Jed is on the right track. two authors come to mind, Hofstadter and Edelman
[a Nobel Laureate]. Hofstadter is author of "Godel Escher Bach" and "I Am a
Strange Loop". I have read Edelman's "The Remembered Present" and am reading
"Second Nature". All these books relate to the sudy of consciousness.
Hofstadter's approach is mathematical and functional. Edelman is a biologist
with a direct awareness of the physiology of the structure of the brain and
the cerebal cortex. The central question is the origin of how self-awareness
emerges from brain structure and function.
Both authors cite re-entrant loops as the biological basis for awareness and
self-awareness. Hofstadter sees a spectrum of awareness spanning the animal
kingdom, blending into degress of self-awareness. Edelman also sees
reentrant loops connecting various parts of the brain.
"A human brain contains thirty billion nerve cells with a million billion
connections. The number of possible active pathways far exceeds the numberr
of elementary particles in the known universe".-- Edelman
IMHO this "elementary" fact is the wall separating the "scientific" and
"spiritual" aspects of understanding. Although in its pluralities it is
"us", it is presumptuous to to pretend that we understand what it is really
capable of.
Mike Carrell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 5:01 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Conscious and self-aware animals
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I'm conscious; I'm certain of that, by direct experience.
You are also self-aware. That is a separate phenomenon. A self-aware
creature is one that realizes that it exists as an object separate and
distinct from others creatures and objects. Dolphins, dogs and chimpanzees
are quite capable of doing this. For example, they recognize their own
image in a mirror or photo. When you take a photo of a chimp at the zoo
with a modern camera, some chimps will strike a pose and then want to have
a look at your photo on the back of the camera, to critique your shot,
while others dislike being photographed as much as I do, and they get
upset when you point a camera at them.
A male Cicada can tell that there are other male and female cicadas, but
he cannot tell them apart. So his self-awareness is considerably reduced,
although of course he is completely conscious. If you have any doubt about
that try catching one. The cicada also cannot distinguish a living cicada
from a plastic model manipulated by a biologist. This allows a biologist
to destroy the cicada's self-confidence by using a plastic dummy to engage
in combat over females repeatedly, using the same plastic dummy every
time. The poor thing imagines that has been defeated several times by many
different rivals, and its hormone balance will change. (Which you can
verify by pureeing and assaying the cicada, I believe).
Are you, Horace? I would assume so, but I can't prove it, because I
have no test for consciousness, nor even a particularly good definition.
Actually, a good deal of progress has been made in this subject in recent
decades.
How about a chimpanzee? Is it conscious? Presumably so!
Definitely. Demonstrably. Their consciousness, intelligence and
self-awareness is roughly on the level of a three-year-old human. Of
course when it comes to doing things that chimpanzees do well, such as
swinging through trees or courting female chimps, they are miles ahead of
us!
How about a gorilla? Lots like a chimp, but not quite, eh?
How about a dolphin?
How about a sea otter?
How about a dog?
No doubt about it. I do not think any modern biologist would dispute this.
Also, do not get any funny ideas about people being more intelligent than
other animals. Gram for gram all brains are equally intelligent, and some
brains are far superior to ours for specific purposes. I mentioned that
any chimp could beat the world's finest Olympic gymnasts. Dogs know WAY
more than us about how to herd sheep, and what a scent wafting from trail
in the woods means. They really do know these things, just as sure as I
know how to how to ride a bicycle, or why a program is probably stuck in a
loop.
How about an octopus (they're highly intelligent, even if highly alien)?
Yup. Recent research in octopus eye movements (oddly enough) confirms
this, but it is pretty obvious to anyone who has kept octopuses as pets.
They are very playful and they instantly recognize different people. For
that matter, when you show them a bottle with a screw on top for the first
time, you insert their favorite food and through the top shut, the octopus
will instantly unscrew it, reach in, and take the food, so they are pretty
good at manipulating tools.
How about a giant squid?
Probably.
How about a mouse?
Conscious and probably self-aware.
How about a turtle?
How about a snake?
Yup, yup.
How about a worm?
Probably not.
How about a cockroach?
How about an apid?
Conscious of course. You can render them unconscious with an anesthetic.
But it is unlikely they have any self-awareness.
How about a corn plant?
Definitely not. No brain cells or nerves.
How about an amoeba?
Nope.
How about a rock?
Nope.
There's a line there somewhere between things that are conscious and
things that are not, but there's no way to determine with any certainty
*where* to draw it . . .
There are ways to determine it with increasing certainty.
Discussions like this used to be mainly metaphysical but nowadays biology
is catching up, and they are now becoming well defined working concepts.
Many concepts in physics such as heat were once somewhat metaphysical and
vague (or flat-out wrong) but later were defined with mathematical
precision. The same is happening with consciousness.
. . . because the concept of "consciousness" is entirely outside the ken
of modern science.
Not at all! It is in the forefront of biology. It was even 30 years ago,
when I did biology at Okayama U., pureeing various creatures.
- Jed
________________________________________________________________________
This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T.
Department.
