The Mystery of Consiousness

 

An article published not long ago by the BBC discusses the latest scientific findings on consciousness in animals. It states that not only do the ‘higher’ animals, such as birds and mammals, appear to experience consciousness, but likely all vertebrates do. The cephalopod molluscs including octopuses, the insects, and at least some crustaceans, are also mentioned as having shown evidence of consciousness. 

But this is hardly new news. The evidence of intelligent awareness in animals has been steadily accumulating for decades. In particular, it was Donald Griffin’s work in the 1980s followed by his book, Animal Minds in 1992, that finally broke through the bias of mainstream science with the declaration that some actions performed by animals cannot be done without thinking (called cognition in animals). His book provides a fascinating array of examples of cognitive behaviour from species across the animal kingdom. He and his colleagues considered that cognition must require an over-seer that is doing the thinking. Therefore, already at that time, some degree of conscious awareness was felt to be a necessary part of of the mental life of animals using cognition.

Griffin’s work was met by virulent opposition from traditional scientists, for at that time behaviourism dominated the field. But I was greatly relieved to find my own observations backed up by his views. Watching from the sidelines, I had been appalled that scientists denied consciousness to animals, while at the same time conjecturing that their computers would soon be conscious. Indeed, Daniel Dennett pronounced his thermostat to be conscious (in an intentional state) in 1978! His ideas were taken seriously by leading advocates of artificial intelligence (AI), including John McCarthy, who echoed his ideas in later writings.

However, their hopeful idea that complexity automatically produces consciousness, as in the human brain and complex computers, has been debunked for various reasons. For one thing, it forecast that consciousness should be springing up in places where most people would not expect it, such as in your CDs. Further, it excludes all other living things, as if complexity is more important than life. The quality of life, which is not yet understood, should not be so easily dismissed.

Reading on down the page, the BBC article gives some interesting examples of intelligent animal behaviour, but then the word 'consciousness' is suddenly dubbed a weasel word and replaced with the word 'sentience.'

That struck a discord with me, for sentience and consciousness are two different things. The sentience of an animal (the capability to feel and to suffer), should undoubtedly be acknowledged and taken into account in establishing guidelines for animal welfare laws governing, for example, fishing, agribusiness, and laboratory experiments. But ‘sentience’ is not interchangeable with ‘consciousness.’

Many of the points made in the article come from the position of behaviourism, which has dominated thinking about animal mental states since 1924, when John B. Watson introduced methodological behaviourism, a technique which sought to understand behaviour by measuring observable actions. Behaviourists consider that no one can know what mental states animals might have, so each is considered a ‘black box.’ But this human-centred position fails to take into account the way all life evolved together on this unusual planet.

In ignoring evolution, it smacks of Creationism. Indeed, behaviourism grew out of the Mechanical Philosophy, which appeared in the 1600s and included the Christian belief that the human is divine, and that God put the rest of nature here for us to use. Animals were classified as being mechanical in nature. This opened the door to vivisection and in a short time William Harvey had discovered the circulation of the blood by cutting up animals alive. The trend continued.

The Mechanical Philosophy’s view of nature as being mechanical, and thus reducible to its parts, laid the groundwork for behaviourism’s reduction of psychological phenomena to observable actions, while avoiding introspection or subjective analysis. Behaviourism therefore focused on behaviour that could be easily measured in laboratory experiments. An animal’s behaviour was reduced to simple stimulus-response associations, termed ‘conditioning.’

What all this boils down to is that if a creature lacks a human brain, whatever it might think or feel is irrelevant. This is the argument used to claim that fish cannot feel pain, in spite of a vast wealth of evidence that they do. It is also used by the various industries to perpetuate their control over the use of animals for profit.

One gets a very different idea about animal behaviour by observing wildlife in their natural habitats. Watching from a distance, ethologists see what wild animals are actually doing and how they respond in different situations. Thus, they witness their true nature in action. Ethology also emphasizes the role of evolution, environment, and innate behaviours, or instincts. It acknowledges that each individual is different.

As a wildlife artist, I have observed a wide range of species in nature—reef sharks most extensively. All the wild animals I have known have shown evidence of being able to reason and to hold an idea in mind while working towards a planned outcome. Such goal-oriented behaviour—assuming a future in the making and demonstrating learning from the past—suggests the presence of an over-seeing, self-serving awareness doing the thinking. That is, there is a self or I, who is considering what is happening, making moment-to-moment decisions, and keeping his or her purposes in mind as (s)he pursues his or her life.

Though individual variations among animals are ignored in lab experiments, the essence of the evolutionary process is the natural behaviour of individuals. A community of a given species adapts to changes in its environment through the ingenuity and resilience of each member. For it is each one’s efforts and choices that drive evolution, as each succeeds or fails to reproduce and pass on its unique set of genes to its descendants.

