RE: Theory number 3.
October 28, 2012 at 6:12 pm
(This post was last modified: October 28, 2012 at 6:14 pm by Darkstar.)
(October 28, 2012 at 5:00 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: I don't think definition #2 exists. No one is completely independent from their instincts. Reason is the slave of the passions as David Hume would say. As for definition 3#, if anything with a brain is "conscious" that would mean ants were "conscious" in the sense that they have a brain, but it wouldn't actually mean that they were aware. On the other hand, if we define "conscious" as "has a brain" then, if ants aren't conscious, that would mean that ants don't have brains!
So we can reasonably reject definition #3, then. However, I did not mean entirely independent of instincts, I meant at all independent of insticts. Even if 95% of their actions are raw instinct, if the other 5% are the result of some sort of thought, then they might meet definition #2. Monkeys do not instinctually use a rock to break open a hard nut; it is a learned skill. Therefore, monkeys are capable of operating independent of instinct at least sometimes. Even humans occasionally act on their instincts, but this does not make them instinct driven by nature. So, if we are willing to add the definition of 'selr-aware' then how would we know if soemthing was self-aware?