Thoughts on thought
My school emphasizes various forms of psychology, and this weekend there’s a small conference on transpersonal psychology. Sitting in the student lounge at school, I happen to be listening to two enthusiastic and excited fellow students discussing at what moment in human history “true consciousness” emerged.
They were not deeply familiar with human evolution, so while they did not think consciousness arrived like a light switch being flipped on, they were somewhat dubious regarding the possibility of Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons having consciousness. I asked what ‘true consciousness’ meant, and while they acknowledged it was a nebulous thing to define, one student tried to explain: that moment where there was an awareness of Self, of death, of perhaps the possibility of life after death…
I was pleased, explaining that this definition meant the Neanderthals likely had achieved consciousness! After all, they tended to bury their dead with red ochre — likely considered sacred, considering its prevalence at particular places and points — and little white flowers, when possible. The one student was somewhat dismissive, feeling Neanderthals were likely more like animals, not true humans, and those burial items were not necessarily indicators of understanding of death. No, he felt true consciousness had to most likely have happened some time after Cro-Magnon, closer to Homo sapiens.
I had to head to class, and they continued talking. As I left, though, I found myself wondering: is this just another version of the old ‘what separates us from the animals?’ question that some people have been using for centuries to justify treating animals abusively, while propping up the human ego? For that matter, why do people so often assume we’re the final, perfectly conscious pinnacle of evolution?
I think you’re right; it sounds like “How are we different from animals?” to me, too.
People really don’t want to call mankind animals. We are. We’re made out of meat!
I’m not sure that I believe that animals don’t understand life and death. There’s many animals who mate for life, and several who will linger with a dead animal until they realize it’s truly dead. (Elephants and whales are the ones I remember. Maybe some birds, but it’s been too long.)
Lots of animals prepare for the future and plan ahead; foxes cache food when they’ve eaten enough, and can usually find it.
I think we often discount what animals think and feel because they don’t hang about in coffee shops writing gothy poetry and angsting about it. They have to eat and have to keep doing the things they do, and do so until they can’t any more.
Humans were much more like that not so long ago, but we have refrigeration, written language, and Open Mic nights to distract us and allow us to linger over things others – even others of our own species – have to get over with quickly and move on.
Or so I think.
That’s kind of what I thought too! ;)
Perhaps the student was looking for a slightly different definition of ‘true consciousness’? I don’t know… but I do know there are a few very social animals which have marvelously rich interpersonal communication, some of which occurs through senses we don’t consciously use in that fashion. I’m not sure if it’s truly ‘conscious’ of me to automatically exclude them as well, you know?
I thought that archeological evidence has been increasingly suggesting that the Neanderthals had a rich, complex culture and would definitely qualify as ‘conscious’.