"Ok, please define consciousness and then prove that you are conscious.
The burden of proof for extra-ordinary claims lies on you, but neither can i disprove something which is so vaguely defined. However i'll give you a clue, my answer will include the word illusion."

How is consciousness an extraordinary claim? Is there a scientific consensus against consciousness that I'm not aware of? I don't think you'd find many neurologists or cognitive psychologists who agree with your claim. I'm certain you're the one making the extraordinary claim in this case.

Anyway, you are conscious to the extent to which *you are aware* of your own feelings, memories, perceptions, and fantasies/dreams.

Is this an illusion? Then what accounts for this 'perception' of self-awareness?

"Killing this form of life is wrong, because this form of life is worth preserving in and of itself. Harming this form of life is wrong, because, being conscious, he will know you are harming him, and it will cause him pain and discomfort, which he will dislike."

This is not an argument. For one, most animals *know* that you are harming them. That's why they will fight back or run away if attacked. They experience pain and discomfort. All of this nullifies your distinction about "conscious" animals. I fail to see why being able to reflect on your own existence matters. It's a completely arbitrary value that you just invented.

"So if you meet a chicken in the forest, and you have already seen a billion chickens in this forest and you are confident no one has any emotion attachment to the chicken"

You think chickens don't have families? That animals don't have emotional attachments? Have you ever owned a pet or even observed animals at a zoo? To use your own words - this argument is dumb.

"Because the chicken does not think and does not know what is happening to it."

The chicken feels pain and knows it is being harmed. You have no evidence whatsoever that the chicken does not "think".

"Do you see now the distinction between human (and otherwise) lives and animal lives?"

No, your distinction is nonsensical.

"someone will be upset that their baby or even a baby was killed, usually providing reason enough not to do it"

Try threatening a baby grizzly bear and see what the mother does in response. I dare you.

") there is probably some other way to avoid killing the baby. thus if you do it you will know this and therefore you are the type of person that would needlessly kill, making your act immoral "

In virtually all cases killing or hurting animals is *unnecessary* and could be avoided. So both of your criteria fail in the case of animals. Incidentally neither of these have anything to do with the victim's purported self-awareness.

Yes I agree that for other reason killing animals is usually not good.

However no, non-conscious animals do not "know" they are being killed/attacked in the sense I mean.

Without the ability of self-reflection an animal is not going to know what it means to be dying or to be under attack. imagine if you your whole life had only a subconscious and all your actions were taken on automatic and subconscious functions. you would not think, you would not know, and you would not "live"

you are using different definitions. the core of what i am saying however is that all things like emotion, pain, knowledge, life etc are irrelevant if there is no consciousness to reflect on these things. without a consciousness these things lose meaning.

they are only meaningful to us because precisely of our consciousness. we empathize with an animal in pain because, since we are conscious, we can imagine what it is like, and what it means for their life. the animal does none of this. the animal merely responds subconsciously, which is meaningless.

how can you not see that it is consciousness which is the supreme deciding factor in the worth of a life? it is consciousness that bestows meaning on life, without consciousness living matter is just highly complicated dirt.

I get a bit confused if we're discussing what we would decide or what we think should be legislated for everyone else in our society. I'm generally on the side if individual rights.

My opinion, unless someone provides me some information to change it, is that if a lucid (non-drugged) well informed patient want's to die it's up to them. This is about a person making a decision for themselves. I would say they should consider their responsibilities and relationships, but that's me. I'd never legislate that.

As for the Animal discussion - Everyone draws an arbitrary line somewhere in the tree of life (I guess Cannibals don't) as to what they eat and what they don't eat, but in this discussion we're talking about people making a decision for themselves... not someone making a decision to kill someone else.

"How is consciousness an extraordinary claim?"

in fairness i don't know exactly what you mean by the claim. I need a clear definition, my main point will be that if we have provable consciousness then animals also have provable consciousness.

