Ginkgo wrote:No, you are not the only one. Chaz made reference to this and I think it is a perfectly legitimate argument that many biologists would support.
The more I look at it the more i like it. I guess like a lot of people of my generation I am suffering from a type of 'psychological chauvinism' when it comes to biology. It was a mistake on my part to think that you were saying bacteria are intelligent.
In fact now I come to think of it of it there is no reason why Chalmers', 'easy problem' can't be looked at in terms of simple organisms. He probably didn't consider this himself, but there is no reason why it can't be applied in a broad sense. Obviously not all of the 'easy problems' are applicable to simple organisms, but it would seem some are. Consider the following
The ability to and react to environmental stimuli
The ability to access it's own internal states
The deliberate control of behaviour.
P.S. I think that your question in relation to continuing evolution is a good one and I hope to address this a bit later.
I Think there is a real danger that we attribute a quality to bacteria that does not exist, rather then what I was drawing attention to, and that is how we define intelligence.
The danger is flagged up by the second two of the characteristic listed above.
"The ability to access it's own internal states", begs the question what is it, that it is, that can access a thing it is not in itself. Part of the problem is language another is a primitive problem of conception. Saying "it" can "access" a part of itslef - or that it has an ability, or can 'deliberate", is a Dualism. A bacteria does not deliberately access internal states which it does not have. A bacteria acts as it does. Information acts to acquire nutrition and reproduce; that is the limit of intelligence.
There seems to be a tendency to think of life as having some "being" or "single entity" that directs it. Using words like "deliberate" just confuse the matter more, because bacteria do not deliberate, nor do they calculate, plan, organize, or manage. They simply respond with need to their environment, much like an eye blinks in response to dust in the air. Would anyone try to imply that an eye blinks "deliberately"?
The other thing that bothers me about this (bacteria are part of an overall intelligence) idea is that there seems to be the thought that the universe is either intelligent, or is trying to become intelligent. Why? Why would it need intelligence?
Intelligence is something that we use to adapt to our environment and to learn things that we don't know. So if the universe is intelligent, or needing intelligence, that would imply that it needs to adapt to something, or learn about something. What does anyone think that could be? My understanding of the universe is that it has "potential" awareness of everything, so it does not need to learn. And what could it need to adapt to except itself? The idea that the universe needs or wants intelligence makes no sense to me.
Chaz; Thank you for the reference regarding Russell's "Analysis of Mind". I looked it up in Wiki and think it will be an interesting read. I just wish that I knew how big it is. Is there some way to find out how many pages it has?
There seems to be a tendency to think of life as having some "being" or "single entity" that directs it. Using words like "deliberate" just confuse the matter more, because bacteria do not deliberate, nor do they calculate, plan, organize, or manage. They simply respond with need to their environment, much like an eye blinks in response to dust in the air. Would anyone try to imply that an eye blinks "deliberately"?
The other thing that bothers me about this (bacteria are part of an overall intelligence) idea is that there seems to be the thought that the universe is either intelligent, or is trying to become intelligent. Why? Why would it need intelligence?
Intelligence is something that we use to adapt to our environment and to learn things that we don't know. So if the universe is intelligent, or needing intelligence, that would imply that it needs to adapt to something, or learn about something. What does anyone think that could be? My understanding of the universe is that it has "potential" awareness of everything, so it does not need to learn. And what could it need to adapt to except itself? The idea that the universe needs or wants intelligence makes no sense to me.
Chaz; Thank you for the reference regarding Russell's "Analysis of Mind". I looked it up in Wiki and think it will be an interesting read. I just wish that I knew how big it is. Is there some way to find out how many pages it has?
Gee
I would have agreed with both of you. That is, until I read this.
There seems to be a tendency to think of life as having some "being" or "single entity" that directs it. Using words like "deliberate" just confuse the matter more, because bacteria do not deliberate, nor do they calculate, plan, organize, or manage. They simply respond with need to their environment, much like an eye blinks in response to dust in the air. Would anyone try to imply that an eye blinks "deliberately"?
The other thing that bothers me about this (bacteria are part of an overall intelligence) idea is that there seems to be the thought that the universe is either intelligent, or is trying to become intelligent. Why? Why would it need intelligence?
