Suchergebnisse

Donald Griffin's writings, beginning with The Question of Animal Awareness (1976), strove to persuade scientists to study the possibility of animal sentience, the basis of Rowan et al.'s efforts to promote animal well-being. Facing great hostility (but also some acceptance) for his ideas, Griffin initially avoided animal welfare advocacy, fearing it would further undermine his efforts to gain recognition of animal sentience. In later years, however, he began to ponder the ethical implications of animal sentience, intending to study wild elephants' communication and social behavior to better understand their experienced life and apply it to improving conservation methods. As he recognized, ethical considerations require strategic prioritizing.

Donald Griffin's writings, beginning with The Question of Animal Awareness (1976), strove to persuade scientists to study the possibility of animal sentience, the basis of Rowan et al.'s efforts to promote animal well-being. Facing great hostility (but also some acceptance) for his ideas, Griffin initially avoided animal welfare advocacy, fearing it would further undermine his efforts to gain recognition of animal sentience. In later years, however, he began to ponder the ethical implications of animal sentience, intending to study wild elephants' communication and social behavior to better understand their experienced life and apply it to improving conservation methods. As he recognized, ethical considerations require strategic prioritizing.

As Chapman & Huffman state, creating divisive human categories has rationalized atrocities committed against the "other." Labeling neighboring warring villagers as "animals" is considered a despicable insult. Yet contemporary scientific views of many animals grant them thinking and conscious faculties, and the capacity for impressive achievements, many unattainable by humans. Robots, too, can accomplish many similar feats. But the essential reason we must protect animals is not because of their admirable abilities, but their capacity for consciousness, for suffering. Robots are not conscious. Participants in the human-animal debate should not complain about changing criteria for determining human uniqueness. New and refined hypothesis-making is the stuff of science.

Peña-Guzmán makes a strong case, using examples from the media and scientific literature, that many captive animals suffer severely. In examining the possibility of animal suicide, he dismisses the need for "reflective self-subjectivity" and "intent" in suicidal behavior. He claims that at least some animals understand "death," citing examples of behavior he deems to be death "rituals." But these can be more simply interpreted. The possibility of animal suicide remains more dubious than Peña-Guzmán suggests.

According to Reber's model, Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC), sentience had its origins in a unicellular organism and is an inherent property of living, mobile organic forms. He argues by analogy to basic physical forces which he considers to be inherent properties of matter; I suggest that they are instead the stuff of scientific investigation in physics. I find no convincing argument that sentience had to begin in endogenously mobile cells, a criterial attribute of the originator cell(s)for sentience according to CBC. Non-endogenously mobile cells, (i.e., plants or precursors) in a moving environment would suffice. Despite my concerns and the need for at least a small "miracle" in his and others' models to instantiate sentience, I applaud a bottom-up approach such as Reber's for our scientific investigation of consciousness.