3 ms·

> Sentience IS poorly defined though. The nature of anything that is poorly defined is inherently poorly defined. The only logical way to discuss a poorly defi

> Sentience IS poorly defined though. The nature of anything that is poorly defined is inherently poorly defined. The only logical way to discuss a poorly defined concept is to acknowledge that it's not a singular concept and to identify the logic that you actually care about. You cannot draw a line in the sand without recognizing that the concept itself is fictitious and its up to you to draw the line in the way you choose. There is no right answer. There is merely consensus for the purpose of conversation. And if you have no consensus, then don't bother having the conversation. Because you're being stupid again. When people imagine this vague concept, and then start to give examples of things that are and are not aligned with that concept, and then start disagreeing because their visions of the vague concept differ... they're just being idiots. You're just trying to bottom-up back into a position that could have been defined as poorly defined from the beginning because you thought the word "sentience" or whatever gave it legitimacy as a concept. If I'm going to discuss sentience, my definition involves intelligence that is aware of itself, exists strictly in continuous time, and has motivations about the itself and its relationship to the world. I absolutely do not care about anyone else's definition. We use the word definition but that's a language problem. Your definition of sentience is not a competing definition with mine. it is a different thing in a shared name space because language isn't good enough. if you disagree with my definition, you disagree not with existence of my opinion, but with my namespace allocation of it. and that does not matter. maybe you have an interesting idea that I would like to hear and incorporate into my view. But it's still just a fuzzy name space for many things. not a singular concept that has one definition we've yet to arrive at. What is X == What ought to be represented by the word X in our crappy language? When you realize this, it becomes apparent that "what is X" is a very boring question and obvious why pretty much every philosophical debate on "What is X" ends up with some dumb appeal to non cognizance.

KyleBerezin 4y ago
> You cannot draw a line in the sand without recognizing that the concept itself is fictitious and its up to you to draw the line in the way you choose A unified concept of sentience helps us as a society to determine what behavior is allowed regarding a given entity. Given proper discussion on the topic via the means you denounce, a more concise and possibly accurate definition can be had.
- ShamelessC 4y ago
  I suspect the true answer is that sentience is defined as a spectrum of phenomena ranging from matter that can make some sort of a measurement (like a thermometer) to simple “agents” that have distinct boundaries and a mechanism for controlling that boundary, all the way up to systems like the brain - and perhaps far beyond. That definition simply doesn’t help you tackle ethical issues in the way you’re presuming- where we can say “this is sentient, that is not”. But it is a possibility.
  - KyleBerezin 4y ago
    I would say it already does to some degree. We choose to not eat certain animals like dolphins, but happily eat fish. Society determined in very informal terms that they are more sentient than fish and therefore they should not be eaten. I would also like to say that I made the 'line in the sand' point for arguments sake, and that I personally think it is a spectrum.
kajaktum 4y ago
This whole post is a nothing burger. You're just ranting that everyone don't understand what you are saying or you can't articulate. "I have this idea in mind that is correct but I can't quite write it down or explain to anyone. Anyways, you're wrong!". That is exactly the point of discussing these "vague" concepts; because it is hard. Because when we dig deeper into something that is seemingly obvious, we find many inconsistencies and contradictions. This means that we need to reconcile them somehow, and that is why we talk about them. You said: >aware of itself But that means that someone who is in "the zone" is not sentient while they are deep in their work? This is the kind of small details that people like to think, ponder and write about.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  > But that means that someone who is in "the zone" is not sentient while they are deep in their work? That is entirely up to you. Because sentience is just a word for a poorly defined concept. You're not debating the nature of the concept. You're debating the meaning of the word. Because the concept itself is just a bad mapping of language. You can't reconcile it, by definition, because it's not a thing.

KyleBerezin 4y ago

> You cannot draw a line in the sand without recognizing that the concept itself is fictitious and its up to you to draw the line in the way you choose A unified concept of sentience helps us as a society to determine what behavior is allowed regarding a given entity. Given proper discussion on the topic via the means you denounce, a more concise and possibly accurate definition can be had.

ShamelessC 4y ago
I suspect the true answer is that sentience is defined as a spectrum of phenomena ranging from matter that can make some sort of a measurement (like a thermometer) to simple “agents” that have distinct boundaries and a mechanism for controlling that boundary, all the way up to systems like the brain - and perhaps far beyond. That definition simply doesn’t help you tackle ethical issues in the way you’re presuming- where we can say “this is sentient, that is not”. But it is a possibility.
- KyleBerezin 4y ago
  I would say it already does to some degree. We choose to not eat certain animals like dolphins, but happily eat fish. Society determined in very informal terms that they are more sentient than fish and therefore they should not be eaten. I would also like to say that I made the 'line in the sand' point for arguments sake, and that I personally think it is a spectrum.

kajaktum 4y ago

This whole post is a nothing burger. You're just ranting that everyone don't understand what you are saying or you can't articulate. "I have this idea in mind that is correct but I can't quite write it down or explain to anyone. Anyways, you're wrong!". That is exactly the point of discussing these "vague" concepts; because it is hard. Because when we dig deeper into something that is seemingly obvious, we find many inconsistencies and contradictions. This means that we need to reconcile them somehow, and that is why we talk about them. You said: >aware of itself But that means that someone who is in "the zone" is not sentient while they are deep in their work? This is the kind of small details that people like to think, ponder and write about.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
> But that means that someone who is in "the zone" is not sentient while they are deep in their work? That is entirely up to you. Because sentience is just a word for a poorly defined concept. You're not debating the nature of the concept. You're debating the meaning of the word. Because the concept itself is just a bad mapping of language. You can't reconcile it, by definition, because it's not a thing.