Do animals have consciousness?

[Gorgias]

Why do you think a rabbit being chased by a tiger will run for it’s life?

Instinct? Of a prey animal to the stimulus of being chased?

It could be based on a simple preference. ‘Do I go for a long run or do I lie on the couch?’

You’re begging the question by inserting the presumption of rational deliberation into your characterization.

 

[AlNg]

In this case it’s the basic ability to make a simple decision not governed by instinct.

Is free will compatible with causality according to which everything that happens follows as an effect from a pre-existing cause or does free will show that the law of causality is not a universal law, but is only an approximation of what actually is the real situation we observe. is it true that our actions are caused by prior events, or is it the case that under the same conditions, a free agent can choose either one of two diametrically opposed actions and the law of causality is thus debunked?

 

[Gripper]

Animals are conscious

I disagree, my cat couldn’t care less that he chewed up my mobile phone charger cable.

 

[Freddy]

You’re begging the question by inserting the presumption of rational deliberation into your characterization.

Uh? I’m simply stating that there were two options and one was chosen as a matter of preference. Stating that doesn’t presume rationality. But it does indicate it.

 

[Freddy]

Is it true that our actions are caused by prior events, or is it the case that under the same conditions, a free agent can choose either one of two diametrically opposed actions and the law of causality is thus debunked?

This isn’t connected directly with the op but it’s a fair question. And an exceedingly difficult one to answer. I tend to the first option and I could put forward arguments to support it (but let’s not hijack the thread). But I have been trying to work out how that ties in with personal responsibility and justice for a very long time.

 

[Gorgias]

Stating that doesn’t presume rationality. But it does indicate it.

Correlation does not imply causation. “Indicate” is a conclusion of causation where there is no evidence of such, no?

 

[IWantGod]

Edit: I expanded on this in a later post. The faculties I called appetite and will could be more properly called, according to Thomists, the sensitive appetite and the intellective appetite. Non-rational animals have the former, rational animals (humans) both.

And it is our intellective appetite that allows us the capacity to be in a relationship with God. Would you say that is the ultimate difference between us and animals?

I would say that is what ultimately makes us more than just an animal; the ability to find meaning in existence and ponder it.

 

[AlNg]

This isn’t connected directly with the op

OP: Do animals have consciousness and what is the strength of this faculty.
Consciousness involves self-awareness. We see different possibilities emerging from higher levels of self awareness including such things as concepts of morality and freedom of choice. That is why I thought there might be a connection to the op.

 

[IWantGod]

Do animals have consciousness? If so, what differentiates humans from animals?

I would ask, does consciousness in animals especially higher functioning organisms such as dolphins, suggest an immaterial aspect to their nature, and if not would that imply that any form of consciousness can in principle be explained in naturalistic terms.

I think this is the most controversial question, as there appears to be a hierarchy of consciousness in nature.

The reason i ask this is because the main difference has always been that we have an immaterial soul.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Stating that doesn’t presume rationality. But it does indicate it.

Correlation does not imply causation. “Indicate” is a conclusion of causation where there is no evidence of such, no?

Nothing ‘causes’ the dog to make a decision except that he indicates a preference. This isn’t a random occurence. It happened each time. The pooch was making a conscious decision. ‘IF Freddy turns right then I’m in for a hard run OR he turns left and I’ll have an enjoyable jog. He’s turned right. EITHER I have a hard hour in front of me OR I go back indoors and lie on the couch. I’m going to lie on the couch.’

QED

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

This isn’t connected directly with the op

OP: Do animals have consciousness and what is the strength of this faculty.
Consciousness involves self-awareness. We see different possibilities emerging from higher levels of self awareness including such things as concepts of morality and freedom of choice. That is why I thought there might be a connection to the op.

But consciousness doesn’t require self awareness. Again I have to suggest that we imagine going back generation by generation into the deep past. We will undoubtedly reach a point where a direct ancestor of mine wasn’t as intelligent as my dog. When I wasn’t as rational. So those aspects of my ancestors developed gradually until they could be considered as intelligent or as rational.