Intelligence is something that we use to adapt to our environment and to learn things that we don't know. So if the universe is intelligent, or needing intelligence, that would imply that it needs to adapt to something, or learn about something. What does anyone think that could be? My understanding of the universe is that it has "potential" awareness of everything, so it does not need to learn. And what could it need to adapt to except itself? The idea that the universe needs or wants intelligence makes no sense to me.
Chaz; Thank you for the reference regarding Russell's "Analysis of Mind". I looked it up in Wiki and think it will be an interesting read. I just wish that I knew how big it is. Is there some way to find out how many pages it has?
Gee
I would have agreed with both of you. That is, until I read this.
I read the article on quantum consciousness and found it interesting, but did not see where it disagreed with my understanding. In fact it seemed to confirm my idea of "awareness" in the universe, except that they used the term "pre-conscious", which is much better than my words, "raw consciousness".
When we are discussing consciousness and how it starts, I think that it is important to remember that there are three very different levels that we are discussing simultaneously. First there is the universe, and I saw nothing that implied that the universe has some being, director, or designer that starts life, which is in line with my understanding. Second, there is bacteria, and although bacteria can learn, I would not use the term "intelligent" with regard to bacteria. I don't believe that the article claimed that bacteria are intelligent. Third, is the idea that at a very small quantum level, consciousness forms itself.
The following is a quote regarding this, that I took from (5.):
"By occurring as a self-organizing process in what is suggested to be a pan-experiential medium of fundamental spacetime geometry, objective reductions could account for the nature of subjective experience by accessing and selecting proto-conscious qualia."
Now a lot of people may look at the words, "self-organizing process" and think that this is talking about something that is deliberate or even intelligent, but I don't think so. I think that this is very much like the "ditch filling with water" example that I used a few posts back, in that we are talking about properties, not a deliberate act.
It was great that they managed to incorporate an explanation for Free Will, and I agree that once consciousness gets a good start, it influences more consciousness to develop. In my water metaphor, I used to call this "priming the pump" as consciousness promotes more consciousness. Part of my understanding concerns this "promoting", but I did not see where the scientists in the article understood why consciousness promotes more consciousness, so I don't think they have worked this out yet. Science is still ignoring feeling and emotion as though they are irrelevant.
Remember when I was explaining my understanding of awareness in the universe, and I asked what activated it, then responded, "Hell if I know."? Well, it looks like you found some people who are figuring it out.
Gee wrote:
It was great that they managed to incorporate an explanation for Free Will, and I agree that once consciousness gets a good start, it influences more consciousness to develop. In my water metaphor, I used to call this "priming the pump" as consciousness promotes more consciousness. Part of my understanding concerns this "promoting", but I did not see where the scientists in the article understood why consciousness promotes more consciousness, so I don't think they have worked this out yet. Science is still ignoring feeling and emotion as though they are irrelevant.
Remember when I was explaining my understanding of awareness in the universe, and I asked what activated it, then responded, "Hell if I know."? Well, it looks like you found some people who are figuring it out.
Gee
Gee I think that bit is discussed in section 9.Consciousness and evolution.
Having read the article a couple of times I start to read between the lines a bit. You ask why is the science still ignoring feelings and emotions? I don't know but for me it is because it is too scary to think about. Reading between the lines it seems possible that our brain states can hold information in terms of how we have behaved in the past the possibility of behaving in the future. By this I mean the feelings and pleasures associated with performing certain activities.
chaz wyman wrote:
This debate only really exists from the problem of reduction. One camp wants to reduce the universe to one substance whilst another demand that there are two. Monism and Dualism are both crack theories. and are hampered by the inertia of historical and endemic assumption, but are both unwarranted.
It seems to me obvious enough that the only universal fact about the universe is that it is complex. Interacting matter exhibits qualities far beyond what could reasonably be reduced to one or two things
I do think this debate is about 90 years out of date. Take a look at B Russell's "Analysis of Mind" for the views on the early 20thC and the rejection of the whole argument concerning "consciousness", you can even download it on Kindle or similar.
Were he alive today he would probably say that the 'hard problem" is only a problem because of a misconceived idea of 'consciousness'.
A few questions:
1) How can something be complex if it is not reducable to simpler parts?
