Sensory evolution
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
I don't state "crackpot" ideas - though I sometimes do try to contribute through intelligent speculation when I see that nothing else is posted - and this is why I rely heavily on scientific research: memories fade and change, but substantiated research is documented in the journals. Alhough they are still open for debate they are less likely to be misinterpreted, and we can always refer back to it.Billy T said:
There's really a lot of research being done with animals, but mostly involving specific area of consciousness like vision, hearing, olfactory. However, wherever the spinal chord is cut, the messages stop at the point of the injury, also different neural networks within the brain (thalamus, cortex [visual], hippocampus [memory], cerrebelum [coordination, cognition]). I recall from watching a t.v. show a decade ago that there was sometimes a loss of consciousness in epileptic patients that underwent "split-brain" corpus callosum surgery to prevent further seizures. I don't know why. Maybe the doctor missed?
"Total loss of consciousness only occurs with damage to a few regions, like the Intralaminar Nuclei (ILN) of the thalamus, briefly discussed below, and the brainstem. In contrast, injury to other brain structures can change consciousness other ways, like impairing a sense like hearing, blocking certain types of movement like head motion or causing temporary or permanent loss of memories."
http://www.sci-con.org/articles/20040402.html
Lots of references to animal research at the end of the following article on cutting different neural networks:
"Intentional States and Neural States are dependent on the presence of specific neural networks. Networks crucial in this respect are (pre)frontal cortex, amygdala and hippocampus (temporal lobe). Beliefs are dependent on the hippocampal formation and (dorso-lateral) prefrontal cortex (Clark & Squire, 1998; LeDoux, 1996; Wallenstein et al., 1998), whereas desires and feelings are dependent on the amygdala -- orbitofrontal cortex (Damasio, 1998; LeDoux, 1996). Theory of Mind (or reflection) seems to be dependent on the orbitofrontal cortex, amygdala and temporal cortex (Baron-Cohen, 1995) and/or medial frontal cortex (Frith, 1998).
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v6/psyche-6-05-vandenbos.html
Are other mammals self-aware of themselves?
"When chimpanzees and orangutans see themselves in a mirror, they form an equivalence relation between the actions they see in the mirror and their own behavior. Every time they move, the mirror image moves with them. They conclude that everything that is true for the mirror image is also true for their own bodies, and vice versa. Thus, these apes can pass the mirror test by correlating colored marks on the mirror image with marks on their own bodies. But the ape does not conclude, "That's me!" Rather the animal concludes, "That's the same as me!".... none of these behaviors required the early primates to reason about one another's mental states. Our research suggests that only one primate lineage--the human one--evolved the unique cognitive specialization that enables us to represent explicitly our own psychological states and those of others."
source: "Can Animals Empathize? Maybe Not," by Daniel J. Povinelli, Scientific American online at: http://geowords.com/lostlinks/b36/7.htm
On:valich said:
{1}I don't know about you, but I did say I do in this perception consciousness/reality area. If you thought I was referring to you that was a wrong understanding of my post.
{2}Now I think it is mainly that we have different ideas about "what consciousness is" and that caused me to strongly objects to your "scienists have cut to destroy consciousness" statement, label it as false, challenge you to support it, observe that they would be now in jail, etc.
I cannot define consciousness, but what you seem to be referring to is not what my version / definition if I had one would be. What appears to be your "consciousness" I tend to call (environmental + propriceptive) awareness.
(Even single-cell animals have some of this. Plants, like the sunflower obviously do and even are responsive to environmental changes. I.e. I do not like your "consciousness concept" - it is too broad.)
Certainly, responsible doctors cut to destroy portions of this awareness. I am not an MD (although I have once or twice finished operations on Rhesus monkey's brains when the real MD of our research was called back to the hospital from our 50-monkey lab.) I know that it is quite common, for example, to intentionally destroy facial neural sensitivity and some motor control (no more smiles) by cutting (the third cranial nerve, if memory serves me correctly. Unlike you, I rarely use the web to dig up little facts that I will soon become uncertain in memory again.) (For "tic dela rosa" pain. - Spelling is probably wrong - read phonetically.) That type of cutting does not affect what I call "consciousness." but does, what you seem to be calling "consciousness," as I now understand your use of this term.
