Animal consciousness... have we been wrong?

[CCoburn]

It seems that "matter" is not a simple 'thing'... but a foundational relationship between waveforms and (perhaps) 'other' circumstances.

The primordial consciousness could be a form of light energy and it would be "foundational". In the famous equation you can set the material equal to (light) energy divided by the speed of light squared(m=e/c²).

[TheRedneck]

This is a subject I have actually researched... not the typical Google research, but actual academic research and some hypothesis testing.

I started with the simple question: is it possible for mankind to build an actual, functioning, organic brain? After all, we have successfully duplicated almost every system in an organic body, save three: reproduction, immunity, and the brain.Some would say (and in some ways ne accurate in saying) that we have developed some semblance of brain function in machines.

However, I cannot see the kind of intelligence in the most powerful computer as being even on the same playing field as organic human intelligence. So my first step was, of course, to define the problem. I came up with the following definitions to use in my work:

Pleasure: any series of sensory inputs that place the organism in a more favorable state.
Pain: any series of sensory inputs that place the organism in a less favorable state.
Intelligence: a set of responses to stimuli.
Instinct: a response to sensory input that is pre-programmed into an organism from birth.
Pavlovian: refers to a response that is learned through repetition and associated pain/pleasure responses based on the learned actions. Pavlovian intelligence can override instinctual intelligence.
Spiritual: refers to a response that exists independent of any pre-programmed or learned responses, except that the associated thoughts and actions can be triggered by instinctive or Pavlovian intelligence.
Social: refers to any type of intelligence (instinctual, Pavlovian, or spiritual) that can be utilized based on the observed actions or recorded records of others. For example, the learning of mathematic principles via repeated reading is a type of social Pavlovian intelligence, as is the knowledge that a predator is dangerous simply by watching it attack others and not oneself.
Consciousness: the ability to comprehend that oneself is alive and to consider the implications of one's actions.
Sentience: the ability to think and reason to solve problems.

Now, these may not be the definitions others use; one of the difficulties of this field is defining exactly what these terms entail. But that is irrelevant for my purposes here. All that is relevant is that the terms have been defined for the scope of my work.

My second step was to examine the evidence we know. For example, we know that a neuron has multiple inputs (dendrites) and only one output (axon). Both input and output use synaptic gaps to communicate with other neurons, and these communications can be multi-purpose using various neurotransmitters.The operation also appears analog instead of digital, based on the speed of operation and the single output.

Analog processors exist, but they are quite limited in their functions. The lowly Op-Amp can be considered an analog processor; it accepts analog inputs and produces an analog output based on those inputs. Unlike a digital processor, an analog processor can detect threshold levels, amplify, add, subtract, invert, etc. only. Therefore, the neuron cannot, by any known phenomena, be the source of intelligence. However, the arrangement of the neurons, and specifically the neural pathways, can account for Pavlovian as well as instinctive intelligence.

In instinctive intelligence, these pathways are formed at birth and are relatively unchangeable during the lifetime of the organism. For Pavlovian intelligence, the pathways develop due to continual use and the resulting pain/pleasure feedback. However, such a statement cannot be made for spiritual intelligence: the "gut feeling," the imagination, the dreams, the future plans. These things have no scientific explanation as yet, even within my theories.

Therefore, the concepts or consciousness and sentience, as I have defined them, require a certain amount of spiritual intelligence.we have little indication that animals other than humans possess such spiritual intelligence in a recognizable amount. Therefore, I conclude that it is likel that animals as a rule are not sentient, nor fully conscious. A few of the higher animals, like cats, dogs, pigs, dolphins, etc., may contain some small amount of consciousness (which would imply that they do have some small amount of spiritual intelligence), but not on the scale that humans do.

That's not to say they aren't special; they certainly can be! But it does mean that they don't have the ability to process and analyze information the way we do.

TheRedneck

[Revontuli]

I've newer believed in these claims. I've always thought with common sense that they have the same consciousness just different brains. We are nothing special.

