Animal consciousness is a subject that has been discussed here on several occasions, however the following IMO further clarifies the situation.

>>Dr Barron and Dr Klein believe the origins of consciousness date to at least the Cambrian, which began around 540 million years ago.

“When organisms began to move freely in their environment, they faced many new challenges,” Dr Klein explained.

“They had to decide where to go next. They had to prioritise their needs. They had to interpret sensory information that changed as a consequence of their motion. That required a new kind of integrated modelling, and that’s where we think consciousness arose.”<<

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-19/insects-may-have-evolved-consciousness-during-cambrian-period/7338032

Might be helpful to differentiate consciousness (perhaps whatever awarenesses) of the external environment from some consciousness of the internal environments/self awareness.

It could be trivial, but I wouldn’t like to trivialize the possibility and alienate it.

transition said:

Might be helpful to differentiate consciousness (perhaps whatever awarenesses) of the external environment from some consciousness of the internal environments/self awareness.

It could be trivial, but I wouldn’t like to trivialize the possibility and alienate it.

In the quote I supplied, it defined consciousness.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

Might be helpful to differentiate consciousness (perhaps whatever awarenesses) of the external environment from some consciousness of the internal environments/self awareness.

It could be trivial, but I wouldn’t like to trivialize the possibility and alienate it.

In the quote I supplied, it defined consciousness.

No it didn’t, it stated where they think “consciousness” arose.

Reading the article, and the paper abstract, they seem to be equating consciousness with “subjective experience”, but they don’t define “subjective experience”.

Anyway, I think Transition makes a good point.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

Might be helpful to differentiate consciousness (perhaps whatever awarenesses) of the external environment from some consciousness of the internal environments/self awareness.

It could be trivial, but I wouldn’t like to trivialize the possibility and alienate it.

In the quote I supplied, it defined consciousness.

No it didn’t, it stated where they think “consciousness” arose.

Reading the article, and the paper abstract, they seem to be equating consciousness with “subjective experience”, but they don’t define “subjective experience”.

Anyway, I think Transition makes a good point.

Consciousness is and always has been a highly debatable subject, therefore to expect a definitive definition is not realistic. The opinion expressed by Dr Barron and Dr Klein breaks new ground and brings us closer to an understanding of what it encompasses, plus dispels the stupid notion that insects are nothing more than robotic type creatures.

>…therefore to expect a definitive definition is not realistic”

generally, consciousness of the sort humans are credited with often, as relates to self-awareness, involves some sense of its (the minds) workings, a feel for that, the activity or work done and sensations associated. There’re global mental states too, sort of the home an individual inhabits. Mine’s right now trending toward a rest, it’s sort of hurting a little bit maintaining attention.

transition said:

>…therefore to expect a definitive definition is not realistic”

generally, consciousness of the sort humans are credited with often, as relates to self-awareness, involves some sense of its (the minds) workings, a feel for that, the activity or work done and sensations associated. There’re global mental states too, sort of the home an individual inhabits. Mine’s right now trending toward a rest, it’s sort of hurting a little bit maintaining attention.

The optimum word and what aligns your comments with mine is “generally.”

PermeateFree said:

Consciousness is and always has been a highly debatable subject, therefore to expect a definitive definition is not realistic.

I agree.

In fact I’d say that degree of consciousness is a broad continuum, so it makes no sense to have a fixed dividing line between “conscious” and “non-conscious”.

Consciousness is a tough one.

“Dr Van Swinderen believes one of the most important points of the new paper is the realisation that understanding the evolution of consciousness will not come from looking for intelligent behaviour in other animals, but rather from understanding the fundamental mechanisms that support subjective awareness and selective attention, which he said “we now know insects have.”

I don’t think that this is a world shaking revelation.

Ian said:

Consciousness is a tough one.

“Dr Van Swinderen believes one of the most important points of the new paper is the realisation that understanding the evolution of consciousness will not come from looking for intelligent behaviour in other animals, but rather from understanding the fundamental mechanisms that support subjective awareness and selective attention, which he said “we now know insects have.”

I don’t think that this is a world shaking revelation.

It has broadened our understanding. It was never intended to be a world shaking revelation. This is what scientific investigation does, it makes little steps so others can climb higher.

>In fact I’d say that degree of consciousness is a broad continuum, so it makes no sense to have a fixed dividing line between “conscious” and “non-conscious”.

There is though something that might be termed proto consciousness of human self-awareness. Both of biohistory/philogeny, and the lifetime expression of organisms (including experience), and it is human self-awareness that’ll be one of the drivers in reverse-engineering whatever.

Not some pointless relative indulgence, but qualities that tend to emerge and substantially alter the nature of the beast.

Maybe i’m indulging essentialism some, that categories and thresholds are an illusion.

