Animal Rights

[BenTheMan]

I have talked with animal rights activists in the past, and the reason I always get is that we should protect things that suffer. What I don't understand is that it is proven that fetuses feel pain in the third trimester---see the link below. It is a systematic study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, detailing the finding that fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks.

 

Why is it, then, that people like PETA aren't also campaigning for late term abortion bans?

 

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947

[Glider]

I have talked with animal rights activists in the past, and the reason I always get is that we should protect things that suffer. What I don't understand is that it is proven that fetuses feel pain in the third trimester---see the link below. It is a systematic study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, detailing the finding that fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks.

I should re-read the article if I were you.

 

"Conclusions: Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. " (Lee, S. J., et al. 2005).

 

This is a long way from "It is proven that foetuses feel pain in the third trimester".

 

Why is it, then, that people like PETA aren't also campaigning for late term abortion bans?

Probably because PETA stands for 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals'.

[BenTheMan]

Hi Glider---

 

I did read the abstract very closely. Specifically, some anti-abortion activists claim that fetuses can feel pain at eight weeks, which this research clearly contradicts. However, by the third trimester (30ish weeks), the fetus has the facilities to feel pain---at least, there seems to be little doubt about this. Either way, this much cannot be garnered from the abstract. This news article: http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0001552/40/, however DOES summarize the research. The scientists conclude that fetuses CAN feel pain at 29-30 weeks.

 

Of course, I should clarify---by ``can feel pain'' I mean that they have the architecture in place.

 

Probably because PETA stands for 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals'.

 

Thank you for clearing this up, I had not understood the acronym.

 

From an animal rights website, admittedly not PETA:

 

An example of the method of leveraging a person's morality is to ask the person why he has compassion for human beings. Almost always he will agree that his compassion does not stem from the fact that: 1) humans use language, 2) humans compose symphonies, 3) humans can plan in the far future, 4) humans have a written, technological culture, etc. Instead, he will agree that it stems from the fact that humans can suffer, feel pain, be harmed, etc. It is then quite easy to show that nonhuman animals can also suffer, feel pain, be harmed, etc. The person's arbitrary inconsistency in not according moral status to nonhumans then stands out starkly.

 

If one wants to accord a moral status to animals, in order that a consistent standard be applied across the board, shouldn't one accord the same standards to fetuses at the point where they can be shown to feel pain?

[pioneer]

One question I have about animal rights is, do animal rights also apply between animals? What laws are there to protect gazelles from lions? I do not believe in hurting animals. I love animals and they seem to like me. But if one hurts me first, it has violated my animal rights, since humans are part of the animal kingdom. Do I have the right to defend myself, or if caught by surprise and injured, can I come back later and recipricate with my own surprise? An eye for an eye, plus 10% victim bonus.

 

A dog can terrorize children and get away with it. It can even bite a few times and get away with that. If one tries to retaliate, a dual standard seems to come into play. Animal rights seems to fit the mold of many liberal laws, which set a dual standard, which only applies to one group. What are the right and obligations of all animals groups?

[iNow]

False analogy.

[someguy]

for one proving that a fetus or any other animal reacts to painful stimuli does not mean they "feel" pain. in order to truly feel pain you need to be self aware. neither a property of the majority of animals nor of fetuses.

 

as far as abortion is concerned the reasons killing fetuses should or should not be illegal, and animals should or should not be abused and/or murdered are different and do not depend on the fact that they can or cannot feel pain, especially if in the majority of cases fetuses and animals are the same in that they cannot feel pain. even though they may grimace and react when you do painful things to them.

 

it's kind of funny but your scientific article is not philosophical enough to truly approach that question.

 

One question I have about animal rights is, do animal rights also apply between animals? What laws are there to protect gazelles from lions? I do not believe in hurting animals. I love animals and they seem to like me. But if one hurts me first, it has violated my animal rights, since humans are part of the animal kingdom. Do I have the right to defend myself, or if caught by surprise and injured, can I come back later and recipricate with my own surprise? An eye for an eye, plus 10% victim bonus.

