More on animal suffering

[tonyrey]

Die of terror, that does not sound nice. Working in a jail i have seen some horrible things happen to people, and believe me the sensation does not disappear.

I worked in a psychiatric hospital for two years and I’ve probably seen far worse suffering. What exactly are you trying to prove?

 

[tonyrey]

…there is pain and suffering everywhere. Not just animals, just look at children in Africa.

And who is responsible? Anyone who spends money on unnecessary luxuries and allows them to starve…

If god designed everything then he has made some pretty horrible organisms.

They are not made horrible. They **choose **to be horrible…

.All i am saying is i personally find it hard to believe this could be the result of love.

So you would prefer not to be able to choose how to live?

…they chose something that gives us typhoid, cholera and stomach cancer.

Can you design a world without disease?

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

And who is responsible? Anyone who spends money on unnecessary luxuries and allows them to starve…
They are not made horrible. They **choose **to be horrible…So you would prefer not to be able to choose how to live?
Can you design a world without disease?

Bacteria choose to be horrible? Of course i don’t believe i could, i believe the world is not designed and there is no god.

Are you saying you believe your god is incapable of getting rid of suffering?

 

[tonyrey]

Bacteria choose to be horrible?

Are you choosing to evade the issue?

Are you saying you believe your god is incapable of getting rid of suffering?

Are you saying you prefer to be a machine incapable of feeling?

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Are you choosing to evade the issue?
Are you saying you prefer to be a machine incapable of feeling?

Ah ok you didn’t watch the video. I am talking about bacteria that have been (according to those that believe life is designed) designed in a specific way that causes extreme suffering. I think we chould all be able to agree that bacteria cannot make choices in the same way a mammal can.

youtube.com/user/potholer…/2/irVqVKdiohE

This will explain what i mean, it only lasts five minutes. In my personal opinion no loving creature could design such things. I see this as a major problem for creationists. Like i said, just my opinion.

 

[tonyrey]

Ah ok you didn’t watch the video. I am talking about bacteria that have been (according to those that believe life is designed) designed in a specific way that causes extreme suffering. I think we chould all be able to agree that bacteria cannot make choices in the same way a mammal can.

youtube.com/user/potholer…/2/irVqVKdiohE

This will explain what i mean, it only lasts five minutes. In my personal opinion no loving creature could design such things. I see this as a major problem for creationists. Like i said, just my opinion.

Design does not imply that everything s designed. There is clearly an element of chance in evolution - as one would expect from a process in which there are random mutations which result in deformities and disease. But to infer that everything is ultimately the result of blind, purposeless activity is going to the other extreme from Creationism. There is a framework of order and design within which accidents and anomalies occur.

Otherwise you finish up with the absurdity of irrational particles producing rational persons. Atheists use their power of reason to “prove” they are derived from unreasoning processes! Even if you’re an atheist you must admit that is rather odd, to say the least! Do you really believe you are composed of nothing more than specks of dust?

 

[tonyrey]

In my personal opinion no loving creature could design such things. I see this as a major problem for creationists.

Design does not imply that everything is designed. There is clearly an element of chance in evolution - as one would expect from a process in which there are random mutations which result in deformities and disease. But to infer that everything is ultimately the result of blind, purposeless activity is going to the other extreme from Creationism. There is a framework of order and design within which accidents and anomalies occur.

Otherwise you finish up with the absurdity of irrational particles producing rational persons. Atheists use their power of reason to “prove” they are derived from unreasoning processes! Even if you’re an atheist you must admit that is rather odd, to say the least! Do you really believe you are composed of nothing more than specks of dust???

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Design does not imply that everything is designed. There is clearly an element of chance in evolution - as one would expect from a process in which there are random mutations which result in deformities and disease. But to infer that everything is ultimately the result of blind, purposeless activity is going to the other extreme from Creationism. There is a framework of order and design within which accidents and anomalies occur.

