Honey not vegan friendly?

[Noaidi]

How about this one:
Consciousness means having a sense of self as something separate from the world around you on a high enough level that you are able to see the 'you' as an independent entity.
That would exclude micro-organisms, insects and most of the "lower" vertebrates, but would include those species who, for instance, can pass the Gallup Mirror Test.

That's a useful definition, but how could we determine its presence in other species?

 

[jarofthoughts]

That's a useful definition, but how could we determine its presence in other species?

One possible way would be the: Mirror test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If we can pinpoint the cognitive responses that are activated during such tests neurologically we might even map these functions in animals who respond poorly to visual stimuli (for instance, dogs, who are more dependent on their sense of smell than on their visual senses generally don't do to well on these tests, but we still have reason to suspect that they might have a sense of self).

 

[Valjean]

We infer it through their behavior and various similarities to ourselves, just as we infer it in other people.

 

[Madhuri]

That is correct.



Indeed it does.
Actively controlling all the little reactions to go into homoeostasis would be a pain in the butt.



Don't take this the wrong way, but how is this different from the robot mentioned above?



Hmmm... Seeing as feelings, as far as we know, are nothing more than electrochemical reactions in our nervous system, and seeing as those feelings mentioned above have evolved to induce a response to the organism's environment, either to obtain nutrients or avoid/remove whatever is damaging the organism, one could say that that definition would also include, say, bacteria, and we could most certainly program a robot to have those reactions.
Like I said, defining consciousness is damn hard...

How about this one:
Consciousness means having a sense of self as something separate from the world around you on a high enough level that you are able to see the 'you' as an independent entity.
That would exclude micro-organisms, insects and most of the "lower" vertebrates, but would include those species who, for instance, can pass the Gallup Mirror Test.

I tend to see self-awareness as having greater intelligence, not consciousness. Do you have to be self-aware to suffer? I don't think so.

The difference, to me, between a robot/machine and a thing with consciousness is that the first has no perceptions whereas the thing with consciousness has some level of individual perception.

Have you ever been in a trance? It can mean having no thoughts, no awareness of your environment, no self-awareness but you are still conscious- even if the only experience is a sight or sound.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I tend to see self-awareness as having greater intelligence, not consciousness. Do you have to be self-aware to suffer? I don't think so.

What is suffering then?
I mean, is it the ability to respond to negative stimuli?
Is it the ability to register pain?

The difference, to me, between a robot/machine and a thing with consciousness is that the first has no perceptions whereas the thing with consciousness has some level of individual perception.

What do you mean by 'individual perception'?

Have you ever been in a trance? It can mean having no thoughts, no awareness of your environment, no self-awareness but you are still conscious- even if the only experience is a sight or sound.

Yes, I have, and considering that it is indeed possible to wake people from trances, I don't think having no awareness of your environment is an accurate description. I would rather describe it as being semi-conscious.

 

[Storm]

Consciousness means having a sense of self as something separate from the world around you on a high enough level that you are able to see the 'you' as an independent entity.
That would exclude micro-organisms, insects and most of the "lower" vertebrates, but would include those species who, for instance, can pass the Gallup Mirror Test.

That's sapience.

 

[Valjean]

sentience

 

[Storm]

No, sapience. They're often confused. From the Wiki:
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences. Eighteenth century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think ("reason") from the ability to feel ("sentience"). In modern western philosophy, sentience is the ability to have sensations or experiences (described by some thinkers as "qualia"). For Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, which entails certain rights. In science fiction, non-human characters described as "sentient" typically have similar abilities, qualities and rights as human beings.

Sapience
Not to be confused with sentience.
Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment, a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties. Robert Sternberg[21] has segregated the capacity for judgment from the general qualifiers for intelligence, which is closer to cognizant aptitude than to wisdom. Displaying sound judgment in a complex, dynamic environment is a hallmark of wisdom.
The word sapience is derived from the Latin word sapientia, meaning wisdom.[22] Related to this word is the Latin verb sapere, which means "to taste, to be wise, to know"; the present participle of sapere forms part of Homo sapiens, the Latin binomial nomenclature created by Carolus Linnaeus to describe the human species. Linnaeus had originally given humans the species name of diurnus, meaning man of the day. But he later decided that the dominating feature of humans was wisdom, hence application of the name sapiens. His chosen biological name was intended to emphasize man's uniqueness and separation from the rest of the animal kingdom.
In fantasy fiction and science fiction, sapience describes an essential human property that bestows "personhood" onto a non-human. It indicates that a computer, alien, mythical creature or other object will be treated as a completely human character, with similar rights, capabilities and desires as any other human character. The words "sentience", "self-awareness" and "consciousness" are used in similar ways in science fiction.

 

[Valjean]

sentience is like consciousness or awareness.
Sapience is more like intelligence.

I was thinking "having a sense of self" was more consciousness than intelligence.

 

[Storm]

sentience is like consciousness or awareness.
Sapience is more like intelligence.

I was thinking "having a sense of self" was more consciousness than intelligence.

Ah, I see. I could quibble over that, but I don't see the point.

 

[Koldo]

One possible way would be the: Mirror test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If we can pinpoint the cognitive responses that are activated during such tests neurologically we might even map these functions in animals who respond poorly to visual stimuli (for instance, dogs, who are more dependent on their sense of smell than on their visual senses generally don't do to well on these tests, but we still have reason to suspect that they might have a sense of self).

