Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted

A relaxed definition of consciousness / animals without it vs. machines with it.

 

  ughaibu said:
CraigD: Thanks. For example, if we consider them to be animals but insufficiently sophisticated to experience consciousness, a similar extrapolation could be made from their plant nature to hypothesise consciousness in sophisticated plants. How about slime-moulds? I guess they're social protistans and wouldn't be surprised if they display some symptoms of consciousness.
Per my definition, a critical condition for an organism to be conscious is that it contains some anatomical structure capable of supporting an information processing system that can “run a model” allowing it to make predictions about the effect of physical actions of which its capable.

 

The impression I have of plants, protozoa, etc. – I lack the expertise to have a defensible position – is that they lack such structures, and that their behaviors, thought often complex to the point of being appropriately called “intelligent”, are fundamentally mechanical in the same sense as the action of a machine like a coin vending machine. So, per my definition, their not conscious.

 

It think that most chordates have the necessary structures, in the form of rudimentary to advanced systems of nerve tissue. So, per my definition, they are conscious, conditional on the vague qualification that their modeling capability be “similar to a human being’s”. It’s useful, I think, to relax this “similar to a human being’s” requirement, and focus attention instead on what is the minimum information processing system that can reasonable be thought to “run a predictive model”.

 

I think this minimum is more due to the organization of the information processing system than its size or physical composition.

 

Consider the following hypothetical device: a small car with motor-driven wheels capable of allowing it to maneuver about an enclosed room; the top of the car consists of a flat table, upon which small blocks can be placed; a mechanical, movable arm is attached to the car, which can move about the table surface, and by way of a mechanical finger, detect the blocks, and through a mechanical linkage, control the wheel motors. Other than this control, the vehicle moves in a random way, subject to intentional or unintentional vagaries in its mechanical parts.

 

The room in which the car maneuvers contains obstacles – pits, boxes, etc. - with which, for whatever reason, we consider it bad for the car to make contact. The blocks on the cars top are arranged to precisely resemble the arrangement of the obstacles. The car move at random about the room, its block-sensing arm assuring that it avoids obstacles.

 

By the relaxed definition, this machine – which is less complicated chemically and structurally than many plants and simple animals, is conscious.

Posted

My personal definition of consciousness is less restrictive, and hence includes simple cells and that which compose them as well. Consciousness in my worldview is almost exactly the same as existence. However, if you really want to get me talking about this in any continuous way, you need to feed me with a few drinks first. :hyper:

 

 

:hyper:

Posted

Dolphins communicate, think, def. are concious beings, they also are the only other being that we know that has sex for pleasure besides us. Probably because they are the smartest and realized hey if this feels good, we don't only have to do it when we want to make babies, Because they also are one of the smartest animals, smarter than a chimpanze. Possiably even smarter than us, although that is hard to accept. Their brains are more devolped though, they can see with and without their eyes open, they have an "x-ray vision so to say" using echolocation. Speaking of their eyes they can sleep with one eye open, and get rest, they can also point one eye up and one eye in another direction and see perfectly clearly. Just because animals aren't going around building planes, cars, boats, houses, and schools doesn't mean they lack intelligence, you see the difference between them and us, is we believe we need these things, and yes, we do it has made our life easier, our bodies haven't devolped or evolved really because our technology is our evolution.

Posted

technology has been the main steps in evolution the past few thousand years, but it's not soley what it is.

you are forgetting about our brains, dude.

our body's just a limbed vessel for our MIND

which is constantly evolving.

CONSTANTLY.

we are all sharing the same conciousness,

subjectively.

 

we have echolocation too.

Sure, it's not as developed.

but when I close my eyes my hearing gets SO KEEN

i can pinpoint the location of anything that i hear, identify it, and then analyze it.

If i wanted to look like a fool,

I could close my eyes, and yell every once and a while,

and never hit anything.

Posted

I believe that consciousness started with mammels.

I'm sure that reptiles, fish and otherwise have an internal experiance, but I'm just as sure that becoming aware of that internal experiance came later along the evolutionary timeline.

 

"and that is all I have to say about that"

 

I'm excited by the odds of being corrected.

 

John

Posted

If the animal has and realizes a choice to do one thing or another, that animal has a conscience. Conscience begins with choice and conscience can be adapted depending on the mind and choice for each creature in order to determine what goes down the right path and the wrong path.

Empathy, on the other hand, is quite different to this as it requires the mind to understand another mind's choices or lack thereof and associate them with its own.

Posted

I'd think people would be suprised to know how smart animals really are, and how aware theyh are etc.. its a lot easier for us to think they don't feel and don't care, since they are a primary resource for our food

"its ok eating fish, cuz they, don't have any feelings."

Posted
  inside the sun said:
I'd think people would be suprised to know how smart animals really are, and how aware theyh are etc.. its a lot easier for us to think they don't feel and don't care, since they are a primary resource for our food

"its ok eating fish, cuz they, don't have any feelings."

 

 

well, even though I believe that fish have just as many feelings as humans, does not mean that I'm gonna choose not to enjoy some delicious smoked salmon every once in a while. It's just nature. We NEED to eat other beings. It's all part of balance.

Posted
  mother engine said:
i used to think rocks were conscious. that is until i was conditioned to believe otherwise by a cruel secular society.

 

I think rocks are conscious..... just on a level of consciousness that us humans can't comprehend. Their consciousness is too acute for us to be able to roll play with.

Posted

For sure man, i love eating fish, sushi is my favorite meal and if i could ever afford it i would live off of it. I'm just saying people should reocognize animals are conscious like us, doesn't mean we can't be the predators we are and enjoy our prey and place on the food chain, because one day we may be in their position, it is part of life, the cycle, or spiral

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...