To my mind your logic makes some leaps, but I mainly take issue with your assumption that humans are the most intelligent animal. Whales and elephants are just two species that come to mind, who have the potential (in terms of neurology) to match or even exceed human intelligence. Consider that a whale's brain shows signs of being further evolved (e.g. has additional lobes), has the same "advanced" features (such as spindle neurons), can be 20x larger than the human brain, etc. Also, whales show signs of intelligence in things such as bubble net fishing, for example.

(You may have heard the tired old claim of the relationship between brain:body ratio and intelligence, but remember that this would make the hummingbird the smartest animal alive.)

I can't see how the odds against being human as opposed to being an animal depend in any way on whether animals have minds.

Efram:

This is not actually "my logic." I don't believe that animals don't have minds, I'm just curious to see how this argument can be refuted. I could have explained this a little better.

As you correctly pointed out, there are many intelligent animal species with minds capable of doing things that human minds actually can't do. We can disagree over whether this constitutes a greater "overall intelligence" than human beings, but I don't think it's relevant to the question. Even if you believe that some animal species are more intelligent than humans, we still are extremely fortunate to be more intelligent than the overwhelming majority of species.

If you don't agree that humans are superior in overall intelligence to the vast majority of animal species, for the purposes of answering this question, just assume that these other intelligent species don't exist. In other words, in a universe where whales, elephants, and other highly intelligent animals don't exist, how would you answer this question?

Let's forget about whether or not animals have minds for a moment. Let's ask the question if animals, and the external world, exist at all.

In other words, if we accept that we got extremely lucky in being a human rather than an animal, can we question whether animals actually exist as anything other than figments of our minds? Is it more plausible to believe that the external world doesn't exist than to believe that we got so lucky as to be a human being rather than any other type of animal?

Do you imagine it as though you were already in potential existence, so to speak, and then it was kind of like a lottery as to whether you were incarnated in an animal, or in a human, body?

Since these odds are so unbelievable, can we question whether or not animal minds even exist? — jdh

This is a non-sequitur. And you fail to define the word "mind." Many animals clearly possess cognition, as we do. But they do not possess reason, as we do.

The question about the odds that "you" could have been born some other animal rather than a human being only makes sense on the assumption that "you" refers to something other than an embodied person; an immaterial soul, maybe. If your are not distinct from the embodied form of life that you instantiate then it doesn't make sense that you could possibly have been a giraffe, a turnip or a tea pot instead of a human being.

Plants don't count but horseshoe crabs do because ...?

Wouldn't the statistics be heavily in favor of being some bacterium or virus overy any other life form?

How about we change mind to sonar. It's incredibly unlikely to be a whale or a bat. Therefore, only whales and bats exist. Or perhaps, it's incredibly unlikely to be able to use your mind to change the color of every single skin cell, therefore, only cephalopod minds exist.

Afterall, what makes the human mind more unique than that of an octopus or a bat? Just because we value abstract reasoning more than being able to see with sonar or camouflage into the background? (Would be quite useful in certain social situations come to think of it.)

There's a very wide range of abilities that we're not so great at or lack altogether. A mantis shrimp's eyes puts ours to shame, and are probably unique in their combined abilities. Maybe only mantis shrimp eyes exist?

The argument is trading on pure anthropomorphism. I doubt very much nature agrees with our exaggerated sense of self-worth, or philosophical obsessions over language and abstract thinking. The lowly horseshoe crab has been around in basically the same form for four hundred million years or so. We've been around for what? A couple hundred thousand in close to modern form? The horseshoe crab has survived all manner of cataclysms. We worry about making it out of this century.

Maybe only horseshoe crab minds exist.

Thanks for your interesting comments/questions, Marchesk. Let's see if we can discuss some of the points you've raised.

"Plants don't count but horseshoe crabs do because ...?"
-I think we can actually count plants too, if you like, and this shouldn't adversely affect the argument.

