Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them? (Animals)

by dhw, Saturday, December 05, 2015, 14:15 (3275 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Animal minds are a mystery to us, just as I know my consciousness, but I only can presume yours:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/what_can_we_hop101361.html-Thank you for this superb article, which covers whole areas of our discussions. I'll comment on some of your quotes, and add a few others.
 
QUOTE: "Consciousness (a mind) perceives and acts on information. But there are at least two -- more basic and probably unconscious qualities -- that distinguish life from non-life, and seem to act by processing information: self-preservation and adaptability.”-I would add the all-important drive for improvement, which I see as the trigger for evolution: self-preservation and adaptability only account for survival. -QUOTE: “Polymath Christoph Adami, interviewed in Quanta Magazine, sees life itself as "self-perpetuating information strings," and defines information as "the ability to make predictions with a likelihood better than chance."”-An article I found very confusing and contradictory (see “Information as the source of life”, 25 November at 14.24 - a title which makes no sense to me).
 
QUOTE: "So can we determine accurately whether life forms are conscious? Brainless jellyfish, for example, are now thought to act with purpose when fishing. Are the jellyfish conscious of that purpose? That would amount to having a mind without a brain. But the actual relationship between mind and brain is not -- as we shall see -- as straightforward as was once supposed. For one thing, there does not seem to be a "tree of intelligence," in the sense of a completely consistent correlation between size/type of brain and observed intelligence.”-A mind without a brain is integral to the concept of cellular intelligence. On the “Human consciousness” thread, you comment: “Let's throw out materialism as the lone explanation is what he is suggesting.” You will have to do the same for other animals whose consciousness you recognize. But where do you draw the line? In any case, whether consciousness (I prefer “intelligence”, to distinguish it from self-awareness) is or is not confined to materials, maybe ALL organisms have it. It's a “maybe”...I only kick and scream when somebody insists they don't.-QUOTE: "We humans have a sense of "self" that goes well beyond a drive to continue to exist. But to what extent do other life forms have this sense? “-My evolutionary “drive to improvement” depends on this sense. NB: for those of us who believe in common descent, it is logical that humans would have inherited this drive - as opposed to being its originators.-xxxxxxx
 
Here are more quotes from Denyse O'Leary's brilliant article:-QUOTE: “Human consciousness is difficult to define and "arguably the central issue in current theorizing about the mind," even though we experience it all our waking hours. If we can't even define our own consciousness, can we say whether a different type of life form has consciousness or a mind?”-We can't, and so we should remain open-minded.-QUOTE: “Some current philosophers have reasoned away the problem by positing that rocks have minds too.”
 
What follows is a defence of panpsychism, though the philosopher Jim Holt does not say so here. Many panpsychists are theists, and believe everything began with intelligence, but we have also discussed the hypothesis that everything began with mindless energy and matter, and intelligence evolved from their interaction.-QUOTE: “Life forms communicate with each other to a degree that often surprises researchers. Prey animals, for example, warn predators of the danger of eating them or advise other prey that a hiding place is taken. But evidence suggests that plants can communicate too. The Scientist tells us: Researchers are unearthing evidence that, far from being unresponsive and uncommunicative organisms, plants engage in regular conversation...Plants, it seems, have a social life that scientists are just beginning to understand.”-One up for Kevin and Kitty Cuttlefish, not to mention Billie Bacterium, as follows:
QUOTE: “What the naturalists are doing is called anthropomorphism -- ascribing human qualities to life forms that may experience life very differently. It was once the province of folk tales. Not today. This year, we were told in the science press that bacteria have morals:
Far from being selfish organisms whose sole purpose is to maximize their own reproduction, bacteria in large communities work for the greater good by resolving a social conflict among individuals to enhance the survival of their entire community.”-“Anthropomorphism” probably puts things the wrong way round (see my earlier NB). If we accept common descent, we are more likely to have inherited these characteristics than invented them. Anyway, there you have it: bacteria are just like social insects, and are not mindless automatons but individual beings. And fancy that, here's the next quote:-QUOTE:“Hence the matricide," Loope said. "Workers are not mindless automatons working for the queen no matter what. They only altruistically give up reproduction when the context is right, but revolt when it benefits them to do so."-You don't have to believe it, but you have to be very stubborn indeed to disbelieve it.