What if animals are found to be "self aware"?

[QED]

I detect a significant resistance among many Christians to the idea that animals might be intelligent to the degree of having "self-awareness". I'm not entirely sure I understand the reasons for this, but it is a recurrent theme, so it might be useful if someone could offer me an explanation.

The question for debate is therefore what consequence(s) if any would there be for Christianity if animals are indeed found to be self-aware and capable of ethical thinking. I have no objections if the debate also enters into the question of whether or not evidence already exists for this.

I would like to note that with better technology and continual investigation and learning the potential for such a discovery is always present. For example, many African Elephants are now tracked in the wild by GPS telemetry. This means that an accurate history of their movements is available to researchers. A recent report by the BBC news service recently covered an event where a matriarch Elephant died and "news" got round over a wide area such that many Elephants travelled a significant distance to visit the deceased. Both the communication and concern displayed adds to existing knowledge about the complex behaviour of Elephants. In an interview a researcher also mentioned that they were beginning to see Elephants removing the tusks of deceased relatives in a way that suggested they were trying to outwit poachers.

While looking for an online link to the story (which sadly I cannot seem to find) I found this video of Elephant paintings. This BBC webpage links to the video with the following image:

[Grumpy]

QED

Bugmaster - Dogs display jealousy, doesn't that indicate self awareness?

And Koko the Gorilla learned sign language and displayed all the attributes we call "human". She could hold up her end of a conversation, express abstract ideas, anticipate consequences of her actions, greive for the loss of her tailess pet kitten, make jokes, create new words for new objects using words and concepts she already understood, and displayed the comprehension of a four year old human. Her IQ on our scales was about 80. (google Koko if you doubt my description). Chimps taught sign also taught their children to speak it. Some learned, some did not.

All mammals(even rats) show the signs of self awareness, as do birds and octipi(though they are different forms of intelligence). The Frontal Lobes of our brain are what give us that ability. Reptiles(crocs), amphibians and fish do not show signs of self awareness, they act like meat machines and are totally driven by instinct. Communal insects actually act like a distributed brain system, communicating through chemical and electrical signals(through the antennea) like single simple neuron systems tied into a net to accomplish complex tasks(hive building, forraging for the group, deligation of tasks, etc)that they are incapable of alone. Some large colony ant systems have been estimated to be as self aware as a fish(IE not much).

Yes, humans are very self aware, but it is not a difference in kind compared to other mammals, just a difference in degree.

Grumpy

[Cmass]

I believe, consistent with evolution, that attributes such as intelligence, self-awareness, social behaviours including ethical understanding are not simple Yes|No boolean flags. They exist in beings to various degrees. Humans seem to have, on average, the highest degree of these attributes.

This is right on target.

Is it a requirement that a conscious entity take a particular form? Perhaps one that is not in the image of God? I started another thread concerning finding intelligent life on another planet that looked like giant Dung Beetles.
Is it a requirement that a conscious entity have our particular chemistry in it's brain? What if it was methane-based or silicone based?

It is also fun to contemplate that as we sit here communicating through our fingertips rather than our ears & vocal chords we may be training our eventual replacements. Provided we the creators don't destroy ourselves first, it may only a matter of time (perhaps not in this century - but eventually) before we debate the ethics of unplugging the computer. Computers of the future could even use biological mimicry to operate.

Dave. What are you doing Dave? Please don't do that Dave. Please don't unplug me.
Don't worry Hal, this won't hurt a bit.

[jjg]

Define "self aware."

[QED]

Define "self aware."

Able to philosophize.

[Goat]

Define "self aware."

Able to philosophize.

I think there is more to it than that.

Being aware of the environement, to seperate 'self' from 'non-self', to problem solve are all parts of being 'self aware'.

It's not a simple 'yes/no' condition.

[QED]

I think there is more to it than that.

Being aware of the environement, to seperate 'self' from 'non-self', to problem solve are all parts of being 'self aware'.

I still think that the ability to philosophize is a sufficient definition for the purposes of this debate. Awareness does not imply understanding, separating self from non-self seems like a trivial property of many physical structures and problem solving is most certainly something (like awareness -- if we take it to mean sensing) that can be implemented in what I would imagine most people would term "non-living" things.

Of course we can then ask for a definition of "living" -- a notoriously difficult thing to do in a formal manner!

[Cmass]

Here is a fairly well reasoned piece from the scholarly book of Wikipedia

"..It may be asked whether earlier hominids possessed consciousness as it is experienced and understood by modern humans. Consciousness is an even harder term to define than intelligence. Consciousness is often understood as a quality of the mind comprising subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment. Thus defined, consciousness can be seen as a by-product of the increasing size and sophistication of the brain, a process driven by the demands of natural selection. The ability to think of oneself as distinct from other humans, to recall the past and speculate about the future, to wonder about things which are not known or which cannot be directly experienced, must all have evolved over the course of hominid history as the brain became larger and its ability to think abstractly more advanced.

In conclusion, the evolution of hominid intelligence can be traced over its course for the past 10 million years, and attributed to specific environmental challenges. It is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, however, to see this as a necessary process, and an even greater misunderstanding to see it as one directed to a particular outcome. There are primate species which have not evolved any greater degree of intelligence than they had 10 million years ago: this is because their particular environment has not demanded this particular adaptation of them. Intelligence as an adaptation to the challenge of natural selection is no better or worse than any other adaptation, such as the speed of the cheetah or the venomous bite of the cobra. It is, however, the only adaptation which has allowed a species to establish complete domination over the rest of the natural world. Whether our species has yet acquired sufficient intelligence to manage this responsibility is a matter for debate...."

[Cmass]

It is interesting to note that the concept of an "independent self" as we experience it is a fairly recent phenomenon - as is the concept of romantic love. This is one of the reasons Xtians frustrate me; they anthropomorphize the bible stories and the characters in it. Most people read the stories with the idea that these people were - beyond the scruffy garments and and donkey carts - basically like us. They were NOT. They were fundamentally different on many levels especially in regard to way they viewed themselves within their community and how they viewed leaders, how they viewed their spouses, children, other races, their understanding of all natural phenomenon etc.. These were not modern American-like people speaking Elizabethan English and thinking modern thoughts and their "awareness" of the world was even close to yours.

[Cmass]

Hey, I think I found the biblical perspective on this!
Of course animals are sentient! They talk in the bible! This means they have the capability to reason and communicate like people - but only when God allows them to.