"所有动物都有意识改变意识科学中的零假设

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q1 LINGUISTICS Mind & Language Pub Date : 2024-01-04 DOI:10.1111/mila.12498
Kristin Andrews
{"title":"\"所有动物都有意识改变意识科学中的零假设","authors":"Kristin Andrews","doi":"10.1111/mila.12498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The marker approach is taken as best practice for answering the <i>distribution question</i>: Which animals are conscious? However, the methodology can be used to increase confidence in animals many presume to be unconscious, including <i>C. elegans</i>, leading to a trilemma: accept the worms as conscious; reject the specific markers; or reject the marker methodology for answering the distribution question. I defend the third option and argue that answering the distribution question requires a secure theory of consciousness. Accepting the hypothesis <i>all animals are conscious</i> will promote research leading to secure theory, which is needed to create reliable consciousness tests for animals and AIs. Rather than asking the distribution question, we should shift to the <i>dimensions question</i>: How are animals conscious?","PeriodicalId":51472,"journal":{"name":"Mind & Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“All animals are conscious”: Shifting the null hypothesis in consciousness science\",\"authors\":\"Kristin Andrews\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/mila.12498\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The marker approach is taken as best practice for answering the <i>distribution question</i>: Which animals are conscious? However, the methodology can be used to increase confidence in animals many presume to be unconscious, including <i>C. elegans</i>, leading to a trilemma: accept the worms as conscious; reject the specific markers; or reject the marker methodology for answering the distribution question. I defend the third option and argue that answering the distribution question requires a secure theory of consciousness. Accepting the hypothesis <i>all animals are conscious</i> will promote research leading to secure theory, which is needed to create reliable consciousness tests for animals and AIs. Rather than asking the distribution question, we should shift to the <i>dimensions question</i>: How are animals conscious?\",\"PeriodicalId\":51472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mind & Language\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mind & Language\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12498\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mind & Language","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12498","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

标记法是回答分配问题的最佳方法:哪些动物有意识?然而,这种方法可以用来提高许多人认为是无意识动物(包括秀丽隐杆线虫)的可信度,这就导致了一个三难选择:接受蠕虫是有意识的;拒绝特定标记;或者拒绝用标记法来回答分布问题。我为第三种选择辩护,并认为回答分布问题需要一个可靠的意识理论。接受所有动物都有意识的假设将促进安全理论的研究,而这正是为动物和人工智能创建可靠的意识测试所需要的。与其问分布问题,我们不如转向维度问题:动物是如何有意识的?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“All animals are conscious”: Shifting the null hypothesis in consciousness science
The marker approach is taken as best practice for answering the distribution question: Which animals are conscious? However, the methodology can be used to increase confidence in animals many presume to be unconscious, including C. elegans, leading to a trilemma: accept the worms as conscious; reject the specific markers; or reject the marker methodology for answering the distribution question. I defend the third option and argue that answering the distribution question requires a secure theory of consciousness. Accepting the hypothesis all animals are conscious will promote research leading to secure theory, which is needed to create reliable consciousness tests for animals and AIs. Rather than asking the distribution question, we should shift to the dimensions question: How are animals conscious?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Mind & Language
Mind & Language Multiple-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊最新文献
Vigilance and mind wandering Self‐location in perceptual experience: A top‐down account Emotion descriptions and musical expressiveness In defense of language‐independent flexibility, or: What rodents and humans can do without language Craving for drugs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1