Can I just say, and I'm just being honest...

[Edwardo Piet]

Jesus H. Christ, you sound like Drich, here. Who said anything about 'society'?

Um, because it's is part of society? You implied it?

I'm talking about medical professionals who deal with questions of pain management on a daily basis.

you simply do not understand. What the fuck does that have to do with anything when my whole point is that the biology of pain is not the same thing as the conscious ability to actually feel that pain and just because medical professionals decide upon certain rules of ethics doesn't mean they know anything about consciousness or philosophy.

I doubt the protocols they've developed over the years are some kind of received folk wisdom, hanging by a thread and ready to fall the moment someone blows their minds with the thought, 'Well, we don't really know what it feels like to be a [insert species of choice], and the animals don't tell me.' 

It's all fucking irrelevant.

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about because you're clearly unable to even address my point, despite having multiple chances so far. Saying I'm like Drich just because I mentioned society because I noticed what you are actually implying just makes you look like a fucking idiot.

Your incredulity at the fact I draw different conclusions than you do based on my own thinking about stuff rather than just an argument from authority rather points out that you're the unthinking one here, and more like Drich than I am. You prefer authority to thinking, just like Drich does. You should actually mention how the science in question addresses my point, rather than just mindlessly blurt out the equivalent of "Nuh huh because medical professionals decide otherwise!" (even though their ethical opinions don't address it).

But I'm the one who spews non-sequiturs . . .   

Yes you are.

Suggesting that medical knowledge about comparative nervous systems and pharmacology is somehow on a par with religious belief or with people changing their minds about social issues is simply laughable.

That's not what I said Mr. Non-sequtiur. I'm saying just because people decide on certain rules doesn't make it right (which is one of the non-sequtiurs you're making, the other one being that evidence of pain addresses evidence of experience of pain when it fucking doesn't, that's a non-sequitur if there's only evidence of the former and not the latter), and the homophobic rules of the very recent part are an example of that.

The medical professionals you are talking about aren't even addressing consciousness. They're professionals on medical matters, and scientific matters, not fucking philosophical matters, numbnuts. The whole point of the philosophy of this is that we don't know the answer which is why it's important to actually THINK and come to conclusions rather than blurt out your own opinions and how they match authority even when they're equally arbitary to my own opinions... but at least I've fucking thought about it rather than just said the equivalent of "I agree with medical people!" and "How can anyone hold your position?!" I'm really not impressed by fallacious arguments from authority and personal incredulity. (And what the fuck does biological evidence of pain and complex neurophysiology have to do with the philosophical point that it's not evidence of the ability to experience and therefore feel pain? Or evidence of exactly how complex the neurophysiology has to be to be conscious and sense pain (no one knows this but at least unlike yourself I don't pretend some people do)).

Your non-sequiturs and your incredulity at my position without actually addressing my line of reasoning and your mere arguments from authority are all very pathetic. Go be incredulous with someone else if you're not actually going to address my point (that the biology of pain and the conscious ability to sense pain are two different things, and that a group of medical professionals coming to a decision doesn't refute my point if they aren't even addressing my point, which is a philosophical rather than scientific point (I'm not even talking about something scientifically falsfiable and that should be obvious if you actually think about what I'm actually saying (and you've had multiple chances to notice), you unthinking turdbucket)).

---

Fish are not alive?? Hammy, you're goin a tad crazy lol...

They're alive if you wanna call plants alive, or "anything that is an animal" alive, sure.

The point is I don't think they're conscious. And no one has any evidence that they are, because that's not even scientifically falsifable. All we have is an argument from analogy based on our own consciousness, and fish are far more simple than we are, so the analogy is so much weaker, and we have no reason to believe that consciousness runs that far down.

If by "tad crazy" you mean "have controversial opinions," sure. But I'd rather have an unpopular position and wrongly be considered crazy when I've actually come to my unpopular position rationally via a logical thought process, rather than just went along with what most people believe, or mistakenly made non-sequiturs based on irrelevant scientific facts, when consciousness is a philosophical matter and not a scientific one because it's not even scientifically falsifiable. At least I think about stuff and don't make fallacies, even if my own opinion on where the buck stops is unpopular, at least it's rational... and mere incredulity and arguments from popularity and authority and irrelevant statements about irrelevant facts from those who disagree with me certainly don't make ME irrational.

We don't even know all mammals, or for instant, cows, or dogs, or other humans are conscious! But the argument via analogy is so much stronger for all those things, than they are for a little living thing flapping about in the ocean with gills. Or a little creature flapping and squarking and laying eggs. People anthropomorphize the fuck out of even the most simple of animals and yet they call ME irrational. The mamalian brain is vastly more advanced than non-mammalian brains, so yes, that's WHY I think the line I draw is not an unreasonable one: Mammals are conscious and other animals aren't (Octopuses being an exception because they have fucking 500 million neurons) And when people like Crossless mention a load of irrelevant bollocks about science that most people blindly agree with because they clearly don't even know what the fuck I'm saying, it doesn't make me wrong. It doesn't mean their conclusions are wrong either... but their non-sequiturs are. And they are wrong to make a load of irrelevant statements, while they practically jerk off to their own incredulity, acting as if it says anything about my actual point.

---

..."Soceity has decided that it's the right thing to do! Therefore it must be correct!"...

Why not take it as a given that lower animals can feel pain, it would be the decent thing to do and would eliminate the need for bullshit intellectual exercises on the issue.

That's already been the opinion I've been expressing lol. I draw the line in-between mammalian's and non-mammalians because mammalian brains are so much more advanced than other animals (It's a point in the evolutionary line in which an explosion in neurophysiological complexity happened, making it IMO less arbitrary than other lines to draw). With the exception of animals like octopuses that have 500 million neurons which I do believe are conscious.

But then I have to hear a load of bollocksy non-sequiturs about non-mammalian animals acting like they're in pain (which says nothing other than the fact they like to anthropomorphize even the most simple of creatures), as if pain detection and behavior has anything to do with consciousness or the ability to feel pain. And then I have to hear a load of irrelevant bollocks about medical science when my whole point is a philosophical and unfalsfiable one.

I wouldn't mind all the incredulity and irrational fuckery so much if it actually addressed what the fuck I was saying. I get tired of being misrepresented so frequently sometimes.