​It is self-evident that for an animal to survive, it must be able to understand reality accurately enough to respond to it appropriately, or it will go straight into evolution’s garbage can. And no brain is simple, as anyone who has observed the actions of a spider will appreciate.

Are they conscious? Has anyone ever produced any remotely convincing evidence that an animal can win the evolutionary fight without being conscious?

No.

Consciousness, far from being a weasel word, is currently being studied by scientists from diverse fields. Though neglected for many decades while behaviourism dominated psychology, since 1994, interest in this ‘last frontier of science’ has exploded. The science of consciousness emphasizes broad and rigorous approaches to all aspects of the study and understanding of conscious awareness.

Sir Roger Penrose, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, is one of the pioneers in consciousness science. In his first book on the subject, The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics (1989) he presented a beautifully crafted argument that computers would never be conscious, because consciousness is not computable. He pointed out that many other things in nature are not computable either—including simple and evident things. For example, the sun and moon are visible to any creature on this planet—they appear circle-shaped. The ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is Pi, a number that cannot be represented by a computer.

Penrose theorized that consciousness is fundamentally a quantum-mechanical phenomenon. 

This came at a time when AI advocates were at the height of their hype about their soon-to-be-conscious machines, so he attracted a lot of attention. But so far, he seems to be right. By the early 1990s, most of the large AI labs had shut down, because vast efforts to program the basic cognitive tasks by the most brilliant people on the planet had failed. No one could figure out how to present information to a machine and have it understand. Advances since then have been based on increased speed and complexity, rather than new algorithms permitting machines to perform cognition.

Penrose’s approach to consciousness echoes that of the Athenian philosopher Plato, who first described a world we can access only through our consciousness. Only through reflection can we understand reality. Ideas unfold when we reflect upon them, and mathematical ideas have been found to underlie the actions of the physical universe. For example, anyone can reflect upon a circle, measure the circumference and diameter, and try to figure out the number Pi. More mysteriously, the universal constants, which include the speed of light, Planck’s constant, and the speed of expansion of the universe (plus only a few others), are each extremely precise. These remarkable numbers underlie the reality that we know. And through reflection, many different scientists figured them out. 

Penrose describes three realms: consciousness, the physical universe, and Plato’s world. He calls the relationships between them the three profound mysteries. In the physical world appears consciousness, which reflects and finds Plato’s world, the truths of which lie behind the manifestation of the physical world.

Music, too, leads us into Plato’s world and some birds sing using the scale defined by our own musicians. When played at one-quarter speed, a hermit thrush’s song is like a human composition that has between forty-five to one hundred notes and twenty-five to fifty pitch changes. It approximates a pentatonic scale with all the harmonic intervals. Many other species too, compose their own songs and perfect them single-mindedly, apparently trying to match some inner concept of the musically beautiful, which they perceive in their minds—in Plato’s world.

The creations of bower birds, which in every way resemble art, provide another example of the recognition of the beautiful by an animal. 

The spotfin lion fish (Pterois antennata) is plumed in patterns of red and white, and presents a flower­-like, lacy beauty that is thought to have evolved to attract the crustaceans upon which it preys. What does that tell us about crustaceans?

Then there is the peacock. In its quest to become beautiful, it did not just grow a radiant plume to attract the gaze—it evolved a fabulous fan of intricately designed feathers, each detailed to the microscopic level, all fitting together to produce a breathtaking over-all design.

If intricacy, rather than beauty, was selected for in order to produce a disguise, why is it of such loveliness? The surpassing beauty of so many animals suggests that the most beautiful ones had the most offspring. Therefore the appreciation of beauty could be wide­spread throughout nature, and not confined to vertebrates, providing further evidence that animals, too, can access Plato's world and are conscious.  

The intricate and precise colouration of many invertebrates is spectacular. Their flamboyant patterns tell us something of the minds of these ephemeral life forms who, through aeons of evolution, have chosen their dress.

Indeed, the delicacy and the beauty of the biosphere convey something of the underlying quality of the consciousness behind it. 

Paramecia are one-celled animals, so they have neither brain nor nerves, yet they can learn, remember, and make decisions based on whether or not they were in a place before, and whether or not they had a good time when they were there. There is now evidence of rational behaviour in bacteria, too.

The vast gulf assumed to separate humans from animals does not exist.