2) Do you have an example of interacting matter that scientists consider as exhibiting qualities beyond what could reasonably be reduced to their parts?
3) "Monism and Dualism are both crack theories". Is there an interpretation of Bertrand Russell's philosophy of mind that does not have him reducing all phenomena (mental and physical) to a single substance (neutral monism). I was under the impression Russell held that the phenomenal properties we associate with consciousness were fundamental intrinsic properties of this neutral substance - and not something that was produced by the "physical" properties of a brain. If I'm mistaken, could you point out a reference that would disabuse me of this notion.
chaz wyman wrote:
This debate only really exists from the problem of reduction. One camp wants to reduce the universe to one substance whilst another demand that there are two. Monism and Dualism are both crack theories. and are hampered by the inertia of historical and endemic assumption, but are both unwarranted.
It seems to me obvious enough that the only universal fact about the universe is that it is complex. Interacting matter exhibits qualities far beyond what could reasonably be reduced to one or two things
I do think this debate is about 90 years out of date. Take a look at B Russell's "Analysis of Mind" for the views on the early 20thC and the rejection of the whole argument concerning "consciousness", you can even download it on Kindle or similar.
Were he alive today he would probably say that the 'hard problem" is only a problem because of a misconceived idea of 'consciousness'.
A few questions:
1) How can something be complex if it is not reducable to simpler parts?
I'm not saying it cannot. The problem I am expressing is that reducing it to a single thing - not to simpler parts.
2) Do you have an example of interacting matter that scientists consider as exhibiting qualities beyond what could reasonably be reduced to their parts?
Just about every compound has its surprises. Boil down a fish, and you get a pile of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, and a collection of miscellaneous minerals. You cannot predict from its parts that you can get a swimming thing that looks back at you.
3) "Monism and Dualism are both crack theories". Is there an interpretation of Bertrand Russell's philosophy of mind that does not have him reducing all phenomena (mental and physical) to a single substance (neutral monism). I was under the impression Russell held that the phenomenal properties we associate with consciousness were fundamental intrinsic properties of this neutral substance - and not something that was produced by the "physical" properties of a brain. If I'm mistaken, could you point out a reference that would disabuse me of this notion.
I referenced the book but have not completed it - you might be right.
Analysis of Mind 1921.
The problem here is that of emergence. How can 'new features' come from more simple interactions. The thing is, if we can understand how simple interactions lead to more complex phenomena, even retroactively, we must admit that those simple interactions lead to the more complex phenomenon. We might need to invent new terms to describe the interactions due to the complexity of them, and this is where we suppose that this new phenomenon emerges and is not reducible to the simple interactions. I propose that this view that something emerges which could not be reduced to simple interactions is a problem of shortsightedness and an inability to understand very complex interactions of more simple parts which produce properties (patterns of simple interactions which tend to recurr). When we describe emergent properties, we must admit that those properties can ONLY occur due to the interaction of the simpler constituent parts. For that reason, those smaller constituent parts are responsible for, and are in reality are the complex interactions of simple parts. The emergence is our understanding of how those simple interactions then interact with other sets of smaller interactions and result in properties which we observe to be meaningful as far as producing something useful and which we care to describe.
The problem of emergence is also why we use fields like chemistry to understand substances and not quantum mechanics. Chemistry is our understanding of the physical interactions of matter which produce properties we describe using chemistry. Unless quantum mechanics could somehow have something to say about actual substances, we will use chemistry to understand the interactions of substances. Chemistry is like a shorthand for the interactions of quantum mechanical interactions. We simplify an interaction, and that simplification is understood to be an emergent property.
Our inability to predict a certain emergent property is due to a lack of imagination. We can't comprehend how a complex property might emerge from simple interactions because we are reductionist in our understanding, we understand from the more complex to the more simple, not the reverse. When we make predictions, they are very limited, so that is why we have great difficulty understanding how a complex emergent property could emerge from a system of simpler interactions.
First, I should say that I know nothing about chemistry or quantum mechanics, and damned little about science; but I understand "simple" and agree that emergence is a product of simple interactions.