"Wouldn't the statistics be heavily in favor of being some bacterium or virus over any other life form?"
-If we follow the same logic that leads to the conclusion that animal minds don't exist, then yes. The question would be: can we interpret these statistics to mean that bacterium, viruses, etc. do not actually exist, such as if the external world were an illusion?

"Afterall, what makes the human mind more unique than that of an octopus or a bat? Just because we value abstract reasoning more than being able to see with sonar or camouflage into the background?"
-This is a very good point, one which I probably should have addressed preemptively. I think there are many things that make human beings more unique than any other type of life. When I say this, I don't mean that it's intrinsically better to be a human, or that humans are objectively superior to other life. All I mean to say is that we are set apart by our reasoning abilities in a way in which no other life form is distinguished by any of its unique attributes. Consider the fact that there are only human-run animal zoos, and there isn't a single human zoo operated by animals. Of all conscious creatures, I would say that humans are the most dominant. This, I would argue, is what sets us apart. If an extraterrestrial were to visit earth, I think he'd conclude that human beings are relatively "in charge." When he would return to his home planet, I think he'd first tell his fellow aliens about human civilization, and then later he'd discuss bats, whales, giraffes, poison ivy, etc. Now, you can argue that I'm looking at this from an anthropocentric perspective, and that nature disagrees with me. You might even be right, so let me change my initial question a bit. Since you aren't convinced that the human mind is more unique than that of other creatures, let's pretend that humans were more clearly different from other life. Suppose you lived in a world where there were only ten human beings including yourself, but a trillion identical creatures of another type. What would persuade you that these other creatures actually exist? Since every living creature is identical to each other, except for you and the nine other humans, we could definitely say that there is something exceptional about humans given the sheer number of the other living type of creature. Would you conclude that these other creatures don't exist, since it's enormously unlikely that you would've been a human if it were possible for you to be one of them? If not, why not?

"It's incredibly unlikely to be able to use your mind to change the color of every single skin cell, therefore, only cephalopod minds exist."
-"I think, therefore I am." I don't need to worry about whether or not only cephalopods exist, since I know that I exist. At least one human, me, must be real. However, from the perspective of the cephalopod (if these creatures were capable of philosophical thought, which they aren't), this argument would resemble the logical behind the argument I introduced in my initial question. One concern is that the cephalopod would need to assume that the ability to change the color of his skin sets him apart as a winner of a lottery among all life forms. Is there any reason for the cephalopod to be surprised by the fact that he is capable of a behavior that isn't exhibited by the vast majority of other creatures? I would say not, since countless other types of organisms feature equally remarkable yet unique abilities. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that we grant that the cephalopod is truly the winner of this lottery, that he is actually somehow luckier or seemingly more important than human beings and all other life on earth. How do we convince him to believe that the external world is real, given that believing this would require that he believe that something extremely remarkable happened. If the cephalopod asks you if he is justified in thinking that the external world not existing is more plausible than his winning a lottery against all odds, what would you say to him to convince him otherwise?

Is the former possibility, that animals lack conscious minds,more plausible than the idea that we won a lottery with a chance of only 1 in x million? — jdh

Your friend is right. Animals do not have minds. However, I don't think her argument is particularly convincing. Yet, similar arguments are used to suggest that we are in fact simulations running on super advanced computers in the future. That argument goes, given that countless simulations of the history of the universe will be run in the distant future, it is overwhelmingly more likely that we find ourselves in one of those rather than being the original physical person.

Anyway, it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion about the existence of animal minds, because those who sentimentally anthropomorphise animals are rarely rational. So, your friend should be praised for the valiant effort to apply reason!

You could also make the point that those who argue against animal minds do so merely out of a desire to be superior - or even something so simple as not wanting to feel guilty every time they eat a bacon sandwich.

To get back to the original topic: As has already been pointed out, there's no real connection between all this talk of odds and lottery and disproving anything. It just leaps from one place to another without basis.

