Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense, only a handful of animals test positive for self-awareness:http://www.animalcognition.org/2015/...e-mirror-test/




You can't be a little self-aware, you either are or you are not. You can't be a little pregnant.

More mammals show self-awareness than you 'think.' Also consciousness is pretty much universal with mammals and possibly other animals.

Source: https://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/10-animals-with-self-awareness.html

Self awareness is a measure of intelligence in the animal kingdom.

Yet most living species on the planet do not possess it. Of the hundreds of animals tested so far, only 10 animals (to date) have been proven to have any measurable degree of self awareness. These are:

10 Animals with Self-Awareness
Humans
Orangutans
Chimpanzees
Gorillas
Bottlenose Dolphins
Elephants
Orcas
Bonobos
Rhesus Macaques
European Magpies
How is Self Awareness Identified?
So how exactly does a species qualify for self awareness?

In humans, we identify it as having conscious knowledge of our own character, feelings and desires, and being able to imagine how others might perceive us. It also means having self conscious emotions like pride or shame.

In the wider animal kingdom, the bar is lowered because it's seemingly impossible to measure what animals think and feel. Instead, we look for signs that they recognize they exist separately from other animals and the environment.

The best way to determine this scientifically is with the mirror test.

The Mirror Test
Developed in the 1970s, the experimenter discreetly marks the animal with a colored dye, or puts a colored dot on their forehead. The animal is then presented with a mirror and their reaction is observed.

If an animal is self-aware they'll turn and adjust their body to get a better view and touch the colored spot or try to remove it. This proves that the animal understands the reflection is its own.

The Mirror Test

Animals that fail the mirror test appear to assume the reflection is just another animal. They draw no correlation between the reflected movements or facial expressions with those of their own.

However, the mirror test is not bulletproof.

Despite their intelligence, almost all gorillas fail the mirror test because they deliberately avoid making eye contact; this is an aggressive gesture in their world. As a result, they don't afford themselves the opportunity for any kind of self-recognition. One exception is Koko the gorilla (see below).

What's more, animals who had previously failed the mirror test have begun to pass it under specific circumstances (see rhesus macaques, below). This suggests that we need alternative, more reliable methods search for animals with self awareness beyond the mirror scenario.

10 Animals with Self Awareness

Here are 10 animals with self awareness according to the mirror test today.

By the end of this article you'll see why there are likely to be many more animals who may qualify for self-recognition, and it's only a matter of time before we identify them.

10 Animals with Self Awareness
Here are 10 animals with self awareness according to the mirror test today.

By the end of this article you'll see why there are likely to be many more animals who may qualify for self-recognition, and it's only a matter of time before we identify them.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

More mammals show self-awareness than you 'think.' Also consciousness is pretty much universal with mammals and possibly other animals.

You are only making my point, there are only a handful of creatures that we could consider as being self-aware.

[shunyadragon]

You are only making my point, there are only a handful of creatures that we could consider as being self-aware.

No, read the FULL article and my highlighted. There are many more animals with self awareness than the ten described in detail.

[seer]

No, read the FULL article and my highlighted. There are many more animals with self awareness than the ten described in detail.

No Shuny, there are still only a handful. And where are all these others in your link - I read it twice now...

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, there are still only a handful. And where are all these others in your link - I read it twice now...

By the end of this article you'll see why there are likely to be many more animals who may qualify for self-recognition, and it's only a matter of time before we identify them.

Your busted, and I will cite more. These animals were a select number of many related animals with similar brains and observed to have REM sleep. It is likely that pretty much all mammals likely dream.

[seer]

By the end of this article you'll see why there are likely to be many more animals who may qualify for self-recognition, and it's only a matter of time before we identify them.

Your busted, and I will cite more. These animals were a select number of many related animals with similar brains and observed to have REM sleep. It is likely that pretty much all mammals likely dream.

First, there is no actual evidence that other animals are self-aware, nor do you actually know if they are actually experiencing REM sleep, or if REM sleep necessarily links to self-awareness. It is ALL speculation which not actual evidence.

[shunyadragon]

First, there is no actual evidence that other animals are self-aware, nor do you actually know if they are actually experiencing REM sleep, or if REM sleep necessarily links to self-awareness. It is ALL speculation which not actual evidence.

The only science you have is ignorance of the actual science cited. The ten animals are well researched and documented from different animal genera, including the conclusion of the research, and you have not provided anything in rebutal just an assertion, zip, nada negatory.

[seer]

The only science you have is ignorance of the actual science cited. The ten animals are well researched and documented from different animal genera, including the conclusion of the research, and you have not provided anything in rebutal just an assertion, zip, nada negatory.

