| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Bio Evolution Forum » Investigating animal consciousness
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Koko_the epigenetic_Goril |
 Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I think that the whole idea of there being this great mental divide
between humans and animals was largely a construction of behaviorism
in psychology ( which views the mind as a "black box") spilling over
to other areas of the biological sciences. We have to remember that
behaviorism, in its logical extent would deny that even humans have
consciousness or cognition. With the advent of cognitive psychology
the field of psychology was able to rid itself of the paradigm of
behaviorism, that same can not be said of the biological sciences.
while there is an increasing trend to attribute advanced cognitive
abilities to non-human animals we have fallen short of seriously
considering animal consciousness. Yet, it seems hard for all the
behavioral flexibility and variability that individual animals
demonstrate to make sense without the glue of consciousness to hold
the "mind" together. While many criticize individuals who seek to
explain and describe animal consciousness, due to its subjective
nature, there are methods which scientists can use to "open a window"
into the minds of animals. An excellent article by Donald Griffin on
how this can be done, can be found here.
http://www.bioone.org/archive/0003-1569/40/6/pdf/i0003-1569-40-6-889.pdf |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Glen M. Sizemore |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Koko's peer: I think that the whole idea of there being this great mental
divide
between humans and animals was largely a construction of behaviorism
in psychology ( which views the mind as a "black box") spilling over
to other areas of the biological sciences.
GS: Actually, just the opposite is true. The behaviorists, like the
functionalists before them, emphasized the utility of investigating the
behavior of non-humans as a means to understanding human behavior. Early
behaviorism was a response to the disaster that was structuralism with its
emphasis on human introspection. Although radical behaviorists restored the
importance of introspection (this is a hint for the question I ask you
below), they argue that one cannot build a science on it, and not even
cognitive psychology attempts to.
Koko's peer: We have to remember that behaviorism, in its logical extent
would deny that even humans have consciousness or cognition.
GS: This is largely incorrect, at least with respect to Skinnerian
behaviorism, but it is hard to tell since you have defined neither
"consciousness" nor "cognition." What the Skinnerians have done,
consistently, is to question (to say the least) the utility of treating the
causes of behavior as the result of inner possessions. We do not behave in
certain ways because we "possess consciousness" or because we "possess
intelligence," etc. Skinnerians do not, in fact, deny the existence and
importance of subjectivity. Indeed, radical behaviorism is often defined in
terms of its stance on subjectivity. Perhaps you would like to tell us what
that stance is?
Now, the term "cognition" raises other issues. The naïve get the impression
that "cognition" is closely related to subjective experience, but most of
what cognitivists talk about is not observable. That is, cognitivism is full
of "unconscious rules" and "unconscious hypotheses" etc. Behaviorism does,
indeed, reject such silliness, as I pointed out above.
Koko's peer: With the advent of cognitive psychology
the field of psychology was able to rid itself of the paradigm of
behaviorism,[.]
GS: This is simply a thinly disguised argumentum ad populum.
Koko's peer: [.]that same can not be said of the biological sciences.
while there is an increasing trend to attribute advanced cognitive
abilities to non-human animals we have fallen short of seriously
considering animal consciousness.
GS: If you are implying that much of the "biological sciences" are under the
sway of behaviorism, you are sorely mistaken. Although it is true that many
shy away from the "C word," most of what used to be called "behavioral
neuroscience" is thoroughly corrupted by cognitive "science."
Koko's peer: Yet, it seems hard for all the
behavioral flexibility and variability that individual animals
demonstrate to make sense without the glue of consciousness to hold
the "mind" together.
GS: This strikes me as meaningless gibberish.
Koko's peer: While many criticize individuals who seek to
explain and describe animal consciousness, due to its subjective
nature, there are methods which scientists can use to "open a window"
into the minds of animals.
GS: There are certainly methods for understanding the behavior of animals,
and this is what behaviorists have been doing. There are also methods
whereby operant responses may be brought under stimulus control of the sorts
of behavioral events we call "feelings."
Koko's peer: An excellent article by Donald Griffin on
how this can be done, can be found here.
GS: Griffin was an idiot. Try this:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1338741
"Koko_the epigenetic_Gorilla" <kohn.gregory@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:er5aot$1qto$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>I think that the whole idea of there being this great mental divide |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Entertained by my own EIM |
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Koko_the epigenetic_Gorilla" <kohn.gregory@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:er5aot$1qto$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
<snip>
Quote: Yet, it seems hard for all the
behavioral flexibility and variability that individual animals
demonstrate to make sense without the glue of consciousness to hold
the "mind" together.
What the heck are you talking about? I suppose you were influenced by the
'not too' ingenious question/notion of "the binding problem".
Quote: While many criticize individuals who seek to
explain and describe animal consciousness, due to its subjective
nature, there are methods which scientists can use to "open a window"
into the minds of animals. An excellent article by Donald Griffin on
how this can be done, can be found here.
http://www.bioone.org/archive/0003-1569/40/6/pdf/i0003-1569-40-6-889.pdf
I would only use the "glue" metaphor in regard to the (gluing) role that
languages plays in cultural and social evolution.
Consciousness is IMHO best thought of as different functural levels
(layers), contents, and intensities of dynamic patterns in brainspacetime.
(Ideally, these funcural layers are being well integrated - or IOW, the
highest
layers being adaptively complementary to the lowest layer.)
The simplest and most traditional neurophysiological way to
unifyingly understand consciousness, and have fun at the same time, is to
think about the term as patterns of activity (as per above) being energized
by the firing of "Reticular Activating Type" neurons.
P |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| feedbackdroid |
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 16, 3:21 pm, "Koko_the epigenetic_Gorilla"
<kohn.greg...@gmail.com> wrote:
........
Quote:
while there is an increasing trend to attribute advanced cognitive
abilities to non-human animals we have fallen short of seriously
considering animal consciousness.
If you're interested in consciousness, you might have a look at
Chalmer's site ....
http://consc.net/chalmers/
http://consc.net/online.html
There are some references to animal consciousness. Dennett has
considered this in a lot of his writings.
http://consc.net/online3.html#animal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Alan Meyer |
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Koko_the epigenetic_Gorilla" <kohn.gregory@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:er5aot$1qto$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
Quote: I think that the whole idea of there being this great mental divide
between humans and animals was largely a construction of behaviorism
in psychology ( which views the mind as a "black box") spilling over
to other areas of the biological sciences.
......
Primitive people may have made fewer distinctions between
humans and animals than modern people do, but the sharp
division between humans and animals is very strong and very
ancient in philosophy and science.
Aristotle, arguably the most influential thinker of the ancient
world, distinguished between the "rational soul" of humans
only and the "sensitive soul" or "perceptive soul" of both
animals and humans.
I don't think that behaviorism really had very much to do
with the force of this distinction either in popular or scientific
consciousness. If you really think it did, you should be able
to come up with some important writings from before
behaviorism which don't make that sharp distinction.
Do you have anything in mind?
Alan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:30 pm
|
|