[Craig]
Koko the gorilla that was taught sign-language learned the word for
Koko. So presumedly, she had self-consciousness.
[Arlo]
I'd argue she had self-consciousness only after being taught this. By
the way, I do split with Pirsig over reserving the social and
intellectual levels exclusively for "humans". I do think that many
animal species exhibit (what we may think of as) rudimentary social
behaviors. That is, they mediate their behavior with some form of
socially negotiated symbolic activity. As for intellectual, I'd say
that making the argument for "human only" exclusion is easier (for
sure), but I do think some a few animal species do exhibit what I'd
see as very crude intellectual behavior.
Hofstadter, in his book "I am a Strange Loop", talks about a sliding
scale of consciousness (with mosquitos near the bottom of "no
consciousness" and man near the top of "consciousness"). He shys from
demarcating more than on a very general level (dogs moreso than
mosquitos, apes moreso than dogs). And I think I agree with his "gray
scale" view rather than a black-white "has it/doesn't have it". So
whatever consciousness (do you think self-consciousness is
redundant?) Koko has can been seen on a gradiant scale compared to,
say, mosquitos and humans.
[Craig]
But we need to distinguish between 'being conscious of x' & 'having
the concept of x'. A gorilla running thru the forest is conscious of
a tree, otherwise it couldn't avoid running into it, but doesn't have
the concept of a tree.
[Arlo]
Exactly. I couldn't agree more. Except that I'd go on to say that
"concept of a tree" derives from sociality (and, of course, this is
built on the complexity of the physiology of the animal). Tomasello
argues that until that moment of shared attention, when the infant
realizes that the sound coming from the mother "refers to" some
experiential "thing", there is no "concept of" that thing, nor could
there be. For an ape to get that "tree concept", he would have to be
socialized by humans (as Koko was), or wait until a natural
evolutionary trajectory led two apes to an "Aha!" moment of shared
attention. (Keep in mind that Tomasello's account is sensitive to the
historic timeline, so that from that first "Aha!" moment between our
long ago ancestors to now, "consciousness" took a long time to reach
the level of sophistication we have today. Koko won't be reading
Dostoevsky anytime soon.)
[Craig]
The question is: is a self' the kind of thing one can only be
conscious of, if one has that concept?
[Arlo]
My answer, yes.
[Craig]
Or is it enough to have intentions, make choices, revise decisions &
the like?
[Arlo]
I'd say these things evidence a level of complexity bordering
self-consciousness, and so its not quite so far removed, but no,
self-consciousness as I see it requires having a concept of self, and
that concept derives from social symbolic mediated activity.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
