3 ms·

> Sentience is where becoming "a person" begins, and anything with sentience deserves protections similar to those we provide to human beings. Sentience is the

> Sentience is where becoming "a person" begins, and anything with sentience deserves protections similar to those we provide to human beings. Sentience is the ability to experience, and I think most would assume it's a fundamental requirement in order to be a person, but not all things that can experience (e.g. animals) are persons nor do we give them protections similar to human beings.

IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
We do give them protections, and those protections are roughly proportionate to (our believes regarding) their cognitive abilities. If some dolphin started talking about dolphin rights, those would exist pretty much immediately.
- kybernetikos 4y ago
  The relationship between cognitive abilites and sentience isn't clear at all. This is partially because sentience is about the ability to experience, and so far, we can only experience that from the inside, not be confident at measuring it from the outside. I would say that most people think they're related to each other - that if a creature is stupid enough, it becomes hard to believe that they have an inner life, and it's hard to imagine an obviously cognitively powerful creature that we wouldn't assume has an inner life. But still, they may be entirely separate phenomenon, especially if we're talking about outlier cases like AI.
- Banana699 4y ago
  This an arbitary threshold that makes it trivially impossible for any species that can't master human languages (which is any known species except humans) to have rights. Consider what a bee on BN (Bhacker News) might say in an alternative reality >> We do give humans protections, and those protections are roughly proportionate to (our believes regarding) their cognitive abilities. If some human started waggle dancing about human rights, those would exist pretty much immediately. It is not fair for bees to judge you on how much you can waggle dance (their communication style) before giving you rights, the physiological requirement is irrelevant to your moral worth and impossible to achieve. Intelligence is similarly irrelevant to moral worth. It's just the ability to solve problems, spicier definitions include things like recursive modelling (an entity capable of self-reflection) and self-preservation. None of this has the slightest thing to do with morality or ethics, a trivial counter example that satisfy all would be nation-states, they solve problems, they are capable of self-modelling, they seeks self-preservation (to astonishing lengths).
colinmhayes 4y ago
Many people believe we should be giving animals much more protections exactly because of their sentience.
- kybernetikos 4y ago
  Indeed, but it would definitely be a minority position to say that any sentience at all makes you deserving of human-level protections. Most people think there's more to being a person than the minimal ability to feel.

IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago

We do give them protections, and those protections are roughly proportionate to (our believes regarding) their cognitive abilities. If some dolphin started talking about dolphin rights, those would exist pretty much immediately.

kybernetikos 4y ago
The relationship between cognitive abilites and sentience isn't clear at all. This is partially because sentience is about the ability to experience, and so far, we can only experience that from the inside, not be confident at measuring it from the outside. I would say that most people think they're related to each other - that if a creature is stupid enough, it becomes hard to believe that they have an inner life, and it's hard to imagine an obviously cognitively powerful creature that we wouldn't assume has an inner life. But still, they may be entirely separate phenomenon, especially if we're talking about outlier cases like AI.
Banana699 4y ago
This an arbitary threshold that makes it trivially impossible for any species that can't master human languages (which is any known species except humans) to have rights. Consider what a bee on BN (Bhacker News) might say in an alternative reality >> We do give humans protections, and those protections are roughly proportionate to (our believes regarding) their cognitive abilities. If some human started waggle dancing about human rights, those would exist pretty much immediately. It is not fair for bees to judge you on how much you can waggle dance (their communication style) before giving you rights, the physiological requirement is irrelevant to your moral worth and impossible to achieve. Intelligence is similarly irrelevant to moral worth. It's just the ability to solve problems, spicier definitions include things like recursive modelling (an entity capable of self-reflection) and self-preservation. None of this has the slightest thing to do with morality or ethics, a trivial counter example that satisfy all would be nation-states, they solve problems, they are capable of self-modelling, they seeks self-preservation (to astonishing lengths).

colinmhayes 4y ago

Many people believe we should be giving animals much more protections exactly because of their sentience.

kybernetikos 4y ago
Indeed, but it would definitely be a minority position to say that any sentience at all makes you deserving of human-level protections. Most people think there's more to being a person than the minimal ability to feel.