BirdJaguar
I'm not sure whether self-awareness is an on/off thing or more of a gradient-like phenomenon, but either way, I don't think it really affects whether cells can be self-aware or not.
As I think about the discussion we’ve had over the past few weeks several things seem to have emerged. One is the notion of consciousness/self awareness (for simplicity I’ll use the terms interchangeably) as a fixed state that “turns on” at some point in a creature’s life. For people that point has been linked to brain development that could take place as early as 20 weeks in utero or as late as 24 months after birth. Mostly this position has been talked about only in regards to humans, and we have not settled on what is the best point to declare a person self aware.
The mirror test adds another dimension to the picture. What if other creatures are self aware? If you accept the mirror test as a valid measure of self awareness, then apes, dolphins, elephants and magpies are as self aware as humans. Clearly, they do not have the same cognitive skill set humans have, but according to the test they have consciousness. Is consciousness dependent upon a wider skill set or only whether or not a creature has a sense of separation from its surroundings?
This opens the door to the possibility that consciousness may be an on/off state at the individual level, but gradient at the species level. Apes, dolphins, elephants and magpies may be self aware, but it is not in the same way that people are self aware. They may be self aware, but without all the bells and whistles humans have. But if there are two states of consciousness (one for humans and one for non humans) then it makes perfect sense to suggest that the second state held by a select group of non human critters may actually be several different states. Elephant awareness is not exactly like dolphin awareness which is different from magpie awareness etc. Very quickly consciousness becomes a sliding scale of points with humans at one end. Sauron has raised the question that perhaps consciousness must also be accompanied by free will or additional factors beyond what we can measure now. Conveniently, this serves to add to the “human only” positioning of consciousness and self awareness.
One way to avoid the gradient solution is to deny that the mirror test actually measures self awareness and say that it measures something lesser that does not reflect the complexity of human awareness and capability. To me that smacks of little more than hiding behind a definition designed to make sure that the gap between humans and the rest of living things is kept wide and unbreached. As I have said before, science is breaking down the walls between humanity and the rest of creation and it creates complications in real life and how we think about the world. As stated above, when consciousness take shape in fetal development can affect people’s thinking about abortion. Whether or not animals have consciousness can affect people’s thinking about how we treat those animals.”Humans, the tool-making animal” fell by the wayside several decades ago. In the absence of that, it is easy to erect a new barrier at “consciousness” and then define it such that the definition excludes all other life forms, even if the science doesn’t support such a view.
Limiting self awareness forces one to define those limits and I don’t think I‘ve seen convincing limits that are supported by anything other than a “by definition” defense.
It does not appear that anyone here supports my position that self awareness exists at the cellular level, which I pretty much expected. But my thoughts are tied to the idea of consciousness operating on a gradient scale, both at the individual level and the species level. Individual self awareness begins at conception as the fertilized egg shuts itself off from all other encroaching sperm and that self awareness makes incremental progress throughout gestation until birth. At birth a whole new sensory apparatus comes into play further expanding the baby’s awareness of its place in relation to other things and other people. Between 18-20 months the brain is sufficiently developed to allow for the ability to communicate its sense of separateness. Then over the next 20-25 years further development of the brain refines that consciousness into what we think of as fully adult. In making such a claim, I recognize that I am breaking with the generally accepted definition of self aware and including things that traditionally are excluded from it: instinctual responses and chemical responses. You might oppose including them, just like I would oppose including free will as a necessary component of self awareness.
Now, the mirror test has shown us that there is a wide potential of animals that could pass that test and that a better test may be needed if we want to include still more species in the testing process. This diversity of critters (apes, dolphins, elephants and magpies) lends credence to the idea that self awareness is more widespread that we have thought. If one accepts the mirror test as valid, then one need to clarify exactly what it means. What does self aware mean? Does it mean consciousness in the same way humans are conscious of themselves? Is it a lesser level consciousness? I see it as a clear sense of self as separate from one’s environment and the ability to act on that separateness, but at some levels critters have fewer built in opportunities to utilize it. This just screams “gradient scale”. All the creatures that have passed the test are conscious, but each in their own way and with different capabilities in how they can use that awareness.
If you want to draw limits around what life forms are conscious and which are not, then you have to clearly define those boundaries in ways that are not just “by definition”. I think that it makes far more sense to attribute some level of self awareness to all life rather than to attempt to put fences around all the various places it appears to be and then to have to defend each of those borders. The tide is moving against the traditional “humans only” position. I do not see a way draw a reasonable boundary such that everything on one side has self awareness and everything on the other does not. Therefore, cells are included. Instinctive and chemically reactive responses to external stimuli then become the more limited options available to a lesser consciousness.
