From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:06:26 GMT


Rich Young writes:
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?"

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You don't know that the presence of "living" chemicals are a 
rl> precondition for meaningful existence.   It's entirely possible
rl> that there exists an entity, somewhere in the universe, that
rl> is just as sentient and sapient as you or I, but non-living.

From article <1992Sep15.133534.6304@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> Another alien, Russell?  Of course it's possible that sentient/
ry> sapient life exists beyond the limits of our planetary system; it's
ry> quite likely, in fact.  Are you prepared to trash it simply because
ry> YOU judge its life to be "meaningless?"  

Nope.  As I've said repeatedly, it behooves us to consider the 
impact that our actions will have on other thinking/feeling 
beings, _regardless_ of the structural or genetic foundation of
their thinking and feeling abilities.   

ry> After all, you don't know that the presence of sapience/sentience 
ry> "are a precondition for meaningful existence," either.  

Please explain how any aspect of existence could be either know-able or 
sense-able to a mindless/senseless entity such as a brain-dead
human on life-support.

Please explain why it might be acceptable to turn-off the life support
system of a mindless/senseless, brain-dead human, but not acceptable
to turn off the life support system of a sapient/sentient, kidney-dead
human?

ry> As for sentient/sapient, but nevertheless non-living, entities
ry> (which would seem to be an oxymoron), please try to resist the
ry> urge to distract us with drivel. 

The concept of non-living, but sentient/sapient, entities isn't 
an oxymoron by any means, in spite of the claims that closet 
spiritualists may make to the contrary.  Unless you believe that 
the mechanical and chemical processes that account for sapience 
and sentience are animated by some sort of "soul", your 
suggestion that "life" is a precondition for sentience and 
sapience doesn't make much sense.  Surely you'll admit that it 
may be theoretically possible for a mechanical/chemical, but 
non-living, entity to have both thoughts and feelings.  If so, 
would it be reasonable for us to dismiss those thoughts and 
feelings simply because their structural basis is "non-living"?  

It seems rather absurd for you to project all sorts of mental 
abilities onto various entities, simply because those entities 
may be "alive".  As an example, I've never quite understood your 
argument that plants feel "pain", although I'd be quick to admit
that plant "pain" ought to be taken into account if it really
does exist outside your own imagination.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that your willingness
to "assign status" stems from your disregard for the thoughts and
feelings of other entities, coupled with a zealous desire to
project your own thoughts and feelings on the world around you.

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

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

You say you can't "KNOW" whether bacteria have a meaningful existence
unless we (once again) define the term "meaningful".  Would you please
define the term, "knowing"?   Thanks in advance.

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

It seems kinda silly for you to delete my answers to your questions
and then ask the same questions over and over again.  Let me refresh
your memory:

======================================================================
From article <1992Sep4.151731.19369@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> The question asked you to define "meaning" as you've used it in
ry> this context.  You have not yet complied.  You have, instead,
ry> continued to resort to using the term without defining it.  You've
ry> said that a "meaningful existence" isn't possible without sentience/
ry> sapience but you have yet to tell us exactly what constitutes a
ry> "meaningful existence."

From Message-ID: <Bu2Jno.7Bx@wpg.com> posted on 09/04/92:
rl> These terms are defined in the dictionary, Rich.  "Sentience" 
rl> designates sensory abilities, namely the ability of an entity to 
rl> gather information about its own being as well as its 
rl> environment.  "Sapience" designates the cognitive abilities that 
rl> permit an entity to process and analyze information.  The word,
rl> "meaningful", is a catch-all term that designates significance 
rl> or purpose.
rl> 
rl> Let's review the ethical importance of "meaningful" existence. 
rl> Without the qualities of sentience and sapience, existence would 
rl> be perceptually and cognitively meaningless to a ball-bearing, 
rl> and hence it would be impossible to deprive it in any way.  We 
rl> could do it no harm if we whack it with hammers, or melt it down, 
rl> or deal with it as we choose.  On the otherhand, existence is 
rl> meaningful to a healthy chimpanzee, who possesses the ability to 
rl> perceive his own being as well as the world around him.  Hence, 
rl> we ought to think about the impact that our actions may have on 
rl> him or her.  
======================================================================

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