Animal Rights Is sentience all that matters?

Have you ever had a problem you are thinking about, FS, and then after a while, perhaps a sleep, the answer comes to you?
Well, I think that is thinking at the subconscious level. It is a conscious part of ourselves that we are not always aware of.
Call it a nutty idea. :ignore:
 
I suppose what we are aware of is a feeling of understanding about our environment. Do you think we work out all that in our conscious awareness? The shape of the room we are in, the positioning of the furniture, the states of mind of the people around us and things like that....that is all being processed, or a lot of it, at a subconscious level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clueless Git
....But, okay, lets just talk the brain. Learning in the brain occurs when connections between neurons become stronger and others weaker, a repeated connection between some stimuli and outcome will overtime strengthen the activated network of neurons. The process is entirely biochemical, at no point does learning in the brain require awareness of the behaviors being learned.
I agree that learning involves differential stengthening of some connections between neurons as opposed to others, and that there is biochemical activity in any living brain I can think of, but I can't see that your last statement is correct. As I see it, any learning behavior involves both memory and some sort of preference for one outcome which results from this behavior as opposed to another outcome which results from that behavior. I cannot conceive of a memory of anything, or a preference for anything, without awareness of what one remembers or prefers.

I don't mean to frustrate you, but I think we have very different conceptions about the nature of brains, and we're going to wind up sort of talking past each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clueless Git
Have you ever had a problem you are thinking about, FS, and then after a while, perhaps a sleep, the answer comes to you?
No, not really, but back when I was actively studying mathematics I would have strange dreams of mathematics......I figured it was my brain training.

Do you think we work out all that in our conscious awareness? The shape of the room we are in, the positioning of the furniture, the states of mind of the people around us and things like that....that is all being processed, or a lot of it, at a subconscious level.
But but I don't find the terms "conscious" and "subconscious" to be that useful and much of what people think of as "consciousness" is, I think, a mirage of sorts.....a byproduct of the brains functioning (e.g., epiphenomena). As such, the there is no clear line between "conscious" acts and "subconscious" acts. People have much less access to their own behavior then they believe, in a sense we observe ourselves and provide explanations for our own behavior in much the same way you'd do it for someone else.
 
...but I can't see that your last statement is correct. As I see it, any learning behavior involves both memory and some sort of preference for one outcome which results from this behavior as opposed to another outcome which results from that behavior. I cannot conceive of a memory of anything, or a preference for anything, without awareness of what one remembers or prefers.
A preference can be hard-wired, for example, a preference for food but learning doesn't require preferences. A neural network will learn whenever a certain activation pattern is repeated more than others. So, for example, take some fish in a fish tank. Often they learn to expect food when they sense you, but this is simply because "see you" and "food" have occurred repeatedly together. No preference for one event or another, nor any awareness is required for such an association to develop.
 
I cannot conceive of a memory of anything, or a preference for anything, without awareness of what one remembers or prefers.

There's a 'hard-wired' level in all living things that is completely independent of memory, learning or even what we would recognise as intelligence or the existence of a brain Tom.

It's a ****-poor example but even plant seeds have a 'preference' to send their roots downwards and their shoots up towards the light.
 
The post below is something I posted on VB a little over 2 years ago. Granted, the article I was referring to was about self-awareness, but I think it illustrates how we can't always be sure about what capacity might or might not be there when a brain is concerned. And I would say this holds true for animal brains as well.... :


This topic comes up every now and then, both here and elsewhere, when people try to decide which animals are sentient and which aren't- and it sometimes turns into a debate about which animals humans could eat without feeling guilty about it. The link below doesn't address this directly, but it describes a case of a man with severe brain damage having more brain function- specifically, self-awareness- than scientists and doctors would have thought possible:



Brain Damaged 'Patient R' Challenges Theories of Self Awareness - Yahoo News



I say, when it's not certain whether or not an animal can feel or be aware of anything, it's best to give an animal the benefit of the doubt.



EDITED TO ADD: I quote some of the article below:



Feinstein and colleagues set out to test Patient R's level of self-awareness using a battery of tools that included a mirror, photos, tickling, a lemon, an onion, a personality assessment and an interview that asked profound questions like "What do you think happens after you die?" Their conclusion — that Patient R's self-awareness is largely intact in spite of his brain injury — indicates certain regions of the brain thought crucial for self-awareness are not.

