Sentience

[Raven]

From the Abortion thread.

Originally Posted by Helm

As long as one can make the (abstract, I agree) distinction between enviroment and self, and not only can but wants to communicate this distinction, there's no need for faith of any sort. This is an interesting conversation, which I'm afraid is not suited to this thread. If you wish to continue this, by all means post a new thread.

You are quite right on this being interesting. And so as not to respond with ignorance. I'm going to have to ask you if you could perhaps go into detail about what you mean.

[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.

[VinceZeb]

I guess all you have to do is define what is not human and *presto*, you can have free range to kill it. Kinda like Hitler did with the Jews and Japan did with the Chinese during WWII, huh? And just like Pol Pot and your standard Commie dictators.

[Helm]

Hitler had no reasoning behind his saying that Jews where subhuman. He made esoteric claims about the 'strength of pure blood' and that, at the particular historical juncture seemed to be enough for the german people to go on.

I resorted to no mystical bullshit, in any case.

Also, I suggest you do not lump any dictator, and any genocide in with another. Historical occasions may have parallels, but should be observed on a case by case basis. For example, the Holocaust was actually the completetion of the Nazi ideal, whereas Stalin's pogroms where the cheapest degradation of the communistic ideal. This is a substantial difference Vince, because it tells us that Fascism can and should be held responsible even on the philosophical level for it's numerous atrocities, whereas Communism on the whole isn't to blame for the Pogroms, but Stalinism is.

[kellychaos]

Helm,

I think that "self awareness" is one of the key components of being human or, in simpler terms, realizing that there is an "I". To me, the development of this "I" can only come from the realization that there are other objects, living and nonliving, which serve to make us view ourselves as an "other" entity separate from "them". The next logical step is in seeking communications with "them", which is another keep contributor to our humaness that most other animals (subject can be debated to a degree ... re: dolphins, apes, ect.).

[mburbank]

Can I get an Icon made up that sort of a heiroglyph meaning Vinth said something stupid? I'm not quite ready to ignore him, but this is way too much typing.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Can I get an Icon made up that sort of a heiroglyph meaning Vinth said something stupid? I'm not quite ready to ignore him, but this is way too much typing.

Howza 'bout a nice, respectful "Aye, Commander!"

[Preechr]

Self-Aware and Sentience are kind of esoteric terms. What passes as Self-Aware to you is just as different from that for a puppy as it is for a mentally handicapped person.

I don't think Vince was actually off the mark. The distinctions being made here are directly aimed at a valuation of one life over another. Self-Awareness and Sentience is what essentially separates us from other life forms from our point of view. We value everything that exhibits those traits, and can morally digest lesser treatment of those things that do not.

We like things that are like us more. We place a higher value on human life than any other. From a universal perspective, everything is just various collections of different forms of electricity, even people. The universe values each particle the same, because all of those particles belong to it and it wouldn't care to lose ANY of them. Mankind values each man the same for the same reason, and each subset contained therein follows the same rule, all the way down to the part where you value your own individual subset of particles more than any other person's.

Your own valuation of the rest of everything is not going to be the same as anybody else's. A sewer rat is aware of itself and has sentience, but not to the same degree you do. If human sentience and self-awareness are uniques to humans, it's possible that sewer rats have some other defining trait that is as equally valuable to them as our Sentience is to us.

I'm just kinda rambling now... just trying to pitch in a little....

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Your own valuation of the rest of everything is not going to be the same as anybody else's. A sewer rat is aware of itself and has sentience, but not to the same degree you do. If human sentience and self-awareness are uniques to humans, it's possible that sewer rats have some other defining trait that is as equally valuable to them as our Sentience is to us.

I'm just kinda rambling now... just trying to pitch in a little....