Dunno.

transition said:

>In fact I’d say that degree of consciousness is a broad continuum, so it makes no sense to have a fixed dividing line between “conscious” and “non-conscious”.

There is though something that might be termed proto consciousness of human self-awareness. Both of biohistory/philogeny, and the lifetime expression of organisms (including experience), and it is human self-awareness that’ll be one of the drivers in reverse-engineering whatever.

Not some pointless relative indulgence, but qualities that tend to emerge and substantially alter the nature of the beast.

Maybe i’m indulging essentialism some, that categories and thresholds are an illusion.

Dunno.

I hope that makes sense to someone, but I’m totally lost.

>I hope that makes sense to someone, but I’m totally lost.

Take what I quoted of what rev said, and consider the human capacity for deceit, and deceit detection (indulge me for a moment, it just popped into my head).

Deceit detection takes a certain type of consciousness.

Probably mostly deceipt detection’s purpose is to reduce deceit.

There’s a quite a range of whatevers that might be characterized as deceits. Much of them might be seen as strategies, that exist in human instincts (tendencies of minds of the species). Further, deceit detection can be employed or exploited to deceive.

But i’m waffling, forgive me.

Where i’m going is to the point of whether deceit and deceit detection (countermeasures) have peculiar properties that put it in a special category of awarenesses.

A deceit has to qualify, there need be some criteria, parameters and thresholds to qualify.

There was something about that last thing I quoted of rev’s.

I think creatures have quite different arrangements and forces of awarenesses. Configurations, configured priorities.

The self-awareness one has peculiarities essential. Made worse by half an idea being worse than NFI, the former I spend quite a bit of time with.

transition said:

>I hope that makes sense to someone, but I’m totally lost.

Take what I quoted of what rev said, and consider the human capacity for deceit, and deceit detection (indulge me for a moment, it just popped into my head).

Deceit detection takes a certain type of consciousness.

Probably mostly deceipt detection’s purpose is to reduce deceit.

There’s a quite a range of whatevers that might be characterized as deceits. Much of them might be seen as strategies, that exist in human instincts (tendencies of minds of the species). Further, deceit detection can be employed or exploited to deceive.

But i’m waffling, forgive me.

Where i’m going is to the point of whether deceit and deceit detection (countermeasures) have peculiar properties that put it in a special category of awarenesses.

A deceit has to qualify, there need be some criteria, parameters and thresholds to qualify.

There was something about that last thing I quoted of rev’s.

I think creatures have quite different arrangements and forces of awarenesses. Configurations, configured priorities.

The self-awareness one has peculiarities essential. Made worse by half an idea being worse than NFI, the former I spend quite a bit of time with.

From what I can gather, you seem to be largely exploring the extent of conscienceless in humans, of which there is little doubt we have it and it manifests in many different forms. There is no argument there. The article I presented tries to illustrate that conscience also exists in most other species, including insects, something that has been hotly debated over many years. With their investigations they provide additional evidence that conscienceless does exist in most other species, although the degree of awareness would vary between species.

I really don’t know what there is to debate here, unless you disagree with the information presented, or wish to expand upon it.

I’m on record as stating that (devil’s advocate mode) mosquitoes are more intelligent than humans. I also think that those flies in Melbourne that can calculate the exact centroid of a complicated 3-D geometrical figure (a room) are particularly nice.

The important thing about the article linked in the OP is that it dates the origin of such consciousness back to the Cambrian. That looks sensible to me. Humans and insects (and molluscs) have conscious intelligence, so that conscious intelligence could have evolved before the various animal species split in the evolutionary tree.

I’ve noted that even single celled animals can show by their movement recognisable emotions, such as fear.

>I really don’t know what there is to debate here, unless you disagree with the information presented, or wish to expand upon it.

I haven’t read anything linked, maybe will later.

I generally reserve the term consciousness for self-awareness, being to do with awareness of the internal environment and something of its workings.

mollwollfumble said:

The important thing about the article linked in the OP is that it dates the origin of such consciousness back to the Cambrian. That looks sensible to me. Humans and insects (and molluscs) have conscious intelligence, so that conscious intelligence could have evolved before the various animal species split in the evolutionary tree.

