Scientists push new paradigm of animal consciousness, saying even insects may be sentient
Far more animals than previously thought likely have consciousness, top scientists say in a new declaration — including fish, lobsters and octopus.
Bees play by rolling wooden balls — apparently for fun. The cleaner wrasse fish appears to recognize its own visage in an underwater mirror. Octopuses seem to react to anesthetic drugs and will avoid settings where they likely experienced past pain.
All three of these discoveries came in the last five years — indications that the more scientists test animals, the more they find that many species may have inner lives and be sentient. A surprising range of creatures have shown evidence of conscious thought or experience, including insects, fish and some crustaceans.
That has prompted a group of top researchers on animal cognition to publish a new pronouncement that they hope will transform how scientists and society view — and care — for animals.
Nearly 40 researchers signed “The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness,” which was first presented at a conference at New York University on Friday morning. It marks a pivotal moment, as a flood of research on animal cognition collides with debates over how various species ought to be treated.
Considering that as sentient beings ourselves, we don't really even understand sentience, it's kinda bold to assume we've got a monopoly on it.
Similarly I wonder how much of the observation is projection. We don't know what the bee thinks it's getting out of rolling the ball around, we don't know that the fish was actually reacting to seeing itself. At some level we're assuming that's what's going on because it makes sense to us.
We are limited by our own understanding and imagination, but I don't know any other explanation for silly little nonproductive activities other than "play". Is it because it is play, or is it beyond our understanding? We can't communicate with them, but we can draw parallels between their behaviors and our own natural behaviors.
Humans have a really, really hard time NOT assigning human attributes to every other living thing.
One thing that makes this hypothesis seem possible, is that some researchers are suggesting consciousness is external, and eternal. Meaning all living things are essentially antennae.
That really reeks of "scientists invent God." And I question the actual motives of any researcher that would suggest such an idea.
Show me the data that suggest that. Describe a test that might prove it.
I think Penrose was talking about devising one. What do you think the motives would be?
Source?
This is basic, but there are thousands of lectures, books, and papers on it, going back to the 80's.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/think-well/201906/can-consciousness-exist-outside-the-brain
https://youtu.be/Ci2npsJIvFc?si=Vaf2Z9m6MLsbgMjR
Or anything with Donald Hoffman, which there is a ton.
Basically, our brain just handles our cognitive needs, and filters consciousness, which is a fundamental property of the universe. Think what you will, but this is a pretty popular theory in the past decade or so. Among physicists and neurologists alike...
So, there's a chance that there's an afterlife, I mean if the brain isn't the SOURCE of conciousness? But are you sure it's popular? I heard neurologists were strictly "Brain is the source"
With a couple of perfect millennia of perfect human development and advances in all fields, we probably wouldn't think of these versions of ourselves as more or less sentient than other thing populating Earth.
Sure, they paint caves & make 10s videos, but that's just natural automation, a response to environment, simply not knowing better.
What was obvious to most of us as kids (and what was attempted to be beaten out of us as kids) is now being accepted by scientists. Love it.
Right, I had no idea scientists were trying to say these animals weren't sentient. Stupid scientists.
It's not really that they all thought they didn't, it's that there was a lack of evidence to declare it to likely be true. Better testing methodology to exclude other possible explanations have contributed.
I dunno about all that, but I used to have an African fish that would always get the zoomies when I'd come home from work. He'd spit water at me or gravel at the glass to get my attention, and loved playing hide and seek and always brushed up on my hands when I was working on his tank. He never reacted this way to visitors, just me.
Exactly this.
And to get to this you need experience, research, and knowledge.
And trying to explain this to humans in general would take several generations in best case scenario (much less actually doing/changing anything with that knowledge).
Usually anything attacking the doctrine of how extra super special & way more unique than other equally unique species are is meet with severe (auto-?)hostility.
Even without our status in question, just the "threat" of something being slightly less/differently inferior to us is immediately attacked by the vast majority.
