What is Consciousness, are animal not Consciousness, can it exist without a host?

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I ask to propose a question regarding 3 questions.

What is consciousness exactly? What defines and makes it where it is and how it forms?

Are all animals, I'll speak in terms of anything higher than an single cell organisms for this sake, and ask are they conscious and self aware? Do they understand what they are to the degree we do?

Is consciousness just a product of the brain or is it something of another level in terms of where it goes and comes from?

I have my own thoughts on this subject but wanted to pose this question first since it has been a main interest of mine for the past couple of months.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I believe consciousness to be arbitrary. When we die, we may gain a form of sentience and not know how we came to be or why from a consciousness perspective. Think of it as a sort of "reincarnation", except nothing you do in your current life dictates what you'll be in another life, so to speak.

To answer the question though, humans are not the only beings with consciousness. Anything with a brain qualifies. Whether they are self-aware or not is irrelevant to consciousness, as that would pertain more to sentience, which is a different matter for another debate. Consciousness is being able to perceive your life; awake and aware of your surroundings, whether you have an understanding of it or not.

 

[Xivii]

Could you elaborate more on what classifies as being sentient @ Claire Diviner ?

 

[Claire Diviner]

Could you elaborate more on what classifies as being sentient @ Claire Diviner ?

The ability to perceive things, of being self-aware. Being able to feel, question, and understand things. But this is for another debate, so let's not muddy things up with unrelated posts.

 

[Xivii]

The ability to perceive things, of being self-aware. Being able to feel, question, and understand things. But this is for another debate, so let's not muddy things up with unrelated posts.

It's relevant. I don't quite understand the difference between consciousness and sentience .

 

[Claire Diviner]

It's relevant. I don't quite understand the difference between consciousness and sentience .

Consciousness is the ability to perceive your surroundings and being able to understand that one is awake and alive, regardless of whether one understands this or not, regardless of whether or not they question it. The differences are subtle.

 

[Sehnsucht]

I would propose that sentience is awareness, while sapience is self-awareness.

So a dog, for instance, would be sentient, since it is aware of its environment, and can react in concordance to detected external stimuli. But it may not necessarily be sapient, in that it is aware of itself -- its own mind, its own self, and be capable of reflection and introspection. Under these definitions, humans are both sentient and sapient.

Consciousness, on the other hand, could be simply termed as one's brain being switched "on". When you are conscious, your brain is in the act of processing information. When you are unconscious, your brain is dormant. When you are non-conscious (e.g. death), there are no processes being undertaken whatsoever.

Under such a definition, a computer could be said to be conscious, in that when it's switched on, it undergoes the processing of information. In such a case, there is a spectrum or gradation at play. Perhaps the human brain, being more complex and able to process information to a greater extent, could be said to be more conscious than a computer.

And a computer is neither sentient nor sapient. But it could be. A computer, or an artificial mechanism (e.g. androids), could be sentient (aware of its outside environment) without having any self-reflective capacity of its own processes (sapience).

There would also be a spectrum for sentience and sapience. So a plant would be less sentient than a mouse, since a plant is less aware of the specifics of its environment. So we can determine three spectra of "mental" phenomena:

-Sentience increases as awareness of environmental details increases;
-Sapience increases as awareness of self-details increases;
-Consciousness increases as information processing increases in density/complexity/extent/etc.

By the above, we can further infer that consciousness is necessary for sentience and/or sapience. If there's no processing of information going on, then there can be no awareness within or without the unit. I'm also not sure how you can be sapient without be sentient. Because in order to be aware of yourself, you need to know that you are you and not something else -- something that could only be ascertained from some measure of knowledge of that which is not you (i.e. your environment).

In other words, it's the Law of Identity (A=A). But in order to define A, you have to have Not-A. But if you're not aware of Not-A, you can't know that "A" is a distinct entity. So sapience would be impossible without sentience.

We can also say that something undergoing maximal information processing would be maximally conscious; that something maximally aware of their environment would be maximally sentient; and that something that is maximally aware of their own self would be maximally sapient.

These are likely unorthodox definitions for these terms. But then again, I came up with them just now on the spot. I think they're pretty neat, and offer a different way to frame and think about these topics. 8D

I think this addresses the first two question in the OP ("What Is Consciousness?" and "Are Non-Human Animals Sentient?").

As for the third question -- "Can Consciousness Exist Without A Brain?" -- I'd say that it's possible, though only in that a "brain" is a type of information-processor.

As per my above ruminations, consciousness is a process of information processing. This implies the existence of a processor which performs this processing. In humans, and in most other life, this processor is either centralized in a brain, or is spread across a nervous system.