But it depends on how you define it. If you define it in a manner such that it is not provable and based on some assumptions (perhaps about the human soul, which is often implicit in our cultural assumptions) then i don't need to prove such a thing exists and am happy to assume we're still on equal footing with animals.

Hence eating animal meat when it follow my doctrine of maximizing quality of life over quantity, is acceptable. But so is Assisted Suicide, and perhaps even Euthanasia, though in the case where humans no longer have agency/consciousness are they able to suffer anymore?

" I need a clear definition, my main point will be that if we have provable consciousness then animals also have provable consciousness.

But it depends on how you define it."

I defined it as the self-awareness of feelings, sensations, memories, fantasies, and perceptions.

I agree with you that animals are conscious. It's quite obvious to me, for example, that dogs dream. I've been around dogs that have night terrors. My definition has nothing to do with souls. I'm a materialist.

In my view, the claim that human life is *more valuable* than other animal life is rooted in the same thing that makes killing civilians/soldiers in other countries *less evil* than murdering someone in your own country. The evolutionary need to preserve your own tribe expands to include your own species above other tribes/species. I think gradually this sympathy instinct has will expand and become internalized to include all animals, again due to evolution. It has nothing to with consciousness, intelligence, or whatever else.

@Thucy.

What on earth is "meaning" in life and why is it important? I feel like we're going to continue to talk past each other if we bring up vague, hard to define words without definitions.

What do you mean when you say an animal does not know what it means to be dying? Do humans even know what it means to be dying? What exactly do they have to know for their life to matter?

"how can you not see that it is consciousness which is the supreme deciding factor in the worth of a life?"

Because I fail to see why the ability to self-reflect in a complicated way creates value to something. It's completely arbitrary to me. Furthermore, I think you're making generalizations about consciousness that haven't been verified yet. I think most if not all animals are conscious.

"the claim that human life is *more valuable* than other animal life is rooted in the same thing that makes killing civilians/soldiers in other countries *less evil* than murdering someone in your own country."

Not *less evil*, honourable, glorious, and in general considered a good thing. Again because, as you say, evolutionary need to preserve your tribe.

However i'd go on describe this claim as an attempt to control your environment, to have confidence that other tribes are not a threat and affect how they behave such that your tribe, at worst, breaks even. (neutral or positive impact)

Animals on the other hand are useful as a source of food (meat, milk, eggs), raw materials (wool, animal skins, bone for tools) and labour (especially elephants, but also dogs). The use of animals is not limited to killing them for food/glory, it is about enhancing our own survival and using what will maximize our efficiency.

Intelligence and rationality may, infact, extend our protection to the ecology which supports us. It happens to be useful to control that environment in order to sustain ourselves. That is why i think we see a trend toward environmentalism and forcing corporate entities to pay for damage to societal resources like the sea, or biodiversity.

It is my ability to self-reflect which i use to consider what i should value, it allows me define what *should* be valued, and that in itself is valuable. However, it is not the ONLY thing which *should* be valued.

"The use of animals is not limited to killing them for food/glory, it is about enhancing our own survival and using what will maximize our efficiency."

Right. But since using animals no longer aids our survival in any real way, the evolutionary need to use them will be replaced with sympathy for them. Our interaction with animals will increasingly be as pets, companions and even family members, not as beasts of burden, furs, skins, and hides.

Our own productivity in agriculture will cause us to evolve beyond our anthropocentric view of what lives are valued.

I think people on this site disagree just to disagree, whether they know so or not.

If you really think a fly or a squirrel or even a deer is worth as much as a or a woman or man then that's your own problem.

Animal rights is not going to catch on. Why? Because they are not conscious. Like I said... animals aren't more than complicated dirt. It would be like protecting the right of complex crystals to exist. Give me a break. It is self-reflection and only self-reflection that is the measure of worth and rights.

Whether you disagree with me or not you must at least admit that you are in the minority if you disagree. Why do you think in science fiction it is so important to find "intelligent" life? Because that's life worth preserving for its own sake.

