
It's Official: Consciousness Is Not Unique to Humans - sirteno
http://charbonniers.org/2012/08/20/it-is-official/
======
vacri
Meh, the title is not what this declaration is about. The meat of the
declaration is this line " _The absence of a neocortex does not appear to
preclude an organism from experiencing affective states_ ", which in layman's
terms means 'you don't need a fancy brain to have self-awareness'.

(actually 'affective states' means 'emotions' in laymans terms, but in this
given context, it's meant to mean 'self-awareness')

It's clear from the document that they already consider primates, cetaceans,
and elephants to be in the 'self-aware' group with humans. This has generally
been accepted for some time, both from the angle of behavioural studies and
that of comparing the complexities of brains. What this declaration is really
about is recognising the rather surprising result that some birds can do the
behavioural part while not having a similarly complex brain.

Some of the other stuff in the declaration is incredibly humdrum and clearly
visible to a layman. Animals are known to experience emotions - seen a happy
or scared dog? An angry bird defending it's nest? The question of whether
animals experience _emotion_ is different to the one of _self-awareness_.
Similarly, it's obvious that pharmaceutical compounds affect animal awareness
- because vets use things like that all the time to sedate animals for
surgery. Or if you want mood-altering evidence, check out catnip. Euphoria?
vets have drugs for that too.

The only new thing here is "we recognise that self-awareness can be present in
birds, which means that you don't need a fancy brain (neocortex) to have it".
The stuff about emotion not necessarily being in the neocortex is very old
hat, and was in textbooks when I did my degree nearly 20 years ago.

Personally, I'm also not fond of 'consciousness' to mean 'self-awareness' or
perhaps 'sentience', because it conflates heavily with anaesthesiology. A vet
can knock a dog out for an operation, after which it regains consciousness,
but not consciousness, because while it was conscious before the operation, it
wasn't conscious... :)

~~~
derrida
In the last paragraph, you said a dog is not conscious. How do you define
conscious here? Why do you think it isn't?

I define conscious as 'having qualia'. I see red, but also, I notice the
'redness of red'. One may consider this a sort of reflexive/recursive self
awareness. I am thinking, so I know I am thinking about thinking.

I am interested to hear why you believe a dog is not conscious.

In my opinion, a positive test may be if a dog can count to infinity.
Successor functions in mathematics might be an indicator of the presence of
the recursive thinking necessary to conceptualise constructions such as "the
redness of red" or "thinking about thinking", and these are necessary to
understand the infinity of the natural number line. So 1 == S(0), 2 ==
S(S(0)), 3 == S(S(S(0))) and so on.

~~~
vacri
My last paragraph is intentionally supposed to humourously expose one of the
difficulties in using 'consciousness'. I think the term is extraordinarily
difficult to define, so a good start is removing it from easy conflators.

My gut response is that it's the 'thinking about thinking' or being able to
think in a 'meta' fashion that makes up self-awareness. That you can observe
your own actions from a hypothetical third person view. Animal minds are of
course a black box - dogs could theoretically be far more intelligent than the
smartest humans, but it may just be that their brains don't allow them to
express themselves appropriately. As they're a black box, we're reduced to
things like the mirror test to try and approximate an idea.

Ultimately I think the real answer will be that consciousness/self-awareness
is not a binary thing, but a sliding scale. I think the biggest block in
discussing these concepts is the next link in the chain: the unwritten
assumption that once something is 'conscious', it has a 'soul' or 'special
essence' of some kind and therefore can't be morally farmed/eaten/whathaveyou.
Because the label of 'conscious' carries this weight, it becomes a sacred
label we have to be cautious about applying. An interesting paradox, in that
scientific observation might suggest other animals are capable of
consciousness, but there is no scientific evidence to suggest that
consciousness is particularly special in a moral sense, yet the latter is
largely taken for granted.

------
mercuryrising
One day about a year ago, I woke up and had a single thought pouring through
my mind - "It's better to assume everything has a consciousness until you can
prove it doesn't".

At this point in human history, we are standing at the top of a pyramid
looking down, wondering what else could be like us. What else could feel
things like we do? This is a poor way of attacking the problem though, we only
know what we (internally, as an individual person) experience. We never really
question when someone says 'I'm happy'. What if it feels like something
completely different? It's easier to hear 'happy' and relate to how we feel
'happy'. But that's not necessarily true.

