Understanding the World: Animal Consciousness
What We Can Know; For Sure – Not Much IMHO. It pays to be humble.
Note: Research and Ghostwriting by LLM AI; shaped by my fevered brain. No LLM AI were harmed in the production of this essay, although I was tempted. – Ephektikoi
Author's Preface
I have long been perplexed, maybe interested to a fault, with the problem of consciousness, deemed "The Hard Problem" by David Chalmers—a phrase echoed countless times by others because it is true. I was seized with this issue from a young age, and upon reaching university, I took an introductory course on the philosophy of mind. My first essay unduly impressed the professor, and he expected great things from me as a philosopher. I guess if he only knew about me now, he would be disappointed. Probably on the underside of the grass now.
However, my interest has persisted. I followed a path of experimental psychology, did the coursework for a master's degree eventually, but could not make sense of my experimental results and did not write up these for my thesis. So, Psych BA, Hon, Psych MA, ABD ( “all but dissertation”, a joke). I did read a lot in philosophy, psychology, some neuroscience for the layperson, gave up on some of the harder stuff, and decided that the mind as an aspect of brain, of neurology, made the most sense. I still think that, but am open to the myriad other possibilities.
I look at my fellows and think that to believe other than that they are conscious, thinking, feeling, self-aware is ridiculous. However, how could anyone prove it?
I look at cats, dogs, crows, fish, any number, perhaps all creatures and think that they are conscious, thinking, feeling as well. Self-aware? Not sure about that, although there are some clever studies on it. However, how could anyone prove it? Same problem.
I look at animals I have known, including the neighbourhood critters, and think: there must be something going on in those little noggins that is aware, feels, thinks in some non-linguistic fashion, and is even self-aware, at least to some degree. That makes more sense of their behaviour than viewing them as automatons. But I cannot prove any of that. Can neuroscience? Maybe, maybe not. That is why it is called "The Hard Problem."
Descartes was full of it on that score, I think, but how could anyone prove it? So, continuing on this line of inquiry and consciousness, I decided to use ChatGPT LLM AI to produce an essay on the topic. I am not sure why, but it seemed to be the right thing to do.
I still eat meat but do feel guilty. I grew up in a hunting family too, one step removed from the farm!
Introduction
Animal consciousness is a topic both fascinating and frustrating, sitting at the intersection of philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience. The debate surrounding animal consciousness has evolved significantly in recent years, driven by advances in cognitive science and more sophisticated methods of studying animal behaviour. Yet, despite these developments, fundamental questions about what it means for an animal to be conscious remain largely unresolved. What can we know, for sure, about animal consciousness? The answer, it seems, is not much.
This essay delves deeper into the enigmatic nature of animal consciousness, examining historical and contemporary perspectives on the subject. We will explore the philosophical implications of consciousness in non-human animals, the scientific approaches used to study it, and the limitations inherent in our current understanding. While our knowledge of animal consciousness is far from complete, the ongoing pursuit of answers continues to push the boundaries of what we can know.
The Philosophical Conundrum
The question of animal consciousness is deeply rooted in philosophical inquiry. René Descartes, the 17th-century French philosopher, famously argued that animals were mere automatons—machines devoid of consciousness or subjective experience. According to Descartes, only humans possessed the rational soul necessary for consciousness (Descartes, 1641/1984). This dualistic view, which separates the mind from the body, laid the groundwork for the persistent skepticism regarding animal consciousness in Western thought.
David Chalmers’ formulation of "The Hard Problem" of consciousness—how and why subjective experiences arise from physical processes—further complicates the issue (Chalmers, 1996). If we struggle to explain human consciousness, how can we confidently assert anything about the inner lives of animals? The difficulty lies in the inherent subjectivity of consciousness. While we can observe and measure behavior, the subjective experience—what it feels like to be an animal—remains elusive (Chalmers, 1996).
Thomas Nagel famously highlighted this conundrum in his essay "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" (1974). Nagel argued that consciousness is inherently tied to a subjective point of view, making it impossible to fully understand the experience of another being. This idea underscores the limitations we face when trying to comprehend animal consciousness. Even if an animal exhibits behavior that suggests consciousness, we cannot directly access its subjective experience. This epistemological barrier—the problem of other minds—remains a significant hurdle in the study of animal consciousness (Nagel, 1974).
Scientific Approaches to Animal Consciousness
Despite the philosophical challenges, the scientific community has made significant strides in studying animal consciousness. Advances in neuroimaging, ethology, and comparative psychology have provided new insights into the cognitive abilities of various species. For example, studies on primates, dolphins, and certain birds have demonstrated behaviors suggestive of self-awareness, problem-solving, and even elements of theory of mind—the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others (Gennaro, 2012).
Mirror self-recognition (MSR) tests, where an animal is marked with an odorless dye and placed before a mirror, have been used to assess self-awareness in species such as chimpanzees, elephants, and magpies. The ability to recognize oneself in a mirror has been interpreted as evidence of a form of self-awareness, though not without controversy. Critics argue that MSR is a narrow measure of self-awareness and may not capture the full range of conscious experience (Neufield, 2020; Gallup, 1982).
Neuroscience has also contributed to our understanding, with research indicating that certain neural correlates of consciousness observed in humans are also present in other animals. For example, the presence of spindle neurons, which are associated with advanced cognitive functions, in species like whales and elephants suggests a potential for complex mental states (Butler & Hodos, 2005). Similarly, studies have found patterns of neural activity in birds that resemble those seen in mammals, challenging the notion that consciousness is exclusive to a particular class of animals (Browning, 2019). However, the interpretation of these findings is still subject to debate, and the extent to which they indicate consciousness remains unclear (Key et al., 2016).