And once we decide something is inferior to us it takes extra effort to change the popular belief (like racism between humans as well - just designate some human as non-human & they are considered about as much as billions of yeast bacteria as we are baking bread).
Wasn’t this already obvious?
We don’t even know what sentience/sapience/whatever is. We have some thoughts, people argue about the definitions, and stuff; but really… it all comes down to… “are they like us”… but we don’t even really know what that means.
So no. It’s not obvious. (Particularly because humans are surprisingly stupid.)
To people who spend a lot of time around animals or even sea creatures, it may be obvious that they’re more like us than most would assume.
To put it another way, humans just aren't that special. We started from the assumption that we are somehow fundamentally different
We keep finding out that all sorts of animals have language and culture, and it blows my mind that apparently, just about everything seems to have something akin to a name
Well, maybe, but it sure as he'll isn't convenient.
Al Gore marvel movie quip
An Inconvenient Sentience
Denying such things in other animals has been part of a long-standing, mainly Western, push for human exceptionalism
Not to people indoctrinated by Abrahamic religions.
Yes.
My first, second, third and fourth thought. I didn’t have a fifth.
I mean people have been pushing for recognition of this for at least a few thousand years so I'd say yes.
The lengths people are willing to go in self delusion for a burger are astounding though.
Some people are just straight up fine eating beef because they don't care. Like, we won the food chain, and that's enough for them
You really said "we won the food chain" like you wouldn't run screaming from a slightly pissed off badger haha.
What a fucking absurd stance, the school of "if I can do it: it must be fine to do" ethics.
I didn't say it's my opinion, you silly goose.
The lack of critical thinking here is insane
Edit: the whole way we won the food chain isnt about standing toe to toe with any animal, we productionized their whole existence.
Beyond that I don't know how you could know what animals I am or am not afraid of, that's a pretty silly assumption
Uh huh, I believe you. You're so tough and smart and strong, bravely debating and owning the libs, casually fighting badgers armed with nothing but your Jordan Peterson body pillow.
To think that Aldous Huxley was known as the last Renaissance man when you were among us all along.
Ok not sure what I'm debating here, is it really a point of argument that some folks are fine with consuming meat? Is it really a point of argument that humans are at the top of the global food chain?
Edit are you just 3 badgers in a trench coat?
Some people would call this the "law of the jungle", or the natural state of things.
It's also not reasonable to assume any one person would run screaming from a badger. People wrestle crocodiles and mountain lions and win.
If anyone thinks that I hope they get hunted by a sadist, are kept as their plaything, and live a long life begging for death.
It's a completely asinine opinion that absolutely nobody worth giving a modicum of time or respect to maintains. There's not even any point talking about, it's like chiming in with the fact that some people think smearing shit on toilet walls is the correct thing to do when discussing how to grow food.
Also anyone who gets defensive about the idea they would run screaming from a moderately pissed off badger has never interacted with a badger and would absolutely run screaming from one.
It seems odd to me that this article is framing octopodes as a surprising inclusion. Aren't they generally known to be some of the most intelligent animals of all?
Yes and no. It has long been known that they are surprisingly intelligent, but the structure of their nervous system is very strange and decentralized which makes it fairly surprising nonetheless.
I heard there's a theory that they didn't originate on earth
We have fossil evidence otherwise. Their greatest barrier to developing higher intelligence is that they die after reproduction, so they'll never have pressures to develop more symbolic thought or pass on knowledge.
Octopuses are mostly antisocial anyway and wouldn't want that. Squid, by comparison, use they high intelligence for social interaction but most of it is trying to navigate a social setting where you want to eat as much as you can, mate with your neighbors, and avoid offending your neighbors enough that they eat you. There's still only so much you can do when you die after a year or two because of a biological time bomb that kills you with sex hormone overload.
Also being underwater would make it very hard to develop technology.
H. P. Lovecraft just in absolute shambles in the corner over there.
Lol what's even a mollusc amirite?
I also think these eukaryotic creatures that fit neatly in evolutionary lines must be... aliens.
