From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:48:45 GMT

In <BuDptB.8oF@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

>ry> But what CONSTITUTES "meaningful?!?"  
>
>All sensations and thoughts are meaningful, Rich.  They mark the
>distinction between mindful existence and mindless existence.

	I see.  So the mere existence of "life" is irrelevant, or
	"meaningless", without sentience AND sapience in your view?

>ry> Define it for us, as used above, and do not simply give us 
>ry> another list of examples which use the words "sentience" and 
>ry> "sapience." 
>
>You're asking me to define "meaningful" _without_ reference to
>sensation or cognition???   Such a question doesn't make sense
>to someone like myself, who understands that the notion of 
>"meaning" is itself meaningless without reference to mental 
>events like sensation and cognition.   

	Ah.  So what you REALLY mean is that your use of the word "meaningful"
	is an abbreviation for "having sentience and sapience."

[...]

>Rich, I haven't knowingly misrepresented your position.  In the future,
>please refrain from asking questions, editing out my answers, and then
>asking the same questions over and over again.

	Russell, in the future, please refrain from editing out my questions
	simply because you find them inconvenient to answer.  I will continue
	to ask the same question until I get a cogent and relevant answer.

   [Russell edited out my question.  I'm editing it back in...at least I mark
	where I've made deletions.]

	2. By what authority do you presume to assign "status" to non-human
		 species based on sentience/sapience?

	[And don't give us that doggerel about "but it's YOU who are assigning
	status, Rich."  You've just told us that sensations and thought
	are meaningful and mark the distinction between mindless and
	mindful.  This is no different in principle from MY distinction
	between alive and not alive; if I've "assigned status," then so have
	you, albeit based on different criteria.]

>ry> 3.Why is your criterion of "sentience" any more valid than a criterion
>ry>   of "life," or "ability to jump sideways," or "ability to 
>ry>   synthesize glucose?"
>
>[Rich edited out my answers.  I'm editing them back in]

	And I'm editing most of them back out for brevity.

>rl> Without the qualities of sentience and sapience, an action would
>rl> have no meaning whatsoever.

	OK, Russell, I'll play your little game briefly.  Without the
	quality of "life," neither sentience nor sapience would exist and
	"meaning" as you've defined it would not exist, so why isn't "alive"
	at least as good a criterion as "sentience" and "sapience?"

>Uh, huh.  Once again you're "assigning status" to a given set of 
>entities when it suits your convenience.

	Perhaps you should go back and read question number 3. again, Russell.
	It asks why one set of criteria is more valid than another.  This
	hand-waving which purports to reveal that I'm doing something you're
	not is merely a distraction.  You have drawn a line at sapient/
	sentient while I have drawn a line at "alive."  Why is YOUR line
	any more valid than MY line?  The question is not "Why are your
	criteria valid?"  The question is "Why are my criteria NOT valid?"

[...irrelevant speculation about non-living omniscience deleted...]

	Remember, Russell, you're defending the statement:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <altar.713493440@sfu.ca>:

>>Insects are not of the same status as birds, repitiles (sic), and mammals...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals