Proving subjective experiences is pretty tricky indeed. If I were to poke you with a needle, I'd assume your vocalisations and gesticulations meant you experienced suffering, because your behaviours map to what I would do, myself, were I suffering from a needle poke. I can't prove that, however, any more than I can prove a fly suffers.
When it comes to humans, we generally don't worry about that lack of rigorous proof. But why does that generosity extend only to our own kind?
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert in animal physiology or psychology so I don't intend to present this as a rigorous description of animal suffering.
I think that it's reasonable to assume that the degree to which something can experience suffering is proportionate to the sophistication of its ability to think.
When I'm playing a video game, enemies respond to my attacks and attempt to keep from dying. However, we generally don't consider that suffering because we don't believe that the associated program has a concept of pain.
Simple animals appear to be able to experience pain. However, they might not be able to experience suffering as a condition. That is they don't appear to be able to creatively imagine and dread pain.
More sophisticated animals (e.g. dogs) appear to be able to understand suffering in a psychological sense.
Very sophisticated animals, most notably humans, can also understand suffering more philosophically. E.g. by understanding the way that suffering is preventing them from reaching their longterm goals, how suffering could be due to injustice, etc.
My point here, is that while it is clear that virtually every organism avoids death, it is not necessarily clear in which of these or other senses they experience suffering. My understanding is that it was previously thought that insects were more like the computer program: able to avoid injury but without actually having an experience of pain.
GP's point is that we give humans the benefit of the doubt. You have reinforced that notion.
>> the degree to which something can experience suffering is proportionate to the sophistication of its ability to think.
But we do not assert that human suffering is at all related to IQ or intellectual "sophistication".
>> Simple animals appear to be able to experience pain. However ... they don't appear to be able to creatively imagine and dread pain.
But we would not say that a human with a mental disorder that renders them unable to think ahead is no longer capable of suffering.
>> More sophisticated animals (e.g. dogs) appear to be able to understand suffering in a psychological sense.
By "appear to", do you mean that dogs react to suffering in a way that reminds us of other humans? That they have learned to make the right noises, to flinch, to yelp?
>> ... while it is clear that virtually every organism avoids death, it is not necessarily clear in which of these or other senses they experience suffering.
I suspect that, though you never mention humans here, you are implicitly not questioning whether humans can experience suffering.
> But we do not assert that human suffering is at all related to IQ or intellectual "sophistication".
Here's the thing though, high-IQ humans are much more likely to be depressive and so on, so in a sense yes, you can suffer more if you're smarter. Although what you were suggesting was a bit of a straw man, because the gap between a 100 and 150 IQ person is nowhere near as much as the gap between a 100 IQ person and a lizard. That is a massive quantitative difference that's not comparable to the differences between any two humans.
>> Simple animals appear to be able to experience pain. However ... they don't appear to be able to creatively imagine and dread pain.
> But we would not say that a human with a mental disorder that renders them unable to think ahead is no longer capable of suffering
Well, I think what he's getting at is that "suffering" seems more like an state of mind than just feeling pain at a given moment, and an important part of it is being upset about past pain and dreading future pain. So he's saying that they suffer less because they don't dread pain, imagine it, torture themselves with the idea of it. As someone who has a problem with working myself into spirals of dread about things, I'll tell you-- that's suffering too.
> > More sophisticated animals (e.g. dogs) appear to be able to understand suffering in a psychological sense.
> By "appear to", do you mean that dogs react to suffering in a way that reminds us of other humans? That they have learned to make the right noises, to flinch, to yelp?
Well that wouldn't imply understanding the psychological sense of it, now would it? I think what he means is that dogs can seem to have sympathy for you, when you're hurting, and be concerned about you, etc.
> > ... while it is clear that virtually every organism avoids death, it is not necessarily clear in which of these or other senses they experience suffering.
> I suspect that, though you never mention humans here, you are implicitly not questioning whether humans can experience suffering.
Um yeah in his framework he doesn't really have to? I'm not sure I understand your point here?
In summary: please stop straw-manning people just because you don't like their arguments.
> But why does that generosity extend only to our own kind?
I think mostly for practical reasons.
Also only recently that generosity towards humans became widespread. Until very recently torturing and killing another human for some minor offences was considered wholesome fun for the whole family.
I can't help but feel that without also adding a right to life for insects or similar this swiftly leads to the conclusion that we should pave over the rainforests to minimize long-term suffering.
It's not a zero-sum game, we can recognise and work to solve both issues simultaneously.
