Philosophical Question: Do animals have a state of consciousness?

[Cruentus]

This could almost go in the philosophy/spirituality section; but I think that there is enough practical application and study that could go into this topic to place it here.

But, the question is, are animals conscious? And if so, how should we view them, and treat them?

This question comes about with my hobby study of dogs. Ethologist Vilmos Csa'nyi from Eotvos Lora'nd University in Budapest has done the most extensive work on dog behavior observation that we have to date. They believe that dogs are self-conscious creatures, and on a higher order of consciousness then other mammals or animals. In other words, like humans, they have an ego/unconscious, they have an understanding of the self, and they can experience emotions that we experience (depression, anxiety, etc.). Although they aren't conscious in the same way as we are as human beings, they have a level of consciousness that supersedes what we once thought. They compare the consciousness of a dog to that of a 4 year old child.

IF this conjecture is true, what this means is that when we do something cruel to a dog, we are doing something to not just a living being, but a conscious being who has the ability to feel and think no different then a 4 year old human child.

But this begs the question: what level of consciousness are other creatures at? Well, it is believed that dolphins and apes are also at a higher order of consciousness; although Csa'nyi would say that dogs are higher. But what about cows? What about birds? How about creatures that we consume? Why is it O.K. to consume a bird and not a dog? A dog and not an ape. An ape and not a human? What makes it O.K., and where is the line drawn. [I am a meat eater, but don't worry, I don't consume humans, apes, or dogs for that matter. But it is an interesting question]

How do we draw the line with consciousness? Alan Watts, who is noted for helping to bring Buddhism to the west, has hypothesized that we don't know where to draw the line. He states [paraphrase] that it is likely that potatoes are conscious; but we cannot perceive how they would be conscious, so we don't think that they are. But they could be conscious all the same, with feelings and experiences that are so different in perception that we cannot put ourselves in the "shoes" of a potato. But does that mean that the potato doesn't feel pain when we chop it up, or doesn't feel loss when it is removed from the ground?

Some are a bit more Epicurean in their beliefs, and believe that consciousness doesn't really matter because everything is material. Back to dogs, Stanley Coren (Psychologist, dog behaviorist) believes that dog intelligence is simply years of conditioned responses transferred genetically. Dogs seem to understand, and seem to show emotion or have emotion simply because it allows them to get what they want/need from us humans. He maintains that we can't assert the consciousness of dogs as anything more then a series of adaptive behaviors.

But if everything is a series of material, adaptive behaviors for all animals, then how are we any different then animals? Is our "consciousness" merely the way in which we have genetically evolved in order for us to adapt and survive? Do we only obey the rules of society because it leads to self-preservation? Do we only kill and eat other animals because we can, because we are the more powerful being? What if another being was more powerful then us... should we then fall on the lower order of the food chain to that being? If consciousness is merely a material adaptation, then why treat lower orders humanely...or why should a higher order treat us humanely?

There are a lot of open ended questions to think about here. But the crux of it is, how do we separate ourselves from animals or plants? Can we? And if other animals are conscious, then how do we justify our treatment of them? How do we justify our consuming of them? Should we treat all living creatures, including the potato, as we would a human? Or is there a heirarchy, and a place where we draw the line?

Thoughts?

Paul

 

[MSUTKD]

A monk once asked master Chao-chou, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?"
Chao-chou said, "Mu"

 

[Cruentus]

A monk once asked master Chao-chou, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?"
Chao-chou said, "Mu"

So, his answer was "wood?"

 

[Kacey]

Well, to start with, I'm going to define a couple of terms that I think are relevant to this discussion - that is, the difference between sapience and consciousness. I do believe that dogs - and other higher mammals - are conscious at some level; that is, they are aware of their surroundings, their actions are governed by an awareness of choice at some level, rather than responding solely to programmed instincts.

