365 replies to this topic

[DJS]

Prometheus

I cannot discount that such basic emotions (which seem to define our very humanity) are shared between humans, primates and some of the non-primate mammalian species. Furthermore we still struggle with a definition of consciousness which makes it even more difficult to make such comparisons.

I think you are still misconstruing my argument Prometheus. I am not disputing that emotions potentially represent a phenomenal aspect of our reality. This is why I strongly support the *humane* treatment of animals. My childhood dog was a Keeshond, the cutest, fuzziest, most lovable dog the planet has ever known. Causing her pain would have been unthinkable to me. It was not easy for my family to put her to sleep, but when her systems began to fail her it was the humane thing to do.

So as you can see, I am an animal lover, and especially partial to dogs, but this does change my evaluation of the nature of a dog’s consciousness. My contention is that dogs, along with the vast majority of other cybernetic organism, do not possess self awareness.

From that premise I then make the following argument:

without self awareness there is no agent present. And without an agent present there are no *abstract interests* either. And without interests there are no rights.

the argument I am making pertains specifically to abstract conceptualizations such as the value of one’s life… or the fact that one has a life to begin with.

Osiris

Behavior is measured yes, self-awareness is not. It is possible that animals could be incredibly stupid, but self-aware. Conversely, some intelligent primates may not be self-aware even though their behavior is relatively complex. You are attempting to make a direct connection between behavior and self-awareness, a phenomenon for which we have no scientific explanation as of yet.

Hhmm, sounds like the same failsafe you used at the finale of our free will discussion. Jay follows with similar sentiments...

Jay

in an age when we understand so little about consciousness and self-awareness.

We don't know enough yet to be making definitive "objective" judgements about animals, based on silly, one-dimensional tests, so Dennett's intentionalism thing-a-ma-bob is cute and all, but I think you're treading on thin philosophical ice.

For what its worth, Brentano originated the concept of intentionality, Dennett developed the notion of the intentional stance…but I digress.

The intellectual position which I will attempt to demonstrate is that there is no evolutionary rationale for self awareness being anything other than a manifestation of an advanced intentional system.

Now Jay, I don’t want to beat you over the head with Dennett’s philosophy – but I will if I have to. [lol] I believe there is a reason that Dennett can be considered one of the greatest philosophers of our time…

Dennett’s three stances:

The design stance:  “We make predictions solely from knowledge or assumptions about the system’s functional design” – what it’s supposed to do – irrespective of the physical constitution or condition of the innards of the particular object.

The physical stance: Here, we explain and predict by reference to the chains of physical causation that drive the system. In the case of complex systems, we usually use this stance only when diagnosing or forecasting break-downs.

(Even in the case of existing AI systems (as of 1971, when Dennett wrote this paper), both the design and physical stances are generally useless for detailed prediction or explanation.  We therefore must adopt …)

… The intentional stance: We treat the system as if it’s solving problems by application of reason.

**Intentional stance characterization must always be done relative to a system’s (inferred) goals, constraints and information.

**[/u]Any information-processing system designed by natural selection will be an appropriate site for application of the intentional stance, because natural selection selects for performance of functions.[/u]

It is a simple truth of evolutionary biology that animals behave in a manner consistent with varying degrees of the intentional stance. This can be said because one of the most fundamental premises of evolution is that organisms are optimally adapted to their environment – and this optimal adaptation includes behavioral characteristics (one component of the overall phenotype) such as a reactive response to the actions of hostile organisms. There is little dispute that ethology is a respected field within evolutionary biology.

As George Miller put it, animals are "informavores". Dennett believes in a distributed information-sucking system, each components of which are constantly fishing for information in the environment. They are all intentional systems, which get organized in a higher-level intentional system, with an "increasing power to produce future"
-------------
Animals cheat on each other all the time, and cheating is possible only if you are capable of dealing with the other animal's intentional state (with the other animal's desires and beliefs). One can be a psychologist without being a conscious being.

Obviously there are a number of theories as to the specific types of selection pressure that brought about intentional systems advanced enough to result in self awareness. But one thing that is generally agreed upon is that this selection pressure was intense and probably involved protracted intraspecies selection where individuals in small social groups engaged in cognitive arms races amongst themselves to gain an advantage in competitive fitness. Another popular theory on the formation of the self is that it occurred when individuals of a species directed the intentional stance inward upon themselves. This would prove useful in analyzing and reanalyzing beliefs, and beliefs about beliefs, etc etc – creating ever more sophisticated and abstract levels of meta-analysis. Thus, self awareness (introspection) is intimately tied in with the concept of intentionality and its evolutionary progression.

I would like to emphasize here that I am offering an evolutionary rationale for the emergence of both advanced intentional systems and self awareness.

But I already hear you objecting -- No you’re not! Intentionality and self awareness are not the same thing.

Well I ask you, what evidence do you have that they are not directly relational to one another? Do you have an alternative solution? I didn’t think so.

