Do any animals other than humans have a consiousness?

[sk8rixtx]

My mother and I have been discussing this lately, do dogs have conciousness'? She says no, because their memory isn't as developed as humans, and that plays a key role in it. But I say they do because.... well I dont know why. I just needed a reason to argue with my mother. Does anyone feel like taking my place against my mother, or taking my mothers place? How about for animals in general?

[sk8rixtx]

What I mean by consiousness, is conscience. Sowwy.

[Opus1]

Define "consciousness." Defining terms is very important to any debate. Are dogs aware of their environment? Yup. Do they react to environmental stimuli? Yup. Do they have long term memory and the ability to conduct abstract reasoning? Nope.

Define what consciousness is, or you'll never be able to agree upon whether dogs or any animals possess it.

[Ptahlis]

Well, conscience implies the knowledge of "right" and "wrong." Do dogs know what behavior is okay for them and what behavior isn't? After enough "Bad doggy!" they sure do. Do they do things out of a desire to please their human companions? Yes, certainly. Do they do it out of a sense of morality? I highly doubt it. I would say that functionally, dogs have a rudimentary conscience, but abstractly, they do not.

[sk8rixtx]

Consiousness, as in, are they aware of what they are doing, when they are doing something? For example, when a happy, problem-free dog just comes up to you and bites you, even if the dog knows you are freindly, is it aware that is biting a friend? Why would it do that?

[Lissa]

The great apes probably are the closest that animals come to being truely sentient. They can do some amazing things, for animals, that is. They can plan ahead, and seem to be able to "visualize" the outcome of a plan in their heads. Koko, the signing chimp, communicates what appears to be self-awareness. One of the tools used in dertermining this is the mirror test, which is, basically, if an animal can recognise itself in a mirror. Koko uses it to groom herself, look down her throat and at her teeth, and to examine parts of her body that she can't usually see. They also have long memories, and appear to empathize with other's plights.

But that may not mean anything. There has been a lot of debate on this subject among the scientific community. Some say that even crediting the "lower orders" with emotions is anthropomorphism in the extreme.

So, in short, I dunno. No one really does. It's a common idea that if something can't communicate, it can't be feeling the same things, or thinking the same things that we are. But look at an infant. Would you call an infant self-aware? Sentient?

A dog, for example, it's been said, has the intelligence, and emotional range of a three year old child. Is a three year old necessarily self-aware? I'm not so sure.

[oldscratch]

Originally posted by sk8rixtx
For example, when a happy, problem-free dog just comes up to you and bites you, even if the dog knows you are freindly, is it aware that is biting a friend? Why would it do that?
Define friend.

[sk8rixtx]

Define friend.

My dog bit my sister who is seven, but the dog did it for no apparent reason. She just went up to her and bit her. Didn't even growl. So friend in terms of master, though I don't like saying master.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by Lissa

But that may not mean anything. There has been a lot of debate on this subject among the scientific community. Some say that even crediting the "lower orders" with emotions is anthropomorphism in the extreme.


The other side of the debate, one I am glad to see is gaining ground, is that to assume that anthropomorphism is necessarily invalid by definition is absurd. The "don't anthropomorphize" crowd were saying that we cannot validly ascribe to animals such things as love, happiness, animosity, and fear, simply because we cannot peer inside their head. Heck, that's true of people. The other side says that if an animal behaves in a way that would suggest those emotions, and it is accepted that these emotions exist in humans, then it is entirely reasonable that their counterparts may exist in animals.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

I wouldn't venture an opinion for other animals, but I'm quite sure that cats have no consciences.

[wring]

after listening to the CEO of Ford explain how safe he feels in HIS explorers, and how much he really, really cares about the customers, after listening to politicians who've never known poverty tell me how much they care about the middle class et al, after listening to folks on this board complain about food stamp recipients buying pop, or people using the go carts at stores buying cookies, or gee, I'm cheating on/planning on cheating on threads here, I need convincing that humans have a conscience.

there.

I feel a little better.
On the OP Do I think animals have a conscience? I know we like to think our domesticated animals do, and we love stories about pets and other animals that travel long distances to find their offspring, mate, "owners" etc. Pets certainly seem to "sense" our sadness and whatever, and hang around more. does this mean anything significant? I like to think so, however, I can't for the life of me figure out how it could be proved for certain until and unless we discover a means of direct communication.

[sk8rixtx]

Excellently put, Wring

[VegForLife]

The great apes probably are the closest that animals come to being truely sentient.
What definition of "sentient" are you using, Lissa? By at least two of Mirriam-Webster's definition, and possibly all three, I think my pet cockatiel is quite sentient.

