Dieser Beitrag präsentiert einige Betrachtungen über die Rolle des Bewusstseins als eines in der Natur privilegierten Zustands, der mit Implikationen für die Ethik behaftet ist. Besonders im modernen Diskurs über das Bewusstsein beim Menschen oder beim Tier nach Thomas Nagel oder Peter Singer stößt man auf Diskussionen über die Rolle des Bewusstseins als eines wichtigen irreduktiblen und „höheren” Phänomens, das in Bezug steht zur Autorität der ersten Person in der Epistemologie sowie zu speziellen Vorrechten in der Bioethik. Insbesondere tierisches Bewusstsein (...) wird oft als ein „niedrigerer” Zustand in der „Naturhierarchie” bewertet. In der Bioethik wurde Bewusstsein mit Eigenschaften wie zukünftige Entscheidungsfähigkeit, Subjektivität, Empfindungsvermögen oder Schmerzfähigkeit in Verbindung gebracht. Mehr noch: Diese Elemente dienten als Kriterien, um den außerordentlichen „moralischen Status” bestimmter Lebewesen zu bestätigen, so etwa den Status der als „höhere Wesen” geltenden+ Menschenaffen oder anderer „höherer”, mit einem Bewusstsein ausgestatteter Tiere im Sinne von „Lebenssubjekten” , oder auch den Status von Schmerz empfindenden Tieren . Andererseits streiten einige analytische Philosophen die Existenz eines „höheren” Bewusstseins bei Tieren aus verschiedenen theoretischen Gründen ab . Dennoch vertreten sowohl die Befürworter als auch die Gegner der These von der Existenz tierischen „Bewusstseins” die Ansicht, dass Wesen, die über ein Bewusstsein verfügen, in der Ethik mit Vorrechten ausgestattet seien. Vor diesem Hintergrund greifen moderne Ethiker und Philosophen, die sich mit der Frage des Bewusstseins bei Mensch und Tier beschäftigen, zurück auf das Konzept der „Naturhierarchie”, die in Termini „höher/niedriger” usw. zum Ausdruck kommt. Kurz gesagt, ist damit in hierarchischen Termini von den Beziehungen zwischen natürlichen Wesen wie Pflanzen, Tieren und Menschen die Rede . Dies impliziert zunächst folgende theoretische Frage: Was für epistemologische oder ontologische Gründe berechtigen, mit den Termini einer „Naturhierarchie” zu sprechen? Die zweite, praktischere Frage lautet: Wenn es möglich ist, in dieser Weise zu sprechen, ist dann auch die Ethik dazu berechtigt? Diese und ähnliche Fragen werden im Beitrag aus der Perspektive der modernen wie auch der kantischen Epistemologie erörtert. Im ersten Teil wird an den großen Einfluss zweier traditioneller metaphysischer Denkmuster erinnert – der Seelenlehre des Aristoteles und der cartesianischen Sichtweise des Menschen als einer Maschine, die ihren Niederschlag in der Naturphilosophie allgemein fanden und sich auch auf die moderne neurozentrische Philosophie der Vernunft auswirken. Der zweite Teil präsentiert bestimmte epistemologische und ontologische Probleme und die dazu existierenden Reflexionen. Im dritten Teil wird an einem Beispiel gezeigt, wie eine hierarchische Ordnung in die Praxis umgesetzt wird . Das ausschlaggebende Ergebnis ist die Einsicht, dass es äußerst schwierig ist, Bewusstsein als den Gipfel einer „natürliche Hierarchie” der Organismen zu rechtfertigen. (shrink)

This is a bibliography of books and articles on consciousness in philosophy, cognitive science, and neuroscience over the last 30 years. There are three main sections, devoted to monographs, edited collections of papers, and articles. The first two of these sections are each divided into three subsections containing books in each of the main areas of research. The third section is divided into 12 subsections, with 10 subject headings for philosophical articles along with two additional subsections for articles in cognitive (...) science and neuroscience. Of course the division is somewhat arbitrary, but I hope that it makes the bibliography easier to use. This bibliography has first been compiled by Thomas Metzinger and David Chalmers to appear in print in two philosophical anthologies on conscious experience . From 1995 onwards it has been continuously updated by Thomas Metzinger, and now is freely available as a PDF-, RTF-, or HTML-file. This bibliography mainly attempts to cover the Anglo-Saxon and German debates, in a non-annotated, fully formatted way that makes it easy to "cut and paste" from the original file. To a certain degree this bibliography also contains items in other languages than English and German - all submissions in other languages are welcome. Last update of current version: July 13th, 2001. (shrink)

