BlackBerry’s Hypothetical

[BlackBerry]

Food for thought: 

At what point does life become considered sentient? And should all life that is sentient equal? 

Consider this, imagine a future instance, a hypothetical time in which humans are all treated equal to one another. This perfect human society comes in contact with another race of beings who have some sort of intelligence and are self aware. They have the ability to communicate and do not express hostile intent as a whole. These beings are organized into a society similar in complexity to humans. Is this the sign of sentience? And furthermore, are they, who have now made contact with us and proved their complexity equal to humans? 

Now also consider this, the dictionary definition of sentience is: 

sen·tient

/ˈsen(t)SH(ē)ənt/

adjective

able to perceive or feel things.

 

This definition then would be somewhat up to interpretation. Does feel mean emotionally? Or physically? Furthermore, it directly outlines the prerequisition of the ability to perceive. This therefore would declare many animals within Earth itself as fitting the criteria of sentience, at least at a proto-sentient level. Thus, there is a sense of interpretation within such discourse. So, I leave the rest to you. Do you believe emotions are required for sentience? Think of the vulcans from star trek, who are exempt from emotions. Or is it intellect? Dolphins have a large amount of intellect and show more than just anima instincts. Engaging in a lot of humanizing and recreational habits. So, what defines to you individually, sentience? And what defines the equality for sentient organisms? Should all sentience be equal? Or only those who feel emotion? Or only those who contribute to the philosophical greater good? I eagerly await your responses!

Edited April 6, 2021 by berry
grammatical errors

[BlackBerry]

An additional point, do you think that the droids of Star Wars are sentient? If so, which ones.

[Guac]

Sentience is an extremely debated topic. Mainly to the fault of human rights activists not knowing what the word means and misrepresenting data using it. A better point of reference to explain this is the word used in the definition itself, perceive.

per·ceive

/pərˈsēv/

1.

become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand.

This word supplies the user with a deeper understanding of sentience even through its complex nature. Self-awareness, abstract thought, and higher reasoning are all indications of sentience, of which stem from a standard level of perception. Sentience described through these 3 indicators provides us with again... a crossroads. There are many animal's, fantasy or not, who fit these marking's; yet we still seem to not recognize them as sentient nor hold their lives to the same standard as our own. This shows that as a species, majority of us (except vegans... yuck) believe life isn't intrinsically valuable, even with the three traits described earlier in this paragraph. The opposite applies as well. As a species, we don't find the lack of these traits within one another to diminish the value of ones life (if we did, people in coma's would be in some trouble).

Enough with the blabber, let me answer the question's now.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q. At what point does life become considered sentient?

A. When it develops self-awareness, abstract thought, and higher reasoning

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q. And should all life that is sentient [be] equal?

A. No. The world was never meant to be that way. We have a hierarchy of animals and their value's set out, to breach that would cripple society as we know it.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

[BlackBerry]

Current society, yes may be too fragile and rigid to adapt to an introduction of another sentient species. That is a good point. Thank you for outlining closely a criteria by which sentience could be defined unto. I personally feel that therein lies an issue specifically with mankind. The egocentricity of our society and humans as a group species would make it difficult for another group to be considered equal. We are selfish enough to prioritize ourselves over an other form of life. But must we be? I feel that a furthered society of humans perhaps more open minded may be able to adapt to a sentient species complex enough to create a society enough to call them equal. Do you feel this may be true? Integration in a hypothetical future society?

[Eclipse]

this is too smart to be on the synergy roleplay fourms

[Harsh]

Wow, I love this question. It's something I've pondered in the shower a number of times in the past while growing up. I don't think anyone can really have "the" answer to your questions but I'll let you know what I personally believe. 

To me, sentience all boils down to sensation and perception (like what Guac talks about in his response), but with some necessary qualifications. To be sentient, you must have the sensory equipment required to interact in some way with the universe. For humans this boils down to our sensory machinery (organs like the eyes, skin, ears, etc.). However, simply being able to sense is not enough to qualify as a sentient being. After all, a camera technically has the sensory machinery required to interact with and interpret the universe around it, but I certainly wouldn't consider a Nikon polaroid camera to be sentient. 

