Descartes: Are Animals Essentially The Same?

Descartes argues that animals and machines are essentially the same because animals do not have reasoning, akin to a machine. He denies that animals can think or communicate, arguing that animals lack the capability to reason, so they cannot comprehend the full meaning behind a thing, only that a thing is. For example, an animal can know that the snapping of a twig means pain or death if they don’t run, but it won’t recognize that the snapping means hunter, bow and arrow, desire to kill. Descartes states that animals can make certain movements and sounds to appear as though they feel, but they were programmed to do so when certain stimuli were encountered. He argues that animals lack the irreplicable “part” that humans have which prevents animals from communicating in such complex ways as language, “for one sees that magpies and parrots can utter words just as we do, and yet they cannot speak as we do”. He also takes note that animals do not act on intelligence, as they can do something better than we can, but they do not excel in everything we can; therefore they act only as nature programmed, and not as cognitive beings. Descartes’s argument is false because animals are

different than machines because they can recognize complexities such as death or pain, whereas a machine will treat killing as an action no different to a google search engine trying to answer a question.
If the idea that animals are not machines because all animals have awareness, and no machines have awareness is true; as well as the statement that, animals are capable of feeling pain, whereas machines are only capable of acting as though they perceive pain.

If animals are machines because they are not aware; then their movements are just a reaction to a programmed stimuli, which is false. Awareness is being the capability to perceive oneself and its surroundings. In a sense, a machine can pretend and may even be convincing, but the machine itself is unable to perceive the “pain” that it feels whereas animals are able to genuinely react. A machine could be given a convincing action to associate with the pinching of one’s hand, but it would not associate the pinching with actual

pain.
Animals and machines are different because animals have awareness, and machines do, not because machines are unable to make judgments without orders. There is no identifiable physical part of awareness. In other words, science has yet to provide conclusive evidence that allows someone to point to a part of the body and say “that gives feeling”. Due to this lack of evidence, Descartes can’t make the argument that there is no feeling, as humans we know that feeling exists. Seeing that we have this knowledge, it is not presumptuous to assume that maybe other creatures could carry this feature. Since we know such a feature, physical or otherwise exists, and cannot conclusively say that such a thing exists solely in humans, due to the fact that we can’t identify the part, it would be irresponsible to state with certainty that animals cannot feel. Descartes acknowledges this fact and instead focuses on the incapability of animals to understand the higher purpose behind the pain; notwithstanding, a machine could never achieve the capability of feeling, even if it isn’t tied with a greater reason. Without the capability of feeling, a machine could never have awareness as awareness would require feeling. The reason for this being that an animal could feel that it has an arm, and would understand that the arm is theirs. The animal would recognize the arm as their own, and not the object of another because it could perceive the feeling transmitted by that arm and have a awareness of the body; but, if there was no feeling as there is in machines, then there would not be awareness of the body. Machines have no feeling because you could program it to respond to a burning stove, you could install heat sensors that tell the robot, and the robot could be told to move once the sensors get too hot. However, you could also program the robot with sensors to put its hand on the stove and watch its hand melt off, and no “pain” would be perceived. But an animal, no matter how well trained would feel pain. You can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink. You can teach a dog to sit on a stove, but can’t make it stop feeling pain.

All animals have awareness. No machines have awareness. It could be concluded that animals are not machines. Due to the fact that animals are able to feel, and machines are incapable of even this basic attribute, as well as the fact that feeling goes hand and hand in with awareness, machines can provide a convincing illusion, but their feelings aren't real;so it follows that machines are unable to be aware; therefore, animals are not machines.