Sentience

[Helm]

I can try. Bear with the broken english. It's not my first language.

This is I think basically the age old "what makes us human?" issue. I've been thinking about this a lot, and I've arrived to what I think are some safe conclusions.

One definition of 'human' is difficult to formulate. Is having the physical traits of a man enough to be human? If so, would a double amputee no longer be considered a human, even partly? I think not. In fact, if one could consider the disembodied mind-in-a-jar scenario, (or the robot proclaiming "I am I" scenario, for that matter) I'd say the physical apperance of a man is not even a prequisite in being called human. "Human", I think is a definition based dialectically to the observation of differences between men and animals. This is to say, that 'human' is the sum of characteristics that animals lack, and men possess. The most prominent of those characteristics I believe it's safe to say, is the ability to reason on an abstract level.

Now, whether animals can arrive to quantifiable results has been an object of much speculation, but to the best of my knowledge, the current scientific belief on the subject is that the vast majority of animals have an interactive genetic memory, which operates somewhat like reason (and is passed on to further generations. A kitty cat, seperated from it's mother the day it's born still will attack moving objects without anyone teaching to how to), but with no abstract reasoning capability. Thus, if you hit a dog with a stick, it will associate pain with you or/and with the stick, but will not be able to deduct abstract conclusions from experience. It will just instinctively modify it's behaviour, doing what makes it happy, and not doing what makes it scared or be in pain. Being 'happy' or 'scared' is in this respect, the instruments of instinct in providing for the welfare of the animal, and require no understanding of self. Emotions are inherently connected with instinctual desire. The animal cannot arrive to such a statement as "I will not go near fire, because that might endanger my wellbeing", but rather will only be able of substractions of the kind of "fire = pain, pain = bad, thus to avoid pain, avoid fire" which are not unlike scripted programming.

Man has atavistic instict too (from which I'm a firm believer man should work towards nullifying, but that's a completely different issue), but he also along the way, somehow became aware of his existance. I believe this is not an instictual trait, but rather the product of cultural association and the logical conclusions derived from it. Sentience is then, a by-product of logic. I believe it a defining characteristic of a 'human' then, to be capable of appreciating sentience logically, and being able to express it in such a way.

A fetus has no such ability. It will instinctively react to stimulii (in the process of abortion, it's heart rate goes up, which could be said to be such reaction) but it is not able to reason towards proving it's existence. Even at the last stages of pregnancy, the new-formed baby is not aware, in any other level that the instictual, of it's position in relation to it's enviroment. I believe then, that it should not be considered human. It should be considered alive, but plants are also alive and there's no big ethical controversy (well, there's a small one) about chopping up firewood.

Hope this makes some sense.