Hacker News Reader

Comment by aspyct | Hacker News Reader

Sorry, why is this even a research? It's uh... pretty obvious they are conscious.

The study of consciousness (or sentience or whatever the appropriate term is) is definitely a valid field of research and one of science and philosophies all-time greatest mysteries. What exactly is the underlying mechanism and theory of consciousness? For example, A sound scientific theory of consciousness should be able to definitively answer the questions (and defend that answer):

  - Is an ant sentient? Why ? Why not? What is it aware of?
  - What about an amoeba? a bacteria? a virus? a cell? At what level does it stop?
  - What about the plant kingdom?
  - A rock? An atom? Why? Why not?
  - An LLM? A program? A computer?.. 
  - Will an AGI be sentient ?

The premise of the article itself is strange - maybe it was intended to stir up debate and controversy. Its one thing to say that study of consciousness lacks sound foundations. But implying the very notion that "animals are conscious" is somehow controversial? If animals aren't conscious whats the point of animal cruelty or animal welfare laws? I can take a power drill to my roomba but can i do the same to a cat or a dog? Most people would automatically say no. Its something most people intuitively understand (but maybe its learned behaviour - kids can be cruel until they learn empathy).

edit : Also the illy-dallying around the question of crustaceans seems shifty. Maybe the authors don't want to confront the moral question of boiling lobsters alive?

I agree that it's an interesting question worth exploring.

However I'm wondering why we are still at that stage of the game. Animals seem like a "duh, of course" answer to me. They have a brain, a nervous system, they're so close to us that the answer should be obvious.

Now an amoeba yes, that's (to me, at least) an open discussion. LLMs and AGIs too, they're too new and unknown.

But animals? Come on, we had thousands of years to figure that out.

In what way would be possible assume that animals are not conscious? It's such a bizarre question

Most philosophers have assumed that animals are conscious. Science, however, cannot assume – fundamentally. This comes from the science side of life.

I'm a neuroscientist who used to work with animals, and while I didn't focus on consciousness, I don't think it's a reasonable scientific perspective to start from the assumption that animals don't and require proof that they do. Clearly there's a spectrum of intelligence across species, but plenty of animals appear to have theory of mind, complex emotions, object permanence, tool use, long term memory, spatial navigation, some idea of the self, etc. Humans are better at language, and math, and destroying the planet, but that doesn't explain why our feeling of consciousness wouldn't be substantially similar to a great ape or an Australian shepherd.

Is that casting shade on Australians or on shepherds? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn1_vUe_Vws

Leonard Webb was an Australian shepherd, he grew out of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Webb_(academic)

apologies if I'm missing your implied /s tag, but in case you're serious, it's a dog breed.

Science has proof or nothing. There is no assumptive state. You, the philosopher, can make assumptions, of course.

> Science has proof or nothing. There is no assumptive state.

And which philospher of science said that then? Which others disagree?

Some claim that Mathematics is the Queen of Sciences .. and yet Mathematics rests upon assumptions, some that contradict each other. You know, Axioms.

Basic axioms | assumptions of science, for which no proof exists and yet without which science is and has nothing include:

* That there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.

* That this objective reality is governed by natural laws

* That reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.

* That Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.

> And which philospher of science said that then?

I did. Obviously. Why would I retell what another philosopher said? That would be rather silly. If they want something to be known, they can let you know themselves.

> Which others disagree?

Whichever ones disagree. Again, they can speak for themselves.

> Some claim that Mathematics is the Queen of Sciences

In other words, not science?

> yet without which science is and has nothing

I am not sure you have made a convincing case that science is more than nothing. If that is what you are trying to convince us of, you are not making providing a compelling argument.

> I did. Obviously.

So it's an opinion from your philosophy and not a universal absolute as you presented.

> I am not sure you have made a convincing case that science is more than nothing.

I haven't, just presented positions held by others .. and with no convincing case I guess we must conclude that science is nothing.

Or maybe assume there's something to it <shrug>.

> So it's an opinion from your philosophy and not a universal absolute as you presented.

Wait. If it were a universal absolute, for what reason would I present it? A universal absolute offers no remaining opportunity for me to learn, and why would I enter into a discussion that provides no learning opportunity? That would be a pointless waste of time. Whichever philosopher gave you the idea that I would waste my time like that did not think things through and has severely misguided you.

> I guess we must conclude that science is nothing. Or maybe assume there's something to it <shrug>.

Either way. As feeble humans (or LLM bots), we are not science. We can make assumptions that may or may not have any basis in reality.

Everything is a research, until it's proven beyond belief. Obvious doesn't cut it from a scientific standpoint. Noticing something, and proving something are two different things. And mutually agreeing upon the findings is also something else. Consciousness is a central concept for people, and so, there are many ideas surrounding it - human and non-human consciousness alike.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com