LetiziaPallara wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Animals are sentient in the scientific way because they have a SENSORY SYSTEM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/s/ ... system.htmA sensory system consists of sensory receptors, neural pathways, and parts of the brain involved in sensory perception.
Commonly recognized sensory systems are those for vision, hearing, somatic sensation (touch), taste and olfaction (smell). Receptive fields have been identified for the visual system, auditory system and somatosensory system, so far.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesi ... uch1.shtmlI feel like I was at kindergarten teaching you what are sense organs and how the sensory system works.
No, having the ability to sense positive or negative stimuli does not impart sentience. That is what the AR types have tried to change the definition to reflect, but that is not the case.
LetiziaPallara wrote:
Yes, you receive the positive and negative stimuli by the sense organs.
But receiving stimuli is not being senient, whivh is where the problem arises.
Quote:
Quote:
Phenomenal consciousness refers to the qualitative, subjective, experiential, or phenomenological aspects of conscious experience, sometimes identified with qualia. (In this article I also use the term “sentience” to refer to phenomenal consciousness.) To contemplate animal consciousness in this sense is to consider the possibility that, in Nagel's (1974) phrase, there might be “something it is like” to be a member of another species. Nagel disputes our capacity to know, imagine, or describe in scientific (objective) terms what it is like to be a bat, but he assumes that there is something it is like. There are those, however, who would challenge this assumption directly. Others would less directly challenge the possibility of scientifically investigating its truth. Nevertheless, there is broad commonsense agreement that phenomenal consciousness is more likely in mammals and birds than it is in invertebrates, such as insects, crustaceans or molluscs (with the possible exception of some cephalopods), while reptiles, amphibians, and fish constitute an enormous grey area for most scientists and philosophers. However, some researchers are even willing to attribute a minimal form of experiential consciousness to organisms that are phylogenetically very remote from humans and that have just a few neurons (Ginsburg & Jablonka 2007a).
This is a philosophical definition, the subject is esthetics an arm of phylosopy that studies the perceptions. I took an exam of esthetics at university some years ago.
Which would be related to whether a creature were actually sentient. Philosophical beliefs are the basis for the AR movement.
Quote:
Quote:
Self-consciousness refers to an organism's capacity for second-order representation of the organism's own mental states. Because of its second-order character (“thought about thought”) the capacity for self consciousness is closely related to questions about “theory of mind” in nonhuman animals — whether any animals are capable of attributing mental states to others. Questions about self-consciousness and theory of mind in animals are a matter of active scientific controversy, with the most attention focused on chimpanzees and to a more limited extent on the other great apes. As attested by this controversy (and unlike questions about animal sentience) questions about self-consciousness in animals are commonly regarded as tractable by empirical means.
Sometimes philosophers like discuss about obvious things.
You miss the source of your citation.
The obvious thing about the scientific controversy concerning sentience?
Quote:
Quote:
Chimpanzee have a right that they can understand because they refuse to be used for experiments. They communicate this.
Not really. the concept of rights is not understood by any of the apes other than humans.
Quote:
Animal understand very good their rights. They know they have the right to live and don't suffer as they do as much as they can to live and don't suffer.
That would be very interesting to see supported by evidence. When has an animal explained anything about an abstract conscept such as rights? I was not aware of such in depth communication being possible.
Quote:
If they were not self conscious they would leave themselves die or they would be passive with suffering; no they show clear signs of reactions.
A reaction to negative stimuli is instictual not evidence of being self conscious. That is the perversion the AR movement has tried to pawn off on the rest of us.
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway lots of time you have to teach to someone his right that he doesn't know to have. For exemple you can teach to the workers some rights that they don't know they already have.
Or that they can acquire.
When you can teach a Chipmanzee about rights and they can enumerate the right they claim, we can talk again.
Quote:
I told you Chimpanzee know their rights.
You did and I do not believe you know of which you speak. You claim something for which you have no evidence other than wishful thinking.