 

A dog can terrorize children and get away with it. It can even bite a few times and get away with that. If one tries to retaliate, a dual standard seems to come into play. Animal rights seems to fit the mold of many liberal laws, which set a dual standard, which only applies to one group. What are the right and obligations of all animals groups?

 

 

with great power comes great responsibility. we have great power, animal rights is our responsibility. animals do not have this great power between one another like we do.

 

a dog terrorizing people or children is different, because the dog is owned by somebody. if you were in the wild and a coyote came and attacked you i think you would find yourself well within your rights to kill it in self defense.

 

as for reciprocating violence for the hell of it. i would say not to do that. animals even more than humans act exactly the way you treat them, so if you go around being violent to animals you are creating animals violent toward human beings and that becomes a threat to all human beings and is no longer simply animal rights. if the animal is harmless then you would never need to reciprocate violence.

[BenTheMan]

for one proving that a fetus or any other animal reacts to painful stimuli does not mean they "feel" pain. in order to truly feel pain you need to be self aware. neither a property of the majority of animals nor of fetuses.

 

What does ``self aware'' mean?

 

as far as abortion is concerned the reasons killing fetuses should or should not be illegal, and animals should or should not be abused and/or murdered are different and do not depend on the fact that they can or cannot feel pain, especially if in the majority of cases fetuses and animals are the same in that they cannot feel pain. even though they may grimace and react when you do painful things to them

 

Actually you've missed thepoint of the argument. Generally people who argue for animal right make it a point to base that argument on the fact that animals can feel pain. This is based on an argument outlined by a man named Peter Singer in his book (1975) ``Animal Liberation''. The point of the book was that, in order to have a consistent moral code, one should grant rights to anything which suffers.

 

My counter-argument is that, if this is the case, fetuses should have rights (at least equivalent to those that we would grant animals) starting in the third trimester, where most researchers AGREE that a fetus can feel pain.

[someguy]

What does ``self aware'' mean?

 

 

 

Actually you've missed thepoint of the argument. Generally people who argue for animal right make it a point to base that argument on the fact that animals can feel pain. This is based on an argument outlined by a man named Peter Singer in his book (1975) ``Animal Liberation''. The point of the book was that, in order to have a consistent moral code, one should grant rights to anything which suffers.

 

My counter-argument is that, if this is the case, fetuses should have rights (at least equivalent to those that we would grant animals) starting in the third trimester, where most researchers AGREE that a fetus can feel pain.

 

self-aware means that you know that you are feeling pain. a venus fly trap closes on a fly to eat it. it feels the fly, but it doesn't know it is feeling it. a fly flies away when you try to kill it. it sees you but it doesn't know it sees you. an easy way to tell if an animal is self aware or not is to observe whether or not it can disobey its own emotions. knowing of your senses and emotions means you are able to refuse their advice.

 

well some animals do feel pain and are self aware so they actually feel the pain. that right away makes some animals different from fetuses. also PETA as i understand it are not just about torture. i think that if people went around killing animals in a manner which animals could not detect the pain they would still be upset. i think part of the whole thing is equilibrium of nature also.

 

but i know what you mean, they do protect the welfare of mistreated pets. they believe that the pets can feel pain, just as your researches agree that fetuses can. but in the case of the large majority of house pets they, including peter singer, are wrong, as they are with fetuses. perhaps you would find that a large majority of peta members are also against abortion. but i think if you scrutinize being against abortion you would find they is no real reason to make it illegal. however, in the case of cruelty to animals at least there are good reasons for making pet abuse illegal that are not simply because the animals can feel pain.

[BenTheMan]

knowing of your senses and emotions means you are able to refuse their advice.

 

What about a comatose human?

[Paralith]

What about a comatose human?

 

That's a tricky one, because some comatose humans are in fact still self aware, but are in a way paralyzed. They will retain memories of the things they hear and feel, including pain, of the period they are comatose. Others will not. As far as I know, there isn't a reliable way to detect the difference.

 

I agree with someguy that since we have more power over ourselves and the creatures around us than animals do, we have to be responsible for our actions towards these creatures. I also agree in general with PETA that animals who suffer should, whenever possible, have their suffering prevented. I also think that fetuses don't really count in this regard because not only are they not completely self aware, but if they were even somewhat self aware, they most certainly aren't going to remember any pain they experience. I'm sure being born in itself can't be a completely pain-free experience, either. But again, power and responsibility - if the circumstances that lead to an abortion can be forseen and avoided, they should be.

 

My answer to PETA's questions about feeling compassion for other creatures would be a question of my own: do you accept that a human's life is more valuable than an animal's life? If a dog and a human were drowning next to each other, wouldn't you save the human first? If you accept this, then you have to accept that some animal suffering at the hands of humans can't really be avoided - like using them in biomedical research. But I definitely don't think pets should be abused, or dogs made to fight, or testing done on animals with cosmetics. These things do not affect human livelihood.

[BenTheMan]

That's a tricky one, because some comatose humans are in fact still self aware, but are in a way paralyzed. They will retain memories of the things they hear and feel, including pain, of the period they are comatose. Others will not. As far as I know, there isn't a reliable way to detect the difference.

 

Exactly! SOME humans are self-aware and some are not. And because it is impossible to tell the difference, we must assume that ALL comatose humans are ``self-aware''. Because this is the case, then we must grant all comatose humans the same rights.

 

Now extend this argument to animals. It is possible that SOME animals, which we raise for food, are ``self-aware'', so we should grant ALL of those animals the same rights, inasmuch as we want to apply the same standard across the board, in the name of fairness.

 

I agree with someguy that since we have more power over ourselves and the creatures around us than animals do, we have to be responsible for our actions towards these creatures. I also agree in general with PETA that animals who suffer should, whenever possible, have their suffering prevented. I also think that fetuses don't really count in this regard because not only are they not completely self aware, but if they were even somewhat self aware, they most certainly aren't going to remember any pain they experience. I'm sure being born in itself can't be a completely pain-free experience, either. But again, power and responsibility - if the circumstances that lead to an abortion can be forseen and avoided, they should be.

 

Paralith---In general I agree very much with you. Two responses to this, however. One, being born is a necessary part of having life, so in some sense this pain is unavoidable. The second question I would ask is, when does one become self-aware? Is it exactly at birth? If not, at what point do we grant babies the same rights as animals?

 

These are the problems I have with the animal rights activists who argue their case with these points. They take a very liberal interpretation of what ``to feel pain'' means, and using this very general interpretation, they argue that we shouldn't willingly impose that suffering on any being, whether they be animal or human.

 

I certainly do not wish to cause any animals harm, but I do enjoy hunting, and I do feel sorry for the animal when I don't kill it with the first shot. While this is abhorrent to most animal rights activists, late-term abortion is abhorrent to most people in America. This is, in essence, the point that I wanted to make.

[someguy]

Exactly! SOME humans are self-aware and some are not. And because it is impossible to tell the difference, we must assume that ALL comatose humans are ``self-aware''. Because this is the case, then we must grant all comatose humans the same rights.

 

Now extend this argument to animals. It is possible that SOME animals, which we raise for food, are ``self-aware'', so we should grant ALL of those animals the same rights, inasmuch as we want to apply the same standard across the board, in the name of fairness.

 

first of all you can tell whether or not a creature is self aware. a comatose patient i don't think is, but i'm pretty sure you can test it with the right equipment, because in order to be self aware you must have control over your mind if not your body and there is equipment you can wear on your head that allows you to control computers. however even if comatose patients are not self aware that does not mean you could kill ithem. because then you would also have to say that any human being while asleep is up for grabs for being murdered.

