8 ms·

Yes. The bar for sentience is quite low. It only means that one is capable of feeling sensations. (For example, Wikipedia gives the definition, "Sentience is t

by moeris 5y ago

Yes. The bar for sentience is quite low. It only means that one is capable of feeling sensations. (For example, Wikipedia gives the definition, "Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations.")

agravier 5y ago
Why are not all animals recognised as such under that law?
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
  Unfortunately a lot of legislators lack sentience themselves...
- The_rationalist 5y ago
  Would you say tardigrades can feel sensations? I mean yes they can detect and process inputs from the external world but given a lack of better understanding, we believe that qualiesque sentience require a decent number of neurons.
- timClicks 5y ago
  Because at times it's convenient to maim and/or kill them.
  - ryan_j_naughton 5y ago
    Sometimes it is necessary. Pest control is inherent. We cannot allow mice, rats, etc to live in urban environments unchecked. Mice are sentient, does that mean we should only use no-kill traps and then release the mice somewhere far away? Many urban pests have population numbers that are 50-100X higher per square mile in the city than they could sustain in the countryside. So if we could even theoretically capture them and release them in the countryside, most would die due lack of sufficient food, which also seems unethical. And simply releasing a pest on the other side of the city so it isn't bothering your house clearly isn't solving the problem. Killing animals, particularly pests, seems like an inherent part of urban living. Is this unethical? I don't think so.
    - willis936 5y ago
      To make it simpler: consider the lobster. It's not a pest yet still isn't considered above being boiled alive for no reason other than "that's what paw deid".
      - WillEngler 5y ago
        Slipping the phrase "consider the lobster" into a place where it was germane to the conversation made me lol. Well done.
      - bumby 5y ago
        There is some thought backed neuroscience that lobsters can't feel pain in the human conception of it because of the lack of a neocortex. I don't know how well that can be tested, but it goes beyond justifying it because "that's what paw deid"
        willis936 5y ago
        A lobster being boiled behaves the same way a cow or dog or human behaves when being boiled. Seems strange to make the cutoff for acceptable treatment based around a wishy-washy ill-defined notion of "Can this thing that is very different than me feel pain? I promise I am not biased by the fact that I have vertebrae."
        SyzygistSix 5y ago
        The same way an ant does as well.
        bumby 5y ago
        How is being derived from current understanding of biology wishy-washy? Reaction to stimuli and pain are different phenomena. If you’re stance is “we just don’t know for certain so it’s better to be conservative” that’s fine, but that uncertainty shouldn’t be conflated with actual reason when it’s just based on wishy-washy anthropomorphism.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  The original source linked in TFA states anything with a backbone is covered.
  - Tagbert 5y ago
    Which would not apply to either octopuses, crabs, or lobsters
- Igelau 5y ago
  Because we can only wager hazy guesses as to what it means to experience. If a line is to be drawn, than it must be drawn in seemingly inconsistent and arbitrary ways. There is a mimosa in a garden near me that will close its leaves when you touch it. Is it experiencing the sensation of touch? (Edit: mimosa pudica, sometimes also called the shameful plant on account of how tenderly it seems to fold itself)
Natsu 5y ago
Are fetuses not sentient for most of their growth, then?
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Human fetuses become sentient sometime between 8-30 weeks (depending on who you ask and how they define sentience).
  - Thorrez 5y ago
    >depending on who you ask and how they define sentience Natsu was assuming for the sake of argument that the definition of sentience is the one moeris gave, namely "that one is capable of feeling sensations".
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      That is the well established definition; no need to assume it for the sake of argument. However, "capable of feeling sensations" is defined in different ways and thus leads to the large differences in when people say a fetus is capable of feeling pain. Is it when the nerve cells responsible for emitting pain signals develop? When a fetus is capable of responding to pain? Is it when the circuits develop to route those pain sigbals to the part of the brain associated with conscious perception of pain? All of those thresholds are crossed at different stages of fetal development so which threshold you use will change the answer you give for "when does a fetus become sentient?"
      - glenstein 5y ago
        >the well established definition Well, I don't think so. I like to think I've studied enough philosophy to be at least somewhat reasonably acquainted with the term, and it wasn't striking me as "well established." And I did a bit of googling yesterday that also seemed to suggest the "well established definition" being used here is not consistent with any of the normal definitions. And just now I consulted the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and now I'm convinced it's not even remotely close to well established. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anything cited here to back that up, or even just an appeal to any informal, working understanding of the concept that makes me think "oh, of course, that's the definition." And normally I wouldn't ask for such a thing, except for the fact that, to me at least, a lot of people seem to be confidently wrong about what it is. >Is it when the nerve cells responsible for emitting pain signals develop? When a fetus is capable of responding to pain? Is it when the circuits develop to route those pain sigbals to the part of the brain associated with conscious perception of pain? Pretty sure it's the last one.
gruez 5y ago
Does an arduino have sentience? It can certainly sense stuff via its gpio pins. As for "feelings", I don't know, would having a state machine that transitions between "happy" and "sad" based on gpio inputs count?
- RansomStark 5y ago
  That's an interesting question, or at least it might be in the future, as it cuts right to the heart of what it means to be alive. Right now no, an Arduino can't be sentient because it's not alive. If at some future point an Arduino could tick all the "is alive" boxes [0]: - homeostasis - organisation - metabolism - growth - adaptation - response - reproduction Then yes, there would be a good case for the Arduino being sentient. However if you take a look at the list you'll see response is listed, that's because anything that is alive is sentient by definition. Sentient by definition is really the point, sentient and sapient were defined specifically to codify the uniqueness of humanity. All these other this are sentient, but only us, humans, and sapient. The definitions although seemingly scientific are simply a re-enforcement of the biblical idea that the world was created for us, and that we can essentially do as we please, you can see this is the test for sapience, which is, is the specimen a member of the homo sapiens species. Just for completeness, and to also touch on why this might become an important question; you'll also see organisation on that list. Organisation is usually defined as being made up of one or more cells, which suggests that an Arduino, or any machine, will always fail to pass that test. Essentially humans have defined life in terms of itself. This makes sense, we only have a single reference and as such we can't even begin to imagine what other forms of life may exist. However, as we create ever more complex nondeterministic machines, or if we ever get serious about finding extraterrestrial life, this definition is going to have to change to allow for other possibilities. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
  - jkepler 5y ago
    > The definitions although seemingly scientific are simply a re-enforcement of the biblical idea that the world was created for us, and that we can essentially do as we please . . . That's a historic misinterpretation of biblical teaching on the place of people on the world. Genesis 1 gives humanity dominion over the creation, but given that Genesis 2 parallels that command with the twin verbs, "tend and keep" (or sometimes "guard and defend"), the idea can't permit wanton destruction[1]. Rather, humans, made in the image of God the King, have a royal calling to work for the flourishing of life in all the earth. We're called, not to do as we please, but to do what pleases the Creator. Thus, Proverbs speaks of the tender mercy of a righteous person towards his or her animals, and contrasts it with the cruelty of the wicked. Deuteronomy's rules for warfare forbid destroying fruit trees, for they're the means of sustaining life. Historically speaking, many of the evangelical Christians who joined Wilberforce to campaign against British slavery also started the first humaine societies, anti-child-labor groups, and the first women's rights organizations. The Bible calls humanity to compassionate care for all life, including plants, animals and unborn humans. [1] Lynn White's essay, The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis (1967. Science 155: 1203-1207), contributed to this idea that Christianity caused our ecological crisis. However, Francis Schaeffer's 1970 book in responce to White's essay, Pollution and the Death of Man, explains the Bible's actual teaching on humanity's calling to steward creation for God's glory.
thepasswordis 5y ago
Is wikipedia itself sentient?

