Do animals have consciousness?

[o_mlly]

What would happen if they were bitten by a rattlesnake …

Could not happen in a state or Originial Justice.

The point is that Adam and Eve, in Original Justice, were not subject to the crippling or deadly diseases these creatures now present to fallen man.

Original Justice describes the perfect ordering of our being: a state in which conscience is completely subject to God, the will to conscience, the body and its passions to will, and the plants and animals to man.

 

[HarryStotle]

Gorgias:

It would be difficult for you to hold to your predetermined worldview if you had to accept that your understanding of Church teachings was in error.

I’m confused by this statement. The question I have been asking STILL stands and has not been addressed. Do animals feel pain and suffer? Yes or no.

The reason your question appears to have some force behind it is because of the ambiguity of “feel” in the question of whether animals “feel” pain and suffer.

We might distinguish three senses of the word “feel.”

1. Animals “feel” pain in the sense of responding to what human beings would experience as an instance of subjective pain.
2. Animals have pain as an epiphenomenon of a sensation akin to human pain that occurs within the brain of some animals that evinces an emotive reaction by the animal. Note: this is not to imply that animals have an enduring sense of self, but merely that the sensation stands by itself without the necessity of it being a quale experienced by an enduring subject or persona.
3. Animals feel pain in precisely the same as the human sense – that each of us as human beings experience – wherein we are the subject of the experience of pain, implying that the pain is an indicator of harm or injury to the subject of the experience.

It is possible that animals experience pain in both sense 1) and 2) without necessitating the implication that by “experiencing” pain in either sense we must therefore allow the existence of an enduring subject of that pain experience.

To be sure, the pre-fontal cortex in human beings is precisely the structure that is “highly developed in humans and plays a role in the regulation of complex cognitive, emotional, and behavioral functioning.”

Absent a highly developed pre-frontal cortex it is impossible for animals to experience pain in the sense of being conscious of a “self” that is the subject of pain.

Very few animals have the brain capacity to support an enduring sense of a “self” that would be required for you to make the claim that animals generally experience pain in the same way 3) that human beings do.

Ergo, it is logically consistent to allow that animals might have stand alone sensations of pain in the sense of 1) or 2) above without giving you the entire argument as you seem to assume.

If animals do not experience pain in the same sense that humans do, it would be quite legitimate to assert that animal pain is not morally significant because there is no enduring moral agent that is harmed or suffers indication of harm.

Absent that moral subject/agent injury inflicted upon an animal is not substantially different than a modern robot, automaton, automobile or computer decked out with all the latest technologies to detect hardware or software “attacks” upon its domain.

The question then becomes what is it that determines whether “pain” in any sense is morally significant. Surely, that depends upon the determination of what makes any agent or entity significantly a moral one.

 

[HarryStotle]

1. Animals have pain as an epiphenomenon of a sensation akin to human pain that occurs within the brain of some animals that evinces an emotive reaction by the animal. Note: this is not to imply that animals have an enduring sense of self, but merely that the sensation stands by itself without the necessity of it being a quale experienced by an enduring subject or persona.

To make the point that this kind of “experience” of pain without the need for an attendant is entirely possible we can refer to the phenomenon of “blind sightedness,” where specific kinds of blindness human beings permit the visual system of the body itself to detect and avoid obstacles without the human subject being at all aware of the visual stimuli.

In other words blind-sighted individuals can walk through a room and avoid obstacles in their path without any conscious awareness of any visual clues at all.

In other words, a human body can respond in such a way that we would assume consciousness is required without there actually being consciousness in play.

If this is true for human beings, there is no reason to think a sufficiently advanced animal physiology couldn’t respond to its environment in very sophisticated ways without consciousness being required.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

All sins are equal.

Edit: Actually I think I’m wrong there, aren’t I?

Yeah. Different sins are objectively of different gravity. Moreover, there are subjective considerations in play, as well, based on whether the person knew that the sin was grave, and whether they committed it fully willingly.

Nevertheless, I still say that this is immaterial in this context: it’s “sin”, considered generally, not any particular sin, that’s in play.

