Are Animals Guilty Until Proven Innocent in the Debate on Sentience?

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Assuming that animals are conscious and sentient without evidence one way or another is presumptive - that's pretty much the definition of the word.

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

The "guilty until proven innocent" is just not giving people enough credit for having thought through their opinions.

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

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.

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]

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?

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]

Originally posted by 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).

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:

Main Entry: con·scious·ness
Pronunciation: -n&s
Function: noun
Date: 1632
1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : AWARENESS; especially : concern for some social or political cause
2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND
3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual
4 : the normal state of conscious life <regained consciousness>
5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

 

[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.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Actually, "Subjective experiences" is really redundant, because all experiences are subjective. A computer does not have experiences, but a person does. You have sensory perception. You feel happy or sad, excited or drowsy, etc.