![]() ![]() This is the conventional view on what has consciousness, and I think most scientists would agree that a nervous system or a brain is (in typical situations at least, so setting aside OBEs, NDEs, etc.) a necessary condition of consciousness. Humans, mammals, fish are definitely conscious small bugs are probably conscious bivalves may be conscious plants and single-celled organisms are probably not conscious. I'm old-fashioned: I think something is conscious if it behaves in a way similar enough to me, or that its behavior is best explained by positing mental states. It's not the mainstream view, and idealists can still disagree on particular examples of what may or may not be (phenomenally) conscious. (So human babies and animals are sentient, despite lacking meta-consciousness.)Īll metabolizing organisms, no matter how simple, are said to be phenomenally conscious.Īccording to Kastrup. And on this definition, meta-consciousness is not required to have sentience. In the context of ethics, people often seem to use sentience as meaning the capacity to have interests/desires, or the capacity to have positive or negative experiences. (So human babies and animals are sentient, despite lacking meta-consciousness. Without context I'd assume they're synonymous until the person using the terms has explicitly defined them to mean different things. In the context of ethics, people often seem to use sentience as meaning the capacity to have interests/desires, or the capacity to have positive or negative experiences. I don't think there is a standard distinction between sentience and (phenomenal) consciousness. So I just want to know if there is an official philosophical definition of the term because I can't find it. So it seems to me that "sentience" means that a creature must be phenomenally conscious, but may not be meta conscious. I also find it hard to believe that vegans would exclude newborn human infants, or infants of any other species of commonly farmed animals, from the category of being sentient, even though they are not meta conscious. Vegans have no ethical qualms about consuming plants because supposedly they are not sentient, even though they are phenomenally conscious by virtue of being metabolizing organisms. I don't know what exactly this term means but I don't think "sentience" is synonymous with phenomenal consciousness or meta consciousness. ![]() Many animal-rights advocates will claim that eating meat is wrong because animals are sentient. Now, I want to finally get into the question about the term "sentience". There is something it feels like to be a newborn infant. Yet, there is an intuition that the newborn infant is obviously conscious in the phenomenal sense. According to this strange article, even though the terminology is different, a study has found that newborn human infants may not be meta-conscious until around 5 months of age. Only a subset of creatures is said to be able to re-represent their perceptions and be aware that they are perceiving. However, not all organisms are meta-conscious. ![]() All metabolizing organisms, no matter how simple, are said to be phenomenally conscious. I understand that phenomenal consciousness simply means that there is something it is like to be a thing. The abilities necessary for sentience appear at a certain stage in humans, as in other species. There is evidence for sophisticated cognitive concepts and for both positive and negative feelings in a wide range of nonhuman animals. This requires a level of awareness and cognitive ability. At this point, all we can claim is that domestic dogs are almost incredibly well attuned to the niche of serving humans.This is a question about terminology so I'm sorry if it is a boring post. Sentience means having the capacity to have feelings. Looking into the reasons why dogs might seem smart but possibly not sentient, Psychology Today reasoned, “Much as we might wish to believe that man’s best friend is self-aware, there is no good supportive evidence as yet, although this may reflect problems with the tests. One theory about why dogs fail at the mirror test is that they’re animals that rely heavily on their senses of smell and hearing. The test, originally developed by Gordon Gallup, involves watching to see if an animal can recognize itself in a mirror.Īfter researching a range of animals, Gallup found that chimpanzees, magpies, and dolphins were among the animals that could recognize their own reflections, but that dogs and gorillas did not. Are dogs as self-aware as we are?īalancing out Berns’s study, dogs have traditionally failed at the standard psychological test for self-awareness. But humans have a level of sentience that not many other species share in the form of self-awareness. (Picture Credit: Ivan Pantic/Getty Images)ĭogs may have the ability to feel emotions similarly to the way we do. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |