4 ms·
You were explicitly talking about testing sentience (which does not require "moves around" or "communicates"). Sentience is simply a concept we have come up wit
by pmr_ 13y ago
You were explicitly talking about testing sentience (which does not require "moves around" or "communicates"). Sentience is simply a concept we have come up with to differentiate organisms. It wouldn't seem surprising to me if something more evolved used a different concept more appropriate to their physiology or philosophy. Hence I think you need to be careful if we are about to apply our concepts to classify something.
- Dylan16807 13y agoThey might have a different standard of important but that has nothing to do with checking for sentience. If they're so advanced beyond that the original analogy breaks and while I might have that discussion at some point I don't think it fits here. On the topic of sentience, I just think it's exceedingly unlikely for there to be an intelligent organism that does literally nothing with its intelligence. Some kind of self-aware rock. And on top of that the mechanism of the intelligence would have to be almost impossible to study or plug wires into to try to force it to communicate.