Sapience, on the other hand, involves the ability to plan for the future. Here, I'm going to borrow heavily from a definition given in a fiction novel, The Fuzzy Papers, by H. Beam Piper (omissions relate to the topic of the novel, not the concept):

...sapience may be defined as differing from nonsapience in that it is characterized by conscious thought, by the ability to think in logical sequence and by ability to think in terms other than mere sense data... If we depict sapient mentation as an iceberg, we might depict nonsapient mentation as the sunlight reflected from its surface... there are occasional flashes of what must be conscious mental activity, in dealing with some novel situation... the introduction of novelty because of drastic environmental changes may have forced nonsapient beings into more or less sustained conscious thinking and so initiated mental habits which, in time, gave rise to true sapience.
The sapient mind not only thinks consciously by habit, but it thinks in connected sequence. It associates one thing with another. It reasons logically, and forms conclusions, and uses those conclusions as premises from which to arrive at further conclusions. It groups associations together, and generalizes... The sapient mind deals exclusively in crude sensory material. The sapient mind translates sense impressions into ideas, and then forms ideas of ideas, in ascending orders of abstraction, almost without limit.
This, finally, brings us to one of the recognized overt manifestations fo sapience. The sapient being is a symbol user. The nonsapient being cannot symbolize, because the nonsapient mind is incapable of concepts beyond mere sense images...
The sapient being can imagine....He can not only imagine, but he can also create.

Dogs, like other higher mammals, most notably apes, can do some of those things - they can learn, respond to novel situations, some can use tools, some can learn symbols - dogs learn the meanings of words, apes learn sign language (and some have then taught it to their offspring), etc. - but to the best of my knowledge, none of these animals have created their own symbol system.

Also like people, higher mammals can be driven insane if their environment is sufficiently inconsistent.

Does any of this excuse violence toward animals? I don't believe it does. Mahatma Ghandi stated ""The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." and I agree - it is much easier to excuse violence or mistreatment toward animals because they are animals - only a moral person will extend ethical treatment to animals as well as people simply because it is the right thing to do. There is the argument for animal testing in the name of the nebulous "greater good" - and no doubt some of it really is - but animal testing, when necessary, can still be carried out in a moral and humane manner - but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[Cruentus]

Interesting and well thought out idea's, Kacey.

They bring about a few questions for discussion as well.

Animals, as far as we know, don't have their own symbol system, at least not as highly developed as humans (We can talk about the sounds of dolphins and the posture and sounds of dogs as symbol systems, but these are not as developed as a number system or alphabet). But, this points to intelligence. Does it point to "consciousness?" The ability to recognize the self, and think and feel?

Sapience as well may in fact point towards intelligence rather then consciousness.

Or are they one in the same? Are they interconnected but seperate? Or are they completely mutually exclusive?

 

[Kacey]

Interesting and well thought out idea's, Kacey.

They bring about a few questions for discussion as well.

Animals, as far as we know, don't have their own symbol system, at least not as highly developed as humans (We can talk about the sounds of dolphins and the posture and sounds of dogs as symbol systems, but these are not as developed as a number system or alphabet). But, this points to intelligence. Does it point to "consciousness?" The ability to recognize the self, and think and feel?

Are they really symbols? For dolphins, they may well be - sounds that represent objects or actions are, in my opinion, symbols, at least at a concrete level, and the jury is still out on whether dolphins use those sounds to convey past events - if they do, then certainly, I would vote for them being true symbols; for dogs, the postures and sounds are more primitive/instinctive, and serve as communication of things happening now - on the way to symbology, perhaps, but do dogs always give the same bark because the barks have meaning, or because that's the way their vocal cords are set up? Or do we consider the dances of bees to be symbology because they convey information about where the bee found nectar to other bees?

Sapience as well may in fact point towards intelligence rather then consciousness.

Possibly... although can you be truly sapient if you have no consciousness, in the meaning of self-awareness?

Or are they one in the same? Are they interconnected but seperate? Or are they completely mutually exclusive?

This is, indeed, the crux of the question - how do you separate those concepts out to assess them? Unless humanity finds other species that are demonstrably on the boundary to sapience, and watches them cross that boundary, there is no ethical experiment I can think of that would determine the difference. How much of sapience is learned behavior? How much genetic? The studies of "wolf-children", raised by animals for a variety of reasons, who cannot learn to speak (or, at least, speak well) bring up some interesting questions as well - as do studies of children who are deprived of attention and affection as infants, and their later behavior.

 

[heretic888]

But, the question is, are animals conscious?

It depends on what you mean by "conscious". All subjects possess some degree of consciousness, but it's a sliding scale.