You are fibbing again Shuny, show me the actual evidence from your link that demonstrates these other animals are actually self aware? I will be waiting...

[carpedm9587]

Many mammals demonstrate consciousness and some a degree of self-awareness.

I just listened to a science podcast about the discovery of a memory function in slime molds. Nature is indeed wonderful and wonderous.

[carpedm9587]

I don't believe that there are two substances, or that we need postulate a substance other than matter in order to accommodate the existence of mind or what we call mental states. When I say that mind is a property of matter I don't mean to say that it is an emergent property, I mean to say that it, i.e. mind, is inherent in the nature of matter itself, that it is only emergent in the sense of it's hieghtened capacity in the more complex and evolved systems such as the human brain. But of course these are just my opinions, and I'm not certain of anything, but, that there is the existence of another substance, an immaterial substance to which mind belongs, which is what those on the other side of this issue propose, I see no evidence of and so no reason to accept.

Your opinion does not seem to be rooted in anything resembling science, Jim. You seem to be as dedicated to rejecting the immaterial and theists are to rejecting materialism. I don't know of a single scientist who would agree that "mind" is inherent in matter. There is no "matter" in my brain that is not also present in non-living organisms that have no trace of "mind." There is nothing about the molecules of a rock that I have ever seen be described has having "inherent mind." I understand you have this opinion, but I cannot, for the life of me, understand what it is based on or why you have it.

[shunyadragon]

I just listened to a science podcast about the discovery of a memory function in slime molds. Nature is indeed wonderful and wonderous.

Seer is stone walling with a religious agenda, and does not realize the vast amount of research in consciousness and self-awareness in animals, and yes in simple form in the simpler animals, actually demonstrating evolution.

[carpedm9587]

I don't think the evidence suggests anything close to the idea that the mind emerges from the brain rather than it just being a basic assumption made by most of the scientists studying the issue (whatever their exact field of study might be). At most the evidence points to there being some level of dependence, but going so far as to say that it shows that one is the cause of the other is a claim that goes beyond what the evidence shows imo.

I think you have to ignore a LOT of science to make this statement. I'm not even sure how you can hold this position. I'd be curious to know how you get there.

Not only do we not know how the brain gives rise to the mind, we don't even know THAT it gives rise to the mind. But disregarding that, we KNOW for a fact that thoughts exist in the mind, and the mind is the only place where we currently have access to them. There is seemingly a connection between thoughts and brain activity, but it SEEMS to be a secondary one, compared to the relation between thoughts and minds, because it atleast APPEARS as the thoughts themselves don't exist anywhere in the brain, or the associated brain activity, only that there is some kind of relation. IOW, all the knowledge we have points to thoughts (and all sorts of qualia) are primarily associated with the mind, and "only" secondarily with the brain. And we have no reason to believe any new discovery will overturn this.

Again, I have no idea where you get this. The entire world of FMRI has shown clear links between brain activity and thoughts. Electrical stimulation in the brain has been shown to not only be capable of moving body parts, but of inducing feelings and changing thought patterns and behavior, as reported by those undergoing the treatments. What do you do with all of this evidence?

I agree that differences in language can account for many disagreements, but I suspect that in the case of this discussion the fundamental disagreements won't disappear even when we have come to agreement as to the meaning of the terms used.

Oh I have little doubt...

I'm inclined to agree that sentience and mind are probably the same thing. I'm less sure I agree with the idea that the mind is simply a collection of thoughts. At least my experience of my own self/mind doesn't give me the impression that I'm simply a collection of thoughts, and I'm not aware of any good reasons to discount this experience of my mind being more than just my thoughts.

So identify one element of "mind" that is not "thought."

I'm fine with that.



I'll try and articulate my thoughts on this matter, but I'm not sure if I'll be very successful, especially given that I'm far from an expert on computer hardware, and am only speaking from cursory knowledge, so I might not be using terminology correctly, and some of the specifics might not be exactly accurate. In any case, here goes:

As I see it all of the information in the computer doesn't really mean anything at all unless it's interpreted by a mind. All of the "data" in the storage units (whether it's a HDD or an SSD, or whatever else you might use as a storage device) or in the RAM is nothing other than a bunch of 0's and 1's (well, more like magnetized regions with different polarities on the HDD, or transistors and/capacitors being charged or not, we just conceptualize it as a bunch of 0's and 1's).

