Re: Why I'm an omnivore.
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:32 am
Part 1:
Whew, okay. Your reply was so long I had to wait until the weekend to have time to address it.
So the first paragraph was very telling about the ambiguity of words in the philosophy of the mind. This isn't a slight or to say someone is right or wrong, but to point out the difficulty in using terminology to express certain concepts, and it's a bridge to gap between us to foster understanding.
Also, interesting that this is a scenario for non-sentience for you. I've debated the Ask Yourself vegans quite a bit, and when they describe something as "non-sentient", it is essentially brain dead. The idea of still having the presence of mind for them, while being non-sentient, wouldn't make sense. Again, not stating right or wrong here, I'm just noting this difference in terminology usage. I don't tend to use words like "sentience", as stated before, but our difference in just the word experience will cause some confusion.
When I say it, I'm referring to anything you are present of mind about. Whether that's abstract thoughts, or sensory experiences, or whatever. If my eyes were to take in some data, but it was not part of my HUD, I would say I am not experiencing it, even though my brain might process and use that data. I recently learned about some people who have had brain damage, and could not "see" an object, even though their eyes were taking in the data. When asked to reach out to touch it, they could. They obtain the visual information and they still can process it. I wouldn't say they *experience* it, however.
If you just asked me directly: Do you think this rock wants to not be smashed? I would say the rock doesn't have the capacity to care.
Now if we are talking about just me, yes I care about my family, which means you could extract the understanding in which I would want them to be safe even if I wasn't aware of something that was happening. But for me to consider how I would *feel* about it, I must have known about it. It cannot be said that I feel displeasure about what happens to my family if I don't know about it. It's a very minor point.
Whew, okay. Your reply was so long I had to wait until the weekend to have time to address it.
So the first paragraph was very telling about the ambiguity of words in the philosophy of the mind. This isn't a slight or to say someone is right or wrong, but to point out the difficulty in using terminology to express certain concepts, and it's a bridge to gap between us to foster understanding.
So what I learned from this reply, is that your concept of sentience and even the word experience is linked to sensory perceptions. Someone who is "present in mind" as you described, is not having an experience. Whereas, if I was to use the word experience, that presence of mind would be under the umbrella of that word. Your thoughts would be something you are experiencing.Sure, but non-sentient beings can have interests too even though they don't experience.
Imagine you lost your sense of touch, of sight, hearing, taste, smell, etc.
You were locked in, totally senseless, yet still present in mind. Do you not want anything anymore just because you can't experience anything in the world?
Also, interesting that this is a scenario for non-sentience for you. I've debated the Ask Yourself vegans quite a bit, and when they describe something as "non-sentient", it is essentially brain dead. The idea of still having the presence of mind for them, while being non-sentient, wouldn't make sense. Again, not stating right or wrong here, I'm just noting this difference in terminology usage. I don't tend to use words like "sentience", as stated before, but our difference in just the word experience will cause some confusion.
When I say it, I'm referring to anything you are present of mind about. Whether that's abstract thoughts, or sensory experiences, or whatever. If my eyes were to take in some data, but it was not part of my HUD, I would say I am not experiencing it, even though my brain might process and use that data. I recently learned about some people who have had brain damage, and could not "see" an object, even though their eyes were taking in the data. When asked to reach out to touch it, they could. They obtain the visual information and they still can process it. I wouldn't say they *experience* it, however.
It's not that I disagree with what you're saying, it's just that I don't think the analogy of asking *me* works, because I would have had the capacity to consider the question. If you asked me "If I was the rock, would I want to be smashed or left alone" I could answer that question, were I to have my capacity to consider the question, as though I was a magic rock. But to say: "Therefore, that is what the rock would want" doesn't follow, because the conclusion has taken the magic away from the rock. It was the "me-ness" giving it value, and that was who the question was directed at.It's called an idealized interest.
In the same way I can choose for you to not to let you eat a cookie you want to eat because I know it to be poisoned (and you wouldn't want to eat it IF you knew that), I can choose for you to receive the paper cut to save your family because that's the choice you would make IF you knew that.
Your idealized interest would be receiving the paper cut and saving your family, even if you'd never know it.
If you just asked me directly: Do you think this rock wants to not be smashed? I would say the rock doesn't have the capacity to care.
Now if we are talking about just me, yes I care about my family, which means you could extract the understanding in which I would want them to be safe even if I wasn't aware of something that was happening. But for me to consider how I would *feel* about it, I must have known about it. It cannot be said that I feel displeasure about what happens to my family if I don't know about it. It's a very minor point.
I hope I cleared up the divide I think we have. I think something "present of mind" with no sensory information is also experiencing.There's no definitional divide.
I'm offering up a mechanistic explanation of a behavioral occurrence sans experience. I'm showing how operant conditioning can be used without experiential consideration, another way of saying: It's not brought to our attention that it is occurring. It's not just that I think animals don't have this ability, I don't think humans do either. Operant conditioning *could* be done through experiential means, but for the vast majority, it is not.I don't know what you're saying here.