This question comes about with my hobby study of dogs. Ethologist Vilmos Csa'nyi from Eotvos Lora'nd University in Budapest has done the most extensive work on dog behavior observation that we have to date. They believe that dogs are self-conscious creatures, and on a higher order of consciousness then other mammals or animals.

Uhhh... I could believe that, if you exclude primates and porpoises. They are both more "intelligent" and more "conscious" than canines.

In other words, like humans, they have an ego/unconscious, they have an understanding of the self, and they can experience emotions that we experience (depression, anxiety, etc.).

My reponse? No, no, and somewhat.

Although they aren't conscious in the same way as we are as human beings, they have a level of consciousness that supersedes what we once thought. They compare the consciousness of a dog to that of a 4 year old child.

A 4 year old child with Down Syndrome, perhaps.

This is really getting ridiculous. Most 4 year olds are well into Piaget's cognitive stage of pre-operational thought or representational thinking. That means they are fully capable of comprehending signals and symbols, including language. As intelligent as dogs are, there is nothing to indicate they possess symbolic thinking.

But this begs the question: what level of consciousness are other creatures at?

The neurological complexity of the animal is a good indication of the cognitive abilities. Specific psychological functions are linked to specific areas of the brain.

How do we draw the line with consciousness?

The line is arbitrary. It comes down to a personal moral choice you have to make for yourself.

Alan Watts, who is noted for helping to bring Buddhism to the west, has hypothesized that we don't know where to draw the line. He states [paraphrase] that it is likely that potatoes are conscious; but we cannot perceive how they would be conscious, so we don't think that they are. But they could be conscious all the same, with feelings and experiences that are so different in perception that we cannot put ourselves in the "shoes" of a potato. But does that mean that the potato doesn't feel pain when we chop it up, or doesn't feel loss when it is removed from the ground?

Potatoes don't have a nervous system, and therefore don't "feel" anything.

I do agree they have some degree of consciousness or subjectivity, but the same can be said of virtually anything.

Some are a bit more Epicurean in their beliefs, and believe that consciousness doesn't really matter because everything is material.

I should point out that most of the people that believe this don't have a very sophisticated understanding of human cognition or ego development. It is based very strongly on the information-processing school of cognitive psychology, which sees the human mind as simply a "mirror of the world" (i.e., informational representations of the external world).

This is a very limited conception of psychology and cannot at all explain the qualitative shifts we see throughout lifespan development (which continues well past adolescence).

Back to dogs, Stanley Coren (Psychologist, dog behaviorist) believes that dog intelligence is simply years of conditioned responses transferred genetically. Dogs seem to understand, and seem to show emotion or have emotion simply because it allows them to get what they want/need from us humans. He maintains that we can't assert the consciousness of dogs as anything more then a series of adaptive behaviors.

That seems more plausible than the "4 year old hypothesis".

But if everything is a series of material, adaptive behaviors for all animals, then how are we any different then animals?

We're not, really. Anthropocentrism aside, there were trends for increasing cephalization, developmental plasticity, and socialization for the past 300 million years of evolutionary history among mammals. The idea that human being are a "special" species in this regard is a religious myth.

Metaphorically speaking, nature saw a species like us emerging from miles away.

Is our "consciousness" merely the way in which we have genetically evolved in order for us to adapt and survive? Do we only obey the rules of society because it leads to self-preservation? Do we only kill and eat other animals because we can, because we are the more powerful being? What if another being was more powerful then us... should we then fall on the lower order of the food chain to that being? If consciousness is merely a material adaptation, then why treat lower orders humanely...or why should a higher order treat us humanely?

I don't really buy into evolutionary psychology myself. *shrugs*

There are a lot of open ended questions to think about here. But the crux of it is, how do we separate ourselves from animals or plants? Can we? And if other animals are conscious, then how do we justify our treatment of them? How do we justify our consuming of them? Should we treat all living creatures, including the potato, as we would a human? Or is there a heirarchy, and a place where we draw the line?

Well, within a given developmental domain there is a hierarchy. So, its really more correct to say there are several hierarchies, and humans aren't necessarily at the top of all of them.

