Can we know what animals are thinking? • Hacker News Board

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#211

Post by herbst » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 3:04 PM UTC

soared wrote: post #66

pier25 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that being a vegetarian for moral reasons is quite delusional. We, humans, are inflicting much more suffering to flora and fauna by the simple fact of participating in the industrial modern lifestyle. Buying food at the supermarket, using the internet, travelling, AC, and pretty much any activity we can think of. The underlying problem is that to sustain 7+ billion people we need industrialisation which requir…

Well except that meat is a much larger factor in global warming than anything else in our diet. You can't just choose to not participate in modern industrial life, but you can easily choose to not eat meat. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/eat-less...

> You can't just choose to not participate in modern industrial life

Why not? Try to not be part of the throwaway culture, avoid falling for gimmicks and new toys and try to build a environmental Friendly lifestyle. It's not perfect but it's perfectly possible to escape the modern lifestyle to a huge degree

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#212

Post by wolco » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 3:15 PM UTC

balfirevic wrote: post #165

wolco wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your take on the morally of eating plants. Plants are living creatures some would say sentient beings. Recent research is showing they feel pain, communicate with other plants. Do they deserve the same protection?

Plants are living organisms. Before we go into any kind of debate that presupposes that plants are "creatures", "sentient" or "feel" anything, you are going to have to provide a whole lot of explaining, backed by the same amount of citations.

What would a discussion he without citations. Quote from below "plants are just very slow animals"

"plants can see hear and respond" http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109-plants-can-see-hear-...

Provided this is true don't they deserve more protection over animals because they can't defend as well as animals

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#213

Post by ahartman00 » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 3:35 PM UTC

cryodesign wrote: post #195

pier25 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BTW the problem is not really meat production (as far as emissions go) but beef production. http://imgur.com/a/Rwm5R > But why can't we act on multiple fronts? Yes, as long as we don't forget where the big problem really lies and we also act there. I've met quite a number of vegetarians that believe that not eating meat is the solution to all problems. Of course they fly to Thailand for their yoga retreat, buy food a…

If you multiply that glass of water times a million - it will have an impact. Every Little Helps so they say here. Also, what is the point of having a moral high ground? It doesn't accomplish anything. Even if some people's motivation for not eating meat is to feel morally superior, it shouldn't be a deciding factor for others to not eat meat. For me personally it's about values[1]. I remember watching Star Trek as a…

You guys have both made some good points here. However imo, you are kind of arguing past each other. (I hope you are not offended by my critique)

I think pier25's point is we should spend our time advocating for the most important issues. See the forest, dont focus on one tree. It is true that beef has a large impact, but maybe time would be better spent advocating renewable energy subsidies and or carbon taxes? You can only complain so much before people get sick of you right? :P However I think their point was weakened by the anecdotes about vegetarians who do other unsustainable things and calling them delusional.

I think cryodesign's point is that every little bit counts. The forest is made up of trees after all. And it easier to avoid meat than it is to invent renewable power that can provide base load.(well I love meat, but I have been reducing my beef consumption) I think they focused too much on how it feels. You can humanely kill an animal imo. As someone who grew up on a farm, I found the quote about killing them with a pipe unbelievable.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#214

Post by CuriouslyC » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 4:54 PM UTC

red75prime wrote: post #204

CuriouslyC wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know an individual molecule doesn't have consciousness?

There's no observable effects to distinguish conscious and unconscious molecule. Having a definition that can't be used for experimental validation is not useful.

There's no observable evidence for an internal experience in humans either. Each person just extrapolates that belief from their own consciousness. That is what got us into the silly position that animals don't possess consciousness in the first place.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#215

Post by cryodesign » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 5:06 PM UTC

ahartman00 wrote: post #213

cryodesign wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you multiply that glass of water times a million - it will have an impact. Every Little Helps so they say here. Also, what is the point of having a moral high ground? It doesn't accomplish anything. Even if some people's motivation for not eating meat is to feel morally superior, it shouldn't be a deciding factor for others to not eat meat. For me personally it's about values[1]. I remember watching Star Trek as a…

You guys have both made some good points here. However imo, you are kind of arguing past each other. (I hope you are not offended by my critique) I think pier25's point is we should spend our time advocating for the most important issues. See the forest, dont focus on one tree. It is true that beef has a large impact, but maybe time would be better spent advocating renewable energy subsidies and or carbon taxes? You…

Hey, thanks for chiming in, not offended at all, these discussions are good.

In terms of what happens on animal farms and slaughter houses, you should check out the 'Earthlings' documentary I posted. Most meat that is consumed comes from factory farms. Those places are hell holes.

In terms of humanely killing, I think it's an oxymoron, the same way that 'humane oppression' is an oxymoron. Animals don't want to be killed. Humans don't need meat anymore to survive, so why are we continuing to oppress and exploit these beings? Could you kill and slaughter an animal? If not, why demand that others do it for you?

