From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:03:10 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You claimed that the consideration of sentience/sapience is 
rl> arbitrary since such characteristics are not "important" to the 
rl> natural world.  However you yourself have already admitted that 
rl> the "natural world" is a mindless, thoughtless entity.  As such, 
rl> your "appeal" to this non-existent "higher" authority just 
rl> doesn't make sense.  

From article <1992Sep2.230835.24876@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> It may be painfully INCONVENIENT for you, but it certainly makes
ry> sense to put sentience/sapience into proper perspective by pointing
ry> out that these characteristics just aren't all that significant
ry> in the greater picture of things.  There is no "appeal" to a "higher
ry> authority"; there is simply a recognition that sapience/sentience are
ry> not the determining forces in the Universe.

I didn't say that sapience/sentience were the determining forces
in the universe.  What I said was that meaningful existence depends
on sentience and sapience.  

You're welcome to dismiss your own ideas by claiming that the 
mindless "cosmos" doesn't have a high regard for them, but it 
seems rather self-serving for you to dismiss the ideas of your 
opponents by alluding to this "big picture" that you presume 
would exist in the mind of your make-believe "cosmos" person.

In form and substance, absurd pretenses about the "cosmos" aren't 
substantially different from statements like "god says singing is 
wicked" or "god says singing is good".  They're an appeal to an 
authority that may be misrepresented by such heresay testimony or 
perhaps be non-existent altogether.  

> ...
rl>  Yet for some strange 
rl> reason, you continue to engage in this cosmos-finger-pointing 
rl> exercise when you're hoping to pick up a little "cosmic" 
rl> support for your own personal views.  

ry> And for some strange reason, you continue to insist that I somehow
ry> "need" the cosmos for my argument when I do not.  I will be more
ry> than happy to consider any non-anthropocentric term you care to use,
ry> within limits.  It is the non-anthropocentric view which is important,
ry> not the term(s) used to illustrate it.

If you don't need the "cosmos" to support your argument, then please
dispense with it by all means.   

The importance of sentience and sapience isn't anthropocentric.  
Life would continue to have meaning for wolves and deer if humans 
were to suddenly cease to exist.  And life would continue to be 
meaningless to senseless/mindless entities like cosmoses, 
ball-bearings, rocks, and so on.  

ry> You seem to invoke aliens on a regular basis (which may well be
ry> revealing), so how about if we invoke one here: it "sees"
ry> electromagnetic energy in a range which extends from X-ray to
ry> gamma radiation, it "smells" only charged subatomic particles,
ry> it "feels" only the impact of neutrinos, it "tastes" only inorganic
ry> compounds based on trans-uranic elements, and it "hears" only the
ry> relative intensity of Brownian motion.
ry> 
ry> What does "sentience", as defined by humans, mean to this alien?
ry> It means exactly squat, that's what, but again we begin to digress.
ry> Shall we stick to the subject at hand: namely that the use of
ry> sentience/sapience by humans as criteria to assign "worth" or
ry> "status" to non-human species is arbitrary?

The fact that such a being may see lightwaves that we do not see, 
and hear sounds that we can not hear, doesn't mean that sentience 
is arbitrary.  Nor would the fact that such a being might think 
thoughts that are beyond our ken mean that sapience is arbitrary.  
The fact would remain that meaningful existence for such an alien 
would be impossible if he/she/it were not sentient and sapient.  
If you were to blind such an alien, or take away his sense of 
hearing, you would be depriving him of some of the capabilities 
that make his existence meaningful, and this ought to be taken 
into account in evaluating the "goodness" or "badness" of your 
actions toward this being.  

On the other hand, a mindless/senseless meteor from outerspace
would not be deprived in any meaningful way if you were to smash
it to bits.  You might choose to preserve such a meteor for a
variety of reasons, but clearly you wouldn't do so because of
your concern for the thoughts and feelings of the meteor itself.

rl>   For someone to declare that an idea is "arbitrary"
rl> simply because ball-bearings, bricks, cosmoses, etc, are unable
rl> to grasp the idea is, in effect, a perverse, twisted appeal to 
rl> a non-existent authority.  

ry> No, it's a non-anthropocentric view of the world.  The natural 
ry> world, or "cosmos" as I have called it, doesn't revolve around 
ry> the thoughts, actions, and judgements of Man.  We are just 
ry> another animal: no more, no less.  

rl> So you say, but you're not qualified to speak for the "cosmos".  
rl> Yes, yes, we can hear the deep, resonant voice of the Great Oz 
rl> booming in the distance: "You are just an animal: no more, no 
rl> less."  But when the dog Toto pulls back the curtain, what do we 
rl> discover?  We discover Rich Young using his keyboard microphone to 
rl> cast his own personal views into the mouth of a non-existent 
rl> entity.  

ry> What's your point here?  That we're NOT "just another animal"?