The sensitivities of plants have also been well documented. Films of them in motion look uncannily animal-like when sped up. Researchers have found that plants show many of the same types of awareness and thinking found in animals. They are aware of their environments, including the location of other plants, and, in the case of climbing vines, objects that they can use as they climb upwards. The Asian dancing plant will learn to dance to music, if it is exposed to music repeatedly, and individuals improve with practice, suggesting learning and memory. The modern view of plants is that they are a completely different form of life that evolved in another direction from the one taken by animals. Though plants lack organs, they send messages through their systems the way nerves transmit information in animals. They are just as evolved as animals, and apparently they are aware of reality in other ways.

Research into the inner workings of forest ecosystems have revealed that far from standing alone, each tree networks with others through fungi, slime moulds, and others, to share water and nutrients as needed. The slime mould (Physarum polycephalum) is neither plant, animal, nor fungus, but an amoeba, and an underground inhabitant of temperate forests. Slime moulds connect with trees and distribute nutrients, showing that living things are not necessarily devoted exclusively to their own survival. The slime mould has cognitive abilities that have been assumed to depend on brain circuitry, and its intelligent behaviour is one of the unexplained mysteries of science.

Likely there are similar examples in the marine environment, so far unrevealed by science.

These findings suggest that intelligent awareness, or consciousness in some form, may be an intrinsic aspect of life—a comprehension of reality in which the creature, simple as it might be, understands its environment as it functions within it. This shared understanding becomes the ground for interaction among the vast and diverse network of living things that covers our planet from pole to pole.

Reflection on life’s processes suggests other curious facts. While science holds that consciousness evolved from matter, religion holds that matter evolved from consciousness.

Let us consider how evolution works. The flight capabilities of birds have been documented through the fossil record to have evolved slowly as their ancestors tried to stay in the air for longer and longer spans of time. At first, just the ability to hop higher, with the fore-limbs reaching up, must have begun the transition as the creature fled from increasingly nimble predators. Gradually, gliding developed, as only those who were able to leap highest reproduced. At last, over aeons of strife by each individual trying to survive, wings evolved.

Thus, the behaviour came before the structure: birds have wings because they fly. Here it is consciousness that gives rise to matter. Following this line of reasoning leads to a picture in which the species have created themselves, each being a manifestation of all of the efforts of all of its forebears, down through the abyss of time since life appeared.

Thus from many perspectives, there is evidence that we live on a planet filled with conscious, thinking life forms.

However, so far, researchers have made very little progress in discovering what conscious awareness is. It has even been suggested that from our limited perspectives, we are simply unable to understand it, just as fish cannot do mathematics. And consciousness is not the only enigma that remains. 

For life itself, and how it appeared here on Earth, is another deep mystery.

(c) Ila France Porcher 

 

Climate Change: Fact or Fiction?

With the election of a climate change denier as President of the United States, and Canada’s official stance that global warming either doesn’t exist or should be ignored, it is difficult to see how we are going to make progress with halting the warming of the planet. 

                                                                                Credit to NASA (public domain)

 I have been watching the effects of warming for as long as I can remember, starting with the steady retreat of the glaciers I could see from my home in Canada. When I lived on Mo'orea, French Polynesia, the coral fringe reef in front of our house died, along with its complement of fish, shell fish, and other invertebrates, during the ten year period we lived there. Back in Canada, the weather patterns had shifted enormously in my absence and the drying forests took to burning, millions of acres yearly. Now I'm in a place where the rain virtually stopped about eight years ago, and the land is almost completely dead, a sad thing to be watching out of my window. Summers have had hot spells up to 50 degrees Centigrade.

So it is obvious that natural patterns are changing much too fast for human societies and animal and plant life to cope with.

James Hansen, pioneer climate scientist, first sounded the alarm in 1988. He had been studying Venus, and why it is so hot, and found that the reason was its heavy cloud cover, which enveloped it like a blanket. He realized that removing carbon from Earth and putting it into the atmosphere would have the same effect and long-term, rigorous scientific research confirmed this. At that time, he and other scientists assumed that politicians and other leaders would make the required changes to make sure that the threat was avoided. President Bush announced at the time: "Those who are concerned about the Greenhouse Effect are forgetting about the Whitehouse Effect."

But the oil companies got together, formed a giant coalition and began casting doubt on the science. They used the same tactics that had been developed by the tobacco companies to convince Americans to continue smoking, even though they had known since the 1950s that smoking causes cancer. Indeed, some of the very same people who lobbied for the tobacco companies and other sad cases including the flame retardant industry, worked to discredit the science behind global warming and the scientists who published papers about it.

Exxon Mobil is a major funder of climate change misinformation—funding over thirty different organizations that seem to be independent from the oil industry, and which broadcast disinformation. There are” “think tanks” that do nothing but crank out global warming denial articles every day. Scientists, on the other hand, are doing science, and make announcements from time to time.

