAT simple as to arise over a SINGLE generation? Because that's what you're saying.
To me, there is no fundamental difference between a man or a mouse. They are all conscious, but are all at different levels of consciousness. In the same way that a human can experience different levels of consciousness. (Alzheimer’s). So a monkey would possess almost an identical level of consciousness as ourselves. A dog, a reasonable level. A cat, a low level of consciousness. A mouse barely aware of it's own existence, right the way down to very simple organisms, who would be not conscious. I see consciousness as a wide spectrum of levels, not simply a matter of
conscious or
not conscious
People with a cat or a dog will surely back me up when they say that their pets certainly
seem conscious.
I have had a number of cats. Each one had very different personalities. And I know that it's not just me "projecting" qualities onto the animal. My parents would agree with me on the particular traits evident in the individual animals. In the same way that people are "unique" individuals, so too it seems are cats (and dogs) albeit on a much simpler level.
I have personally seen my cat display "problem solving skills", which would surely point towards possessing intelligence. (again a vastly inferior one to our own). A person and a dog will often form a very strong social bond, and the dog certainly appears to display signs of emotion. The dog is also known to mourn the loss of it's master.
Apes seem to posess the closest approximation to our own attributes.
Quote:
There is a considerable controversy about whether chimpanzees and gorillas are, in fact, capable of genuine verbalization when they are allowed to use sign language rather than speak in the normal human way (which they cannot do owing to the lack of suitable vocal chords). See various articles in Blakemore and Greenfield 1987.) It seems clear, despite the controversy, that they ,are able to communicate at least to a certain elementary degree by such means. In my own opinion, it is a little churlish of some people not to allow this to be called 'verbalization'. Perhaps, by denying apes entry to the verbalizer's club, some would hope to exclude them from the club of conscious beings!
Leaving aside the question of speech, there is good evidence that chimpanzees are capable of genuine inspiration. Konrad Lorenz (1972) describes a chimpanzee in a room which contains a banana suspended from the ceiling just out of reach, and a box elsewhere in the room:
<blockquote>The matter gave him no peace, and he returned to it again. Then, suddenly - and there is no other way to describe it - his previously gloomy face 'lit up'. His eyes now moved from the banana to the empty space beneath it on the ground, from this to the box, then back to the space, and from there to the banana. The next moment he gave a cry of joy, and somersaulted over to the box in sheer high spirits. Completely assured of his success, he pushed the box below the banana. No man watching him could doubt the existence of a genuine 'Aha' experience in anthropoid apes.
</blockquote>
Note that, just as with Poincare's experience as he boarded the omnibus, the chimpanzee was 'completely assured of his success' before he had verified his idea.
|
-Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind.
This to me certainly shows signs of a human-like consciousness. But does it prove consciousness in apes? No. But like I said, similar behaviour from a human would be taken as evidence that said human was conscious.
Since the above book was written (1989) communication with apes has gone even further than sign language. One particular ape was taught how to use a "Steven Hawking" type machine to "speak". Coherent conversations could be had with said ape, albeit at a basic level, like that which you would expect from a young child.
I don't remember being a young child. I cannot claim that "I thought, therefore I was". Perhaps I "wasn't"? Do you think it is fair to suggest that young children are not in fact conscious?