Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:34 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2023 2:51 am

https://sites.bu.edu/daniellerousseau/2 ... n-animals/

Kumar (2017) discusses PTSD in her cat Lola. In May of 2017 in Afghanistan, a tanker truck was bombed. The attack claimed more than 150 lives and injured at least 700 others. The impact of the explosion was felt several miles away, breaking windows and cracking ceilings. 20 minutes after the explosion, Lola was hiding. For the next week, Lola was edgy. She was startled by small sounds and she would follow the author everywhere. Lola would wail when Kumar left the house and be clingy when she returned. She started eating less and losing weight. According to Kumar (2017), the U.S. military has seen this reaction to stress in its working dogs. About 5 percent of the dogs that have served in Afghanistan and Iraq suffer from “canine PTSD,” making some dogs aggressive, timid, or unable to do their jobs.

Sounds, to me, like there's a whole lotta anthropomorphizing going on here. She observed seemingly human responses in a non-human. Now, she may be spot on, but it's not a given she is.

Romm (2016) discusses Elsom, a chimpanzee who experienced PTSD. Elsom’s mother died with he was 13. At age 15, he suffered a serious injury to his arm. He disappeared for a few months afterward and isolated himself from his community. Upon his return, he was different. He was easily agitated and angry. He was more fearful and had difficulty sleeping. Romm (2016) states that animal mental illness can be triggered by many of the same factors that unleash mental illness in humans, including the loss of family or companions, loss of freedom, stress, trauma, and abuse.

Ditto.

But I didn't need any articles to tell me that. In my teens, I grew up in the country in the company of dogs and cats more than with humans; the interaction and observation of them told me a story very different from the one you're telling; one much more in tune with what modern research has already established regarding the emotional intelligence and complexity of higher-level animals.

As I say, up-thread: I'm a country boy. I've known a few dogs, cats, and horses that seemed like free wills -- like persons -- to me. It's entirely possible they were. It's equally possible I anthropomorphized the lot.

Most dogs, cats, horses, and all sheep, geese, chickens, fish were, however, machines, reacting meat.

Ah so! So simple!

Yes, it is. Free wills created by the Free Will.

Interest and research into animal intelligence has never been greater. There's a great deal of data that animal psychology is not so different from the human animal. There can be quite extensive degrees of intelligence in animals just as there are in people. All that is available to know for those who are interested enough regardless of what their opinions may have been.

Anthropomorphism conversely reveals itself mostly on your side of the argument.

For one thing no can know with any absolute certainty whether god really exists, a scenario which includes both atheists and theists. There is nothing in our knowledge which makes it necessary.

Second, if there were such an entity there is no way we could know what it looks like or whether it looks like anything.

In the light of these two facts - and facts they are - there's a reversal. Instead of god having made man in ITS image, it defaults to man to create a god in his own image. If a reptilian intelligence had emerged as god-believers instead of a mammalian one, god would alternatively have received that imprint.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:57 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 5:45 pmMy best guess...you think that it is possible to be conscious (aka sentient), and to experience, and to feel, without having a self

As I say: Feeling is not enough. With meat, feeling is purely an electrochemical event. It's the equivalent of a ERROR message on your computer. Literally, there's no one there to experience the feeling, to contemplate it.

(Bold added by me).

What you're saying (on my definitions) is that there's no self there, therefore no subject of consciousness, therefore no possibility of consciousness (aka sentience), therefore "meat" is not conscious (aka sentient).

However, on your (idiosyncratic) definitions of "feeling" and "consciousness" (aka "sentience") it is possible to feel without being conscious (aka sentient).

I think that the word that you use for what I mean by "consciousness" (aka "sentience") is "mind".

Can we agree that what I mean by "consciousness" (aka "sentience") and what you identically mean by "mind" is basically characterised by (but not limited to) the capacity to undergo qualia?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:57 pm

consciousness is subjective, implying a subject, that is, the self ("person"/"soul"/"mind" on your terms) which is conscious.

As I say: I am not merely or only conscious.

There's nothing "mere" about being conscious, it's just that you have an over-broad definition.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:57 pm

an experience entails an experiencer

A security camera in a parking lot is conscious, it perceives, and, if fitted with motion sensors, it reacts. But there's no one in there.

(Bold added by me).

Exactly: there's no experiencer there, therefore no possibility of experiencing, therefore security cameras do not experience and therefore they are not conscious (aka sentient).

(Of course, that's assuming that they're not conscious, which might be denied on some variants of animism or panpsychism).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:57 pm

The security camera is no different than most if not all non-human life. It's a machine.

On my terms, then, given that you deny that non-human beings have a self, they by definition - given your denial - would not (could not be) conscious/sentient.

I think I have a very narrow definition for sentience/consciousness compared to you. Yours is far broader.

No, it's the opposite: I define sentience/consciousness basically as the capacity to undergo qualia; your broader definition also encompasses all merely mechanical devices which have electronic sensors but do not undergo qualia (that is, which do not have a self which could undergo qualia; which are not subjects of consciousness).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:57 pm

More to the point, how do you distinguish yourself from the promissory materialists...

