4 ms·
This seems to not be a very useful distinction (binary vs gradient) though, because in practice the question in the gradient scenario moves to “at what point al
by DoneWithAllThat 4y ago
This seems to not be a very useful distinction (binary vs gradient) though, because in practice the question in the gradient scenario moves to “at what point along the gradient do we demarcate sentience”.
- izzydata 4y agoI think the idea is that the entire gradient is sentient to varying degrees. Two neurons interacting could be sentient, but is not enough to us as humans to have any meaningful interaction with. A cpu with two gates is way less useful than a cpu with a billion gates because one can perform more useful calculations to us more quickly. A creature with a brain that has 10 times as many neurons as a human probably isn't 10 times as sentient, but it might enable than to perceive reality in a way that a human never could imagine. I think the problem might be that we are wanting to define sentience in a too human centric way. Just because something like an insect can never perceive reality like we do as people doesn't necessarily mean it is not a simpler form of sentience. An insects brain probably doesn't dedicate any neurons to allow it to perceive suffering or itself, but it clearly perceives something. I don't know though. Just rambling here.