So…are ALL sins equally the cause of natural evil? Maybe grave sins are the cause of natural evils. Maybe if nobody committed anything but venial sins we’d only get small earthquakes and tsunamis. Maybe if we stopped immoral actions then the bush fires would stop (hey, they did!). Maybe someone could actually show us the causal effects of sin on natural events. Or maybe not.

Maybe it would be better for all concerned to take the position of Pope Benedict in 2011 when he responded to a young girl’s question about why children had suffered in a Japanese earthquake: ‘I have the same questions: why is it this way? Why do you have to suffer when others live in ease? And we do not have the answers…’

What would you have told her? ‘Well, it’s caused by sin…’

So may well you avoid nominating any single sin for a specific event. Why on earth could anyone draw such a conclusion. Well, I’ll tell you. Because you have done the ground work for them. You have set the scene. You have set out all the dots and left it an easy task for all the tin pot fire and brimstone tub thumpers to join them up.

And they will nominate specific sins. And why not? Just because you don’t want the finger pointed at you for doing so there is zero logical reason why you cannot nominate any sin ‘for example’.

So when someone like Falau in Australia or Swanson in the US does it, your only response can be: ‘Well, I wouldn’t have put it exactly like that myself’. You’ve been doing your best not to put it exactly like that yourself for quite a few posts. But you’re all singing from the same song sheet.

I was rereading Sam Harris’ End Of Faith yesterday and one of the main points he makes very early on in the book is that extremist views couldn’t exist without what might be classed as moderate views existing. People consider the book to be railing against extremism itself. But it’s not. It’s demanding that moderate views (on which extremist views are based) are held up to the light and examined.

So you might not want to associate yourself with the Falaus and Swansons of this world but they are using exactly the same basis for their claims as you are. And you make your claims without evidence. Without even any attempt to show causal effects.

You should listen to Benedict.

 

[Freddy]

If animals do not experience pain in the same sense that humans do, it would be quite legitimate to assert that animal pain is not morally significant because there is no enduring moral agent that is harmed or suffers indication of harm.

Absent that moral subject/agent injury inflicted upon an animal is not substantially different than a modern robot, automaton, automobile or computer decked out with all the latest technologies to detect hardware or software “attacks” upon its domain.

I sincerely hope not to read anything as depressing as that during the rest of the week.

 

[HarryStotle]

It appears that some on this thread are “depressed” by the possibility that animals are NOT subjects of pain and distress when they are being savaged and torn apart by predators.

Apparently, some are positively cheered up by the possibility that animals are fully as capable as human beings of experiencing pain and horror as they are being chased down and ripped apart while still alive at the mercy of larger predators and packs of carnivores.

That seems to indicate a rather strange sociopathy regarding how we choose to view our animal confreres.

Even stranger is the fact that posters who claim to be “depressed” by the possibility that animals aren’t conscious subjects (of their own pain and demise) don’t so much as even attempt to make an argument for thinking animals may or may not be conscious in the sense of having enduring and subjective awareness of their own existence, but are merely content to make the question all about themselves and their own feelings (i.e., their depression) – as if their own subjective feelings definitively resolve the philosophical question.

 

[Freddy]

It appears that some on this thread are “depressed” by the possibility that animals are NOT subjects of pain and distress when they are being savaged and torn apart by predators.

No. It’s depressing enough that they do feel pain and distress when being torn apart. What’s more depressing is that you think it can be dismissed with some philosophical hand waving.

 

[HarryStotle]

I suppose “philosophical handwaving” still has more substance to it than making “feeling depressed” the definitive reason for dismissing a possibility. As if someone’s feelings in any way impacts the actuality of whether or not animals feel pain.

What is interesting, additionally, is that I didn’t make any claims to what is actually the case vis a vis animals, I merely provided three philosophical possibilities as to what MIGHT be the case.

So, apparently, one’s “feelings of depression” are also now absolutely definitive in terms of deciphering and determining what a poster has actually written in a post.

Again, very interesting.

