Just to address this whole "do animals have consciousness?" issue with my limited experience in the natural sciences. It is my understanding that consciousness is not a single process going on in the brain, but rather the result of many different sensory and memory inputs/outputs at the same time (look at a neural circuit diagram... man those things are crazy. I remember learning about an experiment that demonstrated that consciousness does not arise solely in V1(visual cortex) region of the brain). Mammals in general have pretty advanced brains that share many of the features that our brains have. It is therefore very pausible to suggest that animals do indeed have consciousness. I am not offering any moral or value judgments on the exploitation of animals.
I should also add that animal products play essential roles in our diet. In fact, many vegetarians must take supplements to avoid nutrient deficiency. A mixed diet of meat and vegetables does not encounter this problem. Our dietary needs most likely stem from our evolutionary history. With this insight I usually skip "is it right or wrong?" and just say it's in our own benefit to consume animals. Until a race of super-rats eventually outsmarts and outnumbers us, I say dig in!
JCFolsom: Stephen Forde:Argumentation requires at the very least posturing and signally a willingness to establish an interpersonal norm. And yes. The snot-licking near-jawless person with about a mostly fluid-filled skull, no eyes and perfect pitch is more capable of reason than a chimpanzee. Absurd. Mere bigotry. Simplistic religious faith in the categorical difference between human and animal experience. I don't know what else to say on this. If you would hold such a position, our starting points for viewing reality are clearly too different to continue this avenue of argument. By the way, you must be a pro-lifer, right? Since your argument for the future abilities of a toddler apply to the unborn as well.
Stephen Forde:Argumentation requires at the very least posturing and signally a willingness to establish an interpersonal norm. And yes. The snot-licking near-jawless person with about a mostly fluid-filled skull, no eyes and perfect pitch is more capable of reason than a chimpanzee.
Absurd. Mere bigotry. Simplistic religious faith in the categorical difference between human and animal experience. I don't know what else to say on this. If you would hold such a position, our starting points for viewing reality are clearly too different to continue this avenue of argument.
By the way, you must be a pro-lifer, right? Since your argument for the future abilities of a toddler apply to the unborn as well.
Simplistic religious faith? Is it even possible to give a chimp an IQ test?
As for the abortion thing, the entire issue is a matter for family members to decide. The state should have nothing to do with it.
Interpersonal ethics (rights) presupposes argumentation and communication. Argumentation and communication both presuppose interpersonal reciprocal norms.
Well, if a human violates someone else's property rights, we punish them. Should we apply the same rules to animals? If a cat eats a bird, should we punish the cat?
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Jetblack, if we created a computer that is more complex than the human brain, it would still be a series of chemical reactions. To be honest, the galaxy is more complex than the human brain! Why isn't it conscious?
edit: The concept of "input" is entirely meaningless if you think about a chemical persepctive. Everything is simply a chain of chemical reactions. "Input" only has meaning if you are talking about a conscious being.
Ego:Jetblack, if we created a computer that is more complex than the human brain, it would still be a series of chemical reactions. To be honest, the galaxy is more complex than the human brain! Why isn't it conscious? edit: The concept of "input" is entirely meaningless if you think about a chemical persepctive. Everything is simply a chain of chemical reactions. "Input" only has meaning if you are talking about a conscious being.
Okay, let me say this, because you've asked and it keeps coming up, and just to be fair to the reader so y'all have a better idea where I'm coming from. The subjective experience of human existence is in no way explainable by mere brain processes. We can understand how a vastly complex set of circuits like our brain might be able to produce human-seeming behavoirs, but no explanation, or even really a scientific explanation, for how our inner experience is produced. Surely, the sight of red is the register of a certain frequency of light, but why does it look red? Why can we summon this idea of redness to our minds? We can explain the red wavelengths of light, the objects and substances it brightens, all conceivable descriptors, and not give even the slightest idea of what it is to experience redness to one who has not seen it. The loveliness of a vista, or a song, a creeping dread, all the poetry in life, has no real meaning or explanation within science.
I believe that we are all of a basic spiritual nature, cycling through various lives rather like the Hindu concept of reincarnation, but rather than reaping the consequences of karma, as we grow in personality and complexity, we require ever greater complexity in our vessels. I believe that all animals, perhaps all self-motivated beings, or at least some at all levels, are the incarnations of spirits like ours. The brain is a receiver and translator of the impulses from the soul to the body, and from the physical world for the perusal of the soul. This is the merest shell of my belief.
jetblackjp: I should also add that animal products play essential roles in our diet. In fact, many vegetarians must take supplements to avoid nutrient deficiency. A mixed diet of meat and vegetables does not encounter this problem. Our dietary needs most likely stem from our evolutionary history. With this insight I usually skip "is it right or wrong?" and just say it's in our own benefit to consume animals. Until a race of super-rats eventually outsmarts and outnumbers us, I say dig in!
