chickens and fish

[iNow]

Even if they did, you assume that self-awareness is enough to show consciousness.

 

 

Btw... my dog certainly knows he's checking himself out when he walks past the full length mirror. However, my girlfriend is of the impression that he gets that from me.

[Paralith]

Don't they have the mirror test or something like that to test for any kind of self-awareness in non-human animals?

 

Yes. The theory goes that only self aware animals understand that when they look in a mirror, they're looking at themselves. It's done by putting a spot of paint or some other mark on the animal when they're not aware of it and where they normally can't see it, such as on their forehead. When they see themselves in front of a mirror with this mark, self aware animals should pay particular attention to and/or touch the mark on their body, wondering where it came from and/or what it is. Chimps, elephants, and I think dolphins have passed this test, as far as I know. Of course, with many animals, it could be hard to tell if they're really noticing the mark or not. This is also assuming that a self aware animal necessarily understands how mirrors work.

[Reaper]

. Chimps, elephants, and I think dolphins have passed this test, as far as I know. Of course, with many animals, it could be hard to tell if they're really noticing the mark or not. This is also assuming that a self aware animal necessarily understands how mirrors work.

 

I know dolphins have passed the test also, and some species of primates. But I don't think that they necessarily have to know how a mirror works for this test to be valid, only that they know that they are looking at their own reflection (Mirrors aren't the only things that give reflections). Human babies less than a year old can recognize themselves on the mirror, so I'm pretty sure that the mirror test is valid.

 

As for other animals, I know some breeds of dogs can't recognize that they are looking at their own reflection when they look in the mirror. And one of my cats once tried to run into one.

 

Even if they did, you assume that self-awareness is enough to show consciousness.

 

Well, no, I did not imply that. Actually I would argue that it isn't a requirement. However, self awareness would certainly show that the animal in question is indeed conscious.

[iNow]

Well, no, I did not imply that. Actually I would argue that it isn't a requirement. However, self awareness would certainly show that the animal in question is indeed conscious.

If you didn't do it previously, then you did it just now, and the quote above is not internally consistent.

 

You said, "self awareness would certainly show that the animal in question is indeed conscious." So, how is it that you're arguing my statement:

 

"You assume that self-awareness is enough to show consciousness."

[Reaper]

You said, "self awareness would certainly show that the animal in question is indeed conscious." So, how is it that you're arguing my statement:

 

"You assume that self-awareness is enough to show consciousness."

 

Well, no, there are subtle differences in between these two statements. The way you framed it earlier, you were implying that it self awareness is a requirement for consciousness. The way I worded it does not imply any such thing, I was suggesting consciousness is a requirement for self awareness (especially at human levels). In short, it is the other way around .

 

 

And besides, why can't it be an indication of such? In fact, why does anyone here seem to believe that consciousness is not testable or detectable or hasn't been "properly" so. Consciousness has very well defined characteristics that we can test for and measure. We test for it and other characteristics associated with it all the time when concerning head injuries. And if you go to Japan they already have machines, computers, and robots capable of showing varying degrees of it (very rudimentary, yes, but it does qualify regardless). So why can't the same methods be applied to animals?

[iNow]

I was suggesting consciousness is a requirement for self awareness (especially at human levels).

Fair enough.

 

 

 

And besides, why can't it be an indication of such? In fact, why does anyone here seem to believe that consciousness is not testable or detectable or hasn't been "properly" so.

Because it hasn't been defined. One cannot measure something undefined... at least not accurately or with utility.

 

 

Consciousness has very well defined characteristics that we can test for and measure.

I was not aware of this. What are those very well defined characteristics of consciousness?

[Reaper]

Because it hasn't been defined. One cannot measure something undefined... at least not accurately or with utility.

 

.....................................

 

I was not aware of this. What are those very well defined characteristics of consciousness?

 

-->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

 

Consciousness is regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity' date=' self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. It is a subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science.

[/quote']

 

They all seem like well defined characteristics that we can certainly test for. The approaches of course are all different :

 

However, several tests have been developed which attempt to provide an operational definition of consciousness and try to determine whether computers and other non-human animals can demonstrate through their behavior, by passing these tests, that they are conscious.

 

 

 

Certainly there is still some disputes over it, but most arguments (that consciousness is not testable) that I've seen tend to be an elaborate form of an argument from incredulity.

[iNow]

I don't argue that it's always going to be impossible to test consciousness, just that it's currently not something we're equipped to do.

 

For instance, in your qualities above, precisely how do I put metrics on the following:

 

subjectivity,

self-awareness,

sentience,

sapience, and

the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment.

 

 

 

If you somehow get lucky and provide an answer to the above that is useful, we would then need to ask what happens when communication is not an option, and we try to run these tests on animals?

[Reaper]

I don't argue that it's always going to be impossible to test consciousness, just that it's currently not something we're equipped to do.

 

That's fair enough. I'm pretty certain that we won't be able to answer those questions until we actually get a grasp on how to actually do it objectively (dogs, for example, rely mostly on scent and not sight, so the mirror test may not be an accurate indication). But, we are beginning to do so...

 

For instance, in your qualities above, precisely how do I put metrics on the following:

 

subjectivity,

self-awareness,

sentience,

sapience, and

the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment.

 

 

 

If you somehow get lucky and provide an answer to the above that is useful, we would then need to ask what happens when communication is not an option, and we try to run these tests on animals?

 

Well, seeing that I'm not a psychologist or a researcher in A.I. (or know that much about such subjects), I won't be able to really come up with a way or description on how it is done or could be done.

 

But as far as I understand it, the main problems is not so much that we can't quantify it or put a metric on it, but rather getting the human variables out of it as much as possible. Many tests are specific only to humans, and may not be an accurate representation of what animals (or future A.I. machines) are capable of.