Well, see, making people believe fish feel pain might also have dire consequences. Perhaps many of them will stop eating fish because of that, not realizing that it's the main source of vitamin B12 in their diets, and suffer from malnutrition because of that.brimstoneSalad wrote:The precautionary principle means erring on the side of caution
How is it ignorant, you haven't tried to explain that? OK, fine, you can make all sorts of ad-hoc hypotheses to explain away the behavior of the stick insect in that situation. You can claim it felt pain, but that it didn't feel fear (whatever that actually meant). You can claim that its memory is very short-lasting, so that it didn't remember it was me who broke off its leg (And what's the point of being able to feel pain then, how could it evolve?). You can perhaps claim that insects can't recognize human beings as animate (Even though they are somehow able to build honeycombs... supposedly without even basic intelligence). But the simplest explanation by far is that insects simply don't feel pain.brimstoneSalad wrote:Your ignorance on the topic (your anecdote) is not conspiratorial, it's just ignorant.
Not remotely. We know exactly how supercomputers work and how abacuses work. On the other hand, we only have a very dim idea of how brains work and how plant hormones work. So much so that there are still quite a few neuroscientists who believe that souls exist.brimstoneSalad wrote:That's like saying an abacus has a system of beads to carry information and thus might be sentient in the same way as a supercomputer running a synthetic intelligence.
What's obvious from the way they are writing is that they are facing considerable opposition.brimstoneSalad wrote:Read this
I am studying computer science. In fact, I probably know at least as much computer science as you do. I've just been on a computer science competition for the university students (one category in the STEM-Games), and I ended up being the 7th in Croatia. If what you are saying about computer science doesn't make sense to me, it probably doesn't make sense to anybody.brimstoneSalad wrote: You need to study informatics, it will answer your questions.
Besides, what kind of argument is that? How is that different from saying "You need to study Arabic, then the Quran would make perfect sense to you." or "You need to study Christian Science, then the Bible will make a lot of sense to you."?
I mean, a robot can, unlike the truly sentient beings, turn itself off as soon as it wants to, so it can't feel any actual suffering.brimstoneSalad wrote:There are medications you can take to shut down for a while until it wears off, but you can also commit suicide.
How is that relevant?
Of course it matters whether one can choose if they feel the suffering or not. The ethics of circumcision, for example, is a completely different story depending on whether it's done with or without anaesthesia. Back when it was done without anaesthesia, little Muslims were afraid of it and had to be forced to undergo it, it used to be a terrible experience. Today, most of them are happy about it. It hurts quite a bit until it heals, but that's not enough to make them unhappy.
Why would that be circular reasoning? The reasoning here goes like this:brimstoneSalad wrote:So, you're saying it's circular reasoning?
In order for the feeling of pain to evolve, an organism most likely needs to be able to tell from which part of its body a sensation is coming from.
The parts of the brain needed for that in humans are not present in fish, and there is probably nothing analogous to that in fish (since their brains are very simple).
Therefore, fish most likely don't feel pain.
Why exactly would intelligence matter here? Newborns can feel pain, and they are not very intelligent (perhaps only slightly more intelligent than a fish). Is it therefore less wrong to hurt a newborn than an adult?brimstoneSalad wrote:we also know that fish are *less* intelligent,