Making Really Sure
An internet board of college or high school memes will often feature consistent content about tests and the like. How obsessive they are, how continuous they are, and how endless they are. Seeing as a new animal will achieve consciousness will be tested, its... something to mark a new era of humanhood to an animal... with a test. Specifically, which ones?
This is probably the most famous test in establishing higher consciousness and what we call a qualia. A qualia, in some terms, is the definition of the receiving of consciousness. It's actually hard to define, because unfortunately, it's so innate. It's so normal. It's so... us. And not all animals have it. The lower animals only seek to carry out their life instincts, and what is often unchanging life instruction to achieve homeostasis. The kingdom Cnidaria and Porifera, (basically jellyfish and sponges) both have very loose networks of neuroganglion that can communicate and receive environmental stimuli. But what do they feel? What do they know? It's truly hard because we cannot wrap our minds to the simple level. And as for insects, they, as far as we know, cannot think enough to justify self-awareness. I really won't bother going with the list of all the animals.
Mirrors
So let's skip straight up to mammals. Many of them don't have the ability to comprehend cogito ergo sum. This is why, as you know, animals will attack their reflection. Because what they see is another animal. The benefit lies with those who already know the reflection in the mirror is them. Often when submerged in a pool, a dolphin will 'recognize' itself. The common literature is that dogs don't recognize themselves in a mirror. Which is odd because, (and this will be a totally personal tangent) my dog has never acknowledged his reflection as another dog. Which could imply that he's a brilliant dog. Or that he's a total idiot. (Strong evidence to support the latter). But I'm not convinced this is a good first step. Because there's another batch of animals that don't recognize themselves in a mirror. Human infants! These cute little molds of humanity will not comprehend a reflection. Naturally a response is to wait. But can the same be made for an animal who's had hundreds of thousands of hours and millions of dollars invested in him or her to wait to see if they see themselves in a mirror. Likely not. So then what's another way.
Language
Human language is complex, but the benefit is that equally complex ideas, thoughts and emotions can be conveyed, almost effortlessly. hence why a good poem stanza or a good song lyric hits us like a lawn dart in the heart! This is more multistage, so let's dive in. We teach the animal basic words, phrases, and how to build sentences just like a normal child. After some time, a primary measure of success is the learning of a few thousand words, same as a preschooler, borrowed from the scholastic.com web article, What Child Should Know by Age 4. So then following the principles in the guideline, an animal should be able to relay stories, create sentences up to 5 words in length. And know their alphabet. But this isn't entirely the mark of consciousness.
What we need to do is look for any evidence the animal has a desire to learn about its surroundings. Chimpanzees will learn things at face value and will gladly sign simple facts, but humans strive to go deeper. A child wants to know how a lightbulb works, how things keep going after you push them, where rain comes from. Basically its the inquiries we make that we should look for in a newly treated animal. I'll come back to Alex the parrot. I use this example cautiously, as there are still doubts he was truly the brilliant bird he was, namely regarding the fact he was never indicated to have used 'language', but more a code, as detailed by Steven Wise in Drawing the Line. Still, the animal represented great intelligence most notably marked by the fact it is the only animal in existence (outside humans) to ask a question about itself. Totally unprovoked, uninitiated question. I think this is a two-fold thing. First, it cements the idea he was indeed aware of himself. Secondly, it was unprovoked, meaning that the thought originated with Alex, and not from any other training, treat, or stimuli. Something I want to think about is when the researchers trained other parrots following, but realizing Alex was an exceptional creature. What would happen if a researcher revealed to one of the test subjects, "Yes, I work with you, but I worked with a bird who was more brilliant." Would the parrot be insulted? If, yes then a benefit is the parrot interprets the meaning behind the words and realized they received a verbal cue they are not as great as some parrot that existed before them. Downside, they insulted a parrot. I say that the moment a dog or cat asks, "What am I?" in a research lab will shake the researchers.
