Matt Dillahunty, ‘Provide one piece of evidence that a god exists.’
Caller ‘Well, we’re conscious…’
I laughed out loud at that response. Then I looked to see my cat react to my outburst.
My reaction indicates consciousness. I am conscious of the use of this particular tactic of argumentation as a dressed-up version of ‘god-of-the-gaps’ since there is no general accepted scientific explanation of the emergent property of ‘consciousness’.
My cat’s reaction also indicates consciousness. It was conscious of my outburst and, for a moment at least, was on the path to determine whether the sudden increase in sound volume (i.e. my guffaw) should necessitate a response; either run to escape danger or stay still in repose. (My cat determined that my out-burst was not a threat to its safety and so remained in repose rather than run.)
Just moments before, I had given food to the two cats we care for; one young male and one, older female which I had startled with my laughter. I had been prompted by the young male to give him food. That indicates a series of events and possible determinations; first, the cat awoke and determined that it was hungry. That, in itself, indicates that the cat was aware of its own needs. It then came into the room I occupied - which indicates that the cat was aware of my quiet actions - and determined (again) to enter the room and begin pleading for food. That determination indicates that an association was made in the cat’s memory that I would be a source or an agent by which it could be fed. After several minutes of trying to advance its agenda by piteous squeaking, rubbing and licking, I carried out its agenda; I opened a can and spooned out its share.
Mission accomplished!
In the meantime, the older female cat came from its own place in the house – where it had no doubt been sleeping – and joined the queue to be fed. It had heard the commotion made by the little male cat and responded, perhaps knowing that food would be had.
The reader might dismiss all this as ‘instinct’. However, after years of living with cats, I have come to the conclusion that these little beasts are far more than simple automatons driven by instinctual programming. They are motivated by something other than instinct and imprinting.
After all, in the 17th century, the French philosopher René Descartes argued that animals were merely “material automata” and lacked ‘souls’ or consciousness.
Descartes believed that animals “can’t feel or can’t suffer.” And went so far as to state that feeling compassion or empathy for animals was somewhat silly or anthropomorphizing. Apparently, Descartes figured that ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ only applied when the cognizant one could say so in words.
Anyone who has been a steward of animals knows that each of them have a personality; one might like to be scratched behind the ears while another might like its belly rubbed. One might like the food presented it; another might not. One might prefer dry kibble to canned food. Beyond individual predilections of eating, one animal might be smarter than another one of its own kind.
The difference in intelligence might be seen in terms of the mode of learning. One might be more inclined to kinesthetic or otherwise; one cat might figure out how to open a drawer while another might be less spatially attuned. Perhaps one is perceived as less intelligent but more emotionally keen; I.Q. v E.Q. much as people are.
When challenged to prove that cats (or animals generally) are intelligent, I answer, ‘Try hiding food from them and see if they can puzzle out a solution.’ Again, the reader might answer rebut with ‘Instinct’. It might be argued – and rightly so - that intelligence is not consciousness. While this may be true, one must concede that intelligence and consciousness are linked in some way. An intelligent creature is one that is conscious.
And vice versa.
If one accepts of consciousness as the taking in of information, the processing of that information, then interacting and out-putting further, additional information, then many creatures - if not all creatures – are conscious.
However, doesn’t instinct or memetic learning explain that perceived behavior? Can it be simply instinct when the situation presented is not an instinctual or habitual one? Clearly, my thought runs otherwise. Anyone who has put up a bird-feeder knows that little mammals - such as squirrels - will find a way to eat the food no matter how devious the placement of the feeder, no matter how the placement is re-positioned and no matter what additional barriers are put into place.
Here, we’re talking about rodents; squirrels. There is a raft of You-Tube videos starring a squirrel which eats bird-feed after a gymnastic display. All quite amusing. All of them, for me, indicate that these animals had reasoned a solution to a problem. My cats take a more lackadaisical approach to getting fed but nevertheless; a problem is encountered and solved.
The Reader might be claiming that dogs – especially their dog – is far more intelligent than any cat. I agree wholeheartedly; dogs are highly intelligent, highly trainable, highly motivated and highly social. They are able to learn a complicated series of actions. Hunting dogs will point out game, wait anxiously for the hunter to act and then fetch the kill, if need be. Circus dogs will perform a series of tricks; each trick requiring that a puzzle be solved; usually a puzzle of involving gravity or the lack of opposable thumbs. Show dogs will preen and strut confidently. House dogs will learn its steward’s schedule and accommodate it; taking the leash in its mouth before going for walkies, for example. On the other hand, house dogs will attempt to exercise their own will, presumably, by whimpering for food or attention or nesting in a restricted place such as a sofa or comfy arm chair.
