Image: THOM LANG Corbis
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
The computer, smartphone or other electronic device on which you may be reading this article, tracking the weather or checking your e-mail has a kind of rudimentary brain. It has highly organized electrical circuits that store information and behave in specific, predictable ways, just like the interconnected cells in your brain. On the most fundamental level, electrical circuits and neurons are made of the same stuff—atoms and their constituent elementary particles—but whereas the human brain is conscious of itself, man-made gadgets do not know they exist.
Consciousness, most scientists would argue, is not a shared property of all matter in the universe. Rather consciousness is restricted to a subset of animals with relatively complex brains. The more scientists study animal behavior and brain anatomy, however, the more universal consciousness seems to be. A brain as complex as a human's is definitely not necessary for consciousness. On July 7 of this year, a group of neuroscientists convening at the University of Cambridge signed a document entitled “The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in Non-Human Animals,” officially declaring that nonhuman animals, “including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses,” are conscious.
Humans are more than just conscious; they are also self-aware. Scientists differ on how they distinguish between consciousness and self-awareness, but here is one common distinction: consciousness is awareness of your body and your environment; self-awareness is recognition of that consciousness—not only understanding that you exist but further comprehending that you are aware of your existence. Another way of considering it: to be conscious is to think; to be self-aware is to realize that you are a thinking being and to think about your thoughts. Presumably human infants are conscious—they perceive and respond to people and things around them—but they are not yet self-aware. In their first years of life, children develop a sense of self, learning to recognize themselves in the mirror and to distinguish between their own point of view and the perspectives of other people.
Numerous neuroimaging studies have suggested that thinking about ourselves, recognizing images of ourselves, and reflecting on our thoughts and feelings—that is, different forms of self-awareness—all involve the cerebral cortex, the outermost, intricately wrinkled part of the brain. The fact that humans have a particularly large and wrinkly cerebral cortex relative to body size supposedly explains why we seem to be more self-aware than most other animals. But new evidence is casting doubt on this idea.
“Got a Towel?”
If this anatomical hypothesis were correct, we would expect, for example, that a man missing huge portions of his cerebral cortex would lose at least some of his self-awareness. Patient R, also known as Roger, defies that expectation. Roger is a 57-year-old man who suffered extensive brain damage in 1980 after a severe bout of herpes simplex encephalitis, an inflammation of the brain caused by herpesvirus. The disease destroyed most of Roger's insular cortex, anterior cingulate cortex and medial prefrontal cortex, regions near or at the front surface of the brain that are thought to be essential for self-awareness. About 10 percent of his insula remains and only 1 percent of his anterior cingulate cortex.
Roger cannot remember much of what happened to him between 1970 and 1980, and he has great difficulty forming new memories. He cannot taste or smell either. But he still knows who he is. He recognizes himself in the mirror and in photographs, and his behavior is relatively normal.
In a paper published earlier this year postdoctoral researcher Carissa L. Philippi of the University of Wisconsin–Madison and neuroscientist David Rudrauf of the University of Iowa and their colleagues investigated the extent of Roger's self-awareness. In a mirror-recognition task, for example, a researcher pretended to brush something off of Roger's nose with a tissue that concealed black eye shadow. Fifteen minutes later the researcher asked Roger to look at himself in the mirror. Roger immediately rubbed away the black smudge on his nose and wondered aloud how it got there.
See what we're tweeting about
56 Comments
Add CommentNoticing life (bugs, frogs) avoiding human presence, I’m relatively certain rudimentary awareness wishes to live, and I believe if humans evolved with only one sense (touch), we still would be enthralled with existence. These thoughts have burdened me with a plethora of boxelder bugs. Please tell me this Indiana Jones like infestation can hurt my brain more than vacuuming hundreds of bugs out of existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a third level of awareness (beyond consciousness and awareness of self) that I don't think is being addressed -- awareness of that awareness. None of the experiments told about "Roger" address metacognizance. Yes, they indicate he has a sense of "I" and knows which nose is his. But does he "hear himself" think? Does his model of "I" include his thoughts, or his physical self? Can he think about his thoughts on a meta-level and amend them?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Cognito ergo sum."- René Descartes (1644)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy this article you have propelled one of the greatest minds of the 17th century into the 21st century
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure your implicit description of the Cogito is correct. Descartes wasn't asserting anything about the nature of awareness, self-awareness, or existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRather, he was saying that the one unquestionable postulate is that the person doing the thinking exists. Because either the postulate is correct, or there is no one involved to say they're incorrect. He then proceeds to try to prove his entire worldview, God and all, from that one given.
