WRESTING consciousness from the lords of scientific reductionism, where it had languished for decades, would take an imaginative and fearless investigator.
Among such, however, would not be counted René Descartes, the dubiously anointed “Father of Modern Philosophy.”
Descartes held that non-human animals could be reductively explained as mere automatons.
This is not a concept that would be endorsed by animal protectors, environmentalists, or Theosophists—who recognize that conscious awareness is present in all kingdoms of nature, not just humans.
The possessors of abiding consciousness includes, Theosophy insists, such ubiquitous entities as atoms, minerals and bacteria.
Please note, this post has been updated and republished at:
If we had no language what would thinking be? What would we record in our minds? I am, what? How about I am nothing, I am no one thing. Thinking is the precursor of action/ an event. Thinking is the active expression of consciousness interpreted by our energy field.
Maybe? I’m thinking, Simon.
Perception is the veil that keeps us from the truth. The truth is almost impossible to ponder without the veil.
I’ll need to read this again when I have more time. Simon.
Peter Russell on Consciousness was excellent. “Be Kind.” And the beautiful circles — what a lesson in harmony.
About Descartes. He held that all animals except humans are mere stimulus-response mechanisms without consciousness. Based on his mind-body dualism, some biologists have defended the painful vivisection of monkeys, dogs, cats, rabits, mice, and other species. They compared the howls and cries of mutilated dogs to the squeaks of an unlubricated machine. When they operated on live dogs without using an anesthetic, they did not equate the dogs’ agonizing cries with pain. Fortunately much of that thinking has changed. One need only watch their own dog step on a burr and immediately hold its leg up for the owner to remove the object that is giving them pain to know that animals are sensitive. As Jeremy Bentham said, “The question is not can animals reason, but can they suffer?” The answer is, “Yes.” And, my own dogs use practical reason more frequently than not. Sometimes I believe they know me better than I do.
Descartes did try to define a thinker. He asked, “What is a thing that thinks?” He deduced that a thinker “is a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses and that also imagines and feels.” But you are correct — Did he really define thought?