Rich

[FarTreker]

There are a couple of lawyers somewhere, who appeared on TV a few months ago because they are starting to petition the courts to have apes, mainly gorillas, classified as human. They claim it is because the great apes have intelligence and the move is to protect them from being hunted and 'enslaved' or murdered.

However, intelligence in one thing. Sentience is another. Their case may fail on several levels, one of which is the fact that humans can interbreed with each other. Apes and humans cannot.

There was a theory that said that chimps and apes were the 'poor' relatives to humans, still working up the course of evolution. A spin off claimed that Negros were directly related because of mainly the skin color and also the physical similarities (the heavy skull and some mannerisms), which indicated the next evolutionary step for the apes. From what I understand, this has since been proven false, though that old theory might be part of the lawyers bag. If they use it successfully to promote the great apes as 'proto-human,' then get ready for not only a scientific storm of outrage but a racial one.

Their quest to protect apes might open a Pandora's box.

Several species of animals can use tools. Several more species can be taught useful things, however the ape species has 5 functional 'fingers', the ability to walk upright, the ability to learn complex skills and, now, the ability for simple communication in sign language. However, sentience might be questionable, for it is the ability to create, to wonder about one's position in the universe, to use reason and to steadily work out advanced tools.

Apes have not gone beyond simple tools. However, the mass extermination of them by encroaching humans could hamper this by wiping out the brightest and leaving only those with more animal cunning and survival instincts to survive.

Even cows, bred for food and not for brains, show some signs of intelligence by learning the daily schedule, recognizing the farmer who treats them well and even to hiding their calves now and then because they know some farmers will remove them shortly after birth. (To formula raise them and save most of the mothers' milk for the milking machine.)

Also, an intelligent animal/species/person does not inhabit the same area where they release their feces. Even the most primitive humans found did not crap in their camps. (Try not to think about the early English and American cities where they threw the contents of their chamber pots out of the windows and into the streets.)

[dixiechiq]

But that may not mean anything. There has been a lot of debate on this subject among the
scientific community. Some say that even crediting the "lower orders" with emotions is
anthropomorphism in the extreme.

firstly, have you not ever witnessesed the excitment your dog or cat feels when you come home?? there's an emotion!

my grandmother-in-law, who lived her life in a village on a farm, told us of cows crying [ie shedding tears] after they took the calves away to market. the cows were not pets, so she didn't have any kind of close relationship to "cloud up" her perceptions.

in school i recall learning that emotions come from the lower portions of the brain. the parts that all mammals have. to me that directly and scientifically implies that mammals have emotions.

[CalMeacham]

You're asking a deep question. There have been entire conferences devoted to the issue of ""animal cognition". The debates can get pretty heated when they get to things like apes "signing". It's not all as clear-cut as Crichton makes it out to be in "Congo".

Having owned dogs and cats, and being aware of their distinct personalities, and having watched what appear to be their minds at work while solving problems, it's hard not to credit the "higher" animals with thought processes (an old idea, by the way. Read the section on "The Dog" in "The Bestiary", translated and commented upon by T.H. White, noe available through Dover books).

On the other hand, read the anti- comments in things like the Skeptical Inquirer for a cold dose of reality.

I also recommend Julian Jaynes' book "The Origin of Consciousness in thwe Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind". It's a popular book, despite the scientific title. Every year I seem to find something else I don't believe in it. But it has can excellent discussion of the question of what consciouisness is. It's wort reading even if you don't "buy" Jaynes' arguments.


Bottom line: I think there is some animal consciousness. I'm unconvinced that it's functioning on as high a level as the Signers would have us believe.

[Jonathan Chance]

I'd have to come down on the side of "Yes, they're conscious" side. With qualiications.

(Trying to avoid the unanswerable 'what is sapience' issue here)

Most animals I've known (dogs and cats of course. But also mice, ducks, cows, horses, pigs etc) have been capable of memory, learning, and (most importantly to me) problem solving. They've all been capable (to different levels depending upon the species) of being faced with a problem and acting to solve it.

Examples

- Mice who can escape any cage and others in the cage who learn from the example
- A duck who was FIENDISHLY gifted at defeating locks and other obstacles that kept him from the duck chow
- A dog (currently with me cuss the luck) who has figured out doorknobs and latches. Try keeping him anywhere

What we need to remember is that, yes, they are not as intelligent as humans but, given the experience of living, they can cope with their environment sufficient to survive.

An adult dog and a human 4 year old as a comparison: the human child is (without a doubt in my mind) smarter than the dog. The dog, on the other hand, knows through it's experience how to cope with problems and situations that might arise. It might be something as simple as 'run away' or 'attack' but the dog is going to get there faster and with more certainly than the human child.

