dk

People are both animal, and something else. We are animals in the sense that our physical bodies obey all the laws of biology, but we are something else in the sense that human consciousness allows people to participate in our own destiny, despite our physical (animal) limitations.

I know that answer isn't what you wanted, but consciousness defies definition.

DBrant

I agree with the idea that consciousness in animals occurs in "degrees." It's simply that humans are conscious to a much higher degree than any other animal. There are probably degrees of consciousness among humans, too.

I think evidence for animal consciousness is best seen when we observe animals in their idle state. For example, suppose I observe the idle behavior of my cat. After a while, he starts to clean himself by licking his fur. Why did he decide to start cleaning now instead of later? Why did he lay down in this spot instead of another? Why did he decide to clean himself at all, if the act of cleaning is basically optional? This leads me to believe that even the cat has trace amounts of the "consciousness" that we humans have in abundance.

Biologically, consciousness is an excellent engine for randomness(and of course, randomness is the engine of evolution). The more "conscious" an animal is, the more random its behavior can be.

So maybe our sense of self-realization (which is what really sets us apart from other species) is simply a side-effect of the randomness of our thought patterns.

Smilin

come on Kally... what's the medical defintion of consciousness? lol

dk

dk: No, legally domestic animals are chattel, so the power people exercise over animals is regulated by law. Human laws don’t sanction animal behavior as good or bad.

Nowhere357: Meanwhile, 'deficient' and 'sufficient' are relative terms. I agree we have more reason and more free will than dogs have. I disagree that this gives us 'dominion' over them. Also, you 'answered' my question "What evidence do you have to support "Animals lack free will and reason?" with assertions, not evidence.
dk: In this context, deficient is merely an adjective that describes one aspect of a much larger puzzle called consciousness. For evidence of consciousness I must first define it, and consciousness defies definition. If you require physical or objective evidence for the concept of deficient consciousness this discussion becomes deficient prattle by any measure. I can only retort, “I think therefore I am” proves consciousness exists, and if that’s not sufficient then in any objective, material or physical sense consciousness simply doesn’t exist, deficient or otherwise.

dk People can certainly act like animals, but in doing so become degenerates.
Nowhere357:: This statement has no meaning. Please stop that.
dk: Ooooh, but it feels so good, why must I stop. My statement felt right, does that indicate meaning, or am I an automaton that needs to be reprogrammed like you, or even destroyed if the transitional states of my consciousness, being propositional attitudes, are determined irreparable. hmmmm That must be a judgment call somebody with a higher state of consciousness makes for me, for reasons inaccessible to me.

dk: I never said animals couldn’t reason, but acted with deficient reason.
Nowhere357: Humans are animals.
Therefore humans have deficient reason?
dk: Ok, then consciousness undoubtedly can’t exist.

Nowhere357: I assume you mean non-human animals have deficient reason.
dk: You can only assume such nonsense if you are consciousness enough to recognize you’re deficient, relatively speaking.

Nowhere357: What is the significance?
dk: Consciousness becomes a significant when people participate in their destiny by a sufficient act of judgment.

Nowhere357: Are you trying to say that because we are smarter than other animals, we have dominion over them?
dk: No, I’m saying people have dominion over animals because they contain sufficient potential to judge rightly. Animals altogether lack the potential to judge rightly even thought they contain consciousness.

Nowhere357: By that logic, if we meet aliens who are smarter than us, you think we should submit to them, that they have dominion over us? I don't understand what you mean.
dk: Logically this statement asserts a criterion lacking in judgment. If an alien life form were superior, then it would be wrong for people to judge them at all because they would exist beyond any possible human potential to judge. Clearly people can only judge matters within our dominion.
dk: The question ponders whether of not wild dogs exist under human dominion. Wild dogs do exist under human dominion because wild dogs can be domesticated.

Nowhere357: Also, here is your original statement: "You can judge yourself to be an animal, but nobody can make you into an animal or a fool." I said this has no meaning. Your 'explanation' above does not even address the statement!
I suspect you think we have a god-given right to dominate animals. Please address this directly.
dk: Well I hope I cleared that up, people become animals by an act of judgment. As animals people become degenerates because they’ve lost the potential to participate in their own destiny.

mike_decock

I think the best way to understand what consciousness really is, is by exploring the "degrees" of consciousness. Humans certainly seem to have a higher degree of this than other animals.

Other animals have consciousness, but I see no distinction in animals between thought and action. This doesn't mean it isn't there, but we simply can't observe thought directly. We can only observe action and infer the degree of thought behind the action.

Humans are capable of what has already been referred to in this thread as "subjective consciousness". This subjective consciousness is what enables us to "see" ourselves in the third person (the analog "I"). Subjective consciousness also enables us to narratize past events (experience) as well as narratizing events into future. This is all very closely tied to language and our ability to use metaphors to examine a problem without requiring action.

I hereby suggest that subjective consciousness is really the ability to solve problems using metaphorical abstractions.

I think that exploring the degrees of consciousness within different humans would be revealing. Some individuals appear to have a greater ability for abstract ththought. I also think that the ability for abstract thought directly correlates to a greater distinction between thought and action.

-Mike...

dk

This is a very interesting comment. It speculates that the basis for the laws that govern organic stuff differ from the laws that govern inorganic stuff. For example one of the great debates on Strong AI hinges on a computers ability to generate random numbers.

Wounded King

Really random numbers?

Nowhere357

DK, I don't like you, as a person. That does not matter to me.

What does matter to me, is that you cannot be reasoned with. You pull every trick in the book to obfuscate your real agenda.

You are now the only person I have ever put on 'ignore'.

To all other posters: anyone interested in how I would answer his questions in the last post, please just restate the questions. I figure no one cares, especially since rebuttal would be simple, but I don't want to seem to be avoiding the questions.

dk

Sorry you feel that way, I have no idea what you're upset about. It doesn't seem to me you're avoiding my questions. I didn't ask any in the last post.