Yet, it is the sum total of all this sensory datum that points back to me that makes me the "I" that I am. The "pointer", or the realization that all else is separate and which informs, is me. I don't know that I'm not doing much more than rambling either. :/

[Helm]

Helm,
I think that "self awareness" is one of the key components of being human or, in simpler terms, realizing that there is an "I". To me, the development of this "I" can only come from the realization that there are other objects, living and nonliving, which serve to make us view ourselves as an "other" entity separate from "them". The next logical step is in seeking communications with "them", which is another keep contributor to our humaness that most other animals (subject can be debated to a degree ... re: dolphins, apes, ect.).

I agree to as much. The dialectic connection between what is and isn't, is apparent in such definitions. What is being alive? Not being dead. What is being a human? Not being an animal. Those are the 'hardcoding', the basic premises needed to formulate any more developed cognitive forms.

Can I get an Icon made up that sort of a heiroglyph meaning Vinth said something stupid? I'm not quite ready to ignore him,
but this is way too much typing.

Vince's post in this thread has been the least offensive one by him I've had to read in good long while. Not to say that it wasn't a somewhat base observation to make, but at least I think I detected a honest urge to actually set those rusty wheels in his mind in motion. I can't say I expect more of Vince, and thus did not berate him in my reply (although I did allow myself to be a bit patronising, which in retrospect is a very petty thing to do). I feel it to be excessive to attack him for this one post. I think you making an effort to so thoroughly hound Vince in a bit worrying in itself.

Self-Aware and Sentience are kind of esoteric terms. What passes as Self-Aware to you is just as different from that for a puppy as it is for a mentally handicapped person.

No. They are not esoteric because they are expressable, and thus logically quantifiable. This is a fundamental division between the two, and it should be understood and maintained if those notions dependant on it can remain meaninful. And it's pretty dead-easy to express, at that. You simply have to state something in the lines of "I am I, and not other" and you're done as far as far as proof of sentience goes. A puppy cannot express this in any way, because it lacks the equipment that provides for cognition at such a level. A mentally handicapped person that is no longer in touch with the world as well shouldn't be enthusiastically adressed as human. I know you're thinking that to suggest such a thing is preposterous, but it's not. Men attribute too much on the physical, so if it looks like a human, it just has to be one. But if something that looks like a man cannot longer relate to it's existance as part (and of course, seperated from ) of it's context, then it simply is not.

A sewer rat is aware of itself and has sentience, but not to the same degree you do.

Such a thing cannot be logically expressed. Thus it is not so. Reason as Law, if you will.

If human sentience and self-awareness are uniques to humans, it's possible that sewer rats have some other defining trait that is as equally valuable to them as our Sentience is to us.

An entertaining notion, but to use the eshtablished, sentience is what it is because it is not something else. So there can be no parallel drawn between it and your imaginary vermin attribute. At least, no parallel that can be logically inspected to any useful degree.

[theapportioner]

Helm: "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.

Aye. Another defining feature of humanity is its ability to create and partake in culture, technology, social structure, values etc. Though rooted in our higher intelligence and other helpful qualities, it is what we do with our intelligence that makes us "human".

People often mix up a species-based distinction of humanity with a societal-based one and an individual-based one. They need not be the same. Blindly interchanging these distinctions is a source of error in the abortion debate, for instance.

Preechr: The universe values each particle the same, because all of those particles belong to it and it wouldn't care to lose ANY of them.

This is a nonsensical statement.

Preechr: Mankind values each man the same for the same reason, and each subset contained therein follows the same rule, all the way down to the part where you value your own individual subset of particles more than any other person's.

This is just ridiculous.

[Helm]

Aye. Another defining feature of humanity is its ability to create and partake in culture, technology, social structure, values etc. Though rooted in our higher intelligence and other helpful qualities, it is what we do with our intelligence that makes us "human"

That's a bit romantic. Not to say I wouldn't like to agree with it, but I don't see how adding such uses (which are products of said intelligence, as we agree) to a definition we're hoping to keep compact helps things in any way. As a broader (moral) commentary to said definition, of course I agree. You do realise what you just posted is a moral claim, right? Just checking because last time we discussed any of this your understanding of morality was by my standards a bit narrow.