I do not agree with Chalmers that emergence is the "hard problem" and think that we have yet to discuss the really hard problem. Emergence seems to be a hard problem because we do not yet understand all of the properties of our reality; although, I have always been sure that science will eventually figure this out. But I am not a scientist, just a philosopher, so I look at things from a different perspective.
Second, I am not religious, so I do not believe that a "God" created this reality, and I do not believe in "magic". This leaves only a logical practical explanation, and that is what I have been studying.
So, I started with a simple truth; humans are physical, mental, and spiritual beings. We know a great deal about the physical, and are starting to acknowledge that the mental aspect is a natural part of our reality and inhabits the "in between", aether, or the non-matter part of our reality. Or it could be described as the pre-conscious part of our reality. But what is the spiritual aspect of us? Many people will relate the spiritual aspect of humans with religion; but if you do, please review The Dichotomies, which can be found in the last three or four pages of my Introduction thread, "Time to Say Hi."
The spiritual aspect of humans is simply our ability to "feel" and to have "emotion". It is the thing that defines life; the thing that makes life different from all of the rest of matter; and this ability to feel is part of all living creatures. This is the property that is emergent, as this is the property that is not a part of the universe. The ability to feel is what makes us aware and conscious, which is why I have problems with the "universe is alive" type theories. If all matter were alive, then my table should be growing as it is old enough, and my house should cringe when it is set for demolition as all of life wants to continue.
So why does life feel? What causes this to happen? Well, of course, I have an idea on this, and if you don't like it, blame it on Thales. When I first started at a philosophy forum, I explained that I used a water metaphor to study consciousness and asked if any other philosopher used water to understand consciousness. I was referred to Thales, looked him up in Wiki, and found that he was also fascinated with magnets. How appropriate! Me too. I have long believed that chemicals draw "awareness" much like a magnet draws iron. (Yes, I have reasons for this belief that I will explain later.)
When Thales described this phenomenon, he stated that the magnet seems to "want" the iron, just as some chemical combinations seem to "want" awareness. It is my thought that this "want" is part of all life, and that the activation of matter with non-matter causes this want. Since learning more, I have realized that "awareness" in the universe does not really have a "place" as it does not really exist in time and space, so instead of seeing it as being drawn, I have begun to see it as "activated" or maybe "excited" by the chemicals. I think that this activation is what causes "feeling", or the actual movement is what we interpret as feeling.
So, awareness, the most basic of all aspects of consciousness is caused from the activation of matter with non-matter and the "feeling" that this activation creates. Or we could say that the matter gives "focus" to the knowledge that is non-matter, and the activity makes us "feel" or be aware of the knowledge. It is my thought that the knowledge, and feeling, and matter set up a perpetual motion--under the right circumstances--that causes these different aspects to combine and strengthen until they eventually cause growth, and then evolution. So in my mind, this idea explains awareness, feeling, growth, evolution, and the "want" of all life to continue in any way that it can. These are the common and basic aspects of life and consciousness.
Although many people see life as something that started long ago, and was a one time event, I don't think so. Very much like hay that will spontaneously combust in a barn, I think that the potential is always there. Life is trying to start all over the universe all of the time, but circumstances are not often conducive to life starting. But just as a small flame will grow to consume everything that is available, life feeds itself and causes it's own growth once started.
So the physical in life is matter; the mental in life is non-matter; and the spiritual in life is the activation. My simplistic explanation.
I just typed a huge post and then lost it because I got timed out. I hate it when that happens. So I am going to try to remember what I wrote.
In my last post, I talked about how matter and non-matter activate each other to produce life. I like this idea a lot, as it seems to be almost a marriage of reality that produces life. If the new physicists are to be believed, then all of reality starts from one thing, divides into matter and non-matter, then comes back together in the formation of life. I like the cyclic feel of this theory because it seems to match the way life works and the universe works. I can not take credit for the idea that non-matter is knowledge, as that idea is thousands of years old, but it works on so many levels, and I understand that on it's own, it is nothing, and can do nothing. It takes matter to give that knowledge focus so the idea that it is "drawn" or activated by matter (chemistry) is a good one, as there is some evidence that it is still working this way in the form of hormones.