In Part V of his Discourse on the Method, Descartes introduces a test for distinguishing people from machines that is similar to the one proposed much later by Alan Turing. The Cartesian test combines two distinct elements that Keith Gunderson has labeled the language test and the action test. Though traditional interpretation holds that the action test attempts to determine whether an agent is acting upon principles, I argue that the action test is best understood as a test of common (...) sense. I also maintain that this interpretation yields a stronger test than Turing's, and that contemporary artificial intelligence should consider using it as a guide for future research. (shrink)

This paper considers the question of whether there is a human-animal or ‘anthropological difference'. It starts with a historical introduction to the project of philosophical anthropology. Section 2 explains the philosophical quest for an anthropological difference. Sections 3-4 are methodological and explain how philosophical anthropology should be pursued in my view, namely as impure conceptual analysis. The following two sections discuss two fundamental objections to the very idea of such a difference, biological continuity and Darwinist anti-essentialism. Section 7 discusses various (...) possible responses to this second objection - potentiality, normality and typicality. It ends by abandoning the idea of an essence possessed by all and only individual human beings. Instead, anthropological differences are to be sought in the realm of capacities underlying specifically human societies. The final section argues that if there is such a thing as the anthropological difference, it is connected to language. But it favours a more modest line according to which there are several anthropological differences which jointly underlie the gap separating us from our animal cousins. (shrink)

Despite having been relegated to the realm of superstition during the dominant years of behaviorism, the investigation and discussion of consciousness has again become scientifically defensible. However, attempts at describing animal consciousness continue to be criticized for lacking independent criteria that identify the presence or absence of the phenomenon. William James recognized 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. James's (...) proposals with regard to animal consciousness are outlined and followed by a discussion of 3 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 behavioral expressions to index consciousness and by providing empirical tests by which to elicit these behavioral expressions, a scientifically defensible theory of animal consciousness can be developed. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

Descartes’s uncompromising rejection of the possibility of animal intelligence was among his most controversial theses. That rejection is based on (1) his commitment to the doctrine of animal automatism and (2) two tests that he takes to be sufficient indicators of thought (the action and language tests). Of these two tests, only the language test is truly definitive, and Descartes is firmly of the view that no animal could demonstrate the capacity to use signs to convey meaning in “all the (...) circumstances of life.” The topic is fascinating for forcing us to ponder what exactly reason is for Descartes and the role it plays in everyday life. This article explores the tensions in Descartes’s arguments produced by an over reliance on the analogy between animals and clocks, including the question of what to make of Descartes’s recognition of the need to posit representational and information-processing subsystems in the brain. (shrink)

Animals have moral standing; that is, they have properties (including the ability to feel pain) that qualify them for the protections of morality. It follows from this that humans have moral obligations toward animals, and because rights are logically correlative to obligations, animals have rights.

Tradicionalmente se le atribuye a Descartes la tesis del «animal-máquina». De acuerdo con ésta los animales carecen de capacidades cognitivas, emociones y, en general, de conciencia. Esta interpretación, que todavía sigue vigente, se apoya en los avances de la filosofía natural cartesiana, que rompió con la aristotélico-escolástica, de carácter cualitativo, proponiendo un modelo físico-matemático cuantitativo mucho más cercano al nuestro. Pero, la propuesta de Descartes en su vertiente fisiológica, que en el fondo supone una concepción del ser humano innovadora, dejaba (...) muchas cosas por fuera: como la vida, la salud, o los fines de la conducta. Sin embargo, tales elementos reaparecen en su tratamiento terapéutico y moral de las pasiones, al considerar al sujeto como unión primitiva de mente y cuerpo. Dicha solución cartesiana también puede alcanzar a los animales que, concluiremos, no necesariamente son frías y desapasionadas máquinas. (shrink)

Abstract Daniel Dennett advocates the use of the intentional stance in adaptationist biology and in cognitive ethology. He sees intentional system theory as closely related to decision theory and game theory. In biological decision and game theory models, nature ?chooses? the strategy by which the animal chooses a course of action. The design of the animal imposes constraints on the model. For Dennett, by contrast, the description of nature's rationale imposes constraints on the design of the animal. Dennett's oversimplified conception (...) of nature's rationale undermines the usefulness of the intentional stance as a tool in cognitive ethology. Intentional system theory can be made more useful in investigating animal cognition by modifying its application to questions of biological function. (shrink)

