Not really, no.
Saying that nerves or brain structure is “necessary” is begging the question. Saying “it’s just reflexive behavior” assumes that isn’t what pain is.
Plants feel pain, and aspirin can relieve it. But if it makes you feel better, we can just call that “reflexive behavior” too.
Hell, I’m not sure what makes humans so special. They get injured, they exhibit reflexive behavior. Just because they use nerves and ganglia instead of other chemical signal pathways doesn’t mean they feel pain. People are just “displaying reflexive behavior”.
Yes. Really.
Charming.
Except that’s not what you said, nor what I was talking about now is it:
You don’t know this. Just because you lack the language to communicate with wolves, doesn’t mean they don’t communicate with each other.
No, not really. Throwing a philosophical term at something doesn’t magically give earthworms the ability to experience stimuli or reactions that they’re physically incapable of experiencing. Even if it sort of looks like it to the layman who decides that a jerking reflex means it must be pain.
That has absolutely jack shit to do with their traveling together in packs being instinct. Again, you do not have even the most basic understanding of what an instinct behavior is. An instinct is something that seems so obvious to that you don’t even wonder about why you are doing it.
Wolves do have signals for communication with each other (sounds, smells, and movements.) But none of those signals say “you know what, I’ve got this great idea–how about we travel together in groups instead of individually?” They don’t do that because traveling together in groups is instinctual, not a learned behavior. It is on the level of being (to a wolf) something so transparently obvious that it never even needs to be considered. Instinctual behaviors are very, very, very common in nature. It is why you see a million videos of cats using their paws to sweep objects off shelves but few if any of dogs doing the same. It is why you see birds weaving twigs together into nests in trees and sitting in them but you never see a frog doing it. It is why you see horses, lions, elephants, dolphins, gorillas, and starlings traveling in groups but see iguanas, orangutans, wolverines, armadillos, alligator snapping turtles, and two-toed-sloths traveling alone. It isn’t because individuals consciously choose to live that way, it is because that their inborn instincts mean that they don’t even conciser any other way.
In the wild, cats eat other animals and become covered in blood in the process, so after eating they need to groom their fur. But if you have a housecat and give it a handful of dry kibble, it will still give itself a full bath afterwards. Wait until it is finished bathing and give another handful of dry kibble immediately afterwards, and it will eat that kibble then give itself a full bath again. And just as nobody taught the cat to bathe itself, nobody can teach it that it doesn’t need to bathe itself after a handful of dry kibble. Just as nobody teaches a dog to bury food and a cat to bury poop. Just as nobody teaches a cat to make those little kneading motions while nursing or a dog to pee on things to mark them. Every one of these behaviors is an inborn instinct. Just as cats tending to be solitary and dogs tending to run in packs is an inborn instinct. Just as the rules for determining the pecking order in a pack of wolves or a flock of chickens is an inborn instinct. Just as people, at puberty, suddenly becoming really interested in rubbing parts of themselves against parts of other people is an inborn instinct. To deny this is to deny reality.
As I’ve not even mentioned instincts, you have no way of knowing what I know or don’t know about them.
I’m sorry you’re so angry at the idea that maybe you aren’t all that superior to other animals but I have to say I much prefer them to you.
Throwing a science term like “nerves” doesn’t give magically give people the ability to experience pain. It’s all just stimuli and response. I torture people in my basement for fun. They’re not screaming, they’re just releasing air from their lungs in response to being stimulated by my knife.
Clearly the earthworm is experiencing stimuli and reacting. You’re the one saying that isn’t pain. How is it not? That’s a philosophical question. From my POV, it’s exactly the same as a person experiencing stimuli and reacting. What vehicle, tissue or organ that stimulus uses to cause the reaction is irrelevant, whether electrical, chemical, fast or slow. Give me any reason to think otherwise.
Are you kidding me? I said:
To which you said
[QUOTE=FloatyGimpy]
This is exactly what I mean when I said that believing animals (and even something as highly intelligent as wolves ffs) are just mindless automatons enables people to not feel guilty when they treat them horribly.