This is self evident to any animal lover
It's self evident to anyone not plagued by speciesism, regardless of their feelings about animals; I don't think we ought to allow that much latitude to opt-out of the obvious moral consequences of this truth.
This reads like "scientists find that women have emotions and feeling and can feel pain"
I've always thought this, and thought it strange we assumed other creatures experienced lesser levels of sentience.
Vegans are well aware of this phenomenon.
People will tend to wave away atrocities by saying the victims "can't feel it" or "don't know what's going on."
We see it all the time in things like the treatment of indigenous people and the mutilation of baby's genitals.
I think it's fair to assume they experience a "lesser" level of sentience. People just assume it's a lot more lesser than it is
I don't even think this to be honest, seems like an absurd humanist position
Ofc they are sentient.
I fail to understand why do we will push the 'no expression of the face means no intelligence or emotions bcs most of us communicate that way'.
It always turns out that whatever brain mechanics we think of as our own we later & with minimal research find in other animals as well.
Evolutionary speaking too, same brain centres (with various density and relative size - of which we dont have all that dense brains & and most parts are underdeveloped), it's absolutely unlikely we would have developed something new in a few millions of years (especially given smol & fragmented populations facing extinctions and smol gene pools - tho that could be interpreted the other way too). It's just specialisation, some (advantageous) functions grew, other were optimised to the point of non-existence.
Then again, given how intolerant are we to our own species in terms of our emotional response to slight visual differences (I mean vcompletely evolutionary, uncanny valley thing, the next village of humanoids might have been competing for the same resources, which makes different culture/colours/face shapes = danger, etc), how we choose to ignore compassion (like 'look at that idiot, ofc they have no feelings, not unlike me, the superior being') ... ofc we can't immediately recognise and understand what and how animals are feeling. It takes a lot of time, effort, & empathy (mechanical empathy, like to fully underhand their environment from their pov, and emotional empathy, how they are processing that environment).
And the bigger the difference and habitats, the harder it is (like any sea animal really). Anything non-mammal seems alien to us, no matter the smarts (eg cuttlefish, that can clearly experience psychological trauma on individual and population/cultural level).
And then there are fungi. After that plants. And whatever we choose bacteria to be (like beings, or just a literal matter of environment we live within). Etc :).
Insects don't really have brains. The complexity of their ganglia is not really comparable to what we consider a brain and seems rather unlikely that they have anything like our consciousness, just due to the difference in complexity. Does not mean we should treat them like shit, they are living creatures - but also not sure why we need to pretend they are something they are clearly not.
Jumping spiders show some level of consciousness. They're intelligent predators that heavily use their sight to identify prey. They can recognise different prey types, learn their behaviours and adjust hunting strategies accordingly. A good example is how they are able to recognise when certain prey is acting odd, deduce it's injured and drop their stealthy approach for a more direct one. They're also capable of remembering their environment and using indirect and often complex paths to sneak up on prey.
Scientists have even observed them "dreaming", which is likely when they do the information processing required for such comparatively complex behaviours https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/jumping-spiders-dream-rem-sleep-study-suggests
Bold claim to go from REM in sleep-like state to dreams and consciousness, and the original paper is not making that claim.
All of this seems rather possible even with basic learning mechanisms on molecular level. Not sure why you would claim that this need consciousness. But if you have a paper on this topic I would be more than interested to read them.
No papers that are actually concrete. Most of it is just speculation.
I'm not a scientist, and for me personally it's enough to make me spend a bit longer thinking before immediately dismissing all insects as mindless automatons. Most probably are simple biological machines. Jumping spiders are however massive outliers in terms of insect intelligence, and a cursory Google search will provide a wealth of evidence for it.
I personally would also go as far as believing that they dream. I just don't believe there's a reasonable explanation for the REM like state other than some form of dreaming, even if rudimentary.
I'm not going to state that jumping spiders are fully conscious as 100% fact, there's not enough proof for that. But they do have a proven ability to learn, and an ability to make somewhat complex plans. And all I'm trying to say is that we need more research before dismissing them so certainly.