Tomasik's recommendations are moderate:
> Given how many insects each of us harms or helps by our choices, consideration of insect suffering should play a significant role in our actions. For instance, we should generally avoid buying silk and shellac, reduce driving especially when roads are wet, and minimize walking on grass or in the woods.
We aren't responsible for the vast majority of insect suffering but can potentially in the future do something about it:
> Most insect suffering results from natural causes such as predation, parasitism, physical injury, and dehydration. We should encourage concern for wild-insect suffering and research ways in which human environmental policies can reduce it. Our descendants should also think twice before spreading insects and insect-like creatures to new realms, which could multiply suffering manyfold.
lol you support an article that includes the following:
"consider the ethical implications of virtual insects, including insect brain “uploads” and insect-like artificial intelligences that will emerge in the next few decades."
To stop all the suffering, we need to exterminate all life on the planet. I’m not doing that cause it makes sense to check other planets beforehand (better the universe, but sadly ftl is not a thing irl).
No kidding, I believe that presence of “you” in a particular body is not a local phenomena, but a continuous field that resonates with complex-enough signal delivery systems. It is isolated by voids, but isn’t discontinuous. Basically, we all are the same field that is situationally locked into suffering states. Few happy islands cannot justify the ocean of pain out there.
I wonder about the implications of believing animals and insects to be agents with subjective experiences. Would that not imply some form of moral culpability for animals? If animals inflict untold amounts of suffering on each other and we consider them to be beings capable of experiencing subjective experiences, would the most logical path not somehow be to eliminate all animals and insects?
That assumes that suffering by itself is inherently bad, but there is no evidence for this. As far as we understand brain can be simulated on a computer, so pain and joy are simply computations, and minimizing one kind of computation isn't all that nobel goal. I would say not living is much worse than suffering.
With suffering I mean the subjective experience of "bad" feelings, which I fo think is inherently bad. I'd imagine you try to optimize your life in a way such that you avoid "bad" feelings.
If that was my main goal i would use drugs, or just kill myself. Maximize "good" feelings is a better heuristic because most people accept arbitrary large amount of "bad" feelings, if that promises something good at the end.
If a theory leads to conclusion that you should kill someone to help it, then something in its axioms is clearly wrong. Though looking at your username i am not sure if you were suggesting the above seriously or simply were trolling people who think that way.
You cannot get rid of bad feelings just like you cannot get rid of poor people. No matter how much you improve, there will always be someone getting a shorter stick than someone else. I think that's how we got the insanity that are "micro-aggressions". Can't have light without shadow.
The logical argument could be made for preservation of all species in the food web because they contain unique genetic material documenting robust metabolic pathways. These pathways also involve the manufacture of unique proteins and enzymes that could be very valuable - theoretically utilizing them could reduce suffering in some way.
I have an abundance of empathy, and agree that suffering should be minimized. I do my best to minimize the suffering of those around me.
I still kill insects sometimes, but do my best to ensure that it is as painless and swift as possible.
Empathy is also a driving force for me in my interactions with others. I have a deep desire to end societal problems that cause suffering, and I deeply oppose war.
Lack of empathy leads to the top of society, so even if it is an illness, it won't be treated, since it's a trait that is profitable. Living in a society where everyone is happy is easy with these types of leaders, too. They just have to murder all the unhappy people. But unlike you, they do not wish for such a thing.
That's a really broad question. I'm not sure what you're asking here exactly, since I can't remember complaining about something that could be taken as a problem.
Your posts are filled with pessimism augmented by learned helplessness.
It's like you're playing a chess game and are so focused on the current state of the board, that you can't imagine how it could change a couple of moves into the future.
Let us not get ourselves caught up in binary views. Insects may suffer, even plants may suffer, but it's not on the same level as the suffering of higher life forms. Let's concentrate on reducing suffering there first. The rest is more of an academic affair at this point or our understanding.
37 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 57.3 ms ] threadWhen it comes to humans, we generally don't worry about that lack of rigorous proof. But why does that generosity extend only to our own kind?
I think that it's reasonable to assume that the degree to which something can experience suffering is proportionate to the sophistication of its ability to think.
When I'm playing a video game, enemies respond to my attacks and attempt to keep from dying. However, we generally don't consider that suffering because we don't believe that the associated program has a concept of pain.
Simple animals appear to be able to experience pain. However, they might not be able to experience suffering as a condition. That is they don't appear to be able to creatively imagine and dread pain.
More sophisticated animals (e.g. dogs) appear to be able to understand suffering in a psychological sense.
Very sophisticated animals, most notably humans, can also understand suffering more philosophically. E.g. by understanding the way that suffering is preventing them from reaching their longterm goals, how suffering could be due to injustice, etc.