Besides, it doesn’t matter if self awareness is a phenomenal state or not. Either way, if one is to remain within a naturalistic framework then self awareness MUST possess qualities which come under the influence of natural selection (ie, are physical or behavioral). Higher order intentionality (directly observed through the intentional stance) is the behavioral manifestation of self awareness.

The idea that self awareness can not be observed objectively in the natural world is patently absurd, and if accepted as a premise would allow for the refutation of evolutionary theory in its entirety because it would mean that science lacks the ability to accurately record and interpret biological data….or…..or

it means that self awareness was created by something other than natural selection.

But given the fact that there is no evidence that products of the natural world were produced by anything other than the process of natural selection you are left with two choices: reject evolutionary theory in its entirety, or accept the fact that self awareness can be objectively observed in the natural world --- and that by far the most probable manifestation of this phenomenon is intentional behavior.

[DJS]

Thank you Prometheus for being the first individual on this thread to actually address my challenge rather than appealing to the unknown. While we disagree on the interpretation of the data, at least we are on the same page in terms of how one can arrive at an understanding of self awareness.

I wish to make my point again, but stated in a simpler way this time. If self awareness is a product of natural selection then it must in some way express itself phenotypically. There are two forms of phenotypic expression; physical and behavioral. Morphological expression of self awareness is nonsensical, so the only other alternative is that its expression is behavioral. The task of the scientist then becomes developing an hypothesis on self awareness and collecting data which supports this hypothesis. The strongest hypothesis, supported by the most convincing data, is accepted provisionally as truth. This is how evolutionary biology explains any product of the natural world, why would self awareness be any different? The fact that so many here on this thread are unwilling to reach this conclusion is evidence that they are letting their ideology get in the way of rational thought.

Now of course one can reject my above line of reasoning by simply saying that self awareness is NOT a product of natural selection. However in this case, one is left with the unsavory role of not only arguing that humans are magically self aware, but that lower level homeotherms such as cows and chickens are as well. Basically what is being said then is that self awareness magically arose in these creatures and that it served no adaptive purpose... a magical, mystical essence that inhabits organisms and gives them powers which do not express themselves in the physical world and can in no way be scientifically verified -- sounds like spiritualism to me.

Prometheus, I have an interesting take on the data you are presenting but right now I am running out the door, perhaps later. That is naturally unless everyone wished to disengage from this conversation. I have no problem with this, as I have made my point and wouldn't mind turning my attention to other things.

Sincerely

Don

[kevin]

Great thread..

I dont' see how self-awareness could be seen as anything but an adaptation, and an inevitable one.

Higher lifeforms possess a higher degree of continuity of identity through an enhanced perception of time and the relation of the 'self' to changing environmental conditions. The more self-aware, the more the organism is capable of adapting as the most important advantage conferred by self-awareness is the ability to model our 'self' in the future and predict responses to a changing environment with multiple 'what if' scenarios.

If you don't have a self model that can be projected and manipulated in this way adapation is limited to what is hard wired instinctively. Through self-awareness we can basically write our own response algorithms.

That being said, I believe self-awareness to be a continuum. That we feel a moral "repugnance" when we think about consuming creatures with sentience levels approaching our own species is natural in that we can empathize with them. If we can reduce the appearance of sentience, we lessen the empathy and thus anxiety we feel when consuming them. This is a natural tendency as well and we see this in application to our own species when at war dehumanizing the enemy makes it easier to kill them.

I don't see anything wrong with people eating meat, as long as they are aware of the very real suffering that animals endure in giving them their sustenance. As caliban pointed out, quick and painless deaths of animals in our current food chain regime is a fantasy. Just because animals may not be at the level of self-awareness that we 'enjoy' does not mean that they can't suffer physical pain, which is an attribute of lower levels of self-awareness.

Perhaps very simple organisms have only an aversion response, but those with more sophisticated biologies most definitely *experience* pain. The induction of pain and the lessening of suffering I believe should be an increasingly important goals of industries procuring the food we need to maintain ourselves and society.

[Infernity]

Well, consciousness.

- The human race don't find it moral to kill their own species. That because:
Weak element: Would have get killed easily, hence he avoids it.
Strong element: Would have killed do many, would assure lots of enemies and hence death.
Ir is now all already in us, it became the norm.
I relate it all to the survival thingy, which is why it is applying to the egoism theory.

- The reason *moral* humans doesn't kill animals such as dogs, cats, dolphins, horses etcetera, is because we see them more alike us rather than cows, chickens, fishes, etcetera. They are more intelligent, they can bestow more love and empathy... They are definitely more like us. What's them is the consciousness, it has some elements of similarity with ours.
Hence we don't kill them because of the same reasons of not killing humans.

