Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T21:28:52.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Needs Consciousness?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

M S Dawkins
M S Dawkins*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Thinking about animal consciousness is beset with many pitfalls, a few of which are: i) lack of clarity in words used, especially confusing ‘cognition’ with ‘consciousness’ and using words such as ‘emotion’ in both an objective sense (behaviour and physiology) and to imply consciousness; ii) failing to acknowledge sufficiently that different people use different versions of the argument from analogy with ourselves to infer consciousness in non-humans in animals; iii) assuming that choice and preference imply consciousness; iv) assuming that autonomic responses imply consciousness (a particular danger to those who look for physiological ‘measures’ of animal welfare); v) assuming that complexity of behaviour implies complexity of cognition and in turn consciousness; and vi) assuming that only cognitively complex organisms are conscious. Consciousness raises many questions of direct relevance to animal welfare that as yet have no answers, but finding possible answers may be made slightly easier if we avoid these obvious pitfalls.

Keywords

animal welfarecognitionconsciousnessemotion
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 10 , Issue S1: Consciousness, Cognition and Animal Welfare: Proceedings of the UFAW Symposium, Zoological Society of London, 11-12 May 2000 , February 2001 , pp. S19 - S29
Copyright
© 2001 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Allen, C and Bekoff, M 1997 Species of Mind: the Philosophy and Biology of Cognitive Ethology. MIT Press: Cambridge, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baars, B J 1988 A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Block, N 1991 Evidence against epiphenomenonalism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14: 670–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, R W and Whiten, A 1988 Machiavellian Intelligence: Social Expertise and the Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes and Humans. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Cabanac, M 1992 Pleasure: the common currency. Journal of Theoretical Biology 155: 173–200CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cabanac, M 1996 On the origin of consciousness, a postulate and its corollary. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews 20: 33–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coussi-Korbel, S 1994 Learning to outwit a competitor in mangabeys (Cercocerbus torquatus torquatus). Journal of Comparative Psychology 108: 169–171CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal's point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 1–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1993 Through Our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal Consciousness. Spektrum/Freeman: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1999 Evolution and animal welfare. Quarterly Review of Biology 73: 305–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R 1986 The Blind Watchmaker. Longmans: Harlow, UKGoogle Scholar
de Waal, F B M and Luttrell, L M 1988 Mechanisms of social reciprocity in three primates species: symmetrical relationship characteristics or cognition? Ethology and Sociobiology 9: 101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Dawkins, M S 1983 The problem of assessing ‘well-being’ and ‘suffering’. In: Smidt, D (ed) Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare pp 13–24. Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, G M 1992 Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: on the Matter of the Mind. The Penguin Press: Harmondsworth, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D and Matthews, L R 1997 Preference and motivation testing. In: Appleby M C and Hughes B 0 (eds) Animal Welfare pp 159–173. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Griffin, D R 1976 The Question of Animal Awareness: Evolutionary Continuity of Mental Experience. Rockefeller University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Griffin, D R 1992 Animal Minds. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Hemelrijk, C K 1997 Cooperation without genes, games or cognition. In: Husbands, P and Harvey, I (eds) 4th European Conference on Artificial Life pp 511–520. MIT Press: Brighton, UKGoogle Scholar
Humphrey, N K 1976 The social function of intellect. In: Bateson, P P G and Hinde, R A (eds) Growing Points in Ethology pp 303–317. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Kelly, C K 1992 Resource choice in Cuscuta europaea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 89: 12194–12197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, J S 1992 The New Anthropomorphism. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kummer, H 1967 Tripartite relations in hamadryas baboons. In: Altmann, S A (ed) Social Communication among Primates pp 63–71. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USAGoogle Scholar
Lindahl, BIB 1997 Consciousness and biological evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 187: 613–629CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menzel, E W 1974 A group of chimpanzees in a 1-acre field: leadership and communication. In: Schrier, A M and Stollnitz, F (eds) Behavior of Nonhuman Primates pp 83–153. Academic Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Oatley, K and Jenkins, J M 1996 Understanding Emotions. Blackwells: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Popper, K R 1978 Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica 32: 339–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolls, E T 1999 The Brain and Emotion. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, D M 1993 Thinking that one thinks. In: Davies, M and Humphreys, G W (eds) Consciousness pp 197–223. Blackwell: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Young, A W and Block, N 1998 Consciousness. In: Bruce, V (ed) Unsolved Mysteries of the Mind pp 149–179. Psychology Press: Hove, UKGoogle Scholar