Forum Index > News & Politics > Animal Rights | >> Animals have no moral status | | |
 Apr 18, 2008 @ 17:57:44 | #121 | vaboom
Über-General
478 points
19/F/Oakland,
Join Date: Mar 2008 | buffalobill90 said:
Firstly, I'd like you to back up your claim that humans only use 10% of their brains, which is almost certainly not true.
Secondly, I'd also like you to explain how people can suffer when unconscious. A dream does not count, because this is in fact a conscious event, and post-surgery pain does no count either because you experience it when you are conscious. Physical damage to the body is not suffering in itself, even if you are consciously in pain, because it could be beneficial. Suffering is categorically harmful and immoral.
An animal 'not knowing' what a mirror is would not prevent it from seeing a reflection of itself.
I'm quite insulted if you think I am completely unaware of the arguments arrayed against me. Of course I have considered other viewpoints to my own; this very thread is a challenge to the established paradigm that all non-human animals are conscious beings. I would not have formulated my ideas without having examined the opposing views. I'm not in this debate to win it, just for the sake of winning. In fact, nobody wins debates. They are about having your views challenged, which is healthy. On this thread, I have not had my views challenged to any huge degree because most responses are either irrelevant or overtly hostile. I have yet to see someone provide a clear, logically coherent argument in favour of the idea that all non-human animal species are conscious. If I had, I would not still be arguing the same point of view.
And so I ask you: do you have any published research to support your point, because I certainly can't find any. And have you carried out your own research? If not, then why are you demanding such a ridiculous task of me?
First, I did not claim that humans use 10% of their brain. I used the word "supposedly" which means it is not backed up, its just something I heard, and I was stating that point to express my thoughts that animals and humans have very different brain structures, and to compare the two would be pointless.
Secondly, I did give you an explanation why I think people (or animals) can suffer when unconscious. I was not talking about the post surgery pain, but the physical pain the body undergoes while unconscious. If someone is unconscious (for any reason, not just surgery) and experiences any type of trauma to their body, their body is feeling pain, and therefor suffering. Just because physical damage may be beneficial does not mean that you are not suffering; The act of "suffering" has nothing to do with the outcome of the pain, or how the pain is happening, but the actual effect of the pain when it is happening.
Next: Why wouldn't an animal 'not knowing' what a mirror is not prevent it from seeing a reflection of itself? Lets go back to my point that if you put a mirror in front of a human who didn't know what a mirror is, they would not automatically recognize that it was a reflection of themself. They would realize it after studying the mirror, and they would probably realize it pretty fast after you put it in front of them, but they still wouldn't know what it was right off the bat. Animals' brains are not as complex as humans' brains, so it would take them longer to realize what the mirror was, if they ever realized it at all. Seeing your reflection in a mirror is not the deciding factor that proves whether you are "conscious" or "unconscious."
Lastly, I never said you were unaware of the arguments being posed against you, and I didn't mean to insult you, but it does seem that you are not paying heed to some good arguments that people have been giving, and dismissing them without taking into consideration what they are saying. You obviously posted this topic for a reason, and I don't doubt that you knew this was a very controversial subject and that some people might be offended and therefore become hostile. You are obviously very intelligent, but you are also obviously very stubborn.
I can assume that if you are 18 years old that you have not had much more schooling than I have, and are not a scientist. Correct me if I'm wrong. I only point this out because you claim to have "sound scientific evidence" to support your theories. I do not have any published research to support my point, and I have not conducted studies of my own, as I have told you before. I NEVER said that my theories were backed up scientifically, only that I have formed my theories based on observations and interactions with many types of animals (and humans, for that matter).
Please try to grasp my point that: although humans have developed far more than any other animals, we are still animals. We are ALL animals, and I believe we have more in common than you think.
