Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I have no problem with being nice to animals either. But the reason isn't that the animal is my equal in any sense, it is for what I become if I choose to do cruel things. I don't choose that path.

I agree with that 100%.

[JohnDonne]

@ hastur saying we only know humans are conscious.

Of all the silly ideas...

A person cannot leap into another's brain, so you're wrong that human consciousness is a certainty. The certainty for one who is conscious is that they themselves are conscious, because they are thinking, and therefore they are existing. That's a very important distinction.

The belief that other beings are conscious is not based in such absolute certainty, but rather is instinctively recognized by certain signs and analogous behavior which are manifestly obvious in the moment.

Further we may observe that consciousness derives from certain causal structures which produce certain effects for unknown reasons: The brain. It can therefore be deduced that the same or similar causal structures will produce the same or similar effects. Which is why we don't think video game NPCs are conscious just because it they move around and appear to be conscious.

As a common sensical side note the fact that a wolf is conscious, or a sheep, or a dog is manifestly obvious to all but the very stupid. When a dog runs up to you, you don't say, "But is it conscious?" No, you see the dog, you know it's a person and you treat it as such, just as you would treat any human person.

[Hastur]

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."

--Human Brain Function, page 269 in chapter 16 "The Neural Correlates of Consciousness" (consisting of 32 pages), published 2004

[JohnDonne]

Superior in what way, by what criteria, to what relation to what value?

Any criteria you like. We can list them out, do pros and cons for any given animal and see how homo sapien sapien adds up.

As far as values, I suppose it makes sense for humans to over-value human health and happiness when it comes to morality. But I am not entirely certain what values rubric is being used to make humans, cows, fish, chickens, and insects all morally equivalent, so I can't judge if it is right or wrong. Smells a little wrong though.

I would expect cows to over-value cow happiness and health too, but not being a cow, I am not privy to cow ethics.

Something can only be valuable in relation to a subjective consciousness. I contend a consciousness values its life as much as another. You claim otherwise, you claim to know that human lives are more valuable either by that or some other criteria. Defend your assertion.

[JohnDonne]

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."

--Human Brain Function, page 269 in chapter 16 "The Neural Correlates of Consciousness" (consisting of 32 pages), published 2004

Whoa, like, everything's conscious dude.

Jk that actually doesn't address the argument at all. My shoes might be conscious...there is no evidence for it, but they might be. I gave you evidence for cow consciousness using the same criteria we judge human consciousness.

[Hastur]

Sentience ≠ Consciousness

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Superior in what way, by what criteria, to what relation to what value?

Any criteria you like. We can list them out, do pros and cons for any given animal and see how homo sapien sapien adds up.

As far as values, I suppose it makes sense for humans to over-value human health and happiness when it comes to morality. But I am not entirely certain what values rubric is being used to make humans, cows, fish, chickens, and insects all morally equivalent, so I can't judge if it is right or wrong. Smells a little wrong though.

I would expect cows to over-value cow happiness and health too, but not being a cow, I am not privy to cow ethics.

Something can only be valuable in relation to a subjective consciousness. I contend a consciousness values its life as much as another. You claim otherwise, you claim to know that human lives are more valuable either by that or some other criteria. Defend your assertion.

I wouldn't suggest that animals don't value their lives. I am just not certain if I am morally obligated to value their lives as much as they do, or even as much as I value my own health or happiness.
Nor do I think human lives are, abstractly, 'more valuable.' There are, however, many, many, ways that humans are superior, and those ways might be ethically relevant. For instance, if I value the ability to do long division, I am going to value the stupidest human higher than the smartest chicken, and I would think it was pretty unethical to deprive that human of a cheep source of nutrition.

[JohnDonne]

I have no problem with being nice to animals either. But the reason isn't that the animal is my equal in any sense, it is for what I become if I choose to do cruel things. I don't choose that path.

I agree with that 100%.

Makes sense, I always make sure my potatoes are treated humanely right up until I boil them, you know, for my own psychological well-being.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I have no problem with being nice to animals either. But the reason isn't that the animal is my equal in any sense, it is for what I become if I choose to do cruel things. I don't choose that path.

I agree with that 100%.

Makes sense, I always make sure my potatoes are treated humanely right up until I boil them, you know, for my own psychological well-being.

Not far off, if you ask me. The only problem is I think we can be sure potatoes wouldn't be capable of experiencing cruelty.

Interestingly though, the term 'humanely' tells more about our ethical obligations than expected.

[JohnDonne]

Any criteria you like. We can list them out, do pros and cons for any given animal and see how homo sapien sapien adds up.

As far as values, I suppose it makes sense for humans to over-value human health and happiness when it comes to morality. But I am not entirely certain what values rubric is being used to make humans, cows, fish, chickens, and insects all morally equivalent, so I can't judge if it is right or wrong. Smells a little wrong though.

I would expect cows to over-value cow happiness and health too, but not being a cow, I am not privy to cow ethics.

Something can only be valuable in relation to a subjective consciousness. I contend a consciousness values its life as much as another. You claim otherwise, you claim to know that human lives are more valuable either by that or some other criteria. Defend your assertion.

I wouldn't suggest that animals don't value their lives. I am just not certain if I am morally obligated to value their lives as much as they do, or even as much as I value my own health or happiness.
Nor do I think human lives are, abstractly, 'more valuable.' There are, however, many, many, ways that humans are superior, and those ways might be ethically relevant. For instance, if I value the ability to do long division, I am going to value the stupidest human higher than the smartest chicken, and I would think it was pretty unethical to deprive that human of a cheep source of nutrition.

We've established that human lives are not abstractly, "More valuable." I think that takes care of your initial argument.

As for your arbitrary standards of superiority being ethically relevant I'm not seeing it. We all have arbitrary standards of superiority, yet I recognize that I don't have the right to kill you if you are inferior at an arbitrary quality that I happen to value.