Additionally, the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, signed in 2012 by a group of prominent neuroscientists, acknowledged that many non-human animals possess the neurological substrates necessary for consciousness (Low et al., 2012). This declaration represents a significant shift in the scientific understanding of animal consciousness, challenging long-held assumptions about the uniqueness of human experience.
The Ethical Implications
The question of animal consciousness is not merely a theoretical or scientific issue; it also has profound ethical implications. If animals are conscious beings with the capacity for subjective experience, including suffering, this recognition demands a reevaluation of how we treat them. The concept of animal rights, which has gained traction in recent decades, is closely tied to the notion of animal consciousness (Singer, 1975).
Peter Singer’s influential book Animal Liberation argued that the capacity to suffer, rather than the capacity for rational thought, should be the basis for moral consideration. If animals are conscious and can experience pain, then they deserve moral consideration similar to that of humans (Singer, 1975). This perspective challenges the traditional view that humans are categorically different from and superior to other animals.
Moreover, the recognition of animal consciousness has led to changes in laws and regulations regarding animal welfare. For example, the European Union has implemented stricter regulations on the treatment of animals in research, farming, and entertainment, reflecting a growing acknowledgment of their conscious experiences (European Commission, 2016).
However, the ethical debate is far from settled. Some argue that our understanding of animal consciousness is still too limited to justify significant changes in policy or behavior. Others contend that even a small possibility of animal consciousness should be enough to warrant greater protections for animals. This ongoing debate reflects the broader challenges of applying scientific knowledge to ethical issues, particularly when that knowledge is incomplete or uncertain.
The Limits of What We Can Know
Despite advances in both philosophy and science, the study of animal consciousness remains fraught with limitations. One of the most significant challenges is the problem of other minds—the idea that we can never truly know the subjective experiences of another being, whether human or animal (Nagel, 1974). This epistemological barrier means that any claims about animal consciousness are inherently speculative.
Furthermore, much of the research on animal consciousness is influenced by anthropomorphism—the attribution of human characteristics to animals. While it is tempting to interpret animal behavior through a human lens, doing so risks oversimplifying or misinterpreting their cognitive processes. For instance, when a dog displays what we interpret as guilt after being scolded, it is easy to project our emotions onto the animal, but the underlying mental state may be vastly different (Bekoff, 2007). As a result, researchers must tread carefully, balancing the desire to understand animal consciousness with the need for scientific rigor.
Finally, the methodological challenges of studying consciousness in non-verbal creatures cannot be overlooked. Human consciousness is typically explored through introspection, subjective reports, and complex language-based tests—tools that are not applicable to animals. This necessitates the use of indirect measures, such as behavior or neural activity, which may not fully capture the richness of conscious experience (Koch, 2012). The reliance on such proxies underscores the difficulty of drawing definitive conclusions about animal consciousness.
Summary
Animal consciousness remains one of the most challenging and enigmatic topics in both philosophy and science. While significant progress has been made in understanding the cognitive abilities of various species, the fundamental question of what it feels like to be an animal remains unresolved. The philosophical and scientific challenges are considerable, and the limitations of our current methods mean that our knowledge of animal consciousness is far from complete. Yet, the pursuit of understanding continues, driven by both intellectual curiosity and ethical concern. Ultimately, what we can know for sure about animal consciousness is limited, but the search for answers continues to push the boundaries of human knowledge.
Bibliography
Bekoff, M. (2007). The emotional lives of animals: A leading scientist explores animal joy, sorrow, and empathy—and why they matter. New World Library. https://www.amazon.ca/Emotional-Lives-Animals-Scientist-Explores/dp/1577316290
Browning, H. (2020). If I could talk to the animals: Measuring subjective animal welfare (Version 2). PhilArchive. HTTP://philarchive.org/rec/BROIIC-3
Butler, A. B., & Hodos, W. (2005). Comparative vertebrate neuroanatomy: Evolution and adaptation (2nd ed.). Wiley-Interscience. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/0471733849
Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford University Press. https://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/teaching/ph103/pdf/Chalmers_The_Conscious_Mind.pdf
Descartes, R. (1641/1984). Meditations on first philosophy (J. Cottingham, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. https://personal.lse.ac.uk/ROBERT49/teaching/ph103/pdf/Descartes_1641Meditations.pdf
European Commission. (2016). Animal welfare. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/animal-welfare_en
Gallup, G. G., Jr. (1982). Self-awareness and the emergence of mind in primates. American Journal of Primatology, 2(3), 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.1350020302
Gennaro, R. J. (2012). The consciousness paradox: Consciousness, concepts, and higher-order thoughts. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262016605/the-consciousness-paradox/
Koch, C. (2012). Consciousness: Confessions of a romantic reductionist. MIT Press. https://www.amazon.ca/Consciousness-Confessions-Reductionist-Christof-Koch/dp/0262017490
Low, P., Edelman, D. B., & Koch, C. (2012). The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. Retrieved from https://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435-450. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2020). Animal sentience and consciousness: A review of the scientific evidence. HTTP://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/images/Animal-sentience-and-consciousness-review.pdf
Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. Random House. https://www.amazon.ca/Animal-liberation-ethics-treatment-animals/dp/0394400968