Queen bans fox hunting!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Sorry, but this is nonsense.

Yes, a robot can be trained, so can a fox, so can a human being. But a robot, at least current ones, don;t feel pain, and they "feel" things complete differently than living things- They do not work on a biochemical system created over 1 billion years, but a digital system created by people and run on silicon wafers.

There is a hugely fundamental difference between a robot and a living thing- maybe one day artifical beings might be nearly as complex as living things, but not today, and the comparison is false.

What is this fundamental difference? And yes, a robot can feel pain. And no, a different chemical mechanism of thought is NOT a "fundamental" difference.

[Kuciwalker]

By the way, I realized I forgot something, and now I'm going to stick to it. Answer the last two questions in my big post, or don't expect any more answers from me.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
don't expect any more answers from me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

What is this fundamental difference?

That a robot is based on silicon chips and direct eelctrical currents designed by mere human minds and operating on a simple digital system. A brain is a complex billion year old biochemical system that we don't even realyl fully understand. This is a simple time where quantitative differences equal qualitative ones. The complexity of a robot does not even get to that of an ant, far less an even bigger system.

And yes, a robot can feel pain.

I dare you prove this with ANYTHING.

And no, a different chemical mechanism of thought is NOT a "fundamental" difference.

Yes, yes it is.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
don't expect any more answers from me.

[Az]

Agreed -- pain is essential for survival, but that does not make the experience of pain in of itself a pleasurable experience for animals.

No, of course not. The point is, if we disregard empathy and emotions(*), animals' pain doesn't come into our advantages or disadvantages. And that's the only thing that matters, outside the intrahuman relationships.



(*)- (Which are very important, beneficial, healthy, and natural for human beings, because they make it possible for us to live together, and flourish, but have nothing to do with logical arguments, except being objects in them)

[Az]

That a robot is based on silicon chips and direct eelctrical currents designed by mere human minds and operating on a simple digital system. A brain is a complex billion year old biochemical system that we don't even realyl fully understand. This is a simple time where quantitative differences equal qualitative ones. The complexity of a robot does not even get to that of an ant, far less an even bigger system.

-as opposed to what?
-I think it's slightly less than that.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That isn't what you said. Obviously.

You said that the ability to feel pain is based in a nervous system. Something with five neurons could "feel" pain, by your definition. You lose.

Sorry Kuciwalker, but you need more than BAM's and semantics to win an argument. Five neurons does not become a nervous system on the same level as seen in foxes or humans, and would not feel pain- it'd be like the computer system you describe. Organisms with such undeveloped systems would not feel anything nearly describing pain, instead the cells would indicate to the organisms what actions to take in certain situations- but with no reaction akin to pain. Thus, I'd not really have any problem with you dissecting a sea anemone for fun, but I would have a problem with you flaying a dog, as the result of your actions would lead to exactly the same sort of pain that you would feel if you were flayed.

Edit for MrFun in case he quotes his own post at me:
"So? Are we saying then that non-mammals are not animals but plants because they do not have as advanced of a nervous system as mammals??"

No, I am saying that without a more developed nervous sytem as seen in (but not limited to) mammals, the potential for pain does not exist. Coral found in reefs, for example, count as being animals, and have a "nerve net", but I would not suggest that they feel pain- would you?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Azazel

Agreed -- pain is essential for survival, but that does not make the experience of pain in of itself a pleasurable experience for animals.

No, of course not. The point is, if we disregard empathy and emotions(*), animals' pain doesn't come into our advantages or disadvantages.

In general, but I'm sure it can be in our best advantage to treat animals well (i.e not torture and instead provide 'pleasurable' activities for them) if in return they do our bidding. e.g that was the main purpose of dog domestication originally.

[Az]

Organisms with such undeveloped systems would not feel anything nearly describing pain, instead the cells would indicate to the organisms what actions to take in certain situations- but with no reaction akin to pain.

As a side question:

how's that qualitatively different?

[Az]

In general, but I'm sure it can be in our best advantage to treat animals well (i.e not torture and instead provide 'pleasurable' activities for them) if in return they do our bidding. e.g that was the main purpose of dog domestication originally.

Well, of course, of course!

People benefit greatly from many animal-human relationships.

Plus, they connect on an emotional level, bringing lots of joy to everyone involved. I my dog, and dogs in general, for example.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Azazel

Organisms with such undeveloped systems would not feel anything nearly describing pain, instead the cells would indicate to the organisms what actions to take in certain situations- but with no reaction akin to pain.

As a side question:

how's that qualitatively different?

Because they don't have a brain that interprets the signals received as you might when someone punches you in the face.

NB it's much more fun contrinuting to this thread in the knowlegde that Kuciwalker won't be replying any more

[Az]

Because they don't have a brain that interprets the signals received as you might when someone punches you in the face.

What gives the signal to do some action to stop the source of the trouble that caused the initial signal?

NB it's much more fun contrinuting to this thread in the knowlegde that Kuciwalker won't be replying any more

YAY CIRCLEJERK.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Azazel
What gives the signal to do some action to stop the source of the trouble that caused the initial signal?

Probably nothing if something's only got five neurons in its entire nervous system. But in a creature with that kind of level of nervous system, it'd probably trigger some chemical action that results in a reflex action, like if you were to touch something really hot with your hand, you'd move it away (As a result of your peripheral nervous system) before you felt the actual pain processed in your brain.

YAY CIRCLEJERK.

Well that's the last time I implicitly express being happy at only having to respond to semi-intelligent posts from people like you, as opposed to someone who just keeps repeating the same inane assertions over and over

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And finally, I will not respond to ANYONE who doesn't tell me why abortion is OK but killing foxes isn't, and who doesn't tell me how we should punish animals that harm other animals. I'm sick of my conclusive points being ignored.

1. Abortion is "OK" while the foetus is not in independant living thing and could not survive without a mother around it: while it is effectively an extension of the mother. AFAIK, nobody seriously advocates or promotes abortion. All credible defenses of abortion admit that it is almost always preferable to let the foetus develop, but that it isn't the place of government to force this to happen while the foetus is still part of the mother.

Wild animals aren't the possession of anyone, so the argument "It's mine, let me torture it" fails. The government does have juristiction, for better or worse, over the defining of Rights For Foxes. While foxes are independant living things, then torturing them for no reason other than human amusement is wrong. Personally, I (and reds, and Mr Fun, et al) find the idea of torturing anything which can display pain that emotively utterly repugnant. Ok, so maybe seeing a live, wailing fox have its guts pulled out by bloodhounds doesn't cause you to bat an eyelid - but even if it is not biologically/philosophically wrong to torture foxes since the "aren't aware of pain" or whatever bollocks you want to wrap it in, it's one of those things which is probably bad for the human involved as well. It's like putting an 18-certificate on a film, or preventing incestuous marriages. Imagine it as an infinity-certificate on hunting.


2. Name me a single animal which tortures and maims its prey and deliberately uses inefficient methods of execution, for no other reason than entertainment (and/or tradition), and maybe this point would have some relevance.