The media presented these arguments, or debates, as if it was a disagreement between scientists. But instead, the climate scientist was pitted against an oil lobbyist with an agenda that was not based on any facts. Nevertheless, the public was given the impression that there was a debate among scientists about global warming which was not at all certain.

But while scientists are always considering new data and how it might affect their understanding of reality, deniers have made up their minds in advance. They simply argue against global warming no matter what the facts are. Like a lawyer defending a guilty client, they only present information that favours him.

Their arguments will change depending on the situation:

• The earth is not warming

• The earth is warming but it is not due to humans

• The earth is warming and it is due to humans but the cost of doing something about it would be ruinous for society.

It's all about delusion and distraction from the actual findings of science. For example, the tobacco industry broadcast that those wanting to regulate cigarettes and smoking were attacking basic American freedoms in order to get the general public behind their ideas. The key word is belief. Their belief is associated with a particular political and commercial stance, and has nothing to do with science and the facts.

There is also the point that many people have a bias against science and scientists, though they don't know much about the scientific method and how hard it actually is to publish a scientific paper. So it is easy to get others to turn against their concerns.

Anyway, I decided to outline their arguments here--please feel free to use them in your discussions of the subject with "climate change" deniers if you like.

People who deny or downplay the extent of human-caused global warming often argue based on several key points:

1. Natural Climate Variability

• Argument: Earth's climate has always fluctuated naturally, and current warming could simply be part of a natural cycle. Deniers often point to past climate changes, such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age, as evidence that the climate has always undergone shifts due to natural factors like volcanic activity, solar radiation, and ocean currents.

• Counterpoint: While natural variability does play a role, the current rate of warming is unprecedented and coincides with the industrial revolution and a sharp rise in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. The vast majority of climate scientists argue that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary drivers of recent warming.

Graph showing records from different sources showing the sudden temperature rise beginning with the industrial era.  2. Uncertainty in Climate Models Argument: Climate models are unreliable and have been inaccurate in predicting future temperature rises. Counterpoint: While no model is perfect, they are based on a deep understanding of the climate system and have correctly predicted broad trends like global temperature rise. Models have become more refined over time, and their predictions are consistent with the observed warming. 3. The Role of the Sun Argument: Changes in solar activity (the amount of solar radiation the Earth receives) could be the primary cause of recent warming, not human activity. Counterpoint: While solar activity does influence the Earth’s climate, studies show that the Sun's activity has been relatively stable or even slightly declining over the past few decades, while global temperatures have risen. The correlation between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures strongly suggests that human activities are the primary cause. 4. Lack of Consensus or Disagreement Among Scientists Argument: Not all scientists agree that human activities are driving global warming. There is significant disagreement within the scientific community about the extent and causes of climate change. Counterpoint: While scientific debate is a normal part of the process, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (over 97%) agree that human activities are the primary cause of global warming. The argument of “lack of consensus” is misleading because the consensus is based on a vast body of peer-reviewed research. 5. Misinterpretation of Historical Data Argument: There has been little warming in the past few decades, or the warming observed is due to urban heat island effects or data manipulation. Counterpoint: Temperature data is carefully adjusted to account for factors like the urban heat island effect, and long-term data shows a clear upward trend. Short-term fluctuations, like a colder year or a temporary slowdown, are not evidence against long-term warming, which continues to accelerate. 6. The Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Argument Argument: CO2 is not as harmful as scientists claim and may not be the primary driver of warming. Some even argue that higher CO2 levels could be beneficial, fostering plant growth. Counterpoint: While CO2 can have benefits for plant growth, the negative impacts of rising greenhouse gases, such as temperature increases, ocean acidification, and extreme weather events, are much more serious. The physics behind CO2’s greenhouse effect is well-understood and supported by multiple lines of evidence. Furthermore, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas—methane, nitrous oxide, and others also contribute significantly to warming.

Graph showing the relationship between CO2 and temperature for the past 800,000 years. It clearly shows that atmospheric CO2 has risen so fast recently that the temperature has scarcely begun to catch up with it.

 

7. Historical Cooling and Lack of Immediate Catastrophe

• Argument: There has been no immediate catastrophic effect from global warming, and past predictions of disaster have not come to pass.

• Counterpoint: The argument overlooks the long-term and cumulative nature of climate impacts. Extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, flooding, wildfires, and droughts, are becoming more frequent and severe. In addition, the long-term consequences, such as sea-level rise, species extinction, and agricultural disruption, are already being observed and are projected to worsen over time. Indeed, some of the problems are worsening much faster than predicted in past years.

8. Economic and Political Motivations

• Argument: The push to address climate change is politically motivated and driven by financial or political interests, such as the promotion of green technologies or imposing environmental regulations, rather than genuine scientific concern.