Also, the idea that matter and non-matter create an activity or excitement when drawn together, like a magnet and iron, could possibly explain so much. This could be an explanation for the "want" to continue that is part of all life and explains the motive for evolution. And if this activity is "felt" then we have the ingredients for emotion, as feeling is the first stage of emotion, and feeling and emotion are always part of instinct and hormones. So I am happy with this part of the theory, and have already noted that it explains things that I was having trouble with in some other parts of my understanding.
As to comparing the start of life to spontaneous combustion, like a barn fire, I am comfortable with that idea also. A lot of people might say that the start of life is much more rare than a barn fire, but I think that if one considers perspective, this is not necessarily so. If one thinks of a bunch of hay as a world of potential ecosystems, and a barn as a galaxy, and the state as a universe, then barn fires do not happen very often--they are in fact rare. But we know it happens. I also like the idea that just as a flame will dry and warm the wood next to the flame in preparation of its burning, the excited awareness that surrounds life, will help to prepare for other life to start. Life begets other life--then it eats it.
It is my thought that life is trying to start all of the time, everywhere, but most of the time it is prohibited by circumstance. When it does manage to start, it is like a spark that may or may not catch, then may or may not find a suitable environment to grow in. When it starts and grows, it would be like a flash fire moving everywhere at once and adapting as quickly as possible in order to maintain itself. It is my thought that the ability to reproduce or divide would be one of the first developments, as this first life would be precarious and short lived. Until it developed the ability to maintain itself, duplication would be the only way to promote continuance, so this would be encoded into life, and would be one of the first instincts.
Probably at this point, I should state that I do not believe that awareness in the universe can be activated at certain temperatures, so since space is cold, I don't believe that life can even try to start there. Life started on Earth around the equator, and spread from there, and I think that this may be the reason that some species hibernate, as it is difficult to activate awareness in colder temperatures, so they hibernate in the winter to produce off-spring. Underwater species do not seem to have this problem because water has some as yet unknown influence on awareness. This prohibition of activity with regard to cold is one of the reasons why I think that universal awareness has properties.
I wasn't even going to discuss this part of my theory, but am glad that I did. My next post will be on the levels of awareness in species. Or maybe it will be discussing some person's thoughts on this part of the theory.
Almost page eight of this thread, and I am finally introducing one aspect of consciousness.
Awareness In Species
This is my second attempt, after studying consciousness in the on-line SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), to interpret the levels of awareness in species. It is a little long for a post, but I could not find a way to shorten it. If anyone has the patience and interest to review it, please bear in mind that this is only one aspect of consciousness, and not meant to interpret more than simple awareness. I have numbered the levels for ease of discussion, and your comments are, of course, welcome.
1. The first level would be a classification of non-awareness, or things that can give the appearance of being aware, but do not really qualify as aware. This is where Dennett's computers belong, as they can only give the appearance of being aware if someone remembers to change the batteries. It is my understanding that viruses would also be in this category, as they are not really a life form, but will take up the qualities of a life form when in a parasitic relationship with an actual life form. In both of these cases, the "source" of awareness comes from other matter, so it is my opinion that a virus is probably the only form that is actually representative of the idea that lower species are more mechanical and robotic, than aware.
2. This level, and on, would be true life, so it would represent an activation of the "universal awareness" and matter. As was previously discussed, universal awareness is theoretically aware of all knowledge, but is actually aware of nothing, because it has no ability to focus. So the first life forms would be at the microbial level, or below, and would give universal awareness a focus point. Does that mean that a small piece of nothing chemical compound now has access to all knowledge? No. It would have no ability to hold the knowledge, sort the knowledge, or use the knowledge, so it would only be aware of awareness. Like a spark that starts and quickly dies, this first life would be fragile and short lived, but it would possess an awareness of the need to continue. All life needs to continue, so it would access any knowledge that supported that goal. So one of the first things that life would do is learn how to reproduce, or duplicate itself. This means that the first two instincts of all life forms would be to continue and to reproduce toward that end. This first life form would not be able to distinguish between matter and non-matter, or self and other, and would have only a focus point, or identity, for universal awareness.
