The understanding has changed several times over your life. Wherever we try to define sentience and draw a line, by tool use, puzzles, abstraction, etc, we find some creature that can do it and have to come up with a new line. Consciousness is a slippery word and so it is sentience vs sapience. Clearly politically incorrect.The only thing worth mentioning in the sentience vs sapience debate is that every argument adduced in favour of sapience is self refuting. As one cannot even prove one exists or that I exist with ones wisdom. And it doesn't even matter. What we now know about emotional capacity in animals, and the specifics of octopus and whales, birds, elephant mourning, etc these are recent scientific breakthroughs. Many boomers genuinely believed animals were not even sentient. They thought everything around them was an NPC. They are solipsists that believed they were just in a video game before video games were ever invented. And this has been the case for generations. Sapience itself as a binary state has a questionable history as it presents as a sliding scale that is increasing, and seeing a particular boom as of late.
>>538840719>I want to discuss sapience>let me immediately revert to sentience because I'm a drug addled Star Trek enjoyer that can't reject bad dataHave you considered adhering to the definition of the words you use? Start there.Fix yourself so you can follow your own fucking conversation. "Sentience" is an alarmingly low bar. PLANTS ARE SENTIENT.
Furby was fucking amazing
>>538840809The sapiencist rages, his wisdom, turned against him. He yells at the plant!
>>538840809Single cells organisms are semisentiant. Look at any small life form and you will realize that its existence is just as significant as your existence is to you, and in order to engage with its environment must have some level of processing power and an understanding of the world.We are looking forward to describing the elephant but currently everyone is looking at its individual parts and not realizing that its all connected. Your genetics are always being updated, if your cells didn't feel as alive as you individually then you don't feel alive anymore.Wow its really not that profound, we are just sad scared little apes with delusions of grandeur and the means to fulfill them.
>>538840719https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FhjwbQ3RfYeC6ZJWe/sentience-sapience-consciousness-and-self-awareness-definingThere is a difference between sentience and sapience. All animals are sentient.All organisms behave distinct from their environment. How they arrive at those distinct behaviours relative to their environment is variable and largely determined by their evolution.Single-celled Lacrymaria olor Hunts Down Another Cellhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq6Y54mxjOg How does a single-celled micro-organism know how to navigate itself in fluid without a single brain cell? It doesn't. It kicks its tentacle when pointing at a high-chemical concentration and doesn't when it's not. Doing that gets it to a food source giving off a high-chemical concentration. It's a biological mechanism performing a simple process.
>>538841003Nooo! STOP! NO BULLIING! BEE NICE TO THE TREE THEY MAKE OXYGEN AND RAIN! STOPIT!
>>538841003>I am incapable of adhering to the definition of words and it's YOUR FAULTIncorrect. I am not the party at fault for your inability to grasp your own stupidity.
>>538841196You just explained how it did it. We can also explain how you did it, in as much detail. You refute yourself.
>>538841271You are yet to refute my OP post. Prove you exist wise boi
>>538841196Which is still incredible. You do the same. You see a pair of huge tits and your mammalian ancestors start salivating, and your lizard ancestors are all like "Yes, these are the tits we lived and died for"
Sapience is intelligence>therefore, if not:Sentience is intelligent design.>do betterPretty simple.
You cannot prove you exist because logic is a postulate. The jews told you otherwise and you fell for it. You cannot argue yourself into being without being used in the argument. So either you exist and things matter and there is objective morality or you do not exist, and nothing matters, and there is no objectivity or relative causality. You have to stop being a faggot and take a position and explain it or admit solipsism.
>>538841313You refuted yourself with your own words, dumb cunt.Australia is not a memeflag. Fuck off back to jeetpile.
>>538841617The sapiencist degenerates at the sight of his own contradiction.
>>538840719>sentience>consciousness>sapienceall broad placeholders. We intuitively know something's there we just don't know precisely what. Merely necessary steps in the process of dissection. Before we even open something up we assume it has 'insides' this would be broad terms like sentience. Then we start poking around and discover the various cortices, then neurons, then anything else until we hit the atomic wall.Does this make the broad terms irrelevant though? I don't think so. When we start classifying things in ascending order we run into the same problem. Just because other animals would class as sapient doesn't mean there are forms of life which aren't.
>>538840719I have never once doubted my own sentience or consciousness since the earliest age I can remember realizing it. I have however had multiple people tell me they "didn't know" if they were conscious or sentient or not. Tell me anons, are you in doubt ever about your own sentience? Or do you know it to be real? IMO it is literally the only thing I know for sure as being real which is why I have no need to prove it to others, however this does not appear to be universal from the people I've spoken to.