To answer your question, I believe this is similar to the abortion debate. It is a personal moral decision that you have to make for yourself.

Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

Interesting thoughts. I agree that this is going to be a personal philosophical stance, so I am not looking for a "right" answer here; just different takes.

Heretic, it sounds like your idea's regarding animals would side more with Cohen's. The dept. of Ethology @ University of Eotvos Lora'nd would disagree with you on a couple of things, however. They believe that domestic dogs are both more intelligent and conscious then primates and porpoises because they are able to follow social rules and use and understand emotion for communication, in ways that superceed the need for violence to solve problems. Both primates and porpoises primarily use violence to solve their problems among each other, and cannot problem solve as part of a human team. Dogs can. Through studies, dogs have not only exhibited social skills, but high levels of problem solving abilities and communication abilities, including knowledge of 100's of words in context. These skills, they believe, are comparitive to that of a 4 year old child. The capacity for language (speaking, writing, grammer, syntax) is the only thing missing.

But that is just their take. There are those who disagree. You can read any multitude of published works by Vilmos Csa'nyi if you are interested in that perspective.

 

[heretic888]

Interesting thoughts. I agree that this is going to be a personal philosophical stance, so I am not looking for a "right" answer here; just different takes.

Heretic, it sounds like your idea's regarding animals would side more with Cohen's. The dept. of Ethology @ University of Eotvos Lora'nd would disagree with you on a couple of things, however. They believe that domestic dogs are both more intelligent and conscious then primates and porpoises because they are able to follow social rules and use and understand emotion for communication, in ways that superceed the need for violence to solve problems. Both primates and porpoises primarily use violence to solve their problems among each other, and cannot problem solve as part of a human team. Dogs can. Through studies, dogs have not only exhibited social skills, but high levels of problem solving abilities and communication abilities, including knowledge of 100's of words in context. These skills, they believe, are comparitive to that of a 4 year old child. The capacity for language (speaking, writing, grammer, syntax) is the only thing missing.

But that is just their take. There are those who disagree. You can read any multitude of published works by Vilmos Csa'nyi if you are interested in that perspective.

Without having read these studies for myself, I am initially inclined to believe that much of what these researchers are speaking of comes from behaviorist principles of contiguity and reinforcement. The very fact that canines lack symbolic capacity (which cannot be reduced to behaviorism) is testament to this.

Furthermore, it is a bit self-contradictory, in my opinion, to claim on the one hand a species has "social rules" but on the other hand does not have the capacity for "language". It seems therefore much more probable that these so-called "social rules" are either inherited instinctual reponses and/or reinforced behavioral responses.

That being said, I would be curious as to the methodology used to study these animals. Were they naturalistic observations?? Laboratory experiments?? Were these wild dogs or dogs that had already been raised and trained by human beings??

These are important questons to consider when evaluating such research.

Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

Well, you can read them for yourself if you'd like and make your own assessment. I would recommend flipping through "If Dogs Could Talk" for a good synopsis next time your at the book store.

Most of the basis was from clinical observations of domestic dogs in the university housing environment with human beings. These aren't just dog behaviorists or behavioral psychologists, they are ethologists who generally observe animals in their natural habitat (like Jane Goodall observing primates). The thought behind their observational environment is that the natural environment for a domestic dog is with humans. So, they would assign a dog to members of the faculty, and they would do clinical observations. They found some interesting stuff from that method alone that is very unique to the dog world. They also observed and ran experiments on different sets of domestic dogs to test things like problem solving, language recognition, and memory. Even for those who don't agree with some of their conclusions, most professionals admit that Eotvos Lora'nd University has provided some of the most in depth and comprehensive studies on domestic dogs that we have available to date.

For anyone interested in dog behavior, I suggest checking into Csa'nyi's writings.

 

[Cruentus]

I wanted to renew this thread, because we have kind of gotten a little bit off track here.

Heretic and Kacey each brought up some different, yet interesting points.

Is the idea of "Humans being special a religious myth?" How close is consciousness related to "intelligence" or "sophistication" (developed nervous system, etc.). Is the playing field "the same" for all living beings?

And if so, how do we justify our behavior towards other living things? I am not just talking about what would be considered inhumane either; how about normal behaviors like hunting or growing and killing another living thing for food?