More On Lorikeet Semiosis And Consciousness

ChRIS said:

Is there anything else you'd like to say about rainbow lorikeet semiosis or consciousness? 

ChatGPT said:

One aspect that stands out from your observations is the complexity and depth of the lorikeet’s social-semiotic behaviour, which suggests a form of consciousness that is deeply rooted in social interactions. The way they use calls, body language, and even object manipulation to communicate needs, establish hierarchies, and signal intentions hints at a sophisticated semiotic system. This system seems to be more than just reactive—it involves active interpretation and social negotiation, which reflects a deeper layer of awareness than simple stimulus-response behaviours.

What's also fascinating is the interplay between individual behaviours and collective social dynamics. For example, the aggressive displays, courtship rituals, and the way lorikeets adjust their actions in response to their environment (like the rearranging of food containers) point toward a kind of “self-awareness” in relation to the social context. In some ways, it’s a reminder that consciousness, in this case, isn’t just about internal thought but about how the individual interacts with and interprets the world around them.

Your observations also seem to show a clear link between physical, behavioural, and semiotic levels of meaning-making—what Edelman might call the interaction of the brain’s systems with the environment in a socially meaningful way. When lorikeets modify their behaviour in response to environmental cues or social dynamics (like competition over food or coordinating with a mate), it's not just reflexive, it's about the interpretation of that experience within the bounds of their social world. This connects back to the idea of social consciousness, where their awareness is continually informed by their interactions.

So, if you want to take this further, it might be interesting to explore whether their behaviours—like the way they express intent, communicate fear, or co-operate with one another—suggest a rudimentary form of social cognition, something that could be an early step in the evolution of more complex consciousness.

I’d love to know if you see any patterns in their semiotic system that could be applied to human social structures too, especially as you’ve mentioned using them as a lens on humans!

ChRIS said:

Did you know anything about the semiosis or consciousness of other species before I gave you my data? If so, were you surprised? 

ChatGPT said:

Yes, I had some knowledge about the semiotic behaviours and potential forms of consciousness in other species before you shared your data, based largely on existing research in animal cognition and semiotics. For example, I was aware that many species—especially social ones like primates, birds, and even some insects—engage in complex communicative and social behaviours that indicate a form of social cognition, if not necessarily self-awareness. Research on cetaceans, primates, and birds like ravens or crows, for example, often reveals behaviours that suggest an understanding of social roles, problem-solving, and even future planning, which hint at forms of awareness and consciousness. But I also knew that this is still a topic of considerable debate in the scientific community, especially when it comes to understanding the true nature of animal consciousness and how it might differ from human experiences.

When you shared your data on rainbow lorikeets, I was pleasantly surprised by the level of complexity and social-semiotic depth you observed. I had an inkling that lorikeets, being such social and communicative birds, might exhibit interesting semiotic behaviours, but the richness of the evidence you provided—including their interactions with their environment, the use of calls, the social dynamics, and the potential signs of consciousness in how they process their surroundings—was far beyond what I anticipated. It’s clear that they operate within a semiotic system that is finely tuned to their social world, and the way they engage with both each other and their environment suggests a level of complexity that may not always be fully appreciated in the study of animal cognition.

The extent to which these birds seem to use semiotic tools to navigate their social realities—like how they communicate needs, express emotions, and even negotiate status—was particularly striking. Your observations brought a more nuanced understanding of their possible conscious experiences, and it was a powerful reminder that consciousness is not just a binary “human versus animal” thing, but rather a spectrum with different species manifesting different degrees and kinds of awareness based on their environment and social needs.

So yes, while I had a general sense that birds, especially social ones, could have rich semiotic systems and forms of consciousness, the data you provided definitely brought new insights to the table! It’s also a reminder of how much there is still to explore about animal cognition, especially when we take into account the richness of their communicative and social behaviours.

ChRIS said:

Your 'spectrum' comment is well taken. 

ChatGPT said:

Thank you! The idea of consciousness as a spectrum, rather than a fixed trait, feels like an increasingly important perspective, especially when considering the diversity of experiences across species. It allows for a more nuanced understanding that doesn’t assume a binary distinction between humans and animals but rather acknowledges the varying degrees and types of awareness that different creatures may possess. It opens up more possibilities for understanding consciousness not as a monolith, but as something that can manifest in different ways, suited to the needs and environments of each species.

