Does suffering REALLY matter?

[Jason]

beep

[JimC]

Is that beep an expression of existential angst?

[pErvinalia]

Just to give you a time line. Moores Law says that the number of connections in a computer will double each 2 years. This has been true for 50 years so far. If it continues into the future, the first computer with as many connections as the human brain will be built in the year 2035.

I am not claiming this will be the equivalent of a human brain. But with exponential computer growth, such a beast will not happen much after 2035.

Moore's law is already slowing down in computing because we are approaching physical limits with the current architecture (i.e. macro transistors), and energy supply and heat generation problems. It will all kick off again when they finally sort out a quantum computer.

That's interesting, but it will hardly affect the OP problem, as an ant has a miniscule brain, so computers can easily pass ants, mice, or even humans, without harnessing quantum effects.
The scope is there for a machine with all of the feelings of a human, and intelligence far in advance of ours.

I wonder if an ant actually suffers, in the way that we experience it, or in the way that a car computer experiences it.
I suspect that it's far closer to a computer, than a human. It's just getting signals that tell it that some pre-determined action needs to happen.
After all, they come out of the egg with all of the necessary knowledge and behaviour hard-wired in their brains.

Well it all comes down to "consciousness" as I said earlier. Does an Ant have consciousness? I doubt it, but there's no way for me to really tell. Either that, or I'm just making myself feel better for roasting them alive with a magnifying glass when I was a kid...

[JimC]

They had a very particular smell when you roasted 'em...

And they usually made a kind of popping sound...

[orpheus]

Does suffering really matter?

Yes.

[rainbow]

beep

Nobody cares.

[JimC]

Does suffering really matter?

Yes.

Well yes...

But...

If we are talking real human suffering, then it matters to the rest of humanity in several ways. We have built-in empathy, most of us, which to a large extent is an evolutionary feature of hominid tribalism. Reciprocal altruism, a solid component of evolutionary theory, manifests strongly in human emotions. Those who cannot feel empathy for other's suffering are outside the normal human range. Broadening the concept in our cultural evolution is the many strands of history which have extended the range of tribe, through nation, and finally to the whole of humanity.

Donne said it well, expressing the changing zeitgeist thus:

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

This thread, however, has explored whether the meaning of suffering can or could be broadened beyond the confines of our species. A strong majority of people would say a resounding yes, when applied to animals, at least, shall we say, vertebrates. Any pet owner is going to tell you to fuck off if you say that a cat or a dog cannot suffer...

There is a range of opinions when it comes to creatures like ants, and then there is the speculation about the possibility of suffering in machines powered by =some form of artificial intelligence. Evolution "designs" pain nerves into animals for reasons which natural selection can illuminate well. In future, the equivalent may be designed into our creations; if so, we have brought the possibility of machine suffering into the realm of the possible...

[pErvinalia]

Any pet owner is going to tell you to fuck off if you say that a cat or a dog cannot suffer...

I don't know about that, Jim. I know some pet owners who don't like to swear.

[orpheus]

Does suffering really matter?

Yes.

Well yes...

But...

If we are talking real human suffering, then it matters to the rest of humanity in several ways. We have built-in empathy, most of us, which to a large extent is an evolutionary feature of hominid tribalism. Reciprocal altruism, a solid component of evolutionary theory, manifests strongly in human emotions. Those who cannot feel empathy for other's suffering are outside the normal human range. Broadening the concept in our cultural evolution is the many strands of history which have extended the range of tribe, through nation, and finally to the whole of humanity.

Donne said it well, expressing the changing zeitgeist thus:

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

This thread, however, has explored whether the meaning of suffering can or could be broadened beyond the confines of our species. A strong majority of people would say a resounding yes, when applied to animals, at least, shall we say, vertebrates. Any pet owner is going to tell you to fuck off if you say that a cat or a dog cannot suffer...

There is a range of opinions when it comes to creatures like ants, and then there is the speculation about the possibility of suffering in machines powered by =some form of artificial intelligence. Evolution "designs" pain nerves into animals for reasons which natural selection can illuminate well. In future, the equivalent may be designed into our creations; if so, we have brought the possibility of machine suffering into the realm of the possible...

