Intelligence is a prickly thing to pin down…your daughter is better at math yet I bet you would not allow her to act as a guide for the blind which your dog could presumably do.
Anyway, here’s your cite:
As to the bonfides of that guy:
I’m starting to think you don’t have a rich command of the English language if you don’t see how what you’re talking about is very much not “black and white.” I’m not trying to be insulting but “aware” is ridiculously vague and I could argue everything from one of the great apes to a jellyfish is “aware” or the converse. Same goes for the other definitions in your copy and paste job.
And that is my point, sentience is subjective, humanity isn’t. We know without a doubt what is human, sentience is an argument, whether you think you have stumbled upon some term that has an “absolute” definition or not.
For the record: I’ve not tried to redefine anything, I’ve simply stated what I thought was true to anyone with command of the English language.
The opposite of sentient isn’t “automaton.”
Some could be, but many more aren’t–and it’s all subjective as to which is which. On the other hand, some humans lack sentience but we still know without a doubt that they are human.
It’s not my job to clear things up for you when you become confused by plain English. If you had actually read my posts you’ll note that I said from the very beginning that sentience isn’t important. Honestly if you don’t stop forcing me to repeat myself I’ll just simply stop responding to you.
I’m going to give you a complete run down and recap of my posts in this thread since you have apparently missed it:
I said THIS
Note that I’m talking about animals not having personhood, you’re a person if you’re a human, period. If you aren’t human, you aren’t a person. I never said anything about sentience.
ivan astikov said this:
His argument being that if something has “sentience” then you have to morally evaluate how your actions affect that thing.
I responded to him with this post:
Note that I’m saying “sentience” is not what I think ethical decision making should be based on. Not because no animal is sentient, but because sentience is subjective (actually that is just the easiest reason as to why sentience is a bad basis for determining which parties we have to consider in ethics.)
I go on to explain (actually for the second time) that I base ethical decision making off of how an action affects another person (person defined as someone who is a human being.) Not based on sentience or any other category.
You responded with this drivel:
Note that you are actually trying to refute the point of “animals aren’t sentient.” A point you shall note I never once made, you also attempt to refute the point that “to be moral means it is a reciprocal relationship”, when in fact I never made that argument and in fact I expressly pointed out that was not what I meant in the original post that you were quoting directly.
It doesn’t change that question, no. However that question never had anything to do with anything I said. Again, for the record, a completely catatonic person is still a person and you can act immorally towards them.
Rocks, animals, and other such things you cannot commit moral wrongs against them, however actions against them may constitute moral wrongs if the action has a wider negative impact on specific humans or humans in general.
I don’t think a dog leading a blind person is a sign of intelligence, it is a sign of trainability. Dogs also have superior senses of smell and hearing that maximize thier abilities in some of the things they are trained to do - those are not signs of intelligence either (not that you said they were).
If we use number of words a critter knows = intelligence, I will grant you the argument. But I think there is a huge gap in terms of ability to understand and use language that sets the 2 year-old far apart. A 2 or 2.5 (his numbers) year-old not only knows words, but can take multiple words that have never been put together for them previously and figure out their meaning in complex ways.
You can train a dog to know the words ‘toy’ and ‘box’ but you need to train the dog to put the toy in the box on command. If a toddler knows those words, and you say put the toy in the box they can figure out exactly what you mean by use of their intelligence much faster than the dog can. Not a very good example, I know, but I think you know what I’m trying to say here…
Why are moral actions restricted only to actions that affect humans and nothing else?
A moral is an ideal of proper human conduct yes? Most would consider, say, setting a stray cat on fire to be improper conduct agreed? Therefore the human has committed an immoral act when they set the cat on fire.
Actually guide dogs for the blind do far more than learn a specific set of behavior such as: “If X happens then I do Y”. The dog can assess and respond to unique situations. It has to in order to do the job well as it simply cannot be trained for all unique things it will encounter in its years of service. It also will disobey its person if that would endanger the person (although in all other respects the dogs are highly obedient). In essence it has to distinguish when to obey and when not to and not let itself be bullied despite an overall tendency to obey. This denotes a rather sophisticated level of thinking on the part of the dog.
My brother worked for Hadley School for the Blind many years ago and I had the opportunity to meet some guide dogs and they are very impressive.