Man doesn't even need vegetables (thankfully, or we'd have never survived the ice ages). There are many aboriginal cultures in existence today that eat nothing but meat and they're among the healthiest people in the world. Here is an amazing tale of an arctic explorer who got stuck living with eskimoes for a few years, eating nothing but fish, seal and caribou: http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm
I personally eat a mostly meat diet and am in amazing shape (at age 37). I consider it to be the natural diet of man, and thus have a difficult time imagining how animals could have rights. If they have a right to not be eaten, how does man survive? Vegetarianism is unnatural and fatal to man (vitamin b12 is only available in meat -- if vegetarians don't take supplements they die. Here's a good link that destroys the health claims of vegetarians: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html).
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
maxpot46: jetblackjp: I should also add that animal products play essential roles in our diet. In fact, many vegetarians must take supplements to avoid nutrient deficiency. A mixed diet of meat and vegetables does not encounter this problem. Our dietary needs most likely stem from our evolutionary history. With this insight I usually skip "is it right or wrong?" and just say it's in our own benefit to consume animals. Until a race of super-rats eventually outsmarts and outnumbers us, I say dig in! Man doesn't even need vegetables (thankfully, or we'd have never survived the ice ages). There are many aboriginal cultures in existence today that eat nothing but meat and they're among the healthiest people in the world. Here is an amazing tale of an arctic explorer who got stuck living with eskimoes for a few years, eating nothing but fish, seal and caribou: http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm I personally eat a mostly meat diet and am in amazing shape (at age 37). I consider it to be the natural diet of man, and thus have a difficult time imagining how animals could have rights. If they have a right to not be eaten, how does man survive? Vegetarianism is unnatural and fatal to man (vitamin b12 is only available in meat -- if vegetarians don't take supplements they die. Here's a good link that destroys the health claims of vegetarians: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html).
Take note, I actually never said that we should not eat animals. I'm not a vegetarian. I used to be, and even today I mostly eat fish and occasional poultry and very occasionally red meat. I actually agree that meat is needed for human well-being. If you look at people who've been vegans for years, you'll start to see some really haggard looks (all-herbal "medicine" probably doesn't help that either). Being a rather, well, hefty fellow, probably folks shouldn't look to me for diet tips. All the same, like I said I recognize the need for animal proteins, and further unlike many here (as gone over exhaustively in another thread) I believe that need removes our culpability in taking their lives for our sustenance. Indeed, given the utter dependence of some domesticated animals (such as sheep), we could scarce end our relationship with them without condemning them to extinction. Horses, goats and pigs do alright in the wild, but chickens and domesticated turkeys? I rather think not. However, we ought to do this in a humane fashion. The circumstances in which animals are kept, most especially layer hens, actually, are absolutely horrific. And, if we were to be able to develop vat-grown meat (not so far-fetched) that we established served the same need, I think we'd be pretty well obligated to use that instead.
At best, I could see an obligation of sorts not to inflict unnecessary suffering upon an animal. For something to possess rights it must be rational (I ask that this not be conflated with a high IQ, which for some reason a lot of people do.) If one of the higher animals were to become rational, then it too would have rights.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I would say that the test of consciousness is an ability to think conceptually and abstractly. Self awareness usually includes the ability to be embarassed. I think it was Mark Twain who said "Man is the only animal that can blush, or needs to". You can argue all day long about whether animals are capable of this, as I see you have done. But the important thing is, is there proof for, or against this argument? When humans became conscious, for whatever reason, they moved out of caves and developed a society, for only in a society can one have social contracts. What proof is there that animals are capable of this type of thought? Have they invented any kind of techology? Beavers build dams, just as birds build nests, but stacking debris together I think is instinctual, not cognitive. Language is a technology, humans developed language, a system of abstract symbols for things. No animal species has developed a language to my knowlege, because in my opinion the test for language is that it be possible for others to learn it. ie-a dog born to an owner, and raised by that person all its life, never learns to speak with his owner, why is this? Humans can learn he language of other humans, why can't animals learn the language of humans, or other animals? I saw something about Hellen Keller earlier, even being blind and deaf, she was able to learn the language, or at least how to communicate. Why has no animal ever done this? So as Murray Rothbard put it "we will give animals rights when they petition for them". As far as children and the mentally handicaped go, I would assert that they are the property of the people who care for them, likely the parents. And don't come back at me with the argument that, 'well what if the parent molests the child, or someone takes advantage of the handicaped' because that is to confuse law with moraity. Hopefully even the lowliest of fools knows better than to try to legislate morality. Even though an animal might be property I would never kick my dog for sport. Anyway, if you really are interested in this question, you have a lot of reading to do. Try some philosophy, start with Descartes. Cogito ergo sum - I think therefor I Add or something to that effect, my latin is a little rusty
Although Hobbes might've linked reason to subtraction and addition, cogito ergo sum means I think therefore I am. The proof is meant to show that all I can be sure of, that is to say absolutely certain of, is my own existence (that is, my soul - not even my own body.)