• Counterpoint: The scientific consensus on climate change is rooted in decades of research and data. Additionally, addressing climate change could lead to new economic opportunities and innovation, particularly in clean energy and technology sectors. After all, the oil companies have been making super profits during all these decades. They could have invested some of their billions in renewable energy research and led the world in switching to clean technologies. But they did not.

9. Focusing on Regional or Short-Term Data

• Argument: Some skeptics emphasize short-term regional data or anomalies that show no warming, or even cooling, in certain parts of the world, to challenge the idea of global warming.

• Counterpoint: Climate change refers to long-term global trends, not short-term regional fluctuations. The overall trend, measured across the entire planet over decades, shows a clear rise in temperatures. Localized cooling events or colder years don’t invalidate the broader global trend of warming.

These arguments are commonly used by climate change deniers, but they have been consistently challenged by a wide body of scientific research involving the analysis of vast amounts of empirical data, and a deep understanding of the factors influencing the Earth's climate. The burning of fossil fuels and deforestation are without doubt the primary drivers of global warming.

The denial of the overwhelming evidence of human-driven climate change has been recognized as a stance motivated by political and commercial agendas rather than scientific inquiry.

Ila France Porcher 

 

 

Handicapped in the Wilderness

Another example of intelligence and thinking in a wild animal was a raven I saw using mud as a poultice on a very badly injured leg, just as people will do. 

I found him crouched, immobile, in a small pool of mud as darkness fell one night, as if so intent on something in front of him that he was unaware of anything else. He seemed in an altered mental state, and when I approached, he did not move.  

When he finally roused and scuttled into the undergrowth, one of his legs hung away from his body. He had been crouched in the only small pool of mud in the area, apparently soaking his injured limb in the cool substance.

The next day I saw him fly over, and one of his legs was hanging straight down beneath him.  He was with a mate, and they were calling back and forth to each other. It was unfortunate that he was the male of the pair, because in ravens, the male tends to look after the female.

I saw the bird again a few days later, approaching tourists for food in a parking area by the highway that traversed the valley, and threw him some. He understood my gesture but it took time for him to get it. 

And then his mate rushed in, targetted the food and took it. He did not stop her, but he was not happy about it.

Though the bird was not able to use his leg, he was able to manoeuvre with it, and to essentially function. However, being handicapped in the wilderness is very hard, especially when winter was soon to come.

This is a video showing the stricken raven:

Ravens are highly intelligent, as are many other species of birds. Some information on them is included in my book on birds, Birds are Impossible: The Supernatural Ways of the Fliers, available on Amazon. But a book just on raven behaviour is planned to be published next year.

Ila France Porcher

What is Wrong With our Species?

“The line between good and evil runs not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart.” 

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago 

Today I’m concerned about the appalling behaviour presented in the news, which is full of stories of the atrocities of two wars. Genocide is featured and even atomic weapons are being considered for use. In particular the slaughter of those in a hospital in Gaza, perpetrated by a people who claim to be “Chosen by God” seems to indicate an alarming blind spot.

These subjects, and the network of other closely linked ideas, cause us to wonder what is wrong with our species, which is acknowledged to be the most brilliant one on Earth. So lets step back to take in a wider perspective.

On a small planet far out in an ordinary galaxy, one species evolved the right set of capacities (e.g. hands, language, social skills, inventiveness, and aggression) to dominate the rest of the biosphere. Nature will try anything, and, like a peacock evolving a fabulous tail, Homo sapiens emerged. 

 

Though human delusion and ego has lead to a persistent claim that we are not animals and are above all other life forms, there can be no doubt of our biological nature. (To deny this is to invoke a Creation in which we sprang fully formed upon the Earth, and this contradicts the evidence.) Though we do have a tendency to over-think everything because of our extremely active cognitive functions, we are biological and run on instinct. An obvious example: In our dimorphic species, it is self-evident that all the feelings and inclinations that lead to reproduction and child-care are instinctual, and that human male instincts differ greatly from those of the female (Rigby & Kulathinal 2015).

As mentioned by others (Benvenuti 2018, Kiley-Worthington 2019, Criscione & Keenan 2019, Schoof & L'Allier 2019), our mass behaviour is irrational. It can only be explained in terms of the universal patterns that have been used by living beings over the aeons, to survive and reproduce within their available habitats (Darwin 1859, Lorenz 1963).

The tendency to regard those in a perceived ‘out-group’ as being inferior to the home group (Chapman & Huffman 2018)—as well as the quest for ever more impressive material possessions—have been identified as an aspects of the territorial instinct (Lorenz 1963), and this is clearly evident in human behaviour.

