On Apr 25, 11:46*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/25/2012 1:19 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 7:11 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/25/2012 5:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 24, 7:52 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 7/30/2007 7:07 AM, pearl wrote:
>
> >>>>> ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> >>>>> Video (8.38 minutes)
> >>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADhNch30Img
>
> >>>> Regan says, *"They [animals] are not only in the world, they are aware
> >>>> of it, and also what happens to them." *Bullshit. *Animals are *not*
> >>>> aware that they are in the world, they don't even know there's a world,
> >>>> and they have no concept whatever of any "fate" in store for them.
>
> >>> The claim is that animals are aware of the world. To quote Ludwig
> >>> Wittgenstein, "The world is everything that is the case."
>
> >> Sophistry.
>
> > What, what Ludwig Wittgenstein said? How would you define the world,
> > thenm?
>
> >>> Animals are
> >>> aware of some aspects of reality. They are not aware of the existence
> >>> of the planet earth or the universe, and they are not able to think at
> >>> a sufficient level of abstraction to be able to think to themselves
> >>> "The world is everything that is the case", but they are aware of some
> >>> aspects of reality, and that is enough for the claim to be true.
>
> >> Animals are not aware that they exist *in* reality. *No animal
> >> contemplates in any way the relationship between itself and the rest of
> >> reality.
>
> > The claim was that they are aware of the world. All that it takes for
> > this claim to be true is for them to be aware of some aspects of
> > reality.
>
> No, that's wrong.

It's not. I am correctly interpreting what Regan meant (quite
obviously).

> *Aspects of reality are not reality itself. *The tale
> of the six blind men and the elephant ought to tell you that.
>
> >>>> Regan: *"And what happens to them matters to them." *Wrong.
>
> >>> Actually, it is very obviously true.
>
> >> No, it is very obviously false. **Nothing* matters to them.
>
> > These claims are quite absurd.
>
> They're not. *They're correct. *Because:
>
>
>
> >> "Matters to them" is completely alien to animal mentation.
>
> Because of that.
>

There is some evidence that some nonhuman animals do have that
concept, and in any event the claim that nothing matters to animals
obviously doesn't follow from that at all, and is obvious nonsense.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> "Like us, they bring a unified psychological presence to the world."
> >>>> Bullshit - pure mealymouthed psychobabble.
>
> >>> It's not bullshit.
>
> >> It's unadulterated bullshit.