Are animals conscious? New research • Hacker News Board

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#141

Post by dekhn » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 9:47 PM UTC

erelong wrote: post #27

I think this ultimately becomes a religious discussion; even the article (wrongly in our view) calls Darwin "god-like" and suggests that belief in animals having consciousness is "heresy" (this perhaps borders on theological error, rather than heresy?) It is a long-standing religious belief that animals do not possess a rational immortal soul and neither do they possess the ability to choose good or evil but are inst…

If there is a holy temple of science, Darwin (along with quite a few others) would be worshipped.

(if you walk into an old physics building where experiments of import have been done, there is often a vestibule filled with the old hardware. In some ways it feels like a holy temple of science containing relics....)

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#142

Post by npteljes » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 9:51 PM UTC

aspyct wrote: post #115

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

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.

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#143

Post by madaxe_again » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 9:52 PM UTC

okasaki wrote: post #114

lolinder wrote: post #66

> Attributing consciousness to animals based on their responses was seen as a cardinal sin. The argument went that projecting human traits, feelings, and behaviours onto animals had no scientific basis and there was no way of testing what goes on in animals’ minds. What's always been funny to me about the scientific approach to animal consciousness/emotions/empathy is that in a perfectly rational world the default as…

> The only reason why animal consciousness has been controversial historically is a religious one Fundamentally it's really "practical" issue. We want to use, abuse and kill animals and we make up justifications. It won't change until the material conditions we live under change.

I think this is entirely it - and while we are still reliant on animals for meat and food production, they are no longer made to toil to anywhere near the degree they once were in the developed world, and so this has allowed a shift in our sensibilities.

As you say, it’s a practical issue. In much the same way as esteemed 19th century scientists argued that black people, brown people, Irish people, women, were not truly people, as this made for an easier moral justification for ill-treatment, slavery and genocide, they argued that animals were also insensate simulacra, only giving the appearance of life - for again, it is harder to beat and enslave a living, feeling, thinking being than it is a dishwasher.

Much of what we take as straightforward facts of reality are actually just old, bad ideas, and only in the cold light of the morning after do we start to see the error of our ways in the dark that came before.

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#144

Post by ivan_gammel » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 9:54 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #105

lolinder wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that reason relies on a presupposition that human language is categorically different than animal language, which is also a claim that relies on presupposing a categorical distinction which must be disproven, rather than starting from the assumption that human and animal communication exists along an evolutionary spectrum. And how did we arrive at this categorical distinction becoming axiomatic? As you say, by wa…

Animal language is obviously on the same level as human laughter and cries and whimpers. Animals don't teach language to each other like humans do. But I don't see what that has to do with consciousness, to me animal language is much closer to consciousness than human language. Consciousness is all about emotions, not language, and animal language that humans also has is directly tied to emotional expression. Our ML…

> Animal language is obviously on the same level as human laughter and cries and whimpers. Animals don't teach language to each other like humans do.

Obviously? There’s no reason to assume that. It is known that cetaceans acquire their language and dialects through social learning. It was very recently discovered that some whales even have names for each other. Their language may be different from ours, but it is not just emotions.

And then of course there are primates, elephants etc…

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#145

Post by slowmovintarget » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 9:54 PM UTC

jraph wrote: post #36

It doesn't take a genius to notice animals are conscious. Only to prove it and convince their human peers that this is the case. I guess.

For a while, science didn't admit to a female orgasm, either. There was "no evidence" in the sense that no one had bothered to perform scientific observation and collect data. There was common sense, and reasonable assumption, but no studies. Then there were studies.

Common sense tells you and I that animals are conscious to some degree. But as there is no current scientific definition of what the system of consciousness actually is (and I'm speculatively calling it a system) it's difficult to say animals have it through observation. We know they respond to anesthetics just like we do. We know anesthesia can shut off consciousness, so there's some physicality to whatever consciousness is. We just don't have a classification for it yet.

