Researchers outline new ways to better understand animal consciousness

A team of researchers outlined a new approach that could better understand the depth of animal consciousness, which could produce new insights into similarities and differences between organisms.

This article appears in the diary sciencedescribes the “marking method” that scientists can use to evaluate animal consciousness. It involves identifying behavioral and anatomical characteristics associated with human conscious processing and finding similar characteristics in non-humans. The author proposes that by making progress in the science of animal consciousness, we can make progress on fundamental issues about the nature of consciousness and have the potential to improve our understanding of human thought.

“When humans and other animals perform similar behaviors, and when the best explanation of these behaviors in humans involves conscious experiences, this can also be regarded as evidence… conscious experiences in other animals,” York’s professor of philosophy Kristin Andrews, Professor of Philosophy at London School of Economics and Politics, and Jeff Sebo, Professor of Environmental Studies, NYU science The paper “evaluates animal consciousness.”

The publication was in the New York Declaration of Animal Awareness Declaration for nearly a year, which demonstrates scientific support for all vertebrates and many invertebrates, as well as other species, The London Times and others reported. The statement, organized by Andrews, Birch and Sebo, has now been signed by more than 500 scientists and other researchers around the world.

Philosophers and scientists including Jeremy Bentham, especially Charles Darwin, have considered issues related to animal consciousness, while John Stuart Mill is The challenge of broad assessment awareness was recognized in the mid-19th century. By the 21st century, the theory of safety of consciousness remains elusive, and the differences and uncertainties about the scope of consciousness in the animal kingdom continue.

In their articles, Andrews, Birch and Seborough describe a method that involves “determining specific dimensions of consciousness”, such as experiencing pain or seeing an object, and then “seeking evidence that the target (or does not exist) in the target Species exist (or do not exist).” They then called for new inquiry directions, including studies on other dimensions of consciousness beyond pain experiences and non-invasive research methods.

However, they recognized that the limitations of individual markers acted as strong evidence themselves. “The extent to which a specific marker can increase or decrease confidence in a specific dimension of animal consciousness depends on the context,” they wrote. “For example, linguistic behavior is a sign of specific conscious thoughts and emotions in humans. But, just as large languages ​​that simulate human dialogue, are simulating human dialogue. As the model demonstrates, verbal behavior alone is not strong evidence of consciousness in non-human systems.”

Despite these challenges, the author emphasizes the importance of continuous exploration. “The idea that consciousness has ‘realistic possibilities’ in all vertebrates and many invertebrates may eventually be replaced by more confident language,” they concluded. “But as long as the evidence remains limited and mixed, it is important that Keep an open mind and work hard to learn more.”