- The reason people with even more *self-morality* those who are against animal killing generally, is because they just feel sorry for every organism that so it seems has brain, so everything with any consciousness is similar enough for them. They just don't find it moral to kill, and vegetables and fruits are not having brain so they don't mind to kill them. I'd call it racialism, all we do kills, organisms are all wanting to survive and have offsprings if they can't live forever. Also diseases wanting that, so should we sacrifice ourselves for them? For not killing them? I'd say to these people yes if they wouldn't kill a tiger that comes to eat them up. Lots of unti-animals-killing people claim to the argue of "it wouldn't pity you, you know that" that this is exactly the reason they want to remain them alive. Because when we kill, we know exactly what we are doing, we have morals. They don't, they are not having enough intellect to realize that nor a way to do any diet and live on supplements.

- Well, a sort of proof to how stupid a chicken is.
As you all probably know the Replay's Believe it or Not TV show, do you know how long can a chicken live without its head???
Well I'll tell you, there was a chicken who lived TWO WEEKS without a head!
BUT, that's not the record. The record is, FOUR YEARS [!]
Four years a chicken was to remain alive without it's head. When they took off her head she started running all around. The butcher didn't bother running after it. Amazingly, it was to live four days, the butcher started feeding it again, with a pipe to it's throat. And he fed it for four years, till it died.
Now, they of course took it to tests, to see what the hell...
And do you know what they found out? well, it had left the tiniest piece of brain tissue. And it seems that this was enough for it to live without problems. This means, the chicken's brain is so dumb and not having any intelligence, that it could live only with a single tissue of it's brain. It is not too sophisticated.
Heh, it seems uncomplicated things are easier to recover, they seem to be lucky sometimes.
However, do you know what killed the chicken? No, not aging and not brain lacking, but it chocked due a granule it ate, it was chocked to death. This could have happened to every chicken.
By the way, what's chicken's lifespan?

- Animals don't suffer after all. They do at the time, once they die it is all was not ever. Doesn't matter how it died. We are not killing them all for not annihilate species because this will:
1. End up the supply of this sort of food, which yet we don't need.
2. Will destroy an elements in the balanced food chain, we are intelligent enough to understand what it means. It' might harm us.
3. Lack of ways to research it, lack of information. As we learn to survive, survive to live and live to learn, it will be an irreversible case.

-Hmm I think of it, vegetarians needs supplements. They usually take it. But, when I think of it, lots of supplements are from the vivid nature, from animals, from animals fatty acids or other vitamins they provide.
So nothing came out of it.
If you see a vegetarian that takes Omega-3 remind him where it is coming from...
(Perhaps don't [tung] )

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[Infernity]

LOL here I see this http://www.imminst.o...6&t=7014&hl=&s= , a vegetarian who brought up my point as his problem...

~Infernity

[kevin]

Animals don't suffer after all. They do at the time, once they die it is all was not ever.

Certainly when the animal is dead it is no longer suffering but the suffering continues as it is reflected in the mind of the sentient being who knows that it occured and remembers it. If one has no empathy for the suffering of another, then they will not remember it as being negative and the behavior which brought the suffering about will not be avoided in the future.

The same ability to place ourselves in our future selves shoes and empathize with that future self also confers the ability to project ourselves elsewhere.

I believe that new brain-computer-brain interfacing technologies will eventually enable us to experience the awareness of lower lifeforms and we will experience some simulacrum of what they experience. It will become increasingly difficult to eat organisms which have neural networks which can sensorily communicate with our own in a meaningful manner.

[Infernity]

Well Kev, I believe that nothing, nothing, nothing matters if the end is death (in other words, if there is an end). That's the end of consciousness, and I knew I'll die and there will be absolutely no way to return- I really wouldn't mind how I'd die, nor when, and what will happen next.
Since I suppose we won't waste resources on achieving animals immortality, they'll die, so nothing really matters for them, but for us.

I believe that new brain-computer-brain interfacing technologies will eventually enable us to experience the awareness of lower lifeforms and we will experience some simulacrum of what they experience. It will become increasingly difficult to eat organisms which have neural networks which can sensorily communicate with our own in a meaningful manner.

Yes, I suppose it will. I believe we'll find a way to have meat whom smells, tastes and looks the same without actually raising and killing the animals for that.
LOL, maybe we could upload to animals so they can perhaps become extremely intelligent, as a human...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[emerson]

The fact that so many here on this thread are unwilling to reach this conclusion is evidence that they are letting their ideology get in the way of rational thought.

I think much of the difficulty is coming from different definitions of the term self-awareness, and from that differing criteria for what would be a valid measure of it. I don't think that many would say that it can't be measured, observed, or be selected for by various different methods of natural selection. They might argue that what's being tested isn't the qualities they consider to be self-conciousness.

[Infernity]

It is considered to be a crime to be cruel to animals Adi, why do you think that is if they are incapable of suffering?

I believe I've answered that already... Reread please.

I would also suggest you think about people with extensive brain damage and what happens there.

What do you mean?

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[Mark Hamalainen]

Infernity:

believe I've answered that already... Reread please.

I couldn't really make sense of your post, perhaps you'd like to try and rephrase it.

What do you mean?