This is where the other half of the coin, perception, enters the picture. Perception is, as Guac so aptly put it, the ability to understand and be aware of something. In other words, a sentient being needs to be able to interpret and understand the wide variety of information that it records with its sensory systems. 

Under this definition, something like a computer attached to a camera could technically be called sentient. However, I don't personally see a simple processing chip attached to a camera as a sentient being. Instead, I'd qualify my definition by tacking on another requirement - Intelligence. This is a pretty nebulous term. After all, isn't intelligence just relative? To me, intelligence means being able to make use of your perceptions in some way to make a meaningful impact on our shared reality. Again, under this definition, a more complex machine like the Boston Dynamics robot would be considered sentient. The robot can sense its surroundings and make use of that data to move around and execute commands.

This is where my final qualification comes in - Individuality. A sentient being needs to be able to sense, perceive, and have some modicum of intelligence. It also requires some form of individuality. More specifically, the being cannot be wholly controlled by another person or outside influence. When we add individuality to our sentience "equation," we see that robots like the Boston Dynamics one no longer apply as sentient beings. After all, those robots are controlled by a human user and make no decisions or thoughts for themselves. 

You're probably thinking to yourself: "That's great Harsh , by what does all of this imply?" 

Well, under my definition, beings like animals (from the tiniest, measliest little ant to the largest, smartest human) are all sentient. While there is definitely a widely varying degree of sentience under this definition, even the smallest and stupidest creatures are sentient under this definition. 

Now to address your more ethical question: "Should all sentient life be equal?"

Before I start on this, I just want to warn all of you reading that this will most definitely be very hypocritical. I recognize this and raise to you the fact that this is simply a discussion, and are just my thoughts. My actions definitely don't reflect what I am about to write here. 

In the perfect world, yes, all sentient life should be equal. I personally believe that every sentient being experiences reality one way or another. The ant lives its life building its hive and serving its queen. The wolf hunts game and runs with its pack. Etc., etc. When these animals die, they cease to experience reality just as we do. What gives us the right to "play god" over them? The cynical answer is that we're simply smarter and more powerful than any of these animals.

Yet, given the size, scope, and complexity of our ever-expanding universe, it is almost a guarantee that there is another bigger, more powerful, and smarter species than us out there somewhere. If that's the case, and we are the metaphorical ants to them, should we be considered equals? Out of pure selfishness, I'd have to say yes. That's why I think that (ideally) all sentient life should at the very least be respected. 

Practically, of course, this isn't possible. As a species, we require energy to survive - energy that we can (currently) only supply ourselves with through the consumption of other organisms. If we were to extend equality (or even respect) to all other sentient life-forms, we would soon find that our species is dead. Without being able to eat the sentient plants and animals we encounter, we'd die very quickly of starvation. 

From another practical angle, even extending our considerations of who is equal to us would be nigh impossible. Take the mentally ill as an example. People with low intelligence (as measured by IQ) or with mental disabilities (e.x: Autism, Personality Disorders, Schizophrenia, etc.), are all not considered equal to the "normal" human being. They are ostracized and pushed to the boundaries of society for the sole reason that they are only slightly different from the ideal person our society considers to be "normal." If we can't even extend equality to these people (who are our same species), how can we expect to extend equality to individuals of another species? 

In my mind, it all comes down to power. People with disabilities (mental or physical) have less power than the "normal" person. I'm not just talking about physical power here, I'm talking about all forms of power. Physical power isn't everything - the ripped body builder MMA fighter has less power than the senator who commands the law and dozens of bodyguards. Those with power shape reality to their will, and those without are crushed underfoot. Until this changes, the situation will remain the same. We'll likely never see a world with true equality, because we as a species have been bred over millennia of evolution to fight for limited resources and hold on to them with a tight fist. 

Reading over everything I just wrote makes me see just how cynical I am. Regardless, I hope this can spark some interesting conversation!

[Cox]

50 minutes ago, Eclipse said:

this is too smart to be on the synergy roleplay fourms

Monkey hit rock with stick?

[Moose]

I'd fuck an alien

[Gears]

26 minutes ago, Moose said:

I'd fuck an alien

@Alien