Or where is the cutoff point? — Benj96
Not necessarily, because some people deny consciousness even to dogs (contrary to the evidence of their own experience) and human babies. I don't know why that is - I don't know why they should be so jealous of this most attainable and least reducible commodity.Finally, do we not ultimately base this in the "how much of us do we see in them?" — Benj96
Is a plant conscious because it can, and never fail to, grow toward a source of light and solve a maze — Outlander
What about a severely disabled person who can basically only respond and react to stimuli such as pain, hunger, light, shock, etc? Are they conscious? — Outlander
I doubt if worms could speak they would have very much to say! Or would they? — Outlander
I'm not sure I agree. But want to extend the discussion to you. If you think living things are "conscious" or aware or have a "me" from which they reference the world, does this apply to all living things? Or where is the cutoff point? And why? — Benj96
A concept of self is much more rare and specific, human babies clearly don't have it in my opinion, I would even say it's more of an idea that we are taught as opposed to an inborn attribute. — goremand
I'm not sure I agree. But want to extend the discussion to you. If you think living things are "conscious" or aware or have a "me" from which they reference the world, does this apply to all living things? Or where is the cutoff point? And why? — Benj96
Sentience refers to the capacity to perceive and experience sensations or feelings, such as pain, pleasure, emotions, and basic awareness of one's surroundings. — Wayfarer
No solid lines in between; just continuity. — Vera Mont
No. All living things are responsive, some – relatively very few – are "conscious" (and only intermittenly).If you think living things are "conscious" or aware or have a "me" from which they reference the world, does this apply to all living things? — Benj96
For me "the cutoff of "consciousness" would be any organism with at least a central nervous system sufficiently complex enough to generate a phenomenal self model (the function of which being to facilitate adaptively coordinating the organism's behavior with both external and internal stimuli) by interacting with an environment. I suspect this subset of organisms includes many (though not all or most) mammals like primates, cetaceans, elephantidae ... canines, felines, ursidae (bears), etc; and even apparently cephalopods.Or where is the cutoff point?
If "consciousness" suggests more than just some degree of (i) awareness or (ii) self-awareness but also (iii) self-awareness of others-as-self-aware-selves, then "conscious" organisms have to have biological capabilities – repertoire of behaviors – complex enough to recognize other "conscious" organisms as "conscious" organisms like themselves (with a self) rather by reflex-instinct being incapable of discerning other "conscious" organisms from living food or waste.And why?
A theory of mind. It's all we have to go on with each other since "consciousness" is (intractably?) subjective; otherwise we humans are all just zombies to one another.Finally, do we not ultimately base this in the 'how much of us do we see in them?'
:up: :up:Recent science indicates that trees and other vegetation in a forest communicate with one another through a complex network of fungi. You could consider that the brain of a communal entity. Whether individual plants have similar capacities is doubtful but not impossible — Vera Mont
:fire: ... like the simplistic fossil-picture of the reptilian, mammalian & sapient layers of the human brain.I very much doubt the elements of that definition come as a package. Rather, I think they're consequent and cumulative, as evolution built on simple capabilities and equipment to produce ever more complex ones. No solid lines in between; just continuity. — Vera Mont
I think the leap from inorganic matter to organisms is just that - a leap. — Wayfarer
Crabs and lobsters are sentient beings, but would we call them 'consciously aware'? — Wayfarer
If "consciousness" suggests more than just some degree of (i) awareness or (ii) self-awareness but also (iii) self-awareness of others-as-self-aware-selves, then "conscious" organisms have to have biological capabilities – repertoire of behaviors – complex enough to recognize other "conscious" organisms as "conscious" organisms like themselves (with a self) — 180 Proof
(also, i've heard the term Sapience to refer to 'rationality' or whatever it is we're discussing as a 'higher' form of whichever of the above two is, in fact, the more peculiar). — AmadeusD
Where does evolution begin? — Vera Mont
Is it the current scientific consensus that inanimate matter evolves from to simple to complex in a similar pattern to organisms? — Vera Mont
I had rather thought it was the opposite. Crabs and lobsters are sentient beings, but would we call them 'consciously aware'? — Wayfarer
That is the theory of a-biogenesis (literally 'life from non-living'.) — Wayfarer
So what? I thought nobody attributed conscious to non-life.But there's another point, which is that the theory of evolution doesn't account for how life originated. — Wayfarer
Philosophically, I'm of the view that organisms are categorically different to inorganic matter in a variety of ways - they seek homeostasis, heal from injury, grow, replicate, and (naturally) evolve into new species. — Wayfarer
I think some of the current favourites are undersea vents, where complex chemicals are subjected to a big range of conditions, although I'm hazy on the detail. — Wayfarer
I think there is. — Wayfarer
I mean it makes sense to say "the dog was knocked unconscious" — goremand
Cats & dogs seem intelligent enough. — 180 Proof
Contrary to some posts, reaction to the environment as mediated by metabolism (chemistry) is not consciousness. — Lionino
I agree. I like Nagel’s definition in What is it like to be a bat?Being conscious and having a concept of selfhood is very different — goremand
I don’t see a concept of selfhood as being necessary for that. The concept of self is certainly an aspect of human consciousness, and likely other animals. But not necessarily a requirement of consciousness in general.But fundamentally an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism – something it is like for the organism. — Nagel
In Being You: A New Science of Consciousness, Anil Seth discusses many ways the word consciousness has been used, and differentiates between wakefulness and consciousness. The dog might be dreaming, which is a state of consciousness, while knocked out.I mean it makes sense to say "the dog was knocked unconscious", right? — goremand
I don't know if you mean taught in the sense of someone literally setting out to teach that lesson. I suspect not, since I've never heard of anyone doing so. I assume you mean taught while interacting with others, which i agree with. I doubt someone raised without the slightest human contact, or interaction from whatever machines kept it alive, would develop a sense of self. Perhaps hearing ideas from outside our own heads is key to noticing self. The idea that there is no self without other.A concept of self is much more rare and specific, human babies clearly don't have it in my opinion, I would even say it's more of an idea that we are taught as opposed to an inborn attribute. — goremand
I'm not sure I agree. But want to extend the discussion to you. If you think living things are "conscious" or aware or have a "me" from which they reference the world, does this apply to all living things? Or where is the cutoff point? And why? — Benj96
A rock is moved only by external forces. But a living organism is self-moving and self-sustaining to various degrees. So in order to continue to live, it must be able to interact with its environment for sustenance. On another thread, we discussed how Venus fly-catchers and earthworms have rudimentary senses to help them obtain nutrients. Therefore, it's essential for animated matter to be aware (to some degree) of what's going-on around it. That's what senses are for. And the human brain/mind is merely an advanced sensory organ.If you think living things are "conscious" or aware or have a "me" from which they reference the world, does this apply to all living things? Or where is the cutoff point? And why? — Benj96
I agree. I like Nagel’s definition in What is it like to be a bat? — Patterner
I assume you mean taught while interacting with others, which i agree with. I doubt someone raised without the slightest human contact, or interaction from whatever machines kept it alive, would develop a sense of self. Perhaps hearing ideas from outside our own heads is key to noticing self. The idea that there is no self without other. — Patterner
A rock is moved only by external forces. But a living organism is self-moving and self-sustaining to various degrees. — Gnomon
..all sentient beings are animals, but not all animals are sentient.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.