[Greg Boyles]

DrmDoc, on 29 December 2011 - 07:16 PM, said:

I agree; behavior and behavioral responses to non-verbal cognitive tests are indeed another way we are able to assess the equivalent cognitive skills of other species.

That is another problem. Is conscious totally seperate and distinct from cognitive skills or are they linked?
If seperate how the hell do you design tests that are not purely testing cognitive skills? The mirror test in my view is a test of cognitive skills, i.e. the ape on the other side of the glass does everything I do therefore it must be me.

[Acme]

dimreepr, on 22 December 2011 - 04:26 PM, said:

...Given that there are animals that are definately not aware, a duck for instance. This would automatically mean we can create a linear graph, unaware at the begining and humans (conceted I know but what else) at the finnish.

My question is this, what type of animal is just aware. My thinking is perhaps an octopus it's a problem solveing animal but has to relearn the problem however many times it's presented.

In his book I Am A strange Loop, Douglas Hofstader draws a downward pointing cone as a graph for self-awareness. the lower on the cone the less "soul" [say self awareness] a creature has. he labels the unit value "hunekers" after James Huneker who wrote a line containing the phrase "small souled men". Hofstadter rates dogs as having fewer hunekers than people, but more than mosquitoes. one has to make their own assesment about where each creature lies.

the graph reads the same in a mirror, which would definitely please Hofstader even if he did not intend it.

This post has been edited by Acme: 30 December 2011 - 04:45 AM

[dimreepr]

Acme, on 30 December 2011 - 04:45 AM, said:

In his book I Am A strange Loop, Douglas Hofstader draws a downward pointing cone as a graph for self-awareness. the lower on the cone the less "soul" [say self awareness] a creature has. he labels the unit value "hunekers" after James Huneker who wrote a line containing the phrase "small souled men". Hofstadter rates dogs as having fewer hunekers than people, but more than mosquitoes. one has to make their own assesment about where each creature lies.

the graph reads the same in a mirror, which would definitely please Hofstader even if he did not intend it.

Thanks I'll look it up.

[Acme]

dimreepr, on 30 December 2011 - 02:34 PM, said:

Thanks I'll look it up.

You're welcome. I recommend buying & reading the book as snippets here & there do not convey the whole of the ideas and arguments concerning I. Be forwarned it is not the kind of reading for persons of small souls. Enjoy.

[DrmDoc]

Greg Boyles, on 30 December 2011 - 02:03 AM, said:

That is another problem. Is conscious totally seperate and distinct from cognitive skills or are they linked?
If seperate how the hell do you design tests that are not purely testing cognitive skills? The mirror test in my view is a test of cognitive skills, i.e. the ape on the other side of the glass does everything I do therefore it must be me.

I believe the solution to that problem resides in a basis algebraic expression that is a basis of logic thought: If a=b and b=c, then a=c. Cognitive skills (a) are evidence of some reasoning process (b) and reasoning (b) is evidence of consciousness (c); therefore, cognitive skills (a) are evidence of consciousness (c). In my opinion, there is very little distinction between cognitive skills and consciousness.

[Greg Boyles]

DrmDoc, on 31 December 2011 - 05:08 PM, said:

I believe the solution to that problem resides in a basis algebraic expression that is a basis of logic thought: If a=b and b=c, then a=c. Cognitive skills (a) are evidence of some reasoning process (b) and reasoning (b) is evidence of consciousness (c); therefore, cognitive skills (a) are evidence of consciousness (c). In my opinion, there is very little distinction between cognitive skills and consciousness.

Possibly, but then again organisms that show a recognizeable (to us) fear of death must be as conscious and self aware even if they lack the same level of conitive skills as us.

A lack of consciousness and self awareness would mean that an entity has no concern about its own destruction, e.g. one of our robots. Consciousness is an evolutionary mechanism for self preservation that in turn makes it more likely that an organism passes on its genes to the next generation. Therefore surely in is inconceivable that evolution would bring about higher animals with little or no consciousness.

Perhaps we need to distinguish between lower and higher animals. With lower animals like insects flooding the environment with large numbers is as important or more important than a intense drive for self preservation.