By your logic, would it be ok to kill a brain damaged human who had be reduced to the mental capacity of say a cow?

Don:

Hhmm, sounds like the same failsafe you used at the finale of our free will discussion. Jay follows with similar sentiments...

It is supposed to. Imagine you are blindfolded and know that there is a 100ft cliff somewhere nearby. Lack of knowledge does not warrent no action, but it does warrent caution. You wouldn't find it logical to ignore the fact that there is a cliff, so why ignore the possibility that animals are self-aware/conscious.

The intellectual position which I will attempt to demonstrate is that there is no evolutionary rationale for self awareness being anything other than a manifestation of an advanced intentional system.

As I've pointed out before, there is no evolutionary rationale for self-awareness at all. A zombie with the same intellectual capacity but no self-awareness would operate fine in the context of evolution. Perhaps we're arguing over semantics here again though. By self-awareness I am not talking about some information processing capability which could be simulated in a computer, I'm talking about the fact that there is a me, and I am aware of existing.

Well I ask you, what evidence do you have that they are not directly relational to one another? Do you have an alternative solution? I didn’t think so.

If classical free will exists, then there definitely is a relationship between them, though not necessarily direct. However, we've already been over that discussion, and there is no way yet to prove or disprove classical free will's existance. All I know is that I am self-aware, and am so despite the fact that a zombie might be indistinguishable in terms of behavior. There is no scientific reason for me to expect self-awareness to exist, I only know that it does because I am self aware. All you are able to do is suggest a coorelation between self-awareness and behavior, not a direct connection. Why is it necessary to assume a direct connection if you don't know for sure? In lack of evidence, isn't it more scientific or rational to not make an assumption either way and keep your mind open?

The idea that self awareness can not be observed objectively in the natural world is patently absurd, and if accepted as a premise would allow for the refutation of evolutionary theory in its entirety because it would mean that science lacks the ability to accurately record and interpret biological data….or…..or

I would say your absolutism here is patently absurd. Why would the existence of one phenomenon that is not objectively observable discredit evolutionary theory? If classical free will doesn't exist, as you believe, then self-awareness is simply an observer of the physical laws of the universe playing out, and would not have any effect on evolutionary theory or other science for that matter. Alternatively, if classical free will exists, it probably is limited by physical laws, in which case evolutionary theory would still hold.

it means that self awareness was created by something other than natural selection.

I would say that self awareness emerged, at what point and for what reason I do not know, nor am I convinced that anybody knows. Again, you are only able to suggest coorelations, why is it necessary to hold an absolute belief about something in that case??

But given the fact that there is no evidence that products of the natural world were produced by anything other than the process of natural selection you are left with two choices: reject evolutionary theory in its entirety, or accept the fact that self awareness can be objectively observed in the natural world --- and that by far the most probable manifestation of this phenomenon is intentional behavior.

Again, I don't understand how you rationalize this absolutist dichotomy. I think this is the root of our disagreements in other areas of philosophy as well.

If self awareness is a product of natural selection then it must in some way express itself phenotypically.

This suggest to me that we are having a semantic argument. The self-awareness you're talking about sounds more like a specific information processing capability, and not the fact that I am aware.

Basically what is being said then is that self awareness magically arose in these creatures and that it served no adaptive purpose.

Awareness certainly does have a purpose if classical free will exists, again you are creating dichotomies where the situation is much more complex.

This is how evolutionary biology explains any product of the natural world, why would self awareness be any different? The fact that so many here on this thread are unwilling to reach this conclusion is evidence that they are letting their ideology get in the way of rational thought.

I would say that you are attempting to rationalize something for which there is not enough evidence to do so. The purpose of science is to make generalizations/find patterns in data gathered as objectively as possible. I think you are attempthing to do more than that.

[jaydfox]

Osiris, I agree, I think Don's definition of self-awareness has little to do with actual "awareness" in the sense of experiencing the world that we know, and more to do with the information processing capabilities that allow our physical bodies to do things they do, like not walk into things, avoid injuries, and at a more abstract level, make better decisions about how to react to situations based on the processing of previous information (stored as memories). These would be awareness. Extending these information processing capabilities to the ability to model the self and project that model outwards leads us to debates about the nature of self-awareness, from a functional standpoint.

However, all of these functional (to use Chalmer's verbiage) characteristics of consciousness and self-awareness are not what is at issue here, though I certainly admit that these functional characteristics would almost entirely be the product of natural selection, as Don has argued. This still doesn't get to the core of our contention here, which is the subjects of awareness and, more especially, self-awareness. Not just the information processing side, though that's important, but the experience, which as Osiris says, are not as obviously a selectable trait, since a "zombie" could perform just as well, so long as it has the information processing capabilities. The deeper question that would bridge this gap, and which is not obvious (or patently obvious, if we're going to be throwing around such words), is whether experience and information processing are linked bidirectionally, or unidirectionally, or some of both.

