I've read several definitions of sentience and all definitions seem slightly different. I've been trying to argue that causing animals to suffer is immoral. My opponents seem to invariably strike at the weakest spot, sentience.
Opponents' arguments are almost always
"animals cannot feel pain."
"animals can't suffer."
"stimulus and response"
I barely understand what stimulus response is let alone sentience. My opponents have sensed that weakness and call me out on it. The problem is they are right, I don't actually know what sentience nor stimulus and response is. I'm not even sure if animals can feel pain.
Its embarrassing that I bring up the subject and my opponents know more about the topic than me. I'm used to my opponents knowing way less than me, not more than me.
So I guess let's start with the basics. What is sentience? Are human sentient? I don't even know if humans are sentient. I went to teach others, and now I'm confused.
One dilemma is I am open minded. The fact that I'm posting on this ning.network shows that I am open minded. My opponents don't seem to have such a disadvantage, meaning they are more likely to convince me that I am to convince them. I remember in school I figured out I was different from the other children in the sense that I couldn't tune people out. Some people have the ability not to listen or to ignore others. I seem to lack that ability.
Remember, I'm not the smartest, I'm doubt I'll ever understand the China study.
Replies
If you recognise it is wrong to cause animals to suffer you are much smarter than they are.
Sentience is the conscious awareness, the actual feeling of an experience, which is completely private to the conscious entity and is a fascinating and mysterious phenomena. There is a conscious experience of the colour red that you cannot describe to anyone - you cannot tell if what you see as red another sees as green as it is your own private experience.. And there is an unpleasantness to your pain that only you can ever know about. That is your sentient experience.
Anyhow - for those that say they don't believe animals are in any way sentient, don't feel pain or suffer ask them this - do they think it is perfectly fine for someone to torture a dog, poke its eyes out and cut off its limbs, and leave it to starve to death?? If animals can't suffer there wouldn't be anything wrong with this as no suffering has been caused. You can be sure 99.999% of people would see this as seriously wrong, disturbing and want anyone that did it to be locked up.
So they do know animals can suffer, they just choose to willfully deny it for the animals they want to exploit. Their position is ridiculous.
greetings robert! and welcome to 30bad!
your very first post is excellent, imho!
You can be sure 99.999% of people would see this as seriously wrong, disturbing and want anyone that did it to be locked up.
this point really hits home - surely they see torturing animals as causing suffering and not stimulus response.
So they do know animals can suffer, they just choose to willfully deny it for the animals they want to exploit. Their position is ridiculous.
willful denial goes hand-in-hand with willful ignorance. in fact, the latter is the marketeer's "secret weapon" as this video shows:
the secrets of marketing: a must watch!
in friendship,
prad
Thanks Prad
Such a great video, it is long overdue that the masses start waking up to it.
Best wishes
Robert
I can't even convince my opponent ...
remember again that your job is not to convince.
They use the example of an animal screaming in pain. They claim this is stimulus response. That the subconscious reacts to the stimulus, but they aren't consciously aware of the pain. Finally, they conclude the only way to know if an animal can consciously feel pain, is if the animal can talk. Until, animals can talk, they claim they won't be convinced that animals are "truly sentient."
well this is the usual bambi syndrome:
Here we are faced with an example of the Bambi Syndrome: scientists can not accept the reality of animal language or animal consciousness until an animal possessed of certain key attributes of both human language and human consciousness appears on the scene.
http://www.helsinki.fi/~lauhakan/whale/intersp/pages/yeljack.html
measure of a bee
so, by their reasoning those who have lost the ability or never had the ability to talk are just stimulus responding! :D i suppose all sentient beings also have to talk in the language of the torturer to prove themselves sentient.
so you should see what is really happening here because it is just a variation of the anthropocentric dilemma and put in sillygistic form as such:
1. only humans can feel pain (ie non-humans animals cannot feel pain)
2. animals are not human
3. therefore, animals cannot feel pain
the conclusion is saying the same thing as the premise, so you have a begging the question fallacy here in actuality. circular reasoning of this sort is typical in any area where you really have run out of ideas and there aren't even anymore straws to grasp at.
you see this sort of thing quite often in religious defenses, because there is no remotely plausible way to defend faith-based conjectures. the final effort:
an animal must be able to travel to the afterlife in order for it to be sentient.
really does reveal what sort of people you are dealing with. you don't try to win arguments with people like this, because they are intentionally too far gone to accept what an argument actually is. so you enjoy yourself instead (simultaneously leaving rational posts for others to see).
engaging with these people is fine for amusement as illustrated in lewis carroll:
In that direction," the Cat said, " lives a Hatter and in that direction lives a March Hare. They're both mad."
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
Alice didn't think that proved it at all.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/jepsonrw/chap95.htm
these people really are in wonderland of their own creation.
in friendship,
prad
I've been trying to argue with people who keep stating over and over that animals aren't sentient and I'm confusing sentience with stimulus response. That plants and animals are equally sentient. I think your right prad, I can't convince these people.
I'm tired of arguing with such people. I'm going to take a break from the computer. Been sitting too much, eye strain, and so forth. Know any good cookie recipes? I have a lot of oatmeal.
I think your right prad, I can't convince these people.
but you can use them.
and you can assist sangeeta.
Know any good cookie recipes? I have a lot of oatmeal.
http://www.yummly.com/recipes/vegan-banana-oatmeal-cookies?prm-v1=1
in friendship,
prad
http://yourcybercourt.info/yccbb/viewforum.php?id=5
in friendship,
prad
Interesting about the morphine and the bees. My opponents' arguments' seem to hinge on the difference between subconscious and conscious recognition of pain. I can't even convince my opponent that animals capable of passing the mirror test, elephants, chimpanzees, bonboo monkeys, and more are capable of consciously feeling pain.
They use the example of an animal screaming in pain. They claim this is stimulus response. That the subconscious reacts to the stimulus, but they aren't consciously aware of the pain. Finally, they conclude the only way to know if an animal can consciously feel pain, is if the animal can talk. Until, animals can talk, they claim they won't be convinced that animals are "truly sentient."
I've also heard that since animals can't talk, its a response that looks like pain to us, but its not. Finally, the most bizarre response is that an animal must be able to travel to the afterlife in order for it to be sentient.
I'm surprised how much resistance I get that chimps and bonboos are sentient.
Anyways, I'm convinced that I know about as much as there is to know on the subject of sentience. Thanks for the links prad. My opponents are just good at instilling doubt in me. Still, I hate to promote something I'm not sure about. I will continue my research. I think I'll start with chimpanzees. Make sure they are sentient.
I found one website that seems to attract people who seem smarter than the average person. Half tempted to link to the website, I'll lose some privacy since you'll be able to see my alias. Maybe somebody can give me some pointers.
Found some links. Trying to figure out what exactly is the difference in intelligence between an amoeba and a honey bee. I read that cognition is what determines if something is sentient or not. I just don't know at this point. Humans might not be sentient or amoebas might be sentient depending upon the definition. Either way it seems single cell organisms are smarter than I thought.
http://psychologydictionary.org/sentience/
http://www.britannica.com/science/nervous-system
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3629984/
http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/microbes/microbes-can-solve-a-problem