Jon, sorry my interpretation of Descartes was an attempt at humor. Yes his phrase was an answer to the sceptics and metaphysicians who claimed that we cannot really be certain of anything, that our lives and everything around us could be all a dream or a fantasy, I guess they didn't see the Matrix. My invocation of the phrase was an attempt to point out that self awareness is the starting point of rationality and that until animals are capable of this introspection that we must treat them as property. A great hyothetical of this would be in science fiction, such as Star Trek, where other alien (to our planet - though by definition we would be alien to theirs also) species are treated as equal to humans, not property. Interestingly, sci-fi is a great tool for philosophy. As an aside, when reading any philosophy the reader will do well to continually ask himself "What question is he trying to answer?" Most people make the mistake of instead asking "What is he trying to say?" For example, Descartes was trying to answer the sceptics question, "what can we really be sure of?" The sceptics answer was "nothing", while Descartes answer was "I have a mind, and can introspect, so I must exist". Anyway. I'm done with this topic. And btw I haven't read Hobbes yet, have you read Leviathan?
robdailey:Jon, sorry my interpretation of Descartes was an attempt at humor. Yes his phrase was an answer to the sceptics and metaphysicians who claimed that we cannot really be certain of anything, that our lives and everything around us could be all a dream or a fantasy, I guess they didn't see the Matrix. My invocation of the phrase was an attempt to point out that self awareness is the starting point of rationality and that until animals are capable of this introspection that we must treat them as property. A great hyothetical of this would be in science fiction, such as Star Trek, where other alien (to our planet - though by definition we would be alien to theirs also) species are treated as equal to humans, not property. Interestingly, sci-fi is a great tool for philosophy. As an aside, when reading any philosophy the reader will do well to continually ask himself "What question is he trying to answer?" Most people make the mistake of instead asking "What is he trying to say?" For example, Descartes was trying to answer the sceptics question, "what can we really be sure of?" The sceptics answer was "nothing", while Descartes answer was "I have a mind, and can introspect, so I must exist". Anyway. I'm done with this topic. And btw I haven't read Hobbes yet, have you read Leviathan?
Can you prove that no non-human animals are capable of introspection? Further, can you prove that all people are? Why is introspection the definition of consiousness, and why is consciousness the criterion on which we base what is humane? If a creature can suffer, and acts to avoid its suffering, do we have a right to override its clear wishes. The fact is, most of the time, animals mind their own business, and are no more likely to violate your rights than another human. This is not based on an explicit agreement, but you don't have such an agreement with most people. It is in the interest of most beings to avoid conflict if possible.
JC, if animals have no consciousness, they don't suffer any more than a rock or a computer program.
Also, do you see no difference between assuming all humans have consciousness and assuming all lizards have consciousnes?
robdailey:As far as children and the mentally handicaped go, I would assert that they are the property of the people who care for them, likely the parents. And don't come back at me with the argument that, 'well what if the parent molests the child, or someone takes advantage of the handicaped' because that is to confuse law with moraity. Hopefully even the lowliest of fools knows better than to try to legislate morality.
Like property rights, you mean? We wouldn't want to legislate your morality of property rights, right? All legislation is based on morality. And in case you haven't noticed, a large majority of people tend to think that we should "legislate morality" in regards to child molestation. Some of them, I dare say, may be "the lowliest of fools" but most are not. This is going into a tangent, but a child is a human just as its parent, just one that is dependent. Because it is the action of the parents that caused the dependency, they have gained not a human property but an obligation to a fellow human being to support them until their dependency ends, and they have no more right to abuse that human being than any other.
Congratulations, though. You are the predicted vile dehumanizer who says that, indeed, the law ought allow us to kill and eat children and the mentally handicapped, because you can do whatever you want with your property. Mayhap in your dotardy you shall enjoy the fruits of your philosophy.
Rights only matter in so far as they promote social cooperation. Animals are not capable of reason and must be physically restrained in order not to disrupt social life. Because they are incapable of social life, they cannot be said to have rights.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Ego:JC, if animals have no consciousness, they don't suffer any more than a rock or a computer program. Also, do you see no difference between assuming all humans have consciousness and assuming all lizards have consciousnes?
Well, there are 2 issues. What is the definition of consciousness and, how much consciousness do you need before you come to the point of having at least some rights?