To answer your next post: I don't believe there is a "dividing line" between consciousness and unconsciousness. It just can't be that easy. "Consciousness" is not even definable in one permanent sense. There are varying levels of consciousness, varying definitions of consciousness, and varying beliefs associated with consciousness. It is impossible to prove whether a being is conscious or not, because there is no way to get inside a brain and "look around" in their thoughts and proccesses. I will give you an answer based just on my opinion: Pretty much anything with a brain that moves, eats, sleeps, and protects itself on its own, without depending on uncontrollable events, but on events they form themselves (eg: physically finding and eating food and/or recognizing a threat and protecting themselves), is conscious in the basic form (whatever that may be). Plants and microbes are not conscious in the same way because they do not have actual "brains" and they depend on uncontrollable events such as sunlight and soil composition to live, and do not recognize their surroundings and act accordingly as an animal does. Plants and microbes have a different type of consciousness thats imbedded into their "bodies" that makes them automatically do the things to keep them alive without "thinking" about it.
...life doesn't begin until you start living it...
So don't be sad when I speak my mind! |   | |
| Apr 23, 2008 @ 11:25:53 | #123 | buffalobill90
Über Master Debater
8659 points
18/M/Whitehaven, United Kingdom
Join Date: Jun 2007 | vaboom said:
First, I did not claim that humans use 10% of their brain. I used the word "supposedly" which means it is not backed up, its just something I heard, and I was stating that point to express my thoughts that animals and humans have very different brain structures, and to compare the two would be pointless.
Secondly, I did give you an explanation why I think people (or animals) can suffer when unconscious. I was not talking about the post surgery pain, but the physical pain the body undergoes while unconscious. If someone is unconscious (for any reason, not just surgery) and experiences any type of trauma to their body, their body is feeling pain, and therefor suffering. Just because physical damage may be beneficial does not mean that you are not suffering; The act of "suffering" has nothing to do with the outcome of the pain, or how the pain is happening, but the actual effect of the pain when it is happening.
Next: Why wouldn't an animal 'not knowing' what a mirror is not prevent it from seeing a reflection of itself? Lets go back to my point that if you put a mirror in front of a human who didn't know what a mirror is, they would not automatically recognize that it was a reflection of themself. They would realize it after studying the mirror, and they would probably realize it pretty fast after you put it in front of them, but they still wouldn't know what it was right off the bat. Animals' brains are not as complex as humans' brains, so it would take them longer to realize what the mirror was, if they ever realized it at all. Seeing your reflection in a mirror is not the deciding factor that proves whether you are "conscious" or "unconscious."
Lastly, I never said you were unaware of the arguments being posed against you, and I didn't mean to insult you, but it does seem that you are not paying heed to some good arguments that people have been giving, and dismissing them without taking into consideration what they are saying. You obviously posted this topic for a reason, and I don't doubt that you knew this was a very controversial subject and that some people might be offended and therefore become hostile. You are obviously very intelligent, but you are also obviously very stubborn.
I can assume that if you are 18 years old that you have not had much more schooling than I have, and are not a scientist. Correct me if I'm wrong. I only point this out because you claim to have "sound scientific evidence" to support your theories. I do not have any published research to support my point, and I have not conducted studies of my own, as I have told you before. I NEVER said that my theories were backed up scientifically, only that I have formed my theories based on observations and interactions with many types of animals (and humans, for that matter).
Please try to grasp my point that: although humans have developed far more than any other animals, we are still animals. We are ALL animals, and I believe we have more in common than you think.
To answer your next post: I don't believe there is a "dividing line" between consciousness and unconsciousness. It just can't be that easy. "Consciousness" is not even definable in one permanent sense. There are varying levels of consciousness, varying definitions of consciousness, and varying beliefs associated with consciousness. It is impossible to prove whether a being is conscious or not, because there is no way to get inside a brain and "look around" in their thoughts and proccesses. I will give you an answer based just on my opinion: Pretty much anything with a brain that moves, eats, sleeps, and protects itself on its own, without depending on uncontrollable events, but on events they form themselves (eg: physically finding and eating food and/or recognizing a threat and protecting themselves), is conscious in the basic form (whatever that may be). Plants and microbes are not conscious in the same way because they do not have actual "brains" and they depend on uncontrollable events such as sunlight and soil composition to live, and do not recognize their surroundings and act accordingly as an animal does. Plants and microbes have a different type of consciousness thats imbedded into their "bodies" that makes them automatically do the things to keep them alive without "thinking" about it.
