Queen bans fox hunting!

[Kuciwalker]

Whether or not MrFun's examples are good, you haven't addressed my suggestion of the lynx

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

Do you have a cite for this? Its not that I don't believe you, only I can't find anything about it (and sea lions are freaking massive)

From a video collection on wildlife documentaries by Attenborough (think someone already mentioned him).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
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.

So far it is. When you demonstrate a robot capable of feeling pain, let us know.

[Kuciwalker]

Feeling pain as much as a fox? I've already done so in this thread.

[Spiffor]

Kuci, I have read the whole of your argument, and there is one fundamental flaw in it.

You consider that self-awareness is the same as sentience. And I haven't seen anything to prove this claim except the fact that you "use the terms interchangeably". A rhetorical convenience is however not an argument.
And then you claim that self-awareness is a prerequisite for feeling pain. Again, this is not backed up.

Your argument with the robots is a useless artifact. Nobody but you here is talking about robots. Why do you insist using this artifice to explain the difference between human and animal pain? Why cannot you explain directly the difference between the pain experienced by a human and an animal (and don't answer "read the thread", I've read all your posts, and I haven't seen this assertion backed with a reasoning)? In my experience, a reasoning which is based solely on comparisons and allegories is fragile at best, because allegories cannot match the real situation perfectly, and because it doesn't adress the issues directly.

Your argument rests in part on the idea that a being is either self-aware, or not. Immortal Wombat quoted an empirical article explaining how self-awareness progressed in the human mind, during early childhood. The measurements used for self-awareness also show various degrees of self-awareness among animals.
Now, I do think that self-awareness has nothing to do with pain, but you have been refuted on this point (the belief that self-awareness is an either/or), and you haven't adapted your argument.

Finally, since you won't bother replying to me if I don't do it: I oppose abortion once the nervous system of the fetus has appeared, precisely because I think embryos should be terminated before they can feel pain. However, since it is very hard to make a law with "the development of the nervous system" as a factor, I support laws that allow abortions up to a certain date, that is generally accepted as the time when an embryo grows a nervous system: 3 or 4 months.
I support the killing of animals (the torture of animals even) if it serves a purpose for mankind, like fooding, clothing, or research. I oppose that we inflict pain to animals for no utilitarian reasons. I also oppose any extra pain that would be inflicted to animals suring a productive process, if such pain brought no extra utility (for example, boiling crabs alive, instead of killing them right before)

[Jon Miller]

I think the important thing to remember is that robots are the wave of the future. They can get beyond the old ways of evolution, and can evolve themselves, and at a much faster rate also.

Also, if you consider the possibilties of robots with nuclear weapons, you realise that that is ultimate.

Jon Miller

[Az]

[q]

I remember having an argument that touched something similiar to this about altruism some time ago. I can't remember if you where one of the people claiming everything was done for selfish purposes or not, but I'm guessing you where?

No, I wasn't. I was specifically against it. Notice the "I am wired to do so" part, and specifically, one wiring oneself is also possible.

[Spiffor]

BTW Az, good argument you have here (maybe it shines in comparison to Kuci's )

I disagree with your point, that we should definitely not base our laws on empathy rather than utility, but you back it up well

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by General Ludd
Robots can't be trained, they are programmed. To be trained implies that you are taught to do something against your nature, or alien to you.

WTF?!

Nowhere is "against one's nature" mentioned.

What is the point of training someone to do a task which is already in their nature?

Learn to think within the context of a conversation, rather than relying on text books for preconceived thoughts.



[quote]

A robot is built and created with a specific task in mind, and has only a single purpose to it's existance. It can be programmed through interaction after it has been built, but only because it has been programmed to "learn". You could not teach a robot that has been built to learn how to navigate through different kinds of mazes how to build a maze itself.

Niether does a robot have any choice. A dog, when it is trained, is presented with multiple choices. To draw on my previous example:

It is given the choice obey it's master. It doesn't have to, but it can - and if it's trained through violence it will probably do so out of fear of being beaten (a choice made on a future potential event, not a reaction to stimuli) which again clearly demonstrates a state of awareness and understanding of the concept of pain.

It can also choose to follow the scent given to it. "Mechincally" speaking one would think that the dog would be more inclined to follow other scents that it passes while tracking - like food or other dogs, but it can choose to ignore these scents and instead follow the scent given to it, which has no real meaning outside of what importance it has to it's master, which again shows an awareness and understanding of another being's sentience. (and their wants, desires, ect...) Likewise, it could also choose to chase the scent alone or lead it's master along the trail, which again shows a similiar understanding.

You're claiming there is some mystical thing that allows the dog not to obey physical laws but instead act in an entirely arbitrary manner? You're stupider than I thought.

Excuse me?

"physical laws"?


Oh yeah, dogs are just machines - they have no choice but to do as a human says.

It's a good thing that humans have souls something unexplainable which makes them different then that.

And yet my scenarios show that a dog possesses the same sort of awareness, understanding, and analytical abilities that a human does. What does this "mystical" soul really do?



Seriously, adress the scenarios I have made in regards to training an animal that is supposedly unaware, unthinking, and even unsensing. You say that you have demonstrated a Fox feels pain in the same way a robot does (ie. it doesn't), and that a human feels pain differently than either (ie. it does), but all you have done is stated so and offered no explanation. When confronted with any arguments that contradict your statements, you have been unable to respond beyond using the emote and saying "read what I said!!!"


It's a strange world where a fox is more akin to a chunk of metal and plastic than a fellow mammal.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Whether or not MrFun's examples are good, you haven't addressed my suggestion of the lynx

Except in "lots of cats...". Everything I can find tells me that Lynx's are particularly good at killing with one bite. Given that most of their prey is hares and rabbits, I can believe that. Unless it's an offspring training method?

[MrFun]

IW, no -- even adult lynxs with no offspring will wound their prey sometimes to "play" with it, AFAIK.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Feeling pain as much as a fox? I've already done so in this thread.

Only in theory, not in reality. The proof is in the pudding, big boy.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Kuci, I have read the whole of your argument, and there is one fundamental flaw in it.

You consider that self-awareness is the same as sentience. And I haven't seen anything to prove this claim except the fact that you "use the terms interchangeably". A rhetorical convenience is however not an argument.
And then you claim that self-awareness is a prerequisite for feeling pain. Again, this is not backed up.

I don't know the precise difference between the terms self-awareness and sentience, so I use them interchangeably and I defined them, as I am using them, in this thread. Go reread my definition.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
What is the point of training someone to do a task which is already in their nature?

Learn to think within the context of a conversation, rather than relying on text books for preconceived thoughts.

This is rich, coming from you.

A robot can be trained to do something "outside its nature".

Excuse me?

"physical laws"?


Oh yeah, dogs are just machines - they have no choice but to do as a human says.

They often don't do as a human says. It doesn't change the fact that they operate mechanically. Unless you want to postulate some non-deterministic (or probabilistic, if we want to get into quantum theory) mechanism, so we can laugh at you?

It's a good thing that humans have souls something unexplainable which makes them different then that.

It doesn't. Humans behave deterministically true.

However, the term choice is meaningless for a non-self-aware being.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
BTW Az, good argument you have here (maybe it shines in comparison to Kuci's )

I can't believe even you are too dense to grasp such a basic point.