Animal vs human consciousness:If animals are less perceptive than people why do we often act like them?

Question

There is debate among cognitive scientists regarding animal perception. There is one school of thought that says most mammals are similar to us, and the opposing idea is that they are far more limited in all feeling and thinking capacities compared to humans. These scientist point to this example; when a member of a herd (of elk) is picked off they don't always scatter, they often continue to nibble grass nearby, seeming to be oblivious, people are assumed to have concern seeing death because we understand the implications of death where other animals don't.

This example is full of holes though. What about when we know a child is getting beaten in a neighborhood house? Or we know that there has been a fatal car accident- we rubber-neck, but are not emotionally upset.

http://news.aol.com/article/shocking-indifference-to-roma-drowning/94412?icid=100214839x1206338144x1200292688

Other than people being excellent manipulators of thought and the world, is our consciousness different?

Answer 1

I'd vote no, not all that different.  ...a matter of degree.  What always bothers me about these arguments is that they fail to be framed (most of the time) in an evolutionary context.  If we all have consciousness (debatable...?), then consciousness is a feature of our brain that evolved.  

So the question becomes, where did it evolve in the history of life?  Then you create a different problem.  What's the "it" in my question?  What specific features of consciousness are we trying to optimize onto a cladogram of life?  Take, for example, the perception of pain.  Any idiot can tell that non-humans perceive pain (ever step on a cat's tail?), though some of those same cognitive types will tell you that the cat doesn't feel pain, but only exhibits a reaction that we interpret as indicative of pain.  ...that we have no way of knowing that it's actually in pain.  We infer it in other members of our species only because we imagine our brains are so similar that if *we* perceive pain, they also must.  But what's the difference?  Perception of pain is obviously adaptive, and so it's really quite silly to say that it's not present in non-humans, etc.  ...not to mention just plain arrogant.

Interesting question, really!  ...sorry that there are so few responses so far!

Answer 2

ok, i'm assuming your question is something along the lines of compare/contrast the human mind and the animal mind. unfortunately this question is something that is a lot more suited to philosophy and psychology than to modern science. the most that science had told us about the differences and similarities between humans and animals is found in our genomes - a complete map of all our genetic material. this is how scientists say that animals are 'more related' or 'less related' to us - according to how similar their genome is to ours.

why do we often act like animals? first, i'll tell you from a philosophical point of view. humans are animals. we are mammals. we live by the same laws. the only difference between an animal and a human is our ability to go against our instinct. many ancient philosophers, such as aristotle, who separated the mind into different categories acknowledged that humans have an animalistic side on our mind - aristotle called it the 'vegitative' state, in which human beings still have their primary animalistic needs, something like an instinct - like the need to food, safety, shelter, etc. so, when we exhibit a need for any of these basic things, we are exhibiting an animalistic quality - an instinct. we live our lives based on instinct. animal's instinct is what allows them to exist and seek happiness - for them, what they do by instinct is how they become happy. humans are the same. we're all hedonists - and therefore, whatever we do in hopes of being happy is merely instinct. the faster transportation we create to save us time is for purposes of instinct - we have mroe time and it mnakes us happy, and therefore we are satisfying our instinct. ofcourse, all this philosophical c**p is very debatable, but to summarize, the only difference between the thought patterns of humans and animals is that we are rational and we have choice, past the laws of nature. our brains have thus evolved, become more complex.

as for feelings, how do we know that animals don't feel? they're merely not capable of telling us that they're upset or in pain. we jsut have the capacity to express much of what goes on in our heads. we have the ability to reason.

if you're looking at eh mind from a psychological point of view, consider Freud's iceberg analogy (you can google it). according to freud, every human has what's called an id, an ego, and a superego. the 'id' is our pleasure-seeking, almost 'evil' kind of counterpart, that i guess you can make synonymous with instinct. the 'ego' is the (mostly) conscous part of our mind that hold things like the expectations of society, morality, etc. this is something of an 'anti-instinct' that allows us to make choices past our instinct. the 'superego' has to attempt to appease both the id and the ego.

according to this analysis, if this is how the human mind is formed, do you think animals have an 'ego'? do you think they have a 'superego'? no, they don't. they only have an 'id'. they know only to follow their instinct, their pleasure seeker. and that is what makes a distinction between the brain of the animal and of the human.

our consciousness is rooted in animalism, which is why we often act like animals. yet we have the CHOICE not to, and that is how we're different. we have the ability to go against our instinct.

Answer 3

The short answer is that humans are animals and all capacities that we have were layed down eons ago by our ancestors.