Psience Quest

(2017-09-15, 09:25 PM)Titus Rivas Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for your response. 

I agree on most of what you're saying, except two things:

There is good evidence for intelligent thought, including abstract, in various species of non-human animals

I can understand why you don't expect there to be any emotional sentience in plants, but rodents, come on! That is really counter-intuitive to me, to be honest. 
They are mammals and have a whole repertoire of emotional behavior. See, for example: 

Never had a pet rat, so no extensive experience. I just think that the lower mammals like rats and rabbits have less emotional sentience and are more instinct-driven machines than the higher mammals - there is something sentient going on in there, just not as much. The mammalian encephalization quotients seem to roughly bear this out, with approximately 0.4 for rats and rabbits, 1.17 for dogs, and over 7 for humans. Of course, the EQ calculation turns out to be somewhat oversimplified and controversial, but there still seems to be a valid rough correspondence between the EQ (ratio of the actual brain volume to the volume expected for its body size (usually bodysize**2/3) for mammals), and the observed intelligence.

It is interesting that the rough correspondence of measured encephalization quotients to observed intelligence levels over evolution is naturally expected from the physicalist materialist theory that mind = activity of brain neurons. It is not so directly expected with our interactionist dualist point of view, but it still can be done.

(2017-09-16, 06:51 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Never had a pet rat, so no extensive experience. I just think that the lower mammals like rats and rabbits have less emotional sentience and are more instinct-driven machines than the higher mammals - there is something sentient going on in there, just not as much. The mammalian encephalization quotients seem to roughly bear this out, with approximately 0.4 for rats and rabbits, 1.17 for dogs, and over 7 for humans. Of course, the EQ calculation turns out to be somewhat oversimplified and controversial, but there still seems to be a valid rough correspondence between the EQ (ratio of the actual brain volume to the volume expected for its body size (usually bodysize**2/3) for mammals), and the observed intelligence.

It is interesting that the rough correspondence of measured encephalization quotients to observed intelligence levels over evolution is naturally expected from the physicalist materialist theory that mind = activity of brain neurons. It is not so directly expected with our interactionist dualist point of view, but it still can be done.

I see what you mean. As you point out, dualist interactionism is compatible with such a brain-mind correlation, as long as it not explained in terms of the brain producing intelligence rather than allowing for the manifestation of a certain level of intelligence.

However, in the case of rats, you may also underestimate their cognition in general, see for instance this article

What I learned from Bermond is intelligence is no barrier to stupidity.

(2017-09-13, 11:35 PM)Pollux Wrote: [ -> ]I guess you have seen this one before!?!
A white blood cell chasing after this one particular bacteria, ignoring a few others along the way. Like there is intent, purpose, differentiation, coupled with decisive action, in that white blood cell. It was hell-bent on that particular bacteria and no other - and didn't get distracted by that nearby bacteria that just sat there - which would have been a much easier prey.
 

My guess is that particular white blood cell is tracking via the chemical trail the bacteria leaves behind. If memory serves a particular slim mold appears to have intention as it moves around. It was finally determined this mold was leaving a chemical trail.

Doves are monogamous. One day while out I passed by two one was laying dead in the gutter the other perched on the curb hanging head in what appeared to be grief. Its whole body conveyed that emotion.

(2017-09-19, 09:35 PM)Titus Rivas Wrote: [ -> ]I see what you mean. As you point out, dualist interactionism is compatible with such a brain-mind correlation, as long as it not explained in terms of the brain producing intelligence rather than allowing for the manifestation of a certain level of intelligence.

However, in the case of rats, you may also underestimate their cognition in general, see for instance this article

The article you cite, Hidden Lives of Rats and Mice, is from an animal rights advocacy group (PETA) and therefore biased. However, I have to say it is persuasive that rats are far more complex than I had assumed. If you are to believe all the claims in the article it seems rats are as sophisticatedly sentient as dogs. This would apparently invalidate the encephalization quotient argument. The only other instance where an EQ argument appears invalid is with some very intelligent birds having nonetheless small brains, but that is accounted for by the fact that bird neurons are much smaller and more densely packed.   

(2017-09-21, 12:01 PM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]I really don't like arguments that go "The report was from X therefore it is biased" because they don't actually address the facts.  The human race is very biased in these issues.  To demonstrate the degree to which we are anthropocentrically biased we only have to compare our reactions to the following:  Doing medical experiments on rapists and child abusers vs. doing medical experiments on animals.  Our emotions compete with our logic and produce cognitive dissidence.  Does this mean that every human statement on the subject of animals is untrustworthy?

In what way do you think PETA are biased?  I am aware that they do a lot of research.  Do you think they deliberately selectively report and if they do do you think that what they do report is truthful?  Do you think it is a subconscious bias?  What in this article do you specifically think is inaccurate and why?  What evidence do we have that the EQ argument is an accurate means of determining sentience?

I must have really pressed one of your buttons. I just think that when it comes to the core motivator of their cause, any advocacy group will inherently be biased in one way or another (perhaps just subconsciously) in its favor in trying to convince outsiders of the rightness of their cause. Human nature. Just as are opinion pieces supporting the other side of the animal medical experimentation debate, like this. Not being an expert and not having done a lot of research I can't cite specific errors in the PETA article if there are some. I am just on principle a little suspicious of this writeup in its objectivity. Despite this, I even mildly conceded that this short essay was fairly convincing, and that it casts some doubt on the validity of the EQ arguments in studying the evolution of intelligence and brain size relationships to intelligence.

(2017-09-12, 08:58 AM)Doppelgänger Wrote: [ -> ]One of my favorite animals is the octopus. So intelligent, inventive, but with a, unfortunately, short life span. I was obsessed with them for awhile.

Such a beautiful but anti-social animal.

I totally believe they possess consciousness, but then I believe even plants and trees possess it too.

Everything is conscious, just not in the same way as we understand it as humans. Rocks, trees, especially trees and their natural, collective sensorial functions. Are you aware that trees are so well entangled with one another (in a forest or grove) that they can move water to the trees that need it the most?

A level of consciousness we struggle to comprehend.

(2017-09-23, 11:53 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]Many actions in nature appear on the surface of it to be deliberate but can be explained by other means.  I would like to see your evidence so that I can rule out natural laws such as osmosis for example.

I don't see how that could be done. What if the natural mechanism of osmosis is the very process that is used.

After all, the natural process of fire is how most road vehicles are propelled. Everything is natural.