Not a scientist my self, but I studies biology and neuroscience more specifically - just left the field. I will look more into jumping spiders, since it's sounds interesting and I was not really aware that they are that different from other spiders. Now I'm more curious and I definitely agree that we need more research in general.
Yes, I agree, in just pointing out how difficult is to understand that. Theoretically, it's not like a human-level intelligent insect couldn't exist.
My thinking to challenge myself/ourselves: Then how do whole colonies decide and plan resources? When to gave truce or war with the neighbouring colonies (of same or completely different species?). Their war strategies resemble human wars without technology/weapons. They also cultivate insects, plants, and fungi. Some within colonies plan, deceive, and try to develop a new queen (instead of the queen doing it in purpose/strategy).
Having brains as such imho is part of the problem as it adds a lot of complexity for humans to relate to.
But even our brains don't work and govern alone, major organs have a complex nervous systems of their own (complex in the sense of not having a centre).
Not as a direct comparison to insect, but eg cephalopod brains are also vastly different, yet clearly highly intelligent.
We understand most of your questions quiet well. It's been a long time since I studied biology and I'm not working in that field anymore so I won't be able to give you most answers from memory, but if you are interested you will find a lot of research on those topics. It's mostly really rather automatic responses through pheromone systems with involuntary responses. Especially the wars of ants are quite well understood in that regard.
Cephalopod have different but also rather complex brain structures. Again - insects just completely lack higher brain anatomy. If you into those question I would highly recommend you to take an introductory lecture into neuroscience online. We don't understand everything but we understand some things quiet well.
This doesn't explain complex behavior seen in many insects like how bumblebees can learn how to solve puzzles from watching other bees performing the solution (this requires a minimal degree of visual recognition of the same species, theory of mind to understand they have a goal and what it is, recognition of their actions and the ability to translate them to copy them, etc).
Having a drastically different structure to their neurons doesn't mean they can't think.
"Same" neurons (they don't have all the neuron types we have but in general one can say it's the same neurons), just no complex brain structures. You can have very complex behavior completely reliant on pheromone systems, quite well studied in ants. I'm not to familiar with bumblebees so I would need to look into literature, but for example simple learning already happens at molecular level and does not require any thinking at all.
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002019
They show evidence of a degree of culture (socially shared knowledge)
Thanks, will check the paper out.
Came around to read the paper. Indeed very interesting - also not suited to base broader conclusions about coinciosness in insects in my opinion, the idea that culture might be supported by much simpler neuronal mechanisms is fascinating to me. Very speculative it might very well be than that even coinciosness can emerge in less complex systems then previously thought. Also bumblebees are even more dope than I previously thought. Great read thanks.
So arrogant are we
This raises some interesting questions. The premise of these scientists is that consciousness can be quantified empirically. Yet many of the tests described in this article can be passed by machines. Does that mean that the scientists who signed the declaration consider some smart devices to demonstrate consciousness? And what are the implications?
These arguments never make much sense because there's no broadly accepted philosophical consensus on what sentience is.
I agree with this. I've read the statement that the scientists wrote and I honestly could not figure out what they are trying to say. I just don't see how any of the tests they reference would challenge the idea that we don't know how to define or test consciousness.
Sentience is not necessarily the same thing but its in a similar place. It may be possible to test depending on the definition.
I'd hazard the guess they don't, and it's easy to justify it - our current AIs don't have the internal aparatus needed to develop counsciousness (yet). They're way too simple and way too straightforward to be intelligent, whether intelligence is an emergent property or a fundamental structure.
Seems like a strong argument that consciousness cannot be determined by testing behaviors.
True, you can't test a literal rock and expect the result to be telling of counsciousness. Good thing the researchers aren't solely determining it by testing behaviour, and instead selected a group in which emergent intelligence is one of the probable phenomena.
Is emergent intelligence the scientific definition of consciousness? The article seems to be describing something else.