Quote:
"Except for the fact of the sounds of the impact carry through the water better. That is why ultra-low frequency transmissions are used to communicate with submarines. "
Whale uses sonar to communicate among them. And maybe with the sonar they can recognize each other. Not with the noise produced moving the surface of the water.
Quote:
Quote:
If this is cforrect the article is not truthful and thus nothing in the article can be taken as correct, including the "joy" aspect.
The article exist to explain the joy aspect. Nothing else.No, the article had the information on the communication aspect so that is not correct. Since, you do not seem to believe your own article, why should anyone else? If the article is flawed it is flawed and nothing can be taken from it especially the "joy" aspect. If it is not flawed the "joy" aspect is replaced by communication and you still have no point.
Quote:
"We know we associate animal actions as emotions. We even associate the actions of inamimate objects to emotions. I know a guy who claims his truck does not "like" cold weather."
Emotions in animals are scientifically proved. It's not a human association. It's scientific. They can communicate emotions in a different way than humans. And humans in different countries express their emotions in a different way.
Quote:
No, it has to have an assumption attached since animals cannot communicate with humans to explain such feeligs.
Animals can communicate with humans to explains emotions.
How can animals expalin their emotions to people? What scientific paper has this breaktrhough information? You seem to confuse assumption of emotions by a person as animals communicating to that person.
Quote:
I don't know I am loosing time in debating such obvious things.
If they were so obvious there would be a lot of papers published with clear evidence of this communication of feeling and you have not provided any such references. I have not found them in my research either and must conclude they do not exist other than in your mind.
Quote:
Quote:
"EU economy is very dependent on the US economy" Nowadays no more. The new global egemony is China. USA are dependent on other countries for other things.
You still miss the point.
What's your point? USA are cruel is mine. USA wants money, revenge, egemony. No, that you do not know of which you speak concerning economics or animal research, for that matter.
Quote:
Quote:
No the Allied were already almost totally destroyed. And they were not planning to invade Japan.
No, you need to read your history better.
Attacking innocents is NEVER justified. The consequences of radiation damage affected generations after generations of Japanese. This was one of the most disgusting violations of human rights for which the US has been responsible.Actually, the concept was the civillians are not innocents as they provide support for the war movement which was the basis for strategic bombing. Your concept of rights seems to be as flawed as some of your other concepts.
Quote:
Quote:
And the damage caused by atomic bombs are thousand times more disastrous than the damaged caused by a navy or air army.
So you never heard of Dresden's bombing or the losses suffered in taking Okinawa?
Dresden's bombing more than about 35.000 - 250.000 victims. Okinawa about 150.000 victims, mainly americans.Hiroshima and Nagasaki 300.000 victims, and then damages in the following years.I see your research capabilites are below what I originally expected. The casualties on Okinawa were mostly civilians, not Americans.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperie ... s-okinawa/The battle lasted 82 days. More than
12,000 Americans were killed or missing in action -- the highest number lost in a single battle in the Pacific war. More than
70,000 Japanese soldiers and Okinawan conscripts were killed defending the island. Civilians, caught in the crossfire, bore the highest toll -- perhaps
as many as 100,000 to 150,000 Okinawan men, woman, and children lost their lives during the nearly three months of fighting.
Quote:
USA used the athomic bombs to avoid that URSS invaded the Japand and founded a sovietic communist republic.
WHAT? The USSR had concentrated against Germany and would have taken months to just deploy the troops toward Japan, much less develop the ability to make amphibious invasions.
Quote:
The other Allies were not interested in destroy the Japan.
Only USA and URSS were.
And because of the atomic bombs USA won, and invaded Japan. The occupation was terrible and long, until 1948.
Terrible? The Japanese economy like that of Germany and the rest of Europe was rebuilt with American money rather than being left to rebuild on their own.
Quote:
Quote:
The Allied didn't have the atomic bomb so they were not able to damage the japan so much as USA did.
The US was part of the Allies.
Quote:
Yes I would say the other Allies.
The US Navy, Marines, and Army were the primary forces being used in the Pacific. The British had concentrated most of the Commonwealth's resources in the European theater.