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: Tue, 15 Sep 92 13:35:34 GMT

In <BuECKp.EvM@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:

[...]

>Let's assume that the only lifeforms on the planet were mindless,
>single celled organisms, incapable of sensing the world around
>them or even their own existence.  Without projecting your own values
>on these organisms, please explain how their existence would be
>meaningful to them in any way.

	Let's not assume any such thing, since the world doesn't consist
	of living things with the characteristics you describe.  In point
	of fact, ALL living things of which we are aware can at least sense
	their environment.  Let's not confuse the issue with flights of
	fancy which may or may not exist.

	Once again, you retreat to some curious requirement for "meaning."
	Please give us a definition of "meaning" as you've used it in the
	context of this discussion.  Thus far, you've given us examples,
	references to sentience and sapience, and a variety of other
	unrelated statements (the latest of which asks us to consider a 
	mythical world), but you have yet to describe precisely what
	"meaning" actually IS without using the term itself.

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

	See what I mean?  You've told us what you think is required before
	"meaning" can exist, but you've not yet told us what "meaning" _IS_.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unaddressed question which Russell seems to want to ignore:

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

	Please, Russell, either answer the question or admit that you won't
	(or can't).

>ry> OK, Russell, I'll play your little game briefly.  Without the
>ry> quality of "life," neither sentience nor sapience would exist and
>ry> "meaning" as you've defined it would not exist, so why isn't "alive"
>ry> at least as good a criterion as "sentience" and "sapience?"
>
>You don't know that the presence of "living" chemicals are a 
>precondition for meaningful existence.   It's entirely possible
>that there exists an entity, somewhere in the universe, that
>is just as sentient and sapient as you or I, but non-living.

	Another alien, Russell?  Of course it's possible that sentient/
	sapient life exists beyond the limits of our planetary system; it's
	quite likely, in fact.  Are you prepared to trash it simply because
	YOU judge its life to be "meaningless?"  After all, you don't know
	that the presence of sapience/sentience "are a precondition for
	meaningful existence," either.

	As for sentient/sapient, but nevertheless non-living, entities
	(which would seem to be an oxymoron), please try to resist the
	urge to distract us with drivel.  The phrase under discussion is:

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

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

	We can entertain a discussion of your aliens at another time, but
	for now we are discussing earth-based life forms.

>Be that as it may, the fact that an organism is alive doesn't mean
>that its existence is meaningful.  As examples, consider the
>case of brain-dead humans or anesthetized animals on the operating
>table or test-tubes of bacteria.   All three cases reflect living
>organisms, yet it would be silly to argue that we can "impose"
>on a brain-dead human or "torture" an anesthetized animal or
>"deprive" bacteria of meaningful existence.

	Once again, you invoke the solemn term "meaning" as in "meaningful."
	I suggest that, before you use the term again in one of its many
	forms, you supply us with a definition of "meaning."  We don't KNOW
	that we can't "deprive bacteria of meaningful existence" (to use your
	words) until we know what "meaning" _IS_, as you've used it here.

[...]

>ry> You have drawn a line at sapient/sentient while I have drawn a line
>ry> at "alive."  Why is YOUR line  any more valid than MY line?  The
>ry> question is not "Why are your criteria valid?"  The question is "Why
>ry> are my criteria NOT valid?"
>
>Your criteria don't reflect the concrete qualities that lie at 
>the core of meaningful existence.  Rather, they appear to reflect 
>some sort of "spiritual" presumptions about the "meaning of life"
>that you're projecting on the world around you.   

	Yet ANOTHER retreat to "meaningful?"  And where on earth do you
	get this stuff about "spiritual presumptions about the meaning
	of life?"  I'm not even sure I know what you're trying to say
	with that phrase.  I'm projecting nothing, and it would be interesting
	if you would explain exactly where you think I have.

>> ...
>ry> Remember, Russell, you're defending the statement:
>
>===========================================================================
>From <altar.713493440@sfu.ca>:
>
>>Insects are not of the same status as birds, reptiles, and mammals...
>===========================================================================
>
>Not exactly.

	Say what???  When you jumped into the original discussion I was
	having with the lower case name, you were certainly arguing his
	side of the issue; I refer you to <Bsv4GK.Cw0@wpg.com>.  Don't
	try to escape the subject.

>I'm defending my claim that you, yourself, have been
>assigning "status" to mindless entities.

	You don't even know what you're talking about any more.  I have made
	a distinction between "alive" and "not alive."  If you wish to claim
	that this is "assigning status," so be it...whatever tilts your kilt.
	I have never claimed that my criterion of "alive" was any less
	arbitrary, in the larger view, than your criteria of sentience and
	sapience.  I have merely claimed that your criteria ARE arbitrary
	when used to assign "worth" or "status" to non-human species.  Note
	that I did _not_ say that the EXISTENCE of sapience/sentience is
	arbitrary, but that the USE of these criteria to assign "worth" or
	"status" is arbitrtary.

>And, I'm having a pretty good time doing it.  Once we come to terms on
>the importance of sentience and sapience, we can talk about insects,
>reptiles, and mammals.

	Well, I'm certainly glad you're enjoying yourself, but it's basically
	irrelevant to the discussion.  You have yet to answer the three
	questions I asked several exxhanges ago.

	1. You've refused to tell us what "meaning" is.

	2. You've deleted question number 2. several times, hoping, I suspect,
		that I'd forget about it.

	3. You've used the concept of "meaning" to answer the third question
		without answering question number 1. and explaining exactly
		what "meaning" IS, as you've used the concept here.

	Might I suggest that you answer the questions?  I'm sure everyone
	will enjoy it more when we get these answers and can proceed to
	the next set of logical points.


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