On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:34:06 GMT, NanK wrote:


Reference Material below:

William James and the Evolution of Consciousness

Nielsen, Mark and Day, R. H. (1999) William James and the Evolution of
Consciousness. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology
19p. 90-113.

Abstract

Despite having been relegated to the realm of superstition during the
dominant years of behaviourism, the investigation and discussion of
consciousness has again become scientifically defensible. However,
attempts at describing animal consciousness continue to be criticised
for lacking independent criteria that identify the presence or absence
of the phenomenon. Over one hundred years ago William James recognised
that mental traits are subject to the same evolutionary processes as are
physical characteristics and must therefore be represented in differing
levels of complexity throughout the animal kingdom.

Thank you! Darwin said the same thing about emotions in animals.
It's in this site someplace:

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/

but I stupidly neglected to mark it or grab a sample quote when I bumped
into it before, and since haven't been able to find it again. Goo even more
stupidly believes that animals aren't capable of feelings like anticipation
or pride. Of course the concept that animals can feel love is far beyond
his realm of contemplation. In this article Darwin described an example of
his dog becoming disappointed:
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
I formerly possessed a large dog, who, like every other dog,
was much pleased to go out walking. He showed his pleasure
by trotting gravely before me with high steps, head much
raised, moderately erected ears, and tail carried aloft but
not stiffly. Not far from my house a path branches off to
the right, leading to the hot-house, which I used often to
visit for a few moments, to look at my experimental plants.
This was always a great disappointment to the dog, as he did
not know whether I should continue my walk; and the
instantaneous and complete change of expression which came
over him as soon as my body swerved in the least towards the
path (and I sometimes tried this as an experiment) was
laughable. His look of dejection was known to every member
of the family, and was called his hot-house face. This
consisted in the head drooping much, the whole body sinking
a little and remaining motionless; the ears and tail falling
suddenly down, but the tail was by no means wagged. With the
falling of the ears and of his great chaps, the eyes became
much changed in appearance, and I fancied that they looked
less bright. His aspect was that of piteous, hopeless
dejection; and it was, as I have said, laughable, as the
cause was so slight.
[...]
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...pression02.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
but Goo amusingly believes Darwin was just projecting, and the
dog who clearly was displaying disappointment, was not really
disappointed:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza"
Date: 25 Jul 2005 11:02:56 -0700
Message-ID: . com

The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:13:29 GMT

Darwin, a sentimental person, was
projecting. He saw something that wasn't there. He
was, in a way, hallucinating.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
LOL.

Another amusing Goobal concept:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 03:07:09 GMT

Anticipation requires language.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
LOL.

James's proposals with regard to animal consciousness are outlined and
followed by a discussion of three classes of animal consciousness
derived from empirical research. These classes are presented to defend
both James's proposals and the position that a theory of animal
consciousness can be scientifically supported. It is argued that by
using particular behavioural expressions to index consciousness and by
providing empirical tests by which to elicit these behavioural
expressions a scientifically defensible theory of animal consciousness
can be developed.

Sounds good so far.