Slowly, slowly we're piecing it all together, mirrors and prisms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps it should read: *Reported* Self Awareness...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no objective evidence of subjectivity. The article uses the phrase " scientists would argue" and also references a "declaration" rather than asserting "proof" or "evidence". It could be argued that consciousness is a folk-belief like God or ghosts. I know of my own consciousness - but not empirically, using objective measurements. As for your consciousness - I don't really know if it at all. If I asserted to you that I was not conscious, you wouldn't be able to disprove the claim. Claims of consciousness are all by nature unfalsifiable.
I am interested in your comment nonHandJaunt, but wonder if you wouldn't mind elaborating upon it. How is it that you are defining consciousness? It is important that you clarify this so that others can address your claim that "if I asserted to you that I was not conscious, you wouldn't be able to disprove the claim". Your ability to make such a claim is itself dependent upon your being a conscious animal. The simple act of claiming that you are not conscious proves that you are in fact conscious. Now you may be disputing the depth of Roger's perceivable self-awareness, and to this I say that I too am unsure about the thoroughness of the research. As Micha said, metacognition was not sufficiently addressed in this study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to Nanorat, I believe that you have dreadfully misinterpreted this article in an effort to claim evidence for Descartes' body-mind dualism. Those who are apt to read spirits into brain science should mull over Antonio Damasio's research, and the correlations between the brain stem and consciousness, before they jump to any fanciful conclusions. I also hope you realize the word "universal" is not used here to open up discussion about, or give credence to, any metaphysical hypotheses about a universal mind.
On a final note, posting a quote in Latin does not in any way enhance its effectiveness.
By consciousness I mean what most people mean - i.e.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfirst person subjective experience. Note that is not an
objective definition, and indeed when people use the
word conscousness they are not describing a behavior or
anything else which can be carefully described
objectively.
"Your ability to make such a claim is itself dependent
upon your being a conscious animal." My point is that
*you* don't know that *I* am a conscious animal. If you
saw me in a cafe and the me that you saw claimed not to
be conscious, the you that is you wouldn't know if that
were true or not.
"The simple act of claiming that you are not conscious
proves that you are in fact conscious." To me yes. But
not to you. That is my point. And therefore, in
"empirical" endeavor, wherein we correlate observables
with other observables, we cannot every include "first
person subjective experience" in our list of
observables - therefore in the strictest sense, there
is no scientific investigation of consciousness. Only
of those particular behaviors & reports of the subjects
which the observers deem to truly indicate "first
person subjective awareness."
Nice bit on page 147 of "How The Mind Works" (Pinker) - "The philosopher Georges Rey once told me that he has no sentient experiences. He lost them after a bicyle accident when he was fifteen. Since then, he insists, he has been a zombie. I assume he is speaking toungue-in-cheek, but of course I have no way of knowing, and that is his point."
Pain, as only one example, would not have evolved without consciousness because lack of consciousness would make pain unfeelable. Without consciousness there would be no purpose for pain. For pain to evolve without consciousness would be like rain falling without water.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a jar of dehydrated water. Not really, it's in a metal canister with an oxygen label on it. I'm pretty sure it didn't fall in drops from the sky.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do believe that pain is simply an awareness of damage which implies that you are correct.