But an organic brain may not be the only kind of possible processor. There are of course computers, artificial mechanisms of silica and transistors and so on that process information. Whether you consider such a mechanism a "brain" depends on your definition of "brain". If a "brain" is defined solely as an organic construct, then computers wouldn't have brains. If brain is synonymous with information processing mechanism, then anything that performs that function could be a brain, organic or otherwise.

So we can say that for consciousness to exist, there must be some kind of processor to generate the phenomenon of consciousness. As such, consciousness would not be capable of existing independent of a processor. The computer hardware generates the software, and the human brain generates the human mind. And so it would go for any and all things that could be deemed conscious (and sentient or sapient).

So there you go. If there be any sapient brothers or sisters in the house, by all means share impressions on these crackpot definitions.

 

[Xivii]

I like those definitions. It seems to me that when when people generally speak of consciousness, they combine your definitions for consciousness and sentience. I think the separation is important though.

There is one thing that comes to question with this. You inferred that consciousness is necessary for sentience, and also stated that plants are sentient. But would you say that plants are conscious? I ask this because plants not only lack a brain, but they have no nervous system at all (it's possible for an organism to still have a nervous system without a brain, such as a jellyfish). My first thought on this is that perhaps plants are not sentient at all. Plants do so many amazing things, and they clearly respond to the environment, but is there really a way to determine that they are "aware" of it? All the functions of a plant seem to run on mechanical properties based physics and biochemistry that require no conscious effort. Take, for example, the capturing of a "prey" by a Venus flytrap:

When an insect lands or crawls on the trap, it is likely to run into one of six, short, stiff hairs on the trap's surface. These are called trigger hairs, and they serve as a primitive motion detector for the plant. If two of these hairs are brushed in close succession, or one hair is touched twice, the leaves close down upon the offending insect within half a second.

What causes the leaves to squeeze shut? Nobody knows exactly how the sequential, mechanical stimulation of the trigger hairs translates into closing the trap. The prevailing hypothesis of the day is that:

1. Cells in an inner layer of the leaf are very compressed. This creates tension in the plant tissue that holds the trap open.
2. Mechanical movement of the trigger hairs puts into motion ATP-driven changes in water pressure within these cells.
3. The cells are driven to expand by the increasing water pressure, and the trap closes as the plant tissue relaxes.

Even without a brain to analyze what it's eating, the Venus Flytrap still manages to differentiate between insects and non-edible debris that might fall into its trap. This step is also mediated by the six sensitive trigger hairs. An insect caught inside the partially closed trap will continue to thrash about in an attempt to escape. It's guaranteed that at least one (if not all) of the trigger hairs will be tweaked by the insect's movement. This serves as the signal to close the trap entirely.

Inanimate objects like stones, twigs and leaves that fall into the trap, or objects that are placed there (what child can resist sticking the tip of their pencil into the trap to watch it close?), will not move around and fire the trigger hairs. If there is no further stimulation of the hair, the trap stays in its partially shut state until tension can be re-established in the leaves of the trap. This process takes about 12 hours, at which point the leaves spread apart again. The unwanted object either falls out as the leaves re-open or is blown out by the wind.

The selection process obviously isn't perfect; while the trap is out of commission, real food in the form of flies and spiders may be crawling all around the plant. Imagine if you had to sit with a chicken bone or peach pit in your mouth for 12 hours while the rest of your dinner sat on the table in front of you! The difference is that you are conscious of what you're eating, while the Venus Flytrap is a passive participant in choosing what it's going to eat for dinner.

Many plants have functions that really make one wonder about this though. Things presented in this video (particularly at 2:00) and this article really challenge the assertion that plants lack consciousness. But if plants have consciousness, where does it come from? Do they simply process information by a physiological process we don't yet understand, or does it come from somewhere else entirely? Furthermore, do all living organisms posses consciousness?

 

[Sehnsucht]

I like those definitions. It seems to me that when when people generally speak of consciousness, they combine your definitions for consciousness and sentience. I think the separation is important though.

It's a strange conflation to make, especially since people already tend to describe consciousness along mental states of being (conscious, subconscious, unconscious, non-conscious).

It's a similar conflation you'll see in sci-fi and/or fantasy stories. "Sentience" is the go-to term to distinguish entities with the capacity for self-awareness (and thereby, intelligence, reasoning, etc.). But the term "sapience" is already the technical term for this capacity.

Definitions are my jam, so I take great care to define my terms. I would imagine that such an approach would benefit most.

