Prominent Scientists Sign Declaration that Animals have Conscious Awareness

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky201208251

by bra-ket • 13 years ago

122 169 13 years ago

ekianjo3• 13 years ago

Old. July 2012...

EDIT: to clarify, the title is very confusing because it makes you think they just signed it. It should be completed by a "2012" in the end. That's why I was disappointed when following the link. Nothing new.

gwgarry3• 13 years ago

I guess it is no longer relevant.

ekianjo3• 13 years ago

No, it is, but I am just wondering why it pops up here in a sudden while there's no specific news attached to it.

cdooh• 13 years ago

Does this mean they know right from wrong? The article isn't very clear on what conscious awareness means.

cpa• 13 years ago

How does consciousness imply morality?

codezero2• 13 years ago

Not that correlation implies causation, but as of yet, consciousness is only considered in creatures which also recognize morality.

mseebach6• 13 years ago

That is of course a big philosophical question. But in lieu of diving into that, because Wikipedia says so:

Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms (principles and rules). In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human commits actions that go against his/her moral values and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when actions conform to such norms.[1] The extent to which conscience informs moral judgment before an action and whether such moral judgments are or should be based in reason has occasioned debate through much of the history of Western philosophy.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience

gwgarry3• 13 years ago

Most humans don't know the answer to this question all of the time.

uh_oh• 13 years ago

A computer can easily know right from wrong to the degree most humans are capable of (and too often they aren't very sophisticated at that) even today. But it's safe to assume that that ARM processor has no conscious awareness. Conscious awareness is simply the feeling of observing things, a feeling we assume the machines we've built do not have, for example.

cristianpascu2• 13 years ago

Only if you program into the computer what is wrong and what is right.

stephengillie3• 13 years ago

Right and wrong are subjective to humans.

aet2• 13 years ago

That being said, some people argue that there exist "objective moral values"

scotty7912• 13 years ago

They stem from evolution of social animals. Monkeys know right from wrong. They know when they've been taken advantage of.

mseebach6• 13 years ago

That's nice.

But too many people can't tell the difference between supporting an idea and publishing a repeatable experiment to test a falsifiable hypothesis in a peer reviewed journal.

regal• 13 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

mseebach6• 13 years ago

Well, then, what's the point of signing a declaration 40 years later?

RivieraKid6• 13 years ago

It should be possible with current technology to create a robot, that would react positively to mirror test.

Zigurd6• 13 years ago

Why is "self concept" equated to consciousness? When a split-brain patient's self-reported notion of "self" makes up a story to cover for not knowing why they performed some action, what part of their mind actually made the decision to act?

aptwebapps• 13 years ago

The difference is that the second is science and the first is every thing else. They are signing it to give the idea greater credence outside of their community, not within it. Obviously they hope to influence the world at large.

stiff7• 13 years ago

What has this to do with anything? They issued the declaration to put to attention conclusions exactly from "repeatable experiments testing falsifiable hypothesis in a peer reviewed journal".

weavie• 13 years ago

So no turning cockroaches into cybernetic devices you can control with your iPhone then?

agravier• 13 years ago

No, but spraying them with neurotoxins is fair game.

Nux• 13 years ago

The day we stop hurting other creatures is likely to be the day we stop hurting each other; wondering whether this day will ever come.

cristianpascu2• 13 years ago

It will not. "Hurting" is such a meaningless word nowadays.

lifeisstillgood4• 13 years ago

The day we stop kidnapping, murdering and eating animals will be the day we stop kidnapping and murdering each other?

I honestly don't think the "animals have conscious thought" is the most effective way to change agriculture, but I will struggle to deny that gorilla whose eyes I looked into at Aspinalls was not looking back at me with the same understanding and knowledge.

Yes they are as conscious and thoughtful as humans, but humans are as unthinking and hard-wired as animals

bencollier49• 13 years ago

That is actually the best summary of the current state of consciousness research that I've ever read.

That said, they don't talk much about whether they can prove degrees of conscious awareness. There may be homologous structures, but are they as large as in humans? If they're not, then perhaps you'd expect the animal to have a comparable and yet less-detailed experience.

frobbin• 13 years ago

Agree with them that it is very likely that animals have conscious experience, I believe it to most likely be the case as well.

