Ever fed a T another T?

[MarkmD]

I do like this discussion from both sides, but no matter how you phrase your comments towards each other, as I said before their is no 100% factual evidence for ether side, I do think your both making good statements for your questions/answers, so until it's all this becomes accurate evidence, you are BOTH correct in your comments, doesn't matter at the end of the day, they are your views on those subjects, it's good you agree with each other in some parts of this.

 

[McGuiverstein]

I honestly don't know how to answer you, then. My understanding of the scientific method is that everything is evidence; the question is how to weigh and interpret it. Which is precisely what I was suggesting how to do.

I'm not sure what to make of the phrase "subjective observations." The two concepts appear mutually exclusive; it's either an observation ("The moon is white.") or it's subjective ("I feel happy when I look at the moon."). Can you give an example of a subjective observation? A more relevant example would be where I pointed out that Ts don't stop doing behaviors that put them at risk of losing a leg, even after they've lost a leg (or legs) for doing it. In what way is that subjective?



If I put words in your mouth, I apologize. It wasn't my intention. I was attempting a reductio, so I was attempting to derive from your previous statements an ethical dilemma about bacteria (something which I assumed you would not have).



I think we agree there.



This isn't the place for a thorough discussion of metaphysics, but I will state for the record that I am a metaphysical naturalist. That does not preclude a discussion of psychology as distinct from physiology, even though certainly they influence each other. It is roughly analogous to the way we can talk about software separately from the hardware it runs on, even though there is an obvious intermingling of the two.

I think I said this before (in the same post as I discussed the hermit crab), but suffering is not hard to demonstrate: Show a change in behavior due to pain which avoids its cause. I simply have not seen nor heard of that with tarantulas.



Interestingly, after reading this, I think we are saying more or less the same thing, but we have exactly reversed concepts about pain and suffering.

From my perspective, ethical decisions are based on whether something is able to suffer. Pain is a more primitive function, exhibited by many things that aren't sophisticated enough to be able to suffer. In other words, it seems that what you mean when you say "suffering" is what I meant by "pain."

That being the case, it very much changes the context of our previous discussion (in fact, it makes large swaths of it entirely moot). I think I fairly clearly defined "suffering" in earlier posts. (I'll restate my definitions of them here, for clarity: Pain is a response to a negative stimulus. Suffering is a higher-order response that may result from pain or other factors.)



I see no reason we cannot make an informed ethical decision with incomplete information. In fact, we have no choice. This isn't about proofs, this is about the most likely explanation. And, as in any other philosophical discussion, the positive claim has the burden of proof.

And I've set the bar for that pretty low. A few tarantulas and some elbow grease could easily trump the evidence that I've presented that they don't suffer. It just needs to show that their behavior changes in response to pain.


It's been a pleasant discussion, thanks. I'll let you have the last word. :coffee:

It appears that our definition of evidence seems to differ. What you consider evidence (e.g. your bell curve), to me is mostly speculation based off of other knowledge. In some cases, the links between your comparisons seem tenuous (perhaps a harsh word). Your're right, in the absence of concrete facts and data, we can only use what is available to us. I didn't mean to come across rude when I was saying your evidence is subjective. What I meant by subjective observation is that the interpretation of the same observations made by two people may differ depending entirely on their perception. This will lead to different conclusions and ultimately different decisions based off of the results. For an example, Person A may be acting lethargic. Person B notices his behavior, and from his observations assumes Person A is tired. Person C, observing the same behavior, concludes that Person A's lethargy is due to sadness. From those conclusions, Person B may suggest that Person A should rest. Person C may suggest that they discuss what's bothering Person A. Person B or Person C (or both) could be incorrect, and their subsequent attempts to remedy Person A's situation would fail. Of course, this is an example where failure would not result in catastrophe, but we can agree that ethical decisions carry considerably more weight.

With regards to how an organism will react to suffering, I can mostly agree. However, it is not always true that the individual will choose to avoid it. In certain cases, pain will be weighed against gain. An example: a tattoo. Yes, strictly a human choice, but we will endure the pain of being pierced with a needle in order to get the tattoo. Of course, with lower life forms, the instinct of self preservation will surely take precedence. I am just saying there are circumstances in which an individual may choose not to run from suffering, but this is not the same as not having the capacity to suffer.

I think I agree that we may have been arguing in circles at times (this would have definitely been an easier conversation in person X) ), but I too have enjoyed our discussion. I hate having the last word, because I always feel like the other person has more to say and I'm robbing them of that opportunity. If you want to finish, feel free . At any rate, I now throw down the offer of friendship .

 

[jakykong]

It appears that our definition of evidence seems to differ. What you consider evidence (e.g. your bell curve), to me is mostly speculation based off of other knowledge. In some cases, the links between your comparisons seem tenuous (perhaps a harsh word). Your're right, in the absence of concrete facts and data, we can only use what is available to us. I didn't mean to come across rude when I was saying your evidence is subjective. What I meant by subjective observation is that the interpretation of the same observations made by two people may differ depending entirely on their perception. This will lead to different conclusions and ultimately different decisions based off of the results. For an example, Person A may be acting lethargic. Person B notices his behavior, and from his observations assumes Person A is tired. Person C, observing the same behavior, concludes that Person A's lethargy is due to sadness. From those conclusions, Person B may suggest that Person A should rest. Person C may suggest that they discuss what's bothering Person A. Person B or Person C (or both) could be incorrect, and their subsequent attempts to remedy Person A's situation would fail. Of course, this is an example where failure would not result in catastrophe, but we can agree that ethical decisions carry considerably more weight.

With regards to how an organism will react to suffering, I can mostly agree. However, it is not always true that the individual will choose to avoid it. In certain cases, pain will be weighed against gain. An example: a tattoo. Yes, strictly a human choice, but we will endure the pain of being pierced with a needle in order to get the tattoo. Of course, with lower life forms, the instinct of self preservation will surely take precedence. I am just saying there are circumstances in which an individual may choose not to run from suffering, but this is not the same as not having the capacity to suffer.

I think I agree that we may have been arguing in circles at times (this would have definitely been an easier conversation in person X) ), but I too have enjoyed our discussion. I hate having the last word, because I always feel like the other person has more to say and I'm robbing them of that opportunity. If you want to finish, feel free . At any rate, I now throw down the offer of friendship .

Well, I can see it'll probably keep going in circles, so I'll let the arguments stand. But I'll take you up on your offer to clarify a couple of minor points.

First, I certainly didn't sense any rudeness. And "tenuous" isn't a harsh word; if my inferences were tenuous, then it means I need to think through them more. Although I'll admit I don't think they were particularly tenuous. Maybe it takes a thick skin to have a calm debate, but I rather enjoyed the discussion.

It sounds like you're referring to the Third-cause fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-cause_fallacy). If that is the case, I might suggest that this is precisely why I said that reacting to negative stimulus isn't enough. It's one of many things to account for while interpreting evidence, but it's still all about the interpretation. I don't think our ideas of evidence are all that different, we're just phrasing it differently.

As to how an organism reacts to suffering, I would argue that it isn't possible to avoid suffering (because that is an internal state); but we may or may not choose to avoid pain. Not all pain is suffering, and you just gave some examples. But this appears to be an artifact of our differing definitions of these words, rather than a significant difference in our philosophy.

I accept that offer of friendship, and look forward to future interesting discussions.

 

[SuzukiSwift]

Wow, I've never seen so many long threads together before, so I'm gonna chuck in this short one to give everyone a breather