“Why is consciousness more than awareness of causal relationship? Isn’t consciousness just assumed when we self-reflect or in retrospect.”

Awareness is a broad church, so it’s hard to know where to begin. A dog is aware of its home, it’s domain, it’s food, it’s wounds etc. But is a dog self-aware?

“Awareness being knowledge of actions associated with the self?”

But is that just being aware that you did something? As a dog would be aware of where it buried a bone, or was kicked by the postman.

“I should also note that I always thought that free will and choice do not exist. I see my subconscious as part of myself like the rest of the universe.”

Which has always been my feeling, too. For what reason would I think that my thinking and reasoning self is separate to my body, when it’s my brain that processes the very sensory input that I derive my thinking and reasoning self from?

The problem is, we live in a world of fallible people who would feel more sure about their daily lives if they thought they amounted to more than a series of chemicial reactions.

So the more ducated amongst them construct meandering and ponderous theories and nuanced philosophical exercises to fend off proper inquiry, in case uncomfortable facts are discovered.

Strange philosophical and theological complexity is always a good place to hide an idle idol from scrutiny.

As for the blush response, I’ve read similar research before and it’s not conclusive; we also blush (or good red) when angry, which is a very different emotional response.

Surely if blushing had a function, it’s physiological appearance would differ from that of anger? And, why is it we don’t all blush?

In the first instance: “most animals”, and in the second: “not unique to humans”, which quite clearly indicates there are some, as is mentioned in the article itself.

Awareness being knowledge of actions associated with the self? What is more to it than an advanced feedback loop? I don’t have any expertise except being human and supposedly myself conscious and I think it is sufficiently defined by that, knowledge being verified by applied feedback.

I should also note that I always thought that free will and choice do not exist. I see my subconscious as part of myself like the rest of the universe. My subconscious is part of a vast amount of causation that leads to various desires which are in turn shaped by a complex process of unfolding within myself to eventually cross a threshold and become conscious volition. There is no control at all.

There is just a knowing observer we call consciousness. Check what I wrote here, it’s an interesting comment thread on FriendFeed: (”What I wonder is how outside stimuli differs from inside stimuli.”)

Anyway, thanks for the thought-provoking read.

Sometimes it seems to mean a constant sense of self-awareness, sometimes it seems to mean a higher order intelligence, and sometimes it seems to mean a unrelenting inner monologue.

And sometimes it seems to mean some vague understanding of autonomy.

But Mr. Bradley is right, animals do seem to have some form of consiousness. An animal can still operate with more authentic autonomy than even the most experimental AI innovations, and mostly this is because of the failure of AI to be able to find a “program” that represents the self to the self in a way that allows us to operate with some degree of autonomy in the world.

I say some degree–because of course we are socially embedded and that means there are things that act through us without us realizing it. And we certainly seem to have a lot going on at subcognitive levels that influences our behavior. But as your example with Marcus’ experiment points out, subcognitive impulse and influence doesn’t suggest a complete lack autonomy.

Craig Delancey—borrowing some from Andy Clark–has argued that autonomy is the central puzzle of cognition that AI will have to solve before it can make a satisfying model.

I’d also say autonomy is what makes the elephant painting different than Michaelangelo. The elephant never would have taken up painting on its own, and won’t innovate the way a human does. (Though I suppose if we evolve elephants could too.) There is a degree of autonomy to the elephant’s actions but it pales (blushes?) in comparison to human autonomy.

“But being self-aware is really over rated. Most animals apparently manage very well without a consciousness.”

then you say:

“I suspect intuition is a mental attribute not unique to humans.”

So, as I read that you first say that most animals do not have consciousness but then suggest that it’s not unique to humans…

I know what you’re getting at, but it’s like you’ve got to anti-parallel introductions to the same post.