Husserl on Minimal Mind and the Origins of Consciousness in the Natural World

The main aim of this article is to offer a systematic reconstruction of Husserl’s theory of minimal mind and his ideas pertaining to the lowest level of consciousness in living beings. In this context, the term ‘minimal mind’ refers to the mental sphere and capacities of the simplest conceivable subject. This topic is of significant contemporary interest for philosophy of mind and empirical research into the origins of consciousness. I contend that Husserl’s reflections on minimal mind offer a fruitful contribution to this ongoing debate. For Husserl, the embodied character of subjectivity, or consciousness, is essential for understanding minimal mind. In his view, there is an a priori necessary constitutive connection between the subjective and objective aspects of the body, between Leib and Körper, and this connection is especially important for exploring minimal mind from a phenomenological perspective. Thematically, the essay has three main parts. In Sect. 2, I present an overview of how minimal mind is framed in contemporary philosophy of mind and empirical research. I then analyse Husserl’s conception of embodiment with regard to the problem of minimal mind in Sect. 3. Finally, I present a more detailed investigation into Husserl’s account of minimal mind, highlighting features from his descriptions of animal mind and consciousness in early infancy (Sects. 4 and 5).

An Explorative Study into the Accuracy of Canine vs Human Emotion Identification: Impact of Experience through Dog Ownership and Belief in Animal Mind

Humans are adept at extrapolating emotional information from the facial expressions of other humans but may have difficulties identifying emotions in dogs, compromising both dog and human welfare. Experience with dogs such as through pet ownership, as well as anthropomorphic tendencies such as beliefs in animal minds, may influence interspecies emotional communication, yet little research has investigated these variables. This explorative study examined 122 adult humans’ ability to identify human and dog emotional facial expressions (happiness, fearfulness, anger/aggression) through an online experimental emotion recognition task. Experience with dogs (through current dog ownership and duration of current dog ownership), emotion attribution (through beliefs about animal mind), and demographics were also measured. Results showed that fear and happiness were more easily identified in human faces, whereas aggression was more easily identified in dog faces. Duration of current dog ownership, age, and gender identity did not relate to accuracy scores, but current dog owners were significantly better at identifying happiness in dog faces than non-dog owners. Dog ownership and duration of ownership related to increased beliefs about, and confidence in, the emotional ability of dogs, and a stronger belief in animal sentience was positively correlated with accuracy scores for identifying happiness in dogs. Overall, these explorative findings show that adult humans, particularly current dog owners and those who believe in the emotionality of dogs, can accurately identify some basic emotions in dogs, but may be more skilled at identifying positive than negative emotions. The findings have implications for the prevention of negative human-animal interactions through prevention and intervention strategies that target animal emotionality.

Attitudes towards animals and belief in animal mind among first-year veterinary students before and after an introductory animal welfare course

Veterinarians are increasingly looked to for guidance on matters relating to animal welfare, yet little is known about US veterinary students' attitudes and beliefs about animals. In 2019, we surveyed all first-year veterinary students at a major US veterinary college (n = 123) before and after taking a required one-credit introductory animal welfare course. Attitudes were measured using the Pests, Pets and Profit (PPP) scale and belief in animal mind (BAM) was measured using an ad hoc measure adapted from previous work. Pre- and post-course comparisons indicated the introductory animal welfare course had no immediate effect on veterinary students' attitudes or BAM. Veterinary students' attitudes were most positive for animals considered pets, followed by pests and those used for profit. Students believed most species possess a wide variety of mental capacities, including many secondary emotions often considered uniquely human (eg guilt, embarrassment, jealousy). Sociodemographic variables consistently associated with more positive attitudes towards animals were: female gender, vegetarianism and liberal political ideology. Preferring a career involving large or food animal practice was consistently associated with less positive attitudes towards animals. Belief in animal mind explained 3% of the variation in attitude scores, whereas sociodemographic variables explained 49% of variation in attitude scores. Female gender, vegetarianism and preferring small (vs large or food animal practice) were all associated with greater BAM scores. Understanding veterinary student attitudes towards animals and beliefs about the mental capacities of animals is important when evaluating a veterinarian's ability to adhere to their oath.