But it seems irresponsible, and possibly self-serving for the NCC research crowd, to escalate this evidence to the level of proof on consciousness in animals. There is just no way to know what it is like to be any creature other than yourself. It seems reasonable to assume other humans with the same anatomy and physiology, with whom we can communicate extensively, are also likely conscious. But we just can't ever tell what the experience is like to be any other creature.

Signing a such a statement smacks of an attempt at bullying policy with scientific credentials. This is bad because then in other areas, such as global warming, it gives opponents with ulterior motives fodder for claiming scientists shouldn't be trusted since they are prone to the same irrational belief systems as other people.

It would be better to present their story for mainstream consumption with an attitude of Isn't this a compelling story? Maybe even educate people and attract people to the field of neuroscience in the process. But claiming they've figured it out and we all need to get on board will only have negative repercussions.

RivieraKid6• 13 years ago

Well, that's interesting, because there's no good scientific definition of consciousness.

stiff7• 13 years ago

There is no philosophical definition of consciousness, but there is none of gravity either, in the sense of "what gravity really is". Science doesn't examine what things "really are", but tries to make useful predictions and the definitions employed are only means to this end. In fact there are operational definitions of consciousness and I think they certainly deserve to be called "scientific", see for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Neural_correlate...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Defining_conscio...

ciex• 13 years ago

No they are not. Omitting qualia disqualifies almost all existing models of consciousness. One of the only ones I know that attempt an explanation of this phenomenon may be Tononi's IIT [1], but it is of course criticised for being too broad a definition.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Information_Theory

smosher5• 13 years ago

The problem is without any philosophical backup the neural correlate is entirely uncompelling—it's merely a clinical definition of a measure of... nothing meaningful. One that can be just as easily applied to a recording device, modulo the explicit mention of neurons.

It gets worse. When you look at it closely there's no useful reason to restrict any of these measures with arbitrary criteria to the things we consider candidates for consciousness, other than to reaffirm our prejudices.

In other words, there's no such thing as a good scientific definition without the philosophical context. You can have as accurate an arbitrary measure as you like, but that doesn't imbue it equally arbitrarily with your desired meaning.

RivieraKid6• 13 years ago

There's no definition of consciousness that is 1) not subjective (= is scientific) 2) matches our intuitive understanding of consciousness 3) doesn't contain logical inconsistencies or circular reasoning.

And there are good argumnts suggesting that there'll never be such definition (summary: consciousness is inherently subjective).

pessimizer• 13 years ago

There aren't any scientific definitions of consciousness that don't derive completely from the empirical study of people who have been declared conscious (philosophically.)

contingencies• 13 years ago

What is the meaning of human life, or, for that matter, of the life of any creature? To know an answer to this question means to be religious.

You ask: Does it make any sense, then, to pose this question?

I answer: The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unhappy but hardly fit for life.

- Einstein (as quoted in Mein Weltbild, Amsterdam: Querido Verlag, 1934)

sneak• 13 years ago

Prominent Humans Sign Declaration that They're Still Tasty

ggreer• 13 years ago

If I had to wager money on what future societies would condemn us for, I'd bet a lot on our treatment of animals.

Even if other highly-encephalized animals aren't conscious, they are still open to a wide range of experiences that we can empathize with. They can learn and play. They feel hunger and pain. Some species can even form friendships and mourn the passing of their kin.

Despite all indications that our treatment of these creatures is reprehensible, cultural inertia and the tastiness of meat are enough to prevent us from changing our behavior. To treat even 1% of humans the way we treat animals would be to perpetuate the greatest war crime in history. But do the same thing to some funny-looking microencephalitic relatives of humans and hardly anyone bats an eye.

tehwalrus2• 13 years ago

Plenty of us commit hideous crimes on humans, too (North Korea, I'm looking at you,) so it may not be their only criticism of us.

I do agree though, and this is why I've been a vegetarian for 10 years now.

loceng3• 13 years ago

What about the U.S.? Just because people are disconnected from the actions of their military doesn't mean they're not responsible

sethbannon• 13 years ago

Couldn't agree with you more. Upwards of 60 billion animals are slaughtered for human consumption each year[1]. The scale of it is mind-boggling. We just recently agreed on vegetarian team lunches at my startup to do our small part.

