Please read the fine print. If the comment in the last paragraph
(re self-recgnition in mirrors) wass to someone else's post, I
apologize , but in my (earlier) reply to the original question,
I distinguished between the concepts "conscious" and "conscious
OF". I cited studies (some presented at the NY Academy of Sciences
program I referred to) using the mirror paradigm to approach the
question (n.b., APPROACH) of an animal's "consciousness OF SELF".
Don't re-make my man as a straw-man!
re your longer post: we all have such opinions, and as a practical
matter, act on them; but they have absolutely no bearing on the
New York Neuropsychology Group
In <Pine.A184.108.40.2060521173003.13619B-100000 at glibm8.cen.uiuc.edu>
Eugene Khutoryansky <ekhutory at glibm8.cen.uiuc.edu> writes:
>>>>On 21 May 1997, F. Frank LeFever wrote:
>>> > We are animals, and are conscious by definition.
>>>>>> WHAT THE HELL IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN?
n.b.: I (LeFever) did not write "We are animals...(etc.),
but quoted it before my RUDE REPLY.
>>>>I can not answer for the author of this post, but this comment is
>to one which I would make regarding this issue, so here is what I
>mean by it. The answer to whether or not animals are conscious is
>obviously yes because humans are animals. But someone could claim
>this does not imply that all animals are conscious. However, what you
>actually know is only that YOU are conscious. You can not know for
>certain whether or not any other human being is conscious. But we
>that they are. We should be consistent. The evidence that other
>are conscious is of the exact same quality as evidence that other
>beings are conscious. To be consistent you should either believe that
>our own species and other species are both conscious, or that humans
>(other than yourself) and other species are both unconscious. The
>alternative is clearly unacceptable.
>>For those of you who are about to reply by listing all the features
>regarding humans which you think provide evidence of consciousness and
>not exist in other species, please first read the other (somewhat
>post which I just made.
>>Regarding this whole silly mirror thing, it is a mistake to assume
>consciousness necessarily implies the ability to recognize your
>reflection in a mirror. I would agree that a being which recognizes
>reflection in a mirror is probably conscious, but it is incorrect to
>that a being is not conscious because it does not recognize its
>severely mentally retarded human might not recognize his reflection,
>this does not mean that he is not conscious.