buffalobill90 said:
I've mentioned earlier in the thread about the assumptions people make about animal 'emotions' based on their facial expressions and body language. We are built to recognise those expressions in humans and when the same bahaviour is exhibited in animals we make the same assumptions about their mental state. However, the displays made by animals to show apparent changes in emotion are only accompanied by conscious changes in the case of conscious creatures, whereas in non-conscious animals they are an expression of physiological changes only, such as hormonal activity; when an animal is described as stressed or depressed, this is usually based on observations of their physical state, since they can hardly be asked how they feel. Like I said, dogs and ostriches are not capable of conscious thought because it would be an anatomical disadvatage for them to be equipped with the necessary cranial apparatus.

It is true that while most animals tested react to reflections as if they are another member of their species, dogs eventually become indifferent to them. It is conjectured that this is due to the fact that dogs recognise each other mainly by smell, and therefore if their visual perception of another dog is not accompanied by olfactory recognition, they dismiss the visual image and ignore it. Similar observations have been made of cats.

So, consciousness is not required for suffering? Are you saying that someone who is unconscious is capable of feeling emotional or physical pain?

alexkidd said:
i still see no evidence to support your claim that animals don't feel pain.
all the evidence points that they actually do, not just their physical reactions (which are an important part, for our reactions to pain come from similear evolutionary origins) but if you scan the brain of a mouse pain centers in its brain react just like ours, its even been observed recently signs of empathy in animals, emotional and physical reactions to others pain as well as their own.

what is it that says they do not feel pain?
to have this belief must come the premise that animals, mammals in paticular have completly different physiological and psychological responses to people, that doesn't fit in with evolution as we see it.

also, i say again, mirror test means very little.
and is certainly in no way a test of conciousness.
all it can tell you is if an animal or person has the ability to recognise a reflection as an image of themselves.
that is all. end of.

i seriously don't know how you jumped to these conclusions based on that.

its true that lower lifeforms can act and live of a simple (by comparison) set of chemical reactions, like a plant or simple organsim, this is thought to be achieved without any form of conciousness, even say a venus fly trap that has the ability to catch insects, all just reactionary.
higher animals are a far cry from this.

buffalobill90 said:
Please stop calling me sociopathic. I'm perfectly capable of empathising with other people, recognising emotions and interacting socially. Admittedly, I'm quite emotionally detached, but it helps me analyse issues such as this one more objectively. I'm not 'sick' for not seeing non-human creatures as human.

So if animals are conscious, and being conscious has nothing to do with physical brain apparatus, where do you draw the line? Are insects conscious? What about fish, plants or microbes? How do you decide what seperates them from unconscious entities?

Quote:
I'm not 'sick' for not seeing non-human creatures as human.

buffalobill90 said:
Actually, humans do have significant physical differences to most animals. All other animals, in fact. As you may or may not have noticed, I have been forced to continuously repeat this point throughout the entire thread.

Humans have a very high brain ma** in proportion to body mass. This mean they have a surplus of grey matter which is not concerned with governing the usual functions of the body, but instead means the human brain is complex enough to sustain conscious awareness, allowing creativity, introspection and other abilities which are essential for our survival. We probably developed this due to our walking on two feet, which allows us to use our hands to manipulate objects dexterously.

If an animal does not have this extra brain mass, then their entire brain is concerned only with governing the rest of the body, and rightly so. No other animal uses tools in a way as creatively as we do (with the exception of chimps, another species with a high brain-mass-to-body-ma** ratio), no other animal has language, no other animal displays the complex emotional changes we do (for example, we are the only animals that cry under stress or shed tears of happiness - with the exception of the elephant, another animal with the aforementioned difference in brain ma** and bod mass). Therefore, it would be a waste to devote resources to growing the extra brain ma** and supplying it with energy.

And my question still hasn't really been addressed: where do you draw the line for consciousness?