I'm not sure about lizards (again, I don't know where the line should be drawn), but I believe an animal such as a cat feels and experiences pain much as we do, and experiences fear, upset, and rage at it much as we would. I am reminded of a video I saw of a park ranger trying to release a leopard from the back of his truck. He was trying to convince it to get out of its opened cage and run off and do leopard things by poking it with a stick. Some advice for all of you that find yourself in this situation: don't poke a leopard with a stick. Rather than just running off scared, as the ranger was expecting, the leopard got pissed off, ran out the back of the truck, then went back around and, pulling down the window with its paws began clawing at the ranger.
Do we know that the leopard was actually annoyed? No, there is no way that we can know that, yet it really seems as if it is so. If they can be annoyed, can they not suffer, and if they suffer, do they not suffer all the more greatly for being unable to be philosophical about it?
Stranger: Rights only matter in so far as they promote social cooperation. Animals are not capable of reason and must be physically restrained in order not to disrupt social life. Because they are incapable of social life, they cannot be said to have rights.
Utilitarianism smells like poo. Rights matter because they are morally correct, not because of their anticipated results. By your rationale, if one were to find a better way of promoting social cooperation, than rights could be done away with.
Jon Irenicus: At best, I could see an obligation of sorts not to inflict unnecessary suffering upon an animal. For something to possess rights it must be rational (I ask that this not be conflated with a high IQ, which for some reason a lot of people do.) If one of the higher animals were to become rational, then it too would have rights.
I don't have time to get deeply involved in this debate and this isn't the first time this debate has come up in these forums. I already took part in one of them.
I'll offer a couple of relevant sources:
"Why Animal Rights Don't Exist" by Tibor Machan
"Why do folks like Regan think animals have rights, nonetheless? Because they ascribe rights not on the basis of moral agency but because of a certain level of intelligence."
Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature's Favorite by Tibor Machan
To the best of our knowledge, no other animal besides human beings is capable of rational thought and thus of moral agency. This is not simply a matter of intelligence that animal species have in varying degrees. It is a qualitative difference. Perhaps a certain degree of intelligence allows for it, but we are currently the only species we know of that possesses this capacity. As human beings ourselves, we know that human beings as a species possess this capacity. We know, of course, as well, that some human beings are deficient (temporarily or permanently), but not necessarily lacking altogether, in this capacity: e.g., children, the old and senile, the comatose, the mentally retarded, etc. But they are still human beings. Those who wish to claim that other animals have rights too have the burden of proof in showing that animals are capable of rational thought and hence of moral agency. I have yet to see sufficient evidence for such claims. (By rational, of course, I mean the Aristotelian conception.)
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
JCFolsom: [1] Can you prove that no non-human animals are capable of introspection? [2]Further, can you prove that all people are? [3]Why is introspection the definition of consiousness, and why is consciousness the criterion on which we base what is humane? If a creature can suffer, and acts to avoid its suffering, do we have a right to override its clear wishes. The fact is, most of the time, animals mind their own business, and are no more likely to violate your rights than another human. This is not based on an explicit agreement, but you don't have such an agreement with most people. It is in the interest of most beings to avoid conflict if possible.
[1] Can you prove that no non-human animals are capable of introspection? [2]Further, can you prove that all people are? [3]Why is introspection the definition of consiousness, and why is consciousness the criterion on which we base what is humane? If a creature can suffer, and acts to avoid its suffering, do we have a right to override its clear wishes. The fact is, most of the time, animals mind their own business, and are no more likely to violate your rights than another human. This is not based on an explicit agreement, but you don't have such an agreement with most people. It is in the interest of most beings to avoid conflict if possible.
[1] No, as it is a logical falacy, you cannot prove a negative - can you prove dogs can't fly? We live by our assumptions, we assume dogs cannot fly, but any amount of empirical evidence that backs this assumption will never prove it to be true.
[2] This was the point I was making when I spoke about Descartes, I cannot know what anyone else thinks, or even if they think at all. I have serious misgivings about you thinking. If you really want good answers to your questions, you should start reading as much as you can find about it. A message board will never come close to what some very intelligent people have aleady said.
[3] Introspection is not the definition of consciousness, but conscious is actually irrelavent
Animals cannot abide by our social contracts, most importantly the concept of private property. Therefor we must treat them like animals, and likewise they may treat us like animals in return, which of course they do. For us to be able to contract with them we would need to have a way of communicating with them. Until then we must treat them as non rational. I think communication is the main, possibly the only qualifier.
With humans we have a way to seek retribution if they violate our rights, through the legal system, so if an animal were to seek retribution I would say that he should be able to do so. Hence Rothbards comment that we will give animals rights when they petition for them.
And I think you can most certainly have rights without morality, if you start from a system based on private property, the individual being first soverign in the right to his own body and go from there.