And if you think we will ever be anything more than anthropocentric (unless we meet aliens perhaps) then you have another thing coming. Most people live and work for the betterment of the human race. So those human extinction advocates? Yeah they are in a bit of a minority. Just a little bit. Shouldn't have kept posting I'll get out of here. Arguing about ethics is null.

"I think people on this site disagree just to disagree, whether they know so or not. "

You're pretending your claim that whales, bears, elephants, etc are "complicated dirt" is the mainstream opinion. It isn't. Very few people hold your kind of contemptuous attitude towards other forms of life. A growing number of people invest their time, money and even risk their lives to defend the lives of species not their own. It is catching on. Pillaging the planet and its inhabitants is not considered a sacred right of so-called "special" humans anymore. The consequence of your attitude is that we're living in a mass extinction event. More species of life will become extinct in then extinct in the next 50 or so years than in the past tens of millions of years.

"Whether you disagree with me or not you must at least admit that you are in the minority if you disagree"

Uh no, even the most rabid conservative typically doesn't share your views on animals. You're on the one who is on the fringe here. You can continue to pretend that I'm playing devil's advocate on this issue, but I'm not the one who had to explain why killing infants is not bad, but shouldn't be done anyway.

"Why do you think in science fiction it is so important to find "intelligent" life? Because that's life worth preserving for its own sake."

You're relying on science fiction to make your point? Science fiction has typically had themes of respecting the life of species that aren't your own. Ever read anything by Ursula Le Guin? Heck I'm not a Star Trek fan but I'm pretty sure that was a major theme.

"And if you think we will ever be anything more than anthropocentric (unless we meet aliens perhaps) then you have another thing coming. Most people live and work for the betterment of the human race."

Sure, and most people think we should be concerned about the well being of animals and other life on this planet. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

"So those human extinction advocates?"

Yes, because concern for animals = advocating human extinction. You're ridiculous.

exactly what the fuck does this have to do with liberal conservative? what the hell is wrong with people? can you not hold an opinion that strays from your left-right paradigm?

also i was referencing someone earlier who mentioned some people who sterilize themselves so as to hasten humanity's extinction... it's apparently real.

and i do not at all have contempt for animals or the environment - and i resent the insinuation that i do. being anthropocentric, unless you are shortsighted or stupid, means caring about wonderful things like biodiversity, environmental degradation, sustainability, and habitat preservation.

the people you are referring to are so ignorant as to be near-suicidal. please don't lump with that kind of thinking. yes they are anthropocentric, but they are also idiots. in fact no, most of them are not even anthropocentric - they're nationalists.

didn't someone on this forum attempt to posit that there is no such thing as "society" and that the idea that all humans have equal worth is a bunk idea doomed to die?

maybe you should polemicize them putin.

this is so so so so stupid. re read your post. it drips with contempt. what is wrong with you? i love debate and discussion but i do not love when the tone devolves like this.

i tend to respect you but sometimes you can really be an ass. like i said, arguing ethics is bunk.

what do you want me to do? say "oh yeah youre right sorry"

the whole game of ethics is the drawing of arbitrary lines. i've drawn mine and you yours. i dont know what else there is to say.

also i'm a little bit sick of everyone's tendency to deliberately (or perhaps via ignorance) misread the real points of what people are saying.

this is really not the way to have a discussion. it went well for a few pages but.. wow.

Thu says:
''this is really not the way to have a discussion. it went well for a few pages but.. wow. ''

Yes I was quite enjoying it too, but some people tend to add a tone of dogmatism coupled with aggression which ultimately destroys any possibility of a reasonable discourse. Maybe it is best to ignore them?

Thucy,

I don't get why you're snapping at me here. I don't think I said anything wildly out of line with what your own tone had been throughout this debate. You also raised arguments for the opposing POV that weren't even made. I don't understand your fury at all.

