- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Far more animals than previously thought likely have consciousness, top scientists say in a new declaration — including fish, lobsters and octopus.
Bees play by rolling wooden balls — apparently for fun. The cleaner wrasse fish appears to recognize its own visage in an underwater mirror. Octopuses seem to react to anesthetic drugs and will avoid settings where they likely experienced past pain.
All three of these discoveries came in the last five years — indications that the more scientists test animals, the more they find that many species may have inner lives and be sentient. A surprising range of creatures have shown evidence of conscious thought or experience, including insects, fish and some crustaceans.
That has prompted a group of top researchers on animal cognition to publish a new pronouncement that they hope will transform how scientists and society view — and care — for animals.
Nearly 40 researchers signed “The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness,” which was first presented at a conference at New York University on Friday morning. It marks a pivotal moment, as a flood of research on animal cognition collides with debates over how various species ought to be treated.
You must log in or register to comment.
Ofc they are sentient.
I fail to understand why do we will push the ‘no expression of the face means no intelligence or emotions bcs most of us communicate that way’.
It always turns out that whatever brain mechanics we think of as our own we later & with minimal research find in other animals as well.
Evolutionary speaking too, same brain centres (with various density and relative size - of which we dont have all that dense brains & and most parts are underdeveloped), it’s absolutely unlikely we would have developed something new in a few millions of years (especially given smol & fragmented populations facing extinctions and smol gene pools - tho that could be interpreted the other way too). It’s just specialisation, some (advantageous) functions grew, other were optimised to the point of non-existence.
Then again, given how intolerant are we to our own species in terms of our emotional response to slight visual differences (I mean vcompletely evolutionary, uncanny valley thing, the next village of humanoids might have been competing for the same resources, which makes different culture/colours/face shapes = danger, etc), how we choose to ignore compassion (like ‘look at that idiot, ofc they have no feelings, not unlike me, the superior being’) … ofc we can’t immediately recognise and understand what and how animals are feeling. It takes a lot of time, effort, & empathy (mechanical empathy, like to fully underhand their environment from their pov, and emotional empathy, how they are processing that environment).
And the bigger the difference and habitats, the harder it is (like any sea animal really). Anything non-mammal seems alien to us, no matter the smarts (eg cuttlefish, that can clearly experience psychological trauma on individual and population/cultural level).
And then there are fungi. After that plants. And whatever we choose bacteria to be (like beings, or just a literal matter of environment we live within). Etc :).
I thought this should be obvious to anyone who’s interacted with an animal, ever. But sadly there are a great many people who don’t agree there is a ‘soul behind the tv screen’ as it were with animals more primitive than things like cats and dogs. It can be easy to use to justify human cruelty.
And it’s easy for you to say it’s obvious and you’ve thought that all along. You’re not the demographic they’re trying to inform.
I found that too many people who call themselves a dog person because they are terrible with animals. Dogs have been bred to put up with us. But give them a dog that’s either bred for a specific task, or one that is a bit feral and they’ll say the dog is difficult. It isn’t, the owner is just incompetent.
I’m no dog or cat person. It’s easier for me to name the animals I hate (damn mosquito’s). I get along with most animals, even instant-swatting cats labelled as difficult. Only because I respect their boundaries. And I’ve stuck my hand behind a fence to pet a pitbull more often than a sane person would consider healthy.
I think that pet breeding should be banned and only allowed by veterinairy instances, universities and animal shelters. Imagine if people couldn’t buy a pet on a whim? Imagine if they had to order in advance and get certified they know how to take care of one? We’d have less animal cruelty, and less strays.
Also, sheep are underrated pets. Holy damn they are social. They are basically a walking pillow and love scratches behind the horns. And wag their tail when happy. Same for rats. I say rats are more suitable as pets than dogs. Social, fun, trainable (be warned of the lazy males), don’t bite, love cuddles, and you don’t need to castrate them to “keep their fun behaviour.” You do have to remove the ovaria as it makes female rats prone to cancer otherwise.
