Should you buy plants with less animal deaths then other plant products?

[thebestofenergy]

Does it end on shrimp are sentient?

Yes, it's just that page.

[NickNack]

@thebestofenergy
I don't know if I missed something then. All I saw was a statement generally saying "the more complex the biology, the more complex the sentience", but I saw no philosophical justification for that. Just scientific observations of creatures biology, but no philosophical justification for why we should conclude something is sentient based on its biology or responses.

[thebestofenergy]

All I saw was a statement generally saying "the more complex the biology, the more complex the sentience", but I saw no philosophical justification for that.

The explanation is right there:

There's a direct correlation between volume/complexity of the nervous system and brain, and higher degrees of sentience.

The complexity and magnitude of the central nervous system (brain) and of the cognitive capabilities to process subjectively and interpret the information through the thalamocortical complex (which is the collective set of the thalamus, the thalamocortical radiations, and the cortex) are directly correlated with higher intelligence and more complex ability to experience subjectively in species.

This would make sense because of two things:

A more complex nervous system and brain leads to more complex, and therefore more subjective and unique, experiences
A higher amount of nerve endings and neurons leads to more intense feelings, perceived at a higher magnitude

Just scientific observations of creatures biology, but no philosophical justification for why we should conclude something is sentient based on its biology or responses.

What do you think sentience is?
The ability to feel, perceive and experience subjectively.
You can determine if something is able to feel, perceive and experience subjectively, through neurobiology.
We know what parts are needed for sentience to exist (written in the page), and how it all comes together to form sentience (also explained in the page).

[NickNack]

@thebestofenergy
It almost seems like a circular argument to me, cause it appears its just being restated that we have percieved sentience, but how do you even directly perceive sentience outside of your own? Science means nothing without logic to hold it together. Everything is philosophical reasoning, you couldnt have basic logic if you didnt assume A=A. But saying A=A is a philosophical intuition non the less. Percieving is understanding, and understanding is using logic, and using more complex logic is philosophy. All of these things are just lesser or bigger degrees of the same thing, so logic/philosophy will always triumph over science if science isnt being logical or philosophical. So when its said theres a correlation between complexity of the nervous system and ability to be sentient to X degree, what were the methods used to measure the sentience, I think thats the real question.
But I think a sentient being is simply a percieving agent, so to be sentient means to percieve your own experience.

[thebestofenergy]

It almost seems like a circular argument to me, cause it appears its just being restated that we have percieved sentience, but how do you even directly perceive sentience outside of your own?

Science is a circular argument?
Sentience is very science-based. It's not a debatable concept.

Would you say that saying that an apple has a certain color is circular reasoning?
It's a property that can be verified. Just like sentience is.

I have explained how you can know whether X is sentient or not. What do you not understand?

Science means nothing without logic to hold it together. Everything is philosophical reasoning, you couldnt have basic logic if you didnt assume A=A. But saying A=A is a philosophical intuition non the less. Percieving is understanding, and understanding is using logic, and using more complex logic is philosophy. All of these things are just lesser or bigger degrees of the same thing, so logic/philosophy will always triumph over science if science isnt being logical or philosophical. So when its said theres a correlation between complexity of the nervous system and ability to be sentient to X degree, what were the methods used to measure the sentience, I think thats the real question.

I've never said science triumphs over philosophy, not sure what you're trying to say. Science is a branch of philosophy.

Can you address what I've said, or what the Wiki says, and show me where the logic is missing or failed?

1. Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive and experience subjectively.
2. The ability to feel, perceive and experience subjectively is derivative of a being having X, Y, and Z parts.
3. Neurobiology can empirically show us if a being has X, Y, and Z parts.
4. Neurobiology can empirically show us if a being is sentient.

Can you agree with that, before we move on with the degree of sentience?

But I think a sentient being is simply a percieving agent, so to be sentient means to percieve your own experience.

And you're wrong. That's not what sentient means - although perceiving your own experience comes close to it.
Sentience has a definition. It's not up to what you think it is.

[NickNack]

@thebestofenergy
I never said science was circular, I'm just saying I think this particular argument is circular because you've already assumed the conclusion your trying to reach in premise two. You should have more premises in between one and two I believe. I don't know how you proved premise two.

[NickNack]

@thebestofenergy
My bad, ignore the comment before this one please, I had a misunderstanding, its premise three that assumes the conclusion your trying to draw in premise four

[NickNack]

@thebestofenergy
I need further proof of premise three

[thebestofenergy]

@NickNack
I'm not sure what proof you need in premise 3. How you can see them being there?
That's what neurobiology does, it studies the nervous system and the brain (central nervous system) - therefore, the parts required for a being to be sentient.

You can see if someone has the parts required

1 - The ''somatosensory system'' - which is responsible for being able to perceive things (perception of sight, noise, touch, taste, smell, pressure, pain, temperature, position, movement, vibration).

2 - The ''thalamus'' - which is responsible for 'gathering' the sensory signals given by the ''somatosensory system''.

3 - The ''thalamocortical radiations'' - which are fibers between the ''thalamus'' and the ''cortex'', and are the carriers of information between the ''thalamus'' (gatherer) and the ''cortex'' (interpreter), relaying the information from the former to the latter and allowing them to communicate, to be able to have the data interpreted subjectively.

4 - The ''cortex'', which is responsible for awareness and subjective interpretation of the information given. The mid-brain (the more primitive part) is also sufficient enough to allow for basic capacities for subjective experiences. [https://www.sciencealert.com/insects-ar ... -new-study]

by simply having an MRI, not even having to dissect the brain, or having to draw conclusions by how the being behaves. You can see clear images of them, you can observe them.
You can certainly study the brains of animals, so it's not a surprise that you can also observe whether these parts exist or not.

I should mention, these parts or parts that are able to simulate them and do the same job as them (like sentient AI would have).

[NickNack]

@thebestofenergy
Did we determine all these things about the brain and stuff are responsible for sentience thru how the creatures reacted due to stimuli?