There is one thing that comes to question with this. You inferred that consciousness is necessary for sentience, and also stated that plants are sentient. But would you say that plants are conscious? I ask this because plants not only lack a brain, but they have no nervous system at all (it's possible for an organism to still have a nervous system without a brain, such as a jellyfish). My first thought on this is that perhaps plants are not sentient at all. Plants do so many amazing things, and they clearly respond to the environment, but is there really a way to determine that they are "aware" of it? All the functions of a plant seem to run on mechanical properties based physics and biochemistry that require no conscious effort. Take, for example, the capturing of a "prey" by a Venus flytrap:

[snip]

Many plants have functions that really make one wonder about this though. Things presented in this video (particularly at 2:00) and this article really challenge the assertion that plants lack consciousness. But if plants have consciousness, where does it come from? Do they simply process information by a physiological process we don't yet understand, or does it come from somewhere else entirely? Furthermore, do all living organisms posses consciousness?

Mm, good points.

If plants lack any kind of "information-processor", whether they be centralized or distributed, then they cannot be considered conscious by the definitions I proposed earlier. I suppose, then, that plants would indeed be very complex biochemical reactions, capable of reacting to stimuli, but not processing them.

However, while plants may lack nerves (and brains) per se, perhaps they might have structures that can allow for information processing. So they could be at the (very?) low end of the "consciousness" spectrum.

As per the links you provide, it's clear that there exists some mechanism that allows plant life to exhibit sentience-like reactions to external stimulus. Do these mechanisms process information, even if only minimally? I suppose that's the question. And different plants may process information in different ways, much as how various other classes of life can process information in different ways (e.g. centralized brain VS decentralized neuronal web). So this could make strict classification of plants as a whole more difficult.

I will say, though, that because we're dealing with continua, the delineation between consciousness and non-consciousness would not be so strict a binary. Plants may be spread across the grey area between conscious things (like animals) and non-conscious things (e.g. microscopic life). Or it may be that we need to extend the definition of "consciousness" to cover those lower ends of the spectrum. Where does consciousness begin? Saying it begins at the "animal" level may be an arbitrary threshold to enforce, not reflective of actual reality.

Whatever the case, though, we can say for sure that plants are less conscious than animalian species (whether that means they have less consciousness, or no consciousness at all). Replicators (like viruses and bacteriophages) likely lack any consciousness to speak of. Bacteria and other single-cell organisms may be minimally more conscious than replicators, but not by much. I'd say that as the complexity of the organism increases, the stronger the level of consciousness is bound to be.

So in all, it's a game of continua, I think. There might be a lot more gradation in matters of consciousness between organisms than our sorting-into-boxes-loving brains may like.

 

[KACHOW!!!]

Consciousness is having a mind, being self aware. The ability to make sense of something. What defines it and makes it where it is and how it forms? Basically having axiomatic first principals and principles based on those principles anon. By axiomatic I mean that in the mind of this consiousness there are ideas below which there are no explanation, the first of which is usually "I think, therefore I am."

Some animals are consious in this sense. A lot of apes have a sense of self, and an understanding of other people and apes, we know this because they can speak to us through sign language, so we know that at least some animals have consiousness, and you can still have a mind without grasping your own first principles.

Is consciousness part of the brain or is it coming from somewhere else? Well, I'm pretty sure we don't have any examples of brainless consciousness yet, so we'd have to say empirically that it doesn't exist without a brain, or at least we can't prove that consciousness can exist without a brain.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this Aoi Inu .

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

This thread deserves my input since I asked the question.

The question came from the issue I have been asking myself, what happens after I die? Where did I come from and do others see similar like I do?

I've seen videos like this that made me ask, are other animals really not far off from us?

I wondered with how they reacted, did they know that was them? When did we hit a point where we became aware of who we are?

If we die? Is that it? Can we in some form still exist. The idea of not existing for forever, is to be honest my worst fear. The idea I would lose myself scares me more than anything else. No matter how optimistic I am and how much I believe there is more. I accept I could be wrong and the idea i never exist ever again scares me.

"You won't feel again so you won't care!" No I care now and the idea of that being my fate is really the worst outcome to me.

I wonder with science and any outcome, if we can exist without a body. And of that is the case, how did I form right now 24 years ago over some other time?

It's something that has made me wonder, and made me fear an outcome I hope to avoid.

 

[Sehnsucht]

This thread deserves my input since I asked the question.

The question came from the issue I have been asking myself, what happens after I die? Where did I come from and do others see similar like I do?

I've seen videos like this that made me ask, are other animals really not far off from us?

