15 Jun 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobPlease see my post above, but in this instance i dont think so, for fear can be instinctive, as can joy and happiness, the real question is, are animals conscious of knowing that they are feeling fear or happiness, which I dont think they are, for they cannot reason. Put a cockerel in front of a mirror and he thinks its another cockerel, he cannot reason, that its a reflection.
I'm not the one claiming that animals aren't conscious though. You've successfully debunked your own claim using your own definition.
15 Jun 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut the point is that you don't know for certain, and yet you were claiming that animals weren't conscious. You're now claiming 'you don't think so'.
Please see my post above, but in this instance i dont think so, for fear can be instinctive, as can joy and happiness, the real question is, are animals conscious of knowing that they are feeling fear or happiness, which I dont think they are, for they cannot reason. Put a cockerel in front of a mirror and he thinks its another cockerel, he cannot reason, that its a reflection.
As for the cockerel in the mirror. Have you come across the 'mirror test'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
15 Jun 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobOr this, elephants doing art:
But the point is that you don't know for certain, and yet you were claiming that animals weren't conscious. You're now claiming 'you don't think so'.
As for the cockerel in the mirror. Have you come across the 'mirror test'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
If you think they are not experiencing a stream of consciousness I don't know what would convince you. Trained or not, they have to recognize what they are drawing.
Or this bird video of one manipulating a tool to get a piece of food, solving real problem and coming up with a solution. You think that can be done by a being with no consciousness and reasoning ability? There are other examples even more striking than this.
Or this problem puzzle solving parrot in Japan, does it faster than humans:
&NR=1&feature=fvwp
15 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhousedoing art? doing art? my dear sir, one does not do art, one conceives art! elephants can also be trained to do all sorts of things, it hardly means they are conscious and reasoning. Yes i have seen the bird one before, hardly convincing, Bible states that animals are instinctively , 'wise'.
Or this, elephants doing art:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk
If you think they are not experiencing a stream of consciousness I don't know what would convince you. Trained or not, they have to recognize what they are drawing.
15 Jun 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobYes that is true i am now claiming that I dont think so. Mirror test, ill look if i get the time, bit i am being booted from the pc, my wife wants to type some poetry , pah!
But the point is that you don't know for certain, and yet you were claiming that animals weren't conscious. You're now claiming 'you don't think so'.
As for the cockerel in the mirror. Have you come across the 'mirror test'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
16 Jun 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieProper Knob asked:
I have no way of knowing what it is. I dont speak, whale. Do you?
How do you know if other animals don't have a 'stream of thought'?
to which you replied:
I have asked my rabbits that question many times, they seem to all intents and purposes, to run on purely instinct.
Sonhouse then asked:
You ever hear recordings of whale songs? You think that is just the vocal equivalent of peeing on a rock?
to which you replied:
I have no way of knowing what it is. I dont speak, whale. Do you?
So you seem to be saying that you do not consider other animals to be conscious unless they understand your language, even though they may have a language of their own that you don't understand.
So far, everything you have bought up as necessary for consciousness has been found in other species (self awareness: mirror test; language: whalesong, apes and bees; problem solving: various examples within birds, apes, cetaceans and cephalopods) or is not provable even in other members of our own species.
Your strongest argument so far is in the complexity of our languages but I'm not sure that a complex language has been shown to be required for consciousness.
--- Penguin
16 Jun 11
3 edits
Originally posted by PenguinSo you seem to be saying that you do not consider other animals to be conscious unless they understand your language, even though they may have a language of their own that you don't understand. ???
Proper Knob asked:
How do you know if other animals don't have a 'stream of thought'?
to which you replied:
I have asked my rabbits that question many times, they seem to all intents and purposes, to run on purely instinct.[/b]
Sonhouse then asked:
You ever hear recordings of whale songs? You think that is just the vocal equivalent of p ure that a complex language has been shown to be required for consciousness.
--- Penguin
nope I have not said that at all, you are confusing communication with language. Bees may dance and inform other bees where flowers are to be found, but i haven't heard one forming sounds through the vocalisation of ideas, have you? The latter is language, not merely communication, after all, slapping someone on the back of the head for stealing your bicycle wheel is a form of communication, but its not language, is it?
So far, everything you have bought up as necessary for consciousness has been found in other species???
no its not, as has been pointed out, humans are unique in their ability to form thoughts and ideas and vocalise these thoughts through language. Whale sonar, bat sonar, dolphins chirping, birds singing, are forms of communication, they are not language, which is why you have made these erroneous assertions on that basis. If other species are conscious of thought, please tell the forum what those thoughts are, otherwise, you have nothing.
16 Jun 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think the best we can say is "we don't know". But that is also the best we can say about other humans!
Yes that is true i am now claiming that I dont think so. Mirror test, ill look if i get the time, bit i am being booted from the pc, my wife wants to type some poetry , pah!
Every test we have come up with to find behaviours that are required for consciousness have been passed by some animal or other:
Self awareness, problem solving and language along with various other awareness indicators like the ability to imagine what another animal 'knows' (sorry, can't remember the term for this) have all been demonstrated in other apes.
--- Penguin.