>>538840719>>538840991them niggas were alive i don't care what anyone says
>>538840719Nah, they knew they felt shit, they also knew it did not matter and pretending otherwise gets your bloodline ended as it is a giant handicap.You're part of a sapient eats sapient world, whether you like it or not.Your side's fault lies in asking the wrong questions.
>>538840719Mycelial networks in the soil detect human and animal movement on the surface, calculate the anticipated route of the human/animal and redirect fluid resources to that path to best breakdown the soil and plant matter that will be depressed and trodden underfoot by the human/animal walking on the surface. This happens in split seconds
I posit that sapience is a cope. It is not a category but is a rationalization used to exclude whatever one wishes to harm. It exists only in the minds of those that draw it and that the insistence of sapience as morally relevant is itself evidence of low sapience. It is moving the goal posts to stay in the game.
>>538840719The "problem" with sentience is that the tests with the smarter animals overlap significantly with the dumbest niggers, language is the only common denominator with sentience if you include all "humans".
>>538842644It is a category. The fact that is can be used by some for moral justifications is irrelevant to whether it exists or not(which it does).
Why can't we just admit we're selfish and we prefer continuing our own existence?
>>538843295I am listening and open. Convince me of its existence.
>>538842456Correct
>>538843416You can and it is a position I respect. It is the vague people you see in thread refusing to state a position that are clearly of a sub human variety.
>>538840719Consciousness was already discovered, many times, not that anybody believes the people who discovered it. Dismissing their claim forever is the norm.
The question leads to the construction of a device with many interesting methods. Finding the answer to the question is meant as a challenge to elevate you beyond your current state of awareness.
>>538843425Before I do that, I have to know if you're even willing to truly accept the existence of abstract concepts. Do you believe that an atom and a galaxy both exist even though the latter is an abstract form comprised of the former? If you do, can you accept that those forms, along with every intermediate step are merely our intuition classifying what we can observe?
>>538843674>>538843819This is sub human levels of cringe.
Maybe you are using that device... Right now...
>>538843836Your question implies you have not read my posts.
I know you are all quite serious, but from my perspective it is quite funny. I don't think anybody will understand what I am laughing about but to summarize what I am laughing about, it is miscommunication and your anger and your future anger, but that's ok maybe trying to answer this question and prove you have the answer to it will lead you down a less destructive path.
>>538840719Possessing a parallel system of lamarckian evolution for the brain, stored externally through symbolism
>>538843923So,>Yes>YesSapience can be considered a step in dissection. Above (comprised of) narrower classes like emotion or persistent memory but below (comprising) broader classes like sentience. I really don't see how this can be denied. If a plant cell can't be considered to have thoughts or reflect on them, but it might be able to experience what we call pain, then it implies that not all forms of life can be sapient.
>>538844539This is an incredibly weak argument and if it was as undeniable as you suggest it would be more substantial.Your claim that sapience 'comprises' things asserts a hierarchy of things. You are not telling me why, your conclusion exists in your premise. So you present a taxonomy that describes but does not defend a hierarchy.On what basis does sapience constitute a subset of sentience rather than an independent axis, which is what most philosophers argue for.
>>538840719>sapienceCant normies even think for themselves sufficiently for it to overcome their natural tendencies
>>538845314>you present a taxonomy that describesNothing else is required. That's the exact process we used to prove the existence of a galaxy among many other things.>On what basis does sapience constitute a subset of sentience rather than an independent axisAll instances of sapience can be considered sentient, but not all instances of sentience can be considered sapient. All mammals can be considered animals, but not all animals can be considered mammals. Axes are the wrong way to look at it.
>>538845760>That's the exact process we used to prove the existence of a galaxy among many other things.Exactly. It is unprovable and yet the sub human presents it as proof. As I have stated repeatedly alreadyHere>>538840719>>538841512>>538843494You cannot clearly define your argument and have to play games of asking me to accept things because you know it cannot be proven. It is a faith.Stop trying to use logic and admit your real position.
>>538845881Your belief is that it's unprovable. The notion that observable reality doesn't exist or can't be proven is pure, blind faith. I'm working with observation and what can be repeatedly tested, the opposite of blindness.