And then to make matters worse, we're trying to apply this analysis on animals. It's one thing with humans: the only person I know for sure experiences qualia is ME, but I infer and reasonably assume that every other human on the planet, save those with severe brain damage or immature brains (e.g. fetuses, possibly young infants), also experiences qualia, and by extension, self-awareness of the sort that Don hasn't been talking about.

However, to extend that to animals requires so much more than we're capable of, because we must approach it both from the functional perspective (as Don did) and from the quasi-functional (my term: we don't know if qualia are epiphenomal or functional yet, so I'll hedge my bets and call them quasi-functional).

[eternaltraveler]

Various animals are probably self aware to varying levels. There is no reason to assume that a concept like self awareness burst forth fully formed in humans like athena out of Zeus's head.

Like most concepts relating to mind it is not one way or another, it would lie along some kind of continuum (and I'm sure we aren't all the way to the "self aware") side of the continuum either.

[DJS]

Good responses guys. I will get to them as time permits. And just to let all of you know, even if at times I can become testy (to put it mildly [sfty] ), this does not mean that I do not respect any of you as intellectuals. I think it should be obvious to all of us by now that we are representing two halves of a dichotomy -- one half is the view expressed by Dennett&Co, the other half is the view expressed by Chalmers&Co. Both of these individuals are high powered philosophers, so if they can't resolve their disputes, then I find it doubtful that we will either. Regardless, we can learn a lot from each other and it is precisely these types of conversations (in contrast to more politically charged hot air contests), which address fundamental underlying areas of disagreement, that I think are worth having.

Before I begin to respond seriously to your posts I'll start off with some light humor. )

Osiris

All I know is that I am self-aware, and am so despite the fact that a zombie might be indistinguishable in terms of behavior.

[Mark Hamalainen]

hahaha, awesome. An Ayn Rand zombie... would make an interesting premise for a horror movie

[jaydfox]

Actually, on an unfortunately serious note, we had a member here that thought that artificially created embryos (e.g. clones) might not have a "soul", which in this case would refer to a philosophical zombie, if I interpret her correctly:
http://www.imminst.o...329

The argument concerning cloning:
To tell you the truth, I'm not entirely familiar with the Catholic Church's position. My instinct is that they believe the human created DOES have a soul (I suppose God intervenes on behalf of the child created.) But there are only two possibilities here:
a.) The child DOES have a soul. God gives it a soul, in which case killing it for the sake of science is murder.
b.) The embryo does NOT have a soul. So what happens if the scientists who made it decide to let it grow up? You've got a kid, then an adult WITHOUT A SOUL. Which makes it unlike every other human - it has no share in divinity, therefore when it dies, no matter how holy or good a life it has led, it has no chance of an eternal, blissful life.
Either way, the act of creating an embryo by laboratory procedures is a perversion of the procreative act, where a child is the result of the self-giving love between two married people.

(my bold emphasis, her CAPS)

She goes on:

I'm horrified, but interested to see what happens when they do successfully clone a human being and raise it to adulthood (or even childhood.) If we were going by the argument that a cloned kid would have no soul, it would certainly be interesting if such a child had any intellectual (or especially spiritual) differences. Imagine if that kid was baptized and raised Christian and objected more than the usual impatient child about having to go to religious functions. I can't think of any good examples right now, but it would be really sad if that kid had obvious emotional, mental, spiritual, intellectual, etc., differences from others. Perhaps then the idea that embryos are sacred and are truly people would be more apparent.

Really, how would we know a zombie when we saw one? Is it possible, or is self-awareness of our (my? hehe...) type constrained to be an emergent property based on the physical conditions of the underlying substrate? I'm trying to be agnostic, but my gut tells me that emergence would be constrained by the substrate (not just the presense of the organic neurons, but what they're "doing" as well).

Anyway, I agree with Don, short of a few brilliant insights, it's highly unlikely that we'll settle the issue here, but hopefully we're learning to understand and respect each other's positions better.

[DJS]

Okay, enough nice-nice.

Here's an indefensible statement made repeatedly in the free will thread that illustrates the skewed logic which pervades all three of your thought processes.

However, we've already been over that discussion, and there is no way yet to prove or disprove classical free will's existance.

Osiris, I thought that I had already shown you the error of your ways regarding the notion of "classical" free will, but since we are all friends here I will go the extra mile and demonstrate, again, why this statement is indicative of an irrational mindset.

I've actually thought of an effective way to drive home my point...

First, the notion of classical free will is in complete violation of the physical, causal and logical laws of the universe.

But let's ignore the entire argument I put forward in the free will thread and instead focus on the unfalsifiable nature of the claim made by you.

I deny outright that I experience "classical Free Will". What I experience (and what others mistakenly experience as classical free will) is simply Will. That an individual mistakes their Will for Classical FW represents the limited nature of subjective experience. An individual can not possibly be conscious of every causal factor that played a part in his or her creation.

What you are left claiming is that YOU experience classical free will...umm, because you do. [huh]

To which I respond back, "Please demonstrate the validity of your claim beyond a reasonable doubt."