JCFolsom: Ego:JC, if animals have no consciousness, they don't suffer any more than a rock or a computer program. Also, do you see no difference between assuming all humans have consciousness and assuming all lizards have consciousnes? Well, there are 2 issues. What is the definition of consciousness and, how much consciousness do you need before you come to the point of having at least some rights? I'm not sure about lizards (again, I don't know where the line should be drawn), but I believe an animal such as a cat feels and experiences pain much as we do, and experiences fear, upset, and rage at it much as we would. I am reminded of a video I saw of a park ranger trying to release a leopard from the back of his truck. He was trying to convince it to get out of its opened cage and run off and do leopard things by poking it with a stick. Some advice for all of you that find yourself in this situation: don't poke a leopard with a stick. Rather than just running off scared, as the ranger was expecting, the leopard got pissed off, ran out the back of the truck, then went back around and, pulling down the window with its paws began clawing at the ranger. Do we know that the leopard was actually annoyed? No, there is no way that we can know that, yet it really seems as if it is so. If they can be annoyed, can they not suffer, and if they suffer, do they not suffer all the more greatly for being unable to be philosophical about it?
Where do you want to go with this? Should we punish cats when they kill birds?
JCFolsom: Stranger: Rights only matter in so far as they promote social cooperation. Animals are not capable of reason and must be physically restrained in order not to disrupt social life. Because they are incapable of social life, they cannot be said to have rights. Utilitarianism smells like poo. Rights matter because they are morally correct, not because of their anticipated results. By your rationale, if one were to find a better way of promoting social cooperation, than rights could be done away with.
You did not understand me. I am not promoting a moral ethic of utilitarianism. I am saying that whatever our relationship with animals may be, it cannot be said that they have rights. It would simply water down the definition of what a right is.
robdailey: [1] No, as it is a logical falacy, you cannot prove a negative - can you prove dogs can't fly? We live by our assumptions, we assume dogs cannot fly, but any amount of empirical evidence that backs this assumption will never prove it to be true.
No, I cannot prove that dogs can't fly. Nonetheless, I have observed dogs moving around a lot. Meanwhile, neither I nor anyone else has seen the mental processes behind a dog's actions. Indeed, no one can observe the mind of another, at least in a way science currently accepts. Therefore, there is far less evidence to go on in trying to prove consciousness or introspection in any being, because these things have no objective presence, but only a subjective one.
robdailey:I have serious misgivings about you thinking.
The feeling is mutual.
robdailey:If you really want good answers to your questions, you should start reading as much as you can find about it. A message board will never come close to what some very intelligent people have aleady said.
While you have your misgivings, I consider myself a very intelligent person, and I don't need other people telling me what to think. The number of people who think your opinions are spiffy does not in itself make your opinions have merit.
robdailey:Animals cannot abide by our social contracts, most importantly the concept of private property.
What social contracts? I never signed any "social contract". Your "thinking" strays towards collectivism here.
robdailey:Therefor we must treat them like animals, and likewise they may treat us like animals in return, which of course they do. For us to be able to contract with them we would need to have a way of communicating with them. Until then we must treat them as non rational. I think communication is the main, possibly the only qualifier.
So again, the severely retarded are SOL in your conception. As would be, say, Hellen Keller, if somebody hadn't really put in a huge effort.
robdailey:And I think you can most certainly have rights without morality, if you start from a system based on private property, the individual being first soverign in the right to his own body and go from there.
Why would I start from a system based on private property? Why is that the correct way? Since there need be no morals, why should I respect your private property? To keep us from conflict? Why is no conflict preferable to conflict. You MUST have a system of behavioral values, aka morals, in place before you can even start this conversation. All your shoulds are based on some notion of what is good and bad, right or wrong. You just like to shift definitions around to suit your convenience and justify your callousness towards other forms of life.
Ego:Where do you want to go with this? Should we punish cats when they kill birds?
Not at all. Cats kill birds, at least in part, because they have an instinct to hunt, because in the wild they must hunt to survive. I do not fault any being what it does for survival's sake. All life comes from death, that is the way of things.
Where do I want to go with this? I want people to acknowledge that animals are not property, at least not as inanimate objects can be property. People need to refrain from causing unnecessary suffering to other beings, even if they cannot expect such consideration in return. If an animal attacks you, kill it. Heck, even if an animal shows a special proclivity to attacking people, yet is attacking no one, kill it. If you need an animal's flesh for food, kill it. However, do not abuse them, to not torment them. When you buy your eggs buy them free range, don't buy freakin' white veal or foie gras, don't have dog fights or *** fights, etc. These things are monsterous, and all the property-rights rationalizations in the world don't make them less so.
We don't need to treat animals as if they're human, but we shouldn't treat them as property either. Sorry if it makes things difficult to introduce another type of being besides people and property, but there it is.
