What is the difference of low level consciousness vs high level consciousness?

[nec209]

What is the difference of low level consciousness vs high level consciousness?

 

I hear the terms like low level consciousness and terms like high level consciousness what is it and what is the difference?

 

I can only guess they mean low level consciousness like say a baby vs high level consciousness like teen or an adult. Or low level consciousness like a Dog and high level consciousness like a person.

 

Can consciousness change? Can some one explain the two.

[Function]

What you're explaining reminds me of self-consciousness. It's estimated to be developed (and still under development) when you're 1.5 years old. It is believed that babies younger than 1.5 years old have no (important degree of) self-consciousness.

 

A classic way of testing self-consciousness in animals is by the mirror test. You might want to look up stuff about self-consciousness and the mirror test.

 

You'll find that humans (aged +1.5 y/o), most primates, elephants, dolphins, and if I'm not mistaken, octopuses and magpies are believed to be the only animals (so far tested) having a certain degree of self-consciousness.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Function

[Velocity_Boy]

What is the difference of low level consciousness vs high level consciousness?

 

I hear the terms like low level consciousness and terms like high level consciousness what is it and what is the difference?

 

I can only guess they mean low level consciousness like say a baby vs high level consciousness like teen or an adult. Or low level consciousness like a Dog and high level consciousness like a person.

 

Can consciousness change? Can some one explain the two.

Low levels of consciousness (LLC) basically only imbue it's host organisms....Which do far as we know is an animal...With the knowledge of being alive. That is, sentience. And also the ability to orchestrate plans and simple tactics so as to acquire needs of survival. They can sometimes show basic reasoning skills, but those are usually only for well being and survival.

 

In other words, an organism with LLC doesn't have the complex emotions we homo sapiens have. No jealousy, envy, wrath. That sort of thing.

 

HLC animals are imbued and beset with emotions. Feeling and thoughts and desires that are superficial to the business of need survival. What color should I paint my bedroom? That's a pure HLC symptom. Any thoughts that entertain vanity or project into the future, as in....Should I take Heather to that opera next week?....Are privy only to HLC. Unless of course they are concerned with survival. And even then, an LLc doesn't have the ability to worry about future events. The future is fiction, anyway. It doesn't exist. But HLC can envision it. Well, we try! An LLc is totally unable to envision this. Except again, in basic survival planning. Like, it rained today so tomorrow when thirsty I go to place where water was before, after rain come from sky.

 

But that is really only basic survival reasoning, and is based on past experience. For LLC, no experience equals no planning abilities.

 

Hope that helps a little.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Velocity_Boy

[quickquestion]

What you're explaining reminds me of self-consciousness. It's estimated to be developed (and still under development) when you're 1.5 years old. It is believed that babies younger than 1.5 years old have no (important degree of) self-consciousness.

 

A classic way of testing self-consciousness in animals is by the mirror test. You might want to look up stuff about self-consciousness and the mirror test.

 

You'll find that humans (aged +1.5 y/o), most primates, elephants, dolphins, and if I'm not mistaken, octopuses and magpies are believed to be the only animals (so far tested) having a certain degree of self-consciousness.

Dogs and cats have high intensity "other" consciousness. They also have communications skills and intelligence skills.

 

I would hazard a guess and say babies have less sentience than dogs or cats. Baby consciousness is essentially just whining around, where as dogs and cats are cunning predators and can detect emotions of humans.

[Function]

Dogs and cats have high intensity "other" consciousness. They also have communications skills and intelligence skills.

 

I would hazard a guess and say babies have less sentience than dogs or cats. Baby consciousness is essentially just whining around, where as dogs and cats are cunning predators and can detect emotions of humans.

 

Incomparable. This is a fact of the duration of a certain learning curve, and this depends on different importance of certain senses, imo. "Baby consciousness is essentially just whining around"; an expression I would most certainly not agree with. We cannot read the minds of dogs and cats, we can only observe their behaviour. But we can't read the minds of babies, either; so I don't wish to agree with your statement there.

 

But I was very specifically aiming at, indeed, self-consciousness, which is not uncommonly considered to be one of the highest levels of development and consciousness.

[quickquestion]

 

Incomparable. This is a fact of the duration of a certain learning curve, and this depends on different importance of certain senses, imo. "Baby consciousness is essentially just whining around"; an expression I would most certainly not agree with. We cannot read the minds of dogs and cats, we can only observe their behaviour. But we can't read the minds of babies, either; so I don't wish to agree with your statement there.

 

But I was very specifically aiming at, indeed, self-consciousness, which is not uncommonly considered to be one of the highest levels of development and consciousness.

Last time I checked a cat, it seemed to be able to recognize itself in a mirror.

 

Also, I wouldn't base your whole theory of "highest levels of consciousness" on whether or not animal does something in a mirror.

Edited April 12, 2017 by quickquestion

[Function]

Last time I checked a cat, it seemed to be able to recognize itself in a mirror.

 

Also, I wouldn't base your whole theory of "highest levels of consciousness" on whether or not animal does something in a mirror.

 

Wrong interpretation of the test.

[quickquestion]

 

Wrong interpretation of the test.

I'd say, the test is a wrong interpretation of itself.

 

"In the classic MSR test, an animal is anaesthetised and then marked (e.g. painted, or a sticker attached) on an area of the body the animal cannot normally see. When the animal recovers from the anaesthetic, it is given access to a mirror. If the animal then touches or investigates the mark, it is taken as an indication that the animal perceives the reflected image as itself, rather than of another animal."