In fact, thinking about this a bit more, I'm seeing how this, if approached in any other way than as a moral claim it can be dangerously misleading. There is a very strong "I believe it should be so" in your statement :it is what we do with our intelligence that makes us "human".

[theapportioner]

I introduced the example partly to highlight the difficulties of trying to define what is human. I prefer the word "metaphysical" over "moral" (as you know, I like to limit the usage of the latter word to general statements of conduct... but that's just me). Anyway, point is, one can define "humanness" in terms of what occurs when a sperm and an egg meet, the onset of consciousness, the onset of self awareness, intrinsic genetic differences between homo sapiens and other species, the ability to reason, the ability to create language and skyscrapers, the ability to do evil... Whatever. There cannot be a "correct" explanation of what is human because the contexts in which these definitions operate are distinct. The meaning of the word human depends on the context. And for many of us, most if not all of these explanations are relevant in our super-definition of "humanness".

Be aware of the contexts in which you are defining what is human. What happens all too often in the abortion and stem cell debates (and I've been guilty of this before) is that people get the contexts mixed up when using their definition of "humanness" to prohibit abortion and stem cell research -- they take a biological definition of "humanness" and apply it to a moral context without realizing that this is a completely arbitrary thing to do. Science does not make value judgements.

In fact, thinking about this a bit more, I'm seeing how this, if approached in any other way than as a moral claim it can be dangerously misleading. There is a very strong "I believe it should be so" in your statement :it is what we do with our intelligence that makes us "human".

Value is implicit in the statement, yes, as with many such statements except perhaps logical, empirical, and some other ones.

[theapportioner]

BTW, you may notice that I seem to be contradicting stuff I said a few months before. My thoughts are always changing, but more on that later.

[Preechr]

Yes, Yes... All of that is just silly.

...whatever.

So human is valuable and human is you, and you'll be gracious enough to accept some minor differences in the rest of us then, right? It's funny to watch you deride things you don't already know to be fact. I hope that serves you well in Life, as that's probably not an attribute of being you that's restricted only to your dealings on the internet.

Maybe you just didn't understand my point, or maybe I should take responsibility for not expressing it well enough. How bout this: Human life is of utmost important to humans. We think we're special, and we see Sentience and Self-Aware as reasons why.

It would seem that you guys are confusing these things with individuality, but I'll admit that it's been a long time since I've read a textbook of any sort. I'm pretty sure lower forms of life can make a distinction between themselves and other things.

To have such a hard time defining what is human seems to be indicative of having one's head a bit too far up one's ass, it seems to me. I know this isn't the abortion thread itself, but since this discussion started there, I guess I'll draw the line back to it...

A fertilized human egg is human because it has the potential to be just as human as either of you. That may not be as convenient for you to believe as it doesn't give you the opportunity to split these hairs, but your arguments always seem to include as less than human everything from the earliest point to a child of 5 or 6 years old. You ignore that fact as yet another convenience.

Do you place such a high value on Sentience and Self-Aware because you believe a human is not human until it's useful or complimentary to you? It would seem so. Maybe we should evaluate just what is so damn important in the big picture about a human, Sentient and Self-Aware or not, as compared to anything else.

Are you following me now, or do you need further explanation of my essentially basic viewpoint?

[theapportioner]

Regardless of your inability to articulate, your points are trivial ones.

A quick aside on my opinion on abortion and stem cell research: Functioning members of human societies are orders of magnitude more important morally, ethically, legally, than a barely organized bundle of cells, to the point where the latter's importance is negligible. Hello? Forget about the blastulas and let's get to work on the people living NOW.

Another problem with defining 'humanness' based on cellular DNA and extrapolating that to abortion etc.: Every cell in the human body has the same copy of DNA. In a decade or so, it will be entirely possible to reset some if not all of these cells to an embryonic stem cell state. Therefore, with the appropriate technology, any cell in your body is a potential human being.

Oh, but that's "technological interference", and "nature" doesn't work that way. But we never complain about that when it comes to very prematurely born infants.

