Is the reasoning of animal sentience universal.

[Soycrates]

she wasn't capable of showing that fish feel pain in the way we humans feel pain when you cut yourself in the finger for example

I'm not sure sentiocentrism ever needs to prove that animals all feel pain in the exact same way we do. Of course animals have different subjective experiences than we do, experiences we will never be able to be able to truly liken to our own sensations (e.g. Nagel's "What is it Like to Be a Bat")

The fact that we have to talk about the way fish feel pain with this qualifier ("in the way humans feel pain") shows that we know they do feel it, but we're trying to explain why morally that doesn't matter because they're "not like us".

You don't need a study to tell you that fish feel pain in the modern day any more than you would need a study to say that dogs don't smell in the same way, bats don't see in the same way, elephants don't hear in the same way, etc. We all have different physiology and that creates different, unique experiences - it should not make the sensations of one species be deemed morally lesser than another when they are sentient.

[Volenta]

Good point. Why would you not use a tree as a zero point for consciousness though?

Placing them on zero in the spectrum is fine, as long as you make clear it has no sentience and consciousness at all. That's why it's easy to replace it with other non-sentient objects. What I tried to argue is that it's important not to let confusion about plant sentience through. So for pragmatic reasons, it's important to either stay away from it, or explicitly state that they have zero sentience.

Oh wow, I had no idea. Thanks! Do you think the difference between sentience and consciousness is relevant?

The two terms are heavily related, but which one to choose depends on the context your speaking in. With ethical questions, it's better to talk about sentience, because that's what really matters in that context and the science of sentience is pretty sophisticated. Scientists are still struggling to make sense of consciousness in a scientific context at all and generally avoid it. Consciousness is still mostly used is philosophical conversations.

***

@brimstoneSalad
Please notice that I'm not denying pain in fish. It's just that the science is not yet complete (but almost there). The fact that they are sentient is undeniably true.

[Soycrates]

While I agree with plenty of your statements and understand them. My only problem id the the first one. A sentient being should not only know pain but understand it in a non programmed way. For instance a frog can be in pain and will do anything to ease pain not because it is painful but because its programed to think pain is something to avoid because its programed to.When a human or any higher cognitive species feels pain depending on the pain are they are not worried of there life much of the time the are more interested on removing the pain because it brings discomfort not because they are programmed. Pain is programmed to bring discomfort but people are not programmed to respond as in my mind tells me that pain is bad but that it brings discomfort so I would argue the mind actual appeals to human emotion rather than programing of a person.A person can learn to ignore pain or disregard it due to the understanding of the illusion.A creature in a programed way cannot the best comparison I can make is that to a frog pain is hard coded into its mind like a game or program while in a person it is changeable by perception.

Again I will not say this is my most knowledgeable topics and would take any criticism based on my logic or assertions.I would also like to become more informed on the topic of sentient for instance what percentage of animals are sentient compared to those that are not.

1. That is not what sentience is. Sentience is defined as the ability to have sensations and a subjective experience. I think what you're looking for is sapience, which is the concept of self-awareness and reflection. 2. What is your definition of understanding something "in a programmed way"?

Why do you believe humans are not "programmed" to think pain is something we ought to avoid? The way frogs are "programmed" to believe pain is something they ought to avoid is because pain is discomfort. What makes you believe that the reason we escape pain is any different than the reason a frog does? We're both responding to negative stimuli. (Also, being on an atheist forum I think it's safe to say: nobody is programmed by anything because there is no programmer.)

A person can be conditioned to ignore pain, and so can a frog. Frogs are not coded - I think these beliefs of yours are coming from a true misunderstanding about how the animal kingdom works. Both humans and non-human animals can be conditioned to act in ways that are not according to their intuitions - you can teach a human to withstand pain, you can teach an animal to withstand pain. You can trick a human into withstanding pain just like you can a frog - who is known to withstand gradual pain, even to the point of endangering itself.

But why don't you believe humans are coded? Our code can be altered by perception, but that doesn't make it any less coding. Some of our coding is hard or impossible to change - addictions, negative or destructive behaviour, etc.

[Volenta]

I'm not sure sentiocentrism ever needs to prove that animals all feel pain in the exact same way we do. Of course animals have different subjective experiences than we do, experiences we will never be able to be able to truly liken to our own sensations (e.g. Nagel's "What is it Like to Be a Bat")

The fact that we have to talk about the way fish feel pain with this qualifier ("in the way humans feel pain") shows that we know they do feel it, but we're trying to explain why morally that doesn't matter because they're "not like us".

You don't need a study to tell you that fish feel pain in the modern day any more than you would need a study to say that dogs don't smell in the same way, bats don't see in the same way, elephants don't hear in the same way, etc. We all have different physiology and that creates different, unique experiences - it should not make the sensations of one species be deemed morally lesser than another when they are sentient.

I'm sorry I expressed myself badly, you're absolutely right on that. My point was not to compare their pain experience with humans, but I tried to conceptualize which kind of pain I was talking about. I tried to differentiate the direct pain sensation of cutting your finger with emotional pain like anxiety. The latter one having having conclusive evidence, and the first one not yet being on that level. I know I'm not making myself very popular by saying that on a vegan community, but it is the current status of science as far I'm aware (and if you know of any research that actually does prove this, please tell because I would love to hear it).

[Soycrates]

I'm sorry I expressed myself badly, you're absolutely right on that. My point was not to compare their pain experience with humans, but I tried to conceptualize which kind of pain I was talking about. I tried to differentiate the direct pain sensation of cutting your finger with emotional pain like anxiety. The latter one having having conclusive evidence, and the first one not yet being on that level. I know I'm not making myself very popular by saying that on a vegan community, but it is the current status of science as far I'm aware (and if you know of any research that actually does prove this, please tell because I would love to hear it).

"Which kind of pain" I understand why some people may feel like this is important for sentience, but I can only see it really being important for sapience. The fact is that fish do feel pain. And they feel it differently than we do. This isn't about what idea is popular, but which one is correct.

What research are you looking for exactly? What are you asking be proved or disproved? Are you looking for something like this, in which Australian researcher Culum Brown submitted in the Animal Cognition journal that fish feel pain in a way that is similar enough to other mammals, and have the cognizance of recognition that we typically associate with sentience?

[Volenta]

I've thought and researched about it a bit, and really never mind what I've said. The problem was that some people seem to dismiss emotional and psychological suffering as a valid form to describe pain. Most research is focused on this aspect though, but I also think that I've underestimated Braithwaite's findings—I have to do some more reading on her work. Anyway, it's really irrelevant to the discussion we were having here, because it's a fact that they do suffer and that they are sentient. So eating or hunting on fish is unethical either way.

[wfatheist]

There are a lot of moral questions and issues that need to be worked out even in veganism, things we need to constantly reevaluate and reconsider. But a good place to start is to simply say that all sentient beings deserve freedom from coercion, slaughter, or exploitation. And this typically extends to all animals, though some people extend it in varying degrees (for example, holding more value in a dog's life than a spider's life).

Spiders are Bits of death wrapped in scary.

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2 ... fraid.html