{3} The self awareness question is getting much closer to my idea of "consciousness" and the pondering of "other minds" question is very close, if a test for consciousness, but a useless (unworkable) test for "consciousness."
To state anything as definite as you do about what the ape thinks is much too strong, borderline irresponsible, if it were important to know. I agree with the last part of your text I quoted. - That is why we do not know if any ape is really conscious or not. You do not know if I am or not. I may lie and state that I am human, definitely not a machine and this fact is not because we are not looking at each other. (Only if you are allowed to cut me open and look how I work could you reasonably guess that I am not just an unconscious machine, and even then there would be doubt about my being or not "conscious" when you discovered all the little electric motors inside me and lots of more advance logic devices. "Machine me", could be conscious as I use the term, and many are, as you use the term!
Last edited by a moderator:
You cannot equate consciousness with propriceptors and there is no such thing as propriceptive awareness without a complex connected neural network leading to a brain. Propriceptors relay a stimuli that may or maynot elicit a responce. There is no direct consciousness or awareness of this stimuli unless it is transmitted through a neural netwark into a conscious brain where that stimuli (electric impulse) is then interpreted accordingly. A propriceptor ("pro" means "before or in front of," and "propri" means "ones own") only refers to a cellular receptor that is able to be affected by and/or respond to a stimuli in some way.
The following is a list of those stimuli receptors:
- Chemoreceptors respond to chemical signals
- Mechanoreceptors respond to touch or pressure
- Thermoreceptors respond to heat
- Photoreceptor cells respond to light
- Baroreceptor cells respond to pressure
- Osmoreceptor cells respond to the level of fluids (in the hypothalamus)
- Proprioreceptor cells respond to motion, position or balance
The following is a list of those stimuli receptors:
- Chemoreceptors respond to chemical signals
- Mechanoreceptors respond to touch or pressure
- Thermoreceptors respond to heat
- Photoreceptor cells respond to light
- Baroreceptor cells respond to pressure
- Osmoreceptor cells respond to the level of fluids (in the hypothalamus)
- Proprioreceptor cells respond to motion, position or balance
Who is "you"? If Billy T, please give a quote of mine relative to "equating consciousness propriceptors."valich said:
If you read my 6 October05 post in the "about determinism" thread, you will see I am about as far from this as you can get, in that I do not believe ANY matter is consciousness, but instead think that parietal brain runs a simulation in which consciousness is provided to the "self-element subroutine" of that simulation - I.e. we are only informational processes in a simulation, not material bodies.
"You" is "Billy T." You state that:Billy T said:
"I cannot define consciousness, but what you seem to be referring to is not what my version / definition if I had one would be. What appears to be your "consciousness" I tend to call (environmental + propriceptive) awareness.(Even single-cell animals have some of this. Plants, like the sunflower obviously do and even are responsive to environmental changes."
"I" have a "consciousness" and I am very conscious of what you are saying - and I consist of matter. You're just redifining and creating you're own personal version/definition of what "consciousness" is. To suggest that a sunflower has a consciousness (environmental + proprioceptive) is absurd. Their membrane enclosed cellular receptors perceive this stimuli and send signals out to react towards it. This is like the on-off light switch in your room. Is your on-off light switch consciously perceptive or have any awareness that it is on or off? Of course not!
No, I state just the opposite and you even qoute me saying "I can not define consciousness."valich said:
My comments about lower animals, sun flowers etc were to illustrate that YOUR concept of consciousness as enviromentsl awareness extended far down both the animal and vegetable kindoms.
Did you not say:
"There's really a lot of research being done with animals, but mostly involving specific area of consciousness like vision, hearing, olfactory."
and give these two references to support your "consciousness is awareness" view:
"Brain awareness doesn't come out of thin air. There is evidence aplenty that it critically depends on a set of neural activities. What is more, recent findings compellingly suggest that consciousness is a function of an identifiable neural architecture."
http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/l.../9803141712.htm
"consciousness is associated with macroscopic neuronal processes"
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...ciousness&hl=en
Thus it is you, not me, who is associating consciousness with sensory awarenesss. I have stated that I do not know what consciouness is and even that neither you nor I have any way to be sure that it exists in anyone else:
Bill T said:
No your concept implies that about sun flowers.valich said:
Also the web sites are your's from your post of 10-28 made at 56 minutes after the hour.
