Folks,

This is a debate, but the vast majority of animal behavioral scientists would argue that animals like dogs are sentient and have emotions like fear. This certainly was Darwin’s position. And modern scholars have largely asserted this point. See, for example, the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. It is, of course, the case that the nature of perceptual subjectivity is that it is purely contained and without language, it is enormously difficult to have direct access. But the idea that dogs and cats are zombies like your computer is seen by most philosophers and animal behavioral scientists as not parsimonious and leads to all sort of ethical concerns as well.

But actually the ToK language game deals will all of this ambiguity.

It proclaims, first and foremost, that we do NOT confuse human deliberative self-consciousness with the term “mind.” It is not conceptually sound. Deliberative human self-consciousness and experiential perceptual consciousness are both very different than mental activity per se. They are best conceived of as UNIQUE subsets of mental activity. The vast majority of cognitive-covert mental processes are nonconscious.

The best definition of “the mind” is to have it refer to the information instantiated within and processed by the nervous system. Tje ToK simply makes the point that “Mind” is VERY different from consciousness and even more different from deliberative human self-conscious awareness. If we define the mind-brain system as the computational control center and we conceive of it as an information processing system that takes in inputs, performs computational control processes that controls outputs, then we see overt actions as emerging as the informational interface with nervous system.  

If we stay with Descartes old conception where mind equals human deliberative self-consciousness, then our language game is plagued by a very problematic dualism. It takes a little practice, but it is worth it because it allows for conceptual clarity. I will say, though, the idea that dogs have emotions EXACTLY like humans is NOT the case, IMO. What I mean by that is our self-conscious language system embedded in a social field is a game changer. Thus, it is an error to simply presume identical/parallel processes. The way we tell stories is crucial in how we experience emotions. So, there is a feedback loop in humans not present in other animals.

But, watch a video like this, and tell me you have absolutely no idea what the monkey is feeling. To say that, IMO, is overly committing to a radical skepticism. The most parsimonious explanation via behavioral observation, human introspection, neuroanatomy and behavioral and computational neuroscience is to map the monkey’s reactions via the Influence Matrix. It was activated by an unfavorable social comparison and expressed anger/frustration accordingly. And, all I am saying is that you are observing mental behavior in watching the video. The mental behaviors are well conceived of as a process of perceptual inputs, motivational drives, and affective responses.

Exactly what it is like to be the monkey is very hard to say. But, it is hard to say exactly what it is like to be me also.

More later,
G

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1