Live data from Hacker News

Are animals more conscious than we are?

erikhoel.substack.com

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: Are animals more conscious than we are?

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could the fear I feel when I see an oncoming bus really be so different than the fear a squirrel feels when I make a sudden move towards it?

Of course it could. What is the difference between the fear felt from an oncoming bus vs flinching at someone popping out and saying "boo"? It's our ability to think about the meaningfulness of the stimulus. We know the bus could kill us (or at least deliver tremendous pain), whereas the scare from a prank is just a sort of autoresponse from our sympathetic nervous system; we jump before we're even conscious as to wh…

I definitely think dogs, for example, have the capacity to reflect on it to a extent. You can play games with dogs, they seek it out. I believe there is evidence they can plan.

I think they can observe you and then adjust themselves accordingly. If you are angry they can be sad or cautious. If you look sad they can comfort. But they also seem to possess their own independent moods.

Planning and adapting to stimulus seems like consciousness to me.

I think in Humans language can actually be a big component of that feedback, you can structure your thoughts and reason with it. An internal dialogue. But I am not sure it is entirely necessary.

Re: Are animals more conscious than we are?

#52
post #35
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Integrated information theory has one attempt at actually measuring how conscious a system is. It calls it phi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory Never heard of that before, thanks for the hint.

no problem, the paper is actually not to bad either by the way.

Re: Are animals more conscious than we are?

#53
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Integrated information theory has one attempt at actually measuring how conscious a system is. It calls it phi.

I worked on that in graduate school :)

thats pretty cool, id ask you some questions about it if you didn't mind but im not ready for the moment lol

Re: Are animals more conscious than we are?

#54
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Helen Keller were never to learn to communicate with us through language that we understand are we to have believed that she has no consciousness. I was only referring to emotions and their intensity in species that exhibit no ability to self-reflect, not consciousness in general.

I am doing the same. I am just pointing out that we use different standards of 'proof'. The only way I can assign an internal monologue of human emotions to you is (i) pattern match your external behavior with my own behavior in an emotional state (ii) take you on your word when you describe that your feelings, (iii) assume that all humans are roughly going to be the same. With animals (ii) is not an option. It would…

> The only way I can assign an internal monologue of human emotions to you is (i) pattern match your external behavior with my own behavior in an emotional state (ii) take you on your word when you describe that your feelings, (iii) assume that all humans are roughly going to be the same.

Aha... With animals, I think (i) is a misleading option. Our own emotions are laden with self-reflection, with an internal monologue, with thinking about why we're feeling something and how we might be able to change it. This is how we get the idea of "emotions" at all. If we take away the ability to self-reflect, to even have a conceptual understanding of "emotions", that doesn't mean the emotional behavior necessarily goes away, but the conscious experience of the emotion may be quite different, perhaps even completely non-existent. (Again, not consciousness itself, just consciousness of the emotion.)

Re: Are animals more conscious than we are?

#55
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am doing the same. I am just pointing out that we use different standards of 'proof'. The only way I can assign an internal monologue of human emotions to you is (i) pattern match your external behavior with my own behavior in an emotional state (ii) take you on your word when you describe that your feelings, (iii) assume that all humans are roughly going to be the same. With animals (ii) is not an option. It would…

> The only way I can assign an internal monologue of human emotions to you is (i) pattern match your external behavior with my own behavior in an emotional state (ii) take you on your word when you describe that your feelings, (iii) assume that all humans are roughly going to be the same. Aha... With animals, I think (i) is a misleading option. Our own emotions are laden with self-reflection, with an internal monolog…

The point is that the standards that you are using is incapable of inferring presence of emotion in animals. Its merely human exceptionalism disguised as reasoning.

I have as much observational evidence that you have emotions as much for a dolphin, monkey or a dog for instance. The external manifestations are in the same ball park. Same for physiological probes like FMRI.

When same class of external observation leads to different class of conclusions that's theology and blind faith, not science.

'Science' has been in this 'human exceptionalism' tar pit before in other fields of science -- astronomy for example.

Re: Are animals more conscious than we are?

#56
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people are actually starting to think about that, especially in the context of insect "meat". For example, a cow makes ~250kg of meat, a cricket weight ~0.5g. If you believe all life to be equal, eating a cow is 500 000 times better than eating the equivalent in crickets. If you believe that insect are worth 10 000 times less than cows (arbitrary number), that's still 50 times worse. I think it's important that…

As I understand it someone did a count of all the animals killed in the production of a vegan diet and in pure numbers it was more than if you any ate beef by a huge amount. Will try to find the original study…

When you find it look hard at who made this "study", and check if they counted in the same way. For example counting the animals killed during the production of the food used to feed the animals raised for their meat.

Re: Are animals more conscious than we are?

#57
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people are actually starting to think about that, especially in the context of insect "meat". For example, a cow makes ~250kg of meat, a cricket weight ~0.5g. If you believe all life to be equal, eating a cow is 500 000 times better than eating the equivalent in crickets. If you believe that insect are worth 10 000 times less than cows (arbitrary number), that's still 50 times worse. I think it's important that…

As I understand it someone did a count of all the animals killed in the production of a vegan diet and in pure numbers it was more than if you any ate beef by a huge amount. Will try to find the original study…

That study was so flawed, it's not even funny. It took one specific scenario in Australia, where farmers had to kill a lot of rodents (due to a seasonal plague) to protect their crop and compared that to a single animal slaughtered for a meat dish. They completely failed to mention that livestock are fed that exact same crop, that the farmers were killing the rodents for. IIRC there a couple such "studies", but all similarly flawed.

