| |
|
Phew! Got bit of time free. Sorry if I ramble, but I'm still being hassled!
Grant: "I have known dogs who have mourned. I have known dogs to escape inescapably secure yards (and unlock and open locked doors). I have never known a dog to bark at a mirror at its own image - as if the image was another dog"
Ok, maybe dogs were not the best example, but do you know for sure that a dog in the mirror knows that it is looking at an image of itself, or that the dog that has escaped has not performed it by trial and error rather than a conceptual plan? Couple this with the humanising of animal emotions, and it's possible to debate the actual consciousness of most mammals.
Pain is a subjective thing, but the nervous system of a spider would suggest that it has a limited range in this respect. I meant more fear/perception/aspprehension through knowledge of itself and visualisation of what MAY happen (eg death). And you're right, spiders do run from danger, but is surely an instinctive reflex, rather than a perception of its surroundings.
What I was really trying to aim for were the cornerstones of conciousness. Fear/perception/apprehension of one's own self seems like a good place to start. I don't think 'conciousness' is a subjective test, but perhaps the criteria in determining the constitution of consciousness is.
Wyrd & Wmebley:
I appreciate the bio-diversity angle that you have both put forward. eg:
Wembley:
"But the reality is that the complexity of biological balance between life forms is too huge for humans to understand at this point; however, it's not too big for us to fuck it up. There shouldn't be a value judgement placed on one form of life over another, because each plays a vital role in life as we know it on earth."
Wyrd:
"Well, I don't kill spiders for a start. They have a place in our eco-system and do a very nice job of sorting out the insects."
Ok, so everything has to be respected within the biosphere, but how do you reconcile that with the eco-system's flora (no soft-spread margarine jokes thanks!)? Plants play equally important roles within it, and are undoubtedly organic. Is an edible plant a less complex organism than a locust?
Are these arguments against eating animals per se, or just eating?!
Wyrd:
"I would prefer to see people work with animals, and treat them with respect. If animals must be slaughtered for our benefit, I would prefer if that occurred in a system that gave them good lives, and treated their sacrifice with respect, and understanding. I personally find the battery house system that chickens are raised in - for example - to be repugnant in the extreme. It shows no regard for the animals, and I would imagine that the distress and suffering they go through must translate in some way into the meat which people then consume."
I've got no opposition to anything you say there. It doesn't necessarily contradict my point. I wouldn't tear down a tree needlessly or smash up a fine work of art, anymore than I'd be cruel to an animal.
Wembley:
"but I think the hierarchical way of organisation is a very western way of thinking, and there are modes of existence that we simply don't grasp. In particular, I'm thinking of some conversations I've had with Native Canadians. For the most part, I follow what they're saying, but eventually there comes a point where I just don't know how to understand their philosophies."
Western perhaps, but less valid than any other spirituality? It may correlate with Aquinas and the Catholic way of thinking, but it can have a grounding in science: Nervous systems, use of pre-frontal coretex, problem solving, etc can all be used to establish self-awareness in objective terms. As I said earlier, the difficulty lies in how it is determined.
Out of interest, if there was a sure fire way of determining what creatures were nothing more than organic robots, or whetehr they were something else, would this have a bearing on what either of you would eat? |
|
|