[1] according to http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Rights-Current-Debates-Directio...

diminoten• 13 years ago

There is almost nothing that could happen which would make me feel poorly for eating cows, chickens, pigs, and fish.

The assumption here is that simply because a being is conscious, it is therefore special. Let's take away that assumption, and then work forwards. Of what significance is consciousness?

bornhuetter2• 13 years ago

I'm not sure that we necessarily need to become vegetarians in order to condemn the poor treatment of animals. It's perfectly possible (albeit more expensive) to raise and kill animals in a humane manner.

Personally I have no problem with humans eating meat, in my view it's part of our nature, but I do have a problem with raising them in battery farms and people kicking their pets etc.

vacri6• 13 years ago

That actually sounds like a low figure to me - there are 7 billion people, so on average only 10 animals per person? Sure, cows are big, but fowl aren't.

But 'slaughtering' misses the point. Nature is constant slaughter. Despite what we think of nature as being a cuddly, friendly thing, the animals in nature are locked in a literally deadly battle. The reasons why herbivores generally startle so easily is because if they don't, they die, and die horribly. We think it's cute, but it's literally there to keep them alive.

The issue isn't 'slaughtering' as far as I can see - since that is an exceptionally natural state for an animal - it's how the animals are treated up until they're slaughtered.

Not to mention that if we're talking about sheer numbers of organisms, the ones that are slaughtered for actual consumptions are a drop in the ocean compared to all the animals that are slaughtered in farming. Mice plague? Hell, just normal mice, no plague? You rarely hear the vegetarian protestors complaining about the huge numbers of rodents killed in farming. It increases in magnitude as you go down, too (snails etc, and increase again for insects). I think it's funny that above we have a complaint about 'not eating the cute rabbit', yet no-one champions the rights of vermin, despite them dying in far greater numbers. Generally no-one cares about them, because they die 'over there' and don't end up in line of sight.

So yeah, treat meat animals humanely, that's a tenable goal, but 'stop the slaughter'? It requires wilfully turning a blind eye.

Swizec2• 13 years ago

There's another part to this story. We have brought animals back from the brink of extinction purely because someone realised they were really tasty. A lot of our domestic animals, in particular, wouldn't even be able to survive without us ... but they're tasty, so we make them live, breed them in large numbers, feed them, etc.

Isn't that what biologists call symbiosis?

Carwajalca3• 13 years ago

Wolves do fairly well without humans, bees as well. Which animals did we bring back from the brink of extinction? I'll admit that new subspecies have emerged thanks to humans, but we hardly need to keep e.g. 1.3 billion cows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Population) just to save the species from extinction.

macca321• 13 years ago

I think I'd rather be extinct than be a battery hen.

kryten6• 13 years ago

Spot on.

This is typical human hypocrisy at work.

The worst thing I find is the "I'll eat a sausage but I couldn't possibly eat a cute bunny wabbit". The sausage in its natural form is capable of being a valuable and loyal human companion.

I haven't eaten meat since I was at university in the distant past after I got addicted to a combination of ramen noodles, mushrooms and home made pepper sauce. The ethical dilemma made it hard to go back to eating meat so I didn't bother.

Regarding tastiness, Indian vegetarian food (particular aloo, gobi is far tastier than anything with meat in and you can grow ALL the ingredients yourself if you want without having to shovel a single turd.

burntsushi• 13 years ago

If your problem is with hypocrisy, then there are two solutions. One is the path you took, to be a vegetarian, and the other is to simply not have a problem with eating a cute bunny wabbit.

Regarding tastiness, Indian vegetarian food (particular aloo, gobi is far tastier than anything with meat in and you can grow ALL the ingredients yourself if you want without having to shovel a single turd.

In your opinion.

vacri6• 13 years ago

There is plenty of perfectly nutritious vegetable matter that humans won't eat - it's a false equivalence you're making.

tbrownaw2• 13 years ago

This is typical human hypocrisy at work.