You must be so bussy search that you can not keep track of your own post. Some one else noted that you have come down on opposite sides of the same question, depending on what web page (nonsense) you most recently read.
Valich...you haven't quoted this webpage yet!
http://www.spuriousmonkey.com/lectures/lectures/022.html
http://www.spuriousmonkey.com/lectures/lectures/022.html
Hey, I'm really trying to understand what you mean. Your links lead no where probably because you signed on to them through the web, but if you quote the article, journal, and date then I can access them as well.Billy T said:
We've already stated that if you cut the brain stem or the internal neural netwarks that give you sensations, you totatally, or begin, to lose consciousness. Yes, "consciousness is associated with neural processes." Some think that consciouness is even equivalent with brain activity.
Yes, I admit, I am equating consciousness with sensory awareness because I don't see how you could be conscious of what else? Sensory awareness of your thoughts, feelings neuroreceptor impulses, sensory reception?
I rarely search any web site (rely on my memory, read journals, important historical books, etc.) but you obviously do often. You might want to search for 'brain in vat" etc - there is a long history of discussion about the possibility of consciousness in a "disconnected brain."valich said:
Again I tell you they are not "my links" but YOURS. I only went to one.
Last edited by a moderator:
We've gone over this time-and-time again on this web thread.
"Total loss of consciousness only occurs with damage to a FEW regions, like the Intralaminar Nuclei (ILN) of the thalamus and the brainstem. In contrast, injury to other brain structures can change consciousness other ways, like impairing a sense like hearing, blocking certain types of movement like head motion or causing temporary or permanent loss of memories."
http://www.sci-con.org/articles/20040402.html
"Total loss of consciousness only occurs with damage to a FEW regions, like the Intralaminar Nuclei (ILN) of the thalamus and the brainstem. In contrast, injury to other brain structures can change consciousness other ways, like impairing a sense like hearing, blocking certain types of movement like head motion or causing temporary or permanent loss of memories."
http://www.sci-con.org/articles/20040402.html
you seem not to understand the difference between the words disconnection and damage.
Try googling them.
Try googling them.
There are different definitions of consciousness, and different levels. My direct posting above is correct. See aditional postings above about the loss of certain aspects of consciousness.
Also, regarding the subject of sensory evolution," the following article posted today on CNN.com may be of some interest to others:
"If the analysis by the researchers is confirmed, mice can be added to the short list of creatures that sing in the presence of the opposite sex, including songbirds, humpback whales, porpoises, insects and, possibly, bats....Bird song, how it is perceived and learned, is used to understand how the human brain works. But some questions might be posed better with mice, for experimental convenience....If it is true that the male mice are producing songs, it raises questions about how their sounds develop and whether mice - like birds - are able to learn new sounds.... "extraordinarily little" is known about how the human brain helps people learn to speak. "We don't know even where to look in the (human) brain," he said. "If it were to turn out that (mice) songs are learned, and that parts of the brain are involved in learning, that might open a new area of investigigation." The only mammals known to learn new sounds are whales and porpoises, and "they're not exactly ideal for study."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/01/singing.mice.ap/index.html
Also, regarding the subject of sensory evolution," the following article posted today on CNN.com may be of some interest to others:
"If the analysis by the researchers is confirmed, mice can be added to the short list of creatures that sing in the presence of the opposite sex, including songbirds, humpback whales, porpoises, insects and, possibly, bats....Bird song, how it is perceived and learned, is used to understand how the human brain works. But some questions might be posed better with mice, for experimental convenience....If it is true that the male mice are producing songs, it raises questions about how their sounds develop and whether mice - like birds - are able to learn new sounds.... "extraordinarily little" is known about how the human brain helps people learn to speak. "We don't know even where to look in the (human) brain," he said. "If it were to turn out that (mice) songs are learned, and that parts of the brain are involved in learning, that might open a new area of investigigation." The only mammals known to learn new sounds are whales and porpoises, and "they're not exactly ideal for study."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/01/singing.mice.ap/index.html
There is a huge problem in discussion consciousness, free will, self-awareness, etc...
