Archive for September, 2007

Animal Qualia

Published on September 30, 2007 in science, animals and philosophy. 0 Comments

I consider the capacity for consciousness in animals as a central issue of concern in our human ethical systems. The crux of the issue lies at the intersection of our ‘value for life’ and the ‘capacity for suffering’ in other creatures. Our understanding of this intersection has enormous ramifications not only for what we eat but for how we act on issues such as abortion and euthanasia.

I recently read a conversation with Vilayanur Ramachandran where in regards to a cow he states that “It doesn’t experience pain like we do; it certainly can’t introspect on it’s pain”. He goes on to argue that cows don’t have qualia and that qualia is a fundamentally human trait. His argument is similar to other scientists I have read who argue that animals are essentially unconscious creatures. I’m not so sure about this yet and will have to do some more reading, but I have always believed that animals could introspect. How could an animal experience such complex emotions such as anticipation or depression if they have no introspection. Animals definitely have emotional moods. It could be that their emotions are qualitatively different that ours but I wouldn’t make that step yet without more evidence or extrapolated argument.

It is an important issue though. I have long considered the capacity for suffering and a key driver behind my ethical view points. Big brain animals do suffer. Some enormously due to the farming conditions we use in modern society. As a result I think that vegetarianism is really the right ethical stance to take. At least until we have corrected our farming methods. As far as I understand, unborn children don’t have the capacity to suffer. As such abortion is fine and actually the right moral thing to do because the birth of the child might actually cause a lot of suffering to the mother and family. A lot of people who are mentally regressed at an old age don’t have the capacity to suffer. I think euthanasia is a good thing in these circumstances since it can reduce the burden of suffering on the family.

Maybe I am not thinking through things enough though. Is the capacity for suffering tied to the capacity for qualia? One could argue that prolonged fear, quite an unconscious experience even in humans, is a type of suffering. Suffering could be caused even on an unconscious level. Then we come up against what level of suffering is important in our considerations.

This is not to dismiss the other considerations against inflicting pain on animals. Like the arguments on what it does to the long term psych of a community when killing possibly conscious beings and the ramifications for society as a whole when we start to have to deal with conscious machines. It wasn’t too long ago that we denied other races the capacity for consciousness and felt fine about inflicting tremendous suffering on them. We should always be erring on the side of caution.

This is a somewhat rambling post and this probably reflects the level of cohesion in my thought on the topics at present. Hopefully I can tease out my position over time and further elucidate it in this blog.

Study Plans

Published on September 26, 2007 in study and goals. 0 Comments

I want to study the mind. This covers a lot of areas and the closest match would be a cross-disciplinary course like cognitive science. Unfortunately I can only do that course on campus at a couple of universities in the eastern states and my wife is committed to her work here at present. So I need to choose something else local or something I can study remotely. The primary areas of study within cognitive science are psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy and computer science.

I’ve studied some philosophy at undergraduate level and in my opinion philosophy doesn’t give precise answers to things, it only helps to refine and limit the parameters for the domains we do find the answers in. I also think that I can further educate myself in philosophy of mind and metaphysics in my own time. I’m not particularly interested in linguistics in itself.

I have completed a course in computer science so that’s out. I mean I could do postgrad studies in CS and try to direct it towards AI but it’s a really hard sell to potential mentors/academics with my current lack of background. I think I would be better merging my existing computing skills with another stream of study. That leaves me with psychology and neuroscience.

Psychology is a definite candidate but I’m a bit put off by the focus on behavior. It seems to me like the majority of research is only looking at inputs and outputs for correlations rather than looking into the essential cause of things. I know things may have changed a bit recently with new imaging techniques and the inclusion of these in psychological study. Psychology is great at really framing areas that will be rewarding for intensive study and also for helping to develop models and systems to be used for AI research.

Neuroscience has captured my interest most strongly because it is delving into actually mapping the brain and its correlates to the ‘mind’. It is also a relatively new field and has a lot of potential for interesting discoveries over the next few decades. Also neuroscience may merge quite nicely with my computing skills.

The other day though I went and looked at some of the core neuroscience texts and was absolutely blown away by the detail. This isn’t like some of the large corporate computing systems I’ve worked on. This is an order of magnitude more complex and it was very daunting. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. After all it is brain science, one of the last big bastions of science in general. Still, it scared me a bit. Also the attention to detail made me worried that I might loose the big picture if I get bogged down in all the fine elements of the course.

You see, I comprehend computing. I can imagine the complete scope for psychology and it doesn’t look that hard to me. Philosophy is hard but only in an abstract sense. For me philosophy has always been more about intuition than hard thinking. Neuroscience on the other hand looks like nothing else I’ve come across. It’s very complex and with a mammoth amount of detail. I guess I’ll have to maintain this blog, my philosophical readings and my meditational practice to maintain a proper perspective through the course.

So yes, I’ve chosen to do neuroscience. I’ve applied for an undergrad degree at university. If I get in next year I hope to change the course into a double major in neuroscience and psychology. It should give me a very good grounding for cognitive science research once I complete the course.

The closing date for finalising course applications is coming up and I’m starting to get worried about what I have chosen. My mind says I have made a good decision but my fears keep telling me I will fail because the work will be too much. Time will tell.

Cogito Ergo Sum

Published on September 23, 2007 in philosophy and personal experience. 0 Comments

I think, therefore I am. It would have to be one of the most well known philosophical statements and it is a phrase I have known from a very early age.

A couple of days ago, while contemplating something entirely different, it suddenly came to me that my meaning of the phrase was wrong. I thought a while longer and it occurred to me how it matched my peak experiences .

To my previous idle and lazy thoughts I had understood the statement as equating the ‘I’ to thoughts and because I know thoughts exist then ‘I’ must exist. I now believe this meaning to be incorrect. As a result of my meditations it is immediately clear that I am not my thoughts. I can watch my thoughts and I can achieve mental states in which all thoughts can be totally submerged in my unconscious. I can reach a state of mind where I am distinctly separate from my thoughts like a small ocean boat is separate from the currents running through the sea.

The statement can be true again though by modifying its meaning. The statement is implying a controller for thought. By expanding the statement, ‘I think’ to ‘I receive, perceive and act on thoughts’ it then implies an expansion of the second statement as ’since there is an I to manipulate my thoughts this way, I must exist’.

Also ‘I’ and ’self’ are separate. The above statement should not hold at all for the ’self’ which is our image of who we are in the world as opposed to the ‘I’ who I like to call the Watcher.