Not counting animals that kill indirectly by spreading disease, H. sapiens is the species that is most dangerous to humans. A study by the United Nations (2019) determined that about 437,000 people annually are homicide victims, and 90% of the perpetrators are men; their victims are often conspecific females. However, the need for human females to beware of being murdered as they go about their daily lives is never added to the lists of things that make humans exceptional. In terms of murderous behaviour, there is no counterpart in other vertebrates. Humans even kill for entertainment, and this is unquestioningly accepted by the others.

Lorenz (1963) hypothesized that human cruelty is due to the lack of the inhibitions that evolved to control intra-specific aggression in other social animals. Like sharks, animals that have evolved dangerous weapons will also have evolved behavioural strategies to keep them from mortally injuring conspecifics (Lorenz 1963, Klimley et al. 1996). But, when the animal did not evolve its weapons, but invented, there was no selection pressure to develop inhibitions against killing conspecifics. Hence H. sapiens lacks the ability to refrain from using his finely crafted weapons against his fellow man. Though dogs will not bite another who makes the gesture of submission, gunmen do not hesitate to shoot people who are begging for mercy. Individuals of such species can kill others slowly and cruelly in situations in which the victim cannot escape (Lorenz 1963).

Lorenz (1963) presented the possibility that the Christian story about Jesus Christ’s admonition to “turn the other cheek” did not mean that one should submit to more violence, but that one should present the other cheek so that the aggressor could not strike again. Lorenz considered this, along with the ritual of the ‘peace pipe’ (in which a pipe is communally smoked before peace talks), as being efforts by modern humans to control the instinct for conflict and violence (Lorenz 1963).

Though war kills fewer people than homicide, human history is an account of successive wars (Keeley 1996). Tribal warfare was on average 20 times more deadly than modern warfare, calculated as either a percentage of total deaths from war, or as average war deaths each year as a percentage of the population (Keeley 1996). These numbers are echoed by deaths in modern tribal societies in which death rates from war are between four and six times the highest death rates in 20th century Germany or Russia (Keeley 1996). The popularity of war and violence in media entertainment provides further evidence of human instinctive violence.

Benz-Schwarzburg (2018) pointed out that animals do not condemn others as criminals but humans do, citing sexually aggressive dolphins as an example. However, only certain types of violence are condemned by humans. Others are commonly accepted as if they do not count—crimes against conspecifics who are considered to be inferior being just one example. Through decades of experimentation with human subjects, Altemeyer (2006) found that one would only have to ask three or four people before finding someone who says he would be willing to hold you down and electrocute you fattally on the request of a minor authority (Altemeyer 2006).

Zangwill (2021) mentioned that humans have the power to change their behaviour given new information. However, such a capacity is not generally evident. Humans readily avoid facing the facts and will defend their beliefs against them (Kahan et al. 2017). For example, the discoveries concerning the size and nature of the universe (Penrose 2007) and the mysteries concerning the presence of life and of consciousness, are reasons to consider the biosphere on Earth to be remarkable and precious. But the failure to do so is the subject of the target article and all of the accompanying commentaries. How can it be that an intelligent species, one that is exploring the solar system and holds detailed concepts of what to look for as signs of alien life, is destroying the plant cover of its own planet? Given our situation as the dominant species on a delicately balanced planet with nothing but an icy void for an infinity of light years around, the understanding of human biology with the goal of healthy sustainability should have been top priority for decades. It was warned in the 1970s that growth on a planet (with finite resources) cannot continue for long (Meadows et al.1972), but growth did continue and has put the planet into a catastrophic state.

Chapman & Huffman (2018) suggest that we ought to use our powers to effect positive change. But what powers? Assuming that a species can change, what is needed is a complete paradigm shift. In much of human society, however, the prevailing power structure is headed by a military/industrial/political complex that is motivated by financial gain. It is able to use the media to squash or twist any new information that might weaken its interests. If we were actually intelligent, our most learned academics would have been at work for many decades, doing research on the best avenues to take with respect to a sustainable future—avenues implemented by willing leaders.

We may be the only animal that has evolved enough to understand the difference between reasoned thought and instinct. That understanding, in my opinion, is the only thing that can save us from the usual fate that befalls over-populated and highly aggressive species. 

Originally published as a commentary on Chapman &  Huffman (2018): The Elephant in the Garden

A video on the same subject:

Ila France Porcher

 

References

Altemeyer, Bob. (2006) The Authoritarians. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba. Canada.

Benvenuti, Anne (2018) Good news: Humans are neither distinct nor superior. Animal Sentience 23(3)

Benz-Schwarzburg, Judith (2018) We don’t want to know what we know. Animal Sentience 23(12)

Chapman, Colin A. & Huffman, Michael A. (2018) Why do we want to think humans are different? Animal Sentience 23(1)

Criscione, Matthew J. and Keenan, Julian Paul (2019) Our brains make us out to be unique in ways we are not. Animal Sentience 23(38)

Darwin, Charles, & Kebler, Leonard (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or, The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: J. Murray, 1859.

