Are Insects Conscious?

[Laird]

Yes indeed, and most of us who have driven long enough have encountered a red light stuck on red. I remember once stopping at such a light at about midnight, and after waiting for some time I was just about to cautiously go past it when a police car pulled up behind me. As a result I had to wait a bit longer until the policeman emerged to tell me to do just that!

Ha. How odd that a police car pulled up at just that point. Presumably, you hadn't even seen one in the previous six months, let alone been in close proximity to one.

My point is that purely algorithmic methods applied in real life easily get stuck.

That seems to be contra nbtruthman's claim though, which seems to be (and please correct me if I'm wrong, nbtruthman) something more like "the algorithms which ants use are perfectly sufficient for them".

My point is that purely algorithmic methods applied in real life easily get stuck.

Point taken.

Of course, that is what error correction algorithms are all about.  But, I am with you and am highly distrustful about the control that algorithmic processes can yield.  It is currently becoming more and more invasive to human culture.  It's like gunpowder, important to advancing the physical evolution of humanity, but at a terrible cost when used for damaging living beings.

Understanding AI's big advantage in "leverage" and in intrusive action (in an informational environment) is essential to see the big picture.  AI is available to shape and control what we we need to blast out of our informational way.  But turned-around to attack moral issues, it will be worse than dynamite.

Re the question in this thread's title, I think the answer is "Quite obviously, yes."

As far as the idea that algorithmic-like behaviour in ants disproves that they are conscious goes, my sense is: not very far at all. Humans display algorithmic-like behaviour in many circumstances too: just think about driving on bitumen roads. When approaching a red light, human drivers invariably slow to a stop just before the light. When approaching a round-about, human drivers invariably give way to the right (or perhaps the left, depending on which country they're in). Etc etc.

All of this, although algorithmic, is nevertheless performed consciously.

I'm curious. Back in #13 I remarked, 

"I think the main point of the article is that for all practical purposes ants demonstrate complex behaviors that can be entirely explained by computer-like algorithmic stimulus/response networks (which in themselves are not conscious). The implication is that since there is no other behavior that might offer clues that consciousness is also operating, there is therefore no consciousness in the ants. 

As opposed to human beings, where certainly much behavior can be explained by algorithmic processes, but there is also very much other behavior that absolutely can't be so explained and is attributed to consciousness. Aside of course from the self-evident personal observation that "I think therefore I am"."

Sure, as with humans, ants just might have consciousness despite their behavior apparently being entirely algorithm-driven. But how likely is this given the absence of some other (non-algorithmic) ant behavior signalling consciousness?

Specifically, how do you respond to this?

Yes indeed, and most of us who have driven long enough have encountered a red light stuck on red. I remember once stopping at such a light at about midnight, and after waiting for some time I was just about to cautiously go past it when a police car pulled up behind me. As a result I had to wait a bit longer until the policeman emerged to tell me to do just that!

My point is that purely algorithmic methods applied in real life easily get stuck.

I guess the question then is whether any of the ant researchers have observed anything but algorithmic logic responses in the ants to chance disruptions of their behavior by unpredictable external circumstances, like placing a barrier in their path to food. This would be equivalent to a human coming up with an inventive ad hoc cirumstantial response (non-algorithmic) to a problem that is unpredictable and only one of an uncountable number of possibilities (as in the inevitable downfall of AI-driven automobiles). That's a tough one.

[Laird]

I'm curious. Back in #13 I remarked,

"I think the main point of the article is that for all practical purposes ants demonstrate complex behaviors that can be entirely explained by computer-like algorithmic stimulus/response networks (which in themselves are not conscious). The implication is that since there is no other behavior that might offer clues that consciousness is also operating, there is therefore no consciousness in the ants.

As opposed to human beings, where certainly much behavior can be explained by algorithmic processes, but there is also very much other behavior that absolutely can't be so explained and is attributed to consciousness. Aside of course from the self-evident personal observation that "I think therefore I am"."

Sure, as with humans, ants just might have consciousness despite their behavior apparently being entirely algorithm-driven. But how likely is this given the absence of some other (non-algorithmic) ant behavior signalling consciousness?

Specifically, how do you respond to this?

Oh, I missed that you'd already acknowledged that much human behaviour is also algorithmic.

In any case, my response still stands but with the implicit argument made explicit: we know that living beings can undertake algorithmic behaviour while fully conscious, given that we humans do; therefore, the carrying out of algorithmic behaviour by a living being - even if all of its behaviour is algorithmic - does not of itself disprove that that being is conscious.

That all ant behaviour is algorithmic is anyway only an assumption, and one that I think is very probably false.

We have to take all evidence into account, including that presented in the article that Sci shared in the opening post. Viewed holistically, the idea that living beings like ants are conscious makes a lot more sense than the reverse.

I think, then, that your question is framed from the wrong presupposition. It would read more fairly like this:

Sure, as with artificial machines created by humans, ants might just be unconscious automata despite that they are living beings with brains, bodies, and behaviours (seeking out food and consuming it, building residences, mating, etc) like us conscious humans and other conscious animals. But how likely is this given those many similarities that they have with other living beings?

Viewed holistically, the idea that living beings like ants are conscious makes a lot more sense than the reverse.

Not to me necessarily.  I mean where's the cutoff point; are bacteria "conscious"?  Seems this is how we got to panpsychism or whatever the ism is that states everything is conscious.

I have the most confidence in my own consciousness.  This is followed closely by my faith that other humans are conscious.  I think my dog has some level of consciousness but am unsure how rich her inner experience may actually be.  An ant?  Wow, that's a stretch for me.

[Laird]

@Silence, I think the word you're looking for is "animism". I tend towards an animistic view, yes - definitely when it comes to biological life (so, yes, bacteria more than likely are conscious), and even perhaps when it comes to at least some non-biological entities.

The idea that there's a cut-off point for biological life where suddenly - "BAM! Too bad! You don't get to be conscious, sucker! You're just a ROBOT!" - seems more of a stretch to me than conscious bacteria. What would be the criteria for that cut-off point?

You think your dog has "some level" of consciousness. I'm curious to know whether this causes you to increase your estimate or at least to reevaluate it:

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...of-tik-tok

@Silence, I think the word you're looking for is "animism". I tend towards an animistic view, yes - definitely when it comes to biological life (so, yes, bacteria more than likely are conscious), and even perhaps when it comes to at least some non-biological entities.

The idea that there's a cut-off point for biological life where suddenly - "BAM! Too bad! You don't get to be conscious, sucker! You're just a ROBOT!" - seems more of a stretch to me than conscious bacteria. What would be the criteria for that cut-off point?

You think your dog has "some level" of consciousness. I'm curious to know whether this causes you to increase your estimate or at least to reevaluate it:

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...of-tik-tok

One way to think about this, is to take Rupert Sheldrake's idea of the Morphic Field seriously. From that point of view the intelligence lies in the MF, not in the individual bacteria. I think somewhere RS acknowledges that the MF's must be conscious.

Not to me necessarily.  I mean where's the cutoff point; are bacteria "conscious"?  Seems this is how we got to panpsychism or whatever the ism is that states everything is conscious.

Think morphic fields at that point!

I have the most confidence in my own consciousness.  This is followed closely by my faith that other humans are conscious.  I think my dog has some level of consciousness but am unsure how rich her inner experience may actually be.  An ant?  Wow, that's a stretch for me.

It would be extraordinary to discover the mental life of dogs. My bet is that a lot of their thought processes would revolve around smells. Conversely, they might find our metal life utterly impoverished by our very poor sense of smell.

I suspect it would probably turn out that it is not possible to construct a hierarchy of increasingly conscious creatures with us at the top.

@Silence, I think the word you're looking for is "animism". I tend towards an animistic view, yes - definitely when it comes to biological life (so, yes, bacteria more than likely are conscious), and even perhaps when it comes to at least some non-biological entities.

The idea that there's a cut-off point for biological life where suddenly - "BAM! Too bad! You don't get to be conscious, sucker! You're just a ROBOT!" - seems more of a stretch to me than conscious bacteria. What would be the criteria for that cut-off point?

You think your dog has "some level" of consciousness. I'm curious to know whether this causes you to increase your estimate or at least to reevaluate it:

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...of-tik-tok

I guess it gets into the definition of consciousness (as it always seems to).  I'm thinking of our experience as humans: self aware, inner experience, etc.

Its really hard for me to fathom what the inner conscious experience of a bacteria might actually be.

(The talking dog article is behind a NYT paywall so can't see that one.  I think I get the gist of it from the provided quotes from Sci.  If its a binary, such as I've sort of positioned the discussion, then yes I would say dogs have consciousness.  My golden retriever would kill me if I said otherwise.  )