Consciousness a 'realistic possibility' in birds, fish, squid and bees, scholars say
- Thread starter RD.
- Start date
Very interesting article. I can't help but question the involvement of a philosophy professor in this type of study, or at least the apparently major role she plays. It seems interesting that while apparently admitting that they can't quantify or define consciousness in humans...they make the huge reach to suggest its existence in bees and other invertebrates.
Stating that something is "at least a realistic possibility" is disturbingly close to the sort of marketing-speak that uses terms like "up to 75% off sale". The latter means that as long as the store has one single item, perhaps a scratch'n'dent old stock thing, that is marked down to that level...they can legally say "up to" 75% off. It's about as meaningful as stating that something is "at least a realistic possibility".
We can't even agree upon a definition of "consciousness" or "sentience"...which of course means that we can't prove or disprove its existence in any particular example...so that means that there is a "realistic possibility" that it exists in all examples.
I'm having a chuckle...an internal one!...at the thought of a group of philosophers and assorted other professional navel gazers clustered around a table, watching a bumble bee wrestling with a wooden ball. I can imagine their efforts to assign some deep metaphysical significance to the display; meanwhile, the bee is trying to find a soft spot to sting...
Those folks are doing their best to move the goalpost, the line that distinguishes a conscious entity from one that is not. They want to push it further and further down the evolutionary scale, to eventually include all animals. I think it might be more realistic to look at ourselves, and consider that the magic line separating conscious from...not conscious...is possibly far above humans. We might very well be lumped together with all those bees and other critters. i.e. just dumb animals.
That would explain a lot.
Stating that something is "at least a realistic possibility" is disturbingly close to the sort of marketing-speak that uses terms like "up to 75% off sale". The latter means that as long as the store has one single item, perhaps a scratch'n'dent old stock thing, that is marked down to that level...they can legally say "up to" 75% off. It's about as meaningful as stating that something is "at least a realistic possibility".
We can't even agree upon a definition of "consciousness" or "sentience"...which of course means that we can't prove or disprove its existence in any particular example...so that means that there is a "realistic possibility" that it exists in all examples.
I'm having a chuckle...an internal one!...at the thought of a group of philosophers and assorted other professional navel gazers clustered around a table, watching a bumble bee wrestling with a wooden ball. I can imagine their efforts to assign some deep metaphysical significance to the display; meanwhile, the bee is trying to find a soft spot to sting...
Those folks are doing their best to move the goalpost, the line that distinguishes a conscious entity from one that is not. They want to push it further and further down the evolutionary scale, to eventually include all animals. I think it might be more realistic to look at ourselves, and consider that the magic line separating conscious from...not conscious...is possibly far above humans. We might very well be lumped together with all those bees and other critters. i.e. just dumb animals.
That would explain a lot.
I didn't read all of that but I always correct people on the octopus thing cuz they're like "I don't want to eat octopus because they're so smart" but the actual thing is like they're a little under par with dogs in terms of cognitive ability and social awareness or whateverVery interesting article. I can't help but question the involvement of a philosophy professor in this type of study, or at least the apparently major role she plays. It seems interesting that while apparently admitting that they can't quantify or define consciousness in humans...they make the huge reach to suggest its existence in bees and other invertebrates.
Stating that something is "at least a realistic possibility" is disturbingly close to the sort of marketing-speak that uses terms like "up to 75% off sale". The latter means that as long as the store has one single item, perhaps a scratch'n'dent old stock thing, that is marked down to that level...they can legally say "up to" 75% off. It's about as meaningful as stating that something is "at least a realistic possibility".
We can't even agree upon a definition of "consciousness" or "sentience"...which of course means that we can't prove or disprove its existence in any particular example...so that means that there is a "realistic possibility" that it exists in all examples.
I'm having a chuckle...an internal one!...at the thought of a group of philosophers and assorted other professional navel gazers clustered around a table, watching a bumble bee wrestling with a wooden ball. I can imagine their efforts to assign some deep metaphysical significance to the display; meanwhile, the bee is trying to find a soft spot to sting...
Those folks are doing their best to move the goalpost, the line that distinguishes a conscious entity from one that is not. They want to push it further and further down the evolutionary scale, to eventually include all animals. I think it might be more realistic to look at ourselves, and consider that the magic line separating conscious from...not conscious...is possibly far above humans. We might very well be lumped together with all those bees and other critters. i.e. just dumb animals.
That would explain a lot.
I had a single octopus for a bit over a year, way back in the day. That animal displayed cognitive abilities that far supassed all the dogs I have ever owned and lived with.
That little octopus would watch me like a hawk when I was in the room, curled up in one of his favourite hidey-holes. When I moved to a different seat in the room, he would switch hiding spots to keep me in view. So far, so good; impressive, perhaps, but not astonishing...right?
Well, if I found a spot that couldn't be easily observed from one of his hides, he would regularly reach out from inside the container with several arms and turn the container around...with him inside it...until he had a clear view again. Good luck finding a dog that can duplicate that.
It's futile and silly to attempt to compare the intelligence of widely disparate animal species in any meaningful way. It's like saying a toaster is more advanced..."smarter"...than a chess-playing computer. That's only true if you want to make toast; if the goal is playing chess, then...no.
I very well remember a school mate who was apparently a certified genius, with a scary IQ. He could perform amazing feats of mental acuity...but I know that the act of crossing the street at an uncontrolled intersection was overwhelming enough to practically bring him to his knees. If he had to rely upon his genius to help him survive in some situation like shipwreck on some remote island...he would have been dead within 24 hours.
Ha! Bring it!
I somehow landed on PETA's mailing list and received drivel from them for years. I suspect it was a prank perpetrated by one of my buddies. But it was actually useful to keep tabs on what those idiots were up to.
Keep your friends close, and...well, you know the rest.
I believe this is what is meant by a distinction without a difference. I'm always interested to skim the latest notes from the science world, but a gathering of scholars signing off on an agrrement that it's a real possibility that all animals are conscious is quite an impressive feat of academic redundancy. As John said they haven't even agreed on a definition, and cite the fact that animals avoid pain and sleep better when with their own, etc are not newsworthy. Even single celled organisms seek food, safety, warmth, whatever... Wonder what they all could have accomplished if they wren't collaborating on this
Quite possibly...nothing!
When you combine a desire to be or remain relevant...with an inability to actually follow through and make it happen...you end up with exactly the justification for time-wasting nonsense like the New York Declaration On Animal Consciousness. I give it a week before they start abbreviating that as NYDAC; acronyms always lend a hint of authoritarian legitimacy to utter BS.
And then, of course, you add in the wild-card element...in this case, a troublemaker like
RD.
who just waltzes into the door, tosses a hand grenade into the center of the room, and then slips quietly out again.
Didn't read much of the article, but it reminds me of a short book I read a while back, titled, "Other Minds: The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness". Was a fairly decent read; can't remember what much of it was about, though. Might be somewhat relevant, or not.
I also read a short paper debating the consciousness of insects long ago, but it was mostly theoretical anecdotes and speculation rather than any sound information; didn't find it particularly worth re-reading.
In some places, particularly S. Korea, they're eaten alive or freshly chopped into bits and still moving about.
In my opinion, it's understandably off-putting- even fish and squid are often mercy-killed (also likely because it's much easier to swiftly kill them) prior to being butchered; when you factor in the relative intelligence of an octopus compared to something treated with far more mercy, such as a mouse, it seems a bit cruel. Doesn't mean octopi are treated that way all the time; probably far from it; but the fact that it's more likely to happen is probably what deters some people.
I also read a short paper debating the consciousness of insects long ago, but it was mostly theoretical anecdotes and speculation rather than any sound information; didn't find it particularly worth re-reading.
I think most people take issue with how crudely octopi? otcopuses? are sometimes butchered (or not even killed at all) before being cooked and eaten. Oftentimes it's commonplace to chop the tentacles into pieces while the animal's still alive, with the head being cut into pieces last, if it isn't simply discarded intact. Some butchers will rub the octopus in coarse salt before it's even killed as well, to make the meat less tough.
In some places, particularly S. Korea, they're eaten alive or freshly chopped into bits and still moving about.
In my opinion, it's understandably off-putting- even fish and squid are often mercy-killed (also likely because it's much easier to swiftly kill them) prior to being butchered; when you factor in the relative intelligence of an octopus compared to something treated with far more mercy, such as a mouse, it seems a bit cruel. Doesn't mean octopi are treated that way all the time; probably far from it; but the fact that it's more likely to happen is probably what deters some people.
I was on a recon petrol in Viet Nam in 1970, nothing was happening except a bunch of monkeys were doing a recon of us at a distance.
One of the guys got bored and threw a couple stones at the monkeys.
The troop of monkeys immediately Krapped in their "hands", singled him out, and peppered him with feces.
Kind of gave me a new take on animal consciousness.
One of the guys got bored and threw a couple stones at the monkeys.
The troop of monkeys immediately Krapped in their "hands", singled him out, and peppered him with feces.
Kind of gave me a new take on animal consciousness.