Otherwise you finish up with the absurdity of irrational particles producing rational persons. Atheists use their power of reason to “prove” they are derived from unreasoning processes! Even if you’re an atheist you must admit that is rather odd, to say the least! Do you really believe you are composed of nothing more than specks of dust???

So your not going to answer the question?

 

[tonyrey]

So your not going to answer the question?

You have not asked a question nor answered mine nor refuted the points I have made…

 

[tonyrey]

So your not going to answer the question?

I have answered your question but you have not answered mine nor refuted my statements. For your benefit I list the salient points I have made:

Conflict is inevitable in a world where there are many different animals pursuing different goals. Mammals would probably have become extinct if they had all been herbivores and multiplied throughout the world without population control by predators. We have seen what happens when man attempts to improve the biosphere. Which would you prefer - a swift death from a predator or a slow lingering death due to an accident, disease, starvation or thirst? Can you devise a physical system in which advanced life is possible without having to depend on other life in order to survive?

The world is not cruel but hospitable for living creatures. It is a distortion of the facts to say that “nature is red in tooth and claw” and that animals live in constant fear. A certain amount of competition is inevitable where there millions of different beings pursuing different goals but in nature there is far more co-operation than conflict. Normal life contains far more pleasure than pain. Life depends on life. Death is an inevitable consequence of life in a physical world. So are competition and conflict even at the microscopic level. Otherwise there cannot be development. The more advanced living organisms become, the more complex their diet becomes.

Until you explain how to create a physical world containing millions of sentient creatures without any suffering and agony you are not justified in concluding that there is unnecessary suffering and agony. It is easy to suggest improvements to nature but the disasters caused by human interference illustrate that the successful design of a highly complex ecological system is incredibly difficult. Until a feasible blueprint is forthcoming we are entitled to remain sceptical about “steps in the right direction”!

Design does not imply that everything is designed. There is clearly an element of chance in evolution - as one would expect from a process in which there are random mutations which result in deformities and disease. But to infer that everything is ultimately the result of blind, purposeless activity is going to the other extreme from Creationism. There is a framework of order and design within which accidents and anomalies occur.

 

[redhen]

Until you explain how to create a physical world containing millions of sentient creatures without any suffering and agony you are not justified in concluding that there is unnecessary suffering and agony.

You keep trying to argue this false dichotomy.

“While it can plausibly be argued that nomic regularity is a good feature of the world, even one that outweighs substantial evil byproducts, it is implausible to hold that the animal pain and suffering in our world is a necessary consequence of such a good. The chapter argues that explanations of this sort ultimately fail on their own either because they cannot explain the reality of pre-human animal suffering and/or the existence of animals with mental capacities that render them liable to pain.”

ingentaconnect.com/content/oso/2628749/2008/00000001/00000001/art00006

Instead of using macro-evolution, involving the suffering of untold number of sentient beings over hundreds of millions of years, why not, oh I dunno, create all the species that exist today in ** six days**? How 'bout that for starters?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

if animals are simply evolutionary products, bags of chemicals, then exactly how does a bag of chemicals suffer? the second one accepts some G-dless evolution, it becomes irrational to talk about animal suffering or any suffering at all as “evil”. one may as well say it is evil when a roomba breaks down.

in the end this entire line of inquiry boils down to little more than opinion. those who wish it to be “evil”, because it suits their purposes, see it as so regardless of the rationality of such a conclusion.

 

[catholic1seeks]

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/03/christian-replies-to-argument-from-evil.html

That may help?? Here’s a selection:

Natural disasters are a necessary result of natural laws as we currently know them, and this is the real world, not one of the fantasy worlds atheists sometimes invent in order to maintain their rejection of theism, on these grounds. God could have changed these laws and made them operate some other way. But He didn’t.
We don’t have all the answers as to why He did what he did. He also could have made a world where atheists would see the clear evidence for His existence, and never resist it. But He didn’t. That’s because He values human choice and free will more than even obedience to Himself, even when He knows that being children of God is the best and most fulfilling choice for human beings. He doesn’t want coerced slaves; He wants children. And, for our part, we would much rather be sons and daughters of a loving Father than slaves of a wicked Master.

