Brainless chicken farming

[madd0ct0r]

I was pointing out the contradiction in his argument.

to paraphrase he was arguing "this sort of thing is stupid, becuase like all market interventions it distorts the market resulting in higher prices. Higher prices means less poor people can afford it."

My counter-argumet is that already poor people can't afford it, and it's everything to do with rich people's greed and nothing to do with animal welfare legislation raising prices.

[Legault]

So how do you reconcile 'people taking precedance' with the market failure to actually distribute food?

From where I'm standing, it's two distinct positions:

1) The free market, regulated in ways but unfettered for the most part, promotes the greatest economic welfare in the long-term. I admit that this is a hugely controversial opinion to hold, not to mention a pretty gross oversimplification! But it doesn't really impact...

2) Any resources spent protecting animal well-being could be used towards human well-being. This is what I mean with my "people taking precedence" statement.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Perhaps the subjective experience of that organism is one of unadulterated primal bliss. Who knows?

Give me a minute. I have to process the stupidity.

Ok.

1) Shared evolutionary history and the conservation of basic processes leads us logically to that inference, provided the processes are the same
2) Said processes are the same.
3) Therefore, stabbing a chicken causes the same sort of distress to the chicken that stabbing a human does, to the extent that their brains are capable of processing the information. Pain yes. Long term physiological distress, yes. Existential angst, probably not etc.

Descartes holds that, as animals lack minds, all of their screaming and squawking at torturous pain is really no different than the gears of a clock.

And neuroscience disproves pretty much all of Descartes. Sorry. But you fail both biology and philosophy. Come back when your brain finds its cognitive ability.

Remember, for Descartes, mind and body are entirely distinct, which would make the pain-is-illusion position much stronger.

And this position has been disproven by a century of study of the brains of humans and animals. Go fuck yourself.

as I maintain that people take precedent as a rule

And you fail miserably to justify this rule. In fact, it is inconsistent with your premises. If you are a dualist, you must accept the proposition that you cannot know if anyone other than you exists. If this is the case, we could all just be illusions. So please, go torture a six year old and get back to me. Afterall, you cannot be sure the six year old exists, let alone has a mind.

As for a quantitative model, in practice, that would be rather difficult. Weighting however, is not, and more than suits most circumstances for which we may need such an evaluation. For example, stabbing a human activates the exact same parts of the brain that it does in a rat. The physical sensation of pain is exactly the same (you know, that whole neuroscience thing). However, a human also has a greater ability to suffer in different ways, such as feeling violated, and other things that require more abstract thought and takes place in the cerebral cortex. So, one on one, a rat is "worth" more than a person. That we might have difficulty making determinations in the margin is irrelevant.

However, the immense suffering of millions of chickens would not be justified by the marginal "gain" of a lower price per lb of their meat, particularly given that we do not actually consume anywhere near the annual production capacity of chickens using current methods, and a large drop in production capacity would have next to no impact on the quality of life for people. Unless of course you are about to claim that eating half a kilo of meat per day is somehow necessary for human happiness. If you think that, I have some vegetarians and even for that matter Europeans and Asians I want you to meet.

Oh, but I forgot. None of that matters because you are Cartesian Dualist and thus a failed philosophy student.

[Legault]

Give me a minute. I have to process the stupidity.

Oh dear. You know that when you start a rebuttal this way, it's only asking for me to fire back, right? Have it your way.

1) Shared evolutionary history and the conservation of basic processes leads us logically to that inference, provided the processes are the same
2) Said processes are the same.
3) Therefore, stabbing a chicken causes the same sort of distress to the chicken that stabbing a human does, to the extent that their brains are capable of processing the information. Pain yes. Long term physiological distress, yes. Existential angst, probably not etc.

I'm really not sure whether I'm supposed to take this seriously. Human beings can't even relate to the subjective experience of other human beings, much less other animals. You can yammer all you want about irrelevancies like "shared evolutionary history" and "conservation of basic processes" (might want to work on that over-writing, by the way), but the basic problem here is the gap between one person's subjective experience and another's. It's entirely possible that certain people experience the same biochemicals in radically different ways.

