• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      I mean there is no objective reason to set the standard at sentience any more than any other standard.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Then based on the way you are using arbitrary, I see why you think my position is arbitrary. Do you think all positions are arbitrary?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Once you go to a deep enough layer I think you’re right. But, the one subjective thing my argument rests on is that you care about your own experience. Anyone who flinches away from touching a hot stove because it hurts cares about their experience at least a little. The next step is recognizing that from an objective view, there’s no reason to think your subjective experience is any more important than anyone elses (subjectively there is).

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                That seems to bother you. Let’s taboo the word. When I say “someone”, “anyone”, “person”, etc, I’m referring to a sentient being, a subject of experience, an experiencer, one who is experiencing. Now you can interpret what I’m saying better, do you disagree with the actual points I’m making?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  yes, I do: sentience is too broad a category, and not actually relevant to most people. if we are talking about people, then all of your statements are fine. but I don’t agree that these axioms are or should be applicable to, say, mosquitos . or mice. or dogs or cats. or fish. or livestock.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    Why is sentience too broad? afaik all humans are sentient, otherwise we’d be philosophical zombies (or there would be p-zombies among us)

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Hell even to get past solipsism you have to subjectively assume to that your mind and senses accurately reflect the world at least a little bit, otherwise gathering any accurate data or reasoning about that data productively would not be possible