When a simplistic robot is programmed to recoil from a particular sensation such as light or pressure, we don't think of that as pain because we don't think of the robot as conscious. In our human discussion, "pain" is a word we use to describe what another person is experiencing, but of course we don't know if another person is actually experiencing anything at all! People might seem to be "recoiling in pain" all around you but may not in fact be experiencing pain as you know it, even if the report that they are. Consciousness is a word which can't enter into the logistics of evolution in the strictest sense. Are the individual atoms conscious? Is each nerve conscious? And we believe the physics - that the atoms interact according to the standard model, and the neurons interact in a way determined by rules and forces. Then all beings - "conscious" or not - are deterministic machines, and thus we don't have objective proof of their subjective experiences, and thus pain is merely something one person imagines that another person is having.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not sure that I understand your point. Do you believe that God created pain out of nothing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry. I meant "do you think that nature created pain out of nothing?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso seeming to feel and actually feeling have the same effects: compassion, treatment, comfort, relief.
Do you not feel these same reactions? Or do you pretend not to notice?
From an evolutionary perspective, other people's action to a sufferer gives the pained sufferer an advantage over the non-sufferer. This is true whether the sufferer is acting or actually feeling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut if acting pained were sufficient, then I wouldn't feel pain. Instead I would be a convincing actor.
But I know whether I am acting or feeling. Therefore, I know the answer.
jayjacobus - You know you are feeling - directly, subjectively. You don't know empirically whether my acts have subjective feeling behind them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot empirically, but deductively. I am conscious. My consciousness must have come from some place: my parents, my ancestors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy assumption that consciousness has a genetic link is more likely than consciousness comes from an unknown source.
The genetic link leads me to deduce that consciousness has an evolutionary advantage over an opposite conclusion.
If another person does not have consciousness, he might conclude that this fact must be supported by genetics and other people are faking consciousness as well.
On the other hand, actors fake real emotions for the part they play. It is really the actor who is conscious and not the character. If we believe that the character is real, we can be deceived about his thoughts and motivations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis actually happens from time to time. A member of an audience can think that JR is real and Larry Hagman is not. Most people recognize that JR is a fabrication of the screen writer and the talent of the actor.
We suspend our rational belief to enjoy the show.
In real life a person is both the actor and the character. On a continuous bases, he constructs his script and acts the part.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this is not true, where are the sciptwriters hiding.
"... consciousness has an evolutionary advantage ..." The only thing that can have an evolutionary advantage is a behavior. When humans use the word consciousness they are not referring to a behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you thinking of self preservation? An objective human might see himself any person, not as a special person. Subjectivity (not a behavior) would lead to selfish behaviors which would have an advantage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisВозможно все организмы имеют своё сознание и осознание на уровне свего существования.Все организмы в основном состоят из бактериальных сообществ поэтому возможно ум организмов это объединённый разум бактериальных сообществ составляющих этот организм.Возможно биосфера тоже имеет свой объединённый разум из умов составляющих эту биосферу организмов,например объединённый разум человечества.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd if the rain were methane say?Definitions are what matter here? Pain, the perception of possible damage.Consciousness? You presumably have a clear idea what you mean but I doubt it would actually hold up in the context you seem to be suggesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe it is disgusting how they are refferring to patient R, Roger, in this article. They dehumanize him, he has been stripped of his entire life and yet they treat him as nothing more than a lab rat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSearch "Problem of other minds" in wikipedia. Enjoy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPain in an organism is proof of consciousness. Without consciousness pain does not exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSound, visions, taste, smell and feel also require consciousness.
Without consciousness none of the senses would haved evolved or if they did evolve, they had a subconscious purpose. But if an organism reacted to sound waves without hearing sound (as an example), then it would never need consciousness.
I promise that hear sounds and therefore I know that I am conscious and aware of sounds.