The worst thing I find is the "I'll eat a sausage but I couldn't possibly eat a cute bunny wabbit". The sausage in its natural form is capable of being a valuable and loyal human companion.

"Those who like sausage and respect the law should inquire into the making of neither."

Little kids are cute and cuddly, so killing (and eating) anything cute and cuddly ought to be at least somewhat distasteful. If you recognize that logically this association doesn't make sense, you can either desensitize yourself or take advantage of your natural tendency to "out of sight, out of mind" and deliberately not think about what that venison steak looked like before it was a steak.

edanm• 13 years ago

'If I had to wager money on what future societies would condemn us for, I'd bet a lot on our treatment of animals.'

This. Times a thousand.

Paul Graham's article "Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas" has this quote, which I love:

"One of my tricks for generating startup ideas is to imagine the ways in which we'll seem backward to future generations. And I'm pretty sure that to people 50 or 100 years in the future, it will seem barbaric that people in our era waited till they had symptoms to be diagnosed with conditions like heart disease and cancer."

When I look to the future and imagine what will seem backwards, two of the big things in my mind are what PG mentions and what you mention.

hosh• 13 years ago

If future societies are condemning our behavior now, then we would not have progressed that far.

This isn't about kindness and cruelty, this is about awareness. As long as we perceive other living beings as The Other, we're not truly aware -- we can't empathize, we can't be compassionate, we can't be a complete human being. Condemning people for barbarism is a subtler form of separation, of saying "those people are not us." But they are, just as we're growing as a species and society to be aware of non-human awareness.

vacri6• 13 years ago

To treat even 1% of humans the way we treat animals would be to perpetuate the greatest war crime in history.

If you want to start treating animals with the same sanctity as humans, you need to watch out. Countries that use the death penalty should be executing all the carnivores for mass murder.

And what does "the way we treat animals" mean anyway? Plenty of pets are doted on and loved to bits. Plenty of wild animals are left alone, ignored, or even unknown. Plenty of animals are treated inhumanely. Overgeneralisations are an enemy to progress.

Blahah• 13 years ago

I don't find this argument compelling. Why is 'consciousness', or the ability to suffer or feel pain in a way comparable to us, important?

I don't eat or kill other humans, not just because I know they would dislike it, but because if we didn't all generally keep to that rule of not doing so, I run a higher risk of being eaten or killed myself. It's a behavioural contract, not some innate universal rule that suffering is bad.

For me, the question of what to eat is solely one of sustainability. Under that line of reasoning, veganism is better than vegetarianism which is approximately equivalent to eating no red meat, which are both better than eating red meat. How sentient the animal is doesn't factor into the decision.

scotty7912• 13 years ago

Come on! We just recently sort of came to agree that watching people getting tortured is not the best kind of fun. Give us few centuries to manufacture something tastier.

stephengillie3• 13 years ago

There's nothing sacred about machine learning, machine vision & feedback loops, assembled into robots. This is what we are.

scotty7912• 13 years ago

Sacred, no, but still worth recognition and respect proportional to complexity.

stiff7• 13 years ago

Machine learning might be a useful model of what happens in the brain but just like the map isn't the territory this doesn't make us robots, what would that even mean? Everything aside, biological systems are completely different than everything we have ever built and so far it seems current machine learning techniques not necessarily have to have much to do with what happens in the brain.

michaelgrafl2• 13 years ago

No, that's a crass abstraction of what we are.

To a philistine the Mona Lisa is nothing but a bunch of pigments applied to a surface. That's what makes him a philistine, after all.

kryten6• 13 years ago

It's an apt description of what we are.

Only we think we are more.

Perhaps we're not and the thought is just part of that feedback loop.

Art, wine, music, maths. It's all just more inputs...

RivieraKid6• 13 years ago

No, machines cannot feel pain.

leoedin3• 13 years ago

Pain is a feedback sensor which indicates that something's gone wrong. You could build a machine with pressure sensitive grippers. You could even place a threshold on that, above which the machine reacted by moving in the opposite direction. Biological pain is just a complicated version of that. Pain is just our minds interpretation of damage signals.

