Offensive Squid

Post edited 9:53 pm – August 21, 2010 by twnf

---

I thought this discussion deserved its own topic. 

Here's my idea. It's new to me so it may be full of holes but what better place to get thoughtful feedback?

Post edited 9:39 pm – August 21, 2010 by keanani

---

In relation to the impending discussion of "the purpose of consciousness", I am reminded of discussions in my college days regarding the term "sentient being".  This was applied to life forms such as a "whale" , as perhaps one argument against the practice of whaling.  Monsieur googlay found this to help me articulate the aspects of this in relation to "consciousness".

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1913113

(Pertinent parts quoted from the above linked article below that I recall having learned of years ago; emphasis added)

Sentient Being

To arrive at an understanding of the term "sentient beings" you first need to separately understand each term "sentient" and "being." Because the words constitute abstractions or conceptual terms, you need to understand both fundamentals and differing ways the terms have had application.

Being

In context of the sentient being concept "beingness" involves living organisms: while inanimate objects do have a state of "beingness." In this context such objects do not qualify as "a being."

Sentient

Generally, the concept of sentience involves some form of physiological state of existence or some sort of capacity for thinking and/or feeling.

Tibet states that anything that breathes has mind and anything possessing mind has sentience.

Another criterion that philosophical and religious perspectives have applied to the determination of sentient being is the organism's capacity to experience suffering.

 

In this regard, considering the three methods outlined by twnf, one could possibly make the difference between flora and fauna as unconscious and conscious, respectively in a first whittling away of what possesses a conscious.  Taking away any religious and spiritual beliefs regarding consciousness, and sentient beings, we can surmise (or perhaps just me) that amongst animals, a primate such as a Chimpanzee is more likely to be said to have a conscious rather than a sea star or coral colony.

I hope I am understanding the three methods as I apply them to these two animals.  A mammal and a bird.

Elephants are known to have great memories and do show evidence of "mourning" over the bones of dead elephants, adapting to change in resources (method 3), whereas an Emperor Penguin seemingly follows a set of inherently instinctual behaviours (method 1) that has it traverse miles of Antarctic ice to reach the sea, then after feeding, returns the same way to her awaiting mate and newly hatched chick, but if there is a change in the environment, the penguin does not seem able to negotiate a way or adapt to that change and perishes (method 2).

Post edited 11:48 pm – August 21, 2010 by keanani

---

twnf said:

Keanani, I would say that elephants adapting to changes in resources is an example of method 2. I say this because I do not think that elephants are aware of the products of their own neural computations. I have edited my original post to show that Method 2, conditioned response, requires learning on the part of the individual organism and I think this is what is involved in the elephants' adaptation to changes in resources.

Yes, of course.  I was thinking about how elephants that are losing their territorial range and find themselves encroached upon by humans would thusly, naturally turn to the farms as a source of food, despite the electric fence deterrent and culling of their herd via shooting.  At the same time elephants sometimes allow humans to dig holes in search of water to help them (the elephants) reach the water in the dry, hard earth.

As for method 3 applying to the elephants, I am thinking it has to do with the behaviour that elephants are known to engage in when they go to an "elephant graveyard" and pick up various bones, tusks and pieces of once living elephants and go through what is to "human eyes" a mourning and remembering process that seems to indicate that they are aware of life and death to an extent.

 

An example of Method 3 would be a person who is tempted to have a second piece of cake (an impulse resulting from an unconscious neural computation that he or she has become conscious of) and overrides that impulse because he or she wants to stick to his or her diet. This is a conscious, thoughtful choice that a being without consciousness would not be capable of.

Excellent illustrative example, thank you.

We, homo sapiens, human beings, are both conscious AND are conscious of things; the difference between “conscious being” and “conscious state”.

“Conscious” is synonymous with “aware”.

Our furry companions (other than men, I mean) such as fido, for example, seem to sense or be aware of human emotional states and facial gestures, at least from my own personal experience.  Although I must say male humans can sense moody female humans a mile away…

I am wondering if consciousness goes along with higher intelligence and longer reproductive gestational periods of offspring as well as the necessity for a particular species to have a more meaningful social interaction with others, whether one’s own species or interspecies co-evolutionary pairings.  I am looking at the time and caretaking necessary for primates such as a Bonobo compared to say fish such a shark.

 

Mr. Google found this:

The astounding thing about this is the ability of the brain's sensory processing functions to construct a coherent and consistent internal representation of what that world is like, based on whatever inputs are available. Humans are blind to infrared and ultraviolet light, ultrasound, and all but the most pleasant or obnoxious smells, and yet we feel that the world, as we sense it, is complete. We are not usually aware of the missing pieces. This must be so for all of the animals which are conscious of their sensory inputs, whatever the type or range of the sensory mechanisms.

Are Animals Conscious?

http://www.lloydrice.com/AnimalC.htm

 

As for the Emperor Penguin example, I am recalling that popular movie "March of the Penguins" which showed that they indeed do march along to the sea from their nesting/mating grounds and come back pretty much along the same course without much deviation, for deviation usually means getting lost and inevitable death for the parent or offspring.  But what really illustrated to me this conditioned, learned response was the fact that the penguins could not "think and adapt" to a changing circumstance that led to their death.  The poor penguins of course could not foresee the climate change affecting their environment and this led to obstacles in their direct unstraying path.  So it was shown on this movie how some penguins could not pass a hole or crevasse on their path and they either stopped at the edge, unable to go left or right to find another way through, or they tried to jump the gap but inevitably landed at the bottom along with others obviously trapped or dead down below.  The penguins at the top, even with the apparent visual of penguins trapped or dead below still continued forward into the gap.