The very existence of " subjectivity" and "self" or "I-ness" rests upon the existence of consciousness. Without consciousness, there is nothing of subjectivity. As such, it is illogical to understand consciousness in objective scientific terms. Even objectivity is studied by subjective conscious scientists. Conscious subjective scientist may study every OTHER thing of Nature in objective manner but not the very consciousness. In fact, concept of objectivity also arises due to presence of " subjectivity" and consciousness. Had there been no consciousness and subjectivity, who would have participated in these online discussions? A computer may have some in-built repetitive programmed awareness ( and this has also been fed by conscious subject) but this is not supported by consciousness, as such, it can not be termed truly as awareness. One needs to distinguish between mechanistic awareness and conscious awareness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsciousness is most fundamental than all the existences and awareness and self awareness are rudimentary than this. Even worms and plants are consciousness ( as per Cambridge declaration also), but they may lack awareness and self awareness.
Loss of insular cortex, anterior singular cortex and medial pre-frontal cortex may still keep awareness and self awareness intact partly or fully since awareness is a function of consciousness and consciousness is not an off-shoot of brain matter. When consciousness dawns upon brain matter from higher dimensions, its manifestation may or may not be affected due to faulty cortex. But faulty cortex or loss of cortex does not imply in itself loss of consciousness
Yes, awareness of awareness is an advanced stage of awareness and is found in human beings only. Consciousness may manifest in varying degrees and types in animals and plants depending upon development of body and brain. Awareness may also manifest in that degree and type depending upon manifestation of consciousness
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with much of what you wrote, however, plants would not benefit from consciousness any more than a rock would benefit from consciousness. Moreover, plants do not have the nervous system to transmit pain, sight, sound, taste or smell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf they are conscious, they are not conscious of the senses that we are.
To a physicist, the reason for a particular human action is: "physics." If we chew on that for a moment, it makes explanations of a particular human action such as "consciousness" or "intention" a bit problematic. Let's remember that primitive humans, unschooled in the scientific method, and ignorant of reductionism/determinism, relied upon consciousness and intention to describe nearly everything they saw around them. Nearly all physical phenomena that we view today in scientific terms were originally seen as caused either due to indwelling conscious intention or as the result of some unseen diety's conscious intention. Basically the lesson of the triumph of physical recutionism/determinism appears to be that other explanatory modes amount to superstition and are to be disregarded. Why then would I not apply this lesson in my scientific evaluation of my fellow human beings? Surely for reasons of sentiment or habit rather than intellectual rigor. How is a person who views another's actions as the result of conscious intention different from a primitive pagan who considers the volcano's eruptions to be evidence of anger?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who believe in angry spirits do so because they can not imagine a scientific cause and effect for this natural phenomenon. It is human nature to want to know why.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToday we "know" that the volcano does not have a conscious intent nor the biological mechanism for demonstrating purposefulness. Humans do.
People who believe in God do so because they cannot imagine how natural forces came into being accidentally and they want an explanation. Some scientists, who can't explain eveything, believe that everything will eventually be explained.
Is it possible that sentient beings preceded us and created many kinds of "natural" phenomenon?
In the meantime I know that I am conscious and my consciousness must have been inherited. I deduce that I am not alone.
Can you prove me wrong?
You are simply stating your beliefs. I wouldn't dream of presuming that I could "prove" you "wrong." But they are exactly that: beliefs. My point is there could never be any proof for someone other than you that you are conscious. Others believe you are conscious, but nothing they or you could ever do would prove them right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am aware of opposite perspectives: I could be the only sentient being, I could be seeing things from a computer simulation or I am dreaming a realistic dream.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut if I disregard my imagination, there is a real physical world, people around me are conscious and I am wide awake.
Taking things at face value allows me to deal with my circumstances in a practical, logical way.
