tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post3348999090804750074..comments2024-01-23T17:14:04.067-05:00Comments on Jaltcoh: Should we eat Frankenmeat?John Althouse Cohenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-56096333878948807332008-05-28T19:51:00.000-04:002008-05-28T19:51:00.000-04:00The Turing test is normally done via computer inte...The Turing test is normally done via computer interface, so this would not be a problem for deaf people.<BR/><BR/>I think the sentience of severly autistic people is open to debate.<BR/><BR/>Gut feelings are not devoid of value, but I think they need to take a back-seat to logic and observation.dbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00457585811847604584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-38555828518360106152008-05-28T19:21:00.000-04:002008-05-28T19:21:00.000-04:00I don't have time right now to engage fully in thi...I don't have time right now to engage fully in this fascinating discussion, but <I>"<BR/>In the case of animals, nobody has ever conclusivly proven that even one of them is sentient. Why assume any are? "</I> <BR/><BR/>Why assume they aren't? Especially if your 'gut' tells you they are? And the talking test doesn't work on deaf-mutes or severly autistic people, does that mean we should assume they aren't sentient?summer anne burtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18277818654592922276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-11282075598379386282008-05-28T16:19:00.000-04:002008-05-28T16:19:00.000-04:00Okay, you've got me: When I said "talk to" what I...Okay, you've got me: When I said "talk to" what I should have said is "have a conversation with". <BR/><BR/>You can't really have a conversation with a computer (yet) or a dog (ever). Both a dog and a computer will respond to commands and will sit quietly while a person talks to them. This kind of talk is not a conversation though. As such, it doesn't demonstrate anything interesting about the computer or dog. Every time you have a conversation with a person they demonstrate that they are self-aware--just by the fact that they can do this thing.<BR/>A Turing Test is something any human who isn't sleeping, in a coma, severly retarded etc. can easily pass AND a test no other thing or creature can do.<BR/><BR/>Chimps are likely to be the most intellegent animals on the planet (after humans) and it is pretty hard to show that even they have the rudaments of self-awareness. Livestock have been bred for generations for lots of traits; growth speed, milk production, docility, etc. Smarts. Not so much.<BR/><BR/>I think this is kind of a side-note, but worthy of comment..."If animals can feel pain, it's wrong to torture them, period."<BR/>I agree with you on this, but probably not for the same reasons you have. <BR/><BR/>Animals and humans respond to pain in much the same way because we are responding to it on the same instinctual level. On an intellectual level a person could come to the conclusion that the animal, having no (or very limited)self-awareness, is not aware of pain in the same way a human is. But, a person who likes to torture animals does it because the response is so much like how a human would respond. It is right for us to ban torture because of what it does to the torturer. It is a kind of self-abuse, like suicide, self-mulilation, drug abuse and so forth. Plus, lots of people just can't help feeling that animals are "sort of aware" and should be treated humanely just on their own merrits. I think one should err on the side of caution and give animals this level of protection: You can eat them but you have to raise them humanely (an area full of debate) and you cannot torture them.dbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00457585811847604584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-70008513868381990412008-05-28T15:31:00.000-04:002008-05-28T15:31:00.000-04:00Self-awareness in chimpanzees. (May take a while t...<A HREF="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=38997&blobtype=pdf" REL="nofollow">Self-awareness in chimpanzees</A>. (May take a while to load.)LemmusLemmushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-78505540618010207082008-05-28T14:55:00.000-04:002008-05-28T14:55:00.000-04:00"This is not the case, there is an easy way to det..."This is not the case, there is an easy way to determine this in humans: For our loved ones, or any human, we can talk to them."<BR/><BR/>No, sorry, that doesn't settle it. I talk to my computer and my calculator; I don't think they're conscious. (I'm not saying artificial intelligence is <I>impossible</I>, just that it's not <I>obvious</I>.)<BR/><BR/>Also, it's plainly false that you can talk to any human and get a response. I can think of many counterexamples to this. I still think those humans who can't respond to me with language are (for the most part) sentient. <BR/><BR/>Also, people do have minimal conversations with dogs in the form of giving them commands, which the dogs obey. <BR/><BR/>And I just think you're wrong that no experiments have shown that animals are sentient. I might do a post about this at some point in the future, but for now I think it's obvious enough and accepted enough that I don't find it worth contesting (how many people with a cat or dog would honestly dispute that their pets are aware of them?). <A HREF="http://www.livescience.com/animals/061030_elephant_mirror.html" REL="nofollow">Here's one example for now.</A><BR/><BR/>(Note that that's only about <I>self</I>-awareness. Just because other animals might not be <I>self</I>-aware doesn't mean they're not aware of <I>anything</I>. But obviously any animal that's self-aware is aware.)<BR/><BR/>As for your point about free will, I still just don't see the relevance. If animals can feel pain, it's wrong to torture them, period. Whether they can control their own actions might be an interesting issue, but it's not clear to me how it's relevant to cruelty to animals.John Althouse Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-54589866402075021482008-05-28T13:35:00.000-04:002008-05-28T13:35:00.000-04:00John, you write, "Theoretically, you don't "know" ...John, you write, "Theoretically, you don't "know" whether your loved ones -- your spouse, your mom or dad, son or daughter -- are conscious or whether they're automatons."<BR/><BR/>This is not the case, there is an easy way to determine this in humans: For our loved ones, or any human, we can talk to them. In essence, they pass the "Turing Test" every day. Given that every human you get to know does prove to be sentient, it is reasonable to assume others that you haven't met are sentient too.<BR/><BR/>In the case of animals, nobody has ever conclusivly proven that even one of them is sentient. Why assume any are? <BR/><BR/>My point about free will was that we barely need to invoke it (as a phenominon) to explain really complex human behaviour. We therefore do not need it at all to explain the relativley simple behaviours observed in animals.