We have debated what “intelligence” means around here before and suffice it to say it is nowhere near as clear cut as it appears on the surface. Language ability is part of intelligence. Math is another part and so on. Ability to stalk and catch a rabbit is another.
Usually it is via creative thinking skills that I think researchers like to go on (don’t hold me to that). In essence, when presented with a new puzzle the ability of the animal to solve the problem. Animals show all sorts of creative thinking. Google “Crow tool use” for instance. The animals are creative in solving a problem without ever having been taught. They see what is at hand (err…claw/beak) and design novel and ingenious solutions on the fly (so to speak).
Bottom line is merely saying your daughter has better language skills is not the only arbiter of intelligence.
Anyway, I’ll go with a well respected psychologist on this till someone cites better showing the guy is full of shit. I can only suppose he did his due diligence and was careful in his analysis before presenting his findings at an APA conference in front of all his peers.
Perhaps I should have put a smiley at the end for the humour impaired, but I thought the idea of a man called Bacon advocating vegetarianism was quite funny.
2 cents: Hunting for sport is just wrong, you should eat what you catch.
You’re probably right. Though I guess this throws a wrench in the “Oh, yeah well why don’t you care about plants, huh vegetarians” argument since the same argument can be applied to a bulk of many vegetarian’s diets.
Fair point. I had looked at all the stats re: it taking a half an acre to feed a vegetarian vs 3 acres for an omnivore, and the obvious fact that a cow takes in more calories than can be derived from its meat, and extrapolated. I didn’t consider that the cow could eat plants without killing them. Cite that most of the mass of a steak comes from grasses rather than grains, btw? Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Until plants start behaving in a manner that suggests they have consciousness comparable to that of the dumbest mammal, they shouldn’t even be in this conversation.
Pot…Kettle.
Do you have anything of interest to add or are you just in here to snipe?
I’m bowing out of this thread because it’s getting too long. I don’t think I owed anyone a reply but, apologies if I did.
Are you joking? :eek:
Plants, fungi and even bacteria are able to perceive and feel light, water, nutrients, heat and even other organisms, all at levels that are orders of magnitude below what you are capable of detecting. There is no debate on this point. Clearly plants are aware. Clearly they are finely sensitive in perception and feeling.
So, is sentience important or are you moving the goalposts? It is important as regards humans, not important as regards plants and fungi?
If you can not see how ridiculous your position becomes when you try to apply this definition of sentience without any attempt to appreciate the nuances of the word then you are beyond my help.
I’m sorry but Martin Hyde is entirely correct on this point and you have no chance at all of carrying it. I suggest you concede it and try to move onto some point that you can actually defend. Sentience isn’t a hard and fast objective term. It is a vague, nuanced, subjective term and there is endless debate about whether any animals are sentient, much less which ones.
For you to try to apply a broad-brush, unnuanced definition that “sentience” = “perception ability” you not only display a great ignorance of the issue, you also force yourself into defending the ridiculous position that a mushroom is sentient.
Are you joking? :eek:
Seriously you have got to be fucking kidding me.
I mean really. I have no chance of carrying the point!?
Plants, fungi and bacteria ALL lack a central nervous system. Please point to a brain in any of those things which is necessary for perception. I’ll wait…
Stimulus/response is NOT the same thing as perception.
What planet are you from? :rolleyes:
This has to be the lamest slam ever leveled at me.
I want to add in high school biology I put an electrode to a dead (read that again) frog’s leg. The leg moved.
Did the dead (read that again) frog feel pain or was it stimulus/response? I leave you, the reader, to decide.
Dude, did you read my links?
The pre-eminent scientists in the field state specifically that plants perceive and fungi perceive and bacteria perceive. Papers on plant and fungal perception are regularly published in “Science” and “Nature”.
I repeat: there is no debate here. Plants and fungi are capable of perception. That is so well confirmed in the academic literature at the highest levels that for you to try to dispute its truth demonstrates not just gross ignorance of the subject, but willful ignorance.
When the pre-eminent scientists in the field, publishing in the pre-eminent, peer reviewed journals in the world state that plants, fungi and bacteria are capable of perception the issue is not open to debate.
Unless of course you can find some reputable, peer-reviewed science that states that plants are not capable of perception. Can you do that? If not then the issue is resolved for those who are interested in facts: plants are capable of perception.