To which you respond, "We can't prove or disprove classical free will.............yet."

To which I respond, "THAT'S NONSENSICAL. You're making an unfalsifiable claim."

And that's exactly what you have done repeatedly, again, and again, and again and again. But no matter how many times you make the claim, it doesn't make it true. You may as well be shouting at me, "There's a God, there's a God. I JUST KNOW there is a God BECAUSE I FEEL HIS PRESENCE."

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history. ~ Bertrand Russell.

[DJS]

By the way, sorry for the detour from the issue of animal consciousness, but I felt that the error in logic needed to corrected as quickly as possible.

We can, if everyone wants, split this conversation off into its own topic, however I will say that I believe the issue of consciousness is directly related to the question of whether animals should be afforded rights. You guys make the call though.

[Mind]

There's a God, there's a God. I JUST KNOW there is a God BECAUSE I FEEL HIS PRESENCE.

In contrast, Don says "There is no free will, there is no free will, I just know there is no free will because I don't feel its presence."

Your proof lies in the IRONCLAD, NEVER CHANGING, ULTIMATELY TRUE, AND COMPLETE PHYSICAL LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE. I am so happy you have found these "objective" laws. Please share with us. Strange that these ironclad laws have come from your SUBJECTIVE conscious mind.

OK, sorry to take this off topic again. I just enjoy a little friendly sparring with Don.

[eternaltraveler]

In contrast, Don says "There is no free will, there is no free will, I just know there is no free will because I don't feel its presence."

Your proof lies in the IRONCLAD, NEVER CHANGING, ULTIMATELY TRUE, AND COMPLETE PHYSICAL LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE. I am so happy you have found these "objective" laws. Please share with us. Strange that these ironclad laws have come from your SUBJECTIVE conscious mind.

OK, sorry to take this off topic again. I just enjoy a little friendly sparring with Don.

beat me too it.

[Infernity]

By your logic, would it be ok to kill a brain damaged human who had be reduced to the mental capacity of say a cow?

No way!
Any human has the right to become immortals, hence absolutely not! a cow, well I'd give it the rights too [tung] I don't believe it can do something with that, I am not going to waste resources on a cow to not die and I believe they won't develop it...

---

Wow guys, free will, god, zombies, consciousness, etcetera, we have special topics for each (maybe except the zombies [huh] ), lets focus and response to the other slips in their place.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[Trias]

A few days ago, I have made one of the most critical decisions ever: to embrace vegetrianism.

After being exposed to the horrors of the modern world, when it comes to the production of Meat Products - I think I have made the right decision.
I want no part of this mass-massacre, this is no longer a question of survival; here I don't eat meat (fish I still do, as its market lacks the brutality of the former) - and I still survive, there are many replacements.


For the animals under our imprisonment, everyday is Auschwitz; and the videos speak for themselves:
http://www.anonymous...ovies/lambs.wmv (Hebrew)
http://www.anonymous...es/dieyoung.wmv (Hebrew)
http://www.anonymous...ovies/geese.wmv (Hebrew)
http://www.anonymous.../eatyourdog.wmv (Hebrew)

After seeing these horrors, I realized my core philosophy has been errorneous from its very essence. I was always a great lover of meat, trying to justify it with carnivorousness being allegedly "essential", an integral, NATURAL part of nature.
Indeed, it is true for it being a natural part of life -- in the unaffected realm of nature, the stronger animals devour the lesser ones. But we, humans, are exceptional with our strength; and, with great strength comes great responsibility. We (at least those who can afford themselves) are bound to direct our power to the right channel; I look at the slaughterhouses, and I find only disgust and darkness; we put no mercy on the poor beasts.

I thought on this: the animals we eat, like us, possess Sentience; particularly the ability to perceive harm, sadness or pleasure and satisfaction. Same as we make laws to prevent humans from being mistreated - sad or dissatisfied, we should make the same for our lesser kin, for they, like us - have the exact same requirements: a craving to be happy and satisfied, and it does not matter what their instruments of pleasure might turn out to be - either game, food or sleep, it matters not - it is our duty to ensure them under our custody these feelings rather than dissatisfaction and torment. Have you seen the videos? -The animals are being raised, from their very youth, to one cause: SLAUGHTER; in the process, they stumble accross GREAT portions of torment, being seperated from their mothers, being locked in a cage all their days, malnourished; would you have liked such life? -its rather rhetorical, why cause them what we despise the most? -afterall, they are not indifferent to this suffering; we ARE the indifferent, we eat our meats without flinching - but if we had to see the process behind the scences, how the hamburger came into our plate.. woe!