We stand at the top of a pyramid, wondering if other animals, plants, forests,
ecosystems, planets can experience. Think of someone who views the world
entirely differently than you with essentially the same genome. Now think of
what makes them happy, sad, how they see a piece of technology, what they
think of when they're alone, or with their best friends, hard right? Now
imagine you are completely different species, or groups of species working
together, you will never, ever know what kind of experiences could be felt
inside the 'mind' of a planet, or a forest).

It's odd thinking that people still hold the belief that humans are the only
beings privy to a consciousness, we barely know what that word even means.

~~~
slurgfest
According to your realization, let us assume that mosses - or even stones - or
your fingers - have consciousnesses. We can't prove otherwise. So what
follows, what kind of respect does a moss or a stone or your finger demand? If
you question what makes a person happy, how do you hope to know what makes a
stone or a moss happy?

~~~
ktizo
You could think of it in terms of minimal states, sunshine and moisture might
make moss happy. But happy for moss is only a very mossy kind of happyness and
so is just a fairly simple form of cellular _"Woo!"_ and not a lot else.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
At that point, "conscious" means nothing more than "exists", and we already
have a good word for that.

I do think we should give animals far more credit than we do. Personality
seems like it would be heavily related to and influenced by/influences
consciousness, and most animals express personality to some degree.

------
azakai
As someone with a computational neuroscience background, I am not sure I agree
that those are the right authorities to decide on consciousness in animals,

> cognitive neuroscientists, neuropharmacologiests, neurophysiologists,
> neuroanatomist and computational neuroscientists

Don't get me wrong, it's great to have their input on this topic. But to not
include philosophers of mind for example seems very wrong. In particular
because consciousness is very hard to define. The definition there involves
"affective states" and "intentional behaviors" which in themselves are also
extremely hard to define.

edit: Also, how about psychologists studying animal behavior, ethologists,
etc.

~~~
samd
This article is as absurd as if it had said: "It's official, scientists have
discovered the meaning of life!"

The gall of these scientists to claim that not only can they definitively say
what consciousness is, but that they can prove that something has it is
astonishing.

~~~
drewcrawford
> The gall of these scientists to claim that not only can they definitively
> say what consciousness is,

That isn't what they say. The author of the article is editorializing, and the
HN title needs to be changed. (puts up mod alert spotlight).

What they say is what consciousness is _not_ , that is, it does not require a
complex brain, that's not a prerequisite. They don't say very much about what
it is, just its prerequisites. Buried in their supporting arguments, they
state that "birds appear to offer" "parallel evolution" of "near-human-like
levels of consciousness". As a non-biologist I am not entirely sure what
exactly is meant by that, but it is not within a hundred miles of a "proof".

~~~
samd
Yeah, should've known the article would grossly misrepresent the claims of the
scientists.

------
slurgfest
This is a political statement based on speculation, not a scientific
breakthrough based on evidence. And what it's really about is animal rights
(and perhaps grant money for 'consciousness' research). Scientific and
philosophical footwork are entirely lacking here, and the body is a random
committee with no special authority to declare anything.

Among the weird suggestions of this document are that birds show a "parallel
evolution of consciousness," implying that our common ancestors (ancient
amniotes, lizardy things) were not conscious; also that whole classes of
amniotes are not conscious. The idea that reptiles and possibly certain kinds
of mammals are unconscious automata, while we and birds are conscious, is at
least worth raising an eyebrow over.

~~~
vacri
Nice hand-waving dismissal. You clearly haven't been tracking recent
scientific research in the area - corvids and parrots have been shown to have
these responses for quite some time now. The rest of the stuff in the
declaration is humdrum stuff that has been accepted for decades.

Yes, it may be political, but that's most likely because the field doesn't
have any layman-recognisable heavyweights like CERN to say "professional
opinion on the matter says -foo-".