There exists no practical or effective difference.
IS veganism the real solution here, or is the real solution the all-artificial, all-synthetic diet? Me personally, I'm going to down this jug of red 40, and then I think I'll get back to you
If it ever comes out that plants are sentient and feel pain my moral compass is going to have a bad day.
I'm not even a vegetarian ... but I have tried to eat less meat in recent years, in part because of the cruelty.
I'd say eating plants would still be the lesser of two evils in that case. Animals we kill for food also eat plants, so from a pure quantity of suffering, it's better to not have the middleman there.
But some animals we eat are carnivores, like most wild-caught fish. In which case, killing them reduces the total amount of suffering. Same reasoning as the trolley problem.
Even that's a bit more complex, without predators many species massively overbreed, leading to mass starvation
That wouldn't apply to ecosystems where the predator is invasive, for example the lionfish in the Caribbean (which happens to be delicious).
Furthermore, if there is concern for a population explosion then one could also kill and eat the predator's prey, provided you eat fewer than the predator would have eaten.
We, as omnivores, have a choice. The carnivores do not. I'd rather not cause more suffering than I have to (since I have that choice) even if there was the potential that it could possibly decrease overall suffering.
I will not go into other problems with fish specifically since it's not on-topic.
Whereas I choose to cause suffering if I expect it will reduce greater suffering, including killing animals if necessary.
Everyone has their own approach to the trolley problem.
Do note that this whole thing is based on the hypothetical of plants being capable of experiencing pain. In reality, they do not possess a nervous system to enable that.
Of course I'd choose to kill an animal if the alternative was getting injured or killed (or starving in some extreme survival situation), but in day-to-day life, I do not see the need to do that.
If the only way to stop a school shooter were to kill them, I think most people would do so even if they were not personally threatened.
And many people, including myself, think it is moral to kill even an innocent person if necessary to prevent the death of a greater number of people. That's the trolley problem in a nutshell.
But if I'm willing to kill a person in order to prevent them from killing other people, then I should also be willing to kill a fish in order to prevent it from killing other fish.
Finally, the argument for nonhuman sentience does not turn on the presence or absence of neurons. That would just be a cellular version of speciesism, and it inexplicably eliminates the possibility of sentience in extraterrestrials or machines.
The argument in the OP is based on behaviors, like recognizing self vs nonself, avoiding noxious stimuli, creative problem-solving, etc. Plants do many of these things too, just on longer timescales.
We can always go the way of only eating fruits (and fruit-like growths), as they're specifically meant for being eaten.
The same is true of milk.
Well, no. Milk is naturally produced for a limited period so a mammal can feed its young. Fruits are produced year-round every year so a plant can spread its seeds as far as possible.
Milk and fruit are both only produced for a limited time.
For instance, many tomato plants only produce tomatoes for a few months of the year, and then they die.
By each individual plant, sure. But for diverse farming, you can easily get a permanent rotation of fruits going.
You're also completely ignoring the most importat fact - that milk is produced to feed newborns and fruit is produced to attract (and by extension feed) literally whichever species is around.
No, fruit is produced to be eaten by animals who will ingest the seeds and defecate them somewhere suitable for growth. It is not meant to be eaten by animals who defecate in a toilet.
Regardless, animals and plants used in agriculture have been modified by selective breeding to suit human needs, so the milk and fruit they produce are now meant for humans. And human agricultural practices ensure a constant supply of both fruit and milk.
At this point you're really grasping at straws to justify your cruelty, huh?
Completely fucking irrelevant how an animal spreads a plant's seed.
You've been selectively bred to work, is it okay to turn you into a slave?
I'm simply pointing out that milk and fruit are both meant to be consumed. This is true regardless of whether you believe one is more moral than the other. The latter depends on whether you believe, as suggested above, that plants are sentient.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, I believe that if you are concerned only about animal suffering then your diet should include wild animals that kill other animals, namely wild caught fish.
I do like fruit...