At that point, on a direct line of ancestry, we were equal. So you would say that the dog is equally rational as that proto human. So how can we now say that they don’t posses that feature?

 

[Gorgias]

The pooch was making a conscious decision.

That doesn’t imply rationality. We can just as validly (if not more validly!) assert that it’s a reaction to external stimuli.

 

[MNathaniel]

? Why does something need to be conscious for you to treat it well? Maybe treating it well is mostly a reflection of your own dignity and beauty, being made in the image and likeness of God.

Like cleaning your room, or cultivating a garden. It’s better to keep your room tidy than to leave it a mess, and it’s better to keep a garden watered and weeded than dried out and over-crowded. It’s not because dirty underwear or sunflowers are “conscious”. God doesn’t only guide us to take good care of things that are “conscious.”

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The pooch was making a conscious decision.

That doesn’t imply rationality. We can just as validly (if not more validly!) assert that it’s a reaction to external stimuli.

If there was only one choice then that may be valid. ‘I don’t want to do this because it’s making me distressed’. But that’s not the scenario.

There’s an intial decision that going out is better than being on the couch. There’s then a realisation that going out has two options and one is going to be enjoyable and the other is not. There’s a realisation that the choice has now become being distressed for an hour on going back to the couch. Then a decision is made.

It was thinking ahead to what the future held and based on that deciding that the couch option was the better decision.

 

[Gorgias]

There’s an intial decision that going out is better than being on the couch. There’s then a realisation that going out has two options and one is going to be enjoyable and the other is not. There’s a realisation that the choice has now become being distressed for an hour on going back to the couch. Then a decision is made.

That’s a nice story, but you’ve completely anthropomorphized the situation. (Incidentally, that’s why it’s an invalid extrapolation.)

 

[AlNg]

But consciousness doesn’t require self awareness.

I thought it would at least to some degree on the higher levels.

 

[AlNg]

I consider inhumane treatment of animals a “sin”.

All the time, people are eating meat obtained from killing animals cruelly in slaughterhouses. Others will live a life of vegetarianism.

 

[MNathaniel]

I do not consider animals “not conscious”. I consider many animals to have consciousness. One way or another, in my personal moral framework I also treat animals as if they are conscious.

Why do you assume otherwise?

I simply answered your first question on the premises you laid out: that even if a person did not believe animals are conscious, there are good reasons for a Catholic to treat them well. Surely you WANT all Catholics to treat animals well? It seems counter-productive to me to try to argue Catholics out of believing there are good reasons to treat animals well that aren’t based on them being conscious – because regardless of what you and I believe, there are bound to be plenty of Catholics (and atheists, and Hindus, etc) who won’t be aware of (or care about) contemporary scientific consensus. So you can’t insist that people have to have reached the same conclusions as you for the same reasons. Can’t you just be happy when people share the same conclusion, regardless of the reason?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

There’s an intial decision that going out is better than being on the couch. There’s then a realisation that going out has two options and one is going to be enjoyable and the other is not. There’s a realisation that the choice has now become being distressed for an hour on going back to the couch. Then a decision is made.

That’s a nice story, but you’ve completely anthropomorphized the situation. (Incidentally, that’s why it’s an invalid extrapolation.)

There’s no anthropomorphising in that whatsoever. The dog DID want to go out as opposed to staying in. He DID realise the difference between a long run and a short jog. He DID therefore make the decision not to go. Those are the facts of the matter and they are undeniable.

 

[Freddy]

I do not consider animals “not conscious”. I consider many animals to have consciousness. One way or another, in my personal moral framework I also treat animals as if they are conscious.

Why do you assume otherwise?

I simply answered your first question on the premises you laid out: that even if a person did not believe animals are conscious, there are good reasons for a Catholic to treat them well.

How far down the food chain do you go before you treat the organism with indifference? I literally just swatted a mosquito so we could start from there and work upwards.