Brain anatomy

Self-awareness is a complex concept, and neuroscientists are debating from where it arises in the brain. Some have argued that certain regions in the brain play critical roles in generating self-awareness.

The regions neuroscientists have advocated include the insular cortex, thought to play a fundamental role in all aspects of self-awareness; the anterior cingulate cortex, implicated in body and emotional awareness, as well as the ability to recognize one's own face and process one's conscious experience; and the medial prefrontal cortex, linked with processing information about oneself.

Patient R's illness destroyed nearly all of these regions of his brain. Using brain-imaging techniques, Feinstein and colleagues determined that the small patches of tissue remaining appeared defective and disconnected from the rest of the brain.

........

An exception

R's brain injury took away his sense of smell and taste, as well as much of his memory. R partially acknowledges his memory loss, even describing himself as a "normal person with a bad memory," However, he does not admit that he cannot smell or taste.

The researchers put this to the test by blindfolding him and then offering him an onion or lemon or odorless items and asking what he smelled. With the blindfold on, he could not smell the lemon or onion. With it off, he claimed to smell them, explaining, "I guess sight makes things easier."`

Knowing one's limitations is an aspect of self-awareness, Feinstein said.





Patient R & the origin of self-awareness

Finally, in an interview the researchers assessed his capacity for introspection, asking him questions about free will, the self, emotion and other abstract concepts.

"I think what the interview reveals is clearly somebody who is not impaired in most aspects of self-awareness," Feinstein said. "If you were asking someone who was a zombie, you wouldn't get any of these sorts of answers."

The results of the assessment are clear, he and colleagues contend: Neither the insula cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex nor the medial prefrontal cortex play crucial roles in self-awareness.

Patient R's self-awareness does, however, support the theory that sets of neurons in the brain stem may provide the foundation for consciousness and the sense of self. This part of R's brain is undamaged. The team also suggests other parts of the brain, the thalamus and the posteromedial cortex, play a role in self-awareness.
 
I say, when it's not certain whether or not an animal can feel or be aware of anything, it's best to give an animal the benefit of the doubt.
But we can't be certain whether or not plants can feel or be aware of anything, all we can do is make conclusions based on our current understanding of the world. Why give something the benefit of the doubt just because its part of the animal kingdom while ignoring everything in other kingdoms? Shouldn't we use the same criteria for any living entity regardless of its biological classification?
 
Why give something the benefit of the doubt just because its part of the animal kingdom while ignoring everything in other kingdoms?

what about inanimate objects, why rule them out? Why only consider living organisms? Maybe pavement hurts when people walk on it.
 
(in response to flying sail's post above) No. The distinction between plants and animals (for the purposes of this discussion) isn't just biological classification. I know the topic of sentience in plants has come up before but I can't remember which thread it came up in, or whether it was even on this board. It could have been over at VB.
 
I'm not against the idea that plants feel pain, but unless totally synthetic food can be created then we have to eat something.
As plants are very different to animals, and as animals we(or at least I) know we feel pain, then we can assume that other animal can as well, but can remain less certain about plants feeling pain.
If I was a plant, and I knew I felt pain, then I would assume that other plants felt pain, but be less sure about whether animals felt pain...
:shrug:
 
what about inanimate objects, why rule them out? Why only consider living organisms? Maybe pavement hurts when people walk on it.
You can't really.....but at least with living organisms it seems much more likely. But my point here is that shouldn't we use the same criteria for everything rather than giving members of the animal kingdom special treatment just because they are members of this biological classification which is just a human invention to begin with?

As plants are very different to animals, and as animals we(or at least I) know we feel pain, then we can assume that other animal can as well, but can remain less certain about plants feeling pain.
We are animals but we are far removed, evolutionary speaking, from the vast majority of animals. The dividing line between the kingdoms is fuzzy at best, the biological taxonomy is a useful abstraction but its just a human invention. For example, a sponge is more similar to most plants than it is mammals.

(in response to flying sail's post above) No. The distinction between plants and animals (for the purposes of this discussion) isn't just biological classification. I know the topic of sentience in plants has come up before but I can't remember which thread it came up in, or whether it was even on this board. It could have been over at VB.
If its not just biological classification....what is it? The animal kingdom is just a scientific abstraction, are you suggesting that there is some properties that just so happens to align with our biological taxonomy? What is so special about membership in the animal kingdom that it deserves special consideration just for being a member?