The Importance of Farm Animal Health and Natural Behaviors to Livestock Farmers: Findings From a Factorial Survey Using Vignettes

There is increasing interest in enabling positive experiences, not just minimizing negative experiences, to improve the welfare of farmed animals. This has influenced the growth of private agri-food standards and supported arguments to integrate animal welfare into policy on sustainability and climate change. However, much research finds that farmers predominantly focus on the minimization of negatives (i.e., health issues). This may impact the positioning of farmers within these wider societal debates, affecting their social license to farm. It is thus important to better understand farmers' priorities relating to the minimization of negative factors (e.g., health issues) and the promotion of positive experiences (i.e., natural behaviors). A novel 2 × 2 factorial survey using vignettes, which experimentally manipulated health (health issues minimized/not minimized) and natural behavior (natural behaviors promoted/not promoted) provision, was completed by livestock farmers (n = 169), mostly with extensive systems, in the UK and Republic of Ireland. The majority (88%) considered “minimizing health issues” to be the most important factor for animal well-being. However, the overall welfare of animals was judged to be highest when both health and natural behaviors were supported. Several individual characteristics, including farming sector, production system, gender, belief in animal mind and business type influenced how participants judged the welfare of animals and the level of importance they gave to health and natural behaviors. Findings suggest that although farmers prioritize the minimization of health issues they want animals to be both healthy and able to express natural behaviors, and individual characteristics are important for understanding farmers' welfare-related judgements.

Happy or healthy? How members of the public prioritise farm animal health and natural behaviours

The importance given to minimising health issues and promoting natural behaviours is a polarising issue within farm animal welfare. It is predominantly thought that members of the public prioritise animals being able to behave naturally over other aspects of farm animal welfare, such as addressing health issues. However, public perspectives may be more multi-dimensional than is generally thought, with the importance given to these different elements of welfare dependent on the situation and state of the animals in question. To examine this, a factorial survey using vignettes, which experimentally manipulated the different levels of health (high health vs. low health) and natural behaviour provision (high behaviour vs. low behaviour), was completed by a sample (n = 810) representative of the UK population (on age, gender, ethnicity). Contrary to the predominant view, this study found animal health had the greatest effect on participants’ judgements, explaining more of the variance in their assessments of animal welfare than any other factor. However, findings also indicated that participants considered animal welfare to be most positive when both health issues are minimised and natural behaviours are promoted. Attitudes to natural behaviours also varied more between participants, with females, individuals who do not (regularly) eat meat and those with a greater belief in animal mind giving greater priority to natural behaviours. In the context of public and private welfare standards seeking to meet public expectations, this study provides important insights into how public perspectives of animal welfare are more nuanced than previously thought, influenced by the context of the animal, the aspect of welfare in question and personal characteristics.

The Low Road

In this chapter, I address the last constraint, asymmetric pressure. How is it that your inclination can put asymmetric pressure on your will? I argue that this is a deep and general problem, one that familiar theories of strength and weakness of will tend to elide. What, in principle, could pressure a free will? My Kantian claim is that the only thing that can pressure a free will is the burden of freedom itself. Inclinations, as such, cannot pressure the will. But if their nature is as I have described, they provide us with the opportunity to flee our freedom, by providing us with an animal mind to flee into. Instead of humanizing our incentive, we dehumanize ourselves. Similarly, I argue, we can be weak in relation to our social environment. Social scripts do not pressure us directly, but they give us the opportunity to flee into automaticity.

Nebuchadnezzar and the animal mind (Daniel 4)

The case of King Nebuchadnezzar’s animal episode in Daniel 4 has typically been read in ways that pathologize animality. I argue, however, that the Hebrew Bible demonstrates at least two views of animals and knowledge: one which casts them as ignorant and stupid and one which celebrates their knowledge, especially knowledge of the divine. Rather than reading Nebuchadnezzar’s experience through the former tradition, I offer an alternative reading in which nonhuman animals are seen as having knowledge, even a special knowledge of the divine. Nebuchadnezzar’s animalization need not be read as punishment or madness, but rather it is meant to educate him. When Nebuchadnezzar is given the ‘mind of an animal’ (4.13), the goal is to reach a better knowledge of God through this animal mind. Finally, I conclude with thoughts about how this interpretation avoids the pitfalls of conflating animality with madness and its relevance for animal ethics today.