by moeris 5y ago

agravier 5y ago

Why are not all animals recognised as such under that law?

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
Unfortunately a lot of legislators lack sentience themselves...
The_rationalist 5y ago
Would you say tardigrades can feel sensations? I mean yes they can detect and process inputs from the external world but given a lack of better understanding, we believe that qualiesque sentience require a decent number of neurons.
timClicks 5y ago
Because at times it's convenient to maim and/or kill them.
- ryan_j_naughton 5y ago
  Sometimes it is necessary. Pest control is inherent. We cannot allow mice, rats, etc to live in urban environments unchecked. Mice are sentient, does that mean we should only use no-kill traps and then release the mice somewhere far away? Many urban pests have population numbers that are 50-100X higher per square mile in the city than they could sustain in the countryside. So if we could even theoretically capture them and release them in the countryside, most would die due lack of sufficient food, which also seems unethical. And simply releasing a pest on the other side of the city so it isn't bothering your house clearly isn't solving the problem. Killing animals, particularly pests, seems like an inherent part of urban living. Is this unethical? I don't think so.
  - willis936 5y ago
    To make it simpler: consider the lobster. It's not a pest yet still isn't considered above being boiled alive for no reason other than "that's what paw deid".
    - WillEngler 5y ago
      Slipping the phrase "consider the lobster" into a place where it was germane to the conversation made me lol. Well done.
    - bumby 5y ago
      There is some thought backed neuroscience that lobsters can't feel pain in the human conception of it because of the lack of a neocortex. I don't know how well that can be tested, but it goes beyond justifying it because "that's what paw deid"
      - willis936 5y ago
        A lobster being boiled behaves the same way a cow or dog or human behaves when being boiled. Seems strange to make the cutoff for acceptable treatment based around a wishy-washy ill-defined notion of "Can this thing that is very different than me feel pain? I promise I am not biased by the fact that I have vertebrae."
        SyzygistSix 5y ago
        The same way an ant does as well.
        bumby 5y ago
        How is being derived from current understanding of biology wishy-washy? Reaction to stimuli and pain are different phenomena. If you’re stance is “we just don’t know for certain so it’s better to be conservative” that’s fine, but that uncertainty shouldn’t be conflated with actual reason when it’s just based on wishy-washy anthropomorphism.
ModernMech 5y ago
The original source linked in TFA states anything with a backbone is covered.
- Tagbert 5y ago
  Which would not apply to either octopuses, crabs, or lobsters
Igelau 5y ago
Because we can only wager hazy guesses as to what it means to experience. If a line is to be drawn, than it must be drawn in seemingly inconsistent and arbitrary ways. There is a mimosa in a garden near me that will close its leaves when you touch it. Is it experiencing the sensation of touch? (Edit: mimosa pudica, sometimes also called the shameful plant on account of how tenderly it seems to fold itself)