Yeah, coz when your position is demonstrated to contradict that of *all *the worlds experts and *all *the peer reviewed science, that’s a lame slam.:rolleyes:
Seriously dude, I have no antagonism against you, but let this one go. The issue of whether bacteria, fungi and plants were capable of perception was resolved 100 years ago. There’s been no dispute on the issue in over a century. The only papers published now are on how they perceive and how sensitive that perception is. For you to start arguing the issue after it has been resolved in the scientific community since Queen Victoria was still alive is just flogging a rocking horse. You must realise you can’t defend this point when we can point to a dozen citations in “Science” and “Nature” alone in the last 10 years which state that plants can perceive.
So you’ve lost this point. Let it go. Plants are capable of perception. There really is no debate on this point in scientific circles. Hasn’t been for 1000 years. You sure can’t win that one.
And since we can confirm that point beyond any chance of honest dispute, for you to try to apply a broad-brush, unnuanced definition that “sentience” = “perception ability” you force yourself into defending the ridiculous position that a mushroom is sentient.
Your links provide me zero info. I cannot read any of the text at those links. I won’t call you a liar but I cannot assess the cite either.
Well, let’s see what it mean to “perceive” something:
So, you want to suggest fungi has awareness? Understanding? Senses (look up the definition)?
Do tell how that works. Want to bust my balls fine…explain the “awareness” of fungi.
As noted above there is a stimulus/response which does not denote consciousness/awareness. I got that response from a very dead frog.
You are off the reservation nitpicking bullshit. It won’t work. You do not have a leg to stand on with this. If you want to continue to make a fool of yourself knock yourself out but realize you are barking up the wrong tree. This foolishness is apparent for the smoke and mirrors it is.
Yes, you can. I linked to he Google search earlier. There’s no shortage of information confirming that plants have perception. But just so you can’t use this excuse again, here are the Google links:
http://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?hl=en&q="Plants+perceive"
http://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?hl=en&q="Plant+perception"&btnG=Search&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
http://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?hl=en&q="fungal+perception"&btnG=Search&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
http://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?hl=en&q="fungi+perceive"
I have no way of telling which of those references you can download at your location, but I am certain that you are bale to read at least the abstracts of at least one.
Dude, are you seriously disputing the scientific authorities? I want a clear answer on this. Are you saying that “Science”, “Nature” and “Physiologia Plantarum” are all wrong when they say straight out “plants percieve” and when they speak of “fungal perception”?
Because if that is the case then we have nothing to discuss. I’m basing my position on the facts, supported by impeccable references, as established by the best science for over a century. When you start saying that is all incorrect then that is willful ignorance of such a high level that it cannot be fought.
So now we start to see the goalposts shift.
Your entire position here has been that everything is black and white. That is an entity has perception then it is sentient. Indeed when Martin Hyde pointed out that sentience is very nuanced and open to debate you directly challenged that by saying that it is black and white, and that sentience = perception.
Now that it has been established that plants and fungi are capable of perception you want to move the goalposts. Now suddenly sentience =/= perception. Suddenly plants aren’t sentient despite a century of evidence and universal scientific agreement that they are capable of perception. Suddenly we need all sorts of fine qualifiers and nuanced definitions.
Exactly the same nuances and qualifiers that your entire position demands not exist at all on this black and white issue.
I’ll definitely dispute their terminology if they are saying this perception/awareness is in any meaningful way equal to that of an organism with just the simplest brain.
Dude, I dispute your idiotic semantic games.
Repeat after me…
Fungus has no brain.
Fungus has no nervous system.
Hell, fungus has no nerves.
I defined the word “perceive” above. If scientists use imprecise language or at least that word for lack of a better one does not change the facts. I challenge you to get one of those scientists to agree with you that “perceive” equates to conscious awareness (part of the definition) for the fungus.
There is no such complication or semantic game with the word “sentience”. You are the one jumping on ONE word in the whole definition and nitpicking it to death. I showed a dog meets the definition across the board which is inclusive of but not exclusive of “perception”. A dog has a brain and a central nervous system and nerves. If you dispute that then you may as well argue there is no existence, this is all a dream (or nightmare if you prefer).
If “perception” were the only part of the definition of “sentience” then it would be a synonym. It isn’t so your semantic two-step fails on the face of it.
Here’s the thesaurus entry for sentient. Do tell how your fungus fits in to this while a dog fits it just fine:
Entry Word: sentient
Function: adjective
Meaning: having specified facts or feelings actively impressed on the mind <sentient of the danger> — see conscious