Your point about unconscious suffering didn't really make sense to me. Are you saying that we experience conscious pain, while unconscious? I apologise if my definition of suffering has not been very clear. I'll reiterate:
Pain itself, whether emotional or physical, may not cause someone to suffer. Someone can benefit from pain; for example, they may be entertained by a movie that is very sad or has disgusting imagery - they may feel upset or uncomfortable when watching it, but they enjoy it nonetheless. They have not suffered. However, if someone experiences pain which has no benefit to them, and it is simply an indicator of real damage, they have suffered. Someone can not experience pain when they are not conscious, that's how a general anaesthetic works. So if something is not conscious, it can not suffer and therefore does not need respect. Since only humans and a small number of other animals appear to be conscious, they are the only organisms which deserve respect.
I am also aware that the mirror test is not the only indication of conscious awareness. There are other indicators in baheviour, and I will list a few: creativity; altruism; technology; language; art; empathy etc. These traits are all possessed by humans, and are not possible without the capability of conscious thought. Some other species also display one or more of these traits, and therefore are alos likely to be conscious. However, the vast majority of organisms do not.
You are mistaken in thinking that humans have "developed far more than any other animals". We have been evolving for exactly the same amount of time as every other species on Earth. Evolution is not a progressive, heirarchical process (although it does follow certain patterns). It is aimless and largely unpredictable.
Your last point is confusing. Why does the ability to seek out resources and mates require conscious thought? And why is a brain in itself enough to sustain consciousness? Do you think, then, that insects are conscious, since they possess central nervous systems? If so, do you approve of the use of pesticides, which are essential for providing sufficient food for billions of humans? Animals also act 'automatically', like plants and microbes. However, they are more complex and unpredictable. This does not mean we should assign them consciousness in order to explain their relatively simple behaviour. | | | |
| Apr 23, 2008 @ 17:04:45 | #124 | bellydancercat
General
284 points
51/F/Nashville, Tennessee
Join Date: Apr 2008 | To start with, it would help tremendously if the majority of your research did not appear to have been done on Wikipedia, a source not particularly renowned in scientific circles.
Why the concentration on the size of the brain in relation to body it inhabits? Contrary to popular thinking, in this particular case, size does NOT matter. It's what you do with the amount of gray matter you have that counts.
I have observed in several species, most lately avian ones, a clear indication of what I consider to be evidence they have brains just as good as ours. For example, an animal is presented with 2 identical items and asked "Which one is larger?". The animal (in this case a bird) observes the items and states "Not", indicating there is no difference. This demonstrates the ability of abstract thought.
Animals have shown they can learn by trial and error as well as through observation.
Humans cannot logically infer consciousness or unconsciousness in an animal until we have developed methodology to test said animals based upon THEIR norms, not ours. The mirror test which you seem to dearly love, is applicable to humans because humans place a great deal of importance on looks. In animals, we DO NOT KNOW if they value appearance, therefore it may or may not be of great value for them to be able to express self-awareness by responding to a reflection. They may be acknowledging self-awareness in manners we cannot, as yet, understand.
People who are unconscious/comatose do indeed feel pain and do suffer from that pain. I have cared for many such individuals. They will exhibit elevated cardiac rates, EEG flucuations, increased blood pressure and increased REM activity. When pain medication is administered, all of these signs return to normal. This differs from being placed under general anesthesia: when you are rendered 'unconscious' for surgery there are several medications being administered. The first is a sedating medication to cause drowsiness and sleep. The second is the anesthetic itself, which stops the brain's ability to receive and process the pain signals it is receiving from the spinal cord and nervous system. The pain is still there, it is still being processed by the peripheral nervous system, but the brain portion of the central nervous system cannot receive and interpret it, similar to a paraplegic or quadraplegic individual. They can see you stick a pin in their leg, they cognitively know they are being injured, but they cannot physically feel it. | | | |
| Apr 24, 2008 @ 15:40:18 | #126 | vaboom
Über-General
478 points
19/F/Oakland,
Join Date: Mar 2008 | buffalobill90 said:
Your point about unconscious suffering didn't really make sense to me. Are you saying that we experience conscious pain, while unconscious? I apologise if my definition of suffering has not been very clear. I'll reiterate:
Pain itself, whether emotional or physical, may not cause someone to suffer. Someone can benefit from pain; for example, they may be entertained by a movie that is very sad or has disgusting imagery - they may feel upset or uncomfortable when watching it, but they enjoy it nonetheless. They have not suffered. However, if someone experiences pain which has no benefit to them, and it is simply an indicator of real damage, they have suffered. Someone can not experience pain when they are not conscious, that's how a general anaesthetic works. So if something is not conscious, it can not suffer and therefore does not need respect. Since only humans and a small number of other animals appear to be conscious, they are the only organisms which deserve respect.
