Assuming that all humans have a similar type of concious experience (ie. the qualia of the world are represented the same way) due to the fact that all of our brains are essentially the same, would it also then stand to reason that all other animal shtat have similar cognitive structures to ours would also share a similar representation of the world around us?
Sorry for the run on sentance.
That’s a good question. Actually it’s a pretty big debate going on in behavioral science… It always has been, and probably always will be.
So we know that cognition is the ability of an animals nervous system to percieve, store, process and utilize sensory info…
We know this because animals seem to learn, and problem solve: i.e. if food is out of reach, chimpanzies will stack objects to reach the food.
We also know…because of kinesis and taxis…that if an animal is not happy or functioning well in their envioronment…there will be a change in activity or turning rate (speed) in response to the stimulus…and that the animal will move toward or away from the stimulus…
so this shows us that they must have some sort of knowledge of the world around us, I think. I don’t know how they veiw the wolrd …but it’s obvious that they are intelligent beings experiencing something
Scientifically, there is really no way to answer whether or not nonhuman animals are consciously aware of themselves and their surroundings…
I don’t see why they wouldn’t though…who knows, I need to take more behavioral ecology or something I guess.
Information can be translated in binary. Just like in the Matrix movie, but far more complexer. Life in more primitive form has also a more primitive experience. And this goes down to a receptor which connects or not.
Weren’t there various realms of consciouness. Or is that a just theory?
For a brilliant and comprehensive look at consciousness, try “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” by Julian Jaynes. I read this a few years ago and am currently rereading this…his work on the so-called evolution of consciousness within the human being is amazing.
I find his arguments compelling and have devoted a lot of time to considering the consequences of his work…you never get it right when you do this, but I will answer to the best of my ability as I think he would approve.
From the beginning, it’s a mistake to assume that all humans have a similar conscious experience. Perhaps ‘most’ people have a similar conscious experience, but how do you account for children, who are carrying around incomplete tools? How do you account for epileptics who, as it seems, suffer from neurochemical malfunction? How do they experience the world? How do you account for schizophrenia, in which the brain malfunctions in such a way that the afflicted hallucinate images and voices?
The best you can do is say there is a generally-accepted range of normal conscious experience. But even then, how do you quantify this? Who qualifies? Who doesn’t?
And just what is consciousness, in the end? Are you expressing your active consciousness by reading this post? Exactly which part of the present would you call consciousness? Your eyes moving back and forth? Your brain putting these letters into words and sentences then, dare I assume, meaning? Are you conscious of your breathing or the feeling of the seat under your ass? Exactly what is consciousness and how do you define what you’re conscious of at any given moment?
Take the example of a pianist (which Jaynes cites in chapter 1) playing a piano concerto. Is he conscious of his playing? What happens if he tries to become consciously aware of pressing each of his fingers on the piano keys? How long do you think he’ll go before fumbling with his concerto? Perhaps the most talented concert pianists aren’t even conscious of their playing, they’re so enraptured in some higher pleasure…
You can see the beginning of the problem.
It might be argued that the higher mammals (chimps, gorillas, orang’s, babboons) have cognitive structures similar to our own and, indeed, many of these animals have adapted to language forms introduced by scientists and animal experimenters (for lack of a better word). These animals can clearly learn, but is the ability to learn equivalent to consciousness? The answer is clearly ‘no’. Rats and mice can be taught to go this way or this, to press this lever or go through that door, but no one is arguing that rats and mice are fully conscious of their surroundings. Aware, yes; conscious, no.
Awareness is a precondition for consciousness, not the end of the road. I believe Jaynes would argue (and I agree) that consciousness is unique to human beings and, even among humans, a recent development dating back only about 3000 years.
I strongly urge anyone interested in consciousness to read Jaynes’ book. It will change the way you think.
Now, as for the question of how we experience the world and whether other animals experience it similarly…hell, I can’t even get my girlfriend to see my point of view sometimes. What makes you think your dog sees the world the way you do???
but what animals have the same cognitive structures?
bgauze. it may be a mistake to assume what i assumed. because it can easily be argued that it isnt true. i dont even bother reading alot of the skepticism threads because i know they are impossible to argue against.
rex_b. Chimps.
The same I think not. Maybe similar but not the same.
1.Humans have the same cognitive structures?