Im pretty sure i have read articles about study finding that show certain trees can communicate distress via pheromones or something when under attack by insects that strip their leaves and some plants give off a very faint 'noise' when they are dehydrated or distressed.
Me too. I still eat cheese but no more meats. Regardless of the sentient thing, it's good for you to not eat meat.
Considering how pain is a trigger for an animal's fight or flight response, and considering plants can neither fight nor flee, it would seem like a cruel cosmic joke for plants to feel pain. What purpose would it serve, evolutionary speaking?
No idea; though I think a consciousness could be independent of whether or not something feels pain. For instance, there are people that don't feel pain but they're very much conscious and killing them wouldn't be any more just simply because they don't feel pain.
Plants are autotrophs in that they create their own energy from the sun with the help of microbes in soils to supply nutrients to enable plants to do so.
Imo, the closer we can descend on the food chain to autotrophic nutrition, the better for all.
Of course, all of this has to be taken in balance. There needs to be a healthy discussion between domesticated and wilded lands.
But much research has been published showing that if the world moved to primarily plant-based/vegan/herbivore/autotrophic diets, then we'd quickly move to living inside of our planet's boundaries which we aren't now. Think about rewilding corn fields or wheat fields or soy fields and still having enough food left over to feed the entire population.
#govegan
Welllllll.... What if you found out that every time you cut into a plant, it let out a high pitched scream that humans can't hear?
https://www.sciencealert.com/plants-really-do-scream-out-loud-we-just-never-heard-it-until-now
Yeah the fresh cut grass smell is actually a call to aid. They "think" the damage is caused by herbivorous insects, so they release chemicals to attract carnivorous insects to come and kill the other insects.
Plants probably qualify for a separate category of low sentience. If you've grown plants you know they'll turn towards the sun, and you need to move them around a bit to make sure they don't end up with a prominent lean. Some plants will use their tendrils to wrap around a trellis for extra support.
I don't think we can qualify these actions on the same level of sentience as animals, but there is certainly something there. All living things probably have some degree of this, since they react to stimulus with chemical signaling. That's not terribly different from what we do.
Veganism is the solution, yes.
Future generations will look back on us like we were crazy and barbaric for eating meat.
I agree that veganism is/could be a good solution moving forward. I strongly disagree that eating meat can be considered barbaric, as it is completely natural and present in every corner of the animal kingdom. Now, how we treat the animals we get that meat from is absolutely barbaric and should be considered so, but I don't think meat eating itself should be villainized, at least in a retrospective sense.
Just because something is natural doesn't mean it isn't barbaric. Male lions will regularly kill cubs to make the mother ready for sex - that's natural but we'd never accept (correctly) a human doing that.
I understand your point but I dont think that the male lion's proclivity for infanticide is equivalent to human life simply because that is not a typical (i.e. natural) aspect of human society
Wikipedia: Infanticide
Well, it is always possible that I am under informed so I guess my argument may not stand, at least not on the grounds I have claimed. Thank you for the link, I will read about this.
Rape then? Lots of animals rape and humans do so too. It's 'natural' but barbaric.
Using the word barbaric is barbaric. It just basically means non-Greek/Roman. 😜
Nah, synthetic food (and eventually discarding our gross meat shells for silicon and metal bodies) is the rightful path. On the way there, veganism is a nice stop-gap for most people.
I thought this should be obvious to anyone who's interacted with an animal, ever. But sadly there are a great many people who don't agree there is a 'soul behind the tv screen' as it were with animals more primitive than things like cats and dogs. It can be easy to use to justify human cruelty.
And it's easy for you to say it's obvious and you've thought that all along. You're not the demographic they're trying to inform.
I found that too many people who call themselves a dog person because they are terrible with animals. Dogs have been bred to put up with us. But give them a dog that's either bred for a specific task, or one that is a bit feral and they'll say the dog is difficult. It isn't, the owner is just incompetent.
