Evidence Points To Conscious 'Metacognition' In Some Nonhuman Animals
sciencedaily.com
sciencedaily.com
Anytime someone says something about how stupid animals are, I just think they are stupid because they aren't even able to differentiate between what we know and what we don't know.
If you can't admit I don't know, then you really need to check yourself.
My theory, which is based on what I know about neuroscience but is unscientific, is that all animals with a neocortex (that is, all mammals) experience the world much as we do. Bear in mind that our awareness of the world is constructed within the brain, and is therefore only as detailed as our current mental faculties allow (even though you may not realize this).
The flip side of my theory is that those lacking a neocortex (non-mammals vertebrates such as reptiles, fish, insects, etc., as well as invertebrates) do not have a similar experience, which I think is also true.
But seriously, I think there is a range of cognitive ability. Some animals and perhaps fish or reptiles, living or dead, or birds even, are smarter than others, this is probably true, or at least appears to be true from observation.
However, the big problem to me is that people think somehow humans are distinct and unique and above aaall other life forms. That consciousness begins and ends in homo sapiens.
But, like you alluded to, even within humans, there is a vast range of conscious capabilities.
But except for the part I bracketed, the above is pretty much true. There is little evidence of self-awareness in other animals and certainly nothing like what humans display. Along with that, our language ability is unique (Sure I know about signing apes, dolphins, African parrots, et al, wherein minimal language abilities are present).
No doubt that animals have emotions. But consciousness? No. Animals other than man live in the "here and now". Other than following genetically-programmed patterns, they neither plan for the future nor reminisce about the past as we do. And that is just fine: that's all they apparently need.
Some unique situation (I have no idea what ) must have occurred in man's history for the ability to think outside of the "here and now" to develop.
About the bracketed part: I would omit it because I don't think that there is any design where man has any inherently "higher" role/purpose/goal than other animals.
Also, apes do exhibit evidence of a concept of 'self'.
Ape communication is very much "here and now", especially the signing apes: "Mary want banana, Mary want banana, banana, banana, give Mary banana..." etc.
Apes do have some sense of self, but it is far from human consciousness.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article5877764...
Chimps also will hunt in packs and use spear-like tools.
But neither behavior resembles human consciousness. A person as bright as that chimp would at best be in an institution.
That's a very strong claim. Care to back it up, especially in light of the linked article?
Give your dog a treat. When he takes it, immediately pop him on the nose. Offer another treat. If he takes it, pop him harder on the nose. Keep going until he hesitates. Voila, "metacognition"! (Unless you have a pit bull, in which case you may have difficulty reaching the metacognitive level).
And the second question: does this equation hold:
"metacognition" = "human consciousness".
Let me clarify though: while I don't think humans are much different from the other mammals, I think it's a big stretch to lump us in with fish and reptiles. The key is the neocortex, which is unique to mammals.
(Birds are another story that I don't know much about. I'm tempted to think that through parallel evolution at least some species have developed a similar faculty without a neocortex.)
More important than variations between people are variations within one person over time. I remember cases when, as a child, I didn't understand what was going on around me. Maybe I did at the time, but I realize now that I didn't. I was still conscious and aware of course, but had a much simpler model of the world that I was working with.
I imagine that's what it would be like if you could see what's going on in another mammal's brain -- very similar processes going on, with a simpler model of their environment.
I'm not entirely certain that that is what was being alluded to (although feel free to correct me if I'm wildly off base). Some branches of philosophy (especially philosophy of mind, especially philosophical idealism, especially solipsism) that are internally consistent but raise the question of whether consciousnesses other than one's own exist at all.
A fairly common question, for instance, when talking about strong AI is: How can we tell if it's conscious? Since we lack any real sort of objective metric for such a thing, there are two plausible answers: 1) We ask it, or 2) We follow our gut and make a guess. Both of these answers have fairly obvious problems with them. All of those problems apply just strongly when we're dealing with the idea of animal consciousness as well, or even with the idea of anything other than oneself being conscious.
I think that sometimes, although not always, these attitudes are held as a matter of convenience. If an idea can be dismissed immediately and out of hand, the person dismissing it doesn't have to deal with, or even think about, its implications.
In the case of animals, if they are "mere brutes", then you are free to do with them as you please. Nice escape from any further ethical implications, in your own mind. Or the terror of contemplating one's own existence, and whether it may similarly be at the mercy of the larger world.
Farmers often talk about how stupid chickens are and they, therefore, have no problems eating them. But yet pigs are smarter than most dogs and we eat lots of pigs (but almost no dogs). Where does the line get drawn?
The interesting thing to me was that if we forgot to feed them they would always seem to be able to take apart the fence and get out to eat. The patriarch got out and visited the other pens before he passed away which reinforced my feeling that they treated each other like family.
Read the first google hit for pig intelligence if I haven't already gone on too long on the subject.
Still?
Why do you think it's ethical now to eat animals, given what we already know about them?
Joy to man? I in no way advocate killing people's pets.
But to answer your question, I would rather die quickly sooner then slowly in agony later.
I would much rather die quickly much sooner, them be ripped apart by predators, or die of starvation or a horrid disease, or exposure.
And as to dying now, I have a distinct concept of now, and while animals can plan for the near future, I've never known a dog who's plotted for years.
Cheetahs are faster then humans and birds fly, etc, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Or to put it another way, do you think that death, pain and suffering cease to exist when you're not eating animals? Do you think living in the wild is like a happy frolic in the park?
For me, the issue of eating animals doesn't spring from a consideration of their level of intelligence - otherwise, I guess it could be open season on many of us.
I personally grew to feel it is wrong to harm sentient beings.
Put another way, I'd wager that most users of this site are familiar with Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection. And if one accepted the basics of that theory, one would have to accept the possibility of animal consciousness, or take on the nearly untenable position that human consciousness sprang into existence from seemingly nowhere...