And that is what one conscious being can do for another.
We can acknowledge one another by validation or invalidation, by praise or criticism.
Consciousness is a two edged sword - it can cut either way.
And consciousness is also magical as I live in your consciousness and you live in mine. So we can do each other great good or great harm.
But as far as I know, homo sapiens is the only animal that lives inside consciousness.
This gives us an unbeatable advantage over all the other animals.
So it is probably fair to say that our shared consciousness makes us the largest animal on the planet.
So how we are conscious, and of what we are conscious, and how we use our shared consciousness, becomes the question.
First there was only inanimate matter.
Inanimate matter does not know of itself.
One day a set of molecules became aware of existence.
It was the first and the only thought.
The thought is division between inanimate and animate.
Inanimate division is separation.
Animate division is replication.
The fact is addition is already in the division, see.
Matter became animate the moment it became conscious of the fact.
Replication is the cause and the effect of thought.
Life is what is left. What does it mean?
It means to live is to dwell.
Manere, in Latin. Re-manere, to remain.
From Indo European root MAN, to remain.
MAN derives from MA. To think.
Consciousness does not question consciousness.
It does not share.
It is SAM.
Only by replication.
SAM is the one and the only thought.
Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.
I think this distinction is used to some extent already. I remember it being taken pretty much for granted when I was studying counselling at any rate, and I've seen it treated as such in the therapeutic literature many times. The etymology of the word suggests it too: "French émotion, from Old French, from esmovoir, to excite, from Vulgar Latin *exmov?re : Latin ex-, ex- + Latin mov?re, to move." Most people tend to use the words interchangably however - including me, I have to admit. But this, in any case, is not really new.
First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes core consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.
Humans have extended consciousness, which takes core consciousness to the level of self consciousness and the awareness of mortality.[/b]
It seems like a reasonable a priori assumption that animals have somebasic level of consciousnes and self awareness in order to function. What would be more interesting for me is whether and how far animals can be found to have the kind of extended consciousness that humans do - to what degree they are able to do things like envision the future, have a capacity for reflection, abstraction, decision making and logic, and percieve themselves as distinct entities in relation to their environment in addition to simply responding to stimuli and fulfilling needs.
I find some of the most interesting evidence in this respect to be the work that has been done with elephants in sanctuaries in recent years: where they have apparently learned to play music and paint genuine representative pictures *though there is a suspicion that in the latter case they are more influenced by their relationship with their handlers than truly producing representative art of their own accord - I'd very much like to see it looked into more, as it distinctly suggests a capacity for using and comprehending symbols akin to ours*. The chimpanzees that have learned to use sign language to communicate also intrigue me, though this somehow seems less surprising in our closest biological relatives.
I think there is a very good ethical question as to whether, if a human-like level of consciousness can be established in an animal species, they also deserve an enhanced standard of rights compared to other species *closer to or identical with the rights we accord ourselves*. But I don't suppose this will be settled to everyone's satisfaction unless we find a way to communicate with them at a deeper and more comprehensive level than is currently possible (if there is anything further to be communicated, that is). Humans who cannot make their voices heard in public rarely get what they want as things are...
Core consiousness is part of many if not most animals because it is necessary for mobility and survival. But it is at the point of large memory that makes it possible for the creation of abstract ideas and thus constant consciousness and thus the autobiographical self.