I'm no dog or cat person. It's easier for me to name the animals I hate (damn mosquito's). I get along with most animals, even instant-swatting cats labelled as difficult. Only because I respect their boundaries. And I've stuck my hand behind a fence to pet a pitbull more often than a sane person would consider healthy.
I think that pet breeding should be banned and only allowed by veterinairy instances, universities and animal shelters. Imagine if people couldn't buy a pet on a whim? Imagine if they had to order in advance and get certified they know how to take care of one? We'd have less animal cruelty, and less strays.
Also, sheep are underrated pets. Holy damn they are social. They are basically a walking pillow and love scratches behind the horns. And wag their tail when happy. Same for rats. I say rats are more suitable as pets than dogs. Social, fun, trainable (be warned of the lazy males), don't bite, love cuddles, and you don't need to castrate them to "keep their fun behaviour." You do have to remove the ovaria as it makes female rats prone to cancer otherwise.
I'm gonna have to pass on the sheep, well at least the males. We had one, as a companion to a horse, and the damn thing would head butt us half the time and try to hump us the other. We had to carry a stick in just to feed it, or risk ending up with a line of spooge down our backs. It wasn't right.
Rats, on the other hand, are great pets. More people should give rats a chance.
Oh damn. The sheep I pet was a male. I'm not surprised about the assholery though.
Shoutout to rats, really amazing creatures. Apparently they have metacognition!
I'm a dog person because between cats and dogs, I lack respect for cats. Yes they are cute and soft and sometimes cuddly. It's not worth the ammonia smell everywhere and the scratching me when they come to me for pets, or the biting, clawing furniture, etc. Mostly the pee in the house.
I've done the things like changing the litter box and using new litter frequently. I've given them off limits spaces so they aren't bothered. I've done the things and more. My daughter still has a cat downstairs. I'm not a jerk to the cat, but I just don't like cats. I'll pet, hold, play, etc. Cats are simply not a favorite for me.
Dogs... Ok the other hand.. Obnoxious playful dopey friends that can learn cool things. Big cuddle bugs is what they are.
You share the same problem with the "too many people calling themselves dog people." You state you lack respect to an animal, and then complain about said animal who is known to fight when threatened. That cat can tell you don't like him, and so he doesn't like you. Similar with horses. Just like many other animals, they sense your emotions. Except horses are very very good at it, and cats much less so.
I mean.. The cat in the house is still our cat. We love him and have had him for 10+ years. He's chill and tromps around the house. Sometimes plays and sometimes cuddles with everyone. I love the cat but I generally don't like cats.
I'm not sure I follow what you're putting down. I don't feel like it applies to me.
Be that as it may, wasps can still fuck right off.
Will we now treat them as well as other clearly sentient animals like pigs?
There is no way I'm clicking on that link
You might be thinking of Sapience.
Sentience means capable of logic and reason. Bare bones perception qualifies. Sapience means wise or learned. Pigs are both.
I believe we're all "material automata." The mistake isn't thinking animals are more primitive than they are, but thinking we are more sophisticated than we are. We're nothing special.
Jeremy Bentham, 1789
so it's time to stop masturbating with my dog in the room
They're conscious, not a prude.
I could make a very crude joke, but I refuse. You win this time.
I mean your dog IS just waiting for some “food” to fall on the floor AAAAND I’ll show myself out
I'd be tempted to go and say "no shit," but even the most obvious things have to be proven or tested. How you define consciousness can also change a lot.
not surprising, I remember watching spider move when I was a kid and thinking they were obviously intelligent. sure they creep me out but I hate killing them for no reason, same with literally any other living thing
That's true, spider man was pretty sentient in his movie
Sometimes I confuse Sentient and Sapient in sentences but they actually don't mean the same thing at all.
In my opinion the idea of animal conscious has been fairly well supported for decades at minimum. There was a certain anti-consciousness orthodoxy in the animal behavior field that held back understanding of this topic. But I mean simple observation of animal behavior and the similar nervous structures surely leave animal consciousness the most likely explanation, even if it’s difficult to definitively prove.
