From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:00:41 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> The fact that I cannot know with absolute certainty that Rich 
rl> Young has a mind with thoughts and feelings (ie meaning) doesn't 
rl> prevent me from treating him with respect, regardless of the
rl> particular "meanings" that may be running through his mind.  Nor 
rl> could my lack of certainty permit anyone to reasonably conclude
rl> that my respect for Rich's mind is "arbitrary".   

Rich Young writes:
ry> What you say is correct, as far as it goes, but that uncertainty
ry> is a real problem, isn't it, Russell?  Even though you don't "know"
ry> what goes on in my mind, you're reasonably certain that I do have
ry> one, especially since I'm of the same species, so the drawing of
ry> conclusions is a reasonable action, based on similarity of structure.
ry> But what happens when you get to forms of life which are NOT
ry> similar?  Do your conclusions remain as reasonable?  I think not.

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Give me an example, Rich.

From article <1992Oct15.181032.26260@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> Cut the baloney, Russell.  This tactic is both transparent and
ry> puerile.  Surely, you can think of a living thing which is not
ry> similar in physical structure to humans without help from me.
ry> You're just stalling again.

No, I'm not stalling.  I'm asking you for an example so that we 
may evaluate the merits of your claim.  Sight unseen, all I can 
say in advance is that you seem to think that you can dismiss the 
role of sentience and sapience in ethical arguments by pointing 
out the fact that humans aren't omniscient, and hence, will never 
know everything there is to know about sentience and sapience in 
other beings.  To illustrate, Rich Young's mind, no matter how 
hard it tries, can't fully fathom what goes on in the mind of a 
cow or the mind of a snail since it doesn't have their sensory 
input and mental circuitry and environmental experience.  Do
you not agree?  

Where we disagree is that you seem to think that you can 
circumnavigate your mental limitations by resorting to "a priori" 
definitions of value, especially those that can be measured or 
weighed in some simplistic manner.  The problem with this 
approach, in my humble opinion, is that it's deceitful.  Rather 
than accept the inevitable fact that our mental limitations might 
lead us to overestimate the sensitivity of cows or underestimate 
the sensitivity of snails, you seem to think that we can do a 
nifty job of defining values more precisely by resorting to 
criteria that would seem important to you, since you've invented 
them, but may not be important at all to snails or cows.  

> ...
rl> How does a man who's skeptical about the "thoughts and feelings" 
rl> of other beings manage to overlook his own use of the verb, "know"?  
rl> Without reference to thoughts and feelings, please define the 
rl> expression, "How do we know".  

ry> We've been over THIS before, as well...you have absolutely no
ry> shame, have you, Russell?  Read on....(sorry, net.folk).......

===================================================================
From <1992Sep18.220038.12945@pixel.kodak.com>:

rl> I'm sure we'll be able to communicate better after you take the time to 
rl> define the word, "KNOW".  Thanks in advance.

ry> Since you seem to be rather lexicographically challenged on this 
ry> point, simply substitute the word "recognize" for "know" in the 
ry> appropriate passage and re-read it.
===================================================================

Uh, huh.  In view of the fact that you're not afflicted with the
"lexographic" disabilities that you perceive in me, I'm surprised 
that you're so willing to quibble about terms like "meaning" and
"significance" while readily pretending that verbs like, "to know" 
or "to recognize", reside on firmer ground.  Tell us, Rich, if
the term "recognition" would be "meaningful"in a world that's void
sentience and sapience?

"Give us a metric for recognition", as you would say, so that we 
can measure this quality with the finite precision that you
typically demand from your opponents.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals