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: Sat, 5 Sep 92 15:33:51 GMT

In <Bu2Jno.7Bx@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes, while squirming:
>
>Rich Young writes:
>ry>  1. What is this "meaning" that you seem to think conveys some 
>ry>  magical "status" to living creatures and which makes it 
>ry>  acceptable to kill and eat one but not another?  

[...]

>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."
>
>These terms are defined in the dictionary, Rich.  "Sentience" 
>designates sensory abilities, namely the ability of an entity to 
>gather information about its own being as well as its 
>environment.  "Sapience" designates the cognitive abilities that 
>permit an entity to process and analyze information.  The word,
>"meaningful", is a catch-all term that designates significance 
>or purpose.

	The question was not about dictionaries or the words "sapience" and
	"sentience," Russell.  It was about your constant insistence that
	"meaning" is necessary.  I am asking you to define for us exactly
	what you think is "meaning" IN THIS CONTEXT.  And, by association,
	the definition of a "meaningful experience."

>Let's review the ethical importance of "meaningful" existence. [...]

	No, Russell, let's not.  Let's define the term "meaningful" first,
	as you've attempted to use it IN THIS CONTEXT; that was, after all,
	the question that was asked.

>ry>  2. By what authority do you presume to assign "status" to non-human
>ry>     species based on sentience/sapience?
>
>ry> The question, Russell, did not ask what you think is moral or
>ry> immoral, ethical or unethical; rather, it asks by what presumption
>ry> of authority you make these decisions for other species, based on
>ry> certain criteria.
>
>And my answer is that you're the one who's been making hierarchical
>claims about the role of status and authority, not me.

	You cannot prove this and you know it, Russell.  Show some integrity
	here and stop trying to confuse the issue.  The thread startes with
	your defense of the following statement, reproduced here in part:

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

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

	Now, you continue to provide us with irrelevant examples, and you've
	even answered a question that was not asked, but you have still not
	answered the question above, preferring to accuse me of something
	which is patently untrue.  Please dispense with further attempts
	to distract us, and answer the question.

>You, on the other
>hand, apparently believe that pain is diminished or perhaps not 
>important when it's experienced by a "lowly" being like a rat
>or dog, ....   [...]

	If you really believe that this is my claim, then you have clearly
	been reading someone else's postings and attaching my name to them.
	The wording of my question number 1. should disabuse you of this
	ridiculous notion, and I fail to see why you even brought it up.
	You have apparently jumped to a completely erroneous conclusion.

	If your level of understanding of what has been said in the discussion
	thus far is truly this abysmal, then there is no point in continuing
	the discussion.  If, on the other hand, you are making such outrageous
	misstatements of fact to distract us, then please cease and desist,
	while you still have a shred of credibility remaining.

>ry>  3.Why is your criterion of "sentience" any more valid than a criterion
>ry>    of "life," or "ability to jump sideways," or "ability to 
>ry>    synthesize glucose?"
>
>rl> Without the qualities of sentience and sapience, an action would
>rl> have no meaning whatsoever.  And without meaning, an action could
>rl> hardly be "good" or "bad".   [...]
>
>ry> And once again, we have a retreat into the undefined "meaning".
>ry> Might I humbly suggest that you re-read the section of your book
>ry> on logic that describes circular reasoning?  You've just said that
>ry> without sapience, there is no "meaning" (whatever THAT is), but
>ry> without "meaning" (whatever THAT is) there is no sapience (as in
>ry> understanding the concepts of "good" and "bad").
>
>No, that's not what I said.   [...]

	Let us review your statements:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
First, from the above excerpt --

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

	This certainly matches the first part of my objection to your logic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Second, from the above excerpt --

   "And without meaning, an action could hardly be 'good' or 'bad.'"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	Since assignment of the values of "good" or "bad" is a process
	which requires sapience, this matches the second part of my objection
	to your logic.

	Let us not allow ourselves to be distracted by what is, at best,
	a quibble over procedure, however; the fact remains that you have
	not yet answered the question originally posed.

   [...Russell's discourse unrelated to the question at hand deleted...]

>ry> And yet again, you've tried to neatly sidestep the question; allow
>ry> me to illustrate.  You've said that sentience is necessary to feel
>ry> pain, and therefore sentience is a valid criterion.  Of course, this
>ry> was never really under discussion, since the question was whether
>ry> "life," etc. could be equally useful criteria.  I suggest that,
>ry> since sentience cannot exist without "life," that "life" is at
>ry> least as valid a criterion as "sentience."
>ry> 
>ry> Please answer the question above, Russell, instead of tiptoeing
>ry> around it.

   [...previously addressed drivel about kidney patients and the brain-dead
	deleted...]

	Your constant attempts to quibble over semantics, redirect, and now
	misrepresent in order to distract from your mental discomfiture are
	becoming tedious, Russell.  None of the three questions asked
	requires more than a sentence or two to answer, and two of them
	should require no more than a word or two.  I suggest, Russell,
	that you provide these answers, or admit that you can't, while you
	still retain some tiny shred of pretense at intellectual integrity,
	else it will become increasingly clear that your purpose in the
	forum is some arcane reason not related to earnest discussion of
	topics.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)