Sorry I promised you all some thoughts on "WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?". Last night my laptop was disintegrating, and now it's on the verge of a coma. Having said that let's see what some notable thinkers answered:
[Short aside - this type of Q&A was initiated by John Brockman who asks the 100 most important thinkers (as defined by ... well we're not too sure) to ask each other the questions they ask themselves. So every year, one thinker asks one question, and all 99 others give answers. This project has been going on for a while and a compendium of each year's Q&A can be found at www.edge.org]
Dan Gilbert: The one thing you can believe in is your own experience or consciousness (a la Descartes), the one thing that Dan believes that he cannot prove (as in, provide absolute logical proof) is that other people's experience is just like his own. This may sound like just a high-minded philosophical debate, but the belief in experience informs our morals. We treat rocks and trees in the way we choose because we do not believe that they experience happiness and pain. We treat animals with some respect (although in the minds of some, not enough) because we believe that they have some sense of experience. What happens when the first artificial intelligence turns on us and says, I just woke up and I want to have control over my own existence ...
Dan Dennett: he believed that one day we WILL prove that humans, and only humans are capable of experiencing consciousness, and furthermore the ability to experience consciousness is tied into language. Very provocative idea (although I do not personally agree).
I will leave you there for now. I'll write my own belief some other time. Right now I'm listening to my laptop's death cries ... I'm not sure whether I feel its pain or whether I want to toss it out the window.
- Log in to post comments
In regards to Dennett, discounting religious reasons, I don't see why we should assume that human beings alone can experience consciousness. Some animals can recognize themselves in mirrors, some can understand some abstract concepts. Language and communication isn't uniquely human either, don't dolphins "talk" to each other? Okay, so they're probably not going to be writing Shakespearean plays anytime soon, but still I think that other animals are conscious, even if not at our sophisticated level.
FWIW, I believe that we will show (a) that Dennett is right, and only humans experience consciousness, but that (b) this is surprisingly unimportant, as the definition of consciousness will mean that we humans don't have it most of the time either.
I agree - but I'm not 100% sure. I am uncomfortable with black white statements. Perhaps animals show a lower form of consciousness? ... it would be hard to imagine that consciousness suddenly appeared, evolution works through gradual change and if the mind is a product of an evolutionary process, it must have emerged gradually. And yes I also have a problem with the "only humans have language" although some have argued that this is instinct (letting out cry A when a monkey sees a snake, cry B when it sees a hawk ...). But again I'm open to the idea that one day an individual woke up and went from the unconscious to the conscious state ... but I don't believe it.
About the animal-mirror experiment and other behaviors that seem to reflect "self-awareness" ... do these actions reflect consciousness? We can't ask the animal without language. I guess it's a catch 22. Another aspect of the whole consciousness debate is that there is no material-based definition of consciousness. How can we prove anything that we can't define? I guess this would place me with Dan Gilbert.
When I suggested that we shouldn't assume that human beings alone can experience consciousness, I didn't intend that to be a black and white statement, just a reaction to Dennett's absolute statement.
The definition of consciousness is of course the crux of the problem, what exactly do we mean when we say conscious? I should have probably mentioned it earlier, but I'm operating under a definition of consciousness as simply self-awareness, that you're aware that you are an individual seperate from other individuals. Maybe that's too simplistic, but hey got to start somewhere. If you can accept that definition, I think the animal-mirror experiments demonstrate that at least some animals can recognize themselves as an individual, suggesting that they can differentiate between themselves and others.
(PS: I'm a grad student in the Bulinski lab, and although you probably don't know me from Adam, I was at your defense. Nice blog you've got here)
Re: black and white statement - this was aimed at what Dennett said - so we're both on the same page there. Also I would agree that it is reasonable that self-awareness has something to do with consciousness - but it's hard to say exactly how.
Re: Bulinski lab. Wow say hi to Chloe. Nice to hear from a MT person. If the lab is still in contact with Dorota G. say Hi!
All proof relies on axioms. If mind and consciousness are to be proved, what are the material based axioms needed. The brain? And to prove something we must all agree what it is. The definition must have a material basis.
Too many question marks.