But with hgher animals, and their generally higher resource requirements, flooding the environment with large numbers (on the same scale as insects) is not ecologically possible. Then an intense drive for self preservation becomes more important, hence consciousness and self awareness.

Perhaps there is a base level of consciousness that all higher animals possess but cognitive skills refine that conciousness to a higher level. Would make sense in terms of evolution. The higher you are in the food chain the fewer individuals and the more important (in terms of evolution) one individual is.

[Greg Boyles]

DrmDoc, on 31 December 2011 - 05:08 PM, said:

I believe the solution to that problem resides in a basis algebraic expression that is a basis of logic thought: If a=b and b=c, then a=c. Cognitive skills (a) are evidence of some reasoning process (b) and reasoning (b) is evidence of consciousness (c); therefore, cognitive skills (a) are evidence of consciousness (c). In my opinion, there is very little distinction between cognitive skills and consciousness.

http://reptilebehavi...duce_aggres.htm


I am certain you would argue that reptiles, specifically alligators, or not intelligent therefore not conscious.
But read the above article.

It is possible to train alligators to be less aggressive when it comes to food. More specifically, it is possible to teach them to respond to human commands including calling their names.


Now cognition is linked to learning and learning is linked to intelligence. Therefore can we be so sure that reptiles do not have intelligence and are not conscious???? Even though they lack cerebral hemispheres that are traditionally associated with intelligence.

It is said that the brain is 'plastic' so perhaps even the reptilean R complex has limted plasticity that allows them to learn in ways that humans would understand as intelligence.

[DrmDoc]

Greg Boyles, on 3 January 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

http://reptilebehavi...duce_aggres.htm


I am certain you would argue that reptiles, specifically alligators, or not intelligent therefore not conscious.
But read the above article.

It is possible to train alligators to be less aggressive when it comes to food. More specifically, it is possible to teach them to respond to human commands including calling their names.


Now cognition is linked to learning and learning is linked to intelligence. Therefore can we be so sure that reptiles do not have intelligence and are not conscious???? Even though they lack cerebral hemispheres that are traditionally associated with intelligence.

It is said that the brain is 'plastic' so perhaps even the reptilean R complex has limted plasticity that allows them to learn in ways that humans would understand as intelligence.

In my view consciousness does not necessitate intelligence; a species could be considered conscious and not have the measure we consider intelligence. Consciousness, at its most basic level, is merely suggested by some evidence of awareness. What distinguishes our measure of consciousness from lesser forms is a mind that enables responses beyond those considered instinctual; e.i., our measure of mind enables proactive behaviors rather than those consider reactive, programmed, or instinctive.

[Greg Boyles]

DrmDoc, on 3 January 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

In my view consciousness does not necessitate intelligence; a species could be considered conscious and not have the measure we consider intelligence. Consciousness, at its most basic level, is merely suggested by some evidence of awareness. What distinguishes our measure of consciousness from lesser forms is a mind that enables responses beyond those considered instinctual; e.i., our measure of mind enables proactive behaviors rather than those consider reactive, programmed, or instinctive.

Found this on Wikipedia:

Quote

In medicine, consciousness is assessed by observing a patient's arousal and responsiveness, and can be seen as a continuum of states ranging from full alertness and comprehension, through disorientation, delirium, loss of meaningful communication, and finally loss of movement in response to painful stimuli.^[5]

[DrmDoc]

Greg Boyles, on 4 January 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

Found this on Wikipedia:

I'm not sure of the statment you are making here. That reference doesn't appear to support the idea that intelligence is essential to consciousness. It appears to be a references for the "continuum" of consciousness as measured in humans. It is my view that basic consciousness, relative to all animal species, is suggested by some basic evidence of awareness such as "arousal and responsiveness" to stimuli, which does not require intelligence to engage.

[Greg Boyles]

DrmDoc, on 4 January 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

I'm not sure of the statment you are making here. That reference doesn't appear to support the idea that intelligence is essential to consciousness. It appears to be a references for the "continuum" of consciousness as measured in humans. It is my view that basic consciousness, relative to all animal species, is suggested by some basic evidence of awareness such as "arousal and responsiveness" to stimuli, which does not require intelligence to engage.

I posted it as it was medical support for my original idea that consciousness is a spectrum rather than a light switch.