You were trying to claim my view was in the minority. All I said was that no, I believe your view is on the fringe. Conservatives tend to prioritize the environment and animal rights less than liberals, and have dominionist attitude towards the earth based on religion. I said your view was more anthropocentric and dominionist than the typical conservative. For whatever reason some people go ballistic whenever a label is used.

Anyway, if this conversation stresses you out so much, then consider this my last post on the matter.

"Yes I was quite enjoying it too, but some people tend to add a tone of dogmatism coupled with aggression which ultimately destroys any possibility of a reasonable discourse. Maybe it is best to ignore them?"

Yeah, when I think non-dogmatic, non-aggressive commentators, my first thought comes to Fulham and his non-dogmatic non-aggressive commentary about Darwinism...If only his example was followed.

Sympathy instinct has nothing to do with evolution and never will, unless you confuse Darwinism with Lamarckism or Memetics. It stems from the possibilities offered by living in an affluent society, which allows us the luxury of being benevolent to other species. If our society reaches a point where we treat every part of nature as equal to us, you can conduct a simple experiment. Strip some humans of their worldly possessions and isolate them in a remote place. They will start to feast upon the resources nature has to offer, equality be forgotten. This is what makes human a part of a living nature after all. I cannot envision that a biological process like evolution could be so affected by culturally determined behaviour that it would end in a supranatural state where humans value the lives of animals the same as lives of their own.

If they chose to die of hunger, those Robinsons would transcend the attributes that makes human a living being. I would add that they would be behaving like idiots in my book, just like people who, in the broadest sense possible, encapsulating e.g. altruistic suicide as a mean of reproduction, decide not to reproduce, commit suicide or act in other ways, which are at odds with life. It's ultimately their choice to be idiots and I'm not taking it from them.

Meanwhile, I'll be rooting for seals because they're cute, hope my pig was slaughtered painlessly so that my pork tastes better and take care of my dogs so that they'll be simply around. I'll also protect the trees that remain in the streets of my city, oppose unnecessary deforestation, pollution of water supply and emission of toxic pollutants. It is a rather conservative approach to environmental protection but I'm certainly not alone in practising it. In fact, I would dare to say that there's little space remaining on this bank of the opinion rift on this issue.

"If you really think a fly or a squirrel or even a deer is worth as much as a or a woman or man then that's your own problem."

who said anything about worth? I think i suggested as little worth, not as much.

"It is self-reflection and only self-reflection that is the measure of worth and rights."

Why? Also if you can prove you[/all humans] are capable of self-reflection and that no animals are capable then i'll be rather impressed. I believe you may find that there are shades of grey, and there is no single distinction which clearly distinguishes human from animal. Chimps have recently been shown to perform better in certain short-term/working memory tests...

"Whether you disagree with me or not you must at least admit that you are in the minority if you disagree." - being in the minority neither makes us wrong nor does it mean it is inevitable that we will always be in the minority.

That said, the human extinction movement are definitely in the minority. Though i would definitely suggest that we consider not passing on our own genes and raising or helping to raise other deprived children, and having them inherit, as another way of redistributing wealth.

I suggest everyone here consider this. Even if you have one or two children of your own (replacement rates) Supporting other human children can increase genetic diversity and fairness.

I don't pretend to think the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement has much change of success. However voluntary population reduction measures will help improve the quality of life of our children! (never mind the animals)

"some people who sterilize themselves so as to hasten humanity's extinction" - not to hasten, to soften, to make it easier and go softly into the night, to avoid bringing everything with us, like the mass extinction event we're at the heart of right now.

And yes, just like dirt, similar molecules. Though we've got these cool molecular machines? Have you seen them? that's some cool molecular biology stuff that everyone should introducted to...

"Sympathy instinct has nothing to do with evolution and never will, unless you confuse Darwinism with Lamarckism or Memetics."

i think you're wrong here. Sympathy is an in-built evolved trait which many different animals have exhibited. The memetics or lamarkism may be the case when it comes to that trait being leveraged to 'feel' for other animals and the environment, but i do think it is an evolved trait which has probably evolved countless times in different gene pools.

