XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, misc.education, alt.philosophy
XPost: rec.pets.cats.misc
From: tea@signguestbook.ie
"Barb Knox" wrote in message news:see-FD5EF5.093
0309122007@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In article ,
> "pearl" wrote:
>
> > "Barb Knox" wrote in message
> > news:see-EB3065.18062106122007@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > > In article ,
> > > "pearl" wrote:
> > >
> > > [SNIP]
> [re-ordered]
Put back as it was.
> > > > With respect to all mammals, birds, and reptiles, we know that
> > > > they possess a sufficiently complex neural structure to enable pain
> > > > to be felt plus an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states.
> > >
> > > You avoided responding to this issue in a previous thread,
> > But I did respond to this in a previous thread, and I reproduce
> > that response - which _you_ avoided responding to - below.
You have avoided responding again, Barb. You should also retract
the false claim that I avoided responding to this in a previous thread.
>>>>so I'll try
> > > again: We agree that animals possess sensors for various dangerous
> > > stimuli (intense heat, cold, pressure, etc.), and that they are
> > > neurologically complex enough to consistently respond in ways to avoid
> > > such stimuli; BUT, the scientific state of the art is currently unable
> > > to tell us if they have any SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE analogous to our
> > > feelings of pain, or for that matter any subjective experience of
> > > anything at all. One could build a small mobile robot that senses and
> > > avoids extreme environmental conditions, but surely from seeing its
> > > purposeful behaviour you would not leap to the conclusion that it had
> > > "consciously felt states". Or would you?
>
> > > Over to you. And please try to respond with your own thoughts, rather
> > > than another large cut-and-paste.
> >
> > Please try to stop being such a control freak.
>
> I can't stop what hasn't been started. In this case I just made a
> polite request with the hope of provoking some original thought. And it
> worked:
If only I'd realised that this was all about original thought.... (LOL.)
> > Of course not. Your robot lacks a central nervous system, and life.
>
> Its CPU + memory is a reasonable analogue of a CNS.
No, it is not. Show us a CPU + memory that *feels* anything.
A CPU which can *experience* pain, euphoria, depression, .. .
> And as for lacking life, are you saying that evolved biological machines
> have some "vital force" that other machines necessarily lack? If so,
> that's a rather outdated view which lacks any direct evidence in its
> favour and is made less and less plausible as we learn more and more of
> the underlying details about how biological machines operate.
With all your advances you can't make living "biological machines".
Ask yourself why that might be.
> Suppose someone makes a mobile robot and gives it a "life-like" furry
> exterior (when seen from a distance). So, when you observe its
> extreme-stimulus avoiding behaviour from a distance, not knowing that
> it's not biological, would you THEN conclude that it has "consciously
> felt states"? If not, why not?
Ask me again when you've managed to 'create' such a life-like thing.
> > > Note that I am not asserting that higher animals definitely lack
> > > subjective experience, but rather that our ignorance of the material
> > > underpinnings of subjective experience is so vast that we can not even
> > > begin to answer questions such which animals (if any) have "consciously
> > > felt states".
> [SNIP repeat of large cut-and-paste]
Evasion.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
