Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Sentience . . .

SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 9:30:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sentience how can it be truly measured . . . I say that many animals are sentient (dogs, cats, lizards, etc . . . etc . . .) but many beg to differ and say that only man is sentient beacuse we use machines and they don't, we talk yet they do not, but this is incorrect for many animals use machines and you also have to account for biological inclinations which can hinder technological development (such as being aquatic, lacking free appendages, etc . . . etc . . .), also account for how languages develop: in response to necessity and environment, if you spend your life hunting deer do you honestly think you will use an overly vocalized language, I think not, also account for how many essential body apparatus of the organism are designed, if you don't have developed vocal cords how do you expect to speak, do animals not feel, do they not think, I am relatively certain they do, they feel, they perceive the world around them, they learn, they have intelligence maybe not as mechanical as ours but they indeed do have it . . . http://en.wikipedia.org...
*note this is not promoting vegetarianism for I believe in our mass production of food and the eating of meat, humans are omnivores we should behave as such, plus when we began domesticating animals some 6000 odd years ago they gained food, shelter, and the insurance of their offspring's survival into adulthood in exchange for essential materials . . .*
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 9:36:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree with Bentham, although in a more general sense (since morality is not necessarily the subject of our discussion here): in determining whether a thing is sentient, we mus ask ourselves whether the thing in question can suffer. This indicates consciousness, perception, and reaction to stimuli (the latter two more or less being corollaries of the former).
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 9:38:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 9:36:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I agree with Bentham, although in a more general sense (since morality is not necessarily the subject of our discussion here): in determining whether a thing is sentient, we mus ask ourselves whether the thing in question can suffer. This indicates consciousness, perception, and reaction to stimuli (the latter two more or less being corollaries of the former).

So you agree with my point of view . . . ?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 9:39:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 9:38:20 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/15/2010 9:36:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I agree with Bentham, although in a more general sense (since morality is not necessarily the subject of our discussion here): in determining whether a thing is sentient, we mus ask ourselves whether the thing in question can suffer. This indicates consciousness, perception, and reaction to stimuli (the latter two more or less being corollaries of the former).

So you agree with my point of view . . . ?

That animals are also sentient beings? Certainly.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 9:46:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 9:30:09 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

but many beg to differ and say that only man is sentient beacuse we use machines and they don't, we talk yet they do not,

That has to be the worst argument for mankind being the only sentient beings. Of course, there isn't much of an argument for such a stance in the first place - but still. Wow.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 10:02:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 9:36:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I agree with Bentham, although in a more general sense (since morality is not necessarily the subject of our discussion here): in determining whether a thing is sentient, we mus ask ourselves whether the thing in question can suffer. This indicates consciousness, perception, and reaction to stimuli (the latter two more or less being corollaries of the former).

Actually, I don't think it's true that we can determine whether something is sentient by asking whether that thing can suffer. For all we know animals could only have "access consciousness" and not "phenomenal consciousness"; there's TONS of philosophical literature on this.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 10:12:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 10:02:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/15/2010 9:36:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I agree with Bentham, although in a more general sense (since morality is not necessarily the subject of our discussion here): in determining whether a thing is sentient, we mus ask ourselves whether the thing in question can suffer. This indicates consciousness, perception, and reaction to stimuli (the latter two more or less being corollaries of the former).

Actually, I don't think it's true that we can determine whether something is sentient by asking whether that thing can suffer. For all we know animals could only have "access consciousness" and not "phenomenal consciousness"; there's TONS of philosophical literature on this.

I apologize in advance if this derails the thread but....

PCP, are you a Cartesian dualist?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 10:17:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 10:12:44 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/15/2010 10:02:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/15/2010 9:36:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I agree with Bentham, although in a more general sense (since morality is not necessarily the subject of our discussion here): in determining whether a thing is sentient, we mus ask ourselves whether the thing in question can suffer. This indicates consciousness, perception, and reaction to stimuli (the latter two more or less being corollaries of the former).

Actually, I don't think it's true that we can determine whether something is sentient by asking whether that thing can suffer. For all we know animals could only have "access consciousness" and not "phenomenal consciousness"; there's TONS of philosophical literature on this.

I apologize in advance if this derails the thread but....

PCP, are you a Cartesian dualist?