3. This level would be "communal", and it should be noted that this level precedes the division of plant life from animal life, as the "communal" aspect is prevalent in both plant and other life. This "communal" level would be the result of life forms duplicating themselves repeatedly until they have formed a mass of identical life forms; such as, clumps of grass, or sponges, or microbes. Not being a biologist, I don't know for sure, but I have never heard of microbes being cannibalistic, and suggest that it would not be conducive to survival, so I think they work together. I do know that trees will communicate with trees of the same kind, and will even merge with other trees, if they are the same kind. So this leads me to suppose that communal species experience a "oneness" or communal awareness that helps them to survive. This "oneness" is comparable to Dr. Blanco's understanding of the sub/unconscious mind, and may be the root of the sub/unconscious mind, and like the sub/unconscious mind, it would be more aware of non-matter than of matter.
4. This level is where plant life forks away from other life forms, and shows an awareness of matter for the first time. Of course, we are not really talking about plants and animals because this is a very primitive level, but there is a distinct difference in the way food is acquired. Some life forms begin to move within their environment in order to find food, and these will evolve into many different species of animal, fish, and fowl. But others, instead of moving within the environment, actually manipulate themselves in order to acquire food, and these life forms will eventually evolve into plants, as plants are the only life forms that can actually grow in a direction that will provide them with food, water, sunshine, etc. Although this level exhibits an awareness of matter, it does not, in my opinion, exhibit an awareness of itself as being distinct from matter. This is where the evolution of awareness in plant life seems to come to a halt, as plant life does not seem capable of seeing itself as being separate from, or distinct from, other life, the environment, or even matter and non-matter. Rather it seems to be aware only of it's 'oneness', the need to continue, and the need to reproduce.
5. This level is where life develops senses and can distinguish between itself and other. Through sight, smell, taste, sound, etc., life begins to be able to discern what is itself, and what is not itself, and exhibits this awareness by moving within its environment, seeking food, and fleeing danger. Once senses are developed, the species becomes more ensconced in material awareness, and less in non-material awareness, and I suspect that this is also where we start to find a "brain" or something similar within the bodies of these species. So the development of senses is what causes the individual life form to be aware of itself as an individual; and although, I could not call this level "self-aware", it does learn what is and what is not part of itself. This level seems to also develop a whole fresh batch of instincts and is knowledgeable about many dangers, what is good to eat and what is not, what environment it does well in, and even develops self protections, such as camouflage.
6. This is not really a "level" per se, but should be acknowledged as a separate division of awareness in species. This is the "communal" species which is a throw back, or carry over from (3) above, and involves the herding, flocking, swarming, schooling species. These species have a number of things in common and, with few exceptions, are not known for intelligence, are often considered emotional, will share their offspring, make very good snacks for other species, and seem to move as if they are of one mind. Although well along the path of evolution, communal species, like sheep, do not exhibit the individualized independent natures of other species and do not manipulate their environment. Instead, they seem to move or migrate within the environment as do the species noted in (3) above. Although individual, their awareness seems to come mostly from instinct, emotion, and a sort of "oneness" that choreographs their actions, which puts me in mind of Dr. Blanco's understanding of the sub/unconscious mind. So could they have a communal mind or awareness? It is certainly possible, and I don't believe that I am the first person to come to this conclusion.
If you check in the Old Testament of the Bible, I believe in Genesis, you will find a reference to foods that are allowed and not allowed. If I remember correctly, it was told that prior to the flood, meat was not eaten, but now it was necessary to eat meat, but only specific animals would be allowed as a food source. Most, if not all, of the species allowed are herding, flocking, schooling, and swarming species--with a few exceptions thrown in or out for specific reasons. When I first read Genesis, 40 years ago, I did not understand the significance of communal species, but now believe that people were trying to find a way to eat meat, while still obeying the commandment of "Thou shalt not kill." It occurs to me that "culling" a sheep from the flock for dinner could be considered the same as picking an apple from a tree, as you are not really killing the life force. So I suspect that someone considered that communal species were of one mind, one awareness, one life force; so culling a sheep from the flock would be like pruning a tree for the health of the tree.
It is easy to recognize conscious awareness in the Bible, if one just remembers that if God is anything, He is personification of conscious awareness. So even though people adjust and adapt the ideas within religion(s), an understanding of conscious awareness can be found at the root levels.
