Different in degree or kind (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, November 10, 2013, 19:04 (4031 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE-DAVID: To return to the original debate please read the first part of three essays on the gap itself, human vs. animal mental capacity. Self-awareness still remains the key in all its aspects:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-myth-of-the-continuum-of-creature...-I began reading, then skimmed, and am now commenting on this muddled argument only out of respect for you, David. Not having read Sullivan, I can only go by what Dr Tovey tells us, but he explicitly condemns Sullivan for his "scientific failings", produces no scientific evidence that Sullivan is wrong, and repeatedly points out himself that nobody actually knows the truth about this subject! First Sullivan:-SULLIVAN: "All of this work and discovery appeared to reach a kind of crescendo last summer, when an international group of prominent neuroscientists meeting at the University of Cambridge issued "The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in Non-Human Animals," a document stating that "humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness." It goes further to conclude that numerous documented animal behaviors must be considered "consistent with experienced feeling states."-QUOTE: "Sullivan argues that each sentient animal has its own unique kind of subjectivity, and that each "kind of mind" occupies its own special space on a continuum of consciousness."
 
TOVEY: The view that there is something special about the human mind is nowadays referred to as "human exceptionalism" ... a term recently coined by lawyer Wesley Smith. It remains a highly controversial but tenable position, among scientists who study animal cognition. As such, it deserves a proper scientific hearing.-Yes it deserves a proper scientific hearing (and a proper scientific definition), and good for the lawyer who gave it a scientific term, but it's still highly controversial. Does that mean that Sullivan and the dozen prominent neuroscientists are guilty of "scientific failings"?
 
TOVEY: Second, Sullivan fails to address the vast literature on the neurological requirements for consciousness, which contradicts his thesis [...] Instead of a continuum, we see discontinuities: neuroscientists customarily distinguish between two distinct kinds of consciousness: primary consciousness (or the moment-to-moment awareness of sensory experiences and internal feelings such as emotions) and higher-order consciousness (also called "self-awareness") ...]
 
His "discontinuity" is two extreme levels. We humans operate on both, but that doesn't mean there's nothing in between! Even Tovey later admits that some organisms (he restricts them to mammals and birds) have a degree of "higher order consciousness".-He quotes Suddendorf, whom we have already discussed. But Suddendorf "aims neither to exaggerate the wisdom of animals nor to promote the exceptionalism of human beings." -TOVEY: It is unwise to be too dogmatic about what animals can and can't do. Systematic research in the field of animal cognition has been going on for a little over a century, which makes it a relatively new field, in which scientists still have a lot to discover. Consequently, any scientific claim that the human mind is uniquely different from that of other animals must be regarded as provisional: future research may force us to change our minds. Nevertheless, a good case can be made for the view that mentally speaking, the human being is an animal like no other. -Yes of course, and a good case can be made for the view that mentally speaking the human being has many degrees more consciousness than the organisms from which he is descended, and that is what makes him an animal like no other. We are getting nowhere.