[extropy-chat] I keep asking myself...

[ben]

"Robert Bradbury" <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> asked:


> I'd like to ask a question whether anyone on the list adheres to the 
> Buddhist definition of "sentience" -- essentially any organism which 
> breathes.
> 
> If one accepts that definition then I would suspect that many, if not
> most, list members are guilty of "abusing" sentient beings (it 
> presumably requires that one not consume meat).

Can't claim to be any such, but i'm curious - what if the meat wants to
be eaten (a la the cow in The Universe at the End of the Restaurant -
No, that's wrong, isn't it?)

If a meat creature wants to be eaten (really badly, say - i mean "badly
wants to be eaten", not "wants to be badly eaten", like with your mouth 
open or something), and your morality dictates that you not abuse it by 
eating it, you are abusing it by NOT eating it. Difficult dilemma. Glad 
i'm not a Buddhist.

The normal definition of Sentience simply means 'capable of sensing',
which includes all life, i'd have thought. So i don't see any difference
between the 'ordinary' and the 'Buddhist' definitions.

'Consciousness', though, that's a different matter. I have no problem
abusing sentient beings (including thermometers and Gatso cameras), but 
would probably draw the line at abusing conscious ones. Hmm, okay, 
Self-Conscious ones, anyway (does this include cows, do you suppose?).

Now - can somebody satisfactorily define 'Consciousness'? :-P

ben