I'l say this: I don't think animals have rights. I don't think that it's safe or useful to assume that everything is conscious until we prove otherwise.
That being said, I agree with your conclusion for the most part. Whether dogs are self-aware or a complex chain of chemical reactions, I could never bring myself to hurt one without it trying to attack someone. If I knew they didn't have consciousness, I wouldn't care at all (just like you and I wouldn't care about stomping on a robotic dog).
How do you feel about farms, though? Or horses used for transportation? Should no one be allowed to fence animals in?
Ego to answer your question:
The human brain does not resemble a galaxy. Sure, they are both "complex" entities, but there are fundamental differences between the two things. The human brain and those of his ancestor's have evovled over time to have consciousness. Humans possess the most complex and powerful of all the minds of all the animal kingdom. That is our evolutionary advantage. We were able to fight lions, bears and elephants etc using mainly our minds to overcome our physical limitations. Man's rationality is a result of his evolution - a biological process.
Galaxies on the other hand are the result of physical processes. People would like to use the word evolution in describing the formation of galaxies. The evolution of the galaxy however gives an incorrect impression. Evolution as described in biology by the process of natural selection, is the result of natural tendencies of behaving organisms - similar to acting man. Why is it that biologists can study animal behaviour and understand it rationally? Does this not suggest that animals are capable of rational self-interest? Game theory is taught in evolutionary biology as well as economics. The formation of a galaxy is in no way approximate to a biological evolutionary force.
Even if we were to create a computer more complex than a human brain, you have to realize that there is a certain amount of evolutionary hard-coding in our brains. If we cannot determine what the coding is exactly then a realistic artificial mind, at least by our human standards, will be largely impossible. Eventually, in perhaps a 100 years or so, we may be able to achieve such a feat.
Jetblack, think about natural selection from a chemical standpoint.
Certain complex patterns of chemicals react with other and complex (and simple) patterns of chemicals in ways that lead to the formation of more of the original patterns of chemicals. It's really nothing special! In fact, "autonomous" movement is really just a series of chemical reactions.
There is nothing about the human brain that should form consciousness. Why should the human brain have consciousness and not a star? And not a rock? And not a computer? And not a can of turpentine?
I think animals should have rights..... when they ask for them.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
I don't think that's a good argument: if moths could speak, we certainly wouldn't be able to understand them! I know that if a Chinese-speaker asked me to respect his rights, I wouldn't understand that, either.
Keep in mind that I don't believe animals have rights.
I don't disagree with you completely. You are in fact correct in your analysis of biology as a series of complex chemical reactions. The message that I was trying to get across earlier was: To understand how an object/entity functions, it is important to know how it was created. The processes that resulted in the evolution of the human brain are most undoubtely different than those that created the rock. You listed computers which I find odd. I would have thought the concept of a computer would give more sway to my own argument. A computer is different than all the other objects you listed. Computers can perform computations far greater than the human mind can, but a computer can never think in the abstract. Our minds were not created in the same fashion but rather are the result of complex natural phenomena. Computers have been purposefully created to "think" to a lesser degree. A turpentine can was not designed to perform calculations and therefore does not, neither do stars or rocks. I should ask you, why is it that computers can calculate but not rocks? Does this not follow the same line of reasoning?
There is plenty in the human brain that gives rise to consciousness. I suggest you take a course in neurobiology for a more satisfactory explanation, but I can offer some evidence. For instance, there are parts of the brain that represent our entire visual field, our somatosensory inputs, our motor outputs, memory - both short and long term - the combination of all these elements and many, many more could quite easily give rise to the concept we call consciousness. Complexity theory in biology tells us that many inputs can result in outputs not predictable by analyzing the inputs alone.
I understand where youre coming from. I used that expression figuratavely, not literally. I meant that when animals have the power/mental ability to realize what rights are, and know when theres are being violated, then they deserve rights. Any human knows when theyre personal rights are being violated reguardless of nationality. Animals dont.
Ego: I'l say this: I don't think animals have rights. I don't think that it's safe or useful to assume that everything is conscious until we prove otherwise. That being said, I agree with your conclusion for the most part. Whether dogs are self-aware or a complex chain of chemical reactions, I could never bring myself to hurt one without it trying to attack someone. If I knew they didn't have consciousness, I wouldn't care at all (just like you and I wouldn't care about stomping on a robotic dog). How do you feel about farms, though? Or horses used for transportation? Should no one be allowed to fence animals in?
Well, the more I think about it, in the context of this conversation, the more I think that I may be making a mistake using an argument for rights here. In fact, I've never quite been sold on rights in a deontological, Lockean sense. Given my current leanings, I think a virtue-ethics argument would actually be more effective (and closer to my current train of thought), but I do not get the sense that virtue ethics are as well-represented within Austrian thought as deontological and consequentialist thought, and in any case my arguments for them are less developed.