 _The idea that reptiles and possibly certain kinds of mammals are unconscious
automata_

This is why I think the term 'consciousness' has a problem with conflation,
because it leads to responses like this. Just because an entity does not have
the 'consciousness' they are talking about does not make then an 'unconscious
automata'. You're mixing terms from different contexts.

~~~
slurgfest
You clearly know little about the field if you have never talked to a bird
researcher (neurobiologist, ethologist, psychologist) who would question the
cavalier application of the word 'consciousness' to more-or-less arbitrary
bird behaviors.

The behavior you are talking about is not 'latest' or even new. But I can
point at any behavior to indicate anything, if my concepts do not have any
real relationship to explaining how the behavior is produced or its
evolutionary function. Which consciousness doesn't.

You are hand-waving at "latest research" to solve an actually insoluble
problem: of nailing down what consciousness is, and also of developing
philosophical consensus around that concept. Apparently you think that a
random committee vote will do the job. That is the only recent development
here, and it isn't scientific.

What you have is some fairly arbitrary experiments with a note attached to
them saying 'consciousness!' The issue of consciousness was never about this.

"Parallel evolution" implies that the feature at issue was not present in the
common ancestors, and probably isn't present in all the descendants of those
common ancestors. This is a deeply weird assumption for which there is NOT
scientific evidence. Yet it made its way into this hokey little document,
making it abundantly clear that its claims have not seen any serious kind of
review.

Your complaint about "conflation" is the tip of the iceberg - consciousness is
such a vague concept, and so well detached from observables, that you will
_never_ see an end to such problems. In the "best" case you will choose some
behavior (such as preening in a mirror) and flatly assert that it is
consciousness - while you will get others to agree on the preening you won't
get them to agree on the consciousness, leaving you with a pile of data
concerning just plain preening.

~~~
vacri
_bird researcher ... who would question the cavalier application of the word
'consciousness' to more-or-less arbitrary bird behaviors_

Yeah, despite all your defensive text, you haven't actually been tracking
recent research if you come up with a statement like this.

Ironically, you call as your line of authority some of the kinds of
professions who signed the declaration you later denigrate. I guess you could
go 'No True Scotsman' on them and say that they're not _real_
neurobiologists...

 _In the "best" case you will choose some behavior (such as preening in a
mirror) and flatly assert that it is consciousness_

Seriously, you're simply strawmanning something you don't like. 'Flatly
assert'? Utter strawman.

------
pdog
_> On July 7 the _Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness _was signed by a
group of recognized authorities (cognitive neuroscientists,
neuropharmacologiests, neurophysiologists, neuroanatomist and computational
neuroscientists)._

This, to me, significantly _cheapens_ the message. Imagine a group of
recognized "authorities" in mathematics coming together to sign the proof of
an important theorem in an attempt to further bolster its truth. It almost
makes me doubt the truth (or importance) of this statement.

~~~
vacri
It shouldn't. Mathematics is lucky in that it's an entirely logical field
where things can be absolutely proven. Not even Physics has that advantage.
Psychology is a discipline full of minefields and gotchas - experience is very
important here.

~~~
scarmig
"Mathematics is lucky in that it's an entirely logical field where things can
be absolutely proven."

A professional mathematician should confirm this, but my impression is that
most of the interesting bits of math are fairly informal and creative--
rigorous proofs only come long after the fact, if they come at all, and really
just amount to dotting _i_ s and crossing _t_ s that few people double check
anyways. Absolutely proven is a bit stronger than is warranted, and at least
some other fields can produce statements that have the level of "truth" that a
mathematical statement has.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
The point is that the proofs are actually possible. Even physics requires
"proof by statistics".

~~~
scarmig
My point, though, was that mathematics is also a field filled with minefields
and gotchas where experience is very useful. Moreover, that mathematicians are
more than glorified theorem provers.

------
Xcelerate
The word "consciousness" needs to be used very carefully. There is no
scientific experiment that anyone can do that would demonstrate anything
"experiences" events. In fact, scientifically speaking, you can only be
certain that you yourself are experiencing something.

This is of course more of a philosophical area than a scientific one. Do most
humans perceive "red" as the same experience? It's not really something that
can be tested. Sure, you can measure how sensitive cone cells are to certain
wavelengths and compare that among groups, but I'll never know if my red is
your blue.

The scientific document itself does a decent job of staying out of the
philosophical questions. Science concerns itself with reproducible, testable
predictions. Using a word that has strong connotations with philosophy (also
words like "qualia") should be discouraged in scientific practice simply due
to the controversy it would generate that would detract from further progress.
Studies of "synaptic activity patterns" is perhaps a better description.

~~~
derrida
> In fact, scientifically speaking, you can only be certain that you yourself
> are experiencing something.