7. This level may be self-aware, but it is disputable. A distinct level should be made for species that can and will manipulate their environment for their own purposes. This level would include animals like beavers or even birds that make a home in the environment, but would also include any species that will use a stick or shell or leaf as a tool. Even a rabbit that digs in the ground to create a home would be included, but a species that moves into an already dug or formed hole, would not be included, nor would something like worms that dig instinctively as a way to survive. This level shows increased intelligence, but also an awareness that it's environment can be manipulated and is at the disposal of the species. This gives some indication of an awareness of "self".
8. This level is self-aware and exhibits that self-awareness with the concept of "mine". I understand that many people do not think that other species are self-aware, but hope to change those minds with the following examples. In each of the categories below, the species in question exhibit an ownership of something, and will fight to retain that ownership, so it is my thought that one can not have ownership without also having a self.
a. Family Species: From mice to whales, there are many species that raise their young in a family unit. It does not matter how long it takes to raise the young, or even if there is a continuing relationship after the babies have grown, as that is more to do with memory than self-awareness. What matters is that the parents believe that the young belong to them--this is possession, ownership, and denotes a sense of self. In family species, the parent(s) will protect the young, nurture the young, and often defend the young from attack, like birds that will dive-bomb us because we are too close to their nest, or whales that will shadow or attack a ship when a young one is caught in a net, or a cat that will scratch because someone picked up her new kitten. Now it has been argued that this is simply instinct, and I agree, it is instinct--just like ours--which is irrelevant to self-awareness. It is also instinct for a sea turtle to lay her eggs in the sand and swim away leaving her young to make a mad dash for the sea to avoid predators when they hatch. And it is also instinct for a black widow spider to paralyze her mate and lay her eggs on his body to feed her young, and walk away. In these last two examples, instinct was involved, but there was no "mine" concept regarding the young. Species that raise young in a family unit are self-aware.
b. Territorial Species: In order for a species to be territorial, it must choose a territory that is "mine", then it must defend that territory. From eagles to lions to dogs defending their homes, these species are all staking a claim on some property and defending that property from all comers. To claim any property for themselves, they must first have a self, so it is my opinion that all territorial species are indeed self-aware.
c. Pack Species: Pack species go beyond self-awareness, as they also have to be aware of others within the pack. In a pack, each animal has a position, or rank, and it has to maintain that position, improve that position, or lose that position and possibly be exiled from the pack. There is a hierarchy within a pack, so if the leader dies, then others will challenge for the position of leader and a new leader is found, then the others will fall behind the leader in order of rank and authority. Instinct can provide the concept of "pack" and most of the behavior, but it can not account for the desire of one animal to lead the pack, and for the other animals to accept that leadership, only to challenge it at some future point. Instinct also does not explain an animal's ability to maintain its position within the pack, as that is a social skill. Pack animals are most definitely aware of themselves and their position.
9. This level of awareness is about species that are more than simply self-aware, as they are also aware of other selves within other species on a personal level. These species can form attachments to other species and even adapt to life with other species, and would include horses, dogs, elephants, pigs, chimps, etc. An animal, let's say a horse, that can live in it's own environment, then adapt to a human environment and even bond with a human exhibiting loyalty and friendship, shows tremendous intelligence, emotional and social maturity, and awareness beyond it's own self and the limits of its species. We often refer to these species as being "tame" and assume that we have some magical ability to make them aware of our wants, but this is not so. This is an awareness that is part of the species' abilities, and if anyone does not think so, please explain why we can not really "tame" a house cat.
10. This level of awareness involves a species' ability to understand the abstract. Much has been made of the "mirror" test, and it has been stated that this test shows that an animal is self-aware. But I think that it shows much more than that, because in order for an animal to understand that the image in the mirror is actually him/her self, then that animal has to be able to conceive of, and identify with, a third-party abstract of him/her self. This is awareness of the abstract, the intangible, and it is awareness that understands the tangible material world and the intangible idea world--just like us.
So is there anyone else who has studied species' awareness in this way? Can anyone see where I have made major mistakes in my understandings? Any comments? My next large post will be on instincts and will take a week or so to put together.
Gee wrote:Almost page eight of this thread, and I am finally introducing one aspect of consciousness.
