Marduk

Any thoughts on which scenario is more likely?

I’d be willing to step out on a limb and say B, cats, like most predators, love to play games, especially hunting games.


“My further query to you ,who know about these things, is Descartes' view of animal minds still around at all? “

I suppose with some, like the fundamentalist, who for some bizarre reason are unfamiliar with evolution (humans are a species of primate, duh) or recent behavioral & brain studies.

MzNeko

I remember reading somewhere that it used to be thought that animals did not feel pain - that the noises they made and the struggling they did when damaged were just automatic nerve responses to the fact that their bodies were injured.

I couldn't help thinking "Just what in the hell do you think pain is, ya morons?"

Somehow I don't see a whole lot of difference between me yelping when I hit my thumb with a hammer and a dog yelping when his tail gets stepped on.

As far as animals being conscious, I'll admit I'm going on personal observations here, but I think they are. It is almost certainly different from ours. I doubt my cat stays awake nights worrying about religion, politics, or the state of the world, but according to my friends that cat-sit for me, he does appear to worry and miss me if I go away on vacation. Personally, sometimes I envy him.

As far as souls go - well I'm not entirely convinced that we have them either. I'm still ambivalent about the whole soul/afterlife thing. But I am convinced that if we have them, so do they. But that's just my personal opinion...

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: MzNeko ]

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: MzNeko ]</p>

spin

I think Krishnamurti excluded a range of thoughts from his consideration.

When we play games such as basketball or chess, we are analysing and making decisions in a conscious manner, but we are not constructing the thoughts through language, despite the fact that many of our thoughts have developed due to the use of language and its making available tools for the manipulation of ideas we cannot manipulate through other means.

Krishnamurti decided which route to take his dog, how long to stop, and how to return, probably all without the use of language so he did not consider these thoughts, due to their non-language base. This naturally excludes dogs thinking in this limited sense, because dogs do not have the tool of language to manipulate thoughts. We tend to ignore non-verbal thoughts, unless in strict contexts such as games, as words are easier to use as handles for ideas. (Orwell put forward the notion that if you limited the range of words available a person would be less capable of forming ideas -- including rebellious ones in 1984.) However, the dog shows that it has a non-verbal means of thinking, as a dog can solve problems which don't involve practice, though other animals show more capacity to solve problems (such as humans sometimes).

Having acquired language as the bonobos have makes it easier to point at consciousness.

Bill

Actually, no animal would get beyond state 1 because only humans use symbols. Thus, it is only "motor activity without the use of symbols" that any animal other than humans can clearly qualify for.

At least, this is the thesis developed by Terrence W. Deacon in his book <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=625" target="_blank">The Symbolic Species : The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain</a>.

So long as "consciousness" is defined in terms of the ability to use symbolic thinking, then only humans will (at least, currently) qualify as being "conscious." Of course, this is a conclusion that is mandated by the very definition of the symbol "conscious," which definition is, after all, set by humans.....

== Bill

sullster

After reading Bill's post, I see that by defining consciousness as the use of symbols, then my dog is not conscious. This brings me back to Descartes and his dualisms.
I know from reading many of these postings, that there is very much known about human consciousness and its operations. Yet, on some level it is incomplete for me. Rene Descartes did define the big problem and his ideas shouldn't be relagated to the thoughts of religious soul thinking.

Bill's post seems to bring up that dualism issue between human and animal consciousness. If humans have consciousness, as defined, then animals do not. Thus we are the only conscious species on the planet. Our consciousness must have arose through natural selection in a veritable leap from non-consciousness to consciousness. If our primate anscestors were not conscious, how did we become conscious, if consciousness is so utterly unique to humans?

Descartes', mind and body duality, has been debunked as we realize that the brain creates the illusion of the mind and the brain is very much a part of the body. Yet, the duality of the human mind the animal body, is still going on.

Even in the halls of materialist emperical science, is it still difficult to merge human consciousness with the very animal body of humans? Do we still see a "soul" in the brain? Just wondering.

Corey Hammer

Only outside of science. There is no mind separate from the brain.

Actually, we do. Recent work has shown that certain areas of the brain have higher activities levels when in deep meditation or in the throes of religious ectasy.

Bill

I meant to at least imply that the answer to this question was contained in the book to which I cited: <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=625" target="_blank">The Symbolic Species : The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain</a> by Terrence W. Deacon. Deacon describes a great deal of work with primates in order to categorize exactly what makes humans "different" and to attempt to show the evolutionary pathway(s) that created that "difference." Deacon's thesis is that brain evolution and language development ("symbolic" thinking) "co-evolved" (meaning that, in some way, there was an integrated natural selection for both the physical brain characteristics and their related mental abilities).

Deacon asserts that "symbolic thinking" is a capability that has evolved slowly over time. He would also assert that there must be some sort of positive selection correlation between physical brain structures and the ability to think using symbols. (And, like most human characteristics, there isn't a clear answer for the "nature or nurture" question, as it once again seems to imply that both are necessary for optimal development.)

== Bill

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]</p>

DMB

There was a nice cartoon up on the wall in my son's college the other day.

Two men are watching a dog writing. One man says to the other, "It's a shame he's put so much effort into learning to write; we still can't understand him."

The dog is writing, "Bark...bark...bark...bark..."

emphryio

I think its amazing that people feel animals can't "think".

They move around, they make decisions, what the hell is thinking!

Oh, but that's just instinct, you say? Well then what the hell is "instinct". Can you explain how it works? The phenomenon of instinct is possibly even greater than the phenomenon of thinking.

Personally I don't think instinct exists. I think in some non-understood way, all action of all living animals is based on "thinking". From a just born kangaro(sp) crawling up its mothers stomach to get into her pouch up to Newton.

How I don't know, but it seems much more likely than the mysterious "instinct" taking over in animals.

Morphic resonance is one possible explanation.

John Page

Yes, isn't there a theory that the brain has an internal "reward system" that encourages you to think? If so, this possibly makes us all drug addicts, just self-stimulating our minds to get a buzz. God is the one true drug? Or is Atheism is a more advanced less addictive drug with a much clearer high? Anyway, wasn't it thingy's dog that took him our for a walk?

Cheers.