16 Jun 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Penguinhow is it the same with other humans, have you not communicated your thoughts to me? am i not a recipient of those thoughts through the medium of language? No other creation has this ability. We are unique in this regard, all attempts to make us synonymous with apes or any other creature are either inconclusive or purely speculative. What is more, it is clear that there are certain animal behaviour that when applied to the human have disastrous consequences further widening the gap. We are human, not merely apes as you have tried to assert.
I think the best we can say is "we don't know". But that is also the best we can say about other humans!
Every test we have come up with to find behaviours that are required for consciousness have been passed by some animal or other:
Self awareness, problem solving and language along with various other awareness indicators like the ability to imagine w an't remember the term for this) have all been demonstrated in other apes.
--- Penguin.
16 Jun 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo language seems to be your sticking point. I think we have some questions to clear up then:
So you seem to be saying that you do not consider other animals to be conscious unless they understand your language, even though they may have a language of their own that you don't understand. ???
nope I have not said that at all, you are confusing communication with language. Bees may dance and inform other bees where flowers are to be found, ...[text shortened]... scious of thought, please tell the forum what those thoughts are, otherwise, you have nothing.
1. At what point does 'communication' differ from 'language'
2. Does 'language' require sounds and vocalisation? Surely a language is any means of communicating ideas?
3. Does consciousness really require language? I don't think it does. Consciousness may require the ability to have ideas and to manipulate them and reason about them but I don't think it is also necessary to have a means of communicating them as well. If it is not necessary then your strongest argument is irrelevant and we would have to say that from the other characteristics, at least chimpanzees and probably some other species probably are conscious.
4. And finally, if language is necessary for consciousness, have animals demonstrated 'language' as defined by the answer to question 1 above.
--- Penguin
16 Jun 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI can't say whether you are conscious or not. That is the root of the problem. You might be a computer program using a database and some grammar rules to generate responses to posts. Everybody other than me might be completely unconscious animals responding to stimuli in a purely reflexive manner. I have no way of knowing otherwise. The only thing I do know is that I am conscious.
how is it the same with other humans, have you not communicated your thoughts to me? am i not a recipient of those thoughts through the medium of language? No other creation has this ability. We are unique in this regard, all attempts to make us synonymous with apes or any other creature are either inconclusive or purely speculative. What is more, ...[text shortened]... onsequences further widening the gap. We are human, not merely apes as you have tried to assert.
--- Penguin.
16 Jun 11
I think what is getting lost here is the definition of consciousness. Consciousness is merely being self aware of one's own existance. By that that definition its likely that most higher order mammals are self aware, as well as some of the more intelligent birds.
Perhaps the argument should be about the ability to reason. Being able to use a twig as a tool, or finding a path through a maze etc is not necessarily reason or more appropriately put "rationality". Rationality differs greatly from intuitive reason. Intutive reason is: I smell cheese and its stronger around this corner than this corner so I go fior the stronger smell. There is no deep thought just intuition and instinct.
Rationality is the process we use to engage the world around us and make sense of it. It is how we come to beliefs, how we decide, and how we determine our actions. As far as we can tell animals have no belief system, no sciences, no mathematics and no philosophy.
Maybe the one thing that sets us apart truly from animals is our ability to envision a reality other than the one that exists; a reality that has no grounding in current circumstances our logical or theoretical reality. Do monkeys dream about being Harry Potter? Not likely.
16 Jun 11
Originally posted by PenguinAh, remembered it. Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own.
... the ability to imagine what another animal 'knows' (sorry, can't remember the term for this) have all been demonstrated in other apes.
According to <sarcasm>the fount of all knowledge that is true</sarcasm> wikipedia:
it is also important to ask if other animals besides humans have a genetic endowment and social environment that allows them to acquire a theory of mind in the same way that human children do. This is a contentious issue because of the problem of inferring from animal behavior the existence of thinking, of the existence of a concept of self or self-awareness, or of particular thoughts.
Studies have been done that seem to indicate a theory of mind in chimpazees, with the caveat highlighted above. But this caveat also applies to people: all we have as evidence that people other than ourselves have a theory of mind (or any other aspect of consciousness) is their behaviour (including what they say). So if we accept that other people have a theory of mind, then this research should be accepted as strong evidence that chimanzees do as well.
--- Penguin
16 Jun 11
Originally posted by PenguinTherein lies the problem. Religious people HAVE to believe humans are the pinnacle of
Ah, remembered it. [b]Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own.
According to <sarcasm>the fount of all knowledge that is true</sarcasm> wikipedia:
[i]it is ...[text shortened]... this research should be accepted as strong evidence that chimanzees do as well.
--- Penguin[/b]
whatever they think is the evolution of mankind and cannot accept the concept of ANY animal having ANYTHING like human intelligence. They cannot think otherwise. They consistently prove the concept of cognitive dissonance and anthropocentrism. I doubt they can even be bothered to look up the definitions, being blinded by religious indoctrination.
16 Jun 11
Originally posted by Penguin10001010100010101001010010010101010101111001101010101101000110011001010100 - there ya go, interpret that!
I can't say whether you are conscious or not. That is the root of the problem. You might be a computer program using a database and some grammar rules to generate responses to posts. Everybody other than me might be completely unconscious animals responding to stimuli in a purely reflexive manner. I have no way of knowing otherwise. The only thing I do know is that [b]I am conscious.
--- Penguin.[/b]