No. And if you are going in the direction I think you might be going...no, I don't hold Descartes' view that animals are non-sentient, either.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 10:20:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 10:02:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/15/2010 9:36:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I agree with Bentham, although in a more general sense (since morality is not necessarily the subject of our discussion here): in determining whether a thing is sentient, we mus ask ourselves whether the thing in question can suffer. This indicates consciousness, perception, and reaction to stimuli (the latter two more or less being corollaries of the former).

Actually, I don't think it's true that we can determine whether something is sentient by asking whether that thing can suffer. For all we know animals could only have "access consciousness" and not "phenomenal consciousness"; there's TONS of philosophical literature on this.

What is your definition of sentient, and what criteria other than the ability to suffer (which means: the ability to wield and decide between preferences and different interests) are necessary to call a thing sentient?
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 10:22:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 10:17:54 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/15/2010 10:12:44 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/15/2010 10:02:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/15/2010 9:36:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I agree with Bentham, although in a more general sense (since morality is not necessarily the subject of our discussion here): in determining whether a thing is sentient, we mus ask ourselves whether the thing in question can suffer. This indicates consciousness, perception, and reaction to stimuli (the latter two more or less being corollaries of the former).

Actually, I don't think it's true that we can determine whether something is sentient by asking whether that thing can suffer. For all we know animals could only have "access consciousness" and not "phenomenal consciousness"; there's TONS of philosophical literature on this.

I apologize in advance if this derails the thread but....

PCP, are you a Cartesian dualist?

No. And if you are going in the direction I think you might be going...no, I don't hold Descartes' view that animals are non-sentient, either.

hehe You are too smart for me. ^_^

One last thing... do you have any opinions in regards to the "Dream Argument"? (This is open to anyone who has thoughts/opinions)
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
20000miles
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 10:30:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 10:20:23 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

What is your definition of sentient, and what criteria other than the ability to suffer (which means: the ability to wield and decide between preferences and different interests) are necessary to call a thing sentient?

Surely within the context of animal rights, the ability to feel pleasure and pain are the only criteria that suffice for sentience. Other traits (holding preferences, existing over time, etc) are signs of "personhood" (although some might argue that sentience is enough for deeming an entity a person).
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 10:41:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 10:30:05 PM, 20000miles wrote:
At 12/15/2010 10:20:23 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

What is your definition of sentient, and what criteria other than the ability to suffer (which means: the ability to wield and decide between preferences and different interests) are necessary to call a thing sentient?

Surely within the context of animal rights, the ability to feel pleasure and pain are the only criteria that suffice for sentience. Other traits (holding preferences, existing over time, etc) are signs of "personhood" (although some might argue that sentience is enough for deeming an entity a person).

I'm very familiar with Peter Singer's consideration of interests argument. We're talking pure sentience here, however--the context of animal rights isn't what we're examining.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 10:46:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 10:20:23 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/15/2010 10:02:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/15/2010 9:36:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I agree with Bentham, although in a more general sense (since morality is not necessarily the subject of our discussion here): in determining whether a thing is sentient, we mus ask ourselves whether the thing in question can suffer. This indicates consciousness, perception, and reaction to stimuli (the latter two more or less being corollaries of the former).

Actually, I don't think it's true that we can determine whether something is sentient by asking whether that thing can suffer. For all we know animals could only have "access consciousness" and not "phenomenal consciousness"; there's TONS of philosophical literature on this.

What is your definition of sentient, and what criteria other than the ability to suffer (which means: the ability to wield and decide between preferences and different interests) are necessary to call a thing sentient?

Dunno. Obviously, animals seem to have mental states that affect their actions and they are aren't non-conscious in the way my bed or tv is. Other than that I'm at loss to explain what exactly sentience is. All I can do is list various necessary conditions...I definitely can't give a sufficient condition for what makes something "sentient" right now.

And how does "suffer" mean that? If someone/thing is suffering they are experiencing pain in some way.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 10:53:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 10:22:09 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/15/2010 10:17:54 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/15/2010 10:12:44 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/15/2010 10:02:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/15/2010 9:36:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I agree with Bentham, although in a more general sense (since morality is not necessarily the subject of our discussion here): in determining whether a thing is sentient, we mus ask ourselves whether the thing in question can suffer. This indicates consciousness, perception, and reaction to stimuli (the latter two more or less being corollaries of the former).

Actually, I don't think it's true that we can determine whether something is sentient by asking whether that thing can suffer. For all we know animals could only have "access consciousness" and not "phenomenal consciousness"; there's TONS of philosophical literature on this.

I apologize in advance if this derails the thread but....

PCP, are you a Cartesian dualist?

