@ spiffor: resurrecting the animal rights thing

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What kind of animal rights are you talking about?

The right of a small dog not to have to be dressed like Paris Hilton or Tara Palmer Tompkinson.

[Spiffor]

My objection to that sort of behavioral determination is deeper than that: I don't see any reason why such behavior has any relation to sentience at all. I don't see a reason why emotions would require sentience - they would serve their evolutionary function just fine in its absense, as far as I can tell. Beyond the (rather tenuous) connection I made to empathy in the OP, I don't really understand why it would necessarily have evolved at all, though obviously it did.

It's not exactly what I meant.

My aim in this thread is not to prove whether some animals are conscious or not. Neither of us has enough zoological knowledge to test whether our speculations are true (due to my scientific background, I consider that nothing can be proven without an adequate empirical test - philosophy is elabrotate specualtion: something useful, but something that connot bring the answers alone)

My aim in this thread is also not to say "animals display a similar behaviour to us when we experience physical damage, ergo they're sentient". I see this statement as likely (because I don't see sentience as something so special), but repeating it until I'm blue in the face won't make it true. And I have no way to prove it.

My aim with this thread is maybe to think about which course of action could be needed in order to find whether animals are conscious, and which ones are conscious.

The first step is to have a precise definition. If we say "consciousness is a concept impossible to grasp. It's the fact that we see the big picture, and that we don't react automatically on a bunch of stimuli", it's not a definition we can work with, and we can't go anywhere with it.
A more precise decision could be (it's on the fly): "a concious organism can react differently to identical stimuli, because of the complex processes occuring in its nervous system". Still, such a definition remains vastly insufficient.

The second step, once you have a working definition of consciousness (and such a definition will be different from the unclear concept of "consciousness" as we use it in everyday language), you need to find a way to observe it. You have to know what are the external signs that can be typically associated with consciousness. Think of them as symptoms, if you want. These external signs could be anything: behaviour, brain structure, genetic code, whatever (I was biased toward behaviour in my previous post, but behaviour need not be the only external aspect of consciousness).

The third step is to observe whether an animal displays the external signs of consciousness, as you defined them at step #2.

If yes, then the 4th step is to look at the reasons why the animal displays such things. It can be chance. It can be that an Intelligent Designer created it just to puzzle our scientists. It can be because the animal is actually conscious.

As you see, declaring whether an animal is conscious or not is not an easy feat. It's no wonder that the scientists couldn't bring a deifnitive answer yet.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Pekka
we should give animals womens rights.



*ducking...*

That's insane , you can't give animals more rights than humans !

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by molly bloom
The right of a small dog not to have to be dressed like Paris Hilton or Tara Palmer Tompkinson.

That's horrible. Not even dead tree trunks deserve such a treatment.

I was just curious as to whether they are talking about more humane treatment of animals (e.g. chicken farms) or according some species of animals the rights we give ourselves.

[Immortal Wombat]

I find it amusing the Kuci thinks that self-awareness raises his responses to stimuli to a qualitatively different level from that of rabbits. Working from the "all living things are just biological machines" hypothesis, it should be no more immoral to pour shampoo in a human's eyes to see how it reacts.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
I find it amusing the Kuci thinks that self-awareness raises his responses to stimuli to a qualitatively different level from that of rabbits.

Possibly, since it is possible for us to suppress intrinsic reactions to external stimuli, e.g. sticking your hand in hot water to retrive something.

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Working from the "all living things are just biological machines" hypothesis, it should be no more immoral to pour shampoo in a human's eyes to see how it reacts.

Then you won't be able to test experimental medicine on animals. Giving humans an artificially defined set of rights is a cornerstone of modern society.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Possibly, since it is possible for us to suppress intrinsic reactions to external stimuli, e.g. sticking your hand in hot water to retrive something.

That's just a much more complex response.

Then you won't be able to test experimental medicine on animals. Giving humans an artificially defined set of rights is a cornerstone of modern society.

Well obviously. The point is that they are artificial.

[Dr Strangelove]

Animals have the right to be cooked properly and tastefully.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
Oh, sh*t, not Kuci's "sentience vs. non-sentience is black and white" argument again. From an evolutionary point of view, the only possible way sentience could of evolved is through stages.

No.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
Sentience didn't necessarily evolve for a specific reason. It could just be a side-effect of human brain power.

That's what I think. That's why I only weakly hold my possible evolutionary reason for its existence.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
I find it amusing the Kuci thinks that self-awareness raises his responses to stimuli to a qualitatively different level from that of rabbits. Working from the "all living things are just biological machines" hypothesis, it should be no more immoral to pour shampoo in a human's eyes to see how it reacts.

No it shouldn't... we're sentient machines. My morality is based on sentience. I don't see any difference between a rabbit and a rock.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The first step is to have a precise definition. If we say "consciousness is a concept impossible to grasp. It's the fact that we see the big picture, and that we don't react automatically on a bunch of stimuli", it's not a definition we can work with, and we can't go anywhere with it.
A more precise decision could be (it's on the fly): "a concious organism can react differently to identical stimuli, because of the complex processes occuring in its nervous system". Still, such a definition remains vastly insufficient.

My definition isn't precise, but I have a problem with providing a definition that may not actually define sentient beings at all, but something else. I'm not sure it's possible.

The second step, once you have a working definition of consciousness (and such a definition will be different from the unclear concept of "consciousness" as we use it in everyday language), you need to find a way to observe it. You have to know what are the external signs that can be typically associated with consciousness. Think of them as symptoms, if you want. These external signs could be anything: behaviour, brain structure, genetic code, whatever (I was biased toward behaviour in my previous post, but behaviour need not be the only external aspect of consciousness).

In some cases it would be very easy. Say we're visited by aliens, we learn their language, and read some of their literature and discover they have the concept already. They're sentient. Otherwise, I agree that a deep understanding of how consciousness somehow comes out of the interactions in our brain (by looking at where the thought "I am conscious" comes from) is necessary.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I don't see any difference between a rabbit and a rock.

Gosh, meal times must be such fun at your house.


Anyone for granite and prune casserole ?

[Kuciwalker]

mmmmm *licks lips*

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


No.

Well YES!