Science is about questioning. That's why it's called "inquiry." It requires imagination. As Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Do you see time slowing down or space contracting when you "disregard your imagination?" No. Do you see a spherical Earth when you look around you? No. Do you see germs? Atoms? In terms of our daily lives, for most of us these things are purely imaginary. It takes imagination, then often the confirming measurements come later. Your language here suggests you might not really "get" science. Also, your earlier challenge to "prove the negative" about your beliefs also suggests you might not "get" science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay. So imagine that you are a human without consciousness. Do you feel pain?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey say that the taste of pudding is in eating and not discussing. Similarly evidence of consciousness is in the conscious subject itself who feel himself/herself conscious. No external objective scientific evidence can be greater than the perception of conscious individual itself. Whether a person is hungry or thirsty can be best adjudged by conscious individual himself/herself rather than by any external scientific study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne distinction should be clearly understood. Conscious subjective existence is aware of itself as well as non-conscious nature. In case of advanced level of consciousness, as in case of human beings, conscious existence can examine, study and discuss about non-conscious nature. That is why we have been discussing all these issues in this forum on online discussions.
But the converse of above is not applicable. Non-conscious nature is neither aware of itself nor aware of other non-conscious bodies or conscious nature
Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is an internal process which can not be experienced by external observations. Hunger and thirst can only be experienced internally. There is no such things as hunger and thirst in the material world.
I can tell that consciousness is not something empirical, that must exist one way or another if we are humans or anything else... Conciousness is something that grows within each being, depending probably in his tendency to develope and see things with purposes other than material. That means that, that kind of person makes a link with what we should be some day, and in this way starts a process that's probably passed on through genetical transformation. Life has a mean and who more ignores this fact, less clings to the purpose of reaching the real objetive, that turns material to spiritual or vive-versa for that matter...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, so imagine you are something you're not, do you still like chocolate? Sorry, but it is hilarious that you are trying to conduct a "thought" experiment in which the subject must imagine they are unconscious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is ridiculous but some people do not know that pain is evidence of consciousness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs a painting of someone in pain evidence of that painting's consciousness? Something that looks like someone else's pain to you might not be pain itself. Perhaps the pain of all others is like that painting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf your pain is like a painting of pain, I can see your confusion. But pain is actually felt by conscious beings. Paintings are seen not felt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeeing is also an internal phenomenon but that could also be make believe. However, I truly see. You may not.
A tree falls in the forest when no one is around. Does it make a sound?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not an existential question. It is a question regarding the creation of sound. In the real world or in a person's head.
Sound WAVES are in the real world. Actual sound is a mental process.
I did some additional thinking about your post. I think of pain as a mental phenomenon. You may think of pain as a material phenomenon
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo me it is clear that my material finger cannot feel pain. Instead my brain projects pain to my mental finger. It certainly feels like my material finger feels pain. But it is truly my mental finger. The feeling is so real that the illusion seems real.
Is there a material mind? I don't know and I don't think anyone knows. The mind seems to be intangible.
The mind provides a person's consiousness with realistic stimuli. But consciousness seems to intangible as well.
In any case there is a body - mind connection and a mind - consciousness connection. Thinking in terms of two separate connections creates an appropriate perspective. The brain is part of the body but part of its purpose is to create mental phenomenon.
By poking the brain a scientist can manipulate the brain which effects the mind. But this is an unnatural manipulation and changes the brain's ability to transmit and transform information from the world.
However, I am not a true dualist because I reason that the material world is not important to the mind once information enters the mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo think about the material world in conjunction with the mind is to create a confusing perspective that causes the thinker to mix things up.