I see more and more people waking up to this fact and researching this and finding out that everything they believed was misguided, e.g. needing meat to be strong etc. One of the strongest person (Patrick Baboumian) on the planet is vegan, and more athletes are also becoming vegan.

If we create more demand for plant based foods, we will see more options in stores. Here in Europe, even Aldi and Lidl have vegan products now.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#216

Post by red75prime » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 5:44 PM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #214

red75prime wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no observable effects to distinguish conscious and unconscious molecule. Having a definition that can't be used for experimental validation is not useful.

There's no observable evidence for an internal experience in humans either. Each person just extrapolates that belief from their own consciousness. That is what got us into the silly position that animals don't possess consciousness in the first place.

We can talk for hours about consciousness in the sense "what it is like to be bacterium", and it will lead us nowhere, or, better to say, it will lead us all over the place. Ask different philosophers.

On the other hand we can agree that we can sufficiently easily distinguish conscious and unconscious human, dog or other mammal. From here we can study which parts of a brain participate in conscious activities, and maybe generalize it for species further away from us.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#217

Post by mannykannot » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 6:46 PM UTC

_dps wrote: post #42

danielam wrote: post #39

While the particularities may be interesting, much of what's said isn't surprising (though for Cartesians, it may be, and the author does throw Descartes' name around a few times). There is a great deal of confusion about this subject and a number of philosophical errors in the comments (w.r.t. language, religion, qualia, zombies, etc). For those who do want some perspective, I recommend starting with Feser's introdu…

> ... a number of philosophical errors in the comments (w.r.t. language, religion, qualia, zombies, etc). I feel like this is, intentionally or not, aimed at least 80% at my comments :) Would you mind giving me some quick pointers on what the "errors" are? I can assure you that, though I may well be wrong, I have read several books on philosophy of mind and many more on cognitive science research. Despite that I'm st…

You are not likely to get an answer. This is a style of comment that is quite common in discussions where there are philosophical issues. The defining features are an assertion that someone is wrong, followed by a long list of general references, with the unstated implication that the alleged error will be corrected somewhere within them. The authors of such comments are careful not to take a position that can be debated, and in this case, the comment's author has been especially careful in avoiding giving clues that might indicate specifically what he objects to.

This style is also seen in discussions where religion is raised, where it is used to avoid questions like why an omnipotent and benevolent creator thought smallpox was a good idea.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#218

Post by srean » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 6:57 PM UTC

roceasta wrote: post #95

>Chaser, a border collie, knows over 1,000 words. She can pull a named toy from a pile of other toys. This shows that she understands that an acoustical pattern stands for a physical object. I don't think it quite shows this. Collies and human toddlers use words (and are used by words) without understanding what they're doing or what the meaning of language is. The understanding comes later, growing over time as we a…

The lines that follow makes a stronger case

--

Remarkably, if told to fetch a toy with a name she has not heard before placed in a pile of known, named objects, she works out what is being asked for. Betsy, another border collie, will bring back a photograph of something, suggesting she understands that a two-dimensional image can represent a three-dimensional object.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#219

Post by mannykannot » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 7:29 PM UTC

Whenever this topic arises, a subset of comments are devoted to differing definitions of 'consciousness'. Here, you can find definitions as diverse as 'only entities capable of language are conscious' and 'any entity that reacts to its environment is conscious'.

This is not very helpful - note that neither of the above definitions tell us anything useful about consciousness; if anything, they are ways to avoid discussing the issues that we don't have answers to.

I think it is more helpful to put aside the definition of consciousness, and begin by regarding 'awareness' as a continuum, though one that displays some significant qualitative differences across its breadth, such as:

Entities that have hard-wired responses to their environment.

Entities that can learn responses.

Entities that have some sort of internal model of their environment.

Entities whose models include themselves.

Entities that are aware of their own models, at least to some degree.

Entities that believe others have the same capability (i.e. having a theory of mind).

Entities that can communicate their models to similarly-capable others.

A continuum is probably simplistic (though still useful), given that recent experiments seem to be showing species capable of a mix of the above responses, depending on circumstances.

The idea of a continuum seems consistent with evolution: To me, it seems unlikely that, for example, language popped into existence, fully-formed, in one species, but there is a gap in the record: there does not seem to be a living species demonstrating the transition to the level of awareness that distinguishes humans from chimpanzees.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#220

Post by soared » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 7:40 PM UTC

herbst wrote: post #211

soared wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well except that meat is a much larger factor in global warming than anything else in our diet. You can't just choose to not participate in modern industrial life, but you can easily choose to not eat meat. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/eat-less...

> You can't just choose to not participate in modern industrial life Why not? Try to not be part of the throwaway culture, avoid falling for gimmicks and new toys and try to build a environmental Friendly lifestyle. It's not perfect but it's perfectly possible to escape the modern lifestyle to a huge degree

OP was talking about internet, cars, travelling, AC, refrigerators, etc. not about consumerism. You can definitely not participate in consumerism, but you'd still be using much more electricity than anyone 50 years ago.