I ask someone 'you know the redness of red', they nod knowingly. Thus I know
they have experiences.

~~~
rosser
Suppose for a moment that, unbeknownst to you, the reality you experience were
a giant, perfect-fidelity sim. Suppose, further, that everyone in the sim but
you is an "NPC" — that is, you're the only "real" person there. Again, you
don't know this.

Now, suppose you asked one of these NPCs about the redness of red. It nods. Is
it somehow suddenly conscious because it could nod sagely in response to your
question?

------
lutusp
> The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from
> experiencing affective states.

There's no basis for falsification, the claim revolves around denying a
negative, there's no testable positive claim, therefore it's not science. And
saying "it's official", apart from replacing evidence with authority, adds
nothing except to sound like law or politics rather than science.

~~~
vacri
It's denying a positive, not a negative. "Previously, it was thought you _had
to have_ a neocortex. Now, we see evidence that you don't". Corvids and
Eastern Grey Parrots don't have a neocortex, and they still perform well on
experiments we apply to other animals around the concept of consciousness.

The sentence you're quoting is a triple negative, not a double negative,
perhaps that's the problem.

~~~
lutusp
> The sentence you're quoting is a triple negative, not a double negative,
> perhaps that's the problem.

I see a double negative: "The _absence_ of a neocortex _does not_ appear to
preclude an organism from experiencing affective states."

The above relies on the negation of a negative state -- the absence of a
neocortex.

In any case, to refute the claim would require some heavy lifting -- an
objective definition of consciousness, an objective _measure_ of consciousness
that somehow evades issues like the Turing test, and a handful of other
obstacles. And consensus -- general agreement on the meaning of these terms.

That's why it's philosophy.

~~~
vacri
_preclude_ is the third negative.

edit: There are testable positive claims - things like the mirror test. Yes,
it is hard to define consciousness, but dealing with things that are hard to
define doesn't mean something 'is not science'. Like I said above, we worked
for a century with a model of the atom that we _knew_ was wrong, yet we did a
lot of good science with it. People didn't run around saying 'oh, the atom is
just _philosophy_ ', they accepted that there were shortcomings and took that
in as part of their work.

~~~
lutusp
> There are testable positive claims - things like the mirror test.

Yes, but the problem with the mirror test (and all similar tests) is not the
observation but the conclusion -- one in principle could program a computer to
recognize itself in a mirror, but have no other properties we assume define
"consciousness".

On could in principle create a list of properties of consciousness, then have
a devil's advocate program a robot to display all the required properties --
just to prove a point.

In DARPA road races, robot cars manage to avoid each other and fixed
obstacles, mimicking the behavior of human drivers. It's only a matter of time
before a car will pass a sort of "Turing test" and be indistinguishable from a
(sober) human driver, i.e. be "conscious".

> dealing with things that are hard to define doesn't mean something 'is not
> science'.

In fact, yes, that is a legitimate argument for calling something non-science.
If independent observers cannot agree on their terms, if similarly equipped
observers cannot draw the same conclusion from a given observation, this
prevents the consensus on which science depends. Science is, after all,
ultimately a shared, falsifiable theory about the world, therefore
deconstructive post-modernism (the idea that all observations are subjective)
cancels science.

> People didn't run around saying 'oh, the atom is just philosophy' ...

They had the right to do that until there were unambiguous observations, and
testable theories about the observations, on which different observers could
agree. Until then, atoms _were_ philosophy.

Aristotle once claimed that women were inferior to men because they had fewer
teeth -- hard to believe but true. It remained philosophy until someone
started counting teeth.

------
ars
That's not exactly official. If you need a signed deceleration then that's
very good proof that you have no actual science to back you up.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Or that there is plenty of science in a form that most people don't (or won't)
understand and so a declaration can make it digestible.

~~~
lutusp
> Or that there is plenty of science in a form that most people don't (or
> won't) understand and so a declaration can make it digestible.

But there isn't. This sort of thing isn't scientific because empirical,
falsifiable tests aren't available. So instead of scientific evidence, we have
a panel of "experts" declaring something so. It's philosophy, not science,
and, all else aside, science is to be preferred.

~~~
vacri
That is _not_ what science is. Science is 'robust observation and reporting'.
This includes, but is not exclusive to, empirical, falsifiable tests.

From what you're saying, exploratory experiments are not scientific, and
neither are entire fields like Taxonomy.

~~~
lutusp
> Science is 'robust observation and reporting'.

No, that is stamp collecting. Science is not merely observing, and it is not
merely theory-creation. It is both. Observations (descriptions) lead to
theories (proposed explanations). The explanations must be testable and
falsifiable.

> This includes, but is not exclusive to, empirical, falsifiable tests.

