On 4/26/2012 10:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Apr 26, 7:28 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 4/26/2012 6:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 25, 11:46 pm, George > 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.
>>
>> It is.
>>
>>> I am correctly interpreting what Regan meant (quite obviously).
>>
>> Regan got it wrong, too, so you're following him in his error.
>>
>
> You're claiming he misused language?

I'm claiming that Regan is wrong to say that being aware of some aspects
of reality is to be aware of reality.


>>
>>>> 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,
>>
>> There isn't.
>>
>
> Yes, there is, based on observation of primates like Koko the gorilla
> who have been taught sign language,

Does not demonstrate that anything "matters to her."


>>> and in any event the claim that nothing matters to animals
>>> obviously doesn't follow from that at all, and is obvious nonsense.
>>
>> Wrong. What you ****wits are doing is substituting your judgment for
>> what "matters" in place of a non-existent judgment by animals; that is,
>> you're saying *as a human* that if you were an animal, certain things
>> would "matter" to you. That's bullshit - completely specious.
>
> Of course certain things matter to animals,

No.