" If our society reaches a point where we treat every part of nature as equal to us" - why should the doctrine of equality come into this? Humans are not all equal, and they are not all treated equally, they idea of equality, in practice as it exists today, is the we *should* have the same minimum opportunities.

IF even their it fails to live up to the ideal why do you think we can't treat the environment with respect and the actual place it deserves rather than some misplaced idea of equality.

i mean we use it on animals, so it's sort of hypocritical not to let people use it.... but I'm rly torn on the issue, I don't know if it's morally right or not.

This debate is more philosophy than science (which is fine of course!). When I read the posts I keep wanted to ask - ''show me the gene(s), find me the mutations/series of mutations responsible, quantify and compare those mutations with other mutations to compare fitness rates etc. Why the heck is it that this subject always seems to take wings and depart from all the conventional constraints of scientific methodology?

"i think you're wrong here. Sympathy is an in-built evolved trait which many different animals have exhibited. The memetics or lamarkism may be the case when it comes to that trait being leveraged to 'feel' for other animals and the environment, but i do think it is an evolved trait which has probably evolved countless times in different gene pools."

It's clear that I'm talking about sympathy instinct the way Putin talked about it - an inherent sympathy for other species than your own. Incidentally, you agree with me that sympathy for other species is memetics so I probably didn't stress it well enough.

"why should the doctrine of equality come into this? Humans are not all equal, and they are not all treated equally, they idea of equality, in practice as it exists today, is the we *should* have the same minimum opportunities. IF even their it fails to live up to the ideal why do you think we can't treat the environment with respect and the actual place it deserves rather than some misplaced idea of equality."

When you treat someone as your equal, you treat them with respect and everything that comes with it, that's a common English idiom. Equal doesn't mean identical.

There is no actual place nature deserves, just as there is no actual place humans deserve, that is only a projection of your morality. The rules of the game are always set and enforced by the most powerful, nevermind if it's a referee in an actual game, or US on the international stage few years ago. So instead of ultimative proclamations of what nature deserves, try to change the minds of people so that they become more benevolent to other forms of life. The humble path pays off.

"However voluntary population reduction measures will help improve the quality of life of our children!"

This is pure speculation that presupposes a state of the world that isn't anywhere near in the future, a state where resources are so scarce that they can't satisfy needs of our current population of mankind. Meanwhile, lower population means less possibilities for division of labour thus less effective utilization of factors of production and therefore overall less time for actual self-realization as compared to winning one's bread.

@fulhamish, piffle! the same gene could have a very different impact in a different species. Whether it is active will be dependent on some epigenetic factors, the type of tissue it is in and even then the effect it will have (in say a brain) will depend on the other proteins and structure in that brain.

In short, it is far more complex than identifying a single gene. On the plus side we've found a gene which is directly linked to a personality trait! Plus doing an in work on members of the public looking at that gene, hoping we get a good idea of the different alleles in the population. (and we're making the members of the public pay for the privilege, to cover costs of course...) might i suggest we all get home dna extraction kits and contribute a little sample to whatever research happens to be going on in our nearest university?

"It's clear that I'm talking about sympathy instinct the way Putin talked about it - an inherent sympathy for other species than your own. Incidentally, you agree with me that sympathy for other species is memetics so I probably didn't stress it well enough.

if i misunderstood there was a failure of communication, given this medium i don't think it was clear that you were responding to putin's point. But then again i didn't take the time to be sure.

I should've quoted this:

"The evolutionary need to preserve your own tribe expands to include your own species above other tribes/species. I think gradually this sympathy instinct has will expand and become internalized to include all animals, again due to evolution."

"Meanwhile, lower population means less possibilities for division of labour thus less effective utilization of factors of production"

perhaps i should have been clearer, lower population growth. That is SOME people not having children and adopting instead. Your point about labour division would be a valid point except if you are taking into consideration the global unemployment rate.