Keeley, Lawrence H. (1996) War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. Oxford University Press, 1996.

Kahan, Dan M., Peters, Ellen, Dawson, Erica C., & Slovic, Paul. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 54-86. doi:10.1017/bpp.2016.2

Kaplan, Gisela (2019) Mirror neurons and humanity’s dark side. Animal Sentience 23(24) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1401

Kiley-Worthington, Marthe (2019) Anthropomorphism is the first step. Animal Sentience 23(30)

Klimley, Abbot Peter., Pyle, Peter., & Anderson, Scot. D. (1996) Tail slap and breach: Agonistic displays among white sharks? In: Klimley AP, Ainley DG, editors. Great White Shark: The Biology of Carcharodon carcharias. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, p 241-55.

Kopnina, Helen (2019) Anthropocentrism: Practical remedies needed. Animal Sentience 23(37)

Lorenz, Konrad. (1963) Das Sogenannte Böse, Zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression by Verlag Dr Borotha-Schoeler, Vienna, Austria.

Meadows, Donella H; Meadows, Dennis L; Randers, Jørgen; Behrens III, William W (1972). The Limits to Growth; A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books.

Penrose, R. (2007). The Road to Reality: a complete guide to the laws of the universe. 1st Vintage Books ed. New York, Vintage Books.

Rigby, N. and Kulathinal, R.J. (2015), Genetic Architecture of Sexual Dimorphism in Humans. J. Cell. Physiol., 230: 2304-2310.

Schoof, Valérie A. M. and L'Allier, Simon (2019) Mobilizing heads and hearts for wildlife conservation. Animal Sentience 23(42)

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2019) Global Study on Homicide. Zangwill, Nick (2021)

Consciousness in the Wilderness

The former posts were written to introduce the subject of intelligent awareness displayed by the living things that have emerged on this planet. When you look deeply at the biosphere, it seems that it’s delicacy, power, and beauty convey something of the underlying consciousness behind it. When one follows that realization to its end, one has to stand back in breathless awe at the refinement and splendour of the universe that produced it. All the details we see around us are clues, windows into that deep mystery. I used to go underwater to remember I lived in a magic world, but really any excursion into nature will do. And the more you look, the more you see!

Yet in the quest to glimpse nature's mystical and still largely unknown realm, one swiftly discovers that wild animals are highly sensitive to being looked at, especially when they don't trust you. Crows can vanish in seconds if they are noticed by the wrong person. They fly straight away from your face, so that all you see is a flicker in the trees as they disappear through the branches; no motion is apparent. Given that our eyes, as well as those of most other animals, are attuned to movement, the effect of instantaneous vanishment is startling, and an excellent survival strategy, especially given the way some people shoot at them.

Each creature is an individual and some are very different from the others. Often it is a special individual who is willing to make contact with an interested person, while the rest pay as little attention to you as you pay to them.

An example: I used to give the local pair of ravens some pieces of fat each morning, and in this way I gained a window into their world. Year after year they came, and when they had offspring, they brought the kids to meet us too. One day a chickadee intercepted me as I walked out with the ravens' plate of fat. The tiny bird shouted as I went by, and flew to the plate, but the pieces were too big. He came close again as I returned to the house, so I took him a saucer of fat cut into tiny pieces. The chickadee came right away and took one; he seemed to have understood that I was bringing it for him!

This chickadee had to get my attention each time he wanted a piece of fat, and he became adept at the challenge. Sometimes he would hang from a twig to look into the house through the window. Once when I was painting outside, unfortunately too close to his bits of fat, he suddenly alighted on a bare stalk just beyond the painting, practically within my arm's reach. I couldn't help but look at him, and he looked straight back. Then, when I returned to my careful brushing, he did not hesitate to alight on his plate and begin to eat.

It appeared that he had put himself in front of my face, so that I could not help but react to him, for the purpose of finding out what I would do. Was I really as unaware of him as I appeared? Or would I try to catch him, or show another reaction that would reveal a different attitude? It was reminiscent of predator inspection, as described in fish, in which an animal, sometimes with companions, comes close to look at a predator.

Weeks later, I was serving coffee to guests on the deck, when there was a wild little chitter beside my ear, and the momentary touch of tiny claws and wing-tips! When I looked up, the chickadee was hanging off a twig towards me, his eyes fixed on mine. That was the only time I was ever buzzed by a bird.

Needless to say, I hurried to produce some fat, but there was too much activity outside, and in the end, the chickadee would not come near.