Re: Are animals more conscious than we are?

#58
Sensation, emotion, and reason all exist inside consciousness. The article points out that some animals seem to have great depth of emotion and sensation, whereas human consciousness often is more focused upon reason. Anyone who has lost time while driving a car while thinking about something else has experienced what the author is describing. We don’t always live in the moment — sometimes we live “in our head”.

Meditation is one way that we train our consciousness to focus less on reason and more on sensation and emotion, in order to exert more control over both.

So I’d agree with the author if he reframed the question as I have.

But how do we know that animals, or even other humans, are conscious? The answer is in the definition: that sensation, emotion, and reason are all aspects of conscious experience. These aspects can be considered metadata that is only available to conscious beings. This metadata is most uniquely useful in social scenarios, as it is a shared dataset that enables highly coordinated and flexible social behaviors.

The author mentions one of these behaviors: play. Non-conscious entities will have a harder time distinguishing between play-fighting and real fighting, and engage in play-fighting less often (if at all).

Re: Are animals more conscious than we are?

#59
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to define “thoughts, emotions, sensations” and “complexity” first. Pain, for example, counts as all 3, and some would say it’s simple while others might call it complex.

Pain is strictly a physical sensation. It may however be triggered by thoughts or emotions. The three are rarely ever experienced in isolation.

What does this even mean? If I can feel pain by thinking, what does it mean that pain is "strictly physical"?

If it means "there is a physical set of physical matter involved in the sensation of pain, be it pain nerves or just me thinking using my physical thinking apparatus", well then given that I'm made out of physical matter, what isn't strictly physical?

Re: Are animals more conscious than we are?

#60
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Haven’t we observed complex human-like emotions for elephants, dolphins, and various other primates (eg grieving rituals for lost family members)? I think we observe complex behavior that we associate with our own emotional experiences (which seem appropriate given our genetic / biological / physiological similarities), I just doubt they're necessarily as intense as we experience them given our ability to reflect o…

I think we observe complex behavior in you personally that we associate with our own ... I just doubt they are necessarily as intense as we experience. Lets start using the same standards of 'proof' If Helen Keller were never to learn to communicate with us through language that we understand are we to have believed that she has no consciousness -- just external manifestation that "complex behavior that we associate…

I think this text is very relevant:

BEFORE THE SOUL DAWN by Helen Keller

Before my teacher came to me, I did not know that I am. I lived in a world that was a no-world. I cannot hope to describe adequately that unconscious, yet conscious time of nothingness. I did not know that I knew aught, or that I lived or acted or desired. I had neither will nor intellect. I was carried along to objects and acts by a certain blind natural impetus. I had a mind which caused me to feel anger, satisfaction, desire. These two facts led those about me to suppose that[142] I willed and thought. I can remember all this, not because I knew that it was so, but because I have tactual memory. It enables me to remember that I never contracted my forehead in the act of thinking. I never viewed anything beforehand or chose it. I also recall tactually the fact that never in a start of the body or a heart-beat did I feel that I loved or cared for anything. My inner life, then, was a blank without past, present, or future, without hope or anticipation, without wonder or joy or faith.

It was not night—it was not day. . . . . . But vacancy absorbing space, And fixedness, without a place; There were no stars—no earth—no time— No check—no change—no good—no crime. [143]

My dormant being had no idea of God or immortality, no fear of death.

I remember, also through touch, that I had a power of association. I felt tactual jars like the stamp of a foot, the opening of a window or its closing, the slam of a door. After repeatedly smelling rain and feeling the discomfort of wetness, I acted like those about me: I ran to shut the window. But that was not thought in any sense. It was the same kind of association that makes animals take shelter from the rain. From the same instinct of aping others, I folded the clothes that came from the laundry, and put mine away, fed the turkeys, sewed bead-eyes on my doll's face, and did many other things of which I have the tactual remembrance. When I wanted anything I liked,—ice-cream,[144] for instance, of which I was very fond,—I had a delicious taste on my tongue (which, by the way, I never have now), and in my hand I felt the turning of the freezer. I made the sign, and my mother knew I wanted ice-cream. I "thought" and desired in my fingers. If I had made a man, I should certainly have put the brain and soul in his finger-tips. From reminiscences like these I conclude that it is the opening of the two faculties, freedom of will, or choice, and rationality, or the power of thinking from one thing to another, which makes it possible to come into being first as a child, afterwards as a man.

Since I had no power of thought, I did not compare one mental state with another. So I was not conscious of any change or process going on in my brain[145] when my teacher began to instruct me. I merely felt keen delight in obtaining more easily what I wanted by means of the finger motions she taught me. I thought only of objects, and only objects I wanted. It was the turning of the freezer on a larger scale. When I learned the meaning of "I" and "me" and found that I was something, I began to think. Then consciousness first existed for me. Thus it was not the sense of touch that brought me knowledge. It was the awakening of my soul that first rendered my senses their value, their cognizance of objects, names, qualities, and properties. Thought made me conscious of love, joy, and all the emotions. I was eager to know, then to understand, afterward to reflect on what I knew and understood,[146] and the blind impetus, which had before driven me hither and thither at the dictates of my sensations, vanished forever.

[...]

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/27683/27683-h/27683-h.htm

Post reply on HN