[/QUOTE]
In the “no conscious reasoning at all” that you quoted, I meant that the behavior of traveling in packs–and the behavioral rules under which packs operate–was instinctual, not a conscious choice. In other words, when a dog or wolf sees something that they think is a threat, they do not stand around pondering actions and think to themselves–“hm. Here’s a plain–it might be effective to make a sort of low rumbling sound in the back of my throat–what should I call that? Something with an “r”, I think. Growl! I’ll call it ‘growl!’ And then I’ll occasionally make bursts of louder sound–I’ll call it ‘smarking’–no, wait, ‘barking!’” No, dogs react the way they do because they have instinctual programming to act the way that they do. They may make a choice between that limited palate of behavior options–for instance, running instead of fighting, barking instead of snarling, going for the legs instead of going for the throat, but they will never, ever pick up a rock in their mouth and whip their head around to throw it at the opponent, and they will never, ever stand up on their hind legs and dance like snoopy to try to confuse their opponent, because those behaviors are not in their limited repertoire of instinctive responses and are beyond their conception.
You may not have mentioned instincts, but you were responding to me talking about instincts, so I’ll accept that you do understand instincts but just didn’t understand what you were replying to.
Is it because not every reaction to stimuli is considered pain?
I just had to thank you for this well-suited-to-the-thread typo.
(unless you meant “Scientologists”, in which case, never mind)
And this is the other side of the coin. You’re worried about people being cruel to animals; I’m worried about animals being fed, sheltered, "loved’, ahead of humans.
Why not? is my question. Specifically the reaction to stimulus which is injurious to the organism? If you chop my hand off, my reaction will be pain. If you chop a jellyfish’s stinger off, I don’t see why we would call its reaction anything except pain? Just because it has different organs and tissues which cause the reaction?
No, there’s totally different neurological elements going on there. The fact that you don’t understand the distinction is pretty meaningless.
I understand that most people feel the way that you do in that people are more important than animals. I can objectively understand that for sure. But why? It doesn’t make sense to me that one life form has more worth than another. We’re all made up of the same stuff. We’re just flesh and bones. We all kill other animals and eat them.
I can understand a religious person believing that humans have more value if they believe that there is a soul and an afterlife and only humans have it. But I don’t believe in that so, to me, life is life regardless if you’re a great ape or a dolphin.
If you don’t have any belief in a soul or anything supernatural or mythical then why do you feel that human life has greater value than feline life?
I’m honestly interested in your thoughts about this question as I find it very confusing.
Because the reaction could simply be reflex and not pain?
If you had to make a choice between killing a human being or killing a cockroach, would you honestly hesitate because you couldn’t decide?
But you’re begging the question by asserting that the neurological elements are even relevant. Why do you think they are relevant? Instead of saying “this organism uses different biological processes to feel pain”, you’re asserting “this organism feels no pain, because it uses different biological processes”. I don’t buy that reasoning. If it cries like it’s in pain, and writhes like it’s in pain, as far as I’m concerned, it’s in pain. Whether or not it has similar organs to me is not part of the equation, as far as I’m concerned. And I’ve yet to see a reason it should.
But pain is a simple reflex. When you get hurt, you feel pain. Why would you presume otherwise?
But pain is not the only simple reflex. When I have the knee test done by a doctor, my legs jerks. It doesn’t jerk because of pain, it’s simply a reflex. Someone who didn’t know that could say “Wow! It must really hurt when a human gets hit by a small hammer on their knee, look at the way his leg jerks!”
I don’t get it, either. You want to say that an earthworm has a very different kind of pain, because its neural and other responsive structures are so different? Sure, that makes sense. But it still very clearly has a clear and distinct set of responses to stimuli that are injurious to it, and therefore must have some pathway in its internal state that leads from those stimuli to those responses. How do you define “pain” in such a way that excludes that internal state?