You could also make the point that those who argue against animal minds do so merely out of a desire to be superior - or even something so simple as not wanting to feel guilty every time they eat a bacon sandwich. — Efram

See what I mean? Bacon sandwich? Superiority? Classic!

To get back to the original topic: As has already been pointed out, there's no real connection between all this talk of odds and lottery and disproving anything. It just leaps from one place to another without basis. — Efram

Are you going to give the cosmologists who rely on the Copernican Principle and anthropic reasoning the bad news? Do you refute the Principle of Mediocrity?

How about the simulation-argument? http://www.simulation-argument.com/ Are you going to buy Nick Bostrom a consolation bacon sandwich?

You could ask a similar question:

Why do the only known entities that employ the Principle of Mediocrity possess human DNA, when by that principle, they are more likely to be krill?

I sent Nick Bostrom his consolation prize right around the time Elon Musk was the one who started getting praised as a genius for the simulation idea, despite Bostrom having been writing about it a decade or so earlier - and Bostrom himself having borrowed the idea from earlier philosophers.

Sorry to disappoint you if you thought you had blown my world wide open by mentioning this arcane philosophy that I would have surely never heard of. I have heard of it - 10 years ago - and no, I don't buy it.

Your grandiloquent speech also does nothing to fix the gaping holes in the argument detailed in the OP.

Your grandiloquent speech also does nothing to fix the gaping holes in the argument detailed in the OP. — Efram

What are the gaping holes in the Principle of Mediocrity?

This sounds very much like the argument that the universe must have been designed for humans (or, if you prefer, known terrestrial life in general) because conditions on Earth are so very suitable for us that finding ourselves on a one-in-a-million planet like this instead of an inhospitable rock is incredibly unlikely.

The fault in both is the same fallacious idea of winning the lottery. Just like there were no humans which were dropped off to a random planet and against all odds it happened to be a hospitable one, there was no "me" that was dropped off to a random material body and against all odds it happened to be a human one. In neither case did I win the lottery, because I didn't participate in one; I'm only a result of one.

This is all about the definition of mind. If you define mind in as that of a human, then, obviously, animals do not have minds. However, this is nothing unexpected.

This sounds very much like the argument that the universe must have been designed for humans (or, if you prefer, known terrestrial life in general) because conditions on Earth are so very suitable for us that finding ourselves on a one-in-a-million planet like this instead of an inhospitable rock is incredibly unlikely. — zookeeper

That is precisely the opposite argument. The Principle of Mediocrity is as far from special-case-creation as you can get!

This is all about the definition of mind. If you define mind in as that of a human, then, obviously, animals do not have minds. However, this is nothing unexpected. — Chany

If animals can create knowledge of themselves, then what is to stop them creating knowledge of anything? Animals don't create knowledge.

What does that mean, particularly knowledge?

What does that mean, particularly knowledge? — Chany

A primary function of a mind is to create knowledge - each mind has to do that for itself. Animals don't create knowledge.

You've made two statements here. First, that minds must create knowledge. Second, that animals don't create knowledge. Can you support either of those claims?

How do you think knowledge gets into a mind? Take for example the knowledge that light is quantized. Each human (who is interested) creates that for herself. Animals cannot do anything like this. They lack the creativity which is characteristic of the presence of a mind.

Even great apes learn by behaviour parsing: they have a set of basic operations that they can copy from others in near arbitrary order. If a behaviour is outside their repertoire, they can't copy. e.g they can hold a rock in their hand, but they cannot orient it. All this is done without intentionality.

The reason most (and perhaps all) animals cannot have a mind, is that they lack the computationally universal hardware. The brains of the great apes don't appear to be that different from ours, so their lack of a mind could be for some other reason. A supercomputer doesn't have a mind, despite having impressive, computationally universal hardware.

As I have asked, if animals can create knowledge of themselves, then what prevents them from creating knowledge of anything?