>>538846515Prove it. Again with the vague statements
>>538846638Prove that observable reality exists? You have the proof in front of you right now. Even someone that subscribes to simulation theory one has to accept that the simulation itself exists.So far your positions are that you don't exist and that sapience and sentience are somehow opposing concepts and not specific aspects of part-whole relationships
>>538847007The sapiencist reverts to a circular argument while being unaware of it, and reverts to the most basal idea of a 'simulation theory' instead of any genuine established philosophical argument against my own definitive arguments. A look at his posting history thus far gives the clear impression of an imbecile. An individual who argues in his free time, on topics they know nothing about. We know the mechanisms inside his brain, the neuropathways that influence his behaviour.I posit that this invididual is sentient. Not provably conscious and not provably sapient but sentient.
>>538841321>You do the same.Because he's also sentient. The difference is that he can self reflect in addition to acting reflexively meaning he's also sapient. There's no mutual exclusivity.>>538847159> An individual who argues in his free time, on topics they know nothing about.This accusation is a confession. Just like how you accuse others of operating of faith alone while your core beliefs are nothing beyond blind faith.
>>538847744Unable to substantiate the claims he has made about his own sapience, he thrashes.
I'm going to use my programming to override my programming.
For those aware. The current argument being posited is that he is sapient because of two things, self reflection and acting reflexively. Self reflection as proof of self reflection. The argument completes itself. We are full circle. He is only sentient.
>>538848120>The current argument being posited is that he is sapient because of two things, self reflection and acting reflexivelythe only thing you have left is misrepresentation.The protozoa is sentient because of its ability to act reflexively and experience a form of sensory perception. It has nothing that would allow it to self reflect so it is not sapient.In addition to this lower level function, the human also has the ability to self reflect which makes him sapient on top of being sentient. We can even observe which parts of the brain are responsible and analyze it down to the atomic level. Denying any of this is done on faith alone and requires the believer to dismiss observable reality.
>>538848677The sapiencist elaborates on self reflection, offering us the same argument in a longer form while reflecting remains indefensible as a threshold. This behaviour is predictable we understand the underlining causes of complex behaviours, and can predict them in sentient beings. They follow documented patterns based on stimuli and in this case visual. As we cannot observe why he confers to this argument. I posit he is doing theology.
>>538848876determinism does not exclude self awareness
>>538840719>Consciousness is a slippery word and so it is sentience vs sapienceI think it could be defined more coherently within a mathematical framework. Consciousness arises from matter organized into a specific configuration.>As one cannot even prove one exists or that I exist with ones wisdomI would start with the assertion above; consciousness is also a constituent of the universe and so since this can't be disproven either be default it's categorized within a framework of existence>What we now know about emotional capacity in animals, and the specifics of octopus and whales, birds, elephant mourning, etc these are recent scientific breakthroughsIMO there's a thermodynamic relationship between time entropy which holds the mathematical trajectories needed to define consciousness as it functions within a system and showcase the media in which consciousness couples to energy. It's a function of e=mc^2 within a chaotic domain>Sapience itself as a binary state has a questionable history as it presents as a sliding scale that is increasingIMO sapience occurs when the localized pocket of low entropy reaches what is in effect it's Chandrasekar limit, it collapses into a singularity and grows exponentially proportionate to energy input; with technology generated as a by product
>>538849035Correct. It does not confer moral weight.
>>538849152>shifting to moralityany discussion about morality is secondary to identification. Higher cognition like sapience exists regardless of if you verbally accept it or believe it carries moral weight. You've thrown in the towel on enough points that I see no reason to continue this.
>>538840719>boomers genuinely believed animals were not even sentient. They thought everything around them was an NPCThe irony
>>538849491He accuses us of a shift, still refusing to concede the circular nature of his reasoning. This type of intellectual stubbornness is now predicable by way of a variety variables. He is sentient.
>>538841196>How does a single-celled micro-organism know how to navigate itself in fluid without a single brain cell?>It doesn't. It kicks its tentacle when pointing at a high-chemical concentration and doesn't when it's not. Doing that gets it to a food source giving off a high-chemical concentration. It's a biological mechanism performing a simple process.The problem is the definition of sentience is to be sentient, which requires consciousness. Something we do not yet understand and something we cannot define... until you can define consciousness you cannot define sentient. But nice try.