No, that's not optional. Without falsifiable tests, astronomy and astrology
are indistinguishable. Therefore empirical testability and falsifiability are
essential to any definition of science.

> From what you're saying, exploratory experiments are not scientific, and
> neither are entire fields like Taxonomy.

That's correct. Let's say I claim that stars are actually tiny dots pained on
a huge glass bowl in the night sky. Shall we stop there, or shall we test my
claim?

Let's say I claim that life was created by a supreme being, and natural
origins are a myth. Shall we stop there, or shall we test my claim?

Let's say I claim that women are inferior to men on the ground that they have
fewer teeth than men do (Aristotle actually made this claim, and it stood
unchallenged for centuries). Shall we stop there, or shall we test my claim?

Ideas must be compared to reality, and if reality disagrees, they must be
discarded. When reality-testing proves a theory false, a scientist abandons
the theory, but a pseudoscientist abandons reality. Take your pick.

~~~
vacri
_Shall we stop there, or shall we test my claim?_

You're missing my point. It's _not_ about 'stopping there'. It's about robust
observation. The best observations we can make are treated as correct until we
can come up with something better. We used the _known wrong_ model of the atom
for a long time, but it was the best we had, and we learned a lot in doing so.
Your "shall we stop there" argument is utter strawman nonsense, and not what I
am arguing. Robust observation allows someone coming along later with better
info, because it makes the observation _more robust_. I have no idea where you
pulled this "stop as soon as a claim is made" crap from.

So you're saying that classification like taxonomy, the periodic table, and
even SI units are 'not science', because these things are not due to a tested
claim? If they're pseudoscience (as you are implying they must be, since
they're all just 'claims') then isn't all science that uses them inherently
suspect as a result?

 _Ideas must be compared to reality, and if reality disagrees, they must be
discarded._

Which doesn't contradict what I said. _Robust observation_ agrees with this
sentiment exactly.

You're trying to paint me as a crazy pseudoscientist, but you're working from
a faulty perception of what science is.

Here's another example: in medicine, there's a lot of work done on case
studies for diseases with a low number of victims. It's just not viable to run
double-blind studies with such low n, and repeat those studies until you find
an answer. Case studies are a way of doing robust observation: "In previously
similar situations, this was done, and this happened". It's not perfect, but
it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. It's following scientific principles
of do something, observe, report faithfully.

Similarly, the Mars exploration robots are out there looking at stuff for the
first time. They are exploratory science. What would you have them do to make
them fit your narrow vision of science - launch a robot into empty space to
provide a control group representing the 'null hypothesis'?

~~~
ars
Correct, taxonomy and SI units are not science, but they are not psudo-science
either. The periodic table is though - it has an actual testable criteria:
That this is the full list of elements, and there are no "in between" ones.

Observations are part of science, but they are not science in and of themself.
Just because you used one doesn't make your science "tainted" as you seem to
think.

But to declare that the observation is the complete package is wrong.

Those case studies are called "case studies" for a very good reason: They are
not science. If they were science then the exact cause of the disease would be
known, instead only correlations can be found - this can lead to science, so
it's part of science, but it's not the end result, it's a lower level
category. (I hate using the word science this way, but I guess it makes my
distinction clear.)

There is no such thing as "exploratory science" unless you mean the science of
how to design an exploration. What the rover is doing is called cataloging.
From a catalog you can gain scientific conclusions, but not directly. For
example you can see that this type of rock is found in this situation - then
you find another location and predict the type of rock.

We want to know "what is on mars". Just because that's not a science in and of
itself doesn't make it bad. If it were science you could develop rules and
laws from it. And maybe we will - like ideas on planetary formation. But right
now the rover is doing history - we want to know "what happened" not "what
fundamental rule can we learn".

Again, this isn't a bad thing. But it's not at the same level as hard science.

~~~
vacri
_If they were science then the exact cause of the disease would be known,
instead only correlations can be found_

Again, your definition of science is too strict. Do you really think the known
faulty model of the atom was 'not science'? We didn't _exactly_ know how the
atom was pieced together, yet we had a theory that was best fit. The idea that
a theory has to be an absolutely perfect fit for it to be 'science' is
garbage. Case studies do form part of science in that properly done, they
represent our best informed knowledge on the matter.

Also, cataloguing is definitely science. Science is about trying to collect
information that is as true as humanly possible, and catalogues definitely
fall into that basket.

But in particular, I find it weird that you consider taxonomy as 'not
science', but the periodic table as 'science'. These two things are one and
the same: a human-ordered list of natural phenomenon. We chose the way we
arranged the elements in the periodic table, just like we choose the way we
arrange species in taxonomy - each list being grouped in a way that makes the
information more digestible to us.