Probability arguments are useless here, by the way, because we can't form probability statements without some sizable data. Any kind of subjectivity-tally is always going to end up at exactly one (and maybe not even one, depending on how you understand the self).

And neuroscience disproves pretty much all of Descartes. Sorry. But you fail both biology and philosophy. Come back when your brain finds its cognitive ability.

Forgive me; I haven't been keeping up with the scientific literature as much as you have. When did science overcome the Cartesian epistemological bubble?

And you fail miserably to justify this rule. In fact, it is inconsistent with your premises. If you are a dualist, you must accept the proposition that you cannot know if anyone other than you exists. If this is the case, we could all just be illusions. So please, go torture a six year old and get back to me. Afterall, you cannot be sure the six year old exists, let alone has a mind.

1) I'm not a dualist, but was rather offering up Descartes as a way to potentially approach this problem.
2) In his Meditations, Descartes goes on to solve (in his view) the problem of justifying the external world. Maybe you should read some undergradaute philosophy before getting pedantic.

As for a quantitative model, in practice, that would be rather difficult. Weighting however, is not, and more than suits most circumstances for which we may need such an evaluation. For example, stabbing a human activates the exact same parts of the brain that it does in a rat.

This is correct.

The physical sensation of pain is exactly the same (you know, that whole neuroscience thing).

This, however, is not. The "sensation of pain" is not a neuroscience thing; in fact, to claim such a senseless thing is a contradiction in terms. Science, as an empirical study, approaches the world from the outside-in, while subjective experience occurs from the inside-out. No amount of data on biochemical release is going to let us feel as the rat does.

I'm sorry in advance that I don't subscribe to your wholly inconsistent, entirely unoriginal scientism (that's "science-as-religion," by the way; I wouldn't explain this, but then you haven't even read Descartes, so I'm trying to be charitable). I await your personal attacks with open arms.

[Zablorg]

I'm really not sure whether I'm supposed to take this seriously. Human beings can't even relate to the subjective experience of other human beings, much less other animals.

What the shit, dude.

It's actually pretty easy to relate to the experiences of other human beings. I suggest you try it some time.

[madd0ct0r]

nah, he's trolling. nobody could actually be that stupid.

Psychopathic, possibly, but they normally find it advantageous to blend in.

[Legault]

What the shit, dude.

It's actually pretty easy to relate to the experiences of other human beings. I suggest you try it some time.

You're confusing empathy/sympathy with subjective experience. When I say "I'm happy" (for example, about getting lectured by BBS posters about philosophy), you can empathize with my feelings of happiness, but you can't feel what it is that I'm feeling. This is 101-type stuff here: my red might not be your red, my happiness might not be your happiness, etc.

Again, it's easy to lose track of what we're talking about, so to return to the point briefly: if we can't even feel what other people feel, then trying to extend moral utilitarianism over to poultry and cattle is a lost cause from the start.

nah, he's trolling. nobody could actually be that stupid.

Psychopathic, possibly, but they normally find it advantageous to blend in.

Though I'm new, isn't this kind of posting against the rules? An ignoramus on a given subject (I'm sure you're a perfectly intelligent fellow elsewhere) hiding behind empty attacks? Manners clearly aren't emphasized here, but at least give me something to work with before throwing out insults.

[Zablorg]

You're confusing empathy/sympathy with subjective experience. When I say "I'm happy" (for example, about getting lectured by BBS posters about philosophy), you can empathize with my feelings of happiness, but you can't feel what it is that I'm feeling. This is 101-type stuff here: my red might not be your red, my happiness might not be your happiness, etc.

Again, it's easy to lose track of what we're talking about, so to return to the point briefly: if we can't even feel what other people feel, then trying to extend moral utilitarianism over to poultry and cattle is a lost cause from the start.