At what point do you draw the line. "This machine doesn't feel pain, it just responds to damage signals." could apply to a simple robot or a cockroach. At some point, biological computers become complicated enough that we deem pain to have arrived, but that point is fairly arbitrary. Why aren't we just biological machines?

scotty7912• 13 years ago

How could you have dreams without consciousness? Every cat or dog owner knows that animals obviously dream.

gnoway3• 13 years ago

This is great news. Now that we've proven the animals are conscious, we can put more resources into communicating and reasoning with them, and convince them to stop maiming, killing and eating each other. Peace on Earth, maybe within our lifetimes!

Edit: </sarcasm>

i_cannot_hack• 13 years ago

Are you equating consciousness with rationality and intelligence?

mtowle2• 13 years ago

Literally nobody has ever done that. Try understanding his comment a different way. Like, say, that the human protections against violence preclude humans who chose to act violently, ergo if we extend that protection to animals, many of them would lose that protection as soon as it was extended to them.

ErsatzVerkehr• 13 years ago

There's a big difference between a declaration and a proof.

scotty7912• 13 years ago

You can communicate with humans. Can you convince them to stop killing each other?

Why do you connect consciousness and not killing? Not killing all humans is fairly new concept for us and we always knew they were conscious.

scotty7912• 13 years ago

I think we are fairly close to achieving consciousness in silicon (graphene or whatever). We will improve algorithms, increase computing power and achieve system of consciousness of a mouse, then just by tossing in more computing power and optimizing speed of algorithms one of consciousness of a dog, then monkey, then human and then we'll be surprised that when we toss in even more computing power we'll get even more conscious system because there's no reason to believe that evolution that gave us consciousness we recognize is capped in any way by some objective limit. It's more likely that our level of consciousness is just accidental value nowhere near theoretical upper limits.

alokm4• 13 years ago

Consciousness is not solely a matter of computation. Even if we are able to simulate the brains of lesser beings, doesnt necessarily mean that there will be self awareness in the simulation. I think this is one area where we still have a lot of catching up to do.

Zigurd6• 13 years ago

What process takes place in your cranium that does not take place in a petri dish containing some of your brain cells?

brotchie2• 13 years ago

12 months ago I would have strongly disagreed with your first sentence, but after a load of reading on Physics, Philosophy, and Neuroscience, my views have changed.

I am still unable to reconcile my "internal" conscious experience with our current understanding of Physics. I'm a materialist, however I'm trending towards the believe that consciousness is an emergent physical property of massively interconnected systems; that is, our "internal" conscious experience is part of the "fabric of reality" and simply comes into being once matter is of a certain level of interconnectedness.

In essence, all matter has some degree of internal conscious experience. However, only groupings of matter that have massive interconnectedness (i.e. animal brains) experience what we would typically describe as consciousness. Perhaps, at a global scale, the internet is weakly "conscious". Perhaps, once we forge ahead with bio-mimetic arrays of neural networks, we'll start to induce artificial conscious experience in "dumb" matter.

Christof Koch has an excellent book "Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist" along these lines.

stiff7• 13 years ago

Just to put such claims in perspective, people are currently struggling a lot to build reasonably accurate models of single neurons. We are at least decades away from simulations of any value even of rats. People who claim otherwise are the ones that haven't seen any actual biology...

gems• 13 years ago

"Consciousness is not solely a matter of computation."

How do you know that?

cscurmudgeon5• 13 years ago

It is not as simple as that. We don't really know what consciousness is. We know its correlates but not how brains seem to cause consciousness.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#5

At this stage of our knowledge saying "computation X will be conscious" is just a statement of belief or a simple definition as there is no consciouness-meter that I can use to test it. Such statements are unfalsifiable.

scotty7912• 13 years ago

It seems that conciousness is just eventual function of any adaptive system that's complex and poweful enough.

Research mentiones that organisms as diverse as birds, mammals and mollusks advanced enough show some consciuosness. Mollusks are so different from us that they have evolved their own eyes from scratch, completely different from ours apart from functional elements.

phil_s_stein• 13 years ago

Hello and welcome to AI research in 1960!

scotty7912• 13 years ago

Deep learning wouldn't fly on vacuum tubes.

stiff7• 13 years ago

I think we are fairly close to achieving consciousness in silicon.

