Animals DO create societies. Animals Do use tools. Animals are self-aware. Animals are conscious.

One should not use one's own definitions of terms in communication or discussion. This confuses many.

There is no doubt humans are smarter, have vastly superior reasoning and got here first. However, humans are not fundamentally different than animals.

If you want to move to natural rights and the beginnings of law, that is a different matter entirely. I've made no assertions about using animals as livestock and denying them the level of rights as people. That is a wholly different matter.

Darwinian evolution is well established. Biblical Nephlim is not.

Ayn Rand did not question the validity of Darwin's theory. She simply said she did not know enough about it to evaluate it and did not write about it. She did not say that there is a "hybrid of pre-conscious human and non-conscious Nephilim". She described those in modern society who do not choose to develop and use their own capacity for rational thought with abstract concepts, the "anti-conceptual mentality".

Consciousness is not absent in dogs. Consciousness means awareness. It is a broader class than the faculty of reason, which is an advanced form of consciousness with conceptual awareness, which is what the lower animals do not have.

Superior smell and hearing of dogs is an inherited perceptual ability involving both sense organs and the nervous system, not conceptual, which is why they can be superior to humans in some ways without having the ability for conceptual reasoning.

But there are different levels of "reasoning", ranging from immediate, simple physical problem solving all the way to the highest level of abstract conceptual thought in science. Whether or not one is including elementary problem solving of dogs, there is a difference in emphasis in speaking of "reasoning" versus the human faculty of reason. Everyone engages in some kinds of reasoning with simple concepts (even though some often do not choose to even for immediate problem solving even at an elementary level), but many do not choose to use and do not develop their human capacity of reason in the sense of conceptual thought. The latter is what Ayn Rand discussed in "The Missing Link".

Disagree. Some systems are self-learning, and modify their own program. To assert they are algorithmic is false.

Not only that, but some systems can out reason many humans in many areas.

There is no doubt that humans are more capable at reasoning than computer systems. However, given one has been worked on for a few decades, and the other has been evolving for millions of years, the comparison is 1) unfair, and 2) will clearly yield closer results, as the last 20 years provides overwhelming evidence.

Humans are better, smarter and first (maybe). However, humans are fundamentally different.

No one said animals have the same level of self-awareness as humans. Nor did anyone assert all humans have a similar level of self-awareness. I'm sure there are a number of humans without a "conceptual" level of self-awareness.

Animals cannot conceptualize in order to invent, plan for the future, trade, discern purpose, etc., but some of them, such as intelligent dogs, do have a degree of problem solving ability at a low level, restricted to specific instances. That is a kind of "inventing" but not at the human conceptual level.

"Animals know they exist..."

That definition fits all life down to and including one-celled organisms. (More below)

"These rest of what you use for evidence is technical and societal advancement..."

The examples I cited were first conceptual in nature and then realized - including the creation of society itself. For example, in order to be able to trade or form societies, one must recognize 1) the state one is currently in 2) relative to where one wants to be and 3) that something possessed by someone else can facilitate progress toward where one wants to be. Yes, these do require mental capacity, but also reasoning faculties far beyond the instinctual. Animals do not create economies. They do not invent tools to help them move away from a lower state of being toward a higher. I consider that level of conceptualization to be the base requirement for "self-awareness" and/or "consciousness" because it is the point at which one then assumes natural rights and their corresponding responsibilities. To me, that's where the rubber meets the road, but your thoughts are welcome.

The prior species without a capacity to reason were not "us". We do have it and it is the essential characteristic distinguishing us from lower animals. The capacity to form abstract concepts and think logically in terms of them is not a degree of perceptual capacity and memory. Concepts are not percepts and do not amount to remembering more at the perceptual level.

The nature of concepts is described in Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. She described the "anti-conceptual mentality" of humans who largely do not learn to use their rational faculty for abstract concepts and characteristically do not think with them in the article "The Missing Link" that Roger Donway referred to. It is in Philosophy: Who Needs It.

Animal self awareness is not conceptual. Some higher animals, like dogs, perceive and are aware of themselves in contrast to what is around them, but they don't conceptualize it to use the concept in further thinking.

Human reason is not replicated in computers. They are programmed, not conscious with volition. They do not reason, they follow programmed algorithms.

Animals know they exist, are separate from animals and do not want to be hurt or die. They are clearly self-aware. They know "self".

Animals are conscious: "aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake". This is the opposite of unconscious, which animals and humans can both be. I think you had something else in mind.

These rest of what you use for evidence is technical and societal advancement, which is enabled by episodic memory and higher mental capacity. These are not distinctly uniquely magic things. They are just something we have more of...today, and we have used them to further separate ourselves.

How are you measuring consciousness and self-awareness in animals? Can animals be trained to perform certain tasks? Sure. But can they invent? Not to my knowledge. Can they build lasting structures? Farm? Plan and invest for the future? Trade amongst themselves? Maybe my bar is pretty high, but I set it high because to me consciousness and reason imply purpose and self-consideration for the long-term - something beyond merely sustaining life or fulfillment of immediate need.