 

you are committing the same fallacy most anti-abortionists commit. you are categorizing things and deciding on rights based on similar attributes. whereas you should be looking simply at the actions and their effects and whether or not it is good for society as a whole to attribute certain rights to certain creatures or property or whatever.

 

for example the common argument for anti-abortionists is that a fetus is a human being and therefore killing a fetus is murder and should be illegal. and so the debate on abortion becomes arguing whether or not a fetus should be considered a human being. however the point is not whether or not a fetus should be classified as human being. it is whether or not killing a fetus should be legal. so then,

 

(i posted this in another thread somewhere so i'll just copy paste it.)

 

what you need to do is look at why murder is illegal. I can only think of three reasons: 1- i don't want you to kill me so i would like it to be illegal for you to do so. 2- killing somebody hurts those people that knew the recently deceased well. 3- ending a the existence of a self aware being is just plain unethical because it is self aware, simply being alive is not sufficient (does not apply to plants, insects and whatnot).

 

none of these things apply to destroying a fetus. therefore it is not murder so long as only the parents have the power to decide whether or not the fetus is destroyed because if not, condition 2 would be met.

 

that's how i see it anyways. maybe there's other reasons for why murder is illegal but i can't think of any.

 

also in this case the question is not whether or not a being at a certain point in time is self-aware. it is whether or not they should have rights. you need to look at the repercussions of animals not having rights and then decide on the law. self aware or not.

 

but at any rate your comatose argument doesn't hold since all human beings sleep pretty much once a day and are not self aware for that period of time, thus to say a comatose patient does not have rights because for that period of time it is not self aware, means that all sleeping humans should have no rights also.

 

i don't know of any animals we raise for food that are self aware. i'm talking farm animals. maybe somewhere in the world people raise monkeys for food, but farm animals are not self aware as far as i know, i heard that pigs are smart animals, I haven't really tested it myself, but i have never seen a pig display smart behaviour and i frequently hear people say dogs are smart also whereas clearly they are not.

 

 

 

I think yo uhit the nail on the head when you said that tfetuse won't remember the pain they experience. remembering that way and being self aware are tightly connected. however, if you torture a non self aware being you can condition their behaviour and for example be instrumental in creating a psychotic killer, which is not good for anyone, and they never need to remember why they have become that way.

[Eric0728]

I don't believe in abortion because the fetus you just killed could of cured cancer,aids, and the common cold in the future.

(This was a joke by the way)

[iNow]

I don't believe in abortion because the fetus you just killed could of cured cancer,aids, and the common cold in the future.

 

I suppose then that you also don't believe in masturbation for the same reason.

 

 

The number of cancer curing sperm I've let swim down the shower drain...

[BenTheMan]

because in order to be self aware you must have control over your mind if not your body and there is equipment you can wear on your head that allows you to control computers.

 

They CAN look for brain activity in coma patients, but should brain activity be a factor? Further, babies don't seem to have controll over their bodies.

[someguy]

brain activity is not sufficient for self awareness. many animals display brain activity yet are not self-aware. you would need this sort of equipment in order to perform tests that could establish self-awareness.

 

I don't think babies are self-aware either. but that is not to say they should not have certain rights. their self awareness still needs to develop. It seems to develop around the time they learn to speak, which makes sense. knowledge and awareness are similar things. self-awareness is basically just the knowing of one's self if you think about it. it is the knowledge of your existence. in a sense the more you know the more you are aware, or rather the deeper your awareness is. so i think that the mere fact of learning language helps them out this way. this makes me think of an ancient proverb i once picked up. to name is to know.

 

however, self awareness is more than just vocabulary. self aware animals are capable of knowing without words. but their knowledge is limited. language is a powerful tool that only the self aware can wield.