My point here, is that while it is clear that virtually every organism avoids death, it is not necessarily clear in which of these or other senses they experience suffering. My understanding is that it was previously thought that insects were more like the computer program: able to avoid injury but without actually having an experience of pain.
>> the degree to which something can experience suffering is proportionate to the sophistication of its ability to think.
But we do not assert that human suffering is at all related to IQ or intellectual "sophistication".
>> Simple animals appear to be able to experience pain. However ... they don't appear to be able to creatively imagine and dread pain.
But we would not say that a human with a mental disorder that renders them unable to think ahead is no longer capable of suffering.
>> More sophisticated animals (e.g. dogs) appear to be able to understand suffering in a psychological sense.
By "appear to", do you mean that dogs react to suffering in a way that reminds us of other humans? That they have learned to make the right noises, to flinch, to yelp?
>> ... while it is clear that virtually every organism avoids death, it is not necessarily clear in which of these or other senses they experience suffering.
I suspect that, though you never mention humans here, you are implicitly not questioning whether humans can experience suffering.
Here's the thing though, high-IQ humans are much more likely to be depressive and so on, so in a sense yes, you can suffer more if you're smarter. Although what you were suggesting was a bit of a straw man, because the gap between a 100 and 150 IQ person is nowhere near as much as the gap between a 100 IQ person and a lizard. That is a massive quantitative difference that's not comparable to the differences between any two humans.
>> Simple animals appear to be able to experience pain. However ... they don't appear to be able to creatively imagine and dread pain. > But we would not say that a human with a mental disorder that renders them unable to think ahead is no longer capable of suffering
Well, I think what he's getting at is that "suffering" seems more like an state of mind than just feeling pain at a given moment, and an important part of it is being upset about past pain and dreading future pain. So he's saying that they suffer less because they don't dread pain, imagine it, torture themselves with the idea of it. As someone who has a problem with working myself into spirals of dread about things, I'll tell you-- that's suffering too.
> > More sophisticated animals (e.g. dogs) appear to be able to understand suffering in a psychological sense. > By "appear to", do you mean that dogs react to suffering in a way that reminds us of other humans? That they have learned to make the right noises, to flinch, to yelp?
Well that wouldn't imply understanding the psychological sense of it, now would it? I think what he means is that dogs can seem to have sympathy for you, when you're hurting, and be concerned about you, etc.
> > ... while it is clear that virtually every organism avoids death, it is not necessarily clear in which of these or other senses they experience suffering. > I suspect that, though you never mention humans here, you are implicitly not questioning whether humans can experience suffering.
Um yeah in his framework he doesn't really have to? I'm not sure I understand your point here?
In summary: please stop straw-manning people just because you don't like their arguments.
I think mostly for practical reasons.
Also only recently that generosity towards humans became widespread. Until very recently torturing and killing another human for some minor offences was considered wholesome fun for the whole family.
Tomasik's recommendations are moderate:
> Given how many insects each of us harms or helps by our choices, consideration of insect suffering should play a significant role in our actions. For instance, we should generally avoid buying silk and shellac, reduce driving especially when roads are wet, and minimize walking on grass or in the woods.
We aren't responsible for the vast majority of insect suffering but can potentially in the future do something about it:
> Most insect suffering results from natural causes such as predation, parasitism, physical injury, and dehydration. We should encourage concern for wild-insect suffering and research ways in which human environmental policies can reduce it. Our descendants should also think twice before spreading insects and insect-like creatures to new realms, which could multiply suffering manyfold.
"consider the ethical implications of virtual insects, including insect brain “uploads” and insect-like artificial intelligences that will emerge in the next few decades."
Let's all autoeuthenise and let the other animals get on with the stuff we stopped doing because it was morally wrong.
No kidding, I believe that presence of “you” in a particular body is not a local phenomena, but a continuous field that resonates with complex-enough signal delivery systems. It is isolated by voids, but isn’t discontinuous. Basically, we all are the same field that is situationally locked into suffering states. Few happy islands cannot justify the ocean of pain out there.
If a theory leads to conclusion that you should kill someone to help it, then something in its axioms is clearly wrong. Though looking at your username i am not sure if you were suggesting the above seriously or simply were trolling people who think that way.
I still kill insects sometimes, but do my best to ensure that it is as painless and swift as possible.
Empathy is also a driving force for me in my interactions with others. I have a deep desire to end societal problems that cause suffering, and I deeply oppose war.
It's like you're playing a chess game and are so focused on the current state of the board, that you can't imagine how it could change a couple of moves into the future.
I feel concern about you.
Things in this world are getting better, maybe just keep that in mind?