Original Creation
I would like to coin the word, autocreationism, meaning within your own abilities you created something. Whether it be an original thought, a description, a full statement that can be given by no one else, but you. A thought I stumbled upon as I write this is the creation of tools. Whether to fend off against an enemy, or make harvesting more efficient, tools, objects that aren't of our own bodies. (Femurs used as weapon clubs by Neanderthals excluded.) This is also a considerably weak component of consciousness as well, considering chimps, elephants, and others use tools. There are painting dogs, chimps, and elephants as well, but I'm not inclined to think they are human tier of consciousness. And yet, humans have been making things our own for millennia. So what satisfying degree of originality would an animal need.
My short answer is a lot. With our ingenuity, we made spears, fire, axes, hoes, agriculture and more. But there's the shortcoming. What could an animal possibly make with hoofs, paws, and a mouth as their main way to effect change in their environment? Do we then need to make a anthropomorphed hand for an animal that already has workable digits. Do they need to be upright and bipedal as well? Some questions don't even need answers to arouse more questions.
Last serious question, what if all the tests are passed. Does that still expose faults that maybe an animal isn't truly conscious? We can apply the same scary reality to humans and probably come to think that a human isn't really conscious, but going through the motions. You can think, Only I would see everything as it is. But is that walking down the street conscious, or is he just walking on his own. That lady at the supermarket, she's going through the motions, but I can't see from her view, therefore she's another shell. A professor can realize a person is 'awake in their class' but can he or she understand what the student sees, their qualia, for instance. It's too tempting to think 'I'm the only one,' and it's scary all the same.
Altogether, an assessment of the ability to recognize oneself, and the ability to be able to create new things, physical and contrived are the essential tests we must place on animals to see the true effects they have. Can they be self aware, recognize the weight of language, and be able to create original thought. And suppose one animal passes. Would that animal then become another agent to test the next animal that may be consciousness? Fun stuff to think about.
It's amazing how even though I can think that my thoughts are original, they may have been thought of by another person before, who never had the chance to jot them down. Where's that from?
Anyways, Happy Thinking!
This is probably the most famous test in establishing higher consciousness and what we call a qualia. A qualia, in some terms, is the definition of the receiving of consciousness. It's actually hard to define, because unfortunately, it's so innate. It's so normal. It's so... us. And not all animals have it. The lower animals only seek to carry out their life instincts, and what is often unchanging life instruction to achieve homeostasis. The kingdom Cnidaria and Porifera, (basically jellyfish and sponges) both have very loose networks of neuroganglion that can communicate and receive environmental stimuli. But what do they feel? What do they know? It's truly hard because we cannot wrap our minds to the simple level. And as for insects, they, as far as we know, cannot think enough to justify self-awareness. I really won't bother going with the list of all the animals.
Mirrors
So let's skip straight up to mammals. Many of them don't have the ability to comprehend cogito ergo sum. This is why, as you know, animals will attack their reflection. Because what they see is another animal. The benefit lies with those who already know the reflection in the mirror is them. Often when submerged in a pool, a dolphin will 'recognize' itself. The common literature is that dogs don't recognize themselves in a mirror. Which is odd because, (and this will be a totally personal tangent) my dog has never acknowledged his reflection as another dog. Which could imply that he's a brilliant dog. Or that he's a total idiot. (Strong evidence to support the latter). But I'm not convinced this is a good first step. Because there's another batch of animals that don't recognize themselves in a mirror. Human infants! These cute little molds of humanity will not comprehend a reflection. Naturally a response is to wait. But can the same be made for an animal who's had hundreds of thousands of hours and millions of dollars invested in him or her to wait to see if they see themselves in a mirror. Likely not. So then what's another way.