Although on one hand a positive result in the mirror test can qualify an individual as possessing self-awareness, on the other, failing the test can not determine that a certain living being lacks it. Considering this was your only suggestion i wonder on how you arrived at the conclusion that insects lack consciousness.

 

[Noaidi]

Although on one hand a positive result in the mirror test can qualify an individual as possessing self-awareness, on the other, failing the test can not determine that a certain living being lacks it.

I agree. As JarofThoughts said, although the mirror test is useful for certain species, it has a bias towards visually-oriented animals. Also, most of these tests are performed on a small number of captive animals, providing only a very small data set. From this, there is a tendency to over-generalise when describing the species (not all chimps respond to the dot on the forehead, for example), rather than see it as the results from a few individuals.

Ideally, we should look for any evidence of self-awareness in wild animals, as then we could try and determine the adaptive function of the trait in terms of response to a natural environment.

 

[jarofthoughts]

That's sapience.

Are you sure? :sarcastic
Because that doesn't match the definitions of sapience I've been able to dig up.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Although on one hand a positive result in the mirror test can qualify an individual as possessing self-awareness, on the other, failing the test can not determine that a certain living being lacks it. Considering this was your only suggestion i wonder on how you arrived at the conclusion that insects lack consciousness.

Granted, the test is far from perfect, and perhaps the crux of this is our inability to properly define consciousness. As mentioned earlier, if it is just the ability to respond to outer stimuli, then microbes have consciousness and we could easily program a robot to fulfil those criteria. Also, it would be a definition so wide as to lose all meaning.
I concluded that insects probably lack consciousness (by the definition I provided) because they lack the necessary central nervous system to process the higher cognitive functions necessary for having a sense of 'self'.
We know from several studies that babies, sometimes up to 18 months of age, have problems distinguishing themselves from their surroundings, and undeveloped as their brains may be, it is still far more advanced than that of an insect.

 

[Koldo]

Granted, the test is far from perfect, and perhaps the crux of this is our inability to properly define consciousness. As mentioned earlier, if it is just the ability to respond to outer stimuli, then microbes have consciousness and we could easily program a robot to fulfil those criteria. Also, it would be a definition so wide as to lose all meaning.

I agree.

I concluded that insects probably lack consciousness (by the definition I provided) because they lack the necessary central nervous system to process the higher cognitive functions necessary for having a sense of 'self'.

You forgot to mention one important thing in your posts to make a valid point : a reference that reached the conclusion that higher cognitive functions are required for the sense of 'self', and that a central nervous system is also a must.

We know from several studies that babies, sometimes up to 18 months of age, have problems distinguishing themselves from their surroundings, and undeveloped as their brains may be, it is still far more advanced than that of an insect.

Could you please provide a link to any of those several studies?

 

[Storm]

Are you sure? :sarcastic
Because that doesn't match the definitions of sapience I've been able to dig up.

Yes, I'm sure. Sapience is difficult to define, but once you know what it is, it's easy to recognize a description.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You forgot to mention one important thing in your posts to make a valid point : a reference that reached the conclusion that higher cognitive functions are required for the sense of 'self', and that a central nervous system is also a must.

In order to have a sense of self, i.e. an identity you need higher cognitive functions. If they do not reside in the central nervous system, where do you propose they can be found?

Could you please provide a link to any of those several studies?

Sure.
PEP Web - Thoughts on the Emergence of the Sense of Self, with Particular Emphasis on the Body Self
Acquisition of a Sense of Self and Other
Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development

 

[jarofthoughts]

Yes, I'm sure. Sapience is difficult to define, but once you know what it is, it's easy to recognize a description.

Alright.
Do you have a working definition of consciousness then?

 

[Koldo]

In order to have a sense of self, i.e. an identity you need higher cognitive functions.

And what is it that supports your view?

Sure.
PEP Web - Thoughts on the Emergence of the Sense of Self, with Particular Emphasis on the Body Self
Acquisition of a Sense of Self and Other
Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development

I don't see any link supporting your statement. The first link actually says that it may be impossible to know what is the origin of the consciousness ( considering the means of study we have nowadays ). While the second link is about how babies are unable of thinking on 'others'. And the third link is all about the development of the human consciousness.

None of the links argues that "babies, sometimes up to 18 months of age, have problems distinguishing themselves from their surroundings".

 

[jarofthoughts]

And what is it that supports your view?

For instance the Gallup Mirror test as well as research done on cognitive development in humans.

I don't see any link supporting your statement. The first link actually says that it may be impossible to know what is the origin of the consciousness ( considering the means of study we have nowadays ). While the second link is about how babies are unable of thinking on 'others'. And the third link is all about the development of the human consciousness.

And they relate to the subject at hand, but no matter.
I found an article that is more to the point.
See below.

None of the links argues that "babies, sometimes up to 18 months of age, have problems distinguishing themselves from their surroundings".

See here: Emotional Development - Emotional Development In Infancy And Toddlerhood, Emotions And Early Relationships, Emotional Development During Adolescence, Summary - Emotional Development during Childhood
From the article: "Around eighteen months of age, toddlers develop a more sophisticated sense of self that is marked by self-recognition and the emergence of self-conscious emotions, such as shame, pride, and embarrassment."
This also fits well with the development stages originally proposed by psychologist Jean Piaget whose theories form much of the basis of our understanding of cognitive development.