FA+
Shop
2307
Views
Views
154
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 935
File Size 89.3 kB
Report this content
More from Tragelaphus
The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"
- Jeremy Bentham
The problem of animal suffering, and animal consciousness in general, arises primarily because animals have no language, leading scientists to argue that it is impossible to know when an animal is suffering. This situation may change as increasing numbers of chimps are taught sign language, although skeptics question whether their use of it portrays real understanding. Singer writes that, following the argument that language is needed to communicate pain, it would often be impossible to know when humans are in pain. All we can do is observe pain behavior, he writes, and make a calculated guess based on it. As Ludwig Wittgenstein argued, if someone is screaming, clutching a part of their body, moaning quietly, or apparently unable to function, especially when followed by an event that we believe would cause pain in ourselves, that is in large measure what it means to be in pain. Singer argues that there is no reason to suppose animal pain behavior would have a different meaning.
Richard Sarjeant pointed out that non-human animals possess anatomical complexity of the cerebral cortex and neuroanatomy that is nearly identical to that of the human nervous system, arguing that, "Every particle of factual evidence supports the contention that the higher mammalian vertebrates experience pain sensations at least as acute as our own. To say that they feel less because they are lower animals is an absurdity; it can easily be shown that many of their senses are far more acute than ours."
The brute animals have all the same sensations of pain as human beings, and consequently endure as much pain when their body is hurt; but in their case the cruelty of torment is greater, because they have no mind to bear them up against their sufferings, and no hope to look forward to when enduring the last extreme pain.
- Thomas Chalmers
May all that have life be delivered from suffering.
- Buddha
Aaaaand... this is the last one.
Thank you everyone for support and comments, I appreciate it very very much. :]
(Sorry for not replying, I'm in the middle of a deadline, I'll get back to the comments later, hopefully.)
- Jeremy Bentham
The problem of animal suffering, and animal consciousness in general, arises primarily because animals have no language, leading scientists to argue that it is impossible to know when an animal is suffering. This situation may change as increasing numbers of chimps are taught sign language, although skeptics question whether their use of it portrays real understanding. Singer writes that, following the argument that language is needed to communicate pain, it would often be impossible to know when humans are in pain. All we can do is observe pain behavior, he writes, and make a calculated guess based on it. As Ludwig Wittgenstein argued, if someone is screaming, clutching a part of their body, moaning quietly, or apparently unable to function, especially when followed by an event that we believe would cause pain in ourselves, that is in large measure what it means to be in pain. Singer argues that there is no reason to suppose animal pain behavior would have a different meaning.
Richard Sarjeant pointed out that non-human animals possess anatomical complexity of the cerebral cortex and neuroanatomy that is nearly identical to that of the human nervous system, arguing that, "Every particle of factual evidence supports the contention that the higher mammalian vertebrates experience pain sensations at least as acute as our own. To say that they feel less because they are lower animals is an absurdity; it can easily be shown that many of their senses are far more acute than ours."
The brute animals have all the same sensations of pain as human beings, and consequently endure as much pain when their body is hurt; but in their case the cruelty of torment is greater, because they have no mind to bear them up against their sufferings, and no hope to look forward to when enduring the last extreme pain.
- Thomas Chalmers
May all that have life be delivered from suffering.
- Buddha
[Link to concept and other pieces in the series.]Aaaaand... this is the last one.
Thank you everyone for support and comments, I appreciate it very very much. :]
(Sorry for not replying, I'm in the middle of a deadline, I'll get back to the comments later, hopefully.)
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 935px
File Size 89.3 kB
>>Singer writes that, following the argument that language is needed to communicate pain, it would often be impossible to know when humans are in pain.
Exactly. As humans, we can tell when other humans are in pain, because language is only one component of communication; gestures, postures, movements, also convey many things about the state of someone else's emotions and well-being.
These gestures, postures, movements also appear in animal behaviour, and so it should be obvious that animals, too, are able to suffer.
So why then, for such a long time and for so many people, has it not been obvious?
Is it the influence of Cartesian dualism? The influence of religious tendencies that put human beings on divine pedestals?
Or is it something worse: a willful blindness that prevents us from seeing the obvious, because doing so would force us to question our actions, and that would be damned inconvenient?
Or is it even worse that blindness? Could it be... sadism?
Mark
Exactly. As humans, we can tell when other humans are in pain, because language is only one component of communication; gestures, postures, movements, also convey many things about the state of someone else's emotions and well-being.
These gestures, postures, movements also appear in animal behaviour, and so it should be obvious that animals, too, are able to suffer.
So why then, for such a long time and for so many people, has it not been obvious?
Is it the influence of Cartesian dualism? The influence of religious tendencies that put human beings on divine pedestals?
Or is it something worse: a willful blindness that prevents us from seeing the obvious, because doing so would force us to question our actions, and that would be damned inconvenient?
Or is it even worse that blindness? Could it be... sadism?
Mark
(Sorry for late reply.)