Bottom line however, is that the computer doesn't really do anything other than change the state of a bunch of transistors, capacitators and so on. All of the "data" that the computer displays on the screen or otherwise manipulates doesn't really mean anything until a mind interprets it. Through human ingenuity we have managed to make a machine that can change the states of billions of transistors and capacitators into different states of impressive complexity, but at the end of the day, that's all they are, outside of the human mind. Just a bunch of electronic components that are either charged, or not charged. We're the ones that decide that they actually represent the things that we think of them as representing.

Now if we go back to the mind, the situation is a bit different. If I think about the color red, the letter A, or the equation e=mc^2, unlike the computer, my thoughts are actually about these things that I'm thinking about. The on-off state in the transistors and capacitators inside of the computer aren't actually about anything, we've just found a way to make a bunch of these components display stuff on a screen that we have decided to encode with information (I'm not sure if "encode" is the right word, what I'm basically getting at is that we have decided that certain visual elements mean certain things, and that we have managed to get the computer to display these visual elements to a screen by manipulating the state of it's transistors/capacitators etc)

First, your use of language is pretty spot on for someone who is not versed in computer science. Second, I don't disagree with anything you've said, largely because the computer is not (yet) a sentient machine. However, what you are describing is not dissimilar from how the brain functions. The computer is digital, specifically binary (until we have quantum computers) so it does indeed represent everything a 0's and 1's. The human brain is better described as an analog computer, so it can store information in a virtually infinite number of states. It also has the marvelous ability to form new connections between cells (synapses) and it appears to be the patterns of these connections and the ways in which they are activated that give rise to memory and thought. A computer has a fixed architecture that doesn't change unless someone changes the CPU, and then they are simply substituting one fixed architecture for another. A computer compared to the brain of pretty much ANY animal is a very crude tool. If sentience is a function of complexity, as many believe it is, the modern computer is simply nowhere near complex enough.

So, right now, the information a computer is so marvelously good at processing is intended for the most self-reflective mind we know to exist - the human brain. That does not, however, lead to the belief that the computer cannot become sentient if it could ever be designed to be sufficiently complex.

The direction I'm going is much more preferable though.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I will give you that it has some very pleasant attributes missing in the direction I am going. But the direction I'm going has a significant advantage...

[JimL]

Your opinion does not seem to be rooted in anything resembling science, Jim. You seem to be as dedicated to rejecting the immaterial and theists are to rejecting materialism. I don't know of a single scientist who would agree that "mind" is inherent in matter. There is no "matter" in my brain that is not also present in non-living organisms that have no trace of "mind." There is nothing about the molecules of a rock that I have ever seen be described has having "inherent mind." I understand you have this opinion, but I cannot, for the life of me, understand what it is based on or why you have it.

Have you never heard of Pansychism?

[carpedm9587]

Obviously you are clueless as to the meaning of "rational" - having reason or understanding (Merriam-Webster). The opposite is irrational. Stating that certain declarative statements cannot be attributed a True/False value is NOT an irrational statement.

Judging by your signature, "Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope", you must live a life of hate. You don't know what rational means, even less, you have no clue that you are living a meaningless life based on ignorance and hate. What a sorry individual you are.

LM - I don't think Seer is pointing to your statement about some sentences not having true/false values as "irrational." He (and I) are pointing to your rejection of the basic logical principles as universal and absolute as "irrational." These principles are fundamental to thought and argumentation. If you do nto accept them as "absolute" and "universal." then there is essentially nothing you can say that can be taken seriously, because your argument can not be shown to be true because the basic principles of logic may or may not apply. Taken to its "logical" conclusion...you cannot subscribe to the notion of soundness or validity in a proper syllogism because the very principles that make a syllogism possible may or may not be true.

It would be like trying to provide a mathematical proof to someone who doesn't believe that 2 = 2 (based on the principle of identity).

I think I understand what you are saying, but I think you take it too far, making "reason" and "logic" essentially impossible. I think that is what Seer is saying.

[carpedm9587]

I don't hate any one, and of course atheism is a cult of death. The death of hope. And it seems that Carp, another atheist, agrees with me on the irrational thing. If the laws of logic are not absolute then no claim or fact can be justified since it's opposite can be equally true. That is irrational. The sun can not both exist and not exist at the same moment. This is the law of non-contradiction and it is absolute.

I have to admit I have always found your signature somewhat amusing. A bit extreme, but amusing. It is, of course, rooted in the basic philosophy that asserts that only absolute and eternal things are "real" or "meaningful" or have "purpose."

I think we've already noted how no one actually lives that philosophy. It just gets pulled out at convenient times of argumentation. This is a trend I notice with you. You substitute words like "real" and "true" when you mean "absolute" and "eternal" and "universal."