Are animals conscious?

[NSUSA]

Are animals conscious? What makes their consciousness different from ours? Why do we consider ourselves to be so different from animals?

[Patrarch]

I think the biggest difference we perceive between us and animals is the level of development of the brain, while all other perceived differences stem from this one fact

[complimentarymatters]

I think the fact that animals cannot communicate at as sophisticated a level is the main difference. Most of our "thinking" is just figuring out how to describe what we observe.

[coffeeprincess]

If an animal is walking around, eating, etc it is conscious. If it is sleeping it is conscious. If it is braindead or knocked out somehow it is not conscious. If something makes choices (i.e. walks to a more comfortable palce, decides to eat, chases something) it is conscious. I think you meant to ask if animals are sentient.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I think the answer depends on how we define "consciousness". Nonetheless, I think animals are conscious in the same ways as humans, but humans are conscious to a greater degree in some ways. In other words, humans think more, we analyze and understand our environment more thoroughly, and we use more sophisticated forms of communication.

Thanks,
Scott

[luciditee]

I would say that animals have consciousness just has humans have consciousness, and the ground of this consiousness is exactly the same - pure empty awareness. The way this consciousness is channelled and functions through the each species, however, is different, and different capacities of consciousness have evolved. At the same time the dividing line may not be quite a clear cut as we think.

Also I would say that we humans give ourselves more credit that we are due; I'm not so sure we are as conscious as we think, at least most of the time. This is where ideas of choice/free-will and causality/determinism come into the picture. I don't feel we have the kind of free-will that we think we do; if at all. It often feels like choice or free-will, but in reality I think this is an illusion. I feel that processes that lie behind our choices are much more related to those of chaos theory, where the outcome of events are extremely sensitive to initial conditions; in other words the butterfly effect. A very crude example is to say that if I am in a disgruntled, aggitated state of mind the apparent 'choices' I make will be very different to those had I been in an happy easy going mood. The whole process is far more subtle than this, methinks, but was just to give an idea of what I mean.

Instincts, emotions and the unconscious definitely have a large part to play in our behaviour, even to the building of our cities, and the creation of our social systems, and so I think that the difference between ourselves and animals are much more diffuse that it would first appear.

[anarchyisbliss]

I think the fact that animals cannot communicate at as sophisticated a level is the main difference. Most of our "thinking" is just figuring out how to describe what we observe.

What would make you think that our level of communication is more sophisticated?

[anarchyisbliss]

I think the answer depends on how we define "consciousness". Nonetheless, I think animals are conscious in the same ways as humans, but humans are conscious to a greater degree in some ways. In other words, humans think more, we analyze and understand our environment more thoroughly, and we use more sophisticated forms of communication.

Thanks,
Scott

How can you say that we understand our environment more thoroughly are that were conscious in a greater degree. Consciousness is not something that can be assigned numerical value of be leveled or measured. All animals have equal consciousness simply because they have it at all. Humans just think they always have to be at the top so they make excuses or formulate unethical theories.

[anarchyisbliss]

Humans think because they have large complex societies, advanced technology, and more intelligence that we separate ourselves from the animal kingdom. All of our "large complex societies" have been imperialistic factions that go into other societies and murder and destroy the land and the inhabitants to fulfill their materialistic greed. Our "advanced technology" has only led to more destruction and war and homicide creating political factions disagreement and ultimately chaos. And on the topic of intelligence many people don't understand that intelligence isn't something you can measure or give numerical value to. It is a quality of understanding that ALL animals share, humans just want to be the best, as do all animals per the biological theorem of competition and the psychological theory of Ego.

[luciditee]

anarchyisbliss,

We seem to be very much on the same wavelength! What you have written here corresponds very much to what I have writen in the Religion forum under the subject on Daoism!

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... .php?t=314

I also am anarchist.. or Spiritual Anarchist as I prefer it!

[anarchyisbliss]

Luciditee,

thank you very much i love your response on the doa especially this part

The "advancement of man" can be equated with our attempts to impose order upon the chaos that we perceive our world to be, which paradoxically serves only to manifest the opposite of what is desired.

You really hit the nail on the head

[luciditee]

Cheers anarchyisbliss! The non-duality of order and chaos informs a great deal of my understanding of reality

[anarchyisbliss]

thanks again luciditee and could you explain to me and the forum what a Spiritual Anarchist is ?

[luciditee]

Spiritual Anarchism, put simply, refers to freedom, both inner and outer.

True spirituality, in my view, is about seeking inner freedom; freedom from ego and illusion etc. Anarchism is about seeking freedom primarily in the external world; freedom from authority and coercion etc.

The way I see it, Anarchism can never really be truly realized unless inner freedom is first realized. Peace in the objective world can only come about if the people within that world are at peace with themselves, and therefore not driven by their egoic self-interest to control the world around them.

I have a saying... "Spiritual Anarchism: no self, no rule, no place"

"no self" comes from the buddhist idea of liberation and peace that arises on the realization of ones original nature, once the illusion of a separate 'self' is dropped. This means that the individual is no longer dominated by the 'self' or ego.

"no rule" is the literal translation of the word 'anarchism'. 'No rule' is, obviously, that people are not dominated by other individuals or groups. It also refers to the fact that once oneself has been spiritually liberated there is no fear of death, and therefore no desire to rule those around us, to dominate and control nature etc. Thus "no rule" or Anarchism, the way I see it, can only arise in its purest form when "no self" has become a widespread phenomenon, meaning that there would be little need for centralized governmental institutions.

"no place" is the literal translation of the word 'Utopia'. 'No self' + "no rule" = Utopia, or, as the saying goes, 'no place'. All very idealistic of course, but something to aspire to.

The idea is that a world characterized by freedom and peace can only be achieved by taking the first step, the realization of inner freedom and peace, and from there the second step, outer freedom and peace, would follow naturally - unforced. In my view groups try to generate an enforced peace from the outside, which I feel is a false peace, and can never be achieved through such means. Peace cannot be achieved through fear based tactics! Once outer peace is established on the basis of inner peace, a firm foundation is established from which humanity would finally blossom. Children born into such a world would have the best, and most stable, possible start in life, and the earth really would be on course for a brighter future.

Of course this is just a general outline to the way I envision things - there is a lot more to it. It looks a very rosey picture, but in fact the are many harsh realities to it, some of which would be very controversial.

One things to note is that this is my definition of Spiritual Anarchism - there are many people out there who call themselves spiritual anarchists, who might have different ideas. As far as I'm aware there is no formal difinition such as with Anarcho-Syndicalism etc. However, my version does seem to share much with ecological or green anarchism, as Gaia theory has a big influence on my understanding, and I'm definitely not a fan of industrialism. I certainly don't prefer to identify myself as a 'worker' even though I have always worked. Also, as I mentioned above, the non-duality of order and chaos informs alot of my understanding, and this is also the case with my understanding of spiritual anarchism: in fact it justifies anarchism in my view.. but thats another story. This non-dualism of order and chaos, of course, bears much in relation to the Dao, which is of great inspiration to me, along with buddhism.

Of course, none of this is likely to ever happen, but who knows? I will continue to work on my ideas in the meantime

[luciditee]

Sorry everyone, that's all a bit of a tangent to the present thread, but I wasn't sure wherelse to put it, especially in maintaining continuity with your question. Also I wasn't sure that it was worth starting a new topic for!