brimstoneSalad wrote:Stop using your ignorant anecdotes to make assumptions about things you don't understand.
I'd imagine the same argument was used during the Holodomor and the Great Chinese Famine to dismiss the anecdotes of people dying of malnutrition due to Lysenkoism, like, "Here are the statistics that prove that Lysenkoism works, your anecdotes don't count!".
brimstoneSalad wrote:Plants don't have the prerequisite information processing ability to even maybe feel pain.
Well, plants have quite complicated systems of hormones to carry information through the plant, and even between different plants. A few of those hormones happen to be the same chemicals as the neurotransmitters are in humans.
The truth is, it's not much different to claim plants feel pain and to claim that fish or insects feel pain. It's just making an ad-hoc model. If somebody says to you "Well, plants don't behave as if they felt pain.", as I say to you for fish and insects, you can say "Well, maybe it's a different kind of pain, so they respond differently to pain than people do.". If somebody says to you "Plants don't have what we know is needed to feel pain.", you can respond with "Well, maybe plants have something analogous to that.". That's basically where we are now. Sure, asserting that plants have something analogous to the nerve structures needed for pain in humans is less plausible than asserting that fish and insects have that, but the logic is the same.
I mean, entertaining the possibility that fish and insects feel pain has about as much to do with neuroscience as saying that we could be living in a computer simulation has to do with physics, I guess. There are a few physicists who say it's most likely true, there are a few physicists who claim it contradicts physics, and most physicists would say that claim is not even wrong.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't think there's any reason to disregard the moral value of a sentient being just because we made it from silicon instead of it being evolved from carbon.
Well, now, obviously, a robot with a synthetic intelligence can just turn itself off if it wants to, right? People and sentient animals can't quite do that.
The claim that some computer science experiment may be unethical because of the way computers supposedly feel seems quite ridiculous, doesn't it?
brimstoneSalad wrote:Learning is innately tied to positive experiences like satisfying curiosity.
OK, maybe, I haven't really studied the psychology of recognizing faces. But computers can learn to recognize faces (and cats...) by unsupervised machine learning. There is nothing comparable to pleasure and pain there, right?
brimstoneSalad wrote:Link the actual study that has as its findings the claim you're making.
I think it's not based on any study, that it's a deduction from the known differences between human brain and fish brain. You know, like my biology textbook tells me that crabs see everything as a mosaic, it's an inference made not on an actual study, but from the way the eyes of crabs are built (having a lot of lenses).
brimstoneSalad wrote:Philosophy (e.g. of mind) establishes the questions to ask (the different "check boxes" there), while empirical study demonstrates them and lets us fill those boxes with checks.
And the philosopher who establishes those questions gets his or her information from... neuroscience... which he or she, being a philosopher, is not at all qualified to understand.
brimstoneSalad wrote:There's value in debunking myths
Correct, but if the only way we can argue against eating fish is insisting that all the well-known things about eating fish are false... well, we are going so sound quite like the Flat-Earthers.
OK, the Inuits not getting heart diseases because of eating mainly fish is relatively easy to prove to be a myth, since there is probably no qualified nutritionist who claims that. But it's very hard to prove that fish not feeling pain is somehow a myth. The omega-3 reducing the chance of getting a heart-disease is likely a myth, but it can't be known for certain, and it's even less possible to make somebody believe that it's a myth.
We need to admit that the case against eating fish is a lot weaker than the case against eating meat of birds and mammals. Also, do you think it would be a good thing to ban fishing? Don't you think many poor people would starve to death if somebody does that?
Oh, by the way, for those who think holding dogs and cats as pets is a good thing:
THAT is also a cat.
THAT is also a dog, biologically the same specie as dogs.
So, would you argue it is a good thing to keep those things as pets? If not, why would then it make sense to keep any cat or any dog as a pet?