I believe that Consciousness is not restricted to a subset of animals. I believe plants are minerals have a degree of self awareness. It may be lower than humans but they have it. I believe this self-awareness is capable of increasing in minerals, plants, animals and humans to the point of becoming globally or universally self-aware.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists cannot see awareness so your hypothesis cannot be proven or disproven, however, human awareness is linked to the senses which are transmitted by nerves. Without nerves, awareness would have no sight, taste, hearing, feeling, smell or memory. I wonder what a awareness in a plant would be. Without memory a plant would not be aware of its own past, nor would it be aware of any neurological inputs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen children are talking amongst themeselves and refer to their elders as being "wrinklies", as is their wascally w_ont'ological, the joke's entirely on the children as they're actually paying the very best of compliments to their elders, in that their elders have a warranted wrinkly cerebral cortex, which makes for a very high level of smooth-talking far beyond that which any child could decidely display. All of this out of the mouths of ba_bes'ted too!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAu contraire. A Latin quote is definitely enhanced somewhat when it's deliberately or p_un'wittingly altered slightly, as is clearly evinced by nanorat's[#3] rendition of it with his/her "Cognito[sic] ergo sum", instead of Descartes' original "Cogito ergo sum". As humorous as nanorat's effort proves to be I still do enjoy the flippant fluidity that rolls off the tongue with an err_ant'enatal English-translated version of it, being, "I think, therefore I am_niotic"....b_orne(ry) on the w_ind'icative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisworth keeping in mind. http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@jayjacobus, The mind is a material thing. Thoughts are electrochemical cascades through the brain. Memories are stored by synapses by increasing or decreasing the post-synaptic response to a pre-synaptic spike. You cannot separate the mind from the brain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, you said that pain is a conscious phenomenon. The problem is, how do we know if a creature is feeling pain? The classic example is putting a lobster in a pot of boiling water, it thrashes about. But is it doing so because it feels pain or is it the lobster's natural response to a change in water temperature to start swimming? The problem is, you are thinking in terms of your own experiences and transferring them to others. You can't do that. You need to be objective not subjective. What are we able to measure and what does that tell us?
This reminds me of a paper I read a while ago in which researchers were trying to determine what were the minimal number of genes required to support life? The life they were talking about was a bacterium. Once they had determined this they reasoned they could start adding genes based on what features they needed such as producing a drug or ethanol. It got me thinking about what was the minimum number of neurons and synapses required to create self-awareness? We know the brain contains 100 billion neurons with an average of 10k synapses each but could you create a self aware machine with 1 million neurons? If intelligence is a question of organization rather than size then what is the basic circuit diagram of a self-aware intelligence? Once we have that we can start adding features and enhancements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The mind is a material thing. Thoughts are electrochemical cascades through the brain." It turns out that this is a dogma. We turn to a dictionary to tell us that a "thought" is a word we humans understand to refer to something subjective, while synapses and behaviors are objective. To the extent that we can completely explain a person's behaviors as a result of synapses, what we have done is do away with need to invoke folk-ideas such as "thought" to explain the behaviors. We cannot objectively demonstrate that a person has subjectivity or thought in the first place, let alone presume to correlate thought with the synapses that we can observe. Please check out "problem of other minds."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne might think of the mind as material but the operation of the mind is a mystery so far. The neurological processing of pain stimuli is known but the feeling of pain is only known by experience. I can only "see" your pain. I cannot know what you actually feel. Yet people act like they feel pain and I believe that they do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI cannot touch a star but I believe that stars truly exist.
Lobsters may have the neurological ability to feel pain but do they actually experience pain? The lobster's pain (if it exists)is intangible.
One way to tell is to follow the lobster's neurons to an end and find its neurological "tranformer". By observing how the transformer works one can see the process transforming the neuro chemicals to feeling.
Unfortunately, the "transformer" has not been found in people nor in lobsters. The tranformer must exist otherwise I would not feel pain. My pain process would end without effect on my inner self.
The lobster may have a complex reflective existence with a list of reactions to stimuli. But why would boiling water be in that list? The reflex to boiling water could not be passed down to future lobster generations.
Still I cannot deduce what the lobster feels or doesn't feel. I do infer that some animals feel pain because of neurological anatomy to people and because they respond to painful stimulus.
I think of pain as immaterial but I don't think that materiality / immateriality is an important concept in this context.
Conscious: I think therefore I am
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisself aware: I think I think therefore I think I am
I stopped reading at your second sentence, "It has highly organized electrical circuits that store information and behave in specific, predictable ways, just like the interconnected cells in your brain."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHardly...at 10,000 synapses per single neuron, using a staggering permutation of neurotransmitters that can act either in a stimulatory or inhibitory fashion suggests that even the most advanced computer IS NOTHING REMOTELY SIMILAR TO A MAMMALIAN BRAIN...so far..."we essentially have built high speed morons."