231–240 of 544 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But animals(dogs) were first to go into orbit!
The first animal in orbit was Laika, a Soviet space dog. She was launched aboard Sputnik 2 on November 3, 1957. The first animals in space were fruit flies, launched by the United States aboard a V-2 rocket on February 20, 1947.
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 conscious…
Science doesn't admit anything. It is a methodology that is practiced.
> 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 consider the difference between animals and us as ... don't laugh .. the difference between an 8bit video game and a playstation3/4/5 one. We might have 10, 1000, or 100000x more details but the core ingredients are the same.
The trouble I have with much of this discussion is it assumes many traits of animal behavior are indicative of consciousness. Bees play with balls, therefore consciousness? You can't just jump straight to that conclusion. There is so much our brains do that is subconscious, that we are not aware of. Heck, even signs of self awareness may not be indicative of consciousness. Arguably we are at the point that we could t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I reject panpsychism as going against common sense; I think there probably are very simple (read: small) animals that aren't conscious. Yes, I can definitely agree with this. I'm more reacting to the idea that it's somehow an unresolved scientific question whether dogs and cats and other mammals have emotions. There isn't a sufficiently large difference in neurology between humans and other mammals for me to believ…
Dogs definitely have Theory of Mind. There was a study done that placed a treat in a room where the dog was instructed not to eat it. A handler was in the room with the dog. When the lights were turned out, the dogs would eat the treat, because they knew that the human couldn't see in the dark.
1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00033...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did your friend actually wake up or did they start forming memories again?
Great question. I would guess he woke up and that this was subsequent to him forming memories again. Memory seems to be a requirement for the kind of self-referential conscious experience that appears to be basically unique to humans. An anesthetic that acts entirely on memory formation and paralyzes the body is in many ways the ideal anesthetic. It's not super unlikely this is how many anesthetics work to at least s…
Nevermind the fact that even if it is forgotten, an awake mind will suffer greatly in the moment - pretending that suffering did not occur because it was forgotten is some next level self-deception.
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.
How do you "prove" that other people are conscious? This isn't a gotcha question: to me they're both obviously true. The question is what kind of evidence do you require, and why do people require different evidence for people vs other animals.
It's easier to test humans than other animals because it's easier to communicate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only reason why animal consciousness has been controversial historically is a religious one In your sentence I would substitute ''religious'' with other more specific terms like ''Judeo-Christian'' since Jainism and Hinduism have been talking about a continuum of consciousness in all living things for almost 3,000 years: specifically described by them as the Ātman and the Jiva. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4…
Sure but in Hinduism and Buddhism, humans are higher than animals. In general, only humans are capable of escaping samsara.
It's not a coincidence that these are the religions that have created the largest food cultures around eating vegetarian and vegan.
> 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 think there is also a misguided razor that people who self identify as rationalists often apply, which goes, "the most cynical or disenchanted answer is likely the correct one." An overcorrection to superstition, perhaps. I personally did this, and one of the symptoms was being overly skeptical of animal consciousness. People would tell me this dog was smart or that it was feeling a certain way, and I dismissed it,…