[snip]

I wondered with how they reacted, did they know that was them? When did we hit a point where we became aware of who we are

That video reminds me of the Mirror Test, which is a test used to try and infer the sapience of other species. The original test, done on chimps, had the examiners dab some red paint on the faces of the chimps, and then put them in an enclosure with a mirror. These marked chimps were able to figure out that the reflection is indeed their own.

A handful of species have passed this "self-recognition" test (apes, dolphins, elephants, and magpies). Animals that aren't self-aware likely think that the reflection is another member of the species, unable to cue in that the animal in the reflection is themselves. In the vid, the lion postures himself; he might be thinking another alpha male has stumbled into his territory. The other cats either try to interact with the "other" cat, or display disinterest.

Though of course, this Mirror Test is not necessarily sufficient to confirm self-awareness in other species. But does seem to offer some hints. I wonder if the Mirror Test has been done for octopi and other cephalopods, since they appear to be very crafty.

As for humans, we obviously pass the test (being apes). Most people attest that their earliest memories date back to 3-4 years of age, which seems the latest point where self-awareness kicks in. I don't know much about the consensus on how early it kicks in, but chances are that babies aren't born with a sense of self -- which would make sense, since, in the context of evolution, human babies are technically born underdeveloped, compared to other mammals (hence why human babies are so helpless compared to other newborn mammals).

And the question of when humans first started to experience self-awareness is something else on which I don't think there is a clear consensus, as of yet. It probably was a slow and gradual process, as is the case with evolutionary processes.

If we die? Is that it? Can we in some form still exist. The idea of not existing for forever, is to be honest my worst fear. The idea I would lose myself scares me more than anything else. No matter how optimistic I am and how much I believe there is more. I accept I could be wrong and the idea i never exist ever again scares me.

"You won't feel again so you won't care!" No I care now and the idea of that being my fate is really the worst outcome to me.

I wonder with science and any outcome, if we can exist without a body. And of that is the case, how did I form right now 24 years ago over some other time?

It's something that has made me wonder, and made me fear an outcome I hope to avoid.

That's an interesting way to put it. I can't say that I share those fears, myself. I'm much more concerned about the process of dying than I am about the end of all awareness, perception, emotion, and memory. There are many distressing and painful ways to die, and if I must die, I'd rather it be as painless and least distressingly as possible. And I'd also not like to die before I can accomplish the goals I've set for myself -- or barring that, accomplish as much as I can before my death, if it is indeed inevitable.

But if post-life entails the end of experience, then it's not relevant to my present experience, so as far as I'm concerned, the state of oblivion is not something I need to worry about all too much.

Not that an aversion to oblivion is wholly irrational. I would also prefer not to lose my sense of self, if I can help it (or at least, until I decide that I don't want to experience this reality anymore). At the very least, if you're concerned about potentially "losing" this experience, then I imagine you're interested in making the most out of your life, for as long as you'll be able to. Certainly not a shabby way to go about things, as I'm sure most can agree.

In any case, existing "without" a body yields interesting questions and consequences, scientifically-speaking. I'll collapse some musings to save some space:

[collapse=On the Science of Post-Life States]
Consider the experience of pain. If you touch a hot stove top, your hand recoils as the nerve endings in your skin send signals to the brain.

If, without a body, you lack that whole mechanism for pain-sensation, would your disembodied consciousness still be capable of experiencing pain? Or pleasure, in the absence of the neurochemical mechanism that provides pleasure? If you lacked eyes, or some visual sense apparatus, could you still detect light? If you lacked any sensory organs, could you detect any input at all? What if you lacked a brain to process that sensory input?

Unless there exist mechanisms in the post-life state that serve as analogues to these "biological" systems, then it seems that a disembodied consciousness would, at minimum, lack the capacity to detect or interact with the universe in any way. If there are some other "planes" to which a consciousness is capable of attuning to and interacting with, then you have a different story.

Though if these planes are not like our perceived universe, with light and gravity and so forth, then it might take quite some time for a human consciousness to get used to. You might have to proverbially grow up all over again, much as a baby has to make sense of the world with time. And if there is no time at all, then there would be no progression between states. You'd either have no thoughts or perceptions at all (which would be equivalent to oblivion), or you'd have a set of states that are being experienced simultaneously.

As for the continuance of consciousness, one obvious way to "cheat death" would be immortality. Eliminating aging, perfecting the immune system, fortifying the body to prevent fatal wounds and injuries, and other modifications could greatly help in reducing the probability of death. This could be achieved through cybernetic modification, genetic engineering, or some measure of both.