That’s the exact opposite of what the article says.

okay read that, and some of the wiki page on consciousness, and self awareness

the feeling I get re what generates the self-awareness experience is to do with memory of varied/changing mental states (which technically I suppose’d involve different configurations of whatever, even slight changes).

these mental state experiences vary day to day, moment to moment, but tend toward, or tend something comfortable, bearable, perhaps even enjoyable, Part of higher homeostatic mechanisms, or homeostasis.

the mind tool configurations vary, mine are varying moment to moment as I type every word here.

each day I get up and they are different, evolve differently during the day into the evening, and week to week they’re different.

in fact I can’t say I ever really felt the same for any great length of time. I mean I do, I goof out with the guitar, listen to music a while, too in those wakeful periods of which there’s no changing demands (immediacy of) or felt demands my internal mental state can be, or feel fairly constant.

anyway, I think somehow self-awareness type consciousness is the memory of previous varied configurations (sense of) perhaps reconciling with the configurations of the moment, an executive thing, and it has some influence. Verbally in the internal monologue it presents as commentary about, an example so projected here.

transition said:

okay read that, and some of the wiki page on consciousness, and self awareness

the feeling I get re what generates the self-awareness experience is to do with memory of varied/changing mental states (which technically I suppose’d involve different configurations of whatever, even slight changes).

these mental state experiences vary day to day, moment to moment, but tend toward, or tend something comfortable, bearable, perhaps even enjoyable, Part of higher homeostatic mechanisms, or homeostasis.

the mind tool configurations vary, mine are varying moment to moment as I type every word here.

each day I get up and they are different, evolve differently during the day into the evening, and week to week they’re different.

in fact I can’t say I ever really felt the same for any great length of time. I mean I do, I goof out with the guitar, listen to music a while, too in those wakeful periods of which there’s no changing demands (immediacy of) or felt demands my internal mental state can be, or feel fairly constant.

anyway, I think somehow self-awareness type consciousness is the memory of previous varied configurations (sense of) perhaps reconciling with the configurations of the moment, an executive thing, and it has some influence. Verbally in the internal monologue it presents as commentary about, an example so projected here.

Yes. I think you’ve nailed it.
Although an ant might put it differently.

I think memory of perception is an illusion of consciousness.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I think memory of perception is an illusion of consciousness.

having memory of (sensing) different mental states, or the force of finding and applying different mind tools, or configurations of (composites) maybe a sensation, but to call it (the experience) illusion, given the very practical feedback, is, well, sells it short.

An organism building and maintaining a map of _terrain_(broadly speaking) along with whatever creatures place (and motion) somewhere in it I suppose could be part of it.
In insectese of course, whatever.

Neurons arranged doing their thing for the moment, and moments following, tomorrow, and so on into the future.

Interesting thing about the future is that it’s got uncertainties, until it becomes the past.

The past has 100% certainty, though’s given to fade as it apparently recedes. The past though doesn’t recede, rather all that became certainties previous make the now (including the range of possibilities now).

The concept of past and its working material, hat practical of, related of human self-awareness, that’s half interesting territory

Can you get this from the integative modelling, as mentioned. It might require something that imposes the reality of making the past now and some certainties from. The extraction of some certainties as now becomes past.

Human consciousness does some work at reverse engineering cause and effect, then forward engineering.

I suppose if you have a mental map of your terrain, with you variously in it somewhere doing something, you are looking backward and forward, manipulating/influencing event/time correspondences.

Mental states and the workings of mind tools might be seen as terrain (certainly feels homely). Do the rooms of our domestic dwellings and tools and resources within in any way represent the functions (and maybe compartments) of human minds. If they didn’t that’d be strange. Certainly there’s more than a hint of desires.

Something tells me human self-awareness originated with nurturing.

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

In the quote I supplied, it defined consciousness.

No it didn’t, it stated where they think “consciousness” arose.

Reading the article, and the paper abstract, they seem to be equating consciousness with “subjective experience”, but they don’t define “subjective experience”.

Anyway, I think Transition makes a good point.

Consciousness is and always has been a highly debatable subject, therefore to expect a definitive definition is not realistic. The opinion expressed by Dr Barron and Dr Klein breaks new ground and brings us closer to an understanding of what it encompasses, plus dispels the stupid notion that insects are nothing more than robotic type creatures.

I imagine a hive mind will long outlive a society comprised of individuals trying to cooperate to survive

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No it didn’t, it stated where they think “consciousness” arose.

Reading the article, and the paper abstract, they seem to be equating consciousness with “subjective experience”, but they don’t define “subjective experience”.

Anyway, I think Transition makes a good point.

Consciousness is and always has been a highly debatable subject, therefore to expect a definitive definition is not realistic. The opinion expressed by Dr Barron and Dr Klein breaks new ground and brings us closer to an understanding of what it encompasses, plus dispels the stupid notion that insects are nothing more than robotic type creatures.

I imagine a hive mind will long outlive a society comprised of individuals trying to cooperate to survive

Not necessarily. A “hive mind” can only react to conditions of the present and evolved responses to conditions of the past, whereas large groups of individuals who can communicate complex ideas have the potential to prepare for conditions that may arise in the future.

Whether any particular group of such individuals actually does so is another matter of course.