Pomp

Koy,

The point being made is that your position that plants are conscious is a positive assertion in need of evidential support. The default position for the question "Is X conscious?" is "no." I realize that you have a somewhat different conception of consciousness than the rest of us, which may be adding to the apparent disconnect here.

FWIW, I really don't see how the question of whether or not plants are conscious is one that necessarily needs to be resolved for the purposes of this discussion. I would still like to see someone present a moral theory that forbids eating meat. Until such a theory is provided, the conscious/non-conscious distinction is, in my eyes, completely arbitrary.

Bill Snedden

My apologies for mischaracterizing your position. Thanks for the clarification and I'll edit my post accordingly!

Bill

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Mageth

Until there is evidence to suggest that plants MIGHT be conscious, it is reasonable to conclude that they aren't...

I agree, and that is the personal position I hold as I've stated in this thread.

Religious nut: There is a god.

Atheist: Until there is evidence to suggest that there might be a god, it is reasonable to conclude that there isn't...

Religious nut: No, it isn't. There is a god.

Note that (most) atheists readily admit it's impossible to prove there is no god. A particular god, maybe, but not a god in general.

That's my whole point about the "pointless" plant issue. In my opinion, it's impossible to prove that there is no plant consciousness. A particular definition of consciousness, maybe, but not "consciousness" in general. So a statement that it is a "fact" that plants aren't conscious is not tenable. If punkerslut would have said:

Until there is evidence to suggest that plants MIGHT be conscious, it is reasonable to conclude that they aren't...

I for one would have agreed with him, and we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, in all likelihood.

Koyaanisqatsi

Pompous--

I disagree. Plants exist, therefore the assumption that they do not have consciousness is the positive claim.

It is my contention that the only reason we do not think plants are conscious is homocentrism, something I've argued from the start that no one has ever addressed or countered.

Homocentrism is a failing of humanity, not a basis for assumption, so the positive claim is to declare that plants are not conscious, based on the fact that once we remove homocentrism from the thought process (as Spin and Punk did to cows and chickens), the logical extension is to assume consciousness (since plants are likewise living beings) until proven otherwise.

It is the height of hypocrisy to declare that cows and chickens are conscious and in the same breath exclude plants, since plants are complex, living structures just as cows, pigs and humans and that the only reason this is occuring in this discussion is homocentrist thinking and rationalization.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Mageth

I would tacitly agree that, for at least some, if not all, people, homocentrism contributes to their attitudes of other species, including plants. But I'd cordially disgagree that it's the "only reason" many don't attribute consciousness to plants. For me, there is a lack of evidence that plants are conscious as we currently understand consciousness. And as I've said I don't unequivocally rule out the possibility that plants may experience a form of consciousness that we don't yet understand. But then that's just my opinion, and perhaps my homocentrism is contributing to it.

So I seem to be taking a middle road on the subject.

Edited to add: I don't deny consciousness to plants. I'm a plant consciousness agnostic, I guess.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

That's fine, Mageth, but to rule Plant Consciousness out and base moral claims upon it, condemning others in the process like Spin and Punk are doing, is what I am addressing.

They have declared that it is morally wrong to eat meat, yet morally right to eat plants.

This is hypocritical, IMO, since it is contingent upon something that cannot be measured, only assumed (i.e., that cows are conscious and therefore should not be eaten, but plants are not, so murder them en masse).

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Mageth

I agree. I think we've addressed the same thing, from slightly different angles.

Koyaanisqatsi

Then let's break for some ribs and a cold one.

Pomp

Koyaanisqatsi,

I disagree. Plants exist, therefore the assumption that they do not have consciousness is the positive claim.

I realize that you hold the belief that everything that exists is conscious in some sense, but I don't happen to share that belief, nor do I find it to be a useful starting point for an analysis of consciousness. If everything, by mere virtue of existing, is conscious, then no meaningful distinction can be drawn between conscious and non-conscious entities. "Conscious" becomes a meaningless nondescriptive term. In order to preserve meaning for the term, we would have to have some method to describe non-conscious matter. Is there any such method, under your belief system?

My only immediate experience of consciousness is my own experience of being conscious. I draw on that experience to come to inductive conclusions regarding what else shares the property of being conscious with me. There is an obvious qualitative difference between what we human beings experience as "consciousness" and, well, everything else. Quite simply, nothing except human beings and some other animals acts as though it is conscious, therefore I can safely conclude that these other things are probably not conscious.

Even, if you want to argue that everything is "conscious" that qualitative difference remains. Non-living matter, for example, clearly cannot experience the world in the same manner that we do. We can just invent a new term for the property of being conscious-in-the-manner-of-humans, meta-consciousness perhaps, and argue that that is an appropriate ethical delimiter. Note that I do not currently use consciousness by itself as an ethical delimiter, I'm merely making the argument that your somehwat unusual attribution of consciousness to all matter makes little difference to the vegetarian position.

It is my contention that the only reason we do not think plants are conscious is homocentrism, something I've argued from the start that no one has ever addressed or countered.

I haven't personally addressed it because I don't necessarily disagree, nor do I think that so-called "homocentrism" is a bad thing. We're human. We know what it is like to be human. There is obviously a vast experential gap between being human and being a plant. We simply unable to see the world through the "eyes" of a plant. I don't see any serious argument that it is unethical to refrainfrom doing the impossible. For the vegetarians: there is a smaller experential gap between being human and being a cow. I suppose we could be said to have a limited ability to see (well, imagine) the world through the eyes of a cow.

Edited to remove a double negative.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

tronvillain

spin:
This appears to be saying nothing more than that a minority can on occasion change the mind of the majority. This may be true, but in the recent major cases of this there have probably been other major changes which have contributed to the moral shift.

If the vast majority of people considered murder and canibalism permissible, in what sense would it be "wrong"? You could argue that people don't want to be killed and eaten, but apparently people are already aware of this and don't care. You would be in the minority, attempting to induce the majority to exchange their premises for yours. Saying that murder and cannibalism are "wrong" is simply saying that you don't like cannnibalism and murder.

The animal probably doesn't want to die period - I see no reason to bring my stomach into it. I was aware of this all along, but I simply don't feel enough empathy for the animal for it to matter more than the enjoyment I derive from eating the animal. Of course, this will vary depending on the animal - I care more about dogs than snakes for instance.

If you have no empathy for animals, it is difficult to see why you care if people eat them or not. Oh, you can say "It is wrong for anything conscious to suffer" but I suspect that amounts to "I feel empathy for the suffering of anything conscious." I also suspect that you, like me, care more about the suffering of a dog than a snake. If you don't, then your morality differs from that of most people I know, and you would be indifferent between killing a dog and killing a snake.

In other words you dismiss my basic premises, which also happen to be facts about the world. You want me to change my premises so that I reach the same conclusion as you do, despite having no reason to do so. In other words, you are asking someone who likes pumkin pie to start liking apple pie.

I know what blinkers are - I grew up around horses. Now, what stimuli do you think might distract me from my opinions? Personally, I can think of a few things, such as the animals I eat turning out to have human level consciousness or being extremely bad for my health, but neither of these appear to be the case. If you are simply referring to things like animals not wanting to die, I am aware of them but they don't mean the same thing to me as they apparently do to you.

Ah, so now you are accusing me of not being open minded. In your world, does "open minded" mean "agrees with me"?