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#146

Post by ivan_gammel » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 10:03 PM UTC

jemmyw wrote: post #100

lolinder wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about the downvotes, I couldn't even downvote you if I wanted to because you replied to me. I'm operating on the assumption that evolution happened as Darwin described it. As another reply to you notes, darwinian evolution precludes sharp divides between species in favor of a gradual development of complexity over time. A believer in darwinian evolution should expect consciousness and emotions and other…

Not that I believe this, but there could be an intelligence cliff where you get to a certain level and suddenly consciousness and self awareness appear. That is a mechanism where gradual change could lead to stepped differences.

We have already enough evidence to assume that such cliff does not exist.

I can recommend the book „How language began“ by Daniel Everett, where he demonstrates convincingly that our path to language, culture and consciousness was not a single switch, but evolutionary process. Recent research of cetaceans shows that their language and culture may overlap in sophistication with our ancestors.

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#147

Post by cupcakecommons » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 10:04 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #66

> Attributing consciousness to animals based on their responses was seen as a cardinal sin. The argument went that projecting human traits, feelings, and behaviours onto animals had no scientific basis and there was no way of testing what goes on in animals’ minds. What's always been funny to me about the scientific approach to animal consciousness/emotions/empathy is that in a perfectly rational world the default as…

Humans seem pretty categorically different to me based on their behavior alone.

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#148

Post by cupcakecommons » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 10:06 PM UTC

Coffeewine wrote: post #81

lolinder wrote: post #66

> Attributing consciousness to animals based on their responses was seen as a cardinal sin. The argument went that projecting human traits, feelings, and behaviours onto animals had no scientific basis and there was no way of testing what goes on in animals’ minds. What's always been funny to me about the scientific approach to animal consciousness/emotions/empathy is that in a perfectly rational world the default as…

I agree completely. Anyone who spends even a cursory amount of time with a companion animal such as a dog or cat can see that they are emotional beings, and the notion that you can be emotional without also being conscious seems to strain credulity.

Ever met a person who was blackout drunk? Easy example. They are very often not conscious but still emotional. You could easily imagine animals that exist in this state continuously without requiring chemical assistance. It makes sense on a neurological level as well. The more robust and evolutionarily older parts of the brain like the brain stem take much more ethanol to inhibit. The PFC is inhibited almost immediately - which can be credibly argued is part of why many humans drink alcohol.

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#149

Post by timeon » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 10:07 PM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #120

lolinder wrote: post #66

> Attributing consciousness to animals based on their responses was seen as a cardinal sin. The argument went that projecting human traits, feelings, and behaviours onto animals had no scientific basis and there was no way of testing what goes on in animals’ minds. What's always been funny to me about the scientific approach to animal consciousness/emotions/empathy is that in a perfectly rational world the default as…

> The only reason why animal consciousness has been controversial historically is a religious one—the Bible has typically been read as placing humanity in a category of its own. And yet we see countless secular scientists clinging to that perspective when even a cursory glance at the evidence and a basic application of Occam's razor would suggest the opposite. It's not just the Bible. It's virtually every religion an…

> Animals didn't land on the moon

Isn't this conspiracy theory? One species of mammals actually did.

Re: Are animals conscious? New research

#150

Post by gen220 » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 10:10 PM UTC

salesynerd wrote: post #5

I sometimes think that animistic belief - objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence - is more respectful of the ecosystem than some of the modern ones. Lots of ancient cultures, across the globe, tried to live in harmony with their natural environments. I wish that we can go back to that stage.

I also often think about this. "Animism" was a super efficient way to program a culture for respect towards nature. From that perspective it's a shame that it's gone.

I'm hopeful that with all this research, we're sort of traversing a longer cultural arc that terminates at the same "symptoms" of animism (respect for nature, good stewardship of natural resources, following the precautionary principle). Those symptoms would now be supported by different load-bearing pillars, called "Environmental Science" and "Biology".

I don't think we can go "back", but I think we can go "forwards" and still end up in a good (albeit, ironically, more or less the same) spot, where capital-S Science basically endorses most native land management practices. We've already made pretty good progress in the last generation or two.