It is our duty, the grandest of all sentient beings on this planet, to ensure no suffering for our relative kin; same as we wouldn't have liked switching places with the animals we mistreat, due to our sentience, we have the full responsibility of preventing them from experiencing these feelings. So what if most of the animals we eat lack self-consciousness and advanced sapience; so what if they lack the ability to perform sophisticated apperception and speculate on eternity? -They can FEEL, perceive pain or pleasure; they have natural potential, which is different from ours, for happy lives. We must not spoil it, we are so better than this.
So what if carnivorousness is natural? -so is aging, and death; should we pre-accept everything that is labeled "natural"? -no , for we are not like beasts; we have the power to PROTEST and defy nature, unlike animals. We humans have the moral DUTY of defying nature when it comes to this, when we organize HUGE slaughter-houses, we do not demonstrate our prowess, but our WEAKNESS of not being able to rise above nature, where we truly belong. There are no more excuses.
If we humans were just mere beasts, then i wouldn't have bothered criticising this matter, but we aren't - we stand tall and proud, so why soiling our good reputation? We have the ability to defy the natural course of things, and as long as cruelty is being projected towards our sentient brothers, there is NO way I continue to collaborate with this "Evil" scheme, I am not a mere beast - dependent on a lesser one's meat, I am a man- capable of something so much the more exalted.

It is, as I have deduced, that ALL sentient beings on this planet have the basic right for being happy and ur custody.
We hold on to the MORAL OBLIGATION of ensuring this to ALL sentient animals. Why? because we are capable, we are not FORCED to relish on their flesh like lesser, stupider animals. We know of better ways, when eating their flesh- we reduce ourselves to the level of basic-nature-dependant animals.
Saying that WE, here on the Western World, need meat to survive, is superfluous crap; today, with all of our nutriotional knowledge - we know that Vegeterian diet is IMMENESELY superior to meat one, as numerous studies point out so well. (that is, when one is making sure to gain enough B12 and Iron; these do not necceserialy have to come from meat).
http://www.mybodylan...co.uk/vegan.htm


Prior to watching the true videos, I was indifferent to the matter; ate my meat everyday, without even considering the mass suffering we bestow upon the animals, ignoring their ability to percive pain.

Know that same case happens with a Mortalist/Deathist - - being apathetical towards his natural "nature", he lives he dies- he does not contemplate deeply on this matter, he's being apathetical on the prospect of NOT-dying; he just embraces it for being natural, life is good at the moment, why think on its end?
Same with meat - its good here and now, who cares on the BEHIND THE SCENCES sufferings?
Indifference is the greatest curse of men;
open your eyes,
Sublimity awaits with great eagerness.

Regards,
Daniel Stein

[Mark Hamalainen]

First, the notion of classical free will is in complete violation of the physical, causal and logical laws of the universe.

We don't know everything about the universe, and the extent of our knowledge does not discount the possibility that free will exists.

An individual can not possibly be conscious of every causal factor that played a part in his or her creation.

I'm not sure what the relevance or purpose of this statement is.

What you are left claiming is that YOU experience classical free will...umm, because you do.

Actually, I never claimed that. I claim that we don't know if what we experience is free will. I also admitted that I prefer the possibility that we do, perhaps that is where you've become confused.

To which I respond back, "Please demonstrate the validity of your claim beyond a reasonable doubt."

To which you respond, "We can't prove or disprove classical free will.............yet."

To which I respond, "THAT'S NONSENSICAL.  You're making an unfalsifiable claim."

Again you seem to be confused. I am not claiming whether or not free will exists, I am pointing out that we don't know for sure.

And that's exactly what you have done repeatedly, again, and again, and again and again.  But no matter how many times you make the claim, it doesn't make it true.  You may as well be shouting at me, "There's a God, there's a God.  I JUST KNOW there is a God BECAUSE I FEEL HIS PRESENCE."

Are you done? Perhaps you'd like to address the actual points of this debate which you haven't yet replied to.

For instance, the interesting question about awarness and philisophical zombies. Do you believe that you are aware? A pointless question I supppose since a philisophical zombie could reply that he did... but thats the point! If there is no free will, then does not that make awareness redundant? How do you explain awareness in terms of physical laws? If I didn't know that I was aware, could I derive the possibility of awareness from known physical laws? I don't think so. It is not irrational to refrain from making 'claims' if knowledge or understanding is lacking.

As it has been said, this is not a debate which we will be able to resolve.

To come back to the original purpose of this thread... although we can be fairly confident that a bacteria is not conscious or aware, and that humans are both, we don't know the exact boundary between. In fact there may not be a boundary, but a continuum (BTW, has anybody read the sequels to Ender's Game?). Personally, I have no wish to kill any organism possessing awareness, thus I refrain from killing or causing the death of animals whenever I can. I will also go out of my way to save an animals life within reason (I've been known to move a caterpillar off the road even).

[Mark Hamalainen]

Any human has the right to become immortals

It is, as I have deduced, that ALL sentient beings on this planet have the basic right for being happy and ur custody.

These are very strong statements, full of contradictions, and considered from a practical perspective, are impossible to enforce. Giving everything a right to life and happiness would drastically restrict freedom as everybody would have to be continually ensuring that everybody else was alive and happy (which may preclude happiness). What if it makes one sentient being happy to kill or hurt another? Also, if I as a sentient being have a right to live, then I can feel safe knowing that others will have to keep me alive and won't have to do anything myself. Obviously if all or most people take this stance it won't succeed.