Unfortunately, natural laws as we know them involve decay and death. Everyone dies; we all get a “disease” in that sense. To have no disease and illness would mean being immortal and never having to age, decay or die. But cells, unfortunately, degenerate. Galaxies, stars, and universes all eventually “die.” So does biological life (much more quickly). That’s just how it is. The universe is winding down, and so is every one of us.

It is said that God could and should have performed many more miracles than Christians say He performs, to alleviate “unnecessary” suffering. But this is precisely what a natural world with laws and a uniformitarian principle precludes from the outset. How is it that the atheist can (in their hypothetical theories and arguments against Christianity) imagine all sorts of miracles and supernatural events that God should have done when it comes to evil and the FWD? “God should do this,” “He should have done that,” “I could have done much better than God did,” . . .

 

[Oreoracle]

if animals are simply evolutionary products, bags of chemicals, then exactly how does a bag of chemicals suffer? the second one accepts some G-dless evolution, it becomes irrational to talk about animal suffering or any suffering at all as “evil”. one may as well say it is evil when a roomba breaks down.

in the end this entire line of inquiry boils down to little more than opinion. those who wish it to be “evil”, because it suits their purposes, see it as so regardless of the rationality of such a conclusion.

Petey, Petey, Petey…What will we do with you?

Can I ask you a few questions? You said you have a cat, right? Now, if I came to your house and killed your cat, would you consider it murder, or vandalism? Would it be the killing of a being with autonomy, identity, and self-conception, or would it just be the destruction of property? I don’t think you believe your cat is without emotions or self-awareness.

Don’t get me wrong, I see your point. We can’t be certain that there is any mental activity other than our own. But why don’t you take that knowledge to its most extreme implication? Why not embrace solipsism? Can you be certain that I have mental activity, just because I react to stimuli as you do? Oh wait, maybe God told you that I have emotions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Petey, Petey, Petey…What will we do with you?

i wondered where you had been

Can I ask you a few questions? You said you have a cat, right?

yup, opie

Now, if I came to your house and killed your cat, would you consider it murder, or vandalism?

not a human so it couldnt be a murder, id say destruction of property.

Would it be the killing of a being with autonomy, identity, and self-conception, or would it just be the destruction of property? I don’t think you believe your cat is without emotions or self-awareness.

no, as much as i like opie, i can admit that he isnt motivated by affection for me but rather for the treats i give him, the belly rubs, the ear scratches, a warm lap to sit on, a soft bed to sleep on.

he plays fetch, he follows me around like a dog (usually), he comes when called. its cute, but he doesnt do those things as a matter of emotion, its because i trained him to do those things. just like i might program a roomba to do certain things.

Don’t get me wrong, I see your point. We can’t be certain that there is any mental activity other than our own.

sure we can, just hook up a EEG. mental activity confirmed.

But why don’t you take that knowledge to its most extreme implication? Why not embrace solipsism?

because i dont need to. i dont deny brain or mental activity in any organism.

Can you be certain that I have mental activity, just because I react to stimuli as you do?

sure an EEG.

Oh wait, maybe God told you that I have emotions.

i think your confusing emotions with mental activity. for instance, you have an emotional response to animals so strong that you wish to believe that they have “emotions” even if there is no valid evidence of such a thing. meanwhile you denigrate Christianity on the basis that there is not enough evidence for the existence of G-d, because you have yet another extreme emotional reaction, this time to the perceived restrictions of Christianity. your emotions allow you to hold what might be considered hypocritical positions based on desire, not actual intellectually honest examination of the issues

i dont need G-d to tell me you have emotions, its evident in what you choose to believe and what you dont.

 

[Oreoracle]

not a human so it couldnt be a murder, id say destruction of property.

Well, I thought the Catholic definition of “murder” was “wrongful killing.” Most Catholics I know will admit that killing sentient beings unnecessarily is wrong (for example, they may protest killing animals that one doesn’t intend to eat). I’d take it a step further and condemn killing animals for food, but we all have our own idea of what “wrongful killing” is.

no, as much as i like opie, i can admit that he isnt motivated by affection for me but rather for the treats i give him, the belly rubs, the ear scratches, a warm lap to sit on, a soft bed to sleep on.