 

the mere birth of a baby is not sufficient to create self-awareness. it needs it's brain to develop more fully. at this stage the baby knows nothing. it does not even have fully developed emotions. newborns basically only sleep cry and eat.

[Pangloss]

I think another valid response to the original question posed in Post #1 is that there is a political element to what happens when a special interest group takes (or in this case declines to take) a position on an issue outside of their normal framework. While it may seem like a non-sequitur to question why PETA doesn't have a stated position on, say, the war in Iraq, these groups do spend time pondering their positions on seemingly unrelated issues.

 

There are three major reasons for this:

 

1) Real-world events often involve issues that cover more than one area of interest. When baby Jessica falls down a well, is that a parenting issue, a well safety issue, a toxic waste issue, an economic issue (closed water plant), or something else?

 

2) While a special interest group may be focused on one specific issue, most of it's members are typically not. So getting back to the animal rights hypothetical with regard to abortion that was brought up in the OP, this is a valid question in so far as it impacts members of PETA who may also hold a firm position on the abortion issue. They may be offended by a position PETA takes on a seemingly animal-rights oriented issue. An interesting example of this came up recently with the dog-fighting prosecution of NFL quarterback Michael Vick. PETA leveraged the incident widely, and in the process alienated some in the African American community who felt that race was a factor in his prosecution, and therefore deserved more attention than the issue of animal abuse.

 

3) Contrary to popular belief, many (if not most) special interest groups deliberately align themselves with broader ideological and/or political factions. They do this not just because they need the extra support but because they can have a greater impact on policy-making as a member of that broader faction. An example of this may be seen in the alignment between the National Organization for Women and Democratic and liberal causes. This can sometimes make for interesting policy conundrums, like if NOW were to take a position against a woman who broke through the glass ceiling because the company she works for just dumped toxic waste somewhere, fired a minority, or whatever.

 

Since we're discussing "biomedical ethics", this is absolutely a valid question, and it deserves an answer that extends beyond the basic scientific facts.

[lucaspa]

Why is it, then, that people like PETA aren't also campaigning for late term abortion bans?

 

Because they are not consistent. PETA is an example of taking a position based on an emotions and then looking for rationalizations of the emotion. Because they are rationalizations and not reasons, there is no attempt to test whether they are consistent. PETA is only looking for support, not testing their original position for validity.

 

Exactly! SOME humans are self-aware and some are not. And because it is impossible to tell the difference, we must assume that ALL comatose humans are ``self-aware''. Because this is the case, then we must grant all comatose humans the same rights.

 

Now extend this argument to animals. It is possible that SOME animals, which we raise for food, are ``self-aware'', so we should grant ALL of those animals the same rights, inasmuch as we want to apply the same standard across the board, in the name of fairness.

 

Can you validly extend the argument? In the first case you are being intraspecific -- within the human species and talking about rights and priviledges we give other members of our species.

 

In the second case you move out of the human species. This is not "across the board" but a new board. You have a board for treatment of other humans, but a completely separate board for treatment of other species. After all, if you insist on "across the board", then it is equally "immoral" for lions and other predators to violate the "rights" of their prey. BUT, then the predator starves. In which case you've violated the "rights" of the predator. This example shows why you can't apply intraspecific ideas blindly to interspecies.

[BhavinB]

brain activity is not sufficient for self awareness. many animals display brain activity yet are not self-aware. you would need this sort of equipment in order to perform tests that could establish self-awareness.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by self-aware. I've read all the posts and the definition seems not specific enough or incorrect.

 

For example, a mouse can know when food (appealing to its 'emotions') is in a dangerous location (can cause pain). Doesn't this imply it is self-aware?

[someguy]

I'm not sure what you mean by self-aware. I've read all the posts and the definition seems not specific enough or incorrect.

 

For example, a mouse can know when food (appealing to its 'emotions') is in a dangerous location (can cause pain). Doesn't this imply it is self-aware?