~~~
ars
The model of the atom was testable - that's how they knew it was faulty in the
first place.

> Science is about trying to collect information that is as true as humanly
> possible

No, that's history. Science is about collecting reasons why things happen, or
at least the _exact_ cause effect relationship. It is NOT about collecting
"what happened". Simply recording what happened in the past is history.

> These two things are one and the same: a human-ordered list of natural
> phenomenon.

Not even close. Human ordered? The periodic table is not human ordered. The
periodic table is fundamental to the structure of the universe. Taxonomy
simply records that this thing happens to be related to this. The
relationships are historical accidents, not fundamental properties.

I'm quite surprised that you think the periodic table is human ordered. That
shows a very large gap in your physics knowledge. If you skipped physics it's
possible you were never exposed to how science should really be done, and all
your experience is with what they call "soft sciences".

~~~
vacri
The way the periodic table is arranged depends on choices made by humans. It
could just as easily be a simple list (your first description was 'all
elements nothing between') with no groupings. What distinguishes elements is
the number of protons - the choice to then arrange the periodic table by other
attributes is a human one, just like the choice to label creatures with six
legs 'insects' is a human one.

 _and all your experience is with what they call "soft sciences"_

Ah, the meat of the problem. You're prejudiced against disciplines outside of
physics.

~~~
ars
> the choice to then arrange the periodic table by other attributes is a human
> one

No it's not. The arrangement is determined by the structure of the atom -
specifically the electron orbital. I'm assuming you didn't know this? It's not
arbitrary at all, elements in the same column are very similar chemically, and
can take each others place in many chemical reactions.

> Ah, the meat of the problem. You're prejudiced against disciplines outside
> of physics.

Prejudiced? Really? If you are going to practice science you have to do it
properly, physics does, so do many other disciplines. Some don't. It's not
because they are evil - they have no other choice, they do as good a job as
possible with the limitations they have. I don't hold it against them, but at
the same time they don't have the same status as those that do, the results
from those disciplines can never be considered definitive. And for many of
them, it's not science, it's history.

And you appear not to even know any physics, and so you think everything is
like what you know, and have no idea how it can be when done properly. It's a
form of the Dunning–Kruger effect - you don't even realize what you don't
know, so you think everyone doesn't know.

~~~
vacri
To beat a dead horse (been away a few days), the periodic table is still
chosen to be grouped that way. I know what you're saying about the structure
of the table, but it's still been chosen to be arranged that way, just like
declaring 'six legs = insect' is in taxonomy. Similarly, the 'horned'
appearance of it is a human decision to help with the grouping. You could just
as easily have H and He right next to each other and each new line
representing a shell be arranged the same way. The problem is that you're not
seeing the forest for the trees.

Perhaps another angle: if the periodic table is defined by the structure of
the atom, why is there no representation of neutrons? Neutrons are part of the
atom, and though an element is able to have differing numbers of neutrons,
there is no indication of this in the layout of the table.

 _the results from those disciplines can never be considered definitive_

You seem to have a lexical problem here: in one breath, you demand that
science is _definitive_ ("it can't be science if it's not"), but in another
you state that _defining things_ is cataloguing, not science.

 _And you appear not to even know any physics,_

I know a moderate amount of physics (certainly enough that hollywood films
drive me nuts, and I spent several years as a medical scientist), mostly in
the form of chemistry, but you're showing all the typical signs of someone who
is clueless about the actual practise of "soft sciences" and is running off
prejudice.

There is plenty of good science in fields like psychology; just because the
brain doesn't work like particle physics doesn't mean that you can't have the
falsifiable hypotheses that lutusp demands. There is plenty of shoddy science
in psychology as well, sure. But that doesn't mean that you can simply
discount the good stuff - that's a logical fallacy :)

------
mukaiji
I've always been fascinated by the societal implications of "i think therefore
I am" when demonstrated for mammal other than humans. For one, can one
justifiably continue to eat their meat if we consider the reverse role, where
we would exist, consciously so, only for a superior species to consume our
flesh for nothing else than it's nutritional value.

------
guscost
Really? I'm seriously confused.

