John Thornton
You still don't seem to get it.
Anosognosia is a psychological phenomenon induced
by neurological damage. That it effects cats
identically to humans shows a form of equivalence
beyond mere 'wiring' in the brain. This is
neurological data that clearly shows the actual
thought process involved in seeing, well beyond
just image projection, that humans have is not
exclusive to humans. While not demonstrating
equivalence in suffering it strongly suggest that
other thought process beyond mere wiring should be
near equal as well. Especially with regard to
something as primitive as suffering.
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
^^^^^^^
CB; Doesn't a scolded dog's yelping prove that it suffers ?
Miles is being quite specific in separating pain from suffering. Does all pain cause suffering?
Animals have the ability to feel pain since they have a central nervous system and pain receptors. Since the brain architecture of higher mammals is so similar to that of humans assuming animals do not suffer is not an assumption that stands on firm footing however. There is no scientific evidence to support such a claim. That does not mean it is incorrect but for some reason Miles "needs" proof that animals suffer in order to believe that claim. Oddly he does not require similar proof that they don't suffer in order to believe that claim.
Imagine suffering as a thought process if you will, while pain is as autonomic process. Until recently we had little in the way of neurological evidence to guide us in understanding how minds work. The evidence I pointed out to Miles is striking and demonstrates an animals cognitive similarities, not just neurological similarities, to humans.
To assume that this one cognitive similarity is an aberration is to live in the world of fantasy. We have not one shred of evidence to suggest that a cat or monkey does not suffer and Miles statement that the neurological consistencies between animals and humans is irrelevant demonstrates a lack of understanding of the relationship between
how minds work and the brains architecture. Imagining them as unrelated is really rather silly unless you want to imagine that the mind does not reside in the brain but rather in ones soul.
John Thornton