 

if the mouse knew then yes. but the mouse doesn't know. saying the mouse knows is a similar "misuse" of the word as saying "my car knows when its wheels are skidding so it applies the anti-lock brakes." the car doesn't really know, yet it kind of does. it senses though is not aware of the fact it is sensing. i put a post up of how i would define consciousness in this thread if you wanna check it out.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28308&page=2

[BhavinB]

self-aware and consciousness are different things in my opinion.

 

Either way, I believe your over-simplification does little justice to the complexity of an animals brain.

[iNow]

if the mouse knew then yes. but the mouse doesn't know. saying the mouse knows is a similar "misuse" of the word as saying "my car knows when its wheels are skidding so it applies the anti-lock brakes."

Sorry mate, but this isn't even close to accurate. Support your position and prove me wrong if you can, but otherwise, you're just making stuff up.

[someguy]

self-aware and consciousness are different things in my opinion.

 

Either way, I believe your over-simplification does little justice to the complexity of an animals brain.

 

in what way do you think they are different?

 

I know, your reaction is common. some people can get really upset if I say this to them, like telling a religious person god doesn't exist.

 

the simplest solutions are generally the best.

 

I challenge you to find an instance where an animal (not one known for intelligence like monkeys or dolphins) is capable of acting against its emotions. your pet will never learn to trust you. if they fear heights they will never trust you not to drop them even if you have never dropped them before, and their fighting you may cause you to drop them. the only way to get them to act differently from what their emotions tell them is to change their emotions.

 

if animals can readily disobey their emotions, then what is the purpose of emotions, and how did evolution manage to give us these by natural selection?

 

 

do you find most animals aren't predictable? or do you find them incredibly predictable?

 

anyways, you don't need to agree with me. but I think that if we really hunted the answer with an open mind you would end up thinking like i do.

 

that's what happened to me. i began by thinking like you do and then i thought about it for a long time and i was convinced to think now as i do. I am not whimsical by nature and it was not due to popular belief that my mind was changed, that much is certain. It just seemed to me the only possible solution.

 

perhaps you cannot let go of the fact that your pets know you like you know them. perhaps you are certain that animals are complex enough and since they have personalities must be self-aware or have consciousness, i'm not sure which one we agree on the meaning for. but consider this:

 

if you were born without senses, would you be self-aware? would you have consciousness?

 

how could you think? not in words, not in touch, not it vision, not in taste. you would have no clues of the world outside you. certainly you would have no language. you would not know of anything to think about. you would be aware of and conscious of nothing at all. you couldn't even know you were breathing, or that your heart was beating. being aware of nothing and conscious of nothing is the equivalent of not being aware or conscious of anything at all.

 

now the complexity of a human being's mind, let alone an animal's, is reduced to not being self-aware nor being conscious and all we did was remove its senses since before birth, we have left everything else intact. we could have even left you with vision but just put you in a completely dark room for your entire life.

 

if consciousness and awareness are so fragile that simply removing all of its senses could reduce a human being, who's mind is in all other respects the same as it ever was, to a being no more complex than a plant, does it still seem ridiculous that most animals lack self-awareness or consciousness?

 

what are your clues that they are self-aware or conscious? reaction to stimuli? conditioning? personality? none of these require self-awareness or consciousness.

 

but acting in opposition of your emotions does. it requires that you have reasons to disobey your emotions. it is not easy to disobey them, it takes a certain determination, a reason, a cause. for human beings this is pretty much always from logic, from thought, from knowledge.

 

but actually you will find sometimes that an animal acts despite an emotion, or rather despite being in a situation that usually incites a certain emotion like fear. this happens when a more pressing emotion asks it to. for example animals may go for food despite fear, they are most daring when food is part of the equation.