The next year he reappeared again in February, shouting at my elbow as I took out the ravens’ fat. And when I paused to cut bits of fat small enough for him to take, he alighted on my head!

Other special individual birds I got to know would also try to get my attention by perching near and looking at me.

Along a similar vein, the male raven, on arriving at my house each morning, would often watch for movement at the window before coming in for a landing on the road. Large birds like ravens use a lot of energy to take off, so he would not alight on the ground unless he had a good reason. But when he saw me in the window he would suddenly appear, floating across my line of vision, his wings a parachute as he descended from some invisible height into the open space in front of the house. Then he would come in like a plane to alight on the road.

One morning, he walked down the driveway to the house as usual, but as I went out, he suddenly flew up into the forest. I continued out to the road, and his mate glided out of the trees to soar in a wide spiral around me. I threw her a good chunk of food, which she romped forward to get, but by then the male had flown down, and was hurrying over to take charge of any more forthcoming food. He usually insisted on taking it all each time and then he would give her permission to eat some. But this time, he took a piece and left the rest for her.

This was his way of trying to tell me that it would be better to put the food I gave them out in the open at the side of the road. It was not until later that I found out how wary these large birds are of thick bush where a predator could hide, and our driveway was lined with greenery where such terrors as bobcats could hide.

On another morning, I could scarcely see the male peering out towards the house from the other side of the road. He was actually hunched as he looked down at my window, nearly out of my view. Evidently, however, he understood that I could see him. When I went out, he walked a short distance and stopped and seemed to indicate the ground in front of him as if suggesting that this was the place to put the food. And just at that moment, above, a branch waved, and his mate swept down. It seemed that while waiting for me that morning, he had chosen a place where he was in my line of sight while also remaining in view of her!

Curiously, his action is the opposite of hiding, in which one places oneself out of the line of sight of another.

One morning I looked outside from a second floor window, and saw a bear standing directly below. Just as I withdrew, he seemed to notice my movement, so I peeked out again to see. He had vanished, though not a sound had disturbed the spell of silence that lay over the forest.

It took a moment to see his bright eyes, peeking back from between the spreading leaves of a devil's club plant growing beside the trail there, that now effectively concealed the bulky creature from view! 

He had seen me and hidden. Cognitive ethologist pioneer, the late Donald R. Griffin, formerly of Harvard University, suggested in his book Animal Minds, that when an animal hid itself from view, it was demonstrating self awareness. He described how naturalist Lance A. Olsen, President of the Great Bear Association, reported grizzly bears seeking places from which they could watch hunters while remaining hidden.

Other early observers such as William Wright (1909) and Enos Abija Mills (1919) reported that grizzly bears tried to avoid leaving tracks. The researchers concluded that these bears were aware of being present and observable, as well as creating effects―their tracks―through their movements, which could be seen by others. They were self-aware.

Not only birds are sensitive to being looked at and photographed; photographing fish was often problematic because they energetically searched for a hiding place, so my photos often revealed not much more than fish trying to hide! The sharks I studied used the visual limit for concealment, suggesting that they, too, are aware of being present and observable, and hence self-aware to that degree.

Each animal is a self-serving entity: seeking food for the self, protecting the self, saving the self, and so forth. So to be aware of the self, as distinct from others and the environment, would result in survival benefits. Thus, evolution, through natural selection, would tend to favour self-awareness.

The way crows instantaneously vanish by flying straight away along your line of sight, without giving the impression of any movement, is another way an animal has found to use lines of sight to its advantage. These are interesting clues to the differences in the ways that birds view the world. After all, their brains have evolved to deal with three dimensional movement, something we know next to nothing about.

The raven's perch is high above it all, his realm the sweeping landscape as seen from tens of metres above. From his perspective, how could there be a question about who is superior? Us or him? Even our cars cannot fly. Given my difficulty in seeing him in the crowns of nearby treetops, doubtless he considers himself the brightest light while he wonders how to attract my attention. Surely only that could explain the circus performances he would give as he suddenly appeared in my view, as I gazed upwards.

These ravens were so aware of things happening across the vast expanses below their high lookouts, that I often saw them fly low over the car when I drove back into the mountain valley from below. They would be perched above the highway at the mountain pass, and recognize my car, from among all of the others, as I returned. By the time I arrived at the house, they would be gliding in over the trees. 

I have published several videos showing this pair of ravens on YouTube, most under the title of "The Raven Lovers." There are other videos that focus on their calls, song, and chatter.

 

Such intelligent behaviours are signs of consciousness. Maybe one day when we understand things better, people in the future may see humans as just one of countless intelligently aware, and specialized life forms on this planet, all interdependent in the beautiful, transcendent web of life.

(c) Ila France Porcher 

    Author of Birds are Impossible: The Supernatural Ways of the Fliers