Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by carnap »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:49 am Why?
Because learning doesn't imply intention, you can model learning without any intentions at all. Learning is merely the ability to change the association between two or more variables based on experience.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:49 am Let the bucket be mental capacity, the small buckets be cognitive functions, and the small red bucket be sentience.
This analogy ignores the key issue, why is brain size like the size of the bucket? Brains differ in efficiency which impacts their size and also the size of the brain doesn't tell you about the relative size of various components in the brain. As I said before, if an animals' brain is larger than average because they have a large visual cortex why would that be associated with sentience?

I can see using brain size as a sort of necessary condition for sentience, that is, an animal needs a complex brain to be sentient. But comparing animals level of sentience by looking at relative brain size would be riddled with problems.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:49 am They will probably say not that important and not that different. Compare these findings to the anguished cries and obvious distress of whatever animal they would choose to eat, which indicate a high degree of interest.
You're trying to assume away the issue. I'm assuming that the person has a strong preference for meat-based dishes over vegan dishes and there are in fact many people that claim this preference. In such a case, how do you compare their preference here to someone's preference for wanting to travel? To having a rat free attic, etc. In all cases we are putting our interests above and beyond the interests of some animals based on our preferences. Saying that the person would "probably say" they don't greatly prefer the meat-based dish doesn't address the underlying issue.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:49 am In our example, the man has an interest in a meal and the animal has an interest in its life.
You seem to be trying to equivocate here. What it means for a human to have "interests" in a meal is clear but what it means for an animal to have an "interest" in its life is not. What does it mean that a cow has an "interest" in its life? What reason do we have to believe that a cow even has a concept of its life? Difficult to have an interest in something you cannot even understand. But still, the term "interests" needs to be clarified a way to avoid this sort of equivocation.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

carnap wrote: Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:41 pmBecause learning doesn't imply intention, you can model learning without any intentions at all. Learning is merely the ability to change the association between two or more variables based on experience.
What does intention mean outside of learning to perform some intention?
carnap wrote:This analogy ignores the key issue, why is brain size like the size of the bucket? Brains differ in efficiency which impacts their size and also the size of the brain doesn't tell you about the relative size of various components in the brain. As I said before, if an animals' brain is larger than average because they have a large visual cortex why would that be associated with sentience?
Okay, I think I see what you're saying, so I'd have to give behavior as the next best measurement.
carnap wrote:I can see using brain size as a sort of necessary condition for sentience, that is, an animal needs a complex brain to be sentient. But comparing animals level of sentience by looking at relative brain size would be riddled with problems.
What do you think is a better means of measurement?
carnap wrote:You're trying to assume away the issue. I'm assuming that the person has a strong preference for meat-based dishes over vegan dishes and there are in fact many people that claim this preference. In such a case, how do you compare their preference here to someone's preference for wanting to travel? To having a rat free attic, etc. In all cases we are putting our interests above and beyond the interests of some animals based on our preferences. Saying that the person would "probably say" they don't greatly prefer the meat-based dish doesn't address the underlying issue.
Sure, if we pretend that there's some crazy guy who is also the utility monster that only wants to eat beef, then by all means kill all the cows. I don't know anyone so retarded that they would be so disturbed like that that though; its like the exaggerated personification of those "I EAT MEAT TO MAKE VEGANS ANGRY XD" YouTube comments.
carnap wrote:You seem to be trying to equivocate here. What it means for a human to have "interests" in a meal is clear but what it means for an animal to have an "interest" in its life is not. What does it mean that a cow has an "interest" in its life?
It can and will learn to protect it.
carnap wrote:What reason do we have to believe that a cow even has a concept of its life?
Because it can learn to defend it to the best of its abilities.
carnap wrote:Difficult to have an interest in something you cannot even understand. But still, the term "interests" needs to be clarified a way to avoid this sort of equivocation.
I am interested in math because I learn math or because I am interested in something else which I have learned to use math to achieve.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by carnap »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:35 pm What does intention mean outside of learning to perform some intention?
That depends on how you're using the term. When talking about intelligent behavior the term "intention" typically implies that the action was understood and done with a purpose that the entity doing the action understands. Learning is largely an unconscious task, you learn all sorts of things without thinking about it at all.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:35 pm Okay, I think I see what you're saying, so I'd have to give behavior as the next best measurement.
Behavior doesn't work well either because two similar behaviors can have much different causes. You can look at the combination of brain structure and behavior to try to get some idea but still its going to be very rough. The real issue here is that we have a very poor understanding of how the brain produces consciousness. Without that knowledge how can you meaningfully compare the relative consciousness of different animal species?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:35 pm Sure, if we pretend that there's some crazy guy who is also the utility monster that only wants to eat beef, then by all means kill all the cows. I don't know anyone so retarded that they would be so disturbed like that that though; its like the exaggerated personification of those "I EAT MEAT TO MAKE VEGANS ANGRY XD" YouTube comments.
No..not a "crazy guy that only wants to eat beef" but rather a person that has a strong preference for eating meat-based dishes over plant-based ones. You seem to be trying to create a straw-man here, people that express a preference for eating meat based dishes are rather common.