You’re not helping your case here. You’re saying that your cat’s a pleasure seeker (as we all are). If your cat is capable of satisfaction, then it must have emotions. In other words, your cat has desires, you just dislike the fact that those desires aren’t directed toward you. Your cat can still have emotions without loving you, and I would say you’re nearing narcissism by saying that your cat isn’t emotional just because it isn’t reciprocating your love. It’s like saying that your high school crush didn’t have emotions because she didn’t like you.

he plays fetch, he follows me around like a dog (usually), he comes when called. its cute, but he doesnt do those things as a matter of emotion, its because i trained him to do those things. just like i might program a roomba to do certain things.

That’s extremely reductionistic. I’m guessing that Opie follows you because he enjoys the numerous treats and pleasures you offer him, and that he plays fetch because he enjoys chasing things. So yes, you did train him, in a sense, but the process was possible because Opie already enjoyed those things. If you beat Opie to a bloody pulp every time you came home, you would be “training” him to cower under a table when you walked through the door. But this doesn’t imply a lack of emotion. In fact, it seems to indicate the contrary.

sure we can, just hook up a EEG. mental activity confirmed.

Why must brain activity imply the presence of thoughts or feelings? You’re making assumptions.

because i dont need to. i dont deny brain or mental activity in any organism.

See above.

sure an EEG.

See above.

i think your confusing emotions with mental activity.

No, I’m not. Your argument against the presence of emotions in non-human animals works just as effectively against all sorts of mental activity in all animals. Don’t you think we can scan a dog’s brain and tell if it’s experiencing pain or pleasure, just as we can with a human’s brain? From what I hear, the canine and feline brains are fairly advanced. Or are those conniving neurologists just scheming against you?

for instance, you have an emotional response to animals so strong that you wish to believe that they have “emotions” even if there is no valid evidence of such a thing.

What the heck is “valid evidence?” Evidence is evidence. Arguments are valid, not evidence.

I think you just don’t want to hold yourself accountable for supporting the killing of sentient beings by buying the products of the meat industry.

meanwhile you denigrate Christianity on the basis that there is not enough evidence for the existence of G-d, because you have yet another extreme emotional reaction, this time to the perceived restrictions of Christianity. your emotions allow you to hold what might be considered hypocritical positions based on desire, not actual intellectually honest examination of the issues

Actually, I doubted God even when I was younger and agreed with Christianity on major points. Even then, I recognized that it was mostly wishful thinking.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

My question still applies because you need to explain why animal suffering is not a necessary consequence.

*The chapter argues that explanations of this sort ultimately fail on their own either because they **cannot explain the reality of pre-human animal suffering ***and/or the existence of animals with mental capacities that render them liable to pain."

Pain is a necessary defence mechanism without which animals cannot survive.

Instead of using macro-evolution, involving the suffering of untold number of sentient beings over hundreds of millions of years, why not, oh I dunno, create all the species that exist today in ** six days**?

I have pointed out that the vast majority of animals experience far more pleasure and satisfaction than pain. If you consider suffering to be excessive you believe, like Schopenhauer, it would be far better if life had never emerged on this planet - and, of course, that includes your life and the lives of your loved ones…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, I thought the Catholic definition of “murder” was “wrongful killing.”

i think human being is a necessary qualifier, otherwise anybody who has ever butchered an animal would be a murderer, a position the Church doesnt hold

Most Catholics I know will admit that killing sentient beings unnecessarily is wrong (for example, they may protest killing animals that one doesn’t intend to eat).

i suppose there are some, i dont think one should kill without a legitimate purpose, that would constitute bad stewardship of the creation G-d has given us.