Language
Human language is complex, but the benefit is that equally complex ideas, thoughts and emotions can be conveyed, almost effortlessly. hence why a good poem stanza or a good song lyric hits us like a lawn dart in the heart! This is more multistage, so let's dive in. We teach the animal basic words, phrases, and how to build sentences just like a normal child. After some time, a primary measure of success is the learning of a few thousand words, same as a preschooler, borrowed from the scholastic.com web article, What Child Should Know by Age 4. So then following the principles in the guideline, an animal should be able to relay stories, create sentences up to 5 words in length. And know their alphabet. But this isn't entirely the mark of consciousness.
What we need to do is look for any evidence the animal has a desire to learn about its surroundings. Chimpanzees will learn things at face value and will gladly sign simple facts, but humans strive to go deeper. A child wants to know how a lightbulb works, how things keep going after you push them, where rain comes from. Basically its the inquiries we make that we should look for in a newly treated animal. I'll come back to Alex the parrot. I use this example cautiously, as there are still doubts he was truly the brilliant bird he was, namely regarding the fact he was never indicated to have used 'language', but more a code, as detailed by Steven Wise in Drawing the Line. Still, the animal represented great intelligence most notably marked by the fact it is the only animal in existence (outside humans) to ask a question about itself. Totally unprovoked, uninitiated question. I think this is a two-fold thing. First, it cements the idea he was indeed aware of himself. Secondly, it was unprovoked, meaning that the thought originated with Alex, and not from any other training, treat, or stimuli. Something I want to think about is when the researchers trained other parrots following, but realizing Alex was an exceptional creature. What would happen if a researcher revealed to one of the test subjects, "Yes, I work with you, but I worked with a bird who was more brilliant." Would the parrot be insulted? If, yes then a benefit is the parrot interprets the meaning behind the words and realized they received a verbal cue they are not as great as some parrot that existed before them. Downside, they insulted a parrot. I say that the moment a dog or cat asks, "What am I?" in a research lab will shake the researchers.
Original Creation
I would like to coin the word, autocreationism, meaning within your own abilities you created something. Whether it be an original thought, a description, a full statement that can be given by no one else, but you. A thought I stumbled upon as I write this is the creation of tools. Whether to fend off against an enemy, or make harvesting more efficient, tools, objects that aren't of our own bodies. (Femurs used as weapon clubs by Neanderthals excluded.) This is also a considerably weak component of consciousness as well, considering chimps, elephants, and others use tools. There are painting dogs, chimps, and elephants as well, but I'm not inclined to think they are human tier of consciousness. And yet, humans have been making things our own for millennia. So what satisfying degree of originality would an animal need.
My short answer is a lot. With our ingenuity, we made spears, fire, axes, hoes, agriculture and more. But there's the shortcoming. What could an animal possibly make with hoofs, paws, and a mouth as their main way to effect change in their environment? Do we then need to make a anthropomorphed hand for an animal that already has workable digits. Do they need to be upright and bipedal as well? Some questions don't even need answers to arouse more questions.
Last serious question, what if all the tests are passed. Does that still expose faults that maybe an animal isn't truly conscious? We can apply the same scary reality to humans and probably come to think that a human isn't really conscious, but going through the motions. You can think, Only I would see everything as it is. But is that walking down the street conscious, or is he just walking on his own. That lady at the supermarket, she's going through the motions, but I can't see from her view, therefore she's another shell. A professor can realize a person is 'awake in their class' but can he or she understand what the student sees, their qualia, for instance. It's too tempting to think 'I'm the only one,' and it's scary all the same.
Altogether, an assessment of the ability to recognize oneself, and the ability to be able to create new things, physical and contrived are the essential tests we must place on animals to see the true effects they have. Can they be self aware, recognize the weight of language, and be able to create original thought. And suppose one animal passes. Would that animal then become another agent to test the next animal that may be consciousness? Fun stuff to think about.
It's amazing how even though I can think that my thoughts are original, they may have been thought of by another person before, who never had the chance to jot them down. Where's that from?
Anyways, Happy Thinking!
Comments
Post a Comment