I’m a dog person because between cats and dogs, I lack respect for cats. Yes they are cute and soft and sometimes cuddly. It’s not worth the ammonia smell everywhere and the scratching me when they come to me for pets, or the biting, clawing furniture, etc. Mostly the pee in the house.
I’ve done the things like changing the litter box and using new litter frequently. I’ve given them off limits spaces so they aren’t bothered. I’ve done the things and more. My daughter still has a cat downstairs. I’m not a jerk to the cat, but I just don’t like cats. I’ll pet, hold, play, etc. Cats are simply not a favorite for me.
Dogs… Ok the other hand… Obnoxious playful dopey friends that can learn cool things. Big cuddle bugs is what they are.
You share the same problem with the “too many people calling themselves dog people.” You state you lack respect to an animal, and then complain about said animal who is known to fight when threatened. That cat can tell you don’t like him, and so he doesn’t like you. Similar with horses. Just like many other animals, they sense your emotions. Except horses are very very good at it, and cats much less so.
Will we now treat them as well as other clearly sentient animals like pigs?
There is no way I’m clicking on that link
Considering that as sentient beings ourselves, we don’t really even understand sentience, it’s kinda bold to assume we’ve got a monopoly on it.
Similarly I wonder how much of the observation is projection. We don’t know what the bee thinks it’s getting out of rolling the ball around, we don’t know that the fish was actually reacting to seeing itself. At some level we’re assuming that’s what’s going on because it makes sense to us.
Humans have a really, really hard time NOT assigning human attributes to every other living thing.
One thing that makes this hypothesis seem possible, is that some researchers are suggesting consciousness is external, and eternal. Meaning all living things are essentially antennae.
That really reeks of “scientists invent God.” And I question the actual motives of any researcher that would suggest such an idea.
Show me the data that suggest that. Describe a test that might prove it.
Source?
Some journalusts are dumb again. Sentient != sapient. Sapient is conscious.
Sentient != sapient. Sapient is conscious.
Sorry, you have it backwards.
Sentient means conscious or able to feel, from the same Latin root as “sensory”.
Sapient means wise or intelligent, from the same Latin root as “sage”.
Sorry, you have it backwards.
Only if opposing conscious to intelligent/able to think. Which most people do not.
Most people do, in fact, make a distinction. Including you:
Sentient != sapient
One person can be more intelligent than another, but that does not mean they are more capable of feeling. They are different concepts.
Usually conscious is opposed to feelings.
Feeling as in awareness of the outside world, not as in emotions.
Unconscious people are not aware of the outside world. In fact, you can tell when they return to consciousness because they are once again aware of light, sound, etc.
It seems odd to me that this article is framing octopodes as a surprising inclusion. Aren’t they generally known to be some of the most intelligent animals of all?
Yes and no. It has long been known that they are surprisingly intelligent, but the structure of their nervous system is very strange and decentralized which makes it fairly surprising nonetheless.
I heard there’s a theory that they didn’t originate on earth
We have fossil evidence otherwise. Their greatest barrier to developing higher intelligence is that they die after reproduction, so they’ll never have pressures to develop more symbolic thought or pass on knowledge.
IS veganism the real solution here, or is the real solution the all-artificial, all-synthetic diet? Me personally, I’m going to down this jug of red 40, and then I think I’ll get back to you
If it ever comes out that plants are sentient and feel pain my moral compass is going to have a bad day.
I’m not even a vegetarian … but I have tried to eat less meat in recent years, in part because of the cruelty.
We can always go the way of only eating fruits (and fruit-like growths), as they’re specifically meant for being eaten.
The same is true of milk.
Well, no. Milk is naturally produced for a limited period so a mammal can feed its young. Fruits are produced year-round every year so a plant can spread its seeds as far as possible.
Milk and fruit are both only produced for a limited time.
For instance, many tomato plants only produce tomatoes for a few months of the year, and then they die.
Milk and fruit are both only produced for a limited time.
By each individual plant, sure. But for diverse farming, you can easily get a permanent rotation of fruits going.