I'd assert that ALL creatures (multi-cellular) have some form of consciousness. But that there are levels of it and how it ties into intelligence remains undefined.

[rackensack]

Daniel Dennett (http://www.tufts.edu/~ddennett/) is perhaps the foremost contemporary philosopher of consciousness, one who grounds his work firmly in what we know and have reasons to strongly suspect about the actual biological and chemical processes of the brain and body. He's written an excellent introduction to the subject in Basic Books' Science Masters (http://williamcalvin.com/bookshelf/ScienceMasters.htm) series of short, highly simplified volumes on various topics in the sciences. It's called Kinds of Minds: Toward an Understanding of Consciousness (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0465073514/thecalvinbooksheA/002-2984498-0665600). Plagiarizing extensively from Dennett's previous books (which he cheerfully admits), Kinds of Minds reviews the question of consciousness in the animal kingdom and in mankind in an extremely accessible way, drawing on the best scientific work in the field without bogging down in the details yet without oversimplifying. I really feel like anyone who wants to discuss this subject ought to be required to read this book first. Dennett's an engaging writer as well, which makes this brief book (less than 200pp.) fairly fly by.

My favorite neurophysiologist, William Calvin, (http://www.williamcalvin.com) has also published a general overview from a slightly less philosophical, more physiological point of view in another Science Masters title, How Brains Think: Evolving Intelligence, Then and Now (http://williamcalvin.com/bk8/), which is available in its entirety (as are most of Calvin's books) on his web site (see Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D046507278X/thecalvinbooksheA/002-2984498-0665600) for information on the dead trees version as well as reader comments). As short and nearly as well-written as Dennett's book, it does an admirable job of explaining the physiological mechanisms at work in consciousness and intelligence, and demonstrating how such minute and mechanical events can build up the almost unbelievably complex patterns of human thought.

Beyond those, I can second the recommendations of nearly everything listed on Calvin's Bookshelf (http://williamcalvin.com/bookshelf/index.htm) page, all or nearly all of which are well within the abilities of most lay readers (though I did find Calvin's own The Cerebral Code (http://williamcalvin.com/bk9/) pretty heavy going with my limited knowledge of physiology and chemistry).

Essentially, the question is whether the mental processes of animals differ in kind from those of humans, or only in degree of complexity, or perhaps whether the enormous difference in degree of complexity does not in fact constitute a difference in kind. My own conviction, born of my reading in the books mentioned above and a host of others, is that much of the distinction between human and animal cognition is in the human instinct for explaining; that the same physiological events that are responsible for emotions and drives in humans occur in animals, but in most if not all cases without the overlay of "metacognition" that attempts to understand and explain these emotions and drives. In other words, I think most vertebrates, and in particular most mammals, share enough of the basic design of the limbic system to experience many of the same sensations we do (of fear, rage, sexual desire, etc.), but are not aware of these sensations as occurring as events in time, with a beginning, duration, and end, with a definable source.

[Daniel Shabasson]

Yes. My mom told me when she came home the other day, our dog "Duncan" (a border terrier) was sad and did not greet her enthusiastically as he usually does. (He is a very enthusiastic greeter). Why was he sad? He made poo in the dining room. He felt bad about it -- it was either shame or guilt or something like that.

Well, it could be argued that he did not really feel shame or guilt; rather, he was sad because he knew he would be punished. All we have is a Pavlovian response.

But the truth is that Duncan has never been punished for anything in his life. At most, we say "No" or "bad" in a disapproving voice if he displeases us. He is never hit or deprived of food or in any way physically affected by our disapproval, and he never has been. There is pavlovian response to "No" or "bad dog" here, since he has never been subject to punishment before -- how could he associate these words with a negative stimulus, if he has never been (intentionally) subject to any negative stimulus in his life.

So my conclusion is that Duncan must simply care about the approval or disapproval itself, without connecting it to anything else in a stimulus-response way. Our love, in itself, is important to him. It is not simply that we feed and protect him -- he wants our love for its own sake. I think this is obvious, and you will too if you've ever had a dog.

Furthermore, I think Duncan observes us after he has gone on the floor for our reaction. If we seem to forgive him and act happy, he will know that everything is OK.

What is the connection to conscience? Well, I think that what differentiates conscience from stimulus-response fear is the extent to which a being with a conscience is concerned with the attitudes of other beings, rather than with the ultimate pain or reward it may receive. A stupid animal can have stimulus response fear, but is much less concerned with the attitudes of other beings. But a dog is very attuned to our attitudes, and cares more about these if it has transgressed than it does about the negative stimulus it may receive. The being with a conscience can seperate itself from stimulus response. A dog can clearly do this. Some animals are less able.