I'm really not following your logic here

"This chicken is freaking the fuck out because I stabbed it" > "I know this to be identical to the typical human reaction to pain" > "Humans and chicken's physiology are incredibly similar" > "pfff it could be feeling anything"

[Legault]

I'm really not following your logic here

"This chicken is freaking the fuck out because I stabbed it" > "I know this to be identical to the typical human reaction to pain" > "Humans and chicken's physiology are incredibly similar" > "pfff it could be feeling anything"

We can make that bolded part of your argument even stronger by skipping the middle man (species?) and going to straight human-human comparison. When I stub my toe, I act a certain way (instinctive, bodily) and feel a certain way (mental, subjective). When a friend of mine stubs his toe, he also acts a certain way and feels a certain way, and while the actions may be the same or similar, his subjective experience is entirely foreign. I can't stress this enough. Not "similar." Not "probably close enough that makes no difference." Entirely foreign. We've only had access to a single mind, after all, and no amount of empirical speculation is going to change this.

[madd0ct0r]

Fine, but do you act like people's subjective experiences are entirely foreign on a daily basis?

I mean, when your friend is hopping around the kitchen, swearing and clutching his toe, do you assume this is an entirely foreign manifestation of joy? Do you assume you can't really know what he's feeling and pour yourself another beer? or do you assume, based on a probabilistic deduction drawn from your own previous experiences that he's in pain, and might appreciate a comment or beer?

It's the entire point of language that the word has a similar meaning for two people. 'Pain,' however it is subjectively experienced, is generally agreed on to be caused by various types of stimuli and to be an unpleasent situation.

it's fucking empathy, one of the hall marks of a well developed intelligence. The ability to run a simulation of the other person's feelings and actions in your own head, drawing off your own experiences of the world.

My father's reaction to his mother's death? yeah, subjective foreign experience that's hard for me to predict or recreate within my mind.

Being stabbed by a spiky object? being burnt? amazingly easy to recreate (or basically remember). perhaps you've never felt pain?

BUT as you said on the previous page, all this is irrelevant as

let all the chickens in the world experience abject agony if it means a kid in Africa gets an extra meal for a day.

You are arguing along two lines here, one involving just enough false detail and deliberately stupid positions to wind people up, the other deliberately contentious.
Hence I think you're trolling.

[Legault]

Fine, but do you act like people's subjective experiences are entirely foreign on a daily basis?

I mean, when your friend is hopping around the kitchen, swearing and clutching his toe, do you assume this is an entirely foreign manifestation of joy? Do you assume you can't really know what he's feeling and pour yourself another beer? or do you assume, based on a probabilistic deduction drawn from your own previous experiences that he's in pain, and might appreciate a comment or beer?

It's the entire point of language that the word has a similar meaning for two people. 'Pain,' however it is subjectively experienced, is generally agreed on to be caused by various types of stimuli and to be an unpleasent situation.

it's fucking empathy, one of the hall marks of a well developed intelligence. The ability to run a simulation of the other person's feelings and actions in your own head, drawing off your own experiences of the world.

My father's reaction to his mother's death? yeah, subjective foreign experience that's hard for me to predict or recreate within my mind.

Being stabbed by a spiky object? being burnt? amazingly easy to recreate (or basically remember). perhaps you've never felt pain?

BUT as you said on the previous page, all this is irrelevant as

let all the chickens in the world experience abject agony if it means a kid in Africa gets an extra meal for a day.

You are arguing along two lines here, one involving just enough false detail and deliberately stupid positions to wind people up, the other deliberately contentious.
Hence I think you're trolling.

Let's step back for a bit. For someone who's accusing me of trolling, your post is littered with unnecessary ad hominems, all while I've been trying to be as civil as I can about a controversial subject. And while you may disagree with my views, calling them "stupid" (especially when it's clear, to be honest, that you've never had a substantive discussion about the mind-body problem) gives me far less reason to keep this talk going.

Back to the argument. There's no doubt that we employ empathy every day in terms of human action. Yes, being able to employ this faculty is a sign of "intelligence" (and my social skills are quite excellent, for those screaming "sociopath"). But all of this is entirely besides the point, because, as all science aficionados should know better than everyone, common experience is often misleading and sometimes entirely off-base. I simply cannot get inside the mind of another person, and while treating his pain as synonymous with my pain may be socially expedient, it doesn't grant us even remote access to that person's subjectivity.

And I am using two lines of argument, yes: the primary one being a fundamental value judgment (which wouldn't make for much of a debate), the secondary one being this Cartesian bubble position (which, while I don't entirely agree with it, makes for some more serious discussion).

[madd0ct0r]

So you're arguing a position you don't entirely agree with for the purpose of serious discussion?
devils advocate or trolling?
meh, the point's moot, it depends whether you're arguing in good faith. Your dismissal of other peoples arguments is not exactly rock solid though: you're basically going "this is the philosophical problem"
someone (Alyrium Denryle in this instance) replies "the problem doesn't exist, because real life doesn't work like that." to which you smugly reply "Doesn't matter, because the philosophical problem is not solved"

But we're talking about a real life situation. Brainless chickens. Really simple low level stimuli and response stuff. So whether the Cartesian bubble position is correct or not is entirely irrelevant, as in real life situations nobody succumbs to it. You are free to test this by applying a soldering iron to a child or dog and seeing the response of other people.

The fundamental value judgment is much more interesting for serious discussion as it actually has real world applications, but I can understand if you want to back peddle from your position.

[Ziggy Stardust]

We can make that bolded part of your argument even stronger by skipping the middle man (species?) and going to straight human-human comparison. When I stub my toe, I act a certain way (instinctive, bodily) and feel a certain way (mental, subjective). When a friend of mine stubs his toe, he also acts a certain way and feels a certain way, and while the actions may be the same or similar, his subjective experience is entirely foreign. I can't stress this enough. Not "similar." Not "probably close enough that makes no difference." Entirely foreign. We've only had access to a single mind, after all, and no amount of empirical speculation is going to change this.

'

First of all, it is clear you have very little idea of what the term "empirical" even means, and your grasp of general philosophy is laughably absurd. But that's besides the point, let's really get at what you are claiming, here.

You are saying that other human minds are so alien that your every attempt to understand them is at high risk of failing, despite the fact that a remarkably sophisticated neural system geared towards empathy and communication with others has and can be empirically demonstrated. You throw that out the window for reasons that don't make any sense whatsoever (dismissing science as "speculation" ... ha). But let's assume you are correct, here. We cannot understand any other minds but our own, even other humans, so we cannot understand animal minds, either. What is the logical conclusion of this stance? You said, earlier in this thread:

Any resources spent protecting animal well-being could be used towards human well-being. This is what I mean with my "people taking precedence" statement.

You argue that the concept of animal rights is rendered irrelevant by our inability to fully understand their subjective experience. However, by the same token, it is impossible for us to understand the subjective experience of humans. All other minds are too infinitely complex or different from our own to understand, we can only make our best guesses. By YOUR logic, it is then incredible immoral to perpetuate a system whereby the well-being of one form of life (animals) is sacrificed for the good of another (humans). Why should one take precedence, when it is impossible for the individual to qualify the experiences of either? If everything is an unknown quantity, and we can't possibly qualify them, than we must by necessity treat them equally. Otherwise, by what metric are you giving precedence to human well-being? Either you are arbitrarily assigning moral value to humans in a system where they have none, or you are claiming that since you are human, you have a vested self-interest in human well-being.

If the former, then, well, this argument is over because you have none, you are just making it up as you go along. If the latter, then you are inherently contradicting your entire premise. Why should you have a selfish interest in human well-being? Because you exist in a society of humans, and the better functioning of that society beneficially effects you. But, then, why do you exist in a society at all? Why interact with other people, if you can't even be sure their subjective experience exists, much less matches up with your own? By your logic, all societal interactions will be infinitely complex, because you are constantly dealing with completely unknown variables. In that case, how can you be sure that "people taking precedence," or the sacrifice of animal well-fare, can be beneficial for society? You can't make any material arguments, as interaction with material goods is grounded in the subjective experience of the individual, to which you have no access.

You see where this is going? Do I need to continue? Your premises don't line up with your conclusion.

(P.S. Neuroscience has long since either refuted or lay insurmountable obstacles for standard Cartesian dualism, despite your bizarre claim that empiricism is speculative. The fact that brain damage causes predictable patterns of physiological or behavioral change; the fact that certain neurological states always correlate with certain actions, thoughts, behaviors, interactions, etc; the ability to directly neurostimulate; the very fact that we can use fMRIs, EEGs, and other brain-scans to make reliable predictions/analyses; and the fact that human brain anatomy and activation patterns can be easily related to those of many animal species.)

[cadbrowser]

My concern with packing chickens (or any animal) in tighter and tighter is the highly volitile potential for disease transmission. That, in and of itself would cause quite a loss in profits if a whole "farm" was infected and had to be burned.

I do like the idea of a meat plant. (Thank you Lagmonster!).

The other idea that I've ran across is this: In-Vitro Meat

[Legault]

So you're arguing a position you don't entirely agree with for the purpose of serious discussion?
devils advocate or trolling?

Devil's advocacy in good spirits. You'll just have to trust me on this one.

But we're talking about a real life situation. Brainless chickens. Really simple low level stimuli and response stuff. So whether the Cartesian bubble position is correct or not is entirely irrelevant, as in real life situations nobody succumbs to it. You are free to test this by applying a soldering iron to a child or dog and seeing the response of other people.

Speaking of dogs, I feel like we're running in circles. Again, the fact that another person reacts in a certain way that we can empathize with (external) says nothing about their subjective experience (internal). This is Descartes' position, so if you want to call me a troll, then you'll also be roping Cartesians with me.

Now, here's something you could say: that for the purposes of practical, political discussion, external experience is all we have access to in dealing with other living things, be they men or chickens; and while the Cartesian bubble is a very real problem, it's something we must shelve in the name of practical progress. This is something I'd be more than happy to accept, but then it takes the discussion from the argument of subjectivity to the argument of "Why give a damn about chickens?" Which the next poster responds to, so this is a nice segway!

---

First of all, it is clear you have very little idea of what the term "empirical" even means, and your grasp of general philosophy is laughably absurd. But that's besides the point, let's really get at what you are claiming, here.

Again with the inflammatory remarks? If that's the game you want to play...

You are saying that other human minds are so alien that your every attempt to understand them is at high risk of failing, despite the fact that a remarkably sophisticated neural system geared towards empathy and communication with others has and can be empirically demonstrated.

Not to be rude, but this reflects some rather poor reading comprehension skills. I already specifically addressed resorting to probability arguments as irrelevant, and made a simple, high-school friendly distinction (just for you!) between external and internal experience. Your atrociously overwritten sentence about "neural systems geared towards empathy" deals with external experience, whereas the question hones in on internal experience.

You throw that out the window for reasons that don't make any sense whatsoever (dismissing science as "speculation" ... ha).

Where did I say this? It wouldn't even make sense. I did say, however, that science, as an empirical study, cannot pry into internal experience. I'm sorry you misinterpreted.

But let's assume you are correct, here. We cannot understand any other minds but our own, even other humans, so we cannot understand animal minds, either. What is the logical conclusion of this stance? You said, earlier in this thread:

Any resources spent protecting animal well-being could be used towards human well-being. This is what I mean with my "people taking precedence" statement.

You argue that the concept of animal rights is rendered irrelevant by our inability to fully understand their subjective experience. However, by the same token, it is impossible for us to understand the subjective experience of humans.

This would be a natural consequence of what I said, yes.

