The important part is that it feels like something subjectively to be a living human. It’s easy to presume animals close to humans are like us to a degree, but all we know is what it’s like to be ourselves moment to moment. There’s no reason to deny an unalive system cannot also feel - we cannot test anything.
Where do we draw the line though? Humans assign emotions to all kinds of inanimate things: plush animals, the sky, dead people, fictional characters etc. We can’t give all of those the rights of a conscious being, so we need to have some kind of objective way to look at it.
In some parts of the world women aren’t considered fully human. So apparently the line ISN’T human at all for rights. It’s already no where close to objective.
Since we already do not give full autonomy and therefore human rights to fully conscious humans this is kind of a pointless question in my eyes.
Because of this, please forgive some of us for not trusting the rest of you with your objectivity.
So what conclusion do you draw from this? If humans can’t be trusted to make any judgement, literally anything should be considered to be capable of suffering, including pebbles, rainbows and paper bags? Seems like an impractical way of living.
If someone claims feeling in a mere concept (without a body in a location)… I would find it very difficult to take seriously. But I must admit that’s just my intuition.
I see nothing special in human meat that couldn’t be be significantly replicated by electronics, software, gears, etc. Consciousness is an imergent property.
I fear that non-human, conscious creatures must fight us for those rights.
The important part is that it feels like something subjectively to be a living human. It’s easy to presume animals close to humans are like us to a degree, but all we know is what it’s like to be ourselves moment to moment. There’s no reason to deny an unalive system cannot also feel - we cannot test anything.
Where do we draw the line though? Humans assign emotions to all kinds of inanimate things: plush animals, the sky, dead people, fictional characters etc. We can’t give all of those the rights of a conscious being, so we need to have some kind of objective way to look at it.
In some parts of the world women aren’t considered fully human. So apparently the line ISN’T human at all for rights. It’s already no where close to objective.
Since we already do not give full autonomy and therefore human rights to fully conscious humans this is kind of a pointless question in my eyes.
Because of this, please forgive some of us for not trusting the rest of you with your objectivity.
So what conclusion do you draw from this? If humans can’t be trusted to make any judgement, literally anything should be considered to be capable of suffering, including pebbles, rainbows and paper bags? Seems like an impractical way of living.
If someone claims feeling in a mere concept (without a body in a location)… I would find it very difficult to take seriously. But I must admit that’s just my intuition.
I see nothing special in human meat that couldn’t be be significantly replicated by electronics, software, gears, etc. Consciousness is an imergent property.
I fear that non-human, conscious creatures must fight us for those rights.
There’s people out here walking around without an internal dialogue.
It’s so alien to me they may as will be a robot.