To tell the truth, I put this quote up precisely because I don't understand the viewpoint... "Well, we broke all of the cat's bones, but it didn't tell us it hurt, instead it screamed and twitched, so we didn't really know it was in pain." I mean, Jesus Friggin' Christ on a velociraptor - how does someone come up with this stuff? It makes zero sense. Perhaps the product of some wannabe philosopher, one of those who hallucinate up systems of thought that have nothing to do with reality (aka. Plato and followers) and then try to cram reality into them.
The human mind is built in such a way that it'll defend anything it does... I think that was in one of the quotes in these works, I already forgot where.
To tell the truth, I put this quote up precisely because I don't understand the viewpoint... "Well, we broke all of the cat's bones, but it didn't tell us it hurt, instead it screamed and twitched, so we didn't really know it was in pain." I mean, Jesus Friggin' Christ on a velociraptor - how does someone come up with this stuff? It makes zero sense. Perhaps the product of some wannabe philosopher, one of those who hallucinate up systems of thought that have nothing to do with reality (aka. Plato and followers) and then try to cram reality into them.
The human mind is built in such a way that it'll defend anything it does... I think that was in one of the quotes in these works, I already forgot where.
>>The human mind is built in such a way that it'll defend anything it does
Hey, "All Roads Lead to Winter." You create roadways in your heads, and then you act as if these roadways were not your own creations, but external conditions, physical realities of nature. And in this failure to recognize the unreality of your own creations, you stay on these roads, even as they lead you to a cliff.
>>"Well, we broke all of the cat's bones, but it didn't tell us it hurt, instead it screamed and twitched, so we didn't really know it was in pain." I mean, Jesus Friggin' Christ on a velociraptor - how does someone come up with this stuff?
I don't know. It defies experience -- at least as far as I can tell.
Human beings eat, breathe, excrete, reproduce, age, die, decay. They have always done this. Yet for the longest time, the idea that people were somehow animals was considered improper, beyond the pale.
And at the same time, many animals show a range of physical responses comparable to the body language of human beings... yet some people refused to see these responses as indicators of anxiety or pain. They refused to recognize the neurological kinship between these animal responses and our own human emotions.
But that seems to be changing, thanks to neuroscientists like Antonio Damasio, whose books I very much want to read:
http://www.usc.edu/programs/neurosc.....ile.php?fid=27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Damasio
Hey, "All Roads Lead to Winter." You create roadways in your heads, and then you act as if these roadways were not your own creations, but external conditions, physical realities of nature. And in this failure to recognize the unreality of your own creations, you stay on these roads, even as they lead you to a cliff.
>>"Well, we broke all of the cat's bones, but it didn't tell us it hurt, instead it screamed and twitched, so we didn't really know it was in pain." I mean, Jesus Friggin' Christ on a velociraptor - how does someone come up with this stuff?
I don't know. It defies experience -- at least as far as I can tell.
Human beings eat, breathe, excrete, reproduce, age, die, decay. They have always done this. Yet for the longest time, the idea that people were somehow animals was considered improper, beyond the pale.
And at the same time, many animals show a range of physical responses comparable to the body language of human beings... yet some people refused to see these responses as indicators of anxiety or pain. They refused to recognize the neurological kinship between these animal responses and our own human emotions.
But that seems to be changing, thanks to neuroscientists like Antonio Damasio, whose books I very much want to read:
http://www.usc.edu/programs/neurosc.....ile.php?fid=27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Damasio
Yes, people who said animals don't feel pain, or don't feel it "like we do" would make my blood boil. I'd suspect willful blindness, willful dogmatism, or, yes, criminal philosophy as you say.
Surely that must be pretty rare though; I can't say I've met any. More subtle and widespread I think is the idea that animals don't have emotions, that, for example, it's okay to leave your dog chained in a corner of the yard its entire life because it won't feel boredom, loneliness or abandonment. That's even harder to argue against; the signs of emotion are much easier to argue away - assuming they're recognizable at all.
As for your last statement - there's another side to that too. The human mind, perhaps uniquely on this planet, is also built in such a way that it can analyse itself, and deliberately reject old patterns of behaviour.
Surely that must be pretty rare though; I can't say I've met any. More subtle and widespread I think is the idea that animals don't have emotions, that, for example, it's okay to leave your dog chained in a corner of the yard its entire life because it won't feel boredom, loneliness or abandonment. That's even harder to argue against; the signs of emotion are much easier to argue away - assuming they're recognizable at all.
As for your last statement - there's another side to that too. The human mind, perhaps uniquely on this planet, is also built in such a way that it can analyse itself, and deliberately reject old patterns of behaviour.
>>Aaaaand... this is the last one.
Aaaaand before I can comment on the series as a whole, I'm going to have to think about it, and feel about it, perhaps for quite a while.
On FA, it's painfully rare to find any work that requires thought and feeling; for this alone, I owe you my thanks and my respect.
Aaaaand before I can comment on the series as a whole, I'm going to have to think about it, and feel about it, perhaps for quite a while.
On FA, it's painfully rare to find any work that requires thought and feeling; for this alone, I owe you my thanks and my respect.