I am also aware that the mirror test is not the only indication of conscious awareness. There are other indicators in baheviour, and I will list a few: creativity; altruism; technology; language; art; empathy etc. These traits are all possessed by humans, and are not possible without the capability of conscious thought. Some other species also display one or more of these traits, and therefore are alos likely to be conscious. However, the vast majority of organisms do not.
You are mistaken in thinking that humans have "developed far more than any other animals". We have been evolving for exactly the same amount of time as every other species on Earth. Evolution is not a progressive, heirarchical process (although it does follow certain patterns). It is aimless and largely unpredictable.
Your last point is confusing. Why does the ability to seek out resources and mates require conscious thought? And why is a brain in itself enough to sustain consciousness? Do you think, then, that insects are conscious, since they possess central nervous systems? If so, do you approve of the use of pesticides, which are essential for providing sufficient food for billions of humans? Animals also act 'automatically', like plants and microbes. However, they are more complex and unpredictable. This does not mean we should assign them consciousness in order to explain their relatively simple behaviour.
Its useless to try to debate with you.
All you do is keep saying the same thing over and over...
All I can say is I KNOW that animals are conscious.
... and they DO have morals.
Good bye.
...life doesn't begin until you start living it...
So don't be sad when I speak my mind! | | | |
| Apr 24, 2008 @ 19:00:35 | #127 | amish
Debater
5037 points
31/M/,
Join Date: Feb 2008 | vaboom said:
Its useless to try to debate with you.
All you do is keep saying the same thing over and over...
yeah he ignores what everyone else says, based on presuming his logic to be more logical. after all, our feelings make us less logical, so he doesn't even need to address the things we say, he can just restate his own until we figure it out.
i call it "argumentum ad cogito ergo qed" fallacy, or "i think, therefore, qed."
because everyone that disagrees with him just misunderstands logic and science, naturally. he's won by using "science," and if we refute any part of his argument it's because we made a mistake, and he can just keep correcting us. fun! but he will probably outgrow this, someday. it's most common in people under 20 for some reason.
mary matalin <-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|- 0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-> marlee matlin
 | | | |
| May 01, 2008 @ 19:53:36 | #130 | calonso
Über Master Debater
7847 points
24/F/Orlando, Florida
Join Date: Dec 2007 | Bill! I knew it had to be you posting something like this 
Well, what I think about this is that there is definitely different states of conciousness and that humans are special because they go through many different states in their lifetime. Are animals self aware? perhaps not but that is because it may be necessary for them not to be, for example, honey bees. A hive cannot afford any of them to be lazy, individual, or fighting amongst themselves, but in their state of conciousness, they provide the planet as well as the other earth inhabitants a great service and they should be respected as such.
If we scientifically find that a being is not self aware it is a discovery. But to then say that because they are not self aware then it's ok to yada yada... is a human conclusion that has often proved to be the downfall of humanity.
Even if they can't feel pain (which I highly doubt) it is still wrong to entertain ourselves with their demise because the action itself is immorral. Fighting dogs to the death is wrong, it is in a sense a sadistic pleasure.
But, so that our concious (inner moral voice) wont bother us, we say that they really can't feel pain. It is not a fact and there is no evidence for it no matter what your little mirror test shows you.
This whole post reminds me of the religious claim that animals don't have souls. 
Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. -Edmund Burke |  | |
Top
|