All other minds are too infinitely complex or different from our own to understand, we can only make our best guesses. By YOUR logic, it is then incredible immoral to perpetuate a system whereby the well-being of one form of life (animals) is sacrificed for the good of another (humans).

Most everything you've said so far has been correct, but what is all this talk of "moral" and "immoral"? I thought we were all atheists here. To my eyes, nothing in my argument suggests this, but I'd be delighted to see your train of thought.

Either you are arbitrarily assigning moral value to humans in a system where they have none, or you are claiming that since you are human, you have a vested self-interest in human well-being.

These things are equivalent, since that second justification is arbitrary. And yes, this is what I'm saying.

If the latter, then you are inherently contradicting your entire premise. Why should you have a selfish interest in human well-being?

Why care about chickens?

Because you exist in a society of humans, and the better functioning of that society beneficially effects you.

I'm a radical misanthrope, so this isn't quite right.

But, then, why do you exist in a society at all? Why interact with other people, if you can't even be sure their subjective experience exists, much less matches up with your own? By your logic, all societal interactions will be infinitely complex, because you are constantly dealing with completely unknown variables.

No, not "infinitely complex" (and again with that overwriting; I take it you aren't much of an English guy)- just hidden, like the face behind a mask. As for a possible justification for social interaction? Fun, manipulation towards personal gain, etc. It's all arbitrary.

In that case, how can you be sure that "people taking precedence," or the sacrifice of animal well-fare, can be beneficial for society? You can't make any material arguments, as interaction with material goods is grounded in the subjective experience of the individual, to which you have no access.

Were I taking a utilitarianist position (and I don't blame you for assuming as much), then your criticism would be well-placed. For myself, however, something being "beneficial" to society has nothing to do with maximizing some arbitrary pleasure/pain standard, and everything to do with shaping the society in the image I deem best, for reasons entirely of my own volition.

(P.S. Neuroscience has long since either refuted or lay insurmountable obstacles for standard Cartesian dualism, despite your bizarre claim that empiricism is speculative. The fact that brain damage causes predictable patterns of physiological or behavioral change; the fact that certain neurological states always correlate with certain actions, thoughts, behaviors, interactions, etc; the ability to directly neurostimulate; the very fact that we can use fMRIs, EEGs, and other brain-scans to make reliable predictions/analyses; and the fact that human brain anatomy and activation patterns can be easily related to those of many animal species.)

Every example you listed is entirely external. I'd recommend that you slow down and take the time to understand the elementary-level words that I'm using before continuing. You're getting bent out about a point I'm not even making.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I already specifically addressed resorting to probability arguments as irrelevant, and made a simple, high-school friendly distinction (just for you!) between external and internal experience. Your atrociously overwritten sentence about "neural systems geared towards empathy" deals with external experience, whereas the question hones in on internal experience.

Actually, you haven't made that distinction. Every time someone brings up evidence against your point you just smugly dismiss it by repeating you can't get inside anybody else's head, without any attempt at qualifying the statement. So, what is the difference between external and internal experience, and how does this differentiate dismiss decades of neuroscience? Because you say so?

I did say, however, that science, as an empirical study, cannot pry into internal experience.

... because you say so? What can you not apply empirical methods to internal experience? Demonstrate that this is inherently impossible, if you please.

Most everything you've said so far has been correct, but what is all this talk of "moral" and "immoral"? I thought we were all atheists here.

So you think atheism and ethics are mutually independent concepts? And you really don't understand using the concept of morality in a discussion that centers on the issue of animal rights?

Why care about chickens?

Way to completely miss the point, dipshit. YOU are the one that made the claim that people should get preferential treatment. YOU are the one that needs to qualify this statement. I have shown how the line of logic you have used in this thread does NOT demonstrate an inherent value in humans over chickens.

I'm a radical misanthrope, so this isn't quite right.

Get over yourself, buddy.

No, not "infinitely complex" (and again with that overwriting; I take it you aren't much of an English guy)- just hidden, like the face behind a mask.

