Oops, I accidentally posted the following to only bionet.general. I
meant to post it to both groups. (So for those in bionet.general, here it
is again).
On Thu, 22 May 1997, Eugene Khutoryansky wrote:
>>> On 22 May 1997, Richard Hall wrote:
>> > According to three dictionaries, now buried under piles of exams recently
> > graded, consciousness is essentially the state of awareness of one's
> > surroundings. That can mean many things since animals use numerous sensory
> > systems to monitor their immediate environs. Since butterflies find their
> > flowers and worms find their holes they qualify as conscious. When animals
> > are distracted they become dinner.
>> Running to the dictionaries is the not the way to answer scientific or
> philosophical questions. Our language is inherently biased, and checking
> literal definitions is not going to get us anywhere in debates such
> as these. Under the definition you mentioned, an electric bell would be
> conscious, due to the fact that it is "aware" of whether or not someone
> is signaling for it to ring (which has to do with the bell's surroundings).
> But, of course, that is not what we really
> mean by "conscious". As I stated in my first post, I believe that it is
> inherently impossible to define consciousness (at least for now). It is
> only by being aware of our own consciousness that we come to understand
> what it is.
>> >
> > There are some psychological uses of consciousness that confuse the
> > issue...and then many folks tend to interpert animal behaviors in human
> > terms, doing injustice to the animals by implying human like motives to
> > critters doing what critters simply must do. How could we design
> > experiments to devine the symbolic logic used by voles in their relentless
> > pursuit of tasty worms and grubs? Would worms and voles find a common
> > ground in their love of fresh loose dirt?
> >
>> Saying that we interpret animal behavior in "human terms" is itself
> biased. What I (and others) are saying is that these characteristics are
> not unique to our own species. In other words, they are not "human
> terms", they in fact are "animal terms", which we humans happen to share
> due to the fact that we are animals. What others have done is to assume
> that they apply only to humans, labeled them "human terms", and then
> claimed that it is silly to assume that other animals possess "human
> characteristics".
>> The preceding paragraph does not actually make an argument one way or the
> other. It just points out that the language you use is biased and
> already implies a position simply in its usage. Even though you may not
> realize it, calling these characteristics and terms "human
> characteristics" and "human terms" already presupposes an answer.
>> As far as animals such as worms are concerned, it should be pointed out
> that the differences between humans and rats are infinitesimal when
> compared to the differences between rats and worms. It is a mistake to
> lump worms together with animals like rats, and view humans as somehow
> "separate" from them when discussing consciousness. It is far more
> reasonable to believe that rats are just as conscious as human beings,
> but that worms are not (or that both worms and rats are just as
> conscious as human beings) than it is to believe that rats are somehow
> "less conscious" than humans due to comparisons with worms. (This
> paragraph is not directed at the post I am responding to, it is just a
> comment I felt like making).
>>
