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: Wed, 2 Sep 92 23:08:35 GMT

In <BtxJvC.8rr@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>Rich Young writes:
>ry> The EXISTENCE of sentience/sapience is fact;  the USE OF THESE 
>ry> CHARACTERISTICS AS A YARDSTICK FOR ASSIGNMENT OF "WORTH" OR 
>ry> "STATUS" is arbitrary, since, from the standpoint of the natural 
>ry> world, neither of these characteristics is any more important 
>ry> than a host of other characteristics.  
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> You've already admitted your belief that the "natural world" is 
>rl> mindless.  And I believe that you probably agree with me that 
>rl> ball-bearings are also mindless.  As such, it doesn't make sense 
>rl> for you to declare than any idea is arbitrary, simply because 
>rl> it's not endorsed by natural worlds, ball-bearings, and other 
>rl> mindless entities.
>
>In article <1992Sep1.225542.17463@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> Oops.  Lost you here.  This isn't what I've said.
>ry>
>ry> I said that use of sentience/sapience as yardsticks to assign
>ry> "worth" or "status" to non-human species is arbitrary.
>
>You claimed that the consideration of sentience/sapience is 
>arbitrary since such characteristics are not "important" to the 
>natural world.  However you yourself have already admitted that 
>the "natural world" is a mindless, thoughtless entity.  As such, 
>your "appeal" to this non-existent "higher" authority just 
>doesn't make sense.  

	It may be painfully INCONVENIENT for you, but it certainly makes
	sense to put sentience/sapience into proper perspective by pointing
	out that these characteristics just aren't all that significant
	in the greater picture of things.  There is no "appeal" to a "higher
	authority"; there is simply a recognition that sapience/sentience are
	not the determining forces in the Universe.

>Suppose someone were to say that the concept of sanitation is an 
>"arbitrary" value since the cosmos has no thoughts about 
>sanitation one way or the other.  In such a case, you'd surely 
>agree that the views of the "cosmos" are totally irrelevant to 
>the discussion, if not downright silly.

	Depends on the rest of the discussion.  If sanitation had relevance
	to the topic, I'd be inclined to agree with "someone."  If the topic
	at hand happened to be whether sapience/sentience have any absolute
	basis as criteria for assigning "status" to non-human species, I'd
	consider the raising of "sanitation" as an issue to be incredibly
	inept...as well as irrelevant.  You are revealing an assumption of
	personification of the terms "cosmos" and "natural world" that does
	not exist and has not been claimed.

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

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

	You seem to invoke aliens on a regular basis (which may well be
	revealing), so how about if we invoke one here: it "sees"
	electromagnetic energy in a range which extends from X-ray to
	gamma radiation, it "smells" only charged subatomic particles,
	it "feels" only the impact of neutrinos, it "tastes" only inorganic
	compounds based on trans-uranic elements, and it "hears" only the
	relative intensity of Brownian motion.

	What does "sentience", as defined by humans, mean to this alien?
	It means exactly squat, that's what, but again we begin to digress.
	Shall we stick to the subject at hand: namely that the use of
	sentience/sapience by humans as criteria to assign "worth" or
	"status" to non-human species is arbitrary?

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

	What's your point here?  That we're NOT "just another animal"?
	Is it now your claim that humans are somehow "special" in the
	Universe?  Who's invoking "higher authority" now, eh?

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

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

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

[...]

>The qualities of sentience and sapience are important to quite
>a few animals, apart from humans.  The abilities to hear and smell,
>for instance, are surely important to a deer; and the ability to
>analyze the strength and speed of a deer would surely be
>important to a wolf.   

	I have never claimed that sentience and sapience were useless
	characteristics in the battle for survival; I repeat for the
	umpteenth time: sentience and sapience are arbitrary CRITERIA
	when used by humans to assign "worth" or "status" to non-human
	species.

>ry> As I've said before, they may be VALID, but they are still
>ry> ARBITRARY.  And they are not necessarily any MORE valid than a 
>ry> wide variety of other criteria.
>
>So you say.  I'll believe you when you can explain how existence 
>can have meaning to an entity that can neither feel nor think.

	Why does existence HAVE to have "meaning" to an entity?  Does this
	make said "entity" somehow more "valuable" to the Universe?

	I'm glad you reminded me of this: you never DID explain what you
	meant by "meaning" in this context...even after you told me that
	it was a good question.

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

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

	By what authority do you presume to assign "status" to non-human
	species based on these criteria?

	Why is your criterion of "sentience" any more valid than a criterion
	of "life," or "ability to jump sideways," or "ability to synthesize
	glucose?"

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