You missed out the part that minds must create knowledge. Also, it might be helpful here to clarify what you mean by 'knowledge'.

As a human being, it seems like I got very lucky, when it's conceivable that I could have been a bat, cicada, giraffe, cow, rat, spider, salmon, kangaroo, etc. — jdh

False. You are required to be a human to be you. You aren't able to be anything else. That you exist as a human was 100% guaranteed, although your existence in general was not.

isn't it more likely that animal minds don't exist than that we won the lottery against all odds? — jdh

The probability that I won that lottery is 1, as it is for any lottery winner. Your 'we' is a human, and a human has - unless severely mentally impaired - almost certainly won the braininess lottery. But that's as surprising as the fact that Myrtle Krebspark of Lake Wobegon, Minnesota won the lottery, given that Myrtle Krebspark won the lottery.

A primary function of a mind is to create knowledge - each mind has to do that for itself. Animals don't create knowledge. — tom

Nah. The primary function of mind is to figure out how to survive and have (and rear in some animals) offspring. The accumulation of knowledge is a spandrel. Evolution could care less about philosophical, mathematical, or sports knowledge, for example.

Myrtle Krebspark of Lake Wobegon, Minnesota — andrewk

This must be the first mention of Myrtle Krebsbach (not Krebspark) in The Philosophy Forum. Myrtle is the wife of Florian Krebsbach. The Krebsbachs are members of Our Lady Of Perpetual Responsibility Catholic Church. Florian and his son, Carl, run Krebsbach Chevrolet in Lake wobegon.

The probability that I won that lottery is 1, as it is for any lottery winner. — andrewk

Perhaps this is a good opportunity to remind ourselves of the difference between marginal and conditional probabilities?

How can we refute the following argument against the existence of animal minds? — jdh

The argument is vulnerable on many fronts. For example:

Homo sapiens are just one of millions of extant species of conscious animals. If you rank these species in descending order of overall intelligence, human beings rank at the very top of the list--out of millions, we're number one. — jdh

It's likely that at this early stage in your argument, you've begun to conflate "consciousness" and "intelligence", as if they mean the same thing. This becomes clearer as your argument proceeds.

The odds of me being a non-human animal seemingly far outweighed my chances of being a human. Nevertheless, I am a human. Since I am a human being, I appear to have won the lottery. I get to be smarter than every other species of animal that exists. — jdh

Here you seem to imply that intelligence is the only thing that makes human birth precious; this is contestable.

Since these odds are so unbelievable, can we question whether or not animal minds even exist? — jdh

Again it seems you've slid between "being intelligent" and "having a mind".

Moreover, I'm not sure this question makes sense, or what reasoning you're attempting to express by way of it. Perhaps this analogy makes the right point:

The odds are against me, defined abstractly as "a human", being born at the time and place I was in fact born; but in fact I was born there. This bit of abstract probabilistic thinking gives no reason to doubt whether other people are born in other times and places. Suppose further, that during my lifetime per capita income is higher where I was born than it is in all other places. This is no reason to suppose that per capita income is zero everywhere else.

Applying the logic you seem to have used against the existence of animal minds to this analogical case: It seems one would argue that, since it's so unlikely that I was born in the place with the highest per capita income, the per capita income everywhere else must be zero.

If animal minds don't exist, then we didn't actually come out on top. If animal minds are not real, we did not win a contest against all odds. — jdh

By now it's quite clear that you've conflated "being intelligent" and "having a mind".

More to the point, you've conflated "being less intelligent" with "having no mind".

Suppose one human is more intelligent than most others; this doesn't entail that the less intelligent others "have no minds".

The same reasoning applies to your argument.

The important question is: isn't it more likely that animal minds don't exist than that we won the lottery against all odds? — jdh

I don't think this is the important question. The whole argument should be redesigned or discarded.

Funny argument. It's almost certainly fallacious due to a deep misunderstanding about the nature of probability, but I could easily see this as a theological position in some Borgesian treatise.