[CCoburn]

The animating factor could be spirit but once it is 'plugged in' to a physical vessel it is then referred as 'soul' which kind of reminds me of the old Hermetic axiom: as above so below or as within so without(but that's a little different), so it would be the "spirit" from "above" manifesting as a "soul" below, and it can also be observed that "soul" is a homophone of 'sole' meaning 'at the foot'.

I'm thinking that this "animating" principle would be the same for all incarnations, but it would be the union of the spiritual and the material(vessel) where the diversity of the vessels involved would coalesce with the spiritual element to form a complete and distinct entity or soul.

An analogy might be how electricity(electrons) can be used to animate mechanical or electronic devices from the very simple to the very complex, but this 'flow of electrons' would remain a constant and unchanging factor.

[Maxmars]

I sometimes think that we, as humans, may be biased beyond our own ability to quantify.

While we understand that consciousness itself is a quality, or state, which we cannot quantify or definitively measure; we are also aware that such a discernment is largely subjective.  

Non-human creatures, even those which we cannot being to observe without scientific methodology, often display behaviors which seems to at least mimic or imply consciousness.  Scientists - in their universal paradigm of physical measurability - associate physical brain structures, neurologic functioning, and biochemical processes as indicators which relate intimately with what we designate as "human" cognizance.. in other words, we see things as we can measure them, and anything else is non-data.

It may be, and it may not, that consciousness as we are attempting to describe it, only applies to the human animal, the construct of our own structure and functioning, and that on a larger scale, this is short-sighted and a stunted way of considering consciousness... as in the notion that "Only humans have feelings."

The physics, the chemistry, and the biological functioning may not actually be the 'sum total' of consciousness.  It may also be matter of perspective.  How can you compare an apple and an orange... a sighted human with a blind cave fish, a terrestrial animal with a flying one.  Orders of consciousness must differ as the vehicle of that consciousness manifests in different forms.

At least scientists are affirming that we have a challenge in this regard, and that neither base assumption, nor "science by diktat" will cut the mustard any longer.

[CCoburn]

Purely Hypothetical


This concept of "permanent atoms" only came up within the past year but I stuck with it for some reason.


It might be possible that even consciousness itself is a duality of sorts, but just on a much smaller scale. In the example of "permanent atoms" it could be the complexity and weight of these special elemental structures that might define various qualities of consciousness distinct from the vessel, but at that core may all share an identical force perhaps maybe varying in quantity.

Maybe this might explain a transcendence and continuance of individuality somehow that does not rely solely on physical vessel.

[rickymouse]

Even a goldfish has consciousness.  They have personalities and they feel sorrow for a fish that is dying.

Now cats, our masters, they think us slaves support them because we are not so smart.  They pay us with purrs.....they are royalty.  We are just dumb animals to them.  At least Dogs make us believe we are helping them survive and they like to drag us out to take walks so we stay healthy and can work to make money to feed them and buy those poop bags.

Both cats and dogs are really smart, it is the way they accomplish controlling us that is different.

[CCoburn]

The differences are likely more extreme between "cats" and insects than they are between cats and humans. It's difficult to say the quality of 'base awareness' an insect has, but since we experience our environment via the senses, it seems that more or less of those would affect the 'quality' of awareness.

[VulcanWerks]

I was always annoyed by the claims that other intelligent mammals have some second-rate experience in perceiving their environment.

I agree with that.

Some animals are less “expressive” or maybe “obviously” expressive.

That doesn’t mean that they aren’t conscious of their environment.

Then again, I’m of the mind that “consciousness” is both individual and collective. We are all part of this “conscious” world. Using a crude example, does a spider run away when you try to smash it? It does. It is experiencing the same conscious reality you are.

If we then draw the line of consciousness at being aware of one’s own mortality then I think you have a definitional problem. When you were a kid, were you aware of your mortality? I don’t think so. Or at least, certainly not worried about it.


I’m rambling now so TLDR: Just now saying that animals are “concious” seems incredibly silly to me. Just ask my Corgi’s - I assure you they are conscious.