There doesn't exist a consistent nomenclature with which one can clearly discuss different aspects of cognition.
'Consciousness' is used to mean far too many shades of meaning.
When getting into discussions of this sort, the first thing to do is always to work out your definitions. Your nomenclature. And even then you're bound to get caught up in a logical mess.
Well sunflowers certainly do not have a consciousness, as was possibly hinted above: not sure if they meant this? But there seems to be a confsuion about consciousness, self-awareness, and awareness - or responce to chemoreceptors. The responce to receptors is not a conscious awareness of it in lower animals but just a stimulus-responce mechanism. Only humans have total conscious self-awareness as I posted above from one study. Chimps look in a mirror and think "that looks like me," but only humans look in a mirror and say "that is me."
Not true.
Chimps display recognition of themselves when they look in mirrors. Sometimes it takes time getting used to it though.
I've seen studies of chimps looking in mirrors and cleaning their teeth with twigs.
Dolphins are also thought to recognize their reflections. Evinced by their behavior of turning their heads this way and that while looking at it.
I'm not so sure.
Chimps and several other animals are quite self-aware. They do lack the ability to communicate in an... exact manner. But, they do get the point across rather well.
I think that much of consciousness (the full definition of consciousness. I.e. self-aware. Cognizant. Understanding of one's place in the world) is a social function to a large extent.
Social structures with complex heirarchies almost mandates some form of self-awareness. Consciousness. Ability to compare oneself with others. Etc... One must be aware of oneself in order to properly evaluate against another of the tribe.
Many animals use purely visual cues.
Size of antlers. Physical fitness...
Shit. There was a study I read recently which had some type of animal that gauged itself...
Ah. The lobster. Through smell, if I remember right. And when certain receptors were removed from the antenna (I forget whether it was surgical or genetic) then the small lobster constantly goes up against the larger. He never learns.
Wasps also have a system where they judge their heirarchies by the number and size of spots on their face. There was research done where wasps were altered (with paint) and this fucked with the heirarchy badly. And when a wasp was discovered to be cheating, he was treated badly. Strangely enough, it didn't matter whether the cheat was that the wasp was portrayed as stronger than he was or weaker. The reaction was equally brutal.
Anyway.
What I'm saying is that the higher mammals have far more considerations to consider when judging heirarchy. And in the primates, this jumps even higher.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge the chimp.
They're surely not as aware as humans. But they are aware. There is a mind in there. They are almost people.
As to sunflowers. The point was that some of what you said, when taken to extremes, would suggest that sunflowers do have consciousness. Because they react to the world around them. It was a question of the exactness of the criteria.
You seem to quick to think that you can easily define consciousness and that you can judge whether one animal is conscious or not. I don't think it's that easy. (This is my area of main interest, by the way. The brain. Cognition. Etc...)
About chimps and dolphins, the source I quoted says different. I am not saying you are wrong: just asking you to cite your sources so that I can review their studies.
Sunflowers do not have a consciousness. Plants respond by stimulus-responce receptors. What is your scientific definition of "consciousness" that would apply here. It is certainly not one that would be accepted in the scientific community.
Sunflowers do not have a consciousness. Plants respond by stimulus-responce receptors. What is your scientific definition of "consciousness" that would apply here. It is certainly not one that would be accepted in the scientific community.
Don't have them handy. Things I've read in the past.
That's another problem in research in areas like this. You can find research that says practically anything about the subject of self-awareness among animals.
Sigh.
I already did.
It responds to it's environment. I.e. it's conscious of its environment so that it can react to it.
Nobody is saying that sunflowers are conscious. Billy T was trying to show you that by your definitions and quotes that sunflowers could be considered conscious.
And, by the way, he repeated many times that those quotes you kept asking about were yours. From your posts. He even told you which post.