I also disagree that AI's qualify - though if you could invent one which read womens' minds I could be persuaded otherwise. :) AI's are created to fulfill a specific purpose - they do not invent or discern purpose in and of themselves. No Isaac Asimov, Skynet, or "Person of Interest" (great TV show) level AI (yet) exists, though I will admit that if we do get to that point it will be a pivotal moment in history. When a computer can create its own value system - not merely act on someone else's at a faster rate than humans - then it will meet one of my criteria for consciousness, but not until then.

Clearly many animals are both conscious and self-aware.
Your hypothesis is supported in the very limited set of data we have, but not by a definitive scientific analysis (e.g. physics). AI's can reason. They can beat us in most games (apparently Go, is an exception).
I find it flawed to believe that what separates humans from animals is completely fundamental, yet we can replicate it in computers, today with relative ease.

The reason I ask is because the ability to reason is a binary condition - you either have it or you don't. If the assumption is that humans were once animals without reason, what flipped the "off" to "on" as it were? (The notion of the obelisk in "A Space Odyssey"). I would posit that mental capacity only affects the quality of reasoning - not the ability to reason itself. Case in point being that some animals show similar capacity to humans - or superior in certain areas like dogs and smell - but yet consciousness and reason remain absent.

I don't know the specifics of his assertion. I just think it evolved from necessity. Ancient human ancestors who 1) had superior mental capacity, and 2) episodic memory could learn and pass on knowledge, and this made them win out over others. Thus, we because mentally superior to other animals.
"Granted" is a huge leap, I have no information to base a belief in.

I mean at some point on a very large timescale, we were primates without the capacity to reason.

You and I have disagreed in the past about this (I think). I believe our ability to reason is just an increase in mental capacity and episodic memory over animals. This is unique now, but there is no reason to think another species can not evolve to have it as well, or that some animals dolphins/whales don't have it already, but have an easy enough life that they are driven to use it as we have.

So you agree with the Arthur C Clarke "2001: A Space Odyssey" notion that some event granted to man the capacity for reason?

What do you mean by "At some point we were in the same evolutionary class as other primates"? What class and who were "we" (before humans existed?)?

What do you mean by "reason is semi-special, but not completely unique"? The capacity for conceptual thought is a form of consciousness, but essentially different than perceptual and more primitive forms of awareness.

At some point we were in the same evolutionary class as other primates. We just moved to new challenges.

Reason is semi-special, but not completely unique. Just another evolutionary hurdle.

Cognitive ability is not objectively challenged. We can relatively arbitrarily increase our number, and take what we choose. There is no real challenge to the reproductive cycle today, or the last 50 years in first world economys.

If by not the "same evolutionary class" you mean after man evolved, yes, the rational faculty is an essential difference between man and the rest of the animal kingdom. Mankind still had challengers anyway since survival among wild beasts and in a wild environment was never guaranteed, but that has become largely overcome by the development of civilization. Especially in more modern times it has come from accumulated knowledge, not biological evolution, but it doesn't rule out that there ever was a biological evolution in man's consciousness after his first emergence. It's highly likely there was.

As for differences in cognitive ability from one individual to the next now, it appears that so many people not using the capacity they have is a bigger factor, related to but not the same as "own failure to reason is our greatest impediment."

The nature of biological evolution for mankind, cognitive capacity or otherwise, is different now because survival now depends on civilization, not breeding between individual survivors. "Designer babies" (metaphorically) through chosen use of advancing technology appears to be a potentially more dominant factor than the original mechanism of evolution.

It doesn't. Recognizing that is a major distinction between Darwinian evolution and its predecessors. The science of genes now shows the mechanism.

RE: "I notice that you still upvote yourself when you post."
This did not happen.

RE: "And that you downvoted me twice - from two different accounts."
This did not happen.

RE: "If I want to hear your interpretation, I'll ask you."
This is a public forum blarman. Anyone can respond to anyone. If you'd like to hold a semi-private conversation, you can of course post in the Producer's Lounge.

I notice that you still upvote yourself when you post. Classy. And that you downvoted me twice - from two different accounts. Flagged for the admin for outright dishonesty.

Seriously, I want to hear what CG has to say and hear it from him - not you. If I want to hear your interpretation, I'll ask you.

I would argue that we were never in the same evolutionary class as the common animal to begin with. Animals don't possess the capacity for Reason. Thus the only challengers we have are ourselves (barring alien intervention). Our own failure to Reason is our greatest impediment.

Also, knowledge doesn't pass from parent to child as a matter of heredity, but as a matter of education. Thus our capacity for using our rational faculties is limited to our education in large degree (we have to learn what to do). Add to that the disparity in cognitive ability from one person to the next and as a race, I question what type of cognitive evolution could take place - if it ever has.

But if those individuals simply did not choose to focus their consciousness, why would this choice against focusing be hereditary, and apply to a whole species?