Is sentience an unavoidable aspect of evolution?

[LordKOTL]

Maybe I have a different definition of what is self-awareness. To me self-awareness means that the organism is aware that it is an individual and can think about itself. A single-cell amoeba reacting is strictly a reflexive thing, there is no thought behind it, it does not know why it does something, it's simply a biological machine with simple programming. Would you say flowers are self-aware when they move to the sun as it moves across the sky and close their petals when it gets dark? Or is a laptop self-aware when its programming tells it that it's power level is at a certain level and it needs to go into hibernation?



And don't worry Bri, these sort of questions about awareness/consciousness have been wracking the brains of humans since whenever they could. I too became slightly dizzy when thinking about it.

I think this portion of the thread is more philosophy than hard science. But I do think that yeah, flowers are self-aware. A completely different level of awareness, but they are aware. Knowing "why" isn't a prerequisite to awareness--only the fact that it can react to a stimulus. In fact, one could even argue that pondering the why is just a deeply programed response to a stimulus. After all, what caused us to ponder, say, why floweres open and close during day and night?



On a related note as to the quantization of awareness--consider this. A blind person--100% blind since birth. There is no way in hell we can descibe to them the concept of "blue". It doesn't make them any less aware than us. and on the same token, if this blind person is one of those that has mastered echolocation, it doesn't mean we're any less aware because we (as a general rule) will never know what a trash can just sitting on the sidewalk sounds like in terms of an echo off of it.



Just my opinion on it.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

And what about the differences between poor boys, heroes, hoagies, grinders and submarine sandwiches... are they all the same thing or merely perceived differently by the different geographical reasons?



And isn't "sub dressing" just italian salad dressing marketed differently?



and how much cheese on a sandwich is too much cheese!!?!?!?!?



Oh dear, I've gone cross-eyed.

Man, I do not even know where to begin with this....is like 1,000 different topics. I think I need a beer and a samwich to think it over.

 

[roshinaya]

Well, we have different opinions on what is self-aware or not, but lets agree to disagree on that.



There should be a philosophy thread for all the arm-chair philosophers.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

I think this portion of the thread is more philosophy than hard science. But I do think that yeah, flowers are self-aware. A completely different level of awareness, but they are aware. Knowing "why" isn't a prerequisite to awareness--only the fact that it can react to a stimulus. In fact, one could even argue that pondering the why is just a deeply programed response to a stimulus. After all, what caused us to ponder, say, why floweres open and close during day and night?



On a related note as to the quantization of awareness--consider this. A blind person--100% blind since birth. There is no way in hell we can descibe to them the concept of "blue". It doesn't make them any less aware than us. and on the same token, if this blind person is one of those that has mastered echolocation, it doesn't mean we're any less aware because we (as a general rule) will never know what a trash can just sitting on the sidewalk sounds like in terms of an echo off of it.



Just my opinion on it.

Exactly, and I would like to add Helen Keller to this debate. Seriously, how would she ever know she existed? Because she was human and not the outside stimulus over time?

 

[roshinaya]

My definition of "self-awareness" is simply the awareness of the self, as an individual among other individuals. A flower is not aware of itself as a flower, it simply is just being a flower doing what its biological programming tells it what a flower is supposed to do and be. To be self-aware there needs to be consciousness. A blind person has a consciousness even if one of the senses is missing, that person can still consciously experience itself through their own thoughts and the other senses.

 

[LordKOTL]

My definition of "self-awareness" is simply the awareness of the self, as an individual among other individuals. A flower is not aware of itself as a flower, it simply is just being a flower doing what its biological programming tells it what a flower is supposed to do and be. To be self-aware there needs to be consciousness. A blind person has a consciousness even if one of the senses is missing, that person can still consciously experience itself through their own thoughts and the other senses.

Are we so sure a flower doesn't? Again, armchair philosopy here...

 

[roshinaya]

If we take the hardcore solipsistic stance we can only be sure that our own mind exists and we can't be sure anything else exists beyond it. So, no, we can't be sure.

 

[ginnie]

Proposing a question. Do you think sentience (self-awareness) and the ability to reason an unavoidable result of evolution? Or was it just chance that people came to be?



No. I notice you're tying in self awareness just for humans. Couldn't other species be self aware too? Like whales, or chimps or maybe my cat.