 

 

Why would an animal investigate a mark on itself anyway? There are hardly any mirrors in nature (besides water) to begin with...How would it know what it looked like in the first place in order to feel wrong at having a mark on it? Second why would an animal even care so much about a random mark on it's body in the first place that it would try to remove it. Dogs don't even care enough to try to remove food dripping out of their mouth.

Edited April 12, 2017 by quickquestion

[Function]

I'd say, the test is a wrong interpretation of itself.

 

Why would an animal investigate a mark on itself anyway? There are hardly any mirrors in nature (besides water) to begin with...How would it know what it looked like in the first place in order to feel wrong at having a mark on it? Second why would an animal even care so much about a random mark on it's body in the first place that it would try to remove it. Dogs don't even care enough to try to remove food dripping out of their mouth.

 

Because it is a bright-coloured spot which the animal correctly interprets as being non-natural.

 

There may very well not be mirrors in nature, but there are reflective water pools. If that doesn't convince you: the coincidence (as you must apparently interpret it) of an animal specifically touching a small bright spot on its own head instead of the creature it sees in front of itself in the mirror ... Quite small isn't it?

 

The analogy with dogs having food dripping out of their mouths is irrelevant and, once again, no good comparison.

[quickquestion]

 

Because it is a bright-coloured spot which the animal correctly interprets as being non-natural.

 

There may very well not be mirrors in nature, but there are reflective water pools. If that doesn't convince you: the coincidence (as you must apparently interpret it) of an animal specifically touching a small bright spot on its own head instead of the creature it sees in front of itself in the mirror ... Quite small isn't it?

 

The analogy with dogs having food dripping out of their mouths is irrelevant and, once again, no good comparison.

I already mentioned water pools so you must be skipping around.

 

In any case, tell me what to search for so I can see evidence of a dog touching the mirror location of a spot on it's head instead of it's own head.

[jimmydasaint]

I would red up on the background thoroughly before you continue with your criticisms quickquestion. I have a quote and a link here for you to read:

 

The mirror test, sometimes called the mark test or the mirror self-recognition test (MSR), is a behavioural technique developed in 1970 by psychologist Gordon Gallup Jr. as an attempt to determine whether a non-human animal possesses the ability of self-recognition.^[1] The MSR test is the traditional method for attempting to measure self-awareness; however, there has been controversy whether the test is a true indicator.

In the classic MSR test, an animal is anaesthetised and then marked (e.g. painted, or a sticker attached) on an area of the body the animal cannot normally see. When the animal recovers from the anaesthetic, it is given access to a mirror. If the animal then touches or investigates the mark, it is taken as an indication that the animal perceives the reflected image as itself, rather than of another animal.

Very few species have passed the MSR test. As of 2016, only great apes (including humans), a single Asiatic elephant, dolphins, orcas, and the Eurasian magpie have passed the MSR test.

Animals that are considered to be able to recognise themselves in a mirror typically progress through four stages of behaviour when facing a mirror:^[5]

(a) social responses (b) physical inspection (e.g. looking behind the mirror) © repetitive mirror-testing behaviour (d) realisation of seeing themselves

Gallup conducted a follow-up study in which two chimpanzees with no prior experience of a mirror were put under anesthesia, marked and observed. After recovery, they made no mark-directed behaviours either before or after being provided with a mirror.^{[citation needed]}

A wide range of species has been reported to fail the test, including several monkey species, giant pandas, sea lions, and dogs.^[2][3]

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

 

It does not seem to be a wholly rigorous or foolproof method - but it is a start...

[quickquestion]

I was the one who posted a quote from the MT Wiki in the first place.

 

Basically, if a dog yells and barks at itself in the mirror, it fails the mirror test. If a dog silent stares and contemplates at it's mirror image, it most likely has self-awareness.

Some dogs pass, and some dogs fail.

[Velocity_Boy]

I was the one who posted a quote from the MT Wiki in the first place.

 

Basically, if a dog yells and barks at itself in the mirror, it fails the mirror test. If a dog silent stares and contemplates at it's mirror image, it most likely has self-awareness.

Some dogs pass, and some dogs fail.

 

 

But how you you definatively discern the fact the dog is "contemplating?" As that word implies engaging in deep thought at a cognitive level.

 

How do you know the canine even understands whay he is seeing. And is not just staring dumbly and uncomprehendingly as, say, a cat would at a Fourier equation written on a large dry erase board on the wall of his owner's home?

[quickquestion]

 

 

But how you you definatively discern the fact the dog is "contemplating?" As that word implies engaging in deep thought at a cognitive level.

 

How do you know the canine even understands whay he is seeing. And is not just staring dumbly and uncomprehendingly as, say, a cat would at a Fourier equation written on a large dry erase board on the wall of his owner's home?

Based on deductive reasoning. A dog percieves other dogs and humans as entities. Some dogs, when they see a mirror, bark and yell at the "dog in the mirror" because they percieve it as another entity. But if a dog just silently stares, that means it sees a "dog entity" in the mirror, but does not percieve it as "just another dog". Because it's default response is to yell and bark at foreign dogs and entities. Therefore it does not percieve it's image as foreign.

 

Also, the cat perceives the equation on the board as "some kind" of non-living entity.

[Function]

I was the one who posted a quote from the MT Wiki in the first place.

 

You don't have a monopoly on quoting Wikipedia

[quickquestion]

 

You don't have a monopoly on quoting Wikipedia

Yeah but the point was, I read the article before more than once.