The best educated, most skilled people tend to get the jobs (whether by inheritance/nepotism or merit, the well off tend to be better educated and thus end up better qualified for jobs)

In any case, there are limited resource today. We need renewable sources of various rare metals (and i'll place money on the fact that we will be mining them from our landfills in our children's lifetimes) Never mind the limited bio-resources we're currently using in an unsustainable manner.

I still think on balance more mouths to feed has a negative impact on quality of life. No matter how you divide up the labour. Bringing the global population to a steady but barely sustainable 5 billion wouldn't hurt any.

"that's a common English idiom. Equal doesn't mean identical."

Equal –adjective
2. like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.: two students of equal brilliance.

Not even taking the mathematical definition, i'm not sure why you think i'm under some misapprehension. Equality is an aspirational phrase, hoping to use the word to bring better treatment of people, when in fact practically it does not mean equality.

Different people are not treated as if the had the same ability or rank in the workplace. Otherwise we'd all earn the same wage...

but aside from this rather pointless semantic point, nobody is suggesting we treat 'nature' as our equals. I was, if anything, suggesting that we treat human life with the same respect which we give our pets (thus in favour of euthanasia/assisted suicide) In fact if you believe in free-will (and i don't) then how can you claim someone who is depressed and suicidal doesn't deserve to die?

@ orathiac ''In short, it is far more complex than identifying a single gene. On the plus side we've found a gene which is directly linked to a personality trait!''

1) You will must have misread my post. I employed the term gene(s), do you see it now?
More signigicantly you missed, as is almost always invariably missed, my point about competing adaptations.

2) I am very interested to hear what the personality trait is and how you calibrated it. Please do tell me that it wasn't IQ!

3) ''might i suggest we all get home dna extraction kits and contribute a little sample to whatever research happens to be going on in our nearest university? ''

Does this sample need to be accompaignied by a self-assessed personality test? Just a suggestion, but maybe you should get together with one of those internet dating sites, they might help with the funding? :-)

I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever concerning themselves if they are in full mental awareness. If someone wants to kill themselves, they need to consult someone to make sure the authorities don't think this is a homicide or something. If someone wants that weird ass alien in their stomach dead after 8 months of it being in there, then I say if its safe to do so, but once its out there, then thats where you draw the line. Then they have to wait to atleast 13, mental capacity test, and make sure they are willing. Then they are good to go. Don't know why people have to throw religion into policies of America, separation from church to state? Hah, If only....

@fulhamish: 1)apologies for once again failed to pay proper attention to your point. I was off on a tangent about simplifications in science and how the common perception of genes is limited. I am also excited by the many new things which i have learned about biology recently.

2) it is risk taking not IQ, there are two studies which link a gene associated with dopamine receptors, one of which looks at 84 men and their financial risk taking. Our experiment has about 500 participants (self-selected) with self-reporting of their behaviour.

3) yeah, a self-assessed personality test is likely not the most useful measure. I meant not the we should be trying to find links to personality, merely that we could help boost the number of participants in various genetic studies and therefore help scientists gain easier access to whatever data they happen to be studying...

The personality stuff is cool, but i think the dopamine-risk taking neuro pathways are very interesting and there's a lot of work to be done in this area which isn't genetic.

"if they are in full mental awareness."

So what of those in vegetative states? Should a family member/next of kin not be granted the same authority over their body? (with financial considerations not being a factor, in my ideal world, or life assurance policies mandated to provide for whatever decision the next of kin makes - such that it is illegal to create any life assurance/insurance policy which might encourage the family either way, and i hope allow the family make what they see as the best decision?)

@ orathaic

Absolutely no need to apologise. On the subject of your dopamine study could I just advise you, before you submit this to peer review, to remember that - ''correlation does not necassarily imply causation''. Good luck with it.