The promissory materialist sez mind is a product of brain. He can't tell you how brain produces mind. Never mind he's been at it for 50 years and is no closer, today, to an explanation, than he was five decades back (as fact, he's further away from a material explanation, today, than he was 50 years ago). He promises, though, he and his will explain it all...soon.

Yeah, but many materialists also say: mind is correlated with complexity of brain matter; only humans (and some higher animals) have minds because only they have sufficiently complex brain matter.

Your conclusion seems to be the same, so if you got to it in a different way, then please explain how.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:57 pm

...given that you deny agency to our fellow biological beings, and on what basis do you deny that agency?

I've made no promises. I deny Cletus the chicken is a free will with natural rights, and I'm only bein' slightly snarky here, becuz he he doesn't lead the great chicken revolution against his two-legged slavers. He creates no gray or black markets of goods or, more importantly, ideas to compete or foment dissent.

all of that is compatible with consciousness/sentience (that which you call "mind"), and all of it is compatible with simply having less advanced cognitive ability.

It's anyway hard to see how a chicken revolution could even get started when it's tiny bodies, beaks and claws versus large bodies, hands, cages, and weapons.

And what need has a chicken for markets, when his/her simple needs can be met by pecking from the ground? What sort of tradable goods could a chicken produce and transport with only a beak and claws anyhow?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:57 pm He doesn't grouse to himself about his slavery.

How have you determined that?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:57 pm He has no concern for himself when the farmer comes up with an axe.

Rubbish. Chickens resist slaughter just as much as any animal - including the human animal - does.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:57 pm In short: Cletus does nuthin' a free will would or could do.

I strongly disagree. Chickens behave in the same sort of ways that those of us (me included) who judge humans as having free will base that judgement on. In other words, they seem to make free choices based on personal preferences just as we humans do.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:57 pm Literally there's no one there to hoodwink. He's meat.

For the third time: how do you justify your contention that chickens (non-human animals in general) don't have minds? I'm not asking about free will here, I'm asking about minds, and, in particular, the capacity to suffer.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 4:46 am Anthropomorphism conversely reveals itself mostly on your side of the argument.

A related observation: "That's anthropomorphising!" is the common cry of those seeking to defend the objectification of non-human life forms.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 5:21 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 4:46 am Anthropomorphism conversely reveals itself mostly on your side of the argument.

A related observation: "That's anthropomorphising!" is the common cry of those seeking to defend the objectification of non-human life forms.

Put another way it's a common technique for enhancing humans by subtracting from other non-human life forms any ability to think or feel which of course is pure BS completely opposite to evidence. It's disgusting to think that the likes of us are made in the image of god while every other creature, being deprived of all the qualities which overlap with humans, are only objects useful as food.

I just saw a Farmer's Dog dogfood commercial and when the dude said 'humans shouldn't eat nothing but processed food' as he was poking the rice, peas and chicken blend around in the shiney stainless steel bowl with a fork while his dog obediently waits. Now that's some anthropomorphizing right there but goddamn it looked delicious. I'd eat it from the looks of it. But really, fido doesn't care if his meals are canned. He will obviously prefer canned over dry but that doesn't mean he's suffering if he doesn't get the fresh Farmer's Dog stuff.

But then by that same logic I could say he's not suffering if he doesn't get the canned and gets the dry instead.

It seems we've reached a dilemma. Discuss.

"Christianity is completely irrational and not testable"
Adrian Jervis at bethinking

Richard Dawkins is a world famous lecturer at Oxford University and a passionate defender of the theory of evolution. He's also a committed atheist who once wrote a letter to his 10 year old daughter called, 'Good and Bad Reasons for Believing.' He explains to her:

"Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: 'Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?' And next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: 'What kind of evidence is there for that?' And if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say."

See? Didn't I tell you?

It's not what you believe about Christianity, it's what you can actually demonstrate -- even to yourself -- is true about it. Also, beyond the part about evidence, ask yourself, "whoa, is Christianity something I believe only because in believing it, it comforts me in a world where there is so much around that can make me feel bad?" Also, "Wait, what if there is a God but it's not the Christian God?"

Dawkins thinks that unless you can prove something in a lab or give some kind of logical proof for it, then you can't be confident about that belief. For Dawkins the only good reason to believe something is if you have this narrow and very specific kind of evidence for it.

On the other hand, in our world, the existence of which is profoundly mysterious in and of itself, there are still some very, very intelligent people like Soren Kierkegaard who were able to make an existential leap of faith to a God, the God. And it's not like they can be lumped together with those whose own leap is almost an entirely blind one. A leap that seems to come much closer to wanting something to be true simply because, if it's not, well, it will make living that much more unbearable.

In his book A Devil's Chaplain, Dawkins spends most of his time looking at three bad reasons for believing. These are; tradition, "beliefs [that] have no connection with evidence", authority, "you are told to believe it by somebody important", and revelation, "a feeling [religious people get] inside themselves that something must be true". Dawkins suggests that many people believe that Christianity is true on the basis of these three irrational beliefs (tradition, authority, revelation) rather than on any factual evidence.

