The sentient definition was of being self aware, which is not just sensory input but of the higher cognitive functions of thought. As the paper I quoted indicated, it is far more than just having a nervous system.
No, sentient doesn’t mean being self aware. This is a definition you create right now to support your ideas. People with arteriosclerosis and newborn are not self aware but are sentient. To be sentient you don’t need an high QI. You indicated a PHILOSOPHICAL PAPER, speaking about the phenomenology of the perception.
No, that definition has been around for longer than I have. The current attempt to link a nervous system to sentience is the recently made up version. A newborn is classified as sentient because it is part of a sentient species. It will be sentient once it grows sufficiently. I do not know how arteriosclerosis would impact the self-awareness, so I suspect you used an incorrect term. I did reference a philosophical paper written on the subject because it referenced the science used in the determination of the classifications.
They are giving ETHICAL positions based mostly on misrepresentations of science just as you have done.
No, they use SCIENTIFIC positions to sustains the FAILURE of animal experimentation as a PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC METHOD. There’s nothing related to science in animal experimentation.
They are misrepresentations of science because they do not present all of the facts and do so in a manner to try to cause people to draw the wrong conclusion. It is a series of logical fallacies called science by those too ignorant to understand the error or a willful attempt to mislead.
The definition of vivisection was changed to give a much broader application that was not what the prior understanding was. How are you going to speak on of science when a large portion of your position is based on ethics, which are not science based?
Someone prefers the use of the word vivisection for practical reasons, to include everything. It’s all suffering.
My positions are based on science and scientific discoveries. I don’t use philosophy. I use medicine, biology, physiology, ecology, nature laws etc. And Darwinism is not a theory, is a scientific discovery.
You prefer to use an incorrect defintition for "practical reasons"? But you base your position on science, which also seems to be "adjusted" for practical reasons or just lack of understanding. If Darwinism is not a scientific theory, what is it? It is not a discovery as there is nothing discovered that gives the explanation, such as a manual giving the instructions from a prior advanced race.
Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, not the sensory feeling, but the higher cognitive feeling. It is not quite what would be called sapience, but close. A sentient being could be removed from physical sensory input from the spinal column but still have the higher functions of feeling and perception. Dr. Hawkings would come close to this example.
The SENSORY FEELING is always perceived subjectively. I can see the blue where you can see the red but for social agreement we call the blue with the same name. But you can’t know if you see the same thing that I see.
Higher cognitive feeling: it happens in the brain. Sapience too and it’s the ability to acquire knowledge, a thing that everyone can do, animals and human included. And being self aware means to be able to recognise himself as an individual, separated from the others, a group etc. And being self aware means to be conscious of being alive and having to maintain the life as better as we can.
Self aware is the instinct of survive as an individual and not only a species. It means to be informed conscious of one’s own individual ability, capability.
A horse jumping an obstacle is self aware to be trained, exercized to jump ostacles. So he decide to jump. Otherwise he was afraid to jump.
A boss cat is aware to be powerful and stronger than the other cats in the area. So he wants maintain his social position. He has no problems in fighting with the other cats. Probably he looks for cats to fight with because he wants became more powerful.
If he was weak and had bad experience of fighting in the past he was afraid of fighting with other cats.
That means he is self aware of his individual skills.
So you have now redefined sentience as instinct and conditioning ..... and thrown in sapience too. There is nothing remotely related to a real definition in this attempt at supporting a redefinition.
You danced all around the fact you cannot provide anything other than an assumption to support your claims.
No, animals language is scientifically understood, decoded. Otherwise there were not the scientific documentary to explain animal life, communication among them, relation with humans.
For exemple in general people having a cat is able to understand what the cat wants, thinks, do etc.
Yet you claimed animal knowledge of rights which cannot be determined without such communication. You assume much as being factual, which is far from using science as a base for your position. I have several animals and there are time none of us know what any of them want and probably neither to they.
No, if a right is not abstract there has to be a physical example of a right not the effect of a right not being respected.
That’s your opinion.
No, that is a fact. If there is no physical manifestation of something, it must therefore be an abstract. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abstract
ab·stract (b-strkt, bstrkt)
1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
A brain which can develop abstract concepts and express them would be more sentient.
No, I don’t think that philosophers are more sentient than scientists or shop assistants. Maybe they are more out of the society, reality.
I was speaking of species differentials, not individual differentials, but all of the examples have evidence they can develop abstract concepts and express them unlike any other creature.
Which still does not refute the concept of civilian damage being necessary to stop the war effort.
The civilian damage could be avoided to stop the war. USA was showing his power, to have the most advanced military system. The Cold War was already began.
How could civilian damage be avoided to stop the war? The Japanese were not going to stop even with the previous examples of damage to their forces and civilians.
Rape and sex slavery was strongly evidenced prior to 1945.
Yes, before and after.
Both created by the Japanese too.
So why did you claim there were only loans which had to be repaid?
There were also grants for the economic, political and cultural benefit of USA too. There was the Cold War.
That does not explain why you claimed there were only loans.
That’s the reason why USA thrown the bombs: revenge and desire of power.
Or the lack of understanding on your part.
USA thrown the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show having arms of mass destruction able to conquer the world. That’s why the war was called Cold War. Because it was an exhibition of arms and power. The main 2 world powers were showing each other what they can do. Cold because they didn’t arrive to the point of militarily attach each other’s country.
The war was done in other countries, used as international chessboard. I conquer this country to limit your power, the possibility that this country became part of your (political, economical and cultural) sphere of influence.
There were not two main powers at that time. There was the Allies, the Axis, and the neutrals. Only the US had the technology for atomic weapons and refused to use it to start another war.