>>538840719In my personal opinion (in other words: facts) humans are not intelligent by any objective measure.Maybe there's an IQ threshold above which we could speak of intelligence, instead of a reduced level of stupidity, but I can only speak for the 150-160 range, and that's below this threshold (as in: I'm retarded, just less so).Unfortunately it's hard to find people with an IQ of 180 or 200 or the likes, but I suspect they will also readily agree that they are fucking stupid. The idea of human exceptionalism is for normies wishing to feel better about themselves.That is not to say humans do not have fairly advanced capacities for abstract reasoning and such, rather the question is: how important is this really? How "sufficient" is it? The scope of IQ is famously narrow.>think faster>detect patterns>factor in many variables>adhere to rigid logic>???
brains are receivers, consciousness is universal and elemental, Nikola Tesla was right
>>538840719Wake me up when they start putting animals on trial for crimes again.
>>538849898Your processing of sensory data into useful information can be deemed consciousness.Consciousness is an inner sense organ; it takes data from the internal physical senses rather than external physical cues like sound waves and light. Just like the senses, through representation and simulation, consciousness processes this data into language, concepts, thoughts and so on.There is nothing mystical, intangible or imaginary about consciousness. Meditation, or mental focus, reduces the amount of input, be it sensory data, thought, emotion, bodily experience, etc. until only unadulterated consciousness remains. The ability to focus appears to be physical, like a muscle.Whereas the brain is a physical object, the mind is an abstract concept - a simulation space.Consciousness travels through electricity via the electronic layer of information and energy that surrounds matter as an electron cloud.Our consciousness is "alive" due to the electron charge maintained by the Krebs cycle. Our brain stores information patterns that previously passed through our nerves due to this charge wave pattern.Even if our cell-charge temporarily gets bad, or a single cell dies, as long as the neurons that store our previous charge patterns remain unharmed to the decay-related discharge, the pattern that constitutes "you" still remains in the body despite having technically shut off the Krebs charge. As long as your hard drive is safe, turning off the power on the computer does not erase the computer. Consciousness is overhyped. It is the way we store this information and process it that is more interesting.
>>538846515Although it's kinda relative. The conscious is an illusion of sorts; certainly not a physical object, so the main question would be: is your body and the world physically real?Not that this matters in any way because the idea of escaping the simulation, when your being is a simulation inside a simulation, is absurd.>but maybe the conscious is the real part, trapped inside a simulationEven more absurd, though admittedly it's difficult to say what exactly is the nature of the conscious.>literal ghost floating around for all eternity BOOOO>>538848876>>538849035Even the ability to wilfully engage in arbitrary actions is of little consequence, and a product of fundamental processes, like choosing one of two equivalent but mutually exclusive options.
>>538851093It could also be said that your consciousness is housed within your soul, which is electric. Your soul accesses your DNA via the chromosomal matrix as a biological fibre optic. And self-contained electrical energy can exist outside of geo-magnetic fields, so it is possible to disembody from your physicality and travel as an electrical organism.Or the question could be how we access this (stored) information. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mindby Julian JaynesIf you take Jaynes' theory, then language either ignites consciousness or grants access. In which case, alphabetical language is currently the ultimate form of language and, therefore, the greatest means of consciousness.Prometheus Lost.Prometheus Regained.Prometheus didn't give us fire; he gave us alphabetical language.
>>538840719humans are measly shaved monkeys that crawled from some cave 20k years ago. yet they think they are the height of evolution. a joke is what you are. a fart in a hurricane.
>>538851093Thats not a definition of consciousness in humans. Let alone a single cell.
>>538851093>>538851108It's not the electricity as such producing the conscious but the network it travels in. If the network is disrupted the conscious no longer functions, which is a rather obvious problem. It's the connections between countless neurons that govern the content and function of the mind; electricity is just its means of transmission, and useless if removed from the network.Also: The most sophisticated processes inside the mind do not use language. Naturally it is important for the development of advanced intelligence, or directly related to it, but beyond that point it's just a method of abstracting information, communicating and preserving it. It's literacy that ultimately led to intellectual advancement.
>>538841083youre retarded to apply that logic in that direction>>538841512faggot can't even talk philosophy without mentioning jews and doesnt know what solipsism is>>538842284its inherently unintuitve ffs thats why noone gets it. you autistic retards dont understand anything abstract unless you can stack it like lego. if you cant think for yourselves at least read a fucking book and stop shitting up the board
>>538851093>>538851108>>538851670See 3 people, 3 different answers. There is an understanding of how consciousness works. Merely some untestable ideas and metaphysics babble... if we understood and had a definition of consciousness then the 3 of you would have given the same answer. But we dont.So returning to the OP: if we cannot define what is conscious and what is not then how can we define sentience, which requires consciousness?