 

Somewhat lemming-like in that regard…

twnf:  A rodent is aware of its surroundings and can gain personal knowledge
(i.e. it can learn things). In choosing appropriate responses to
circumstances a rodent makes a neural computation involving its
instinctive imperatives and its individual learning but it is not aware
of the results of this neural processing and so is not conscious in
sense that I am using the word.

When I was in college, I had a rat friend, that I had squirreled away from the Cancer Research Lab where I was working…I always wondered whether Puff understood me when I called her name (recognition), or she just smelled me as I entered my bedroom coming home from school.  But the routine was the same pretty much everyday and on cue.  She would emerge form her dark hidey hole kleenix box, jump up the glass side of the aquarium and hang there until I put my arm near so she could scramble up and then she would traverse along to my shoulder, oftentimes playing with my ear.  She never defecated on me.  Apparently, she was conditioned, and learned to do these behaviours based upon my responses.

 

I think the issue of "suffering" can get in the way of seeing this as a simple manifestation of pain (physiological response and process) rather than a "fear of pain, awareness of pain" that may lead one to think the animal has a conscious. (At the end of my yearlong Cancer related experiment, I had to put a whole bunch of rats that I took care of everyday, to sleep, but not death, and then had to assist in "living autopsies", and as you could imagine, some of the rats were not out, but contorted in apparent pain in response to the cutting and organ removal; suffice to say that I was able to get this awful job done,but afterwards I cried and that was it with animal experimental research for me)

Summary of the stimulus/response process of the 3 methods:

1) stimulus –> response

Puff hears/smells me –> rushes out of kleenix box & jumps the aquarium

2) stimulus –> neural processing –> response

Puff hears/smells me –> brain processes this association –> rushes out of kleenix box & jumps aquarium

3) stimulus –> neural processing –> reflection –> response

Puff hears/smells me –> brain processes this association –>no reflection? –> rushes out of kleenix box & jumps aquarium

The "reflection" stage is made possible by consciousness. The organism is aware of the output of its own neural processing.

I am thinking the reward of Puff going through the conditioned, learned responses was to get out of the aquarium, but also to interact with me to an extent, as well as the fact I sometimes had a eat treat for her.  I did notice of course, as someone who had an array of non-human creatures since wee one days, up to that point, that Puff the Rat tended to do her own thing and was not acting like Ben the Rat who seemed to be "aware" in that weird rodent movie.

twnf said:

keanani: Apparently, she was conditioned, and learned to do these behaviours based upon my responses.

Often conditioning like this is mutual. Just as Puff was conditioned by your responses so too were you by her behaviors. Interaction of sentient beings is usually a two way street with both parties being conditioned by (learning to relate to each other) by each other.

---

I am certain that I was the one being conditioned.  As I recall it, I took my cues from what she did and decided what I thought she was doing and wanting.  Thanks twnf, I am sorry you have to read my rat tales in the consciousness thread that is hopefully, going to be about the purpose thereof.  I appreciate your patience in being a bit of the teacher as I attempt to do my version of remedial study in order to participate.   Gee, I hope those more versed in this very interesting topic will come and join in, at least those smarter than me so twnf can have a more intellectually stimulating conversation beyond cutesy rodent experiences being applied to the basics of what consciousness is and means. (I am laughing at myself).

 

Anytime anyone has a non-human companion, it is quite possible to see, or view, this life form as something more than just an animal.  The attachment of human emotions and feelings to other life forms, especially those of the mammalian persuasion is of course, as you are aware, easy to do.  Oftentimes I would wonder what they are thinking, whether rat, cat, dog, rabbit or mouse.  Yes, I had them all at one point and time in my life as well as an assortment of bugs(mantids, walking sticks, beetles, ants, caterpillars, butterfly), fish(freshH2O, saltH2O), reptiles(turtle, lizard, snake), birds(chicken, duck, lost baby birds) and amphibians(tadpoles, frog, salamander).

 

What I do wonder about is the fact that animals do things of their own volition, not a learned behavior, but an action or behavior that is something of which they come up with by them self that must be motivated by instinct, or just some inherent behavioral mode of which they perform but in relation to one not of their species.

I will give you my last Puff example.  By the way, Puff was an albino rat, and as such she had those Jukka fresh red blood colored eyes.   It is a bit goofy and perhaps lame, but what the heck, that is my way.

 

I kept Puff's aquarium home clean, with fresh food and water everyday.  Scooped her tiny poops everyday.  So all in all she was quite clean by rodenty pet standards.  Anyway, she liked to be out at night, that is when rats are most active, so I would let her run about on my desk while I studied as well as on my bed while I read.  She would go under the covers and scootch back and forth under the covers, apparently liking the dark.  But I noticed that she would sometimes all of a sudden go for the underwear and yank on them.  Good thing she was a female rat.  But I thought that was funny she did that when she could not have possibly known, at least to me, that the panty was not part of my body or my human skin.  I notice dogs do that too.  They will grab the dress hem or pants leg and yank on it as if to get your attention, as if it is part of our fur, to them.  But right after Puff did a couple of hard yanks on the underwear, she would then run away.  Then she would run back up on me and yank again, then run away.

 

So the point of my revealing this Puff-panty-pulling experience is that I wondered why she chose to do this behavior.  I interpreted this rodent behavior as her way of being playful.  Hence the belief in the sentience of beings and the questioning of more than that.