Do you need consciousness to have emotion?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Well sorry to have missed it, but considering you think very poorly of my contributions, I don't really think it is worth my while to respond., though I might.

That's the most feeble post I've seen on a philosophy forum in a long time.

You are a childish p****. You follow one insult with another whilst begging me to respond to your empty headed posts.

[Blueswing]

You are a childish p****. You follow one insult with another whilst begging me to respond to your empty headed posts.

I'm sorry that you think I've been insulting you, I haven't, I'm really just trying to have a philosophical discussion.

[alpha]

what about this: there are at least two types of consciousness. one is very low (simple, basic), as in just sensing (which applies to animals as well), and another higher (more complex) form, which is sufficient awareness, that only humans possess, and which enables more significant emotions/feelings/sensations.

[Blueswing]

what about this: there are at least two types of consciousness. one is very low (simple, basic), as in just sensing (which applies to animals as well), and another higher (more complex) form, which is sufficient awareness, that only humans possess, and which enables more significant emotions/feelings/sensations.

Well, there is clearly a difference between the capacities of humans and animals, but I don't think it is the difference you have identified.

The difference I believe is that humans have "self-awareness" in a way other animals don't. The reason we have it and they don't is human language.

But I think emotions operate below that level. Animals can feel emotions like fear and affection, you don't need complex language to feel fear.

[alpha]

Well, there is clearly a difference between the capacities of humans and animals, but I don't think it is the difference you have identified.

The difference I believe is that humans have "self-awareness" in a way other animals don't. The reason we have it and they don't is human language.

But I think emotions operate below that level. Animals can feel emotions like fear and affection, you don't need complex language to feel fear.

what does human language have to do with "self-awareness"? one can be self-aware without ever having interacted with anyone, and without any language.

primal fear is shared between humans and animals, but certain types of fear (as well as affection, etc.) need higher awareness than what animals possess.

[Blueswing]

what does human language have to do with "self-awareness"? one can be self-aware without ever having interacted with anyone, and without any language.

Maybe, I don't think it's been demonstrated, but that's beside my point. Even if your hypothetical human had never interacted or used language, they would still have the innate language capacity and the intellectual capacities that go with it.

Primal fear is shared between humans and animals, but certain types of fear (as well as affection, etc.) need higher awareness than what animals possess.

I guess what you have in mind is what we might call "long-term" fear. Animals I suppose can only fear what is immediately present, but we can fear something that hasn't happened yet. I am suggesting the reason we can do that is language. It's language that allows us to conceptualise the future. That's where the higher awareness you talk about comes from.

[alpha]

we might be on the same page, then... more or less.

[Hobbes' Choice]

what about this: there are at least two types of consciousness. one is very low (simple, basic), as in just sensing (which applies to animals as well), and another higher (more complex) form, which is sufficient awareness, that only humans possess, and which enables more significant emotions/feelings/sensations.

Well, there is clearly a difference between the capacities of humans and animals, but I don't think it is the difference you have identified.

The difference I believe is that humans have "self-awareness" in a way other animals don't. The reason we have it and they don't is human language.

But I think emotions operate below that level. Animals can feel emotions like fear and affection, you don't need complex language to feel fear.

Your distinction animal/human is a false one. The differences between what you like to call animals and humans is of degree and not kind. Humans are animals too. You have good evidence of awareness from your own experience, but as you cannot assume that of any other human so too you cannot assume a lack in, say, an elephant, or a dog.
My own dog shows such remarkable evidence of consciousness and awareness that surpasses some humans of my dubious acquaintance. And as every year passes we learn more about the fantastic complexity of communications between other 'animal' species, such as elephants and whales.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Well, there is clearly a difference between the capacities of humans and animals, but I don't think it is the difference you have identified.

The difference I believe is that humans have "self-awareness" in a way other animals don't. The reason we have it and they don't is human language.

But I think emotions operate below that level. Animals can feel emotions like fear and affection, you don't need complex language to feel fear.

what does human language have to do with "self-awareness"? one can be self-aware without ever having interacted with anyone, and without any language.

primal fear is shared between humans and animals, but certain types of fear (as well as affection, etc.) need higher awareness than what animals possess.

The chattering of the human species fools them into thinking that they are special.

