To begin with, it is not at all clear that those form a valid dichotomy, as is evidenced by the debate over free will. If we have no free will, we too are automatons, but we still can assert that we are conscious. Can we be both? I'm pretty sure the jury is out on all of this.
Is a bed-ridden, non-communicative human patient non-conscious because they follow strict patterns? We frankly don't know, but it is widely regarded as unsafe to assume they are not. Are there philosophical zombies out there? It's unknown. Does the universe exist beyond our own perception? Again, sadly, no one can be completely sure.
So, your cat's behaviour might be on rails, but we know nothing of its true internal experience, let alone whether that experience meets any arbitrary bar we wish to claim is special or privileged, especially on the mere basis of it appearing to be similar to our own.
(apologies for making multiple edits here)
There is no reason to assume that intelligence and consciousness are strongly related. Why automaton can't be conscious. One may require another but I don't see why if one is more intelligent one has more consciousness. Or reflective etc.
> If we have no free will, we too are automatons,
In deepest philosophical sense free will not well defined or it's nonsensical statement. Albert Einstein said it well:
“Honestly, I cannot understand what people mean when they talk about the freedom of the human will. I have a feeling, for instance, that I will something or other; but what relation this has with freedom I cannot understand at all. I feel that I will to light my pipe and I do it; but how can I connect this up with the idea of freedom? What is behind the act of willing to light the pipe? Another act of willing? Schopenhauer once said: Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will (Man can do what he will but he cannot will what he wills).”
I thought you were suggesting that animals are not conscious, and saying that you believe so because they are not detectably intelligent, suggesting a direct correspondence between the two. Instead it seems like you and I more or less agree on the matter: no correlation, and even an automaton could be conscious.
Thanks also for the interesting Einstein quote. I don't agree that free will is nonsensical to such a degree that it cannot be discussed, but I do agree it is not well defined.
I hoped to sidestep the vagueness of free will by discussing it in the meta sense of 'what broad philosophical consensus is held about it', i.e. that there is rather little to say for certain, but even what most people hold to be true doesn't seem to rule out the idea of an automaton being conscious.
And so people downvote.
[a lot of citations needed]
Yes, some invertebrates have been found to execute fairly rigidly preprogrammed behavior patterns, and some reptiles as well, IIRC. But others seem to be capable of much more adaptive behaviors. And mammals? Exactly what evidence do we have that cats and dogs and horses and elephants are just mindless automata? To make such a claim certainly requires extraordinary evidence.
I think dogs are a bit smarter, but my aunt's dog checks behind the TV every single time there's an animal on screen.
No, but I will close the bathroom door when I shit, even in an empty house. I imagine that's almost the same instinct.
As humans we tend to hold other animals only to our own standards, even if we often wouldn't score that well by theirs.
Examples? I'm really interested for finding at least one example of complex intelligent behavior of insects (that is actually studied and not just conjecture).
Now it's your turn. You've made a lot of assertions here, and substantiated none of them. Would you like to do so, or are you instead comfortable being regarded as no more closely abreast of the current state of the field than Fabre was when he published on spider wasps, a century and a half ago?
I think the bar is much lower, and intelligence is simply a measure of ability to learn. And from that perspective, a simple automaton does not learn. But insects DO learn.
http://www.womanaroundtown.com/contributed/the-worlds-smarte...
Complex communication via dances about food sources. Learned attacks against murder hornets to defend the hive.
Probably what I would look at first.
Who says we do any different?
Also there's a huge difference between proving something scientifically, and 'knowing' something. It is a hugely useful distinction, but science operates in it's own domain.
To insist that only scientific knowledge is true knowledge is a form of solipsism.
Scientifically, even if we met face to face, you couldn't 'prove' that I am intelligent, or conscious. It's just a bias that we consider ourselves to be these things and not other animals.
Experiments. You are taking this too philosophically.
>To insist that only scientific knowledge is true knowledge is a form of solipsism.
I don't insist. It's just that there has not been demonstrated any other form of knowledge that could be accepted as evidence that things are different.
> you couldn't 'prove' that I am intelligent, or conscious.
Proving is *never* natural science. Science never proves outside "formal sciences" like mathematics. Science can only show that hypothesis is wrong conditionally. In science you can only say you have evidence supporting hypothesis and evidence falsifying it.
For instance even ants have been seen to pass the mirror test. http://www.journalofscience.net/showpdf/MjY4a2FsYWkxNDc4NTIz...
Source? Plus how does the amount of time spent studying something matter? What if they're studying the wrong things or making faulty assumptions? Scientist spent an enormous amount of time studying humorism and blood-letting even as recent as 150 years ago..
With the exception of octopi, primates, birds and cetaceans, animals that do extremely intelligent actions turn out to be automatons.
Usually when observing and experimenting animals closely, especially insects, they are just state machines. Very complex sequences are often executed from start to finish blindly. You can reveal how ants, bees or flies are automatons by making little changes to their environment. They do the sequence from start to finish. If you interrupt them, they can't start from where they ended. They start the sequence from the start.