Another way would be to create a perfect doppelganger -- a biological reconstruction of yourself, genetically identical down to every cell and every synaptic pathway. This doppelganger would have the same body, same set of memories, same personality, same likes and dislikes, and so on.

They would basically be you. The only difference would be that you (Red-A) wouldn't experience reality from Red-B's perspective (and vice-versa). So Red-A's consciousness might cease at death, but Red-B could just take Red-A's place. Red-B would then be Red-A, save for not having had the experience of dying (unless you do somehow transfer those memories into Red-B, in which Red-B becomes even more similar to Red-A).

There's also the sci-fi idea of consciousness transferal, in which your experiences/memories/personality/etc. are transferred from your (dead) human body into an artificial body, or a computer/machine, or stored in some virtual reality, and so on.

Things like age reversal and improving health and immunity and bodily restoration are likely to be achievable within this century, while things like duplicate replacements and consciousness transfers are bound to be things discovered beyond the lifetimes of the current Smashboards user population.

So, at the moment, I'd consider these to be some ideas on how science could either preserve consciousness, or
[/collapse]

So there are some things for you to chew on, I suppose. Let it not be said that oblivion doesn't make for good armchair contemplation material.

 

[Xcano]

I believe consciousness is a complicated series of synapses in the brain and nothing more. The only reason we're sapient is because our synapses happened to be much better than all the other animals synapses.

 

[Sylverblack]

Studying neurosciences, the definition of awareness, self-awareness and consciousness comes to a new level.
Consciousness and self-awareness are in some parts similar while being different in other parts. Imo self-awareness is an increase of consciousness. Consciousness/awareness means for me that you are able to think, learn and react in associative ways while self-awareness means that you can realize yourself as a living creature which is defined by an appropriate body, character and mind.
Only few animals other than humans are able to be aware of themselves (Sehnsucht already mentioned the mirror test) but the majority of mammals have a (more or less complex) consciousness. For consciousness a brain has to consist of a bigger cerebrum than cerebellum and brainstem. Brainsize doesn't matter. For example, a crocodile has - compared to a rodent - the bigger brain, but the crocodile brain mainly consists of brainstem and cerebellum while the cerebrum is pretty small. The brain of a rodent (e.g. a mouse) is mainly made of cerebrum with the cerebellum and brainstem being much smaller in comparison. That leads to the assumption that crocodiles aren't aware while mice are though the brain of a crocodile is much bigger. Generelly we can divide animals into those which are able to be self-aware (humans and other apes, elephants, dolphins, some birds), to be conscious and the rest which behavior is only driven by instincts.
As said, animals need a (big enough) cerebrum to be aware, otherwise they aren't able to. That's a pretty important insight when it comes to animal ethics (especially if we are hurting and killing animals). While none of us will have any problems killing flies or other insects, some people wouldn't be able to kill a mammal because of being afraid to cause noticeable harm to the animal. Animals need awareness to feel pain so it is important to not torture mammals and other animals which are able to be conscious. It is pretty easy to test if an animal is able to feel pain or not. Basically the majority of animals react to nociception as a fund to self-protection. If you a tear off a leg of a fly it will instantly react because of the nociceptive stimulus but after that it won't change its behavior (besides that it's not able to use the missing leg ofc). Doing the same with a human will result in a reaction of pain for that being which surpasses mere nociception. The human will change his behavior after the amputation because of the sustaining harm and the associative realization that his leg is gone and won't return. While animals without self-awareness won't suffer the perception that their life will never be the same if they lose their leg they will feel and suffer pain if they are already conscious.

In terms of consciousness existing without a host: I don't think so, with my worldview being too scientific-oriented.

 

[CaptainOlimar123]

I ask to propose a question regarding 3 questions.

What is consciousness exactly? What defines and makes it where it is and how it forms?

Are all animals, I'll speak in terms of anything higher than an single cell organisms for this sake, and ask are they conscious and self aware? Do they understand what they are to the degree we do?

Is consciousness just a product of the brain or is it something of another level in terms of where it goes and comes from?

I have my own thoughts on this subject but wanted to pose this question first since it has been a main interest of mine for the past couple of months.

It is the state of rationality being able to tell right from wrong and such

No, I don't think animals have the same level as concioussness that we do. Most animals, when looking in a mirror, aren't even aware they are looking at their reflection. Only some species of animals are aware of their own reflection.

I believe concioussness is of a whole different level. Have you heard of near death experiences? People describe very interesting stories. And I have a memory of myself when I was little baby. But I wasn't me. I was just watching myself as a baby like I existed outside of my body. Its my first memory. Its kinda weird.