I’d take it a step further and condemn killing animals for food, but we all have our own idea of what “wrongful killing” is.

yeah, there are folks who find killing plants for food as distasteful. i simply dont draw an subjective line, anything not human is up for dinner, unles im really hungry

You’re not helping your case here. You’re saying that your cat’s a pleasure seeker (as we all are). If your cat is capable of satisfaction, then it must have emotions.

who said anything about “satisfaction”? further how does something like satisfation of some physical thing like hunger, or cold equal emotions?, that is no different than a roomba seeking out electricity or its dock. entirely programmed. even the single cell organism seek food and a temperature range conducive to there range of chemical reactions.

In other words, your cat has desires, you just dislike the fact that those desires aren’t directed toward you. Your cat can still have emotions without loving you, and I would say you’re nearing narcissism by saying that your cat isn’t emotional just because it isn’t reciprocating your love. It’s like saying that your high school crush didn’t have emotions because she didn’t like you.

actually im just not one of those emotionally needy people, needing to see love or affection where none actually exists.

That’s extremely reductionistic. I’m guessing that Opie follows you because he enjoys the numerous treats and pleasures you offer him, and that he plays fetch because he enjoys chasing things. So yes, you did train him, in a sense, but the process was possible because Opie already enjoyed those things. If you beat Opie to a bloody pulp every time you came home, you would be “training” him to cower under a table when you walked through the door. But this doesn’t imply a lack of emotion. In fact, it seems to indicate the contrary.

yes, of course i took advantage of natural traits to program him. just like a software developer takes into account the way a chip is built to program a roomba, no where in this is emotion necessary.

Why must brain activity imply the presence of thoughts or feelings? You’re making assumptions.

it doesnt, when did i say that it did? does the flow of electrons across a series of IC’s indicate an emotion? of course not.

No, I’m not. Your argument against the presence of emotions in non-human animals works just as effectively against all sorts of mental activity in all animals.

what are you talking about here? mental activity can be shown with an EEG.

Don’t you think we can scan a dog’s brain and tell if it’s experiencing pain or pleasure, just as we can with a human’s brain?

no, i dont, you can only make an anthropomorphic assumption. it may well just be displaying programmed responses.

From what I hear, the canine and feline brains are fairly advanced. Or are those conniving neurologists just scheming against you?

i dont know any conniving neurologists, even if i did, why would they care about me?

What the heck is “valid evidence?” Evidence is evidence. Arguments are valid, not evidence.

evidence that carries some real weight, for instance you may say a dog looks happy, and call that evidence. it may well be evolutionary programming instead. so what you are calling evidence is actually just an assumption.

I think you just don’t want to hold yourself accountable for supporting the killing of sentient beings by buying the products of the meat industry.

ive raised animals for the meat industry. what your talking about is a kind of citified girliness. a weakness that only appears in city people too long separated from the realities of their food supply. something most people out here in the country consider laughable. so no, i dont feel bad about it at all. ive spent much more time with livestock than you, i can assure you they are no where near sentient in any meaningful way beyond survival necessities, they eat, they eliminate and they eat some more.

there are whole groups of people who think plants are sentient. do you eat lettuce? tomatoes? i suppose that is ok to you no? i suspect you are just trying to avoid accountability for killing sentient vegetables!

ludicrous, no?

Actually, I doubted God even when I was younger and agreed with Christianity on major points. Even then, I recognized that it was mostly wishful thinking.

and yet you think animals have emotions. isnt that a little odd? you seem to have different standards of evidence here. i wonder why?

 

[Oreoracle]

i think human being is a necessary qualifier, otherwise anybody who has ever butchered an animal would be a murderer, a position the Church doesnt hold

And yet, every human has lied, stolen, had lustful thoughts, and so on. The Church doesn’t seem to have a problem with calling all of us liars, thieves, and adulterers (of the heart ). Why not just call us all murderers too? Would that be too extreme, given what they already label us?

yeah, there are folks who find killing plants for food as distasteful. i simply dont draw an subjective line, anything not human is up for dinner, unles im really hungry

And how is choosing not to eat humans not drawing a “subjective line?” Oh wait, I know this one!

who said anything about “satisfaction”?

Why else would your cat go through the trouble?

further how does something like satisfation of some physical thing like hunger, or cold equal emotions?

I know where you’re going with this, and you’re right: there are animals that lack self-awareness and are simply “programmed” (that’s poor wording, by the way) maintain their lives. But I’m convinced that cats, dogs, and the like demonstrate a great deal of intelligence and a sense of identity. Did you know that dogs will often wonder from their home when they’re about to die to be away from their family? Does that not indicate pride, and the self-awareness required for that pride? And if you’re not convinced, I must again mention the high degree of development of canine and feline brains. How do my dogs predict when I’ll be home without remembering that I arrive at the same time each day?

actually im just not one of those emotionally needy people, needing to see love or affection where none actually exists.

I feel the same way about you and your god. Don’t worry, there are people who love you. Those people are humans, however. It’s ironic that you brood over the love God must have for you instead of looking at the love that’s right in front of you. Start with Opie, and work from there.

yes, of course i took advantage of natural traits to program him. just like a software developer takes into account the way a chip is built to program a roomba, no where in this is emotion necessary.

You seem to have quite the infatuation with Roombas.

it doesnt, when did i say that it did? does the flow of electrons across a series of IC’s indicate an emotion? of course not.

Then how do we verify the presence of emotion in another human? If brain scanning doesn’t verify the existence of my emotions, and observing my behaviors doesn’t count either, then how do you determine that I experience emotions? Please don’t tell me that you’re going to dish out a crazy metaphysical argument to explain it all.

what are you talking about here? mental activity can be shown with an EEG.

When I use “mental activity” I’m also speaking of emotions. I define “mental activity” as “the occurence of thought or sensation.” So if mental activity, as I’m using it, can be shown, then emotion can be shown as well. Maybe we’re using “mental activity” differently here.

no, i dont, you can only make an anthropomorphic assumption. it may well just be displaying programmed responses.

But the same could be said of another human! “That’s not thinking or feeling, it’s just programmed responses!” Who are you trying to fool?

i dont know any conniving neurologists, even if i did, why would they care about me?

Oh, I thought you might have some conspiracy theory that would explain why you’re so skeptical. I’m all for skepticism in moderate forms, but you might as well be a solipsist.

evidence that carries some real weight, for instance you may say a dog looks happy, and call that evidence. it may well be evolutionary programming instead. so what you are calling evidence is actually just an assumption.

You may say a human looks happy and call that evidence, but it may be evolutionary programming instead. Everyone’s a zombie, Pete. Only you can feel or think of anything. Just try and prove me wrong using your own standard of evidence.

ludicrous, no?

Are you sure you have a cat, or has that schizophrenia manifested itself as a pet? It’s hard to believe that you’ve ever been intimately connected to another animal.

There was a thread posted recently with a video showing the treatment of dogs in China, where they are slaughtered for the meat industry. They would grapple them around the necks with poles while beating their heads with hammers between their shrill barks of pain. No sentience indeed.

and yet you think animals have emotions. isnt that a little odd? you seem to have different standards of evidence here. i wonder why?

Metaphysical wankery does not count as evidence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And yet, every human has lied

no, it would be the truth, anyone who has hated another is guilty of murder, even if only in his heart. the point is to overcome our sinful natures, not to yield to them. no one ever said Christainity is easy. its extremely difficult.

And how is choosing not to eat humans not drawing a “subjective line?” Oh wait, I know this one!

seems like that might be a sin, huh?

Why else would your cat go through the trouble?

natural evolutionary programming.

I know where you’re going with this, and you’re right: there are animals that lack self-awareness and are simply “programmed” QUOTE]

youre convinced huh? got any evidence?

dogs, wolves, and several other animals may do that in the wild, what does that have to do with pride? and the dog doesnt predict when you get home, he can hear you a block away. opie sits on a table by the front door, but he doesnt do it until he hears my diesel pull up the drive. i cant believe this is your idea of evidence.

I feel the same way about you and your god. Don’t worry, there are people who love you. Those people are humans, however. It’s ironic that you brood over the love God must have for you instead of looking at the love that’s right in front of you. Start with Opie, and work from there.

if you think Christains are in the same boat then doesnt it seem a little hypocritical to talk about them but not yourself? then agains its not really about what you feel is it?

You seem to have quite the infatuation with Roombas.

its just a good model to demonstrate the irrational nature of people who think that animals have emotions. face it buddy, your dog doesnt love you , he would treat any pack member that way. thats how he is programmed to behave. every kid on the planet thinks his dog loves him as i thought that mine loved me. its nothing special at all.

Then how do we verify the presence of emotion in another human? If brain scanning doesn’t verify the existence of my emotions, and observing my behaviors doesn’t count either, then how do you determine that I experience emotions? Please don’t tell me that you’re going to dish out a crazy metaphysical argument to explain it all.

your best bet may be a turing test. but as to 100 percent proof, i dont think that exists, you could always doubt it. but for me i simply accept it because other people can explicitly explain their emotional states and i can verify what they say by comparing it to my known emotional states.

When I use “mental activity” I’m also speaking of emotions. I define “mental activity” as “the occurence of thought or sensation.” So if mental activity, as I’m using it, can be shown, then emotion can be shown as well. Maybe we’re using “mental activity” differently here.

yeah, im using a more technical idea of what mental activity is, specifically electrical impulses and associated neural activity. like doctor would read on an EEG graph, you know, a guy hooked up with electrodes. it monitors electrical activity in various parts of the body.

But the same could be said of another human! “That’s not thinking or feeling, it’s just programmed responses!” Who are you trying to fool?

do you think other people are displaying programmed responses? do you think that you are displaying programmed responses? the difference between us an animals isnt taxanomical, we are animals in the taxanomical sense also, but we can overcome any programming we are born with, we can self program, and we can ignore programming and perform a nearly infinite variety of responses to stimuli, not something animals can choose to do. at least thats my opinion on the matter.

Oh, I thought you might have some conspiracy theory that would explain why you’re so skeptical. I’m all for skepticism in moderate forms, but you might as well be a solipsist.

no, ive just thought about the question for a while. its not solipsist in the least. i dont think other humans are robots. i just realized that there isnt any evidence that animals have emotions. and im not the only one.

You may say a human looks happy and call that evidence, but it may be evolutionary programming instead. Everyone’s a zombie, Pete. Only you can feel or think of anything. Just try and prove me wrong using your own standard of evidence.

sure, id just say “hey over there! you look happy, are you? if so why?” then they may tell me their toddler gave them a hug, i would then verify their claim by my experience with my little girl giving me a hug, and i would then know that they were actually happy. they may say “no, im sad. i lost my wallet” then i could compare their claim to my experience with losing a wallet, and know that they were actually experiencing an emotion. essentially a turing test. notsomething that you can do with an animal. you can only make anthropomorphic assumptions with them.

it boils down to the mere fact another human can tell me how he is feeling, and i dont have to make assumptions because he can explicitly explain and i can verify his claims by my similar experiences.

Are you sure you have a cat, or has that schizophrenia manifested itself as a pet? It’s hard to believe that you’ve ever been intimately connected to another animal.

and its hard to believe your a male, but ill take your word for it.

There was a thread posted recently with a video showing the treatment of dogs in China, where they are slaughtered for the meat industry. They would grapple them around the necks with poles while beating their heads with hammers between their shrill barks of pain. No sentience indeed.

sentience merely means the ability to sense in its base defintion, thats not a spectacularly humane way to slaughter, but most other people in the world think the American obsession with pets is odd. the chinese dont see a problem with it, but then, i doubt that they keep alot of pet dogs.

Metaphysical wankery does not count as evidence.

why not? its the study of being, i think it entirely appropriate in questions not answerable by science. those questions dont just dissappear because they arent empirically examinable. further the sheer mathematical evidence of the Messianic prophecies is undeniable. not asking questions about such things is nothing more than sticking your head in the sand.