By that I mean, given an evolutionary model, is higher intelligence, inevitable or did the circumstances on earth just favor that.



For instance, were the dinosaurs not acted upon by an outside force (it is widely



accepted an asteroid is the cause of their demise), would humans have ever come to be? could there have been vastly different sentient species living here?





or could an eco system exist where sentient life would never appear until the stars burn out.





Maybe, maybe not. Who knows?



So i guess i am saying do you think the smarter will always out compete the stupider? If that is the case, I think higher intelligence is inevitable.

Its hard to say. Some species on this planet have been around for hundreds of millions of years, and they aren't considered that bright. Instinct and the physical makeup of an animal could be just as important as intelligence. Although, given that man is supposed to be the most intelligent creature on the planet, and is both caretaker and hunter, it would seem so.

 

[jakobeast]

If we take the hardcore solipsistic stance we can only be sure that our own mind exists and we can't be sure anything else exists beyond it. So, no, we can't be sure.

Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

My definition of "self-awareness" is simply the awareness of the self, as an individual among other individuals. A flower is not aware of itself as a flower, it simply is just being a flower doing what its biological programming tells it what a flower is supposed to do and be. To be self-aware there needs to be consciousness. A blind person has a consciousness even if one of the senses is missing, that person can still consciously experience itself through their own thoughts and the other senses.

Which brings me back to the squrriels I mentioned earlier that you mocked. Does not take much observance of them to know they are individuals.



How about Hellen Keller who was bind and deaf? How did she know she existed? How did she know the touching was real?



What is not to say that humans are just doing what they are biologically programed to do with just additional fluff?



Ever notice how flowers grow around each other and make space? It is not all due to roots. Why do some force others out while some let those others be?

 

[Ymono37]

Ever notice how flowers grow around each other and make space? It is not all due to roots. Why do some force others out while some let those others be?

Because the Flower Queen (Jako) wills it to be.

 

[jakobeast]

Because the Flower Queen (Jako) wills it to be.

I just like em is all.

 

[bookjones]

And what about the differences between poor boys, heroes, hoagies, grinders and submarine sandwiches... are they all the same thing or merely perceived differently by the different geographical reasons?



And isn't "sub dressing" just italian salad dressing marketed differently?



and how much cheese on a sandwich is too much cheese!!?!?!?!?



Oh dear, I've gone cross-eyed.

WTF? I am going to have to disregard this post out of hand as lightweight seeing as you clearly failed to insert the beauteous muffaletta into the philosophical equation. So disappointed in you.

In any event, I don't care to ponder such overly broad philosophical questions about "being" as were posited in the OP as they make my brain hurt something fierce! I prefer quandaries that are more distilled or narrowly focused like the philosophical dilemma of language grappled with by Wittgenstein or Hegel and his "Zeitgeist"---I need shit spelled out for me.

 

[Ymono37]

WTF? I am going to have to disregard this post out of hand as lightweight seeing as you clearly failed to insert the beauteous muffaletta into the philosophical equation. So disappointed in you.

2 things:

1. I only recently learned of the muffaletta, as such it's still making its way into my sandwich rounds (HA!)



C. Because of a somewhat standard set of toppings and meats (at the very least olives/olive relish), I wasn't sure how well it fit with the somewhat generalized set of requirements implied by the list I posted above. I would put it akin with the reuben or dagwood wherein there is, more-often-than-not, a "standard" setup for said sandwich.



However... as I've seen food establishments and cooking shows vary the size, contents and even SHAPE of the muffaletta I see no reason why it couldn't be part of the grouping and will edit accordingly... even if the localized setting for this type of sandwich may have direct competition from the poor boy.

 

[bookjones]

I just like em is all.

Is being the Flower Queen akin to being the wondrous Dancing Queen?

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

Is being the Flower Queen akin to being the wondrous Dancing Queen?

All that and more!

 

[bookjones]

All that and more!

You mean like a bag a chips? Yum!

 

[sth]

How do we know if animals are self aware or not? They claim crows are because they are selfish and worry about what other crows think of them. So to be self aware you have to be selfish and paranoid.

 

[MassHavoc]

How do we know if animals are self aware or not? They claim crows are because they are selfish and worry about what other crows think of them. So to be self aware you have to be selfish and paranoid.

how do they know that they think about what other crows thing of them? How does one create that test?