It would be nice if you presented at least one reason for believing this.

kryten6• 13 years ago

Ray Kurzweil said so!

That was sarcastic for reference - I think the guy is a crackpot.

IanDrake4• 13 years ago

When these "scientists" can get lions to stop eating gazelles, I'll stop eating cows, chickens, and fish.

That being said, I am concerned about how animals are treated during their lifetime.

mrspeaker• 13 years ago

Yeah, stupid "scientists". That's why I refuse to poop in a toilet, and won't use antibiotics: 'cause the gazelles aren't doing it.

IanDrake4• 13 years ago

I get what you're saying we're more advanced than animals.

That's why we domesticated our prey, which is what everyone seems to be complaining about now.

dharmach• 13 years ago

When consuming resources and producing pollution, you do not remember this comparison. Besides, animals kill to eat, not to sell.

vacri6• 13 years ago

If it's the selling that's bad, isn't the same true of plant matter? Most of us also outsource obtaining vegetable matter in the same way.

IanDrake4• 13 years ago

Besides, animals kill to eat, not to sell.

I don't understand. Ultimately it ends up in someone's stomach and provides sustenance. How is it any different?

tladendo2• 13 years ago

At present, ethically-raised animal meat is not practical on a mass scale.

Also, this is a ridiculous justification for meat eating, since lions cannot reason about morality.

sageikosa2• 13 years ago

Only the slaughter needs to be ethically managed; no excessive, prolonged nor unnecessary pain. Animal cruelty is usually an indicator of sociopathy, and its presentation in other humans is likely a danger signal to the rest of us; as the person probably lacks, or has low, empathy.

If both lions and gazelles have conscious awareness, and we do not condemn the lion for eating a fellow conscious awareness holder, then why should we hold ourselves to higher standards? If we believe that the taking of any conscious life is wrong, then we should see that the lion is wrong, and punish him. Lion prison anyone?

IanDrake4• 13 years ago

Also, this is a ridiculous justification for meat eating, since lions cannot reason about morality.

I'm unclear what level of moral justification is needed. I want to survive. There are weaker animals for me to eat. My gut can process their meat. My teeth can rip their flesh.

I guess I haven't transcended nature and evolution the way vegetarians have.

blueprint3• 13 years ago

Consequently, say the signatories, the scientific evidence is increasingly indicating that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness.

That's because neurological substrates don't generate consciousness. There is no evidence to the effect that they do. However, when we understand the structure of the system of consciousness it's very easy to see how consciousness is generated and maintained.

The role of all neural systems is

1. to transmit to the consciousness what the body sees, hears, learns, etc., and

2. to express what is in consciousness through the body.

jessedhillon• 13 years ago

blueprint3• 13 years ago

Factual authority does not derive from socially validated papers. The law of nature and all the facts exist in nature itself. The problem is that if you don't try to confirm my words through 'what is' you can not recognize the evidence in front of you.

fatjokes• 13 years ago

Do they recommend a sauce for conscious awareness?

nickmain• 13 years ago

This recent HN comment about Julian Jaynes's The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind is worth following up on:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5866404

As I understand it the theory posits that consciousness is only a very recent development in humans.

How can we ascribe consciousness to any other form of life when we do not even understand what it means for ourselves ?

blueprint3• 13 years ago

Well put.

However, please note that there have been a few individuals in human history who did have complete understanding of consciousness. The story of this world is that nobody wanted to learn from those people when they were alive.

The reasons that modern scientists do not understand consciousness is that

1. they do not apply a specific principle to their research (In math, when we want to solve a question, we apply the equality to operate the question.) and because

2. their research only investigates half of the set of existent relevant phenomena - that which can be seen with the naked eye.

Once a human recognizes the simple law that governs natural phenomena it is simple to recognize what consciousness is.

sageikosa2• 13 years ago

I am fairly certain that a large percentage of the human population still operates regularly without the consciousness as described by Jaynes.

At the very least, the genetically built neural machinery that our species would've had 3000 years ago is still likely to reward behaviors such as assuming gods and spirits in almost everything, enthralling oneself in crowd dynamics, and yielding to charismatic authorities.

Prominent Scientists Sign Declaration that Animals have Conscious Awareness

Related Stories