I understand. For me, that adds nuance to the picture, but it does not change my answer for any of those categories. My answer still is yes, it does matter.

[Seth]

Any pet owner is going to tell you to fuck off if you say that a cat or a dog cannot suffer...

I don't know about that, Jim. I know some pet owners who don't like to swear.

Actually cats and dogs, like any other animal, experience pain and fear, which are natural evolved self-preservation sensations and instincts. Humans impute "suffering" to that experience based on anthropomorphic projection. Dogs (and particularly cats) don't lay blame or feel sorry for themselves, they just experience and endure the slings and arrows outrageous fortune and react accordingly.

[JimC]

Any pet owner is going to tell you to fuck off if you say that a cat or a dog cannot suffer...

I don't know about that, Jim. I know some pet owners who don't like to swear.

Actually cats and dogs, like any other animal, experience pain and fear, which are natural evolved self-preservation sensations and instincts. Humans impute "suffering" to that experience based on anthropomorphic projection. Dogs (and particularly cats) don't lay blame or feel sorry for themselves, they just experience and endure the slings and arrows outrageous fortune and react accordingly.

I think that experiencing pain and fear is enough to be classified as suffering, particularly given that, at least in mammals, it manifests in clear emotional states which we can recognise as being at least similar to our own experience. Sure, humans can reflect on their pain and fear, and "feel sorry for themselves", which adds another dimension of potential misery, but I think consciousness of one's own pain is not a required condition for me to determine that a dog or a cat is suffering.

[pErvinalia]

Any pet owner is going to tell you to fuck off if you say that a cat or a dog cannot suffer...

I don't know about that, Jim. I know some pet owners who don't like to swear.

Actually cats and dogs, like any other animal, experience pain and fear, which are natural evolved self-preservation sensations and instincts. Humans impute "suffering" to that experience based on anthropomorphic projection. Dogs (and particularly cats) don't lay blame or feel sorry for themselves, they just experience and endure the slings and arrows outrageous fortune and react accordingly.

You don't actually know that. This is the problem with working out if something has consciousness or not.

[pErvinalia]

Any pet owner is going to tell you to fuck off if you say that a cat or a dog cannot suffer...

I don't know about that, Jim. I know some pet owners who don't like to swear.

Actually cats and dogs, like any other animal, experience pain and fear, which are natural evolved self-preservation sensations and instincts. Humans impute "suffering" to that experience based on anthropomorphic projection. Dogs (and particularly cats) don't lay blame or feel sorry for themselves, they just experience and endure the slings and arrows outrageous fortune and react accordingly.

I think that experiencing pain and fear is enough to be classified as suffering, particularly given that, at least in mammals, it manifests in clear emotional states which we can recognise as being at least similar to our own experience. Sure, humans can reflect on their pain and fear, and "feel sorry for themselves", which adds another dimension of potential misery, but I think consciousness of one's own pain is not a required condition for me to determine that a dog or a cat is suffering.

I think the fact that they show emotional distress indicates a very high likelihood that dogs and cats (and most higher mammals) possess consciousness and self-awareness. Seth calls that anthropomorphism, I call arbitrarily separating humans from other higher mammals "religious".

[Jason]

beep

Nobody cares.

Really?

[mistermack]

I understand. For me, that adds nuance to the picture, but it does not change my answer for any of those categories. My answer still is yes, it does matter.

I think my own natural reaction would be the same. But the more you examine it, the foggier it gets.
Do you think that PAST suffering matters now? Apart from an academic interest?
Does it matter now, that people were burned for heresy in the past? Once that person no longer exists, there is no personal memory of the suffering. It's just like it never happened.

So does suffering only matter if it's currently happening in the present to a living aware creature?
You could argue that as we are all going to die, suffering is completely inconsequential, as is EVERYTHING that happens to us.
Because in 200 years time, it will be just like we never existed. Some information of what we did might linger on, if it's remarkable stuff. But it's not very likely, or particularly important.
So what does it matter if a human or animal, or machine, suffers? It's just an evolved reaction in our brains, to make us avoid harmful things, and to make us communicate to others that we need help.
It's really not important, except in the fleeting present, to those who actually suffer, or those who know and care.