carnap wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:14 pmThere are different types of learning and most of it is unconsciousness. And its unconsciousness in the sense that you're not aware of it happening other than you may notice after the fact that you've retained some information or ability.
Ah, okay. What prevents the act of learning unconscious or not, from having a conscious end: interest?
carnap wrote:A complex behavior doesn't necessary require a more complex brain. For example some insects have rather complex behaviors but they are largely innate and the product of millions of years of evolution rather than complex cognition.
Good point, I forgot about that, but I don't think it detracts from my point. The issue is whether or not these are learned behaviors. its likely these insects come with these methods "pre-programmed," whereas mammals learnt them.
carnap wrote:You don't think anybody prefers meat-based dishes to plant-based ones?
I don't think anybody prefers meat based dishes over plant based ones to such an extent that it would exceed a cow's probably first or second most precious interest. Its like saying there's a person who wants to sit on a couch of human skin more than the humans who would be needed to make it. The truth is that he probably just wants to sit and slightly prefers his human skin couch.
carnap wrote:I'm not sure why you're talking about agony, I'm discussing preferences.
Agony is indication of violation of interest. For two entities A and B, ignoring sentience, we might say that A and B hate some action C if A and B suffer equally over C. We don't see this same suffering paralleled across the board in our example.
carnap wrote:Many people have a preference for meat-based dishes just as many people have a preference for world travel over visiting something local. Will the find the other option agonizing? Probably not....but that is irrelevant. In both cases people are violating the "interests" of other animals to satisfy their preferences.
Right, and you forget to mention that we can be fairly certain that they don't care as much as you're making it seem when they jump to the second best preference BECAUSE they don't agonize over it.
carnap wrote:So can you as clear as you can, state what is materially different about the case of meat and the case of international travel? Both are cases where people are violating the "interests" of animals to satisfy their preferences.
Nothing, really. If you want to eat you can eat a burger and be super happy or eat a veggie burger and be almost as satisfied. If you want to travel you can go on a wasteful road trip and be super happy or you can drive to the nearby forest and be almost as satisfied. Of course, you've still caused some harm in both cases, farming and driving are not guilt free, but it is less, which makes it easier for you to make it up charitably. Its more of a pragmatic concern. If you can do enough good to exceed your evil, then you can do that evil (though it would be optimal for you not to do it).
carnap wrote:I tacitly addressed this in my comment but in what sense does a cow "learn to protect" itself? Self-protection is built into all living systems, they do it from birth.
A cow learns to protect itself in that it attempts to optimize its behaviors for this "built in" instinct.
carnap wrote:A cow may remember certain things over its life, but its mechanism for self-protection are similar throughout its life. So what learned self-protection do you have in mind?
The important thing is that it did not learn those things just because, by some knee-jerk behavior, but because it had some goal to optimize for. A cow wouldn't capture a memory of the location of a nasty hive if he had not first been stung. Whether or not that initial goal was placed there or not is irrelevant. If I could somehow make you really want blue shoes, would it not be worthwhile to give you blue shoes?
carnap wrote:In what way does this address the question? Whether or not a baby has a concept of life and death has nothing to do with whether a cow or other animal does.
It's relevant because we really only have insight on the degree at which more abstract concepts are understood in speaking humans, or if you're particularly skeptical, yourself. When we try to consider it beyond this group and maybe even in some speaking, but naive children, things become muddy. At the very least mute organisms tend to avoid pain, but like I've discussed before, this is often knee jerk, so it isn't the best indicator. Some animals, like elephants, grieve for their dead in human-like ways which might indicate that they have a better notion of death (or that they like spending time with that other elephant). One* forum indicated that cattle do seem to grieve lost herd mates (dead or sold), but I can't tell you how true that is, as I haven't worked with cattle. In other words, I can't tell you, but there are other interests at play. Cattle do want to spend time with other cattle, to graze, to drink, and if you deny them that by killing them prematurely, you also violate these interests because you make them impossible.
*
https://www.draftanimalpower.org/forums/topic/cattle-grieving/