If it's not infinitely complex, than why is it unknown? If it were finite and simple, then it would be possible to extrapolate based on empirical evidence. Which is exactly what empathy IS; the extrapolation of other people's mental states based on observed evidence. The ONLY way for your theory to work is if other people's minds are so complex and alien relative to our own that we CAN'T make these empirical judgments, or even educated guesses. Do you not even understand your own argument? You can't just say, "it's hidden." Of course it's hidden, we are talking about an abstract concept. But without infinite complexity, it is KNOWABLE, when your point is that it is UNKNOWABLE.

As for a possible justification for social interaction? Fun, manipulation towards personal gain, etc. It's all arbitrary.

Okay, YOU are the one that claimed people should get preferential treatment. If it's arbitrary, there's no logical reason people should get that treatment.

Every example you listed is entirely external. I'd recommend that you slow down and take the time to understand the elementary-level words that I'm using before continuing. You're getting bent out about a point I'm not even making.

There are rules on these forums about addressing other people's arguments. You can't just waive my post away with vague talk of "external" and "internal." What's the difference between the two concepts? Why is one inherently separate from the other (and stop with this 'elementary-level' bullshit ... you aren't even using the correct philosophical definitions of "internal" and "external" here, you are using some rubric of your own which you refuse to elaborate)? So far all you have done is use pseudo-philosophical vagaries to wave away other people's arguments. Here's a hint, kid, LOGIC is the foundation of philosophy. You move from premises to conclusion, in that order. Try it sometime.

[Legault]

Actually, you haven't made that distinction. Every time someone brings up evidence against your point you just smugly dismiss it by repeating you can't get inside anybody else's head, without any attempt at qualifying the statement.

Let's try not to dive into name-calling. If I'm being smug, then you're being rude and defensive.

So, what is the difference between external and internal experience, and how does this differentiate dismiss decades of neuroscience? Because you say so?

I'm not usually asked to explain this distinction because it's so obvious, but I'll give it a shot. The difference between "external experience" and "internal experience" can be thought of in this way: external experience is our perception of another person, while internal experience is our own perception of ourselves. When someone else gets burned, I can see their reaction to the burning, but I can't experience their feeling; when I get burned, however, this is not the case.

Are you implying that there's no such thing as subjective experience? Because that's a tremendous claim, and the burden of proof would lie squarely on your position.

... because you say so? What can you not apply empirical methods to internal experience? Demonstrate that this is inherently impossible, if you please.

I've done so, but I'll do it again. It's a contradiction in terms: science is external, while subjectivity is internal. If you'd like to refute this position, instead of getting spun up into a temper tantrum, you'd do better to argue that science can be internal, somehow. Defend that and you'll have a convincing angle.

So you think atheism and ethics are mutually independent concepts? And you really don't understand using the concept of morality in a discussion that centers on the issue of animal rights?

You can't tell when someone's being facetious?

Way to completely miss the point, dipshit. YOU are the one that made the claim that people should get preferential treatment. YOU are the one that needs to qualify this statement. I have shown how the line of logic you have used in this thread does NOT demonstrate an inherent value in humans over chickens.

Let me see if I understand you correctly: the (arbitrary) value judgment that people should take precedence over chickens requires backing up, but the (arbitrary) value judgment that people shouldn't take precedence over chickens doesn't? How is that rational, exactly?

If it's not infinitely complex, than why is it unknown? If it were finite and simple, then it would be possible to extrapolate based on empirical evidence.

Do you not understand what words mean? "Hidden" doesn't mean "infinitely complex"; it could just mean, you know, hidden.

Which is exactly what empathy IS; the extrapolation of other people's mental states based on observed evidence.

Except that evidence requires a pattern, and we only have access to a single subjective state of mind: our own. We can perceive external reactions to internal stimuli, but can't magically jump the divide from perceptible reaction to subjective feeling.

The ONLY way for your theory

Alright, let's back up a second. "My" theory? This is one of the major positions in the mind-body problem. Don't act like this is the some anomaly.

to work is if other people's minds are so complex and alien relative to our own that we CAN'T make these empirical judgments, or even educated guesses. Do you not even understand your own argument?

Do you not understand the English language? To say that other minds are "alien" or "complex" is to claim some knowledge about them, which would contradictory to the position that other subjective experiences are hidden. Which they are.

You can't just say, "it's hidden." Of course it's hidden, we are talking about an abstract concept. But without infinite complexity, it is KNOWABLE, when your point is that it is UNKNOWABLE.

Please, please tell me how, through science or otherwise, one subjective agent can "get inside" the subjectivity of another.

Okay, YOU are the one that claimed people should get preferential treatment. If it's arbitrary, there's no logical reason people should get that treatment.

As I mentioned above, my value judgment isn't any more or less arbitrary than your value judgment. Unless you'd like to clarify.

There are rules on these forums about addressing other people's arguments. You can't just waive my post away with vague talk of "external" and "internal." What's the difference between the two concepts?

I've explained them about a half-dozen times now, as well as in this post. The rules of the forum don't cover mental sluggishness, unfortunately for you. But I'm patient; we'll just keep trying until you see the light of basic definitions.

Why is one inherently separate from the other (and stop with this 'elementary-level' bullshit ... you aren't even using the correct philosophical definitions of "internal" and "external" here, you are using some rubric of your own which you refuse to elaborate)?

Again, this is a common philosophical problem, and I'm using the syntax of all major mind-body theorists. You'd be the one employing incorrect definitions for those terms, and the name-calling doesn't do much as a smokescreen.

So far all you have done is use pseudo-philosophical vagaries

Tsk, such awful and pretentious writing.

to wave away other people's arguments. Here's a hint, kid, LOGIC is the foundation of philosophy. You move from premises to conclusion, in that order. Try it sometime.

Rather naive, and you might want to take your own advice. But for starters, logic depends upon terms, and terms require that people understand basic definitions. If you can't even grasp the distinction between external perception and subjective experience, then you might not be cut out for this kind of talk. No shame in bowing out before you embarrass yourself further.

[Simon_Jester]

Legault, one question:

At what point do biological data trump philosophical speculation? How much must I know about the biological mechanisms of an organism before philosophical arguments about what it really is become moot?

[Legault]

Legault, one question:

At what point do biological data trump philosophical speculation? How much must I know about the biological mechanisms of an organism before philosophical arguments about what it really is become moot?

What is this about "trumping" now? I'm not trying to champion philosophy against science or anything; that would be like me trying to trump mathematics over science. Both are legitimate fields of study with points of overlap. In the case of subjective experience, philosophy and science overlap; this is also true in the case of the fundamentals (metaphysics) of science.

To answer your question, then, biological data will "trump" the speculation we've been discussing once it can bridge the gap into subjectivity. I've argued that this very idea is a definitional confusion, but unlike certain other posters, I'm not at all opposed to hearing someone challenge this.

Oh, and it's worth remembering that science used to be called "natural philosophy." These are compatible disciplines.

[cadbrowser]

Placing philosophy as an overlaping field of science makes about as much sense as placing a hamburger patty from McDonalds on the menu of a premium corn feed Iowan Angus Beef steak and implying it as a equal.

Please provide me with some examples where philosophy is even considered a legitimate science.

[Hillary]

Placing philosophy as an overlaping field of science makes about as much sense as placing a hamburger patty from McDonalds on the menu of a premium corn feed Iowan Angus Beef steak and implying it as a equal.

Please provide me with some examples where philosophy is even considered a legitimate science.

2 friendly points.

1) the thread is over a month old, so you are necroing without really adding to the discussion, which is against the rules here.

2) Legault can't answer you as DW banned his ass not long after his last post here.

[cadbrowser]

Oh geez...reality check. Sorry. I didn't pay attention to that.