>I think that the denial that animals have minds (based
>on zero evidence) is what is lurking behind Miles'
>statements.
>
>
>
That's not my claim. I don't know why this is so difficult to discuss.
Leaving aside all the moral concerns that triggered this thread, the
question of whether or not a particular species is "sentient" is a
complex scientific question. I lean towards the inclusive view that
many plant and animal species could be sentient in ways that we can't
recognize or understand, because our sentience is incommensurate with
theirs. I think I'm beginning to see the point of the confusion here:
when I argue, "why claim that animals suffer and plants do not?", it's
not a reductio ad absurdim. I'm /not /saying, "It's ludicrious to claim
that plants suffer; therefore, animals don't suffer." Rather, I'm
seriously arguing that the both plants and animals might suffer and
"feel" things in species specific ways that cannot easily be
communicated to other species. I admit this is wild conjecture; as the
work in AI has shown, demonstrating and recognizing "sentience" is a
very challenging task. However, it would not surprise me at all if
researchers at some point in the future were able to determine that
various complex plant and animal species were sentient.
Miles