You’re also completely ignoring the most importat fact - that milk is produced to feed newborns and fruit is produced to attract (and by extension feed) literally whichever species is around.
No, fruit is produced to be eaten by animals who will ingest the seeds and defecate them somewhere suitable for growth. It is not meant to be eaten by animals who defecate in a toilet.
Regardless, animals and plants used in agriculture have been modified by selective breeding to suit human needs, so the milk and fruit they produce are now meant for humans. And human agricultural practices ensure a constant supply of both fruit and milk.
I’d say eating plants would still be the lesser of two evils in that case. Animals we kill for food also eat plants, so from a pure quantity of suffering, it’s better to not have the middleman there.
But some animals we eat are carnivores, like most wild-caught fish. In which case, killing them reduces the total amount of suffering. Same reasoning as the trolley problem.
Even that’s a bit more complex, without predators many species massively overbreed, leading to mass starvation
That wouldn’t apply to ecosystems where the predator is invasive, for example the lionfish in the Caribbean (which happens to be delicious).
Furthermore, if there is concern for a population explosion then one could also kill and eat the predator’s prey, provided you eat fewer than the predator would have eaten.
We, as omnivores, have a choice. The carnivores do not. I’d rather not cause more suffering than I have to (since I have that choice) even if there was the potential that it could possibly decrease overall suffering.
I will not go into other problems with fish specifically since it’s not on-topic.
Whereas I choose to cause suffering if I expect it will reduce greater suffering, including killing animals if necessary.
Everyone has their own approach to the trolley problem.
Do note that this whole thing is based on the hypothetical of plants being capable of experiencing pain. In reality, they do not possess a nervous system to enable that.
Of course I’d choose to kill an animal if the alternative was getting injured or killed (or starving in some extreme survival situation), but in day-to-day life, I do not see the need to do that.
If the only way to stop a school shooter were to kill them, I think most people would do so even if they were not personally threatened.
And many people, including myself, think it is moral to kill even an innocent person if necessary to prevent the death of a greater number of people. That’s the trolley problem in a nutshell.
But if I’m willing to kill a person in order to prevent them from killing other people, then I should also be willing to kill a fish in order to prevent it from killing other fish.
Finally, the argument for nonhuman sentience does not turn on the presence or absence of neurons. That would just be a cellular version of speciesism, and it inexplicably eliminates the possibility of sentience in extraterrestrials or machines.
The argument in the OP is based on behaviors, like recognizing self vs nonself, avoiding noxious stimuli, creative problem-solving, etc. Plants do many of these things too, just on longer timescales.
I always instinctively knew it and that’s why i love animals so much. My son was born just like me, with a love and respect of all creatures, even insects (Beside mosquitoes and flies because these can really eat all my electric tapper)
Be that as it may, wasps can still fuck right off.
This raises some interesting questions. The premise of these scientists is that consciousness can be quantified empirically. Yet many of the tests described in this article can be passed by machines. Does that mean that the scientists who signed the declaration consider some smart devices to demonstrate consciousness? And what are the implications?
These arguments never make much sense because there’s no broadly accepted philosophical consensus on what sentience is.
I agree with this. I’ve read the statement that the scientists wrote and I honestly could not figure out what they are trying to say. I just don’t see how any of the tests they reference would challenge the idea that we don’t know how to define or test consciousness.
Sentience is not necessarily the same thing but its in a similar place. It may be possible to test depending on the definition.
I’d hazard the guess they don’t, and it’s easy to justify it - our current AIs don’t have the internal aparatus needed to develop counsciousness (yet). They’re way too simple and way too straightforward to be intelligent, whether intelligence is an emergent property or a fundamental structure.
Seems like a strong argument that consciousness cannot be determined by testing behaviors.
True, you can’t test a literal rock and expect the result to be telling of counsciousness. Good thing the researchers aren’t solely determining it by testing behaviour, and instead selected a group in which emergent intelligence is one of the probable phenomena.
Is emergent intelligence the scientific definition of consciousness? The article seems to be describing something else.
