i'm against animal exploitation not because i care about animals but because it's for the most part a waste of resources
like for food, meat is possibly the least efficient source of food you could imagine
like for food, meat is possibly the least efficient source of food you could imagine
@chj0 eh that was it at first for me but then I paused for a sec and was like actually it's kinda fucked up that we are industrially and machinally killing clever and smart animals just because we want to eat them
@aetios yeah they can solve mazes and recognize themselves in a mirror. but like. And
they're not sapient, they don't really process anything in a way that matters
they're not sapient, they don't really process anything in a way that matters
@chj0@udongein.xyz
@timorl @aetios lack of structured recursive communication likely means there's no real reasoning
@chj0 @aetios @timorl
i think that saying certain types of thinking "matter" or "are real" are evasive but also essentially normative/cultural/relative so these things can't really be defined rigorously
in general i think it is quite hard to define what exactly makes human cognition unique. a lot of analytic philosophers really stumble over themselves trying to add rigor to concepts like "the hard problem of consciousness" and these arguments just literally become theological - eg, things like qualia, p-zombies, whatever.
historically this sort of "oh no, they aren't thinking in a /real/ way" is how cultures excused themselves for dehumanizing populations they were subjugating anyway
obviously i do think there are quantitative and qualitative differences between animal and human cognition but phrasing it in the way you are doing tends to freak me out
i think that saying certain types of thinking "matter" or "are real" are evasive but also essentially normative/cultural/relative so these things can't really be defined rigorously
in general i think it is quite hard to define what exactly makes human cognition unique. a lot of analytic philosophers really stumble over themselves trying to add rigor to concepts like "the hard problem of consciousness" and these arguments just literally become theological - eg, things like qualia, p-zombies, whatever.
historically this sort of "oh no, they aren't thinking in a /real/ way" is how cultures excused themselves for dehumanizing populations they were subjugating anyway
obviously i do think there are quantitative and qualitative differences between animal and human cognition but phrasing it in the way you are doing tends to freak me out
@aetios @chj0 @timorl anyway if people just admitted that this was a theological or irrational argument then i wouldnt really care but this was always a pet peeve of mine because a lot of philosophers that should know better start getting absurdly sloppy around this and its like shifting my autistic brain into neutral and stepping on the gas
@rats @aetios @timorl by structured recursive communication i mean language that has at least a recursive grammar. think how relative clauses can have relative clauses inside of them
for example iirc higher apes like gorillas have been taught sign language but they are unable to actually produce any grammar. they can use semantic units to convey basic information but not really anything more complex than simple subject-object-verb
for example iirc higher apes like gorillas have been taught sign language but they are unable to actually produce any grammar. they can use semantic units to convey basic information but not really anything more complex than simple subject-object-verb
@chj0 @rats @aetios I don't see why this would be an indicator of reasoning (never mind moral significance). Many animals seem to be doing quite complicated forms of reasoning, including ones that require them to e.g. simulate themselves as existing in time, which seems like a much more important feature for defining conciousness/self awareness.
I'm also not sure if you know that many people think in nonverbal ways – does this mean they are not doing reasoning?
