I read both their respective popular science books, but given their reputations, I still felt it was appropriate to ask the following somewhat low resolution question.
It seems to me that Ledoux proposes that animals, including mammals, do not experience anything, and are ultimately, in consciousness terms, no more than plants or indeed stones.
I am utterly shocked by his book and I don't feel like his theoretical explanations warrant this conclusion at all. And his reliance on Occam's razor seems unconvincing to me. Similarly, his idea that we tend to anthropomorphise on the basis of heuristics, and often wrongly, does not convince me. Yes, when I See the headlights of a car, it looks a bit human, and a bit cute. But it is not comparable to the deep intuition I feel that animals share with us conscious and deeply felt emotions.
For Ledoux it seems that consciousness, or how DAmasio would put it, knowing that you're feeling, is a product of a post-hoc, slow process exclusive to humans.
I then went on to read DAmasio's The Feeling of What Happens. If I understand him correctly he locates the emergence of consciousness in its primary form somewhat earlier in evolution, and to him it is more causally relevant to the survival of a large scope of species than it is to Ledoux. However, even DAmasio does not seem to be convinced that animals have the knowing of feeling, which to him seems to require a representation of a first person agent.
I am sorry if this sketch is rather flawed and crude, but I am very interested in your perspective.
I personally want to bolster my hopes by adding that some scientists believe that there is truth to be gained from an experiental basis, and not all truths can be derived theoretical. This is consistent with the ideas of intution, which seems to calculate endlessly more variables than our reasoning-explicit can, and give us a vague but potent output.
In my case, this output tells me : When a dog wags its tail and looks at me lovingly or expectantly, or when a cat stretches and purrs, I Can feel, as Ricky Gervais once said in a profound tone of voice, that "It'S. not. true.".. And that relieves me.
It is relieving because animals to me are beings that keep me sane. Their simplicity and emotionality (apparent), their loyalty, and the magic they exude. And also I can trust them more than humans. They evoke in me a kind of unconditional type of love and affection that few other things can. And I am guessing that this is infinitely valuable to humanity.
So, for various reasons, I think this question is hugely important to determine, even when we stay aware of the limitations that notions related to the measurement of Qualia etc impose on us.
My question is if there are good arguments to maintain that mammals are consciously experiencing their emotions, and not as fading prototypes, but in all their glory. And what your position is on this hugely important question. Most important of course, the implications for animal wellfare and the unfolding sensitivisation process regarding their well-being.
MY references here are Anxious by Ledoux and The Feeling of What Happens by Damasio.
Agree that "deep intuition I feel that animals share with us conscious and deeply felt emotions" We could also include all sentient beings, which include trees according to HeartMath tree rhythm project.
Thank you , I Agree. In "Braiding Sweetgrass" a botanist expresses her appreciation for the insane complexity of sensing trees are capable of.
HI Kilian Meller
Given your questions I think it would be super appropriate to read anything of mine on this site. At the least it would move the discussion forward.
Cheers
Karl
Thank you very much ! The high resolution and complexity of the text are still a little (probably veryy much) beyond my understanding. But in essence I take this to be a more hopeful approach, and intuitively it resonates. The idea of slowly assembling an emotional feeling so dependent on areas so closely allied with explicit and laboured reasoning is totally counterintuitive to me. Also it is not consistent with introspective practice or spiritual teachings which to me both suggest that too much activity in these areas, if anything, cloud the purity and intensity of an emotional feeling. That's why we like so much when our dog greets us when we come home.
Karl Sipfle
Thank you very much for commenting ! I read one of your articles and will try to understand it in more depth ! I like the acknowledgement of knowledge gaps and the flawedness of our current understanding. There are a lot of terms I don't yet understand but will read up on.
The acknowledgement reminds me of what the insight of there being an almost exclusive focus on object processing in neuroscience did to me. I recognised that I myself fell into the trap that when I saw how a visual image is slowly assembled while the stimulus travels like a train through all the visual areas, starting with orientations and so on, I immediately implicitly generalised to an idea that gave me the illusion of competence and knowing what consciousness was all about or could be reduced to. Even at the most basic level of starting to understand a topic, it made me ignore unknown unknowns that Ledoux speaks of. Like DAmasio's representations of the agent and the relation between agent and object (even though the idea of representations seems to be disputed in terms of their being constitutive of consciousness if I understand it correctly). So reductionism and seeming completeness of chains of events can do that to someone. Thank you for the reading opportunities. I will try to become much more versed in this topic that right now I am only beginning to explore.
"the idea of representations seems to be disputed in terms of their being constitutive of consciousness"
This is not the essentials of consciousness.
KS
Karl Sipfle
I understood that to Ledoux, only through post-hoc assembling and for Damasion only in the presence of a representation of the relation between self and image together with a representation of the self and one of the image is consciousness possible.
But I may be misinterpreting this. I will be adding more questions once I feel more versed in the field.
Hi Kilian Meller I don't agree with these positions. Often it comes down to what a person means by consciousness, and often even that implies important assumptions that are often false.
Kilian Meller "Often" being particularly over the entire course of the last 500 years.
Karl Sipfle Thank you. I am very confused by the term and related terms being used interchangeably as well. So, to put it ridiculously crudely, I think most people including me are interested if the cat feels joy, if she enjoys me giving her belly rubs or if she enjoys the sun when she closes her eyes. In a way that is meaningful and relateable to a person. Because that is the one thing that makes life meaningful. Even in a search for meaning or in a prioritising of meaning over pleasure, in my view meaning is, still, a type of joy. Albeit a subtler less noisy type. And that requires consciousness to me, DAmasio's moment of birth, of stepping into the light, knowing, being online. It's odd how this concept is so complex, yet we all know what its essence must be.
R. R. Poznansky
Yes I think Penrose is one of the most intelligent people alive. Richard Dawkins said his take was Rubbish. I remember he wrote a book with HAmmeroff which was so complicated I put it away. But I think Dawkins can't hold a candle to Penrose intellectually. He is a very literalistic thinker. Sometimes that's refreshing, but other times annoying.- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude