Why Must Animals Feel Pain and Suffering?

[Newbie2]

You are making an assumption that animals have the same kind of self-awareness that human beings have. The problem with that assumption is that most animals, except the higher primates and a few other mammals, do not have the cranial capacity or frontal lobe development necessary for consciousness. Consciousness would require persistence of memory along with the abstract thinking capabilities to develop the conceptualization necessary to form an identity and self-awareness. For most animals, there is no consciousness of pain, no “one” there to experience the awareness that they are in pain.

There could be extensive neuroprocessing and complex physiological reactions to injury, but that is not the same as consciousness.

A phenomenon called “blind sightedness” can add some insight into animals and pain. This condition is where human beings who have a specific form of blindness are not conscious of the perceptions provided to their neural systems by the optic system, but their bodies react as if “awareness” is present. Such a person can walk into a room and avoid all furniture, etc., but have no conscious awareness of the actually “seeing.” Most animals would be In a similar situation. There would be no awareness of pain, just responses to pain.

A great book about this whole issue is called Nature: Red in Tooth and Claw by Michael J. Murray

Beg to differ in the extent to where you take your assertion. Animals are most certainly conscious of pain and response to pain is not merely a conditioned response based on a stimulus-response model.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Beg to differ in the extent to where you take your assertion. Animals are most certainly conscious of pain and response to pain is not merely a conditioned response based on a stimulus-response model.

You would be certain of that how?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Beg to differ in the extent to where you take your assertion. Animals are most certainly conscious of pain and response to pain is not merely a conditioned response based on a stimulus-response model.

The alternatives are not between consciousness and simple stimulus-response. There may be an entire plethora of possible complexities in terms of how sensory (name removed by moderator)ut is attended and responded to, none of which necessarily involve the necessity of a conscious subject who is witness to or in any way experiences the effects “thrown up” from the process.

The operating system of a computer “attends” to and prioritizes requests to its resources and outputs responses in predictable and appropriate forms without some form of consciousness being necessary. Even this is far in advance of simple stimulus-response. Most higher order animals far exceed the capacity of computers to take in information across neural systems, attend, prioritize and respond to these in complex multi-modal ways. None of these advanced processes entail the necessity of a subjective witness to the neuronal episodes.

In fact, it could be argued that these processes operate much more efficiently without being subjectively monitored. How would the “second guessing” capabilities available through self-awareness be helpful to a gazelle being pursued by a cheetah? The physiological and energy resources required to construct subjectivity could better be used to improve the functionality and speed of the system itself.

What you are claiming is that because we, as humans, experience injury, trauma, etc., in certain “subjective” ways, then animals must do so, as well.

Two problems with this:

1. Human brains have structure and function that is markedly different than virtually all animals.
2. There is currently a lack of evidence to demonstrate that consciousness is, in fact, reducible to physiological or neuro-chemical processes. Consciousness has not been shown to be solely the result of brain chemistry.

 

[severus68]

The alternatives are not between consciousness and simple stimulus-response. There may be an entire plethora of possible complexities in terms of how sensory (name removed by moderator)ut is attended and responded to, none of which necessarily involve the necessity of a conscious subject who is witness to or in any way experiences the effects “thrown up” from the process.

The operating system of a computer “attends” to and prioritizes requests to its resources and outputs responses in predictable and appropriate forms without some form of consciousness being necessary. Even this is far in advance of simple stimulus-response. Most higher order animals far exceed the capacity of computers to take in information across neural systems, attend, prioritize and respond to these in complex multi-modal ways. None of these advanced processes entail the necessity of a subjective witness to the neuronal episodes.

In fact, it could be argued that these processes operate much more efficiently without being subjectively monitored. How would the “second guessing” capabilities available through self-awareness be helpful to a gazelle being pursued by a cheetah? The physiological and energy resources required to construct subjectivity could better be used to improve the functionality and speed of the system itself.

What you are claiming is that because we, as humans, experience injury, trauma, etc., in certain “subjective” ways, then animals must do so, as well.

Two problems with this:

1. Human brains have structure and function that is markedly different than virtually all animals.
2. There is currently a lack of evidence to demonstrate that consciousness is, in fact, reducible to physiological or neuro-chemical processes. Consciousness has not been shown to be solely the result of brain chemistry.

I think its easier for humans to think animals do not feel pain in the same way. There are enough scientific studies to show they do.

 

[severus68]

I understand why we humans suffer and how we join our suffering to Christ’s suffering on the cross, but what do animals have to gain from suffering? I get so upset when I see animals being abused in any way.

The explanation I have been given on CAF is that animals had to suffer the consequences of the Fall. It does not help me understand why God allows animals to suffer whether in the wild or elsewhere as I cannot understand the suffering of babies and little children who either continue to suffer all their lives or die. They are all innocents.

 

[JerryZ]

The alternatives are not between consciousness and simple stimulus-response. There may be an entire plethora of possible complexities in terms of how sensory (name removed by moderator)ut is attended and responded to, none of which necessarily involve the necessity of a conscious subject who is witness to or in any way experiences the effects “thrown up” from the process.

The operating system of a computer “attends” to and prioritizes requests to its resources and outputs responses in predictable and appropriate forms without some form of consciousness being necessary. Even this is far in advance of simple stimulus-response. Most higher order animals far exceed the capacity of computers to take in information across neural systems, attend, prioritize and respond to these in complex multi-modal ways. None of these advanced processes entail the necessity of a subjective witness to the neuronal episodes.

In fact, it could be argued that these processes operate much more efficiently without being subjectively monitored. How would the “second guessing” capabilities available through self-awareness be helpful to a gazelle being pursued by a cheetah? The physiological and energy resources required to construct subjectivity could better be used to improve the functionality and speed of the system itself.

What you are claiming is that because we, as humans, experience injury, trauma, etc., in certain “subjective” ways, then animals must do so, as well.

Two problems with this:

1. Human brains have structure and function that is markedly different than virtually all animals.
2. There is currently a lack of evidence to demonstrate that consciousness is, in fact, reducible to physiological or neuro-chemical processes. Consciousness has not been shown to be solely the result of brain chemistry.

One proof of this is the many after death experiences that many have provided where the brain was dead and no electrical activity was recorded.
There was a case of a guy that had such an experience, after he revived he thanked the doctor that was trying to resucitate him and the nurse he wanted to thank them personally so he described them so they could be recalled. The problem is this guy was blind from birth.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think its easier for humans to think animals do not feel pain in the same way. There are enough scientific studies to show they do.

You will have to cite some of those studies because reacting to pain is not the same as having conscious or subjective awareness of pain. No scientific studies have been able to demonstrate how consciousness as a phenomenon of the mind is produced by brain chemistry. For an animal to feel pain in the same way that humans do means that an animal would have to be capable of having conscious awareness, but no studies have uncovered how consciousness itself is produced so no claim can be made that animals have an awareness of pain that is identical to the way humans do.

This referred to as the “hard problem” of consciousness: explaining how subjective experience actually arises. The “easy problems” such as the capacity to discriminate, to integrate information, to attend to or differentiate between brain states, to focus attention and to prioritize data can all be correlated to physiological processes, but none of these require or entail the phenomenon of consciousness as subjective awareness. Animals may share some or many of the functional capacities but demonstrating actual consciousness has not been done because the cause of consciousness itself has not been established.

 

[Peter_Plato]

One proof of this is the many after death experiences that many have provided where the brain was dead and no electrical activity was recorded.
There was a case of a guy that had such an experience, after he revived he thanked the doctor that was trying to resucitate him and the nurse he wanted to thank them personally so he described them so they could be recalled. The problem is this guy was blind from birth.

Have you heard the two cases cited by Gary Habermas of individuals who were brain dead or comatose for up to three days but were able to describe events and experiences that happened to them while in these states? These occurrences have been written up in medical journals and confirmed by very reputable medical specialists. This is very strong confirmation that consciousness is not reducible to physiological or chemical processes.

The link is here:

youtube.com/watch?v=skGf_vsthl8&sns=em

The entire video is very informative on the issue of consciousness and life after death or near death experiences and adds strong support to the “hard problem” of consciousness.

The first starts at timecode 26:22, where a little girl who has been comatose in a hospital bed for three days after drowning (18 minutes under water), but is able to describe events in the emergency room and at home, miles away, that she witnessed while comatose and brain dead. She correctly reported the activities of all the members of her family over several hours.

The second case begins at 36:35 and relates the story of a woman who suffered a brain aneurysm and had to be medically “killed” for about an hour while surgery was done. A team of about a dozen medical personnel worked on her while she was medically brain dead. After surgery she correctly provided six specific “points” of evidence that she could not possibly have experienced.

 

[HolySpirit08]

You didn’t like my simple answer?

Sorry triumphguy…I didn’t actually. However, I just read through your public profile and I must admit that I’m quite impressed!

 

[HolySpirit08]

The explanation I have been given on CAF is that animals had to suffer the consequences of the Fall. It does not help me understand why God allows animals to suffer whether in the wild or elsewhere as I cannot understand the suffering of babies and little children who either continue to suffer all their lives or die. They are all innocents.

I agree wholeheartedly and think about the suffering of babies and children often as well.

 

[JerryZ]

I think its easier for humans to think animals do not feel pain in the same way. There are enough scientific studies to show they do.

You sir are guilty of anthromorphism
Some people also assign feelings to plants.

The fact is that in order to have an I there must be a self awareness that the rest of the animal kingdom does not have.
Their action are governed by instinct. Action and reaction tuned to the enviroment.
Humans on the other hand think on ways how to change their enviroment.
It’s too cold? we invented clothes, then we invented heating.
It’s too hot? we invented the A/C.
No other animal does this.

 

[severus68]

You sir are guilty of anthromorphism
Some people also assign feelings to plants.

The fact is that in order to have an I there must be a self awareness that the rest of the animal kingdom does not have.
Their action are governed by instinct. Action and reaction tuned to the enviroment.
Humans on the other hand think on ways how to change their enviroment.
It’s too cold? we invented clothes, then we invented heating.
It’s too hot? we invented the A/C.
No other animal does this.

Oh please. Pat, common answer. So as animals are not as intelligent as humans they cannot suffer? People cause wars, have agendas, abuse children, enslave etc. Intelligence has nothing to do with it, it is about sentience.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Oh please. Pat, common answer. So as animals are not as intelligent as humans they cannot suffer? People cause wars, have agendas, abuse children, enslave etc. Intelligence has nothing to do with it, it is about sentience.

Perhaps a certain kind of intelligence that makes awareness of sentience possible? The capacity to build abstract conceptions of sentient states so that this awareness over time leads to a persistent awareness of a “self” having recognizable sentient states.