A more interesting question in my mind is whether plants are conscious. This is a question that we truly have no idea how to answer.
The idea that turned me into a vegetarian is the realization that my pets most definitely had personalities, and what is a person if not something with a personality?
I might not be able to have a complex discussion about shared interests with them, but there are plenty of humans you can say the same thing about, and I'm still not going to eat them, or be okay with them being tortured from birth to execution.
Well, I mean...
🧐
No fucking shit... anyone with half a brain and a minimum of empathy already knows that.
Yes, yes, the scientific method doesn't discriminate between what is and isn't obvious, but the headline is, as usual, aimed at people with the intellectual capabilities of a 4 year old.
Yeah, well I'm still not sorry I put out ant traps.
Edit: The downvoters have clearly never had an ant infestation in their kitchen. It's not a 'live and let live' situation.
Ants are also fairly well documented to be on the level of sophisticated biological robots. Death spirals/ant mills are a common occurrence because of this. There are arguments for some insects but ants are not one of them
Anything being that has a sense of self and other has a level of conscious awareness.
damn, guess i'm more comparable to a goldfish than is reasonably conceivable to the average person.
I always instinctively knew it and that's why i love animals so much. My son was born just like me, with a love and respect of all creatures, even insects (Beside mosquitoes and flies because these can really eat all my electric tapper)
Any being that needs a map of the environment is going to have consciousness. Depending on its sense organs it will experience consciousness much differently than other beings.
So yeah that's a pretty low bar. We're going to find it everywhere. I suspect even mycelium is a rudimentary consciousness/nervous system. And plants are a lot more active underground than they are above, roots will move around rocks, be aware of if their neighbors are their siblings or not and share nutrients with their siblings by giving them more space, be more competitive with plants that they're not related to.
Life's a trip, and we are just some clever apes who have a lot to learn I think.
Slime mold appears intelligent, they used it in Japan to help reconfigure their subways iirc
That’s not what Kurt Cobain told me.
The new paradigm is coming
Some journalusts are dumb again. Sentient != sapient. Sapient is conscious.
Sorry, you have it backwards.
Sentient means conscious or able to feel, from the same Latin root as "sensory".
Sapient means wise or intelligent, from the same Latin root as "sage".
Only if opposing conscious to intelligent/able to think. Which most people do not.
Most people do, in fact, make a distinction. Including you:
One person can be more intelligent than another, but that does not mean they are more capable of feeling. They are different concepts.
Usually conscious is opposed to feelings.
Feeling as in awareness of the outside world, not as in emotions.
Unconscious people are not aware of the outside world. In fact, you can tell when they return to consciousness because they are once again aware of light, sound, etc.
Go. Vegan.
Yup. Species is an insane line to justify killing over. It's not who can breed with whom, or how somebody looks that matters, it's is there a 'them'.
but consciousness is so tasty
Give it up. I'm not eating bugs. Intentionally.
Shrimp is bugs though
Or just enjoy being at the top of the food chain, just don't morally waffle about it, own it. Be into suffering
The idea that humans are at the top of the food chain is largely disputed. On a global level we are at about the same trophic level as anchovies.
Colloquial usage, as I am here, refers to dominance on an ecosystem, and freedom of menu.
In that way there is nothing close to humans. You.csn eat nearly any creature on the planet, ordered over the internet. Next day if you're in a rush.
Humans have no widespread predators.
Or find a balance and don't be edgy for the sake of pissing off vegans
I'm closer to vegan than not, I am targeting people who dance around their actions.
If you eat meat you are complicit in suffering. Don't hide from that.
The thing that makes the most sense to me is some combination of like animism and panpsychism. Then it doesn't matter what may or may not be conscious, basically treat anything like it might be to the most practical level. Though I realize this is crazy talk to most people.
For example, don't destroy stuff and cause what might be harm just for the hell of it.
You had me up until furniture souls.
The mentioning of panpsychism didn’t make you stop?!
Yeah, leaving it at don't casually throw away stuff that cost a plant or animal life would have been fine 😂