Brandom’s inferentialism offers, in many ways, a radically new approach to old issues in semantics and the theory of intentionality. But, in one respect at least, it clings tenaciously to the mainstream philosophical tradition of the middle years of the twentieth century. Against the theory’s natural tendencies, Brandom aligns it with the ’linguistic turn’ that philosophy took in the middle of the last century by insisting, in the face of considerable opposing evidence, that intentionality is the preserve of those who (...) can offer and ask for reasons and thus of language users alone. In this paper, I argue that there is no good reason for giving inferentialism a linguistic twist, and that, in doing so, Brandom is forced to make claims which are implausible in themselves and lead him, in the attempt to mitigate them, to a number of doubtful expedients. (shrink)

The paper presents some considerations concerning the role of consciousness as a privileged state in nature which has implications for ethics. Especially in the modern talk about consciousness of human beings or animals since Thomas Nagel or Peter Singer we find discussions about the role of consciousness as an important irreducible and ‘higher’ phenomenon connected with a first person authority in epistemology and with special privileges in bioethics. In particular animal consciousness is often considered as a ‘lower’ state in a (...) “natural hierarchy”. In bioethics consciousness has been combined with qualities like the ability for future options, subjectivity, sentience or pain and further more, these elements have been used as criteria to justify an extraordinary ‘moral status’ for instance in these of ‘higher’ beings like Great Apes or for ‘higher’ conscious animals as “subjects of life” or having pain . On the other hand some analytical philosophers deny any ‘higher’ consciousness with respect to animals because of different theoretical reasons . Nevertheless advocates and denyers of animal ‘consciousness’ both assume that the possession of consciousness justifies privileges in ethics. This is the background for modern ethicists and philosophers of human and animal mind to refer implicite or explicite to a concept of “natural hierarchy” expressed by terms of “higher/lower” etc. In short, they talk in hierarchical terms about relations between natural entities like plants, animals, and men . This implies at first a theoretical question: What kind of epistemological or ontological justifications do allow to speak in terms of a “natural hierarchy”? The second more practical question is: If it is possible to talk in this way, is it justified for ethics? These and similar questions are discussed in the following paper from the perspective of modern and a Kantian epistemology. The first part reminds the great influence of two traditional metaphysical thinking patterns – the Aristotelian anima-order and the Cartesian machina-order on natural philosophy in general and its influence on modern neurocentric philosophy of mind . The second part presents some epistemological and ontological problems and considerations in this field. The third part presents an example in modern ethics using an hierarchical order . The important main result is, that it is very difficult to justify consciousness at the top of a “natural hierarchy” of organisms. (shrink)

Five mental components of human intentionality are distinguished and related to different properties of mammalian orientation. It is proposed that, in the course of evolution, these old properties became integrated and thereby allowed for the development of a new quality: human orientation. The existence of more than 4,000 mammal species with their various forms and levels of mental organization, offering a panorama of different combinations of differently developed components of mentality, provide ample opportunities for comparative studies. The difficulties in assessing (...) specific types are outlined, drawing on over 40 years of observation. Based on this knowledge, an argument is made for the importance of staying in contact with the empirical objects and of considering their ontological status when rising the standards of precision of formal analysis. (shrink)

Neuroscience, together with a broadened concept of “mind” has instigated pragmatic and ethical concerns about the experience and treatment of pain. If pain medicine is to be authentic, it requires knowledge of the brain-mind, pain, and the relative and appropriate “goodness” of potential interventions that can and/or should be provided. This speaks to the need for an ethics that reflects and is relevant to the contemporary neuroscience of pain, acknowledgment and appreciation of the sentient being in pain, effects of environment (...) and value(s), and the nature of healing. It may be that neuroethics provides this viable meta-ethic for pain care. This essay describes how an integrative neuroethics of pain care allows, if not obligates, alignment of facts, values, and moral attitudes as a continuing process of re-investigation, analysis, and revision of what we know (and don’t know) about brains, minds, selves, and how we regard and treat the painient. (shrink)

This article examines the relations between methods used in both animal work and study and concepts of animal mind. By "animal work" the authors mean humans and animals working together, and by "animal study" they mean the discipline of ethology, especially the emerging area of cognitive ethology. Within these areas the wide range of conceptions of animal mind includes varying emphases on intelligence, forms of rationality and language, cognition, consciousness, and intentionality. The authors' central concern is to elucidate the vocabulary (...) and the concepts which seem necessary to establishing successful working relationships with sheepdogs and gundogs. Their argument moves toward an emphasis on the appreciation of particular intentional states and recognizes that they invariably deploy elements of a moral vocabulary in achieving creative teamwork performances with dogs and other animals. The article concludes by consid enng the relevance of accounts of work with animals for associated considerations of intentionality. (shrink)