Well, given that to the best of my knowledge there is no substantive proof that a God, the God does in fact exist, you make do with all that's left. But atheists are still stuck themselves with explaining how the existence of existence itself came to be. And a Creator can never be entirely ruled out. That's why for me I accept that a God, the God might possibly exist, and tend to focus then instead on theodicy. How to reconcile God with all of the "acts of God" that plague us.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 10:25 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 5:21 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 4:46 am Anthropomorphism conversely reveals itself mostly on your side of the argument.

A related observation: "That's anthropomorphising!" is the common cry of those seeking to defend the objectification of non-human life forms.

Put another way it's a common technique for enhancing humans by subtracting from other non-human life forms any ability to think or feel which of course is pure BS completely opposite to evidence. It's disgusting to think that the likes of us are made in the image of god while every other creature, being deprived of all the qualities which overlap with humans, are only objects useful as food.

Amen to that.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 4:46 am

Interest and research into animal intelligence has never been greater.

And the lack of agreement has never been greater. Even a casual review of the research shows these folks can't even agree what constitutes consciousness or sentience or intelligence or self-awareness or an interior experience. The best anyone can say about the research and researchers: there are two very broad camps. Those who believe at least some animals have some degree of self-referential experience, and those who believe no animals, other than humans, have self-referencing experiences. Certainly, there's nuthin' at all about the research that's definitive either way.

if there were such an entity there is no way we could know what it looks like or whether it looks like anything.

Wait, you think the borrowed Christian metaphor 'He made man in His own image' refers to looks?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 5:14 am

What you're saying (on my definitions) is that there's no self there, therefore no subject of consciousness, therefore no possibility of consciousness (aka sentience), therefore "meat" is not conscious (aka sentient).

What I'm sayin', as I define things, and summing up: most of, if not all, life on Earth -- save for man -- are not free wills, do not have natural rights, and, therefore, are not naturally and normally capable of and subject to moral judgement.

All any of us are bringing to the table, on this subject, are anecdotes, conflicting research, and intuitions. Certainly, you and Dubious have presented nuthin' that'll stop me from eatin' bacon, and I've offered nuthin' that'll get you two vegetarians to eat bacon.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 7:03 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2023 5:14 am

What you're saying (on my definitions) is that there's no self there, therefore no subject of consciousness, therefore no possibility of consciousness (aka sentience), therefore "meat" is not conscious (aka sentient).

What I'm sayin', as I define things, and summing up: most of, if not all, life on Earth -- save for man -- are not free wills, do not have natural rights, and, therefore, are not naturally and normally capable of and subject to moral judgement.

All any of us are bringing to the table, on this subject, are anecdotes, conflicting research, and intuitions. Certainly, you and Dubious have presented nuthin' that'll stop me from eatin' bacon, and I've offered nuthin' that'll get you two vegetarians to eat bacon.

If, as many folks insist, morality is a human construct only, then it's impossible for there to be moral duties either owed or claimed by anything not involved in the "constructing" of morality. Foxes, fish and paramecia have no moral views, can be owed no moral duties, and cannot be asked to respond to any in relation to us, either. They're out of the equation entirely.

If we want to invent some "rights" for foxes, fish and paramecia, then there's nothing that backs such "rights" and nothing that makes anybody who totally disregards them any "worse" or "more evil" than anybody else; they're just choosing not to obey the power-play made by the constructors or vegans who are trying to dominate them.

So we eat cows if we want to. They can abstain if they want to, and they won't hear from us whining the way they want to whine about it to us. But who gave the vegans the power to dictate to the carnivores? Nobody I know. Certainly not me. I've constructed my own ethical group, the baconians...and we do love a slab of bacon. We're living our own constructed morals.

And, if morality is a matter of fact, as I believe it is, applicable only to free wills, to persons, then no amount of caterwauling will make morality applicable to non-free wills, to non-persons. The bear that mauls a man is not morally responsible. The man who turns the bear into a rug has not acted immorally.

And yet, and beyond all doubt, morality does apply and is applied to those non-human creatures and ecological systems.

Immanuel may eat his cow but that cow has been provided with certain protections that have been insisted on by people operating with a moral sense.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 7:52 pm And yet, and beyond all doubt, morality does apply and is applied to those non-human creatures and ecological systems.

Immanuel may eat his cow but that cow has been provided with certain protections that have been insisted on by people operating with a moral sense.

Legal strictures (born of a soft heart) and moral fact are two different things, yeah?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 7:54 pmLegal strictures (born of a soft heart) and moral fact are two different things, yeah?

There is a legal stricture, perhaps borne by a soft heart, that a dog shall not be hung out and cut open for fun. And it is applied morality that this activity will be punished by those legal strictures set up by the “soft of heart”.

To use the word “heart” is interesting. It refers to a sympathetic sense or emotion we have with those creatures.

You have an odd argument you are trying to validate.

Mood music