Nope.

ry> Is it now your claim that humans are somehow "special" in the
ry> Universe?  Who's invoking "higher authority" now, eh?

Not me.  I'm not making any claims about the "cosmic" status of 
humans, one way or the other.  I'm content to enjoy the beauty of 
the sunset, or the sounds of birds singing, or the company of my 
companions regardless of how such events may appear in the mind 
of some non-existent Oz.  I'm also content to evaluate the 
consequences of my actions using fact and reason, regardless of 
the mindlessless of tiny ballbearings and giant universes.  

ry> You seem to want to attach some belief in a "higher authority"
ry> to me.  Let me clarify: I am irrevocably, first, last, and always,
ry> a confirmed atheist.  I'd have thought you'd have realized this
ry> from recent postings.  Not only have I no need to invoke "higher
ry> authority," I would disparage any attempts to do so.  Your continued
ry> insistence that I'm invoking such an authority are not only untrue,
ry> but patently absurd, given my beliefs.  I DO hope this issue is now
ry> dead.

You're the person who tried to convince us that the arguments of 
your opponents were "arbitrary" by projecting your own personal 
objections into the mouth of the "cosmos".  Please refrain from 
doing this in the future.  

rl> My advice is this:  Lay aside this pretense about what the "cosmos"
rl> thinks or doesn't think, and learn to stand on your own two legs.

ry> By the way, Russell, you really MUST learn to control your 
ry> frustration; the ad hominem is the last resort of the defeated,
ry> and you continue to skirt the fringes.  If you no longer wish
ry> to discuss this, just say so and bid farewell to the topic.

I'm not frustrated at all, Rich.  I truly enjoy our little 
conversations.  I do hope, however, that you will lay aside the
pretense about "cosmic" significance and discuss the issues in
a more substantial fashion.

> ...
ry> Why does existence HAVE to have "meaning" to an entity?  

It doesn't.  It's doubtful that existence has any meaning to 
entities like ball-bearings, bricks, rocks, cosmoses, etc.  For 
this reason, it makes no difference to them whether we carress 
them fondly or destroy them.  

On the other hand, existence clearly has meaning to the dogs that 
live with me.  My actions toward them affect them profoundly in 
meaningful ways, just as their actions affect me in meaningful 
ways.  As such it behooves us to think about the effects that our 
actions have on each other as best we can.  

ry> Does this make said "entity" somehow more "valuable" to the 
ry> Universe?  

Uh, huh.  You're invoking the non-existent mind of the "cosmos",
once again.  It matters not whether the "cosmos" has a high
opinion or low opinion of dogs and ball-bearings.  The fact would
remain that a dog would feel quite a bit of pain if we whack his
foot with a hammer whereas a ball-bearing couldn't care less.

rl>   As everyone 
rl> who's followed this discussion ought to realize, the notion of 
rl> goodness or badness or any other kind of "worth" would be 
rl> meaningless if sentience and sapience were non-existent qualities.  

ry> This is a non-sequitur...and wrong, too.  A notion of "goodness"
ry> or "badness" would have as much meaning if based on hair color
ry> or religion. 

rl> Wrong Rich.
rl>
rl> How can a non-sentient individual perceive hair color?
rl> How can a non-sapient individual have any thoughts about 
rl> religion?

ry> Good point.  I misread what you said.  It's still a non-sequitur, 
ry> though: nobody is saying that sentience and sapience are 
ry> non-existent, only that they are arbitrary criteria for human 
ry> assignment of "worth" or "status" to non-human species.  

It's hardly "arbitrary" to take sapience and sentience into 
account when we're seeking to evaluate the ethical consequences 
of our actions.  In fact, most americans do this everyday.  

I suspect you'd have no qualms about placing a senseless, 
mindless porkchop in the skillet, but surely you wouldn't take a 
conscious pig and roast him alive.  Even if you could do such a 
thing without a lot of muss and fuss, you'd probably consider 
such an action to be cruel.  

On the other hand, I'm sure you wouldn't hesitate to roast a 
carrot freshly pulled from the garden.  

You treat pigs and carrots differently, not because you've 
assigned some sort of cosmic status to their lives, but because 
you're aware of the fact that a live pig has thoughts and 
feelings whereas the carrot, by most accounts, appears to be a 
mindless entity.  

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