Guilty Until Proven Innocent

russ_watters

I didn't say "totally" subjective, I said "very" subjective. [;)] The mirror test is a pretty good one - a positive result does prove that an animal can tell the difference between itself and another animal. A negative result can be tougher since you can't always be sure if an animal is paying attention to the test.

Royce

I stand corrected. The point is still valid, however, science can and has very little to say about it. I agree that the mirror test is pretty good but still leaves some room for doubt. I think that there are levels of senience just as there are levels of consciousness but I have no idea what a valid test or criteria would be.
I always thought sentience referred to human like or level of intelligence until I read the above definitions. Homo sapiens are sentient. Neanderthals weren't as are none of the "lower" animals.
That was my working definition but if we start concidering self awareness and consciousness the picture it becomes very fuzzy.

theEVIL1

All I can add to this discussion which has already covered the bases are these quotes:

"Think of this: for each grain of sand on every beach on our planet, there are a million stars in the cosmos. Most of these stars have planets. For humanity to believe that our Earth is the only place life can be found is human arrogance at its worst."
-W. Sumner Davis

"What most people need to learn in life, is how to love people and use things instead of using people and love things."
-W. Sumner Davis

"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something."
-Richard Feynman

russ_watters

Except for the thing about neanderthals, Royce, we're in complete agreement now. I just wouldn't like to speculate on the full mental capacity of an animal we've never been able to see in action.

Royce

Neither would I. I just used it as a working definition. That is where I drew the line for my own purposes and understanding. At the time Neanderthals were not human and concidered lower in the evolutionary scale. There is now quite a controvery asbout their status and capabilities. My main thought is that while they made and used stone tools there has been no evidence found that shows they advanced or adobted their tools to any great degree like early Home sapiens. So that is where I drew the line with my understanding of sentience. Now I have no line or clear idea of what sentience is just as I have no idea of what consciousness is.
Just one more example of the more we learn, the less we know.

theEVIL1, I agree completely with your quotes and assuming that they reflect your thoughts, with you. I am not familar with Davis but Feynman is rapidly becoming one of my favorite people.

edit:
Just an after thought about Neanderthals, they may have just been the ultimate pragmatists and adhered to both the kiss principle and the "If it works don't fix it (or f**k with it)." principle.
KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Dissident Dan

Does anybody disagree with the statement that presuming other species to be robotic until proven otherwise is like "guilty until proven innocent"?

russ_watters

Yes.

BoulderHead

Yes

Dissident Dan

A false verdict guilty verdict subjects a person to undeserved suffering.
A false judgment that other animals are robotic subjects them to underserved suffering.

A false innocent verdict is an instance of giving someone the benefit of the doubt.
A false sentient/conscious verdict is an instance of giving an animal the benefit of the doubt.

russ_watters

So should we sign them up for kindergarten next fall?

In science, the default position is not to theorize until some information is known. So there is no "guilty until proven innocent" or "innocent until proven guilty." You gather some data, then interpret it and construct a theory around it.

I think your position is just as presumptive as you seem to think the opposite position is.

And sorry, but whether a cow is sentient or not, I'm having a cheesburger for lunch tomorrow.

Dissident Dan

I did not say anything of the sort. Criteria for that would include be the amount of intelligence you have and the ability to have information communicated to you from the teacher.

I'm not talking about scientific consensus; I'm talking about an idea that is shared by many people. People just assume that animals are robotic because it makes life simpler for them.

Which position? My position that the animal-robot idea is "guilty until proven innocent" or my position that animals are conscious and sentient? How is it so presumptive?

pace

1 Important. 2. Important as philosophic argument.

I doesn't make any sense saying animals don't have these senses. And I don't see how the majority of science would think otherwise(considering major scientific studies assumpting that they do, as DD mentioned), and at least there gotto be few serious philosophers who think they don't have. The question of awareness and feelings are of a much more philosophic matter, it hasn't been proven scientific, maybe never will.

It's about time we move from a silly discussion that animals are robotic or not. If we need to proove ourself better than the animals, let's proove it by, at the least, try to eat the least advanced and loving lifeform.

russ_watters

Assuming that animals are conscious and sentient without evidence one way or another is presumptive - thats pretty much the definition of the word. The "guilty until proven innocent" is just not giving people enough credit for having thought through their opinions.

[later] heh - looking "presumptive" up in the dictionary, it does not follow from "presume." Strange. Anyway, what I was going for was "to asume to be true without evidence."

In a court of law, a person is assumed innocent until proven guilty partially for the purpose of strength of proof but also partially to set a default position until the evidence can be heard. You and I have evidence on which to base our opinions, so I don't see any need to assume it, we just have to choose our standard of proof.

Dissident Dan

Well, I do have evidence. The evidence is really overwhelming for anyone who cares to analyze it objectively.

I'm not sure of what, exactly, who mean here or how it relates to the discussion.

Do you think that anyone has had strong enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that other species are not capable of consciousness and feeling?

selfAdjoint

Feeling yes, consciousness, not obviously so. Animals can feel and remember and have aims, but that doesn't add up to consciousness.

I think yoiu have to have at least the capability for language to be conscious. You may not have language itself (Helen Keller before Miss Sullivan broke through to her) but the capability is linked to things going on in your head that are a necessary part of consciousness (evidence, introspection. Look for yourself).

Dissident Dan

Oops. You accidentally misread my question.

The question is: "Do you think that anyone has had strong enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that other species are not capable of consciousness and feeling?"

The question is the opposite of what you thought I was asking.
--------------
You and I have very different definitions of consciousness. Yours just seems to be "having a certain level of intelligence". I define consciousness as the ability to have subjective experiences and be cognizant of things. Linguistic abilities is not a precondition for this.

My definition seems to be more in line with the webster.com definition:

selfAdjoint

What, in detail, do you mean by "subjective experiences". That is really the nub. An animal has inner experiences, but are they subjective? That suggests to me a clear sense of self, which I more or less identify with (human) consciousness.