There's further difficulty in determining whether an animal is in pain since many animals deliberately hide signs of illness or pain (or at least obvious signs). A survival mechanism that makes perfect sense in the wild turns out to make it that much harder for humans to understand what an animal is really feeling. It gets even harder when we're talking about non-social animals which wouldn't have a reason to obviously communicate pain to anyone (not requiring sympathy or protection to get by). Can a crocodile feel pain? Yes, by neurobiological evidence. But you'll never see a crocodile cry or scream if it's poked, bled, or even cut apart. Crocodile tears non-withstanding.
Well, some might not scream and cry, but all animals would certainly avoid painful stimulus by trying to break free, twitching, squirming, convulsing and whatnot. If you do something painful to an animal (like the crocodile in your example), likely it'll not just stand there.
I remember reading that prey animals have the mechanism you described to a greater extent compared to (larger) predatory ones, BUT it mostly works when there's a threat nearby. The example I read about concerned castrating bulls by cutting off blood flow to the testicles using a piece of rope (I don't remember where and when this kind of method was used widely). The bulls acted normal in the presence of humans, but when they didn't see them, they exhibited pain behaviour.
I remember reading that prey animals have the mechanism you described to a greater extent compared to (larger) predatory ones, BUT it mostly works when there's a threat nearby. The example I read about concerned castrating bulls by cutting off blood flow to the testicles using a piece of rope (I don't remember where and when this kind of method was used widely). The bulls acted normal in the presence of humans, but when they didn't see them, they exhibited pain behaviour.
I seriously hope you get some real-world gallery time on this set of images with the quotations attached, because I have to say, I see so many things taking up gallery space with so little attempt at reason. It's nice to see a solid statement, something with inarguable depth and meaning rather than the all-too-common 'Oh, I can shock bourgeoise viewers if I crap on my canvas!'
(Sorry for late reply.)
Thanks. Well, it had gallery time for two days... And I'm printing an english version for an art collector abroad, so I guess it'll be exhibited someplace. I neither know or care when and where, to tell the truth - even though I'm quite happy with it, I think it's not good enought for a gallery.
Thanks. Well, it had gallery time for two days... And I'm printing an english version for an art collector abroad, so I guess it'll be exhibited someplace. I neither know or care when and where, to tell the truth - even though I'm quite happy with it, I think it's not good enought for a gallery.
This piece reminds me very closely of a video floating around that demonstrates how poorly most people interpret non-lingual communication.
Lady doing a news report is holding a cat, who's rowling ominously. She ignores its protests, merrily jostling it in her arms as its growls get more pointed. When it finally takes a few swipes at her face she looks utterly shocked and betrayed, despite the fact she had plenty of warning. She honestly thought it was making those sounds because it was *happy* to be carried by a stranger and bounced around.
It's all too common especially with wild animals to blithely dismiss their behavior as 'unpredictable', when it's simply a failure of communication. We're supposed to be the smart ones, but our grasp of the language of other species is terrible.
Lady doing a news report is holding a cat, who's rowling ominously. She ignores its protests, merrily jostling it in her arms as its growls get more pointed. When it finally takes a few swipes at her face she looks utterly shocked and betrayed, despite the fact she had plenty of warning. She honestly thought it was making those sounds because it was *happy* to be carried by a stranger and bounced around.
It's all too common especially with wild animals to blithely dismiss their behavior as 'unpredictable', when it's simply a failure of communication. We're supposed to be the smart ones, but our grasp of the language of other species is terrible.
Yet I'd be willing to bet that if the same woman encountered a human being who rowled and growled ominously, she would have no trouble interpreting the sounds: "Whoah, he's really angry!"
So I'm not sure if it's a poor understanding of non-lingual communication, or a poor understanding that, yes, animals have feelings to communicate, and these feelings might not match her own....
So I'm not sure if it's a poor understanding of non-lingual communication, or a poor understanding that, yes, animals have feelings to communicate, and these feelings might not match her own....
I've seen some of that behaviour, deffinately.
Given that we grow up among ourselves, without seeing other autonomous animals that very often, there's no way to get a feeling for communication in the wild. Sometimes, as far as subtleties go, it's not intuitive - like the position of the tail and ears and what they "mean" have to be remembered at first. Ofcourse outright growling and snarling can't be confused with anything.
Given that we grow up among ourselves, without seeing other autonomous animals that very often, there's no way to get a feeling for communication in the wild. Sometimes, as far as subtleties go, it's not intuitive - like the position of the tail and ears and what they "mean" have to be remembered at first. Ofcourse outright growling and snarling can't be confused with anything.
It seems to me that when an animal is in pain, it is the same as what I would feel, but instead of driveling and whining about it, they deal with it. They carry on with their lives as fully as they can. Have you ever seen an animal give up on life, just jump off a cliff? No? I havent either. For whatever reason, animals are stronger then humans, what would destroy the sanity of a human, merely hampers the lifestyle of an animal.
I remember watching many videos of Koko, the female gorilla, communicating through sign language with Penny, her caretaker. The degree of her ability to communicate with humans is impressive. She showed that animals, or certainly primates, can feel pain, emotions and even have moral judgements.
Comments