Natsu 5y ago

Are fetuses not sentient for most of their growth, then?

shkkmo 5y ago
Human fetuses become sentient sometime between 8-30 weeks (depending on who you ask and how they define sentience).
- Thorrez 5y ago
  >depending on who you ask and how they define sentience Natsu was assuming for the sake of argument that the definition of sentience is the one moeris gave, namely "that one is capable of feeling sensations".
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    That is the well established definition; no need to assume it for the sake of argument. However, "capable of feeling sensations" is defined in different ways and thus leads to the large differences in when people say a fetus is capable of feeling pain. Is it when the nerve cells responsible for emitting pain signals develop? When a fetus is capable of responding to pain? Is it when the circuits develop to route those pain sigbals to the part of the brain associated with conscious perception of pain? All of those thresholds are crossed at different stages of fetal development so which threshold you use will change the answer you give for "when does a fetus become sentient?"
    - glenstein 5y ago
      >the well established definition Well, I don't think so. I like to think I've studied enough philosophy to be at least somewhat reasonably acquainted with the term, and it wasn't striking me as "well established." And I did a bit of googling yesterday that also seemed to suggest the "well established definition" being used here is not consistent with any of the normal definitions. And just now I consulted the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and now I'm convinced it's not even remotely close to well established. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anything cited here to back that up, or even just an appeal to any informal, working understanding of the concept that makes me think "oh, of course, that's the definition." And normally I wouldn't ask for such a thing, except for the fact that, to me at least, a lot of people seem to be confidently wrong about what it is. >Is it when the nerve cells responsible for emitting pain signals develop? When a fetus is capable of responding to pain? Is it when the circuits develop to route those pain sigbals to the part of the brain associated with conscious perception of pain? Pretty sure it's the last one.

gruez 5y ago

Does an arduino have sentience? It can certainly sense stuff via its gpio pins. As for "feelings", I don't know, would having a state machine that transitions between "happy" and "sad" based on gpio inputs count?

RansomStark 5y ago
That's an interesting question, or at least it might be in the future, as it cuts right to the heart of what it means to be alive. Right now no, an Arduino can't be sentient because it's not alive. If at some future point an Arduino could tick all the "is alive" boxes [0]: - homeostasis - organisation - metabolism - growth - adaptation - response - reproduction Then yes, there would be a good case for the Arduino being sentient. However if you take a look at the list you'll see response is listed, that's because anything that is alive is sentient by definition. Sentient by definition is really the point, sentient and sapient were defined specifically to codify the uniqueness of humanity. All these other this are sentient, but only us, humans, and sapient. The definitions although seemingly scientific are simply a re-enforcement of the biblical idea that the world was created for us, and that we can essentially do as we please, you can see this is the test for sapience, which is, is the specimen a member of the homo sapiens species. Just for completeness, and to also touch on why this might become an important question; you'll also see organisation on that list. Organisation is usually defined as being made up of one or more cells, which suggests that an Arduino, or any machine, will always fail to pass that test. Essentially humans have defined life in terms of itself. This makes sense, we only have a single reference and as such we can't even begin to imagine what other forms of life may exist. However, as we create ever more complex nondeterministic machines, or if we ever get serious about finding extraterrestrial life, this definition is going to have to change to allow for other possibilities. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
- jkepler 5y ago
  > The definitions although seemingly scientific are simply a re-enforcement of the biblical idea that the world was created for us, and that we can essentially do as we please . . . That's a historic misinterpretation of biblical teaching on the place of people on the world. Genesis 1 gives humanity dominion over the creation, but given that Genesis 2 parallels that command with the twin verbs, "tend and keep" (or sometimes "guard and defend"), the idea can't permit wanton destruction[1]. Rather, humans, made in the image of God the King, have a royal calling to work for the flourishing of life in all the earth. We're called, not to do as we please, but to do what pleases the Creator. Thus, Proverbs speaks of the tender mercy of a righteous person towards his or her animals, and contrasts it with the cruelty of the wicked. Deuteronomy's rules for warfare forbid destroying fruit trees, for they're the means of sustaining life. Historically speaking, many of the evangelical Christians who joined Wilberforce to campaign against British slavery also started the first humaine societies, anti-child-labor groups, and the first women's rights organizations. The Bible calls humanity to compassionate care for all life, including plants, animals and unborn humans. [1] Lynn White's essay, The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis (1967. Science 155: 1203-1207), contributed to this idea that Christianity caused our ecological crisis. However, Francis Schaeffer's 1970 book in responce to White's essay, Pollution and the Death of Man, explains the Bible's actual teaching on humanity's calling to steward creation for God's glory.

thepasswordis 5y ago

Is wikipedia itself sentient?