It doesn't prove animals suffer but it strongly suggests that higher mammal forms should. Dismissing animal suffering as unproven is like dismissing climate change as unproven 10 years ago. You're clinging to an overly pedantic standard of proof and don't seem to want to admit to that.
John Thornton
> John Thornton wrote:
>
>> Actually Miles is the one misinformed here.
>>
>> Recent neurological tests on cats shows nearly identical results when
>> compared to humans. These results showed that cats can experience what
>> in humans is called "cortical blindness". When severe damage is done
>> to the primary visual cortex cats have been shown to demonstrate the
>> same anosognosia that humans do. The fact that cats can be shown to
>> suffer the same cognitive dysfunction is hugely significant. Cortical
>> blindness is quite different from blindness that results from damage
>> to the eye or optic nerve.
>>
> We're not talking about visual processing here; we're talking about the
> psychological experience of suffering. There are no neurological data
> that show that the psychological experience of suffering is equivalent
> in cats and humans. Pointing out that they have pain receptors and
> central nervous systems is more or less irrelevant, because suffering is
> a mental state, not a neurological state. Ryle and Wittgenstein are
> helpful here.
>
> Miles