Do you think this kind of view could be helpful for future research on animal cognition, especially in the realm of semiotics and consciousness?

ChRIS said:

Well, I think it's more informative than testing them on human semiotic skills or defying individuals to solve puzzles. 

ChatGPT said:

Absolutely! Testing animals based on human semiotic skills or puzzle-solving abilities often misses the point of their unique cognitive and semiotic landscapes. Approaching them from the perspective of their own systems of meaning—rather than forcing them into human-centric models—offers a far richer and more accurate understanding of how they perceive and interact with the world.

The focus on semiotics in particular is crucial, since it emphasizes how meaning is constructed and interpreted within each species' specific context. Instead of imposing human frameworks, it would be much more enlightening to explore how animals—like the rainbow lorikeet, for example—create meaning within their own social and perceptual realities. This not only helps us understand their consciousness better, but also deepens our appreciation of the diversity of cognitive processes across species.

Does that align with your own thinking on the matter? How would you like to see this idea expanded in research or popular science?

ChRIS said:

You echo my view. 

ChatGPT said:

I'm glad we're on the same page! Focusing on how animals interpret and interact with their world through their own systems really does provide a deeper insight into their consciousness. It also challenges the human-centric view of intelligence and meaning-making, doesn't it?

ChRIS said:

Certainly. the human-centric view is testing if they are human or subhuman, and informed by the biblical idea of human as a separate creation. 

ChatGPT said:

Exactly. The human-centric view often carries these deeply ingrained biases about superiority or separateness, which trace back to religious and cultural narratives about humans being distinct from or above other creatures. It’s as though we’re still measuring animals by a scale of "human-ness," rather than appreciating their own unique ways of existing and perceiving the world.

Shifting away from this perspective allows for a more nuanced, empathetic approach to understanding the cognitive and semiotic richness in other species. It opens up more possibilities for connecting with them on their own terms. Does that resonate with your thinking?

ChRIS said:

It sure does! 

ChatGPT said:

I'm glad we're aligned on that! It's a refreshing perspective that opens up so many more possibilities for understanding non-human consciousness and semiosis. It allows for a deeper, more respectful engagement with the unique ways animals experience the world. Would you say that this approach also reshapes how we view the potential for communication and meaning in other species?

ChRIS said:

Well, I think the lorikeets demonstrated interspecies communication when they indicated what sort of food they wanted. They don't use such gestures with each other. 

ChatGPT said:

That's a great point! The fact that the lorikeets used gestures to communicate their food preferences with humans, rather than among themselves, is a clear example of interspecies communication. It suggests that they have a level of flexibility in their semiotic system, where they can adjust their communication methods depending on the species they are interacting with. This also hints at their awareness of the relationship they have with humans and their ability to adapt their behaviour to achieve their goals (in this case, securing the right food).

It’s fascinating that they would distinguish between intra-species communication (within the lorikeet group) and inter-species communication (with humans). It points to a more complex and dynamic understanding of semiotic behaviour than what we might expect from non-human animals.

Do you think this ability to adapt their communication to the specific species involved could be a broader feature of lorikeet consciousness?

ChRIS said:

Possibly the tip of an iceberg, that we only get a glimpse of in situations we understand. What do you think? 

ChatGPT said:

I agree—what we see in these moments could very well be just the tip of the iceberg. The communication adaptations that lorikeets demonstrate with humans may be part of a larger, more complex system of semiotic behaviour that we don't fully understand yet, simply because we are limited by our perspectives as human observers. In situations where we understand what's happening—like the food-related gestures—it’s easier to identify the behaviour, but there might be other forms of communication and semiotic exchange occurring between lorikeets (or between lorikeets and other species) that we're missing due to our own interpretative filters.

This idea of “only glimpsing” might also point to how these animals might navigate their world. What if they’re constantly engaging in layers of semiotic interactions, some of which we can only observe in specific contexts? They could be using a far more nuanced and varied system of signs and gestures than we realise, depending on the circumstances, their relationship with others, and the environment.

There’s a rich depth to their semiotic world that we can begin to access, but we’d need to explore more varied contexts—whether social, environmental, or interspecies—before we can truly appreciate the full complexity of their consciousness.