How is “consciousness in the usual sense” defined?
- the capacity to be self aware. Insects are not.
How much brain capacity is needed for a being to be aware, to be conscious?
- More than an insect...less than a kitten
Is brain capacity needed at all to be aware?
yup
Are plants not conscious in their own way?
nope
Is thought and understanding the only way by which awareness can be defined?
yup...once you start messing with the definitions to suite your argument then further discussion is useless
the capacity to be self aware. Insects are not.
Why is this your definition as opposed to "the ability to be aware of ones sorroundings"
More than an insect...less than a kitten
How do you know insects are not aware?
yup
Sure if you loosely define brain.
nope
The brain works because of cellular communication. If an organisms cells have the ability to communicate, and it displays an awareness of its sorroundings, how can you be sure it doesnt have something with similar functioning to a brain.
How do you know insects are not aware?
Has an insect ever passed the self aware test?
oh..by the way...I didn't say an insect is not self aware, I said less than a kitten
Actually some ants have apparently passed that test
And you said more then an insect, less then a kitten.
If an animal can pass the mirror test, it’s certainly strong evidence of self-recognition, and indicates the possibility of self-awareness (i.e. a “sense of self”). However, it’s not definitive proof. And if an animal isn’t able to pass, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they do not possess these abilities.
.
For example, animals that rely on other senses more heavily than their vision may not take much interest in the sight of their reflections. Dogs, who recognize others mainly by their sense of smell, might quickly conclude that their mirror image is not of themselves or any other animal, because it lacks a corresponding scent. Furthermore, some animals may be able to recognize themselves in the mirror and see that they have been marked, but do not find the mark important enough to warrant touching or inspection.
Interesting.
Are we to conclude that the test is worthless? If an animal relies on smell (dog) or sound (bats) or some other sense than vision...a mirror wouldn't be too useful would it?
I'm very carefully NOT mentioning hive minds..
I wouldn't call it useless, just failing it doesnt nessisarily mean that the creature doesn't have self-awareness.
Would definitly have to find some other test method to make that arguement, but I believe the premise for passing is sound enough.
OH? The test was designed to determine the existence of self awareness and it fails to do what it was designed to do but it's not useless?
Its not useless because the test does work, it is resonable to assume a creature that can repeatedly pass the test is self-aware. The only issue with the test is that failing it is not a certainty that the creature isn't self aware.
However it still has the use of showing that passing creatures are.
Insects are maybe not self aware but they are as a living system. I see that you don't understand that concept. Ending your comment that further discussion is useless proves to me that your intentions were none other than to bash my post. Why? Only you know.