As per farms, I don't have a problem with them. Many animals could not survive outside of farming environments anyway. The relationship we have to our animals is truly unique in nature. Only ants approach it, and that at least shows us that it is not entirely unnatural. These issues are not set in stone for me. What I do know, though, is that half-mile lines of ***-covered layer hens with clipped beaks and feet grown around the bars of their cages is a truly hell-like level of horror, and a terrible crime against even the barest speck of awareness and emotion. That kinda sheiss needs to stop.
To put it as a virtue, we must behave with compassion.
jetblackjp: There is plenty in the human brain that gives rise to consciousness. I suggest you take a course in neurobiology for a more satisfactory explanation, but I can offer some evidence. For instance, there are parts of the brain that represent our entire visual field, our somatosensory inputs, our motor outputs, memory - both short and long term - the combination of all these elements and many, many more could quite easily give rise to the concept we call consciousness. Complexity theory in biology tells us that many inputs can result in outputs not predictable by analyzing the inputs alone.
Neurobiology contains no explanation of the quality and subjectivity of experience. Neurobiology has never established anything but correlations. The causative assumptions made by materialistic neuroscience are only necessitated by their materialistic assumptions going in. Classes in a subject can teach you no information not available outside those classes, and that information in a class will certainly be presented in a way most favorable to that professor's and institution's biases.
JCFolsom:Well, the more I think about it, in the context of this conversation, the more I think that I may be making a mistake using an argument for rights here. In fact, I've never quite been sold on rights in a deontological, Lockean sense. Given my current leanings, I think a virtue-ethics argument would actually be more effective (and closer to my current train of thought), but I do not get the sense that virtue ethics are as well-represented within Austrian thought as deontological and consequentialist thought, and in any case my arguments for them are less developed.
Welcome to the club! There are a few of us Aristotelian liberals here and I think the number is growing. I think the progressivist, modern left-liberal penchant for applying rights-language to every ethical issue is highly problematic: it has the effect of trivializing rights and impoverishing ethics. As moral agents we can have (non-legally-enforceable) moral obligations, demanded by virtue, to other animals without said animals themselves being moral agents and having rights. There are a number of threads in these forums listing books and essays (some online) in this burgeoning tradition of Aristotelian liberalism. A little searching ought to bring them up. Also, you can check out my website, as my dissertation and other work are in this subject.
jetblackjp: I don't disagree with you completely. You are in fact correct in your analysis of biology as a series of complex chemical reactions. The message that I was trying to get across earlier was: To understand how an object/entity functions, it is important to know how it was created. The processes that resulted in the evolution of the human brain are most undoubtely different than those that created the rock. You listed computers which I find odd. I would have thought the concept of a computer would give more sway to my own argument. A computer is different than all the other objects you listed. Computers can perform computations far greater than the human mind can, but a computer can never think in the abstract. Our minds were not created in the same fashion but rather are the result of complex natural phenomena. Computers have been purposefully created to "think" to a lesser degree. A turpentine can was not designed to perform calculations and therefore does not, neither do stars or rocks. I should ask you, why is it that computers can calculate but not rocks? Does this not follow the same line of reasoning? There is plenty in the human brain that gives rise to consciousness. I suggest you take a course in neurobiology for a more satisfactory explanation, but I can offer some evidence. For instance, there are parts of the brain that represent our entire visual field, our somatosensory inputs, our motor outputs, memory - both short and long term - the combination of all these elements and many, many more could quite easily give rise to the concept we call consciousness. Complexity theory in biology tells us that many inputs can result in outputs not predictable by analyzing the inputs alone.
Jetblack, what does "input" mean beyond the scope of a conscious being? It doesn't anything. You could easily say that a polished stone has recieved the "input" of moving water. Or that a mountain has recieved the "input" of lightening. Or that a flag has recieved the "input" of wind. "Input" is simply a series of chemical reactions. Why don't rocks, mountains and flags have any consciousness?
The mistake you are making is assuming that there is something special and unique about biology. Organisms are just complex bundles and patterns of chemicals that react, well, "chemically" with other chemicals -- of course, that's ignoring the human consciousness.
JCFolsom: As per farms, I don't have a problem with them. Many animals could not survive outside of farming environments anyway. The relationship we have to our animals is truly unique in nature. Only ants approach it, and that at least shows us that it is not entirely unnatural. These issues are not set in stone for me. What I do know, though, is that half-mile lines of ***-covered layer hens with clipped beaks and feet grown around the bars of their cages is a truly hell-like level of horror, and a terrible crime against even the barest speck of awareness and emotion. That kinda sheiss needs to stop. To put it as a virtue, we must behave with compassion.
