I remember reading that Descartes considered animals as nothing more than automata incapable of experiencing pain because they do not possess "souls" (define that!). Viewing this favorably you could say he was an intellectual living in a rarefied world of his own, simply a product of his age. Less intelligent people of his time, however, liked, say, dogs and understood that if you kicked them and they howled and ran away then they were experiencing pain. Was there something the matter with Descartes and his view of animals if he couldn't make this simple connection, so clearly cognate with the human experience of pain? I know Hume had problems with causation but surely not in such a painfully obvious empirical manner!

Is there any objective, scientific way to prove that we all see colours the same? I know it's one thing for two people to point at an object and agree on its colour, even the particular shade, but there's no way that I can tell whether or not the next person in line sees everything in shades of greys, or in negative. We can even study how light interacts with objects and enters our eyes, without truly knowing if one person would see everything the same if he suddenly were able to see though another's eyes. So, is there any proof that we all do see colours the same? Maybe even proof or evidence to the contrary? If that's so, I must say that you're all missing something great from where I can see.

Is it possible for the constituent parts of a conscious being to be conscious themselves? Can I infer from the fact that I am conscious that the cells which make up my body are not conscious?

What grounds the truth of logical inferences such as modus ponens or hypothetical syllogism? Are these logical truths grounded in "intuition" similar to Foundationalism?

Help me to understand this quote from Voltaire: "The infinitely little have a pride infinitely great." I already tried to understand it, but I can't find a consensual thought of it. With the best regards from Portugal, Olímpio P.

Hi. This is a question about Logic. I've read in a book by Michio Kaku, _The Physics of the Impossible_, that it may be possible to receive a signal before it was sent. This to my way of thinking would violate the logic behind causality. And yet on a social level we are effected by what happens in the future. An example would be Christmas shopping. My question is can an effect precede a cause, and if so what does that mean in relation to actuality and reality? Cheers, Pasquale

If animals have rights, shouldn't they have responsibilities? For example, dolphins have been known to kill porpoises, or even other dolphins, for fun. Do not the dolphins deserve the death penalty for these heinous actions? You might argue that dolphins are not developed enough to have moral responsibility. But dolphins are not developed enough to have morality, why should they be developed enough to have rights? Most animals rights activists (call them ARA's) assert that a humans right to life and well-being comes not simply from being human (that would be speciesist.) Instead, they assert that our rights come from from our functionality or development. Part of our development includes a moral dimension. So by the standards of ARA's, any agent with rights also has responsibilities. I doubt the PETA would approve of me stabbing a porpoise to death. Why aren't dolphins held to the same standard?

If I am correct, the opposite of 'A' is not 'B', 'C', 'D', etc., but rather, the opposite of 'A' is 'not-A.' Likewise, the opposite of 'Green' is not 'Blue', 'Orange', etc., but rather, the opposite of 'Green' is 'not-Green.' And the opposite of 'Dog,' is not 'Cat' or 'Whale,' but rather, the opposite of 'Dog' is 'not-Dog.' And so on. However, each letter 'B' through 'Z' is not 'A' (after all, it seems, 'B' is not 'A', 'C' is not 'A'. and so on). Does that mean that 'not-A' is, or can be, or includes 'B' through 'Z'? Thus, does that mean that the opposite of 'A' is or can be 'B', 'C', etc.? Logically, I suppose, letters can stand for anything -- so perhaps 'A' is or can be equal to, say, 'B' and, therefore, 'not-A' would be equal to 'not-B,' so the opposite of 'A' might be 'not-B'. But what about objects that are not logical symbols? Cats and whales or not dogs. So, if the opposite of 'dog' is 'not-dog', and if cats and whales are not dogs, then are cats and whales the opposite of dogs? Am I missing...

If a team of monkeys with typewriters accidentally typed a coherent and beautiful sonnet (one that appeared to be written by a talented author, despite being written by a shiftless monkey), would that qualify as art (or at least worthwhile literature)?

I would appreciate some recommendations on texts (for a layperson -- a nonprofessional philosopher) whose subject is the philosophy of science.