Eugene Khutoryansky wrote:
>><enormous snip>
> If you think this is just a trivial linguistics game, think again. In
> the animal rights debate, there are still many people who believe that it
> is OK to perform any experiment for any reason because other animals do
> not actually feel anything. Dispelling such myths has a moral urgency,
> do to the immoral behavior believing in such myths will lead to.
This seems to be developing into the kind of debate that will have no
winners. Each side can come up with their champions that believe that
"all animals are conscious" and those that believe that "only humans
are conscious." (The argument that if one denies consciousness to an
animal one must accept as certain only that he, himself, is conscious
does strike me as a trivial liguistic game and a trick of sophistry --
don't tell me what I must think, ask me what I think and why.) There
are some who jump lightly from the concept of "consciousness" to the
concept of "sensience" and treat these as equals. I have yet to be
shown how the concept of sensience necessarily leads to consciousness.
It seems as if the acceptance or rejection of this leap rests on
faith, emotion, or inuition much more than it depends on "unassailable
logic."
If we are to discuss "consciousness," then please let us agree on what
we are talking about. If we are going to talk about a variety of
phenomena that we may (or legitimately may not) think are correlated
with "consciousness" then let us say so. But let's try to avoid
talking about "sensience" and pretending we are talking about
"consciousness." Let's also learn if we are talking in code about
animal rights (which may reveal what "leaps of faith" we already have
made) or if we are really open to discussing the topic from basic
priciples.
