Monkeys are curious as well
true, but not on the subjective level kids are. monkeys need to know their surroundings, kids want to.
What does that even mean? monkeys play... they explore out of simple curiosity as well.
I think I'm going to hammer on this point... I want to see where the cracks in your argument lead.
again karma, since you didnt hear me the FIRST THREE TIMES
its an UMBRELLA definition, its broad and reaches into MANY contexts.
So did the definitions that defined blacks as inferior. Note, I am not saying you're prejudiced or immoral in your conclusions. I am simply saying that you're working from the preconceived notion that some animals are not conscious and then desperately concocting reasons to support that conclusion on the fly. I don't think you've really considered the concept and would be happier just accepting that notion.
That's a mistake in my opinion. You should challenge all your beliefs and come up with reasons for believing or disbelieving in various theories and classifications.
Most if not all primates show signs of consciousness. I don't know if they are conscious because who knows what that means in the first place. But as I've demonstrated by knocking down every single challenge you've put down as required they do "seem" to be conscious.
They are stupid... quite stupid by human standards. But they think... reason... and feel.
there are numerous disorders that can cause a person not to recognize self or to be displaced in thought of self, while still being functional in every other way. that definition fails.
Oh really? What disorder would cause a person not to recognize themselves in the mirror yet leave them otherwise functional? Aside from blindness of course... And remember before you cite them that by "functional" we mean still "conscious". Is an insane person conscious? Is someone in a coma conscious?
*gets popcorn*
I've defined it repeatedly
No, you cited a long winded weblink once that you refuse to condense into an actual definition. You say the definition is in there, yet you refuse to quote it.
there is more than one type of learning, one of the bigger differences is between conditioning and subjective knowledge. the idea of why a ball bounces (gravity) is subjective
Is subjective learning a term you just invented or does it actually exist? I looked it up and it doesn't seem to be related to anything you're talking about. I don't mind if you're making up terms, I'd just like to know before hand.
no other animal has shown capacity to learn through anything but conditioning, we are alone in that respect.
Really? Primates show an ability to problem solve without training. Slowly reasoning out problems. Expecting them to understand gravity is not a test of consciousness as it's a complex issue. Is consciousness simply your way of saying "intelligence"? Again, stupid humans often cannot understand simple concepts yet are still regarded as conscious. Does your definition say they are not?
Or do they remain conscious by virtue of being human?...
Primates learn. Some of them are tool users. Picking up a stick or bit of grass... tricking fire ants to bit the stick... and then eating the ants off the stick.
They were not shown how to do that. They figured that out on their own. Make sure that your tests make a distinction between intelligence and consciousness or explicitly link the two concepts together. Note that if you do link them I will turn that against stupid humans to demonstrate that your definition states that anyone with an IQ lower then X is not conscious and has a mind no better then some animals.
I dont intend to insult you: but if you cannot connect pavlov's dogs to a debate about conditioning vs. subjective understanding, maybe you should step down.
The idea that you were saying that everything a primate could learn was nothing more then Pavlov's dog didn't occur to me because it's so ridiculously wrong.
I continue to err in over estimating you... no offense.
Sentience. It may be conscious in the generic sense of simply being a sentient creature, one capable of sensing and responding to its world (Armstrong 1981). Being conscious in this sense may admit of degrees, and just what sort of sensory capacities are sufficient may not be sharply defined. Are fish conscious in the relevant respect? And what of shrimp or bees?
Ok... this first qualification basically includes anything that responds to stimuli. That's pretty much all life on earth. Even plants.
Wakefulness. One might further require that the organism actually be exercising such a capacity rather than merely having the ability or disposition to do so. Thus one might count it as conscious only if it were awake and normally alert. In that sense organisms would not count as conscious when asleep or in any of the deeper levels of coma. Again boundaries may be blurry, and intermediate cases may be involved. For example, is one conscious in the relevant sense when dreaming, hypnotized or in a fugue state?
Ok... little narrower then before... this still includes micro organisms though.
Self-consciousness. A third and yet more demanding sense might define conscious creatures as those that are not only aware but also aware that they are aware, thus treating creature consciousness as a form of self-consciousness (Carruthers 2000). The self-awareness requirement might get interpreted in a variety of ways, and which creatures would qualify as conscious in the relevant sense will vary accordingly. If it is taken to involve explicit conceptual self-awareness, many non-human animals and even young children might fail to qualify, but if only more rudimentary implicit forms of self-awareness are required then a wide range of nonlinguistic creatures might count as self-conscious.
Ok good... now we're to the mirror test. So... most birds fail... but a lot qualify. Nearly all mammal qualify... there might be others as well.
What it is like. Thomas Nagel's (1974) famous“what it is like” criterion aims to capture another and perhaps more subjective notion of being a conscious organism. According to Nagel, a being is conscious just if there is “something that it is like” to be that creature, i.e., some subjective way the world seems or appears from the creature's mental or experiential point of view. In Nagel's example, bats are conscious because there is something that it is like for a bat to experience its world through its echo-locatory senses, even though we humans from our human point of view can not emphatically understand what such a mode of consciousness is like from the bat's own point of view.
... hmm... I think we're including insects in this... so that's broader then the last one. No real progress because anything that can pass the mirror test will pass this one.
Subject of conscious states. A fifth alternative would be to define the notion of a conscious organism in terms of conscious states. That is, one might first define what makes a mental state a conscious mental state, and then define being a conscious creature in terms of having such states. One's concept of a conscious organism would then depend upon the particular account one gives of conscious states (section 2.2).
This more hypothesizes future research rather then trying to define anything.
Transitive Consciousness. In addition to describing creatures as conscious in these various senses, there are also related senses in which creatures are described as being conscious of various things. The distinction is sometimes marked as that between transitive and intransitive notions of consciousness, with the former involving some object at which consciousness is directed (Rosenthal 1986).
Again... insects would seem to qualify here.
Ok... so the most strenuous test was the self awareness test. Well, if you can recognize yourself in a mirror, then you're self aware. All primates pass, some birds, most mammals larger then a basketball in total volume.
Your definition came down on my side if anything. So... stop disagreeing. You just cited evidence that backed me.
human concious is the collective of all of this.
And as I pointed out lots of animals qualify under the definition you just cited.
there is no concrete definition of conciousness, merely a collective or qualifications that are under debate. this much is quite obvious and has not changed for 200+ years.
I addressed the cited qualifications. If you have additional ones, I'll check them out.
If it's a fuzzy term then how can you say something is or is not conscious?
because if fails in
nearly all agreed upon circumstancesyou cannot play artful dodger with me, if you cannot keep up with the pace of the arguement back down.
I'm not dodging. I'm nailing you down so you can't slip away... ironic that you would call me artful dodger. I am forcing you to define your argument so that you can't pretend it was something else five minutes later.
As to the circumstances. If you cited them all above, I showed that lots of life passes those tests. Not just humans. So I don't know what you think you're talking about. If you have additional conditions that you haven't listed... which are relevant... then cite them and we'll move forward.
As it stands, by your own definition primates are conscious. And to get back on topic somewhat, I said that AI's would not acquire rights simply because they were conscious. I said that only humans are given rights. Others said that we would give animals rights if they were conscious. I've just proved that point wrong by showing that by your own definitions many are conscious... and yet they do not have rights. I won't speak to the morality or immorality of this, it was just my point that intelligence and consciousness would not ensure or give them the right to fair treatment in human society.
My point is sustained unless you wish to offer further evidence.
Regards, Karmashock.