Awareness In Species
This is my second attempt, after studying consciousness in the on-line SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), to interpret the levels of awareness in species. It is a little long for a post, but I could not find a way to shorten it. If anyone has the patience and interest to review it, please bear in mind that this is only one aspect of consciousness, and not meant to interpret more than simple awareness. I have numbered the levels for ease of discussion, and your comments are, of course, welcome.
1. The first level would be a classification of non-awareness, or things that can give the appearance of being aware, but do not really qualify as aware. This is where Dennett's computers belong, as they can only give the appearance of being aware if someone remembers to change the batteries. It is my understanding that viruses would also be in this category, as they are not really a life form, but will take up the qualities of a life form when in a parasitic relationship with an actual life form. In both of these cases, the "source" of awareness comes from other matter, so it is my opinion that a virus is probably the only form that is actually representative of the idea that lower species are more mechanical and robotic, than aware.
Gee
Hi Gee.
You have obviously put a lot of time and effort into this. In the end I guess it boils down to what you want to do with it. In other words, is it for your own satisfaction, or are you trying to provide a reasoned argument to convince others? Perhaps it is both.
I guess what makes it difficult when dealing with these types of issues is that we often finding ourselves switching back and forth between scientific arguments and metaphysical arguments. Nothing wrong with this, but it does create a minefield as we go.
However, to more specific. It seems to me you are wanting to say that someone how all living things are, 'plugged into' the universe to some extent. So a virus can 'plug into' other lie forms. On this basis we can extrapolate that AI must also be 'plugged into' something in order to give it awareness. I think this is what you are saying, but I have a poor record in this regard.
You have obviously put a lot of time and effort into this. In the end I guess it boils down to what you want to do with it. In other words, is it for your own satisfaction, or are you trying to provide a reasoned argument to convince others? Perhaps it is both.
Yes. It is both, and I have put a lot of time into it. I started studying consciousness in my teens, about 45 years ago, and thought that I had a pretty good understanding of it, but I had no intention of sharing my understanding. Then I found myself in a philosophy forum reading other people's ideas and regularly thinking, "Consciousness is not magic, it can't work like that.", but had trouble explaining why I think so. So I have been attempting to sort out my own ideas and link them to any valid scientific information that I can find, so that I can explain why "it can't work like that".
My biggest problem has been dealing with people's preconceived ideas of God, religion, psychic phenomenon, and all of the theories that have been presented as explanation of consciousness. It would be easier to start from a blank sheet, than from the preconceived notions, so I find myself trying to explain at the same time that I am trying to shoot down other concepts. I have ideas on what causes "mind", on what anthropomorphism really is, and on how psychic phenomenon actually works, but can not convey these ideas until the person I am talking to understands how memory, emotion, and the internal and external parts of consciousness work. So it occurred to me that what I need to do is break down consciousness into it's aspects, which is how I learned it, so that people could at least be exposed to the idea that it is not one magical thing, but a combination of mental aspects. That was the point of this thread.
Ginkgo wrote:I guess what makes it difficult when dealing with these types of issues is that we often finding ourselves switching back and forth between scientific arguments and metaphysical arguments. Nothing wrong with this, but it does create a minefield as we go.
Agreed. But it is my opinion that at some future point, the metaphysical will be part of the scientific. I see the "soft" sciences like animal behavior and psychology as a good start in that direction.
Ginkgo wrote:However, to more specific. It seems to me you are wanting to say that somehow all living things are, 'plugged into' the universe to some extent. So a virus can 'plug into' other life forms. On this basis we can extrapolate that AI must also be 'plugged into' something in order to give it awareness. I think this is what you are saying, but I have a poor record in this regard.
Over to you.
Ginkgo
But does plugging in AI give it awareness? I'm not so sure. All life is sentient, which means that it reacts to stimuli. A virus does not react to stimuli, unless it is within a body; then it reacts like all other life; hence, it is a parasitic life. Biology 101 tells us that life can be defined by it's reaction to stimuli and it's need to eat and reproduce; it is "aware" of this need. Life is aware of the need to continue--that is what defines it as life. Plugging in a computer does not give it this awareness any more than starting my truck gives my truck awareness.
What we have here is an effort on the part of some philosophers to equate consciousness with thought. Consciousness is much more than just thought, much more than just intelligence; consciousness is life.