[Doctor Who]

I hate to interject with a little humor, but did anybody catch the Onion today (2nd) - Headline:

Dolphins develop Opposable Thumb! Humanity says "Oh Shit!"

I just thought it was somewhat applicable.

[m3]

Originally posted by rackensack
Daniel Dennett (http://www.tufts.edu/~ddennett/) is perhaps the foremost contemporary philosopher of consciousness, one who grounds his work firmly in what we know and have reasons to strongly suspect about the actual biological and chemical processes of the brain and body.
Yeah, he knows a lot and can be an entertaining and informative read. It does philosophers an injustice to call him one though.

Sorry, off topic.

Anyway, I can't tell whether the OP was really addressing consciousness or conscience. I think the incident mentioned might have been a display of dominance by the dog though.

Are animals conscious? Yes, in their own animal way.

Do they have a conscience? No, I think morality is a human invention. I do think animal can feel emotions though. Even something we could roughly equate with love.

[SkinnyGuy]

I checked my dictionary, just to make sure, and here's my two eurocents.

Conscience, as in telling right from wrong, is something taught. At the very least it is something you adopt, as an individual, by example.
Take for instance children of Klanspeople. They are dressed up by their parents in those stupid sheets, and those kids KNOW FOR A FACT that they are superior than everybody else, because they have heard nothing else all their lives. Does that mean these children have no conscience, or that they are stupid? No, they just never had anybody normal to act as an example. All they have is the Klan, and with only one "example" it's slim pickings.

So, does a dog have a conscience? If you give the dog an opportunity to adopt one, sure. If a dog is raised within a family, that family becomes the dog's pack. The pack will tell the dog what is right and wrong, just as the pack does for its human members. And negative conditioning (ie. punishment) is not necessary, just as Daniel Shabasson said. If a dog lives in a loving environment, denial of that love, even for a short period, will tell the dog what is right or wrong. Barring mental problems I'm convinced any animal with higher brain functions (humans, apes, dogs - which all dream by the way, which is a pretty high brain function) can be taught a sense of right and wrong - which is what conscience boils down to.
[/pedantic mode]

Yes, I am definitely a dog person.

[sk8rixtx]

Hmmm, Skinny Guy with the behavioral approach, eh? I want to hear a humanist's response to that one.


Sorry, just skimming through the archives, saw this and thought it would be nice to bring back up.

[Freyr]

FarTreker wrote:

Several species of animals can use tools. Several more species can be taught useful things, however the ape species has 5 functional 'fingers', the ability to walk upright, the ability to learn complex skills and, now, the ability for simple communication in sign language. However, sentience might be questionable, for it is the ability to create, to wonder about one's position in the universe, to use reason and to steadily work out advanced tools.

A couple of points here. Apes cannot walk upright, at least for anything more than a short distance. Their hips joints are simply not built for it. They cannot walk upright with any regularity or as a primary form of locomotion.

Apes cannot learn sign language. The famous case of a few years back has never been replicated outside of the special situation with the ape and its trainers. Please see Steven Pinker's book The Language Instinct for complete details.

I'm just trying to correct a couple of mistakes, not wreck your arguement. What is being done to our ape (evolutionary) cousins is dispicable and needs to be stopped!

Apes aren't human, but I do believe the have sentience and, from what I've read of Diane Fossey's and Jane Goodall's work, even a conscience, a sense of right and wrong.

[Lemur866]

About anthropomorphizing animals. Yes, we have to be careful about this, because animals do different things than we do...they have different social structures, different senses, different cognative abilities.

But I think we can move past a strict ban on assigning emotions to animals. Yes, it is useful to concentrate on what animals acutally do, rather than what we imagine they feel, since the two are not neccesarily related.

But we can *relate* to a dog, or a cat, or a chimpanzee. We can understand them. This is not anthropomophism, this is simply recognizing that we share a common evolutionary heritage with animals. We share emotions with them because we share the same animal nature with them.

We should be careful of anthropomorphizing animals, forcing them into human shapes that do not fit them, but that doesn't mean that they are not similar to humans. We should be just as careful about anthropomorphizing other humans...assigning them emotions, thoughts, feelings, etc, that they do not neccesarily have. Sure, we can talk to humans and they can tell us that they are angry or sad or whatever, but we know that humans often misrepresent their emotions...they claim to not be angry when we have good reason to believe they are angry, they say they love you when they really want to sleep with you, etc. So let's be careful, but it is an extremely useful model to act as if many animals have emotions...probably because they do have emotions.