Why don’t we just go back to reading tea leaves or throwing posters into the water to see whether or not they float before consigning them to the pillory or worse? No need to actually read what was actually written when we simply can gesture towards trust our own feelings independently of what was stated.

 

[EndTimes]

Your response is not surprising at all.

And…

Neither is yours…

 

[EndTimes]

Yep -

Yep…

Animals are self-evidently conscious/aware of the world around them

Anything else?

 

[Gorgias]

So…are ALL sins equally the cause of natural evil?

No. Still working with the wrong presumption. Sin – in general – caused natural evil to enter into the world. So, the more you keep trying to move the goalposts, the more I’ll continue to reject that approach.

What would you have told her? ‘Well, it’s caused by sin…’

Nope. That would be a theological answer. The pope’s answer was a pastoral answer to a question that called for a pastoral response. But hey… nice try.

You have set out all the dots and left it an easy task for all the tin pot fire and brimstone tub thumpers to join them up.

Almost… except that I’ve been consistent in saying that this is precisely not the case. Only someone who was polemically motivated would ignore that assertion and continue to try to mischaracterize it as if it applied to individual sins and individual events. Oh… wait…

And you make your claims without evidence.

They’re philosophical / theological claims, not ones that admit of empirical evidence.

You should listen to Benedict.

One would hope you would, too. He has many good things to say about the truth of the Gospels.

You never answered the question. I asked if MY pet goes to heaven.

Sure I did.

The pastoral answer is: “I don’t know, but God will create a new heavens and earth. And, if you need your pet in order to be joyful in heaven, then perhaps God re-creates him there.”

That’s the Catholic way. or am I wrong?

You keep misstating Catholic teaching, in a way that leads me to believe that you’re tone deaf to it. That’s the unbeliever’s way. or am I wrong?

Yep - we seekers of truth don’t like it when we are told we should stop asking questions…

Apparently, seekers also don’t like it when people point out to them that their presumptions and arguments are mistaken.

 

[Gorgias]

That contradicts Catholic dogma. Animals do not go to heaven. My pet will not be there. Animals cannot share in the beatific vision.

Ahh, but they can participate in the “new heavens and new earth”, can they not?

I’m not contradicting Catholic dogma.

For you to say that to a child means you either are unaware of the Catholic foundation or you are misleading the child.

Or, perhaps… I’m providing a pastoral answer that neither contradicts doctrine nor saddens the child.

Unless you are like me, and are willing to admit where you deviate from official Catholic teaching?

In all charity, I would assert that you misunderstand and/or misrepresent Catholic teaching. Sorry to say it so bluntly, but there it is.

 

[Gorgias]

When your answer contains the phrase “I don’t know” and “perhaps”, I question your understanding of Catholic teaching

Catholic teaching doesn’t answer every possible question. Sometimes, “I don’t know” is the correct answer.

Hmmm. I am still here, so how did you come to that conclusion?

You may still be here, but you seem to dislike being told you’ve misunderstood Catholic teaching. In fact, it seems that your response is “no, you misunderstand it.”

(p.s., I think you should keep asking questions! I would just ask that you give the answers the benefit of the doubt, and not just automatically shut them out in order to stick to your preconceived ideas.)

 

[JosephDColeman]

Okay I haven’t read the responses but I’m thinking they do. I’m thinking of dogs mostly…they remember their name. They can sense emotions in humans, like when the owner is sad or angry. They get guilty looks just by a simple expression of disappointment from the owner. My dog used to avoid me when I was drunk…he knew.

They also can be trained to use the bathroom outside. My dog even used to bark at me to let me know he wanted to go outside…if I ignored him he would be more persistent.

I’m not sure on what distinguishes us on an empirical level other than intelligence. However, I do notice that humans seem to be the only creatures who can’t seem to follow their own morals, or who have morals contrary to nature. It’s almost like the more intelligent animals are the worst off. Otters and dogs aren’t overdosing on heroin and committing suicide.

 

[Gorgias]

Reference in the Catechism where it declares animals that are alive today and die are reborn again in the new heaven brought forth by Jesus after the end of the world, please.

Tell ya what… how about I substantiate what I actually said, eh?

1042 The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ.

1043 Sacred Scripture calls this mysterious renewal, which will transform humanity and the world, “new heavens and a new earth.” It will be the definitive realization of God’s plan to bring under a single head “all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth.”

1044 In this new universe, the heavenly Jerusalem, God will have his dwelling among men.

1045 For man, this consummation will be the final realization of the unity of the human race, which God willed from creation

1046 For the cosmos, Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay. . . . We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

1047 The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, “so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just,” sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.

So… is your dog part of the cosmos? Part of the visible universe?

QED. Thanks for playing; please come again.

You said “I don’t know”. Is it true that you are unaware that animals do not possess rational souls and are incapable of sharing the beatific vision?

Did I say that animals would share in the beatific vision? Nope.

That is Catholic dogma?

That is neither Catholic doctrine nor what I stated.

The Catholic teaching is that animals do not have rational souls and cannot share in the beatific vision (go to heaven).

You’re really good at taking something that was said and adding your own assertions to it. Kudos. I think I’ve sufficiently stated my position, and pointed out how you’ve mischaracterized it. Have a wonderful evening.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So…are ALL sins equally the cause of natural evil?

Sin – in general – caused natural evil to enter into the world.

Your attempts to keep your claims as insubstantial as that in order to avoid any critical debate I’m afraid have rendered your arguments not worth consideration. Actually, if I may change that: Despite all attempts, you haven’t made any arguments in any case so there’s nothing to consider except the claim itself.

When people like Falau and Swanson make their statements they are rejected by all reasonable people. And not because they think that maybe homosexuality wasn’t the problem in this particular example or maybe it is a problem but it didn’t cause these specific deaths. They are rejecting in toto the complete proposition that natural disasters causing the death and destruction of sometimes tens of thousands of innocent people are because ‘Sin – in general – caused natural evil to enter into the world’.

It’s a belief better kept under wraps the next time there are lives lost due to a natural disasters.

 

[Gorgias]

Your attempts to keep your claims as insubstantial as that in order to avoid any critical debate I’m afraid have rendered your arguments not worth consideration.

Nah. It’s a philosophical / theological assertion. You’re attempting to turn it into a scientific / empirical discussion. Yes, I’m avoiding that turn, since it’s not what I’m asserting. If philosophical arguments are “not worth” your “consideration”, then so be it. It’s been fun talking to you about philosophy. Catch ya on the flip side.

When people like Falau and Swanson make their statements they are rejected by all reasonable people.

“No true Scotsman”, eh? Which logical fallacy is next?

 

[o_mlly]

I’m thinking of dogs mostly…they remember their name.

Yes, I think we all agree animals have memory.

They can sense emotions in humans, like when the owner is sad or angry.

Animals have acute sensory capability. Rather than sense directly your sadness or anger, they see subtle facial expressions or hear changes in breathing patterns or the like and react.

They also can be trained to use the bathroom outside

Thank you Lord for the gift of pain! How many times did you swat Fido with the newspaper to elicit that behavior?

My dog used to avoid me when I was drunk…he knew.

He remembered that the smell of cheap gin meant your strange behaviors immediately followed.

However, I do notice that humans seem to be the only creatures who can’t seem to follow their own morals, or who have morals contrary to nature.

Great point. Only rational animals with free wills can choose to act against nature.

Plants do not appear to suffer pain …

Maybe they do? If so then we hope the religion of Jan10000 at least allows as moral the scavenging of dead animals and plants. Otherwise, it’s goodbye Jan.

Plants emit an ultrasonic 'scream' when their stems are cut or water is in short supply | Daily Mail Online

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

When people like Falau and Swanson make their statements they are rejected by all reasonable people.

“No true Scotsman”, eh? Which logical fallacy is next?

But don’t you see the irony? They base their statements on a logical extention of what you claim yet you would stand with others and deny what they say.

 

[Gorgias]

But don’t you see the irony?

I do. You claim to be making a rational, objective argument, but rely on “what reasonable people” believe.