2. Humans have the same kind of consciouness?
Awareness is not consciousness. Awareness is only a reception device for sensory data. If you see something happening, you are aware of it. If you feel a snake slithering over your toes, you’re aware of it. Dogs can be aware of a snake slithering over their paws, but are they conscious?
When you are aware of your awareness, then you are conscious. This is an internal analog to perceptive awareness…internal to your brain and something only human beings have shown evidence of. But what is this? It’s awareness of a concept, i.e. your perceptual awareness. A concept is an ephemeral nothingness…but it is real and we can share it through language. It is language which is the key to all of this.
Again, I return to Jaynes’ writings on this matter. Language is a precondition of consciousness. Given what we know from science and history, only human beings are now or have ever been conscious.
Aside from two facts (that many individual chimpanzees have learned sign language and that chimps and humans have 99% similar DNA structures), I don’t know much about the relevance of chimps to an understanding of consciousness. They seem to be the animal outside humanity that is most like us, but where does that get you when you realize that consciousness needs language and its attendant conceptual crafting?
intuitions without concepts…
Isn’t awareness not a lower level of consciousness? Isn’t language a passing through of information? And language is not exclusive for humans.
Consciouness is internal language. You can communicate with yourself, asking yourself questions, and create a wider experience on your surroundings and the world, then with the basic sensory organs.
Makes this representation things simple ?
Tuihu:
Awareness of your awareness is conscious, yes. Simple awareness, however, is not. Simple awareness is really just perception with a different name. If you are watching a cat play with a red ball of yarn, you are aware of the cat and the yarn, and perhaps that the ball is red. The cat is aware of the yarn and (perhaps) that it is red (here I don’t know enough about sensory input in felines to talk further on this). But the distinction is that you are aware of the act of watching the cat. How do you know? Because you can write it down later. You can write “I watched my cat play with a red ball of yarn.”
There is no evidence, however, that the cat can tell another being that he played with a (red) ball of yarn.
It is language which creates consciousness, but specifically, written language. This is the distinguishing characteristic. This is how human beings are able to make notes and refer back, thus creating a space where we can exist outside the present moment. The alternative would be one long stream of Now.
Do cats reminisce? Do they dream? These are more interesting questions.
The cartesian model for consciousness is wrong because it treats consciousness as an object.
Let us assume that someone is “conscious” of their “consciousness”. Essentially what has occurred is that consciousness is treated as an existing object. But if consciousness is an existing object, then to be conscious of such consciousness is to create another existing object----that is, the second order of consciousness.
What is consciousness then?
Consciousness is both everything and nothing—simply put. It is the reservoir for all objects, but it itself is not an object. It contains within itself a “reflective” consciousness and a “positional” consciousness both fused together to make one consciousness. Since it is both reflective and positional all at once, it can be conscious of other objects (such as a dog), and also implicitly aware of itself (which is not an object).
It transcends humans (it’s not “in our heads”). For if it were in our heads, then consciousness would necessarily exist as an object, and we’ve already shown that consciousness cannot exist as an object.
For more info: Read “The Transcendence of the Ego” by Sartre.
Are you asserting that ideas and concepts are not, indeed, objects? What is a perception? Is that an object? Is Democracy an object? This is just misleading and incomplete.
To be aware (perceiving) of your awareness (perception) is to be conscious. This ‘second order of consciousness’, as you call it, is actually the foundation of consciousness…the FIRST order of consciousness. You’re assuming that you can be unconscious of your consciousness. Consciousness unaware of itself is a contradiction.
If I see a dog, I am aware of the dog. This is called awareness or perception.
If a dog sees me, he is aware of me. Also, perception.
But neither of these moments is conscious. To assert otherwise is to say that simple awareness = consciousness, and this just isn’t so.
If, however, I am aware of my awareness of the dog, i.e. I can think about my perception and create concepts based on this precept, then I am in a conscious moment.
Consciousness is many things. It is this awareness of your awareness. It is the mental space in which you think about your perceptions. It is the inner dialogue (i.e. narratization). It is being able to see yourself as an outside observer (and the conceptual awareness of this). It is the ability to excert and reminisce.
Descartes was wrong about a lot of things. But really, if your source for consciousness is someone who died before the industrial revolution or the rise of modern technology, you’ll find yourself with an inadequate understanding of your study. Just my two cents.
I agree with that. So consciouness is a step further as awareness?