foodchain Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 How do humans truly know they are conscious? I mean you can look at various other animals and watch them going about being animals of a type and say hey its a zebrafish or its just a turtle, its does turtle things, it has turtle thoughts. So how do we know really that we just don’t do human things, only see human things and generally also just be an animal? I mean it may sound like an odd question but I have always thought about it. How do we know we are truly some sentient all conscious being? How do we know for sure we live outside of biologic influence in regards to thought and behavior? It would seem that the existence of the brain provides the basis for a more organic view of life or human life that is, yet we look at the rest of life for the most part as separate from us. I think this is one of the reasons really. We see ourselves as something truly different in many regards, and I question most all of those. I think environmental damage shows really humans are just like other things that are trying to survive. I think the most scary aspect of this is that instinct is not known. Any nature we have is not truly known then, even while language exists. The way I am framing this question puts cultural behavior or culture as instinct with the ability of being an ESS or an evolutionary stable strategy. Obviously the success of a specie is tied to the environment, so is its failure. So culture was something that has shown fitness. I am postulating this based really on conjecture but I would just like to hear others thoughts on it. I know it claims people to be social, but I would think language on its own can support such a reality from an evolutionary perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedarkshade Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 Because we have a sense of time and everything around us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foodchain Posted January 2, 2008 Author Share Posted January 2, 2008 Because we have a sense of time and everything around us! Yes but on a biological level other species also have biological reasons to be considered conscious. This also I think fails to grasp the question at hand as it still completely ignores the looming possible reality that we as a specie also conduct life instinctually, like every other living thing. I mean are we a few compounds away from being something utterly different? Physically, biologically, do we know humans as a specie have instinct or nature free behavior, from an individual level, to a cultural one and even globally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedarkshade Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 So far, humans are the highest level in the evolution "tree". And I think that the main reason for this "leadership" is the fact that our brain (as the center of the organism) is far more advanced than the other mammals. We (as human) have the ability to understand the world around us, understand time, predict, discover, modify, and create new concepts, create new theories and tend to understand everything in the sorrounding world. We have the high ability to learn (other animals do to but with lots of practice) and judge things in our own way. And we have all these characteristics becuase we have the ability to think critically and rantionally. And we can think in that way because our brain is well-developed and allows us to do that. And so our "perfection" compared to other mammals (and other animals) comes directly from the fact that our brain is more advanced then the brain of any other organism. Our ability of thought is actually the key that makes us be the highest level of evolution so far. This is just a logical conlusion:D! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 So far, humans are the highest level in the evolution "tree". Nope, there is no evolution tree (using quotation marks doesn't make it better). At the very best one can envision an evolutionary bush with all extant species on the same level. Based on this the rest of the argument is pretty much moot. I am no expert in this field, but what I remember is an ongoing argument about the nature of consciousness (whether it exists, can be localized to brain areas, is an emergent property or not, the molecular basis and so on), and even more so on trackable markers for the same (e.g. language, tool usage and so forth). Based on this there cannot be any clear-cut, absolute separation of humans from other animals with at least a certain degree of brain complexity.Most argument discussing the "specialness" of human consciousness is based on similar arguments put forth by thedarshade: human cognitive abilities (and by extension, humans in general) are special, hence they are different. General consensus is that mammals apparently have the highest potential for higher levels of consciousness, although there are studies indicating that many birds also display behavior usually associated with cognitive behaviour (e.g. see Butler AB, Cotterill RM. 2006 Mammalian and avian neuroanatomy and the question of consciousness in birds. Biol.Bullet.). In the end however, there is not easy measurable marker (or even definition) that can be used to quantify consciousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedarkshade Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 All the organisms do not belong to the same level. The must be some qualification, and maybe tree is not the right word that's why I put it in quotations marks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 The "evolutionary tree" would be the same type of graph as a "family tree". And, of course, no one is saying the tree is finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedarkshade Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 The "evolutionary tree" would be the same type of graph as a "family tree". And, of course, no one is saying the tree is finished. And whose at the top of the tree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realitycheck Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Every organism has a purpose, even if it is merely existence. Some of them have no choice in the matter in what they do, such as an amoeba, and some of them are left to their own devices to figure out the best way to do anything, like a wolf. Would this define consciousness? A caterpillar sifting through dirt for food. Would this be considered consciousness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dru4 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 i would have to dissagree with the notion that we are the most evolutionarily advanced creatures on the planet. Despite all of our intelligence and distinctly human characteristics, such as leadership and concious thought, we still cannot get along with the planet. If we are so evolved, why do we have to manipulate our world to accomidate us? Even thousands of years ago, the ancient civilizations used the same principles of habitation and use of resources that we do today. It seems counterintuitive that the further humans evolve, the more of a struggle it is to live peacefully with the planet that created us. Maybe evolution is a disorder, instead of an advantage. Are humans today really better off because we have "evolved above" other animals? On a side note, Foodchain, i definitely see your point. I've recently been pondering the same question. For example, i always used to assume that when my cat looked at me, it was just a blank stare. After all, she's just an animal. There can't be anything of any substance going on in her head. But the reality is probably more human than anyone thought. She probably has the same thoughts that i do when i look at her. "Damn, my human is retarded sometimes." or "aww, my human looks so cute." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 If concious action to "get along with the planet" is your rule for determining the most evolutionarily advanced race, you'd have to eliminate every single race on the planet except for humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 And whose at the top of the tree? I'm not quite sure, but it's however life started 3.x Billion years ago. People always draw these tress upside down, for some reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dru4 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 If concious action to "get along with the planet" is your rule for determining the most evolutionarily advanced race, you'd have to eliminate every single race on the planet except for humans. I think im trying to say that conciousness shouldn't be considered an evolutionary trait. Sorry for the confusion there. I just realized i had completely missed the topic at hand. But as long as we're here... The purpose of evolution is that each evolved trait is supposed to benefit the species. How has attaining conciousness and self-awareness benefitted us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foodchain Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 Every organism has a purpose, even if it is merely existence. Some of them have no choice in the matter in what they do, such as an amoeba, and some of them are left to their own devices to figure out the best way to do anything, like a wolf. Would this define consciousness? A caterpillar sifting through dirt for food. Would this be considered consciousness? That’s what I was trying to get at I guess, its a broad topic:D When a human uses vision, is there any real difference between that and any other organism using its physiology or what not? I mean I don’t know of any defining answer as to what is human nature, which I think is funny because if you cant reduce that you wont ever be able to answer for nurture I think. Therefore in the absence of understanding on human nature I don’t really think you can speak to any great detail on human behavior, simply because you cant really account for it as it would relate to anything human. So to me that means somewhat metaphorically that we live in the dark along with nuclear weapons:eek: If you read papers on say anything neuron related from damage to the use of drugs for various reasons I think its easy to see the physical element of human life in regards to behavior and or will if you will. With that being said the amount of understanding that can probably exist on such a topic, from a population, culture, community or even down to an individual is probably just so damn massive. I think this becomes worse because I do think that evolution fully applies to trying to be able to explain human nature/nurture. Therefore you have some sort of a "telescoping" of a topic in which you ultimately have to investigate because of that physical part of life. For instance fatality related to vehicles every year in America claims a large amount of lives, this means loved ones and family members. What is the dynamic in American culture that accepts this overall? I mean is that more of a human nature question, human nurture question or really some mesh of both? So then without being able to account for either of those in explanation what is the explanation built on? I just find such lack of understanding to be scary is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now