No. And if you are going in the direction I think you might be going...no, I don't hold Descartes' view that animals are non-sentient, either.

hehe You are too smart for me. ^_^

One last thing... do you have any opinions in regards to the "Dream Argument"? (This is open to anyone who has thoughts/opinions)

It's...interesting and notoriously hard to refute but in the face of all that I still think I'm rational in believing there's an external, mind-independent world. :P
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 11:15:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 9:30:09 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Sentience how can it be truly measured . . . I say that many animals are sentient (dogs, cats, lizards, etc . . . etc . . .) but many beg to differ and say that only man is sentient beacuse we use machines and they don't, we talk yet they do not, but this is incorrect for many animals use machines and you also have to account for biological inclinations which can hinder technological development (such as being aquatic, lacking free appendages, etc . . . etc . . .), also account for how languages develop: in response to necessity and environment, if you spend your life hunting deer do you honestly think you will use an overly vocalized language, I think not, also account for how many essential body apparatus of the organism are designed, if you don't have developed vocal cords how do you expect to speak, do animals not feel, do they not think, I am relatively certain they do, they feel, they perceive the world around them, they learn, they have intelligence maybe not as mechanical as ours but they indeed do have it . . . http://en.wikipedia.org...
*note this is not promoting vegetarianism for I believe in our mass production of food and the eating of meat, humans are omnivores we should behave as such, plus when we began domesticating animals some 6000 odd years ago they gained food, shelter, and the insurance of their offspring's survival into adulthood in exchange for essential materials . . .*

As far as I know, there is no way to measure sentience. The only way we decide that other humans are sentient is by observing their behaviour. So, if we use this method to determine sentience in humans it seems consistent to apply the same method to other animals.

So if a person cries out we assume they are experiencing a strong emotion. Likewise, if an animal cries out we should make the same assumption in order to be consistent.

By the way, is this an appeal to nature: "humans are omnivores we should behave as such"?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 11:36:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 11:15:57 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/15/2010 9:30:09 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Sentience how can it be truly measured . . . I say that many animals are sentient (dogs, cats, lizards, etc . . . etc . . .) but many beg to differ and say that only man is sentient beacuse we use machines and they don't, we talk yet they do not, but this is incorrect for many animals use machines and you also have to account for biological inclinations which can hinder technological development (such as being aquatic, lacking free appendages, etc . . . etc . . .), also account for how languages develop: in response to necessity and environment, if you spend your life hunting deer do you honestly think you will use an overly vocalized language, I think not, also account for how many essential body apparatus of the organism are designed, if you don't have developed vocal cords how do you expect to speak, do animals not feel, do they not think, I am relatively certain they do, they feel, they perceive the world around them, they learn, they have intelligence maybe not as mechanical as ours but they indeed do have it . . . http://en.wikipedia.org...
*note this is not promoting vegetarianism for I believe in our mass production of food and the eating of meat, humans are omnivores we should behave as such, plus when we began domesticating animals some 6000 odd years ago they gained food, shelter, and the insurance of their offspring's survival into adulthood in exchange for essential materials . . .*

As far as I know, there is no way to measure sentience. The only way we decide that other humans are sentient is by observing their behaviour. So, if we use this method to determine sentience in humans it seems consistent to apply the same method to other animals.

So if a person cries out we assume they are experiencing a strong emotion. Likewise, if an animal cries out we should make the same assumption in order to be consistent.


When a person reacts to visual stimuli we'd also assume that they can see but then we have cases of people with blindsight...so that suggests that that consistent assumption or inference may not be so strong.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 11:36:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 11:15:57 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/15/2010 9:30:09 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

By the way, is this an appeal to nature: "humans are omnivores we should behave as such"?

No.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 11:43:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive.

Obviously animals are sentient. If I kick a dog, does it not feel it? If I wave a treat in front of it's face, does it not perceive it?

Animals simply have less of what we consider intelligence than we do.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 11:50:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 11:36:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/15/2010 11:15:57 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/15/2010 9:30:09 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

By the way, is this an appeal to nature: "humans are omnivores we should behave as such"?

No.

Why?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2010 11:54:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2010 11:50:10 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/15/2010 11:36:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/15/2010 11:15:57 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/15/2010 9:30:09 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

By the way, is this an appeal to nature: "humans are omnivores we should behave as such"?

No.

Why?

Appeal to nature would be "Humans are omnivores, therefore it is good for us to eat meat."
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...