From: Tommy McCabe (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jan 04 2004 - 20:22:54 MST
--- "J. Andrew Rogers" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On 1/4/04 5:20 PM, "Tommy McCabe"
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > --- "Perry E. Metzger" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> By the way, Tommy, eat any good pate de foie gras
> >> lately? Mmm, tasty.
> > I don't even know what that is.
> Pity, that.
> > To rephrase: a
> > 'sentient' organism is one that experiences
> > and thus has the opportunity to experience
> > qualia.
> What is this qualia you speak of? Am I sentient or
> not, if I don't believe
> I have qualia? You think you experience qualia, but
> do you really? Maybe
> you just *think* you do.
> The utility of this definition is obvious.
First of all, if it is 'obvious', I do not get it. DO
you mean the utility omes from being easily
rationalized into tortruing animals? Second, even
though I can't really give a definition of qualia, the
fact that I think that I have qualia proves that I do,
since I thought something.
> > I really don't have that good of an idea where
> > the dividing line is on Earth, and I am not too
> > to find out, because of people's tendency to
> > rationalize to justify hurting animals.
> What makes you think sentience isn't a gradient, a
> continuous measure of
> hardware capacity?
> I think a much simpler answer is that humans draw
> the line where it is
> convenient for them to do so. Some vegans exclude
> no animals, most humans
> exclude all or most animals, some humans might
> excluded blacks or Jews, and
> I could exclude everyone who is less intelligent
> than myself. None of these
> is more correct than any other because they are all
> based on the apparently
> false premise that sentience is an "obvious" Boolean
> property of all living
> things rather than a continuous measure of an
> intrinsic property of some
> types of machinery. I have yet to see a Boolean
> measure of sentience that
> was anything but arbitrary.
> Where the line is drawn doesn't really matter; its
> existence largely serves
> as a cheap moral justification when killing another
> organism. No point in
> sugar coating it or pretending that your line is
> objectively more special
> than any other line. The universe doesn't recognize
> your line regardless.
That's why I'm not willing to draw a 'sentient/not'
line at this point: because you can too easily
rationalize your way into killing other organisms, and
because we wouldn't be anywhere near perfect with the line.
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:43 MDT