Quote:
The mirror test detects self-awareness in subjects. Since most animals do not pa** the mirror test or show any othe indications of self-awareness, it can be assumned that they don't feel pain on a conscious level, therefore they do not suffer. From this reasoning, it can be said that most animals do not deserve the same respect that humans do.

buffalobill90 said:
I've mentioned earlier in the thread about the assumptions people make about animal 'emotions' based on their facial expressions and body language. We are built to recognise those expressions in humans and when the same bahaviour is exhibited in animals we make the same assumptions about their mental state. However, the displays made by animals to show apparent changes in emotion are only accompanied by conscious changes in the case of conscious creatures, whereas in non-conscious animals they are an expression of physiological changes only, such as hormonal activity; when an animal is described as stressed or depressed, this is usually based on observations of their physical state, since they can hardly be asked how they feel. Like I said, dogs and ostriches are not capable of conscious thought because it would be an anatomical disadvatage for them to be equipped with the necessary cranial apparatus.

It is true that while most animals tested react to reflections as if they are another member of their species, dogs eventually become indifferent to them. It is conjectured that this is due to the fact that dogs recognise each other mainly by smell, and therefore if their visual perception of another dog is not accompanied by olfactory recognition, they dismiss the visual image and ignore it. Similar observations have been made of cats.

So, consciousness is not required for suffering? Are you saying that someone who is unconscious is capable of feeling emotional or physical pain?

alexkidd said:
you kind of miss my point,
in many ways we of course are distinct from animals.

but on the premise of 'feeling pain' we can look at what pain means evolutionary wise. it serves great purpose, to show that we are injured.
pain receptors work just the same in animals as humans, have come about for the same reasons and from the same source, to assume they work so vastly different is to imagine that they're not the same thing, they are.

i think you're premise is that because animals fail to recognise themselves in a mirror they have no sense of self.
and if they have no sense of self then how can they feel pain, or at least associate that pain with themselves?

interesting point, but first off animals certainly have a 'sense of self', perhaps not in the broad human sense but they know that 'i am hungry', 'i want affection', 'i'm in danger'
(of course not suggesting animals think directly in these terms)
these are more than just complex chemical responses, they work the exact same as ourselves, because they come from the same origins.
and just as we do, an animal certainly feels pain.

maybe that means less because they can't equate that pain with our own sense of mortality or fear of death, but they do feel pain, just as sharp as we do. which is moral enough reason not to cause it in my eyes.
no matter what the implications of this pain are in the animals mind.

vaboom said:
Emotion: A psychological state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is sometimes accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling. You are right, you can't ask an animal how they feel, and animals MAY not express their emotions the same way we do (through facial expression and body language), but they still have emotions. You do not have to be conscious to emote, therefore proving your first statement false.
Conscious: Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. How can you say that an animal is NOT conscious?? If they are eating, protecting themselves, mating, and living, then they are CONSCIOUS! Their cranial apparatus has nothing to do with it. Supposedly humans only really use 10% of their brain. Then why are our heads so god damned big?? Maybe animals just got rid of the other 90% they didn't need, so they could free up some needed space. Or, imagine that animals AREN'T people. They have different brain structure and different body structure, so to compare them would be pointless.
Suffer: to undergo or feel pain or distress. UNDERGO or FEEL. Like I said before, (obviously you didn't pay attention) you CAN be unconscious and suffer at the same time. Although you are unconscious, and may not FEEL the pain, your body is still UNDERGOING pain and therefore it is suffering. When you wake up from a surgery, you are still going to have the wouds from the surgery. Just because you are unconscious doesn't mean that pain just magically ceases. You can also suffer emotionally when you are unconscious. You can have upsetting dreams or thoughts that are emotionally painful. People have actually cried for no apparent reason while in a coma.

And, what you said about the mirror test did not pertain to what I had pointed out. Please re-read my post, and you'll see that I think animals react differently to mirrors because they do not know what mirrors are, not because they think their reflection is a member of their own species.

In my opinion, a real scientist does not just argue that they are right, they PROVE that they are right. And, in order to prove that they are right, they must first try to prove themselves wrong.
*This is my challenge to you: Instead of looking for reasoning to prove your point, try to find reasoning why you might be wrong. Do the other side of the research and then come back and try to prove your point, because as you are doing it now, it is obviously not working. And please, as I asked before, do some REAL experiments if you are going to claim that your theory is based on sound scientific evidence.

Quote:
I have not had my views challenged to any huge degree because most responses are either irrelevant or overtly hostile.