From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:31:35 GMT


Rich Young writes:
ry> But what CONSTITUTES "meaningful?!?"  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> All sensations and thoughts are meaningful, Rich.  They mark the
rl> distinction between mindful existence and mindless existence.

From article <1992Sep10.234845.27601@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> I see.  So the mere existence of "life" is irrelevant, or
ry> "meaningless", without sentience AND sapience in your view?

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.

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

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.

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.

> ...
rl> Uh, huh.  Once again you're "assigning status" to a given set of 
rl> entities when it suits your convenience.

ry> Perhaps you should go back and read question number 3. again, Russell.
ry> It asks why one set of criteria is more valid than another.  This
ry> hand-waving which purports to reveal that I'm doing something you're
ry> not is merely a distraction.  You have drawn a line at sapient/
ry> sentient while I have drawn a line at "alive."  Why is YOUR line
ry> any more valid than MY line?  The question is not "Why are your
ry> criteria valid?"  The question is "Why 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.   

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

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