In short, animals must be seen most certainly as being conscious and, by extension, of have consciousness, as well. Horses know its favorite rider and its trainer. Horses are known to run simply for the fun of running. (Hence; horse-racing!) Elephants are known to have favorite people, as well. These are social animals, after all. As social animals, co-operation of the group member is a key to survival. Working as a group is a tactic which requires awareness; awareness of individual roles and awareness of the situation at hand. Meer cats will signal their group to warn of predators. Incidentally, this warning carries with it the danger of being the predator’s first victim. A wolf pack on the move is arranged for the consideration of the slowest and the frailest with the strongest and swiftest taking positions of defense and protection.
Such bits of what might be called sacrifice or martyrdom are common amongst social species; mammals, birds, fish, etc. Sociability is just one show of intelligence and consciousness. The adaptation of sociability has been offered as the reason for human intelligence. Why should that emergent intelligence not be attributed to other life-forms – other great apes and mammals?
But is not simply sociability which has led to intelligence. Octopi - a solitary species - are renown for problem solving to a degree which has come to world-wide attention. Watch ‘My Octopus Teacher’ and remain unmoved by the intelligence of the aquatic creature. The octopus determines the condition of the situation and then determines that an action be taken; hiding from predators, for example – and avoiding those places which the octopus associates with past physical trauma!
If awareness of the environment is a part of consciousness, then is it the ability to act within the environment which might then be at the root of intelligence? There are certain strains of amoeba which react to a toxic environment by moving away from that environment. Some amoebas have what are known as pseudopodia; false feet. Many single-cell organisms have flagella for movement. Does this ability for movement – and the genetic capacity for movement – mean that movement in response to stimuli; this action in response – indicate awareness and thus intelligence?
Perhaps this is over-stretching a premise, perhaps not. One must posit when ‘sentience’ becomes ‘intelligence’ and also when ‘sentience’ becomes ‘consciousness’. Much depends on how species-centric one is.
Could consciousness be the sole province of humans? Or was consciousness had by all hominids? Neanderthals? Denisova hominins? Homo Erectus? Homo Robustus? How about Australopithecus? Or any of the precursors to the species Homo? Where would the province of consciousness enter the evolutionary story? Are all the Great Apes conscious? Chimps, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutans? Do they all have consciousness? What about the lesser apes? Spider Monkeys? Capuchins? All mammals? All chordates? All animals? All eukaryotes? Some of the aforementioned but not others?
If humans are the result of the evolution from a common ancestor, then consciousness must be part of that evolutionary track. Where along that track did consciousness enter the mix and become the vital component of an organism’s survival?
Think this is too extreme?
Nearly 40 researchers signed “The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness,” which was first presented at a conference at New York University on April 19, 2024.
https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/nydeclaration/declaration
The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness
Which animals have the capacity for conscious experience? While much uncertainty remains, some points of wide agreement have emerged.
First, there is strong scientific support for attributions of conscious experience to other mammals and to birds.
Second, the empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians, and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and insects).
Third, when there is a realistic possibility of conscious experience in an animal, it is irresponsible to ignore that possibility in decisions affecting that animal. We should consider welfare risks and use the evidence to inform our responses to these risks.
‘The declaration says there is “strong scientific support” that birds and mammals have conscious experience, and a “realistic possibility” of consciousness for all vertebrates — including reptiles, amphibians and fish. That possibility extends to many creatures without backbones, it adds, such as insects, decapod crustaceans (including crabs and lobsters) and cephalopod mollusks, like squid, octopus and cuttlefish.’
“Once you recognize animals as sentient, the concept of humane slaughter starts to matter, and you need to make sure that the sort of methods you’re using on them are humane,” Birch said. “In the case of crabs and lobsters, there are pretty inhumane methods, like dropping them into pans of boiling water, that are very commonly used.”
As a postscript, during the most recent solar eclipse, observations of animal behavior were conducted. A variety of animals were observed during the eclipse and their varied responses recorded. As has been noted before, as the eclipse approaches totality, birds and insects grow silent. Other animals also have distinct, separate reactions to totality. Researchers at the Riverbank Zoo in South Carolina found that many normally sedentary animals grow very aggressive and agitated during the eclipse. (As do humans who hoot and holler and exclaim as totality nears.) Meerkats ran erratically through their habitat and whooping cranes had fun dancing; gibbons made unusual vocalizations never heard by researchers at any other time. Thousands of points of data are yet to be analyzed but it seems clear that animals consciously react to novel elements in their environment.