[Notran]

A little over a decade ago, at a meeting at Cambridge, a group of respected scientists and researcher published a statement indicating that creatures of all types have everything neurologically necessary to manifest true consciousness... sentience of a sort [1].  They proposed that we should openly recognize that we have been mistaken by accepting Descartes's statements that indicated animals were a sort of biological automata ... without feelings, without a mind.

A short while ago, another group of academicians and thinkers at a New York conference made a similar 'declaration' [2] ... that animals may very well be conscious.

A flurry of reporting has occurred in the media, with several outlets publishing on this subject...

From Quanta Magazine: Insects and Other Animals Have Consciousness, Experts Declare
Subtitled: A group of prominent biologists and philosophers announced a new consensus: There’s “a realistic possibility” that insects, octopuses, crustaceans, fish and other  overlooked animals experience consciousness.
From Nature: Do insects have an inner life? Animal consciousness needs a rethink
Subtitled: A declaration signed by dozens of scientists says there is “a realistic possibility” for elements of consciousness in reptiles, insects and molluscs.
From The Hill: It’s ‘irresponsible’ to ignore widespread consciousness across animal world, dozens of scientists argue
From NBC News: Scientists push new paradigm of animal consciousness, saying even insects may be sentient
Subtitled: Far more animals than previously thought likely have consciousness, top scientists say in a new declaration — including fish, lobsters and octopus.
From Animal Ethics.org: 10th Anniversary of the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness

That's a lot of attention for a very simple scientific declaration.  Even minimized, the assertion is important... It is not impossible that non-humans lack a sense of experiential existence.  They may well be sentient in some analogous way to human consciousness.  I offer some excerpted examples from the various articles to give you some ideas of what's in there...
 

---

The [NY] declaration, signed by biologists and philosophers, formally embraces that view. It reads, in part: “The empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including all reptiles, amphibians and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans and insects).” Inspired by recent research findings that describe complex cognitive behaviors in these and other animals, the document represents a new consensus and suggests that researchers may have overestimated the degree of neural complexity required for consciousness.

---

On a side note, the first such declaration presented practically the same message.  It was a bit wordier, (the New York declaration is impressively brief) but the idea was never stated then, or now, that animals "are" conscious... only that we have inadequate scientific standing to say they can not be. 

(I like reiterating the meaning because I have seen people re-brand scientific utterances to serve their own ends...)

I have been an on and off pet owner for many decades... I know each of them had some kind of consciousness, by long observation... but I can't state it scientifically because even the scientists are still hammering out what 'consciousness' is exactly...
 

---

There is not a standard definition for animal sentience or consciousness, but generally the terms denote an ability to have subjective experiences: to sense and map the outside world, to have capacity for feelings like joy or pain. In some cases, it can mean that animals possess a level of self-awareness. 

---

Some encouraging observations, from my perspective, is summed up well...
 

---

The new declaration expands the scope of its predecessor and is also worded more carefully, Seth wrote. “It doesn’t try to do science by diktat, but rather emphasizes what we should take seriously regarding animal consciousness and the relevant ethics given the evidence and theories that we have.”

---

[Underlining is mine]  I love that it was openly acknowledged, that often these 'declarations' are, in some sense, "Science by diktat" (science by decree... as in the Descartes pronouncement of 'material automata.')
 

---

It may seem obvious to us that mammals, birds, and octopuses are conscious because of the way they act and the way they react to pleasant and unpleasant things. When he heard about the Cambridge Declaration, ethologist Marc Bekoff said he thought it was a joke because animal consciousness is something so obvious to anyone who works with or lives with nonhuman animals.

So why did it take so long for scientists to declare this, and why was their wording so careful? Instead of directly claiming that the nonhuman animals they mentioned are conscious, they said that other animals have “the substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors.”

---

Each of these articles has good material in it... well presented and worth reading... for once. 

Let's put it this way, to argue that only humans are intelligent, sentient, and have consciousness, it's the same as arguing that only earth is capable of supporting life in the universe which contains a trillion trillion planets.