<BR/><BR/>I think it pretty non-controversial to say that one would have to have consciensness before one could have free will--after all, what would free will even mean if you were not self-aware? Being self-aware would have little utility unless it enables an organism a greater degree of control than it would otherwise have. Nature rarely evolves usless functions.dbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00457585811847604584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-1822342452785684892008-05-28T12:14:00.000-04:002008-05-28T12:14:00.000-04:00dbp:You're right that I just assumed it without ar...dbp:<BR/><BR/>You're right that I just assumed it without arguing for it. I would like to see commentators be more upfront in <I>assuming</I> that animals are sentient. This is not to say that more neurological research shouldn't be done -- of course it should, for animals and humans.<BR/><BR/>But I think it would be wrong to perpetually hold back from drawing conclusions about animal consciousness just because some theoretical doubt is always possible. Yes, it's possible to doubt whether animals are conscious. But then, it's also possible, based on the same reasoning, to doubt whether people are conscious. <BR/><BR/>Theoretically, you don't "know" whether your loved ones -- your spouse, your mom or dad, son or daughter -- are conscious or whether they're automatons. <BR/><BR/>If they were automatons, you could justify mistreating them -- they couldn't feel anything. But we don't do that. Why? Because we see them demonstrating awareness in the same way we do. Most people observe this in their pets, which is why they actually believe that cats and dogs have awareness and moral status. To not apply this to cows and pigs seems completely arbitrary -- it's just that we rarely see and interact with them, which shouldn't factor into the moral equation. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Of course, I might doubt -- as you mention -- that even I am really conscious or have free will. I disagree with both of those; the philosophical issues are too complex to deal with here. But I don't see what free will ("control," as you put it) has to do with it.John Althouse Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-44965693966227777592008-05-28T12:01:00.000-04:002008-05-28T12:01:00.000-04:00John, you say, "...and -- above all -- sentient c...John, you say, "...and -- above all -- sentient creature with feelings. Normal meat does."<BR/><BR/>How do you know that non-human animals are sentient? What sort of scientific experiment could be done which would show that animals are aware of their own existance?<BR/><BR/>I think most people make the assumption that animals are sentient because they behave in ways we can identify with. Recent neurological research seems to indicate that we feel like we are aware and have control over ourselves, but really our consciensness is more an observer than a controller. Given how little our own awareness contributes to our (much more complex behaviour), we certainly don't need to assume that animals have any. They could be operating entirely on what we would consider a subconscience level.dbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00457585811847604584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-5925779136303432942008-05-28T10:37:00.000-04:002008-05-28T10:37:00.000-04:00There should be a blog that's just arguing with pi...There should be a blog that's just arguing with pictures. The blogger puts up a picture, and the commenters link to pictures in response. It becomes a huge fight.Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-51098723529091633922008-05-28T10:04:00.000-04:002008-05-28T10:04:00.000-04:00Well, there's your answer!Well, there's your answer!John Althouse Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-32478412408557373392008-05-28T10:03:00.000-04:002008-05-28T10:03:00.000-04:00"Photos can be manipulative emotional appeals, but..."Photos can be manipulative emotional appeals, but they can also be thought-provoking."<BR/><BR/>Which is why I described the opposite picture, to balance the argument. That was my point, which you asked about.Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-77900689239940568972008-05-28T10:00:00.000-04:002008-05-28T10:00:00.000-04:00That it's okay to murder bastards.I thought you we...<I>That it's okay to murder bastards.</I><BR/><BR/>I thought you were against the death penalty!<BR/><BR/><I>That cute pictures as argument are suspect.</I><BR/><BR/>Photos can be manipulative emotional appeals, but they can also be thought-provoking. <BR/><BR/>Also: arguments that would be unpalatable if you were forced to actually look at what you're talking about are suspect. <BR/><BR/><I>What's your position of the pro-life posters that show a fetus sucking his thumb?</I><BR/><BR/>It's a valid moral argument. <BR/><BR/>People (like me) who are morally opposed to eating meat but in favor of legal abortion have an interesting tension between their views. It's a tension, not necessarily a contradiction. (Of course, if I thought it were a straightforward contradiction, I'd have to abandon at least one of those views.)John Althouse Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-59026553904359295282008-05-28T09:54:00.000-04:002008-05-28T09:54:00.000-04:00That it's okay to murder bastards.Just kidding.Tha...That it's okay to murder bastards.<BR/><BR/>Just kidding.<BR/><BR/>That cute pictures as argument are suspect. <BR/><BR/>What's your position of the pro-life posters that show a fetus sucking his thumb?Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-13296445507814335182008-05-28T09:51:00.000-04:002008-05-28T09:51:00.000-04:00And your point is?And your point is?John Althouse Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-48112065012399443172008-05-28T09:33:00.000-04:002008-05-28T09:33:00.000-04:00Thanks for the reminder -- I do want to include a ...Thanks for the reminder -- I do want to include a version of premise 1 from that argument, along with my response. I plan to restrict it to <I>common</I> anti-vegetarian arguments rather than the more esoteric or original arguments, so I won't get into the whole 3-premise thing.John Althouse Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-29077306055378259022008-05-28T09:29:00.000-04:002008-05-28T09:29:00.000-04:00As for arguments against vegeterianism, it appears...As for arguments against vegeterianism, it appears you've already read <A HREF="http://churchofrationality.blogspot.com/2008/04/let-them-eat-cows.html" REL="nofollow">mine</A>, but I thought I'd remind you.LemmusLemmushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.com