A more rational perspective may be that sentient beings have a right to freedom from coercive force conditional on their respecting that right in others.

Your sentiments on wanting everybody to live forever in happiness are well intended, and I would be impressed if you dedicated yourself to achieving that goal voluntarily.

[Infernity]

Daniel, I AM SHOCKED!!! [:o]

Oh boy, I gotta go to sleep now, we'll continue this.

Perhaps on the phone [huh] .

~Y.L.L.I

[DJS]

Mind

In contrast, Don says "There is no free will, there is no free will, I just know there is no free will  because I don't feel its presence."

No. Don is saying, "there is no free will, I am confident that there is no such thing as classical free will because there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OR EVEN A LOGICAL RATIONALE FOR IT. In fact, it is in direct conflict with the whole of naturalistic philosophy.

Your proof lies in the IRONCLAD, NEVER CHANGING, ULTIMATELY TRUE, AND COMPLETE PHYSICAL LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE. I am so happy you have found these "objective" laws. Please share with us. Strange that these ironclad laws have come from your SUBJECTIVE conscious mind.

HAHAHAH. What a ridiculous interpretation of my argument. Ultimately, all human knowledge of the objective world stems from our collective subjective minds. Subjective minds, whether collectively or separately, are prone to observational or "anthropic bias". One of the best ways to correct this bias is by utilizing the scientific method. An hypothesis supported by the most convincing evidence is accepted as conditional truth. If contradictory evidence is found, or if an hypothesis that better explains the existing evidence is found, then the old hypothesis is dropped in favor of the new.

Say Mind, I'm going to let you in on this amazing secret! The earth -- now you're not going to believe me when I tell you this -- the earth orbits around the sun. [wis]

But how could this possibly be? After all, everyday from our subjective perspectives we are led to believe that the sun is orbiting around the earth. In fact, for thousands of years humans believed this very reality -- that the earth was the center of the universe.

Then this amazing thing came along in the past couple of hundred years called "science", and because of it we now know that our intuition about our perceived reality (of "heavenly bodies") was incorrect.

My point: the scientific method is the ultimate heuristic and it goes a long way towards correcting observer bias.

If one is to be completely rational, subjective experience should never be allowed to over rule objective data. I try to live by this motto, to the extent that, although I believe I "experience" a phenomenon called consciousness, I am also open to the possibility that it is simply an illusion.

[DJS]

Osiris

If I didn't know that I was aware

How do you know you are aware...just a feeling, right?

By the way, I will go back and respond to everything I haven't gotten to yet, but you must understand that this is the equivalent of a 5 on 1. (Not that I am complaining) To tell you the truth I am enjoying this exchanging, but I will need some time...

[DJS]

Orisis

We don't know everything about the universe, and the extent of our knowledge does not discount the possibility that free will exists.

Actually, yes, our knowledge of the universe DOES discount the possibility of classical FW. However, even if there was no evidence one way or the other I would not "believe in" CFW. Yes, I understand that you are not openly advocating classical free will, but what you are doing is constantly resorting to our imperfect understanding of reality to dispute negations of unsubstantiated claims. Tell me Mark, do you believe that telekinesis is an open possibility, or do you discount it until there is evidence that demonstrates to the contrary.

[Mark Hamalainen]

How do you know you are aware...just a feeling, right?

In order to experience a feeling I must be aware. If I deny that I am aware then I essentially deny the universe's existence, or at least its relevance to me, since I can only observe the universe through being aware. That is not a useful premise to rational thought. How can awareness be an illusion, in order to be deceived by an illusion one must be aware of it.

Actually, yes, our knowledge of the universe DOES discount the possibility of classical FW

That is a very strong statement, are you absolutely sure? I look forward to your elaboration on this, unqualified, stated fact.

I am confident that there is no such thing as classical free will because there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OR EVEN A LOGICAL RATIONALE FOR IT.

Well if we are to discard all ideas for which we currently have no objective evidence for or even logical rationales for we'll have to stop all those people with crazy ideas like immortality from wasting their time. Just because nobody has found evidence or thought of a rational for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist (immortality did not always have evidence of a logical rationale).

Tell me Mark, do you believe that telekinesis is an open possibility, or do you discount it until there is evidence that demonstrates to the contrary.

I do not know if telekinesis is possible, as I don't have a complete understanding of existence. I've never experienced the phenomenon, however I do experience awareness on a regular basis, as well as free will. Although I cannot prove that free will is not an illusion, I can neither prove that the whole universe is not an illusion, perhaps a holography of some sort, as has actually been seriously considered by some physicists. I discount telekenisis not only because nobody had derrived it from physical laws, but because I've never experienced or heard credible tell of it. With free will I do experience it (illusion or not), so it is not the same as telekinesis.