5 ms·

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 experien

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?

harimau777 7y ago
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.
- Sinergy2 7y ago
  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.
  - logicprog 7y ago
    > 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.
scotty79 7y ago
> 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.

harimau777 7y ago

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.

Sinergy2 7y ago
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.
- logicprog 7y ago
  > 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.

scotty79 7y ago

> 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.