 

evolution has defined some emotions to trump others and remove them completely, like if you really need to pee and all of a sudden a lion starts to chase you, i think you would forget about needing to pee quite quickly. if it were the other way around, you'd be dead quite quickly. but then after the lion is gone you would once again need to pee, the more you wait the more urgent it feels and the greater the reward once you do. our "emotions" seek to train us just as we must train our dogs. (maybe it seems weird, but i consider needing to pee an emotion, as i do the reward of relief)

 

even if you just analyze your emotions (in a natural context), all of the ones humans and animals share are all designed to help us survive better.

 

anyways i don't really find this over simplifies the animal brain. emotions that can be conditioned? that is not complex enough?

[BhavinB]

in what way do you think they are different?

 

I know, your reaction is common. some people can get really upset if I say this to them, like telling a religious person god doesn't exist.

 

the simplest solutions are generally the best.

 

I challenge you to find an instance where an animal (not one known for intelligence like monkeys or dolphins) is capable of acting against its emotions. your pet will never learn to trust you. if they fear heights they will never trust you not to drop them even if you have never dropped them before, and their fighting you may cause you to drop them. the only way to get them to act differently from what their emotions tell them is to change their emotions.

 

Wow...that was an extremely long reply to my two lines.

 

Really, your argument is so far ranging and definite, with no room for specifics that it can only be incorrect.

 

Can we predict most animal's behaviour in most situations? Ofcourse...they are merely simple beasts.

Can we say they NEVER act against their normal instinct? Most definitely not.

you can never argue to know that an animal is not making a decision and rather working on just 'programming'.

[someguy]

Wow...that was an extremely long reply to my two lines.

 

Really, your argument is so far ranging and definite, with no room for specifics that it can only be incorrect.

 

Can we predict most animal's behaviour in most situations? Ofcourse...they are merely simple beasts.

Can we say they NEVER act against their normal instinct? Most definitely not.

you can never argue to know that an animal is not making a decision and rather working on just 'programming'.

 

yes you can. it is for one necessary in order for evolution to be able to have given us emotions. second a mouse never works anything out. there is a saying fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me. well you can fool a mouse as many times as you want and it will never figure out it is being fooled, it will only be conditioned to longer act that way, and i'm not even sure if that will happen with a mouse.

 

i can know that humans are self-aware, I can know that dolphins are and that monkeys are. I don't understand how you could agree with my posts and still be so certain what i'm saying is wrong. what is it that i said that you are certain is false? (appart from the conclusion obviously)

 

if i began thinking like you do, just like the majority of the world thinks, wouldn't i need to be definite to have my changed so differently from what the large majority of people think?

 

wasn't i specific?

 

my reply was long because just a short reply is not specific at all. i could have just said matter of factly my position, but what would have been the point in that?

 

Sorry mate, but this isn't even close to accurate. Support your position and prove me wrong if you can, but otherwise, you're just making stuff up.

 

I could say the same thing to you on this subject.

 

anyways i think i have supported it. in this thread and in the other. i have never seen proof that what i'm saying is wrong, and yet you clearly are telling me i'm just making things up, not even close to accurate, yet you have no proof of the contrary do you? if i am not mistaken you have only popular belief and tradition supporting your position.

 

how are you so sure i am wrong?

 

 

 

somewhere along the evolutionary line you need to say that beings with locomotion are not self aware, the venus flytrap closes on its prey when it sense it. but does the plant know the fly is there? the plant is self aware? i can't believe you would think that. so must animals be because they move? I don't think you would agree since you must also agree, i think, that flies are not self aware. so where do you draw the line, and why?

 

my guess is you draw the line at animals with brains because they have brains. yet you would also admit that you know not what about a brain causes self-awareness. obviously nobody really knows exactly the physical functionning of the brain in sufficient detail to ascertain whether or not an animal is self aware or not. however, if you look at behaviour you can know.

 

what behaviour would you propose is unique to self aware beings? it would need to be something that flies do not possess nor plants, and it would need to require more than mere conditioning of emotions. certainly human beings behave in unique ways as compared to insects and plants and that cannot be explained by mere conditioning of emotions.