301–310 of 544 posts
We can't know anything for certain, and the zombie idea is a convenient stonewall that allows us to ignore the behavioural evidence and continue to abuse animals as a society (mainly by killing them).
I’ve never understood these questions. “Are animals conscious?” Well, could you give me the definition of consciousness? No you can’t. So now you’re asking me both to define it and show if animals have it or not. Are animals aware of their surroundings? Yes. Are animals showing the behavioural signs of pain when you hurt them? Yes. Can animals direct attention? Yes. Can animals remember? Yes. Can animals learn? Yes.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 navig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 navig…
Science has proof or nothing. There is no assumptive state. You, the philosopher, can make assumptions, of course.
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.
At first I assumed the flood light in my backyard was just being triggered by the wind, as a spider had built a web in front of the sensor, however I then noticed that the light would turn on even when there wasn’t any wind.
Upon closer inspection, I found that the spider had created a singular strand of webbing, thicker than the rest (5x-10x), directly over the front of the sensor.
It would then pluck this thicker strand whenever it wanted the light to turn on.
I had previously read a few papers on spider intelligence, specifically the planning capabilities of certain species, but this seemed like another level.
Not only had it discovered the sensor, it crafted a tool to use it for it’s own advantage.
Humans think they’re something forever unique and special in the evolutionary timeline, but the remembered words of our ancestors trick us into thinking individuals are larger than the herd.
Intelligence comes in many shapes and sizes, and claiming to be above the rest parallels, in my experience, the likes of a liar more so than a truth seeker.
What is consciousness? That which separates us from the animal kingdom. A lie we tell ourselves to sleep at night and die for false prophets.
I once witnessed a spider controlling a motion activated flood light to catch prey. At first I assumed the flood light in my backyard was just being triggered by the wind, as a spider had built a web in front of the sensor, however I then noticed that the light would turn on even when there wasn’t any wind. Upon closer inspection, I found that the spider had created a singular strand of webbing, thicker than the rest…
I’ve never understood these questions. “Are animals conscious?” Well, could you give me the definition of consciousness? No you can’t. So now you’re asking me both to define it and show if animals have it or not. Are animals aware of their surroundings? Yes. Are animals showing the behavioural signs of pain when you hurt them? Yes. Can animals direct attention? Yes. Can animals remember? Yes. Can animals learn? Yes.…
I once watched a spider in a web have to rapidly run around it's web and scoop up it's little baby spiders to escape a flame that was coming close to it. The reaction did not appear to be some kind of mechanical automated reaction - it very clearly had awareness of the danger, and an awareness of it's offspring, and made a coordinated effort to rescue them and move them away to safety. To me - as someone who is not a…
This doesn't add up to me. The majority of scientists really thought that animals didn't feel or experience things? That can't be true for scientists that actually observed animals. I can see how there might some type of conflict with a dualist or religious view of the soul though. But not a scientific conflict.
>The majority of scientists really thought that animals didn't feel or experience things? I can buy it. "As recently as 1999, it was widely believed by medical professionals that babies could not feel pain until they were a year old, but today it is believed newborns and likely even fetuses beyond a certain age can experience pain" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_babies
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> 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 a…
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 .