But you're avoiding the issue again. What makes the preference for meat-based meals materially different than the preference for world travel, a rat free attic and all the other activities people do that may harm animals?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:35 pm It can and will learn to protect it.
So then plants, bacteria, etc also have interests? All living entities attempt to protect their life. But to have interests in any serious sense (e.g., how people usually use the term), the entity would have to have a conceptual understanding of the object of its "interest".
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:35 pm Because it can learn to defend it to the best of its abilities.
Why would defending itself imply that it understands its life? As noted above, all living systems "defend" themselves for an obvious reason. It increases their survival. But mechanism of self-defense don't imply awareness of abstract concepts. Plants defend themselves in a variety of ways but his is obviously not done with any forethought. Cows defend themselves in the same crude ways most animals do, namely, the flight or fight response. But cows, like most other animals, do not behave in a way that would indicate they have any concept of life and death.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

Behold: salt
carnap wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:21 pmLearning is largely an unconscious task, you learn all sorts of things without thinking about it at all.
What does unconscious mean? How is learning an unconscious task?
carnap wrote:Behavior doesn't work well either because two similar behaviors can have much different causes.
As long as there is evidence that it has a neurological basis, then it doesn't matter what caused it. Do you disagree that more complex (or even human like) behaviors require a more complex brain?
carnap wrote:Without that knowledge how can you meaningfully compare the relative consciousness of different animal species?
Because the what is more important than the why.
carnap wrote:No..not a "crazy guy that only wants to eat beef" but rather a person that has a strong preference for eating meat-based dishes over plant-based ones. You seem to be trying to create a straw-man here, people that express a preference for eating meat based dishes are rather common.
Its not a straw man because no such person has existed in human history. Would this totally normal person with just a "strong preference" show the same agony his meal shows if he didn't get what he wanted? Would he go to the same lengths to get what he wanted? Or would he just laze around and eat what he had like a normal fucking person?
carnap wrote:But you're avoiding the issue again. What makes the preference for meat-based meals materially different than the preference for world travel, a rat free attic and all the other activities people do that may harm animals?
Its as if you've been ignoring my responses to this question which you have asked again and again. Let me help refresh your memory.
guy who keeps avoiding the question wrote:You aren’t justified unless you can make your waste negligible or commit to doing good works greater than or equal to the harm you caused.
probably a blind guy trying to avoid my argument wrote:Western folks may like road trips, but there’s probably something they like just a little less that’s far less harmful which they can still do.
carnap wrote:So then plants, bacteria, etc also have interests?
I know I'm dumb, but is my argument really so bad that you aren't reading it?
carnap wrote:All living entities attempt to protect their life.
guy so dumb you shouldn't read what he writes wrote:It can and will learn to protect it.
In case you missed it:
guy so dumb you shouldn't read what he writes wrote:It can and will learn to protect it.
Learn to Protect =/= to Protect
carnap wrote:But cows, like most other animals, do not behave in a way that would indicate they have any concept of life and death.
What would indicate to you that a baby has a concept of life and death?
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by carnap »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:29 pm What does unconscious mean? How is learning an unconscious task?
There 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.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:29 pm As long as there is evidence that it has a neurological basis, then it doesn't matter what caused it. Do you disagree that more complex (or even human like) behaviors require a more complex brain?
Because you're using behavior as a proxy of some cognitive ability in which case the cause of the behavior is critical. 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.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:29 pm Its not a straw man because no such person has existed in human history. Would this totally normal person with just a "strong preference" show the same agony his meal shows if he didn't get what he wanted?
Huh? You don't think anybody prefers meat-based dishes to plant-based ones? I'm not sure why you're talking about agony, I'm discussing preferences. 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.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:29 pm Its as if you've been ignoring my responses to this question which you have asked again and again. Let me help refresh your memory.
I've responded to your commentary but so far it either isn't clear how it addresses the issue or seems to be an attempt to avoid the issue.

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.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:29 pm I know I'm dumb, but is my argument really so bad that you aren't reading it?
Again I've responded to your comments if you think I haven't addressed a key point then by all means clarify matters. Being smarmy doesn't clarify anything.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:29 pm Learn to Protect =/= to Protect
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 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?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:29 pm What would indicate to you that a baby has a concept of life and death?
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.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

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/
Post Reply