I will agree with you that majority of the commercial chicken industry behaves in a rather barbaric manner when it comes to their treatment of the chickens. While I absolutely deny animal rights in any way, shape or form, I cannot tolerate unnecessary suffering. Unfortunately, the poultry industry has been more resistant to pressure than the beef industry was. However, change IS coming to the poultry industry. Barbaric brood cages are slowly being abandoned in a small number of companies. Without the chickens crammed into these cages, it will no longer be necessary to engage in beak clipping and foot clipping.
The agent for the change in the poultry industry, as was the case earlier in the beef industry, is direct pressure brought against the END users <i.e. McDonalds, Burger King, etc.>. Under pressure from radical organizations, these companies in turn brought pressure on the beef slaughterhouses and forced them to modernize their facilities and submit to animal welfare audits. This has virtually ended cruelty in the beef industry <except at a few slaughterhouses serving GOVERNMENT customers>. This same process is now occuring in the poultry industry and I think you will see massive changes in a few years.
The bottom line is that this change that has occured and that will occur, has not required so much as ONE piece of government regulation or involvement to bring about. It was all done using the force of consumer preference in the free market. Proof that the free market CAN and DOES bring about desired change.
Now don't get me wrong. Neurobiology seeks to characterize, on a chemical/biological level, through anatomy and physiology, all biological systems involved in neural activity. That is its purpose - it generally tries to avoid "where does consciousness come from?" Although it can conduct experiments to show where consciousness doesn't come from. It can also show that specific areas of the brain are devoted to specific functions. It actually offers lots of information about the subjectivity of experience - at least across differing species.
Without causative assumptions how does science work at all? Science is only possible because of predictability of outcomes. That events cause other events is a given. Otherwise how can anything be explained rationally? The human mind isn't some mystical creation beyond the scope of rational science - it may be today but certainly not forever. The reason that "progress" has been slow in human neurobiology stems from largely ethical concerns. The gruesome nature of the science does not lend itself well to human studies.
Your concern about bias is an interesting one. Science strives to stay away from biases as strongly as it possibly can. My professor taught the class by examining experiment after experiment and discussing with the class the implications therein. The only sections not taught in this way were the anatomical lectures.
Rob, I feel silly now for not picking up on the sarcasm. Anyway, yes, his exposition of his thoughts on human nature (including the role of reason) takes place in Leviathan.
jetblackjp:Without causative assumptions how does science work at all? Science is only possible because of predictability of outcomes. That events cause other events is a given. Otherwise how can anything be explained rationally? The human mind isn't some mystical creation beyond the scope of rational science - it may be today but certainly not forever. The reason that "progress" has been slow in human neurobiology stems from largely ethical concerns. The gruesome nature of the science does not lend itself well to human studies. Your concern about bias is an interesting one. Science strives to stay away from biases as strongly as it possibly can. My professor taught the class by examining experiment after experiment and discussing with the class the implications therein. The only sections not taught in this way were the anatomical lectures.
Indeed, events are causative in nature, but there are reasons to believe that the mind is the cause of activity in the brain, rather than the brain the cause of mental activity. Your statement that the human mind isn't a mystical creation beyond the range of empiricism is justified only by the biases of the scientific establishment; namely, that science is the ultimate form of knowledge, and that all that is real must be encompassed by the methods it has available. If the mind were non-physical in nature, than that is indeed beyond the scope of science, but what that means is any scientific explanation for consciousness is incorrect.
Science is replete with biases. One professor comes up with a theory, then another bases their work on those theories, and so on and so forth, and the people who fund the research aren't usually the ones to fund it, and they have their own biases which, if violated by new findings risk that funding. If a scientist concludes, after 20 years of research based on a certain model, that the model is untenable, that last 20 years, all the papers and accolades, are found to be based on error. Not only his or her research, indeed, but perhaps his professors', and maybe even theirs as well.
A scientist who rocks the boat will face derision and resistance from his colleagues, for he threatens their work as well. In the specialized and detailed sciences of today, often the knowledge and experimentation is so specialized that only a few truly understand it, so outside support can be quite hard to find.
Probably the biggest and most ferocious of the viciously held biases in science today is the naturalism enabled by Darwin's theory. Even before Darwin came along, scientists had just been begging for a way to cut teleology out of the picture of creation. Darwin, they thought, had finally killed God. Of course, back then people thought individual cells were baloons of structureless protoplasm, not the vastly complex structures we know them to be today. These days, in many universities, even Christian universities, a scientist who shows any sympathy towards the idea of design in nature can expect to be ridiculed, denied tenure, even let go. Meanwhile, to try to preserve their precious materialism despite the impossibility of our universe arising by chance "scientists" get so outlandish as to propose untestable models such as multiple or infinite universes.
Anyway, tangential rant. Oh, well.