Step back a moment. Don't you see what is happening? You are creating all these arbitrary, convoluted, ridiculously subtle, contradictory rules to define what is human because you have made the error in contexts. And those who are pro-choice do this too.

[Raven]

But why are they more important? Is it because they are visible and thus take precedence? Is it simple because we can understand their existance with more coherence, than that of the "bundle of cells"? Is it because we have "sentience" and they do not? What is so important about placing such a high value on "sentience"? It is nothing more than an arbitrary belief created by a pseudo-science. I think therefore I am? No. You are molecules, therefore you exist. What are we but nothing more than carbon molecular chains? Should humanity be so high, merely because we have a higher evolved brain? What than shall we do upon meeting any beings that have a higher evolved brain than us? Submit to servitude and lose our "sentience"?

[theapportioner]

I used to think a bit like you, but one need not use the determinism based on fundamental laws of physics to describe human activity. Indeed I would say it would tells you nearly nothing. Hence, while the traditional Christian formulation of free will would be nixed if you take the universe to be determined, the experiences of will and consciousness are fully compatible with it.

An adult human being is different from a morula in more ways than just sentience. Another one: organization. The human body is an amazing interaction of trillions of cells in a dynamic environment. Just as one neuron does not make a brain -- indeed brain functions only occur as a result of interactions between neurons, one embryonic stem cell does not make a human. But these discussions are more a matter of taste than of science. You can use science as a guide, but that's it.

[Preechr]

You say I'm being to subtle. I say you're being to complex. I'm also saying you debate like a teenager that just read its first really thick book on an obscure subject. I also said in my second post that I was re-explaining my admittedly simple point because you responded to my first post with childish insults which led me to believe you weren't catching on. It seems you still aren't. You're just stuck on seeming smart.

Whatever. You are the smartest person ever. Feel better?

I just pushed a boy scout into a wood chipper. Is my backyard human now, too? All the insects seem to be quite organized, and there's human DNA all over the damn place.

I'll repeat this one more time, just for you. For all your fluff and thunder, however you wish to catagorize a human as worthy of your consideration, it's just not that complicated of a thing to do. Instead of focusing so much on all the trivia you actually know at this time, it seem apparent that you need to start considering what you, and science, does not know at this time.

Time. That is the key. Time is much more important than the criteria you describe. You insist on catagorizing things according to their usefulness, while ignoring that the degree of usefulness of human beings in general is extremely slight in the big picture.

Time is a constant, and your self-centered, snap-shot criteria completely ignore that. I started my contribution to this under the assumption that you guys would GET such a rediculously simple idea. You and I are not important as individuals, no matter how scientifically you argue silly points. We are only important as humans to the human race. If you wish to catagorize some humans out of the race, have fun with that. It's your choice to do so. That makes you inhuman by choice, where those that you cast off as "clumps of cells" never got their choice.

[VinceZeb]

Should we bring up the ability to be self aware as well to include if something can be human? Humans are one of the few beings that can understand the whole concept of "me" and "I". We look in a mirror, we know we are seeing ourselves. The only animals I know that can do that are monkeys and dolphins. Should that be a measuring stick as well?

[Raven]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

An adult human being is different from a morula in more ways than just sentience. Another one: organization. The human body is an amazing interaction of trillions of cells in a dynamic environment. Just as one neuron does not make a brain -- indeed brain functions only occur as a result of interactions between neurons, one embryonic stem cell does not make a human. But these discussions are more a matter of taste than of science. You can use science as a guide, but that's it.

You are forgetting completely about the intense organization required for embryonic development. For it is not the size of the organization that matters. If that were true there would be animals that are "higher" than humans. They utilize greater organization of their neurons. Is an elephant now a greater being?

Originally Posted by theapportioner

I used to think a bit like you, but one need not use the determinism based on fundamental laws of physics to describe human activity. Indeed I would say it would tells you nearly nothing. Hence, while the traditional Christian formulation of free will would be nixed if you take the universe to be determined, the experiences of will and consciousness are fully compatible with it.

You are right and wrong. On a basic level determinism can go with consciousness. But once you move past the icing, and begin to delve into the true nature of the cake, you begin to see a contradiction. If one is conscious of one's self, than one is able to discern their own emotions, attitudes, and beliefs. If one is conscious of the environment, than one is able to discern the environment's effect on one's self. If one is conscious to both, than they are able to discern both. If one can discern both, than one can discern a certain amount of variables. If one can discern a certain amount of variables, than one is able to affect those variables. If one can affect those variables, than one is able to generate a separate option. If one can generate a separate option, than one has created a choice. Thus the existance of this choice actually contradicts determinism.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Raven

If one can discern a certain amount of variables, than one is able to affect those variables. If one can affect those variables, than one is able to generate a separate option. If one can generate a separate option, than one has created a choice. Thus the existance of this choice actually contradicts determinism.

I hate to seem like I'm sitting on the fence here but I believe that we have only "limited will". The amount of variables are infinite and, subsequently, unconscionable. That is to say, you make THINK that you taken all options into account but the fact that you've been not only socially conditioned but conditioned by nature itself (i.e. five senses whose brain's very thinking process lay victim to a "matrix of thought" which is based only in the space-time continuum). Long story short is that you may FEEL like you have free will but that is due to the lack of a broader vision that is beyond our capability. This narrow field of sentience is good enough for most of us, though.

[Preechr]

I don't think that qualifies as "fence sitting" really. I think you're bringing a good point to the table, personally. The concept of free-will is also a defining characteristic of humanity in many circles, and your view here is perfectly reasonable.

A human performs billions of independant operations per minute, and seldom do we think about any of them. Nearly all of our actions, big and small, are performed on auto-pilot. As the great philosopher Getty Lee said, however, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." At any given moment you could spontaneously decide to jump out of a window, taking control of all those minute functions all at once, in a way. You are deciding to let your body operate on its own every second you choose to stay alive.

You can spontaneously decide to do something entirely unpredictable whenever you wish. Yes, you are constrained by many constants that you can't ignore when making your choices... you can't suddenly decide to fly, for instance... but just because you have limitations doesn't make your options so limited as to appear any less than infinite from our perspective.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by kellychaos

I hate to seem like I'm sitting on the fence here but I believe that we have only "limited will". The amount of variables are infinite and, subsequently, unconscionable. That is to say, you make THINK that you taken all options into account but the fact that you've been not only socially conditioned but conditioned by nature itself (i.e. five senses whose brain's very thinking process lay victim to a "matrix of thought" which is based only in the space-time continuum). Long story short is that you may FEEL like you have free will but that is due to the lack of a broader vision that is beyond our capability. This narrow field of sentience is good enough for most of us, though.

Sentience on the other hand requires a choice. An ability to choose whether you wish to do one action or another. An it is improbable that such a choice exists. With the mass quanity of variables affecting each individual person, we must take into account how physics has determined the universe works. Not only in the basic linear form of Cause and effect, but also in the form of Chaos theory. Which dictates that each effect actually has multiple causes, as well as each cause producing multiple effects. Now with this in mind it is logical to believe that each action a human performs is nothing more than an effect from various amoujnts of causes. As such the human didn't choose the action, so much as just perform it. And with the human simple performing this action, they are not truly choosing anything. Nullifying sentience. For without this choice, there can be no sentience.

[theapportioner]

You are forgetting completely about the intense organization required for embryonic development. For it is not the size of the organization that matters. If that were true there would be animals that are "higher" than humans. They utilize greater organization of their neurons. Is an elephant now a greater being?

All this just illustrates my point. You cannot have a neat and tidy definition of what is human -- because "humanness" in ordinary language is much more than what biology can describe. You have different perspectives from which one can describe what is human, and all of them contribute to some degree in our understanding of the concept. The perspectives are distinct however, and blindly mixing them up creates confusion. By interpreting a scientific event in a moral or metaphysical context you are always going to have contradiction and untidiness. Why this is so unobvious to so many of you is beyond me. To say, "science tells you that humanness begins here" is utterly wrong because it is nonsensical.