[Blueswing]

Your distinction animal/human is a false one. The differences between what you like to call animals and humans is of degree and not kind. Humans are animals too.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

The Principle of Charity is a methodological presumption made in seeking to understand a point of view whereby we seek to understand that view in its strongest, most persuasive form before subjecting the view to evaluation.

I acknowledged that humans are animals too, when I said "humans and other animals". I try to be careful in what I write, so I would ask you to be careful in reading it.

I believe that the relevant differences between humans and other animals are differences in kind and not just of degree. Human language is
different in kind from the language of other animals, in the way that it is infinitely expandable and in the way it allows abstraction, and this goes hand in hand with intellectual capacities that are different in kind from those of animals, for example in the way we are able to decide to modify our behaviour.

You have good evidence of awareness from your own experience, but as you cannot assume that of any other human

Well in fact I do assume that other humans are conscious in a similar way to myself. I don't think the so-called Problem of Other Minds is a serious philosophical problem. I may start a new discussion about that.

The problem of other minds has traditionally been regarded as an epistemological challenge raised by the skeptic. The challenge may be expressed as follows: given that I can only observe the behavior of others, how can I know that others have minds?

so too you cannot assume a lack in, say, an elephant, or a dog.

I don't assume that elephants or dogs lack consciousness, but I do think their intellectual capacities are different in kind from ours.

My own dog shows such remarkable evidence of consciousness and awareness that surpasses some humans of my dubious acquaintance.

I don't believe that these humans you talk about are any less conscious than a dog. The concepts "consciousness" and "self-awareness" sometimes get muddled together in discussions like this. I try to keep them separate.

And as every year passes we learn more about the fantastic complexity of communications between other 'animal' species, such as elephants and whales.

It's an exaggeration to call it fantastic complexity. Even with the fascinating new discoveries we have made, other animals' language is still extremely limited and inflexible.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It's an exaggeration to call it fantastic complexity. Even with the fascinating new discoveries we have made, other animals' language is still extremely limited and inflexible.

I'm sure that if a whale would have be bothered to think about a human, they would think human communication was boring, inflexible, and concerned with trivialities compared with their life songs that have been harmoniously evolving for thousands of years.

[Philosophy Explorer]

It's an exaggeration to call it fantastic complexity. Even with the fascinating new discoveries we have made, other animals' language is still extremely limited and inflexible.

I'm sure that if a whale would have be bothered to think about a human, they would think human communication was boring, inflexible, and concerned with trivialities compared with their life songs that have been harmoniously evolving for thousands of years.

Just to point out, I did a thread on whether mammals get bored so your answer is yes to that question.

PhilX

[alpha]

It's an exaggeration to call it fantastic complexity. Even with the fascinating new discoveries we have made, other animals' language is still extremely limited and inflexible.

I'm sure that if a whale would have be bothered to think about a human, they would think human communication was boring, inflexible, and concerned with trivialities compared with their life songs that have been harmoniously evolving for thousands of years.

how many inventions or discoveries have whales made? or dolphins/orchas (most intelligent of the whales) for that matter? what about your dog? any discoveries? do any whales, dogs, chimps, parrots, etc. have any learning institutions? do they have any theories, or discussions/debates? have they ever published anything? i could go on....

[Hobbes' Choice]

It's an exaggeration to call it fantastic complexity. Even with the fascinating new discoveries we have made, other animals' language is still extremely limited and inflexible.

I'm sure that if a whale would have be bothered to think about a human, they would think human communication was boring, inflexible, and concerned with trivialities compared with their life songs that have been harmoniously evolving for thousands of years.

how many inventions or discoveries have whales made? or dolphins/orchas (most intelligent of the whales) for that matter?

Cetaceans are total masters of their environment. They have need or concept of inventions.

As for dogs, they have evolved to use humans to guarantee their survival.

Why do you think inventions have anything special to offer this thread about consciousness and emotion?

[alpha]

Cetaceans are total masters of their environment. They have need or concept of inventions.

As for dogs, they have evolved to use humans to guarantee their survival.

Why do you think inventions have anything special to offer this thread about consciousness and emotion?

necessity is the mother of invention; and since dogs, whales, etc., can't comprehend the meaning of 'necessity', they don't (and can't) invent anything. i'm trying to establish a proportional relationship between intelligence, emotion, and consciousness.