Are animals sentient?

[WolSHaman]

You have basically said that computers are not sentient because they are not sentient. How do you know this is the case?



I refer to the fact that no effort is being made to establish a rigorous criteria or basis for how sentience might be observed, and what the minimum characteristics (if any) of a sentient being might be.



Why is this relevant? It doesn't matter who designed the machines, or who is utilizing them. Their characteristics are the same. If computers were made to communicate spontaneously, would they suddenly become sentient? It is doubtful.



We know that humans put thoughts into words because we experience this process ourselves. As an observer, how can you distinguish between communication that reflects sentience, and communication which does not?

1. Before arguing about the sentience of machines I must ask this: machines aren't alive. They don't fulfill many, if any of the biological requirements to be considered alive. They cannot think independently, and they rely on humans to give all the inputs, and they can only interpret it one way, how humans programmed them. Therefore they cannot be considered "alive" or "sentient"

2. I just tried establishing a loose criteria above

3. no, computers aren't sentient

4. This I agree with. It's stupid to say animals aren't conscious or non-sentient just because they don't' have written history, which goll seems to be implying. Humans didn't develop writing for thousands of years, does this mean we weren't sentient? And if you truly think animals don't communicate, then you sir have a LOT to learn about the animal kingdom. And it's been shown that animals are capable of being self-aware, with things like dolphins, elephants and monkeys. And it's been found that they can show very human emotions, like jealousy and trust. Clearly they have some degree of sentience, even if they don't have our cognitive ability to manipulate tools and such.

 

[TheDamien]

1. Before arguing about the sentience of machines I must ask this: machines aren't alive. They don't fulfill many, if any of the biological requirements to be considered alive.

The distinction between living and non-living is mostly arbitrary and there is no reason why it should be relevant to the issue of whether something is sentient or not.

They cannot think independently, and they rely on humans to give all the inputs, and they can only interpret it one way, how humans programmed them.

If computers were hooked up to a nondeterministic input, such as a source of radioactive decay, and they used this information to make decisions, would they then be sentient? What about computer systems that exhibit emergent or chaotic properties, would they be sentient? What would you classify as an "independent" decision? It sounds to me like you are confusing sentience and free will.

2. I just tried establishing a loose criteria above

You only say that computers are non-living and dependent on human input, and therefore not sentient. That doesn't tell us what sentience would actually look like, or how it might be observed.

3. no, computers aren't sentient

Which is why communication, by itself, is not sufficient to demonstrate sentience.

 

[WolSHaman]

The distinction between living and non-living is mostly arbitrary and there is no reason why it should be relevant to the issue of whether something is sentient or not.



If computers were hooked up to a nondeterministic input, such as a source of radioactive decay, and they used this information to make decisions, would they then be sentient? What about computer systems that exhibit emergent or chaotic properties, would they be sentient? What would you classify as an "independent" decision? It sounds to me like you are confusing sentience and free will.



You only say that computers are non-living and dependent on human input, and therefore not sentient. That doesn't tell us what sentience would actually look like, or how it might be observed.



Which is why communication, by itself, is not sufficient to demonstrate sentience.

Machines aren't capable of growing more intelligent or making "connections" (for lack of a better word) independent of humans. As you or I grow up, we can learn more and as things happen to us, we react in certain ways, but what separates us from machines is that we learn from the experience. Machines are incapable of growing or changing their modes of thought from one experience to another, and can only act one way, and the only way this can be changed is if someone else comes in and alters their programming. This is different from humans, because no one directly interferes. The evidence is presented but it's ultimately up to the human or other creature to interpret evidence and change in some way. Machines can not make these connections and learn from the past, so they cannot be considered fully sentient.

 

[Seb!]

I meant I want to know how much time it takes to get your reptile finally do what you want WITHOUT the treat.

Often, the reptile cares nothing about what you want them to do. This is obvious when you try to get them to do a trick without any sort of reward.

 

[Faust]

If they can't do it without the bait even after practice WITH bait, they didn't learn anything.
If you keep baiting it, and it responds with the same behavior, that's not learning.

If you read a poem again and again, we could say you are learning it. When you can tell the poem without reading it, that's when you learnt it.
But if you can't - you don't know it - you didn't learn it.


Or the other type of learning, when getting to the treat requires the animal to solve something, or find the way to it, and he can do it faster and faster.

 

[King TonGoll]

4. This I agree with. It's stupid to say animals aren't conscious or non-sentient just because they don't' have written history, which goll seems to be implying. Humans didn't develop writing for thousands of years, does this mean we weren't sentient? And if you truly think animals don't communicate, then you sir have a LOT to learn about the animal kingdom. And it's been shown that animals are capable of being self-aware, with things like dolphins, elephants and monkeys. And it's been found that they can show very human emotions, like jealousy and trust. Clearly they have some degree of sentience, even if they don't have our cognitive ability to manipulate tools and such.

..... my entire point was that animals are sentient, and the only thing that seperates us from them is our hieghtened inteligence and sophisticated language.....

what was it in what i said that made it seem like i was sudjesting they where not sentient?

faust, not even after reading a poem to the point of consistant recital do you have to "learn it", its more like "memorized it".

being alive is essential to being sentient at this current point due to the fact that you must be able feel or precieve subjectivly, now in the case of a A.I this can be arguable, but there is no A.I present on earth, or atleast to my knowledg, that has been made or developed to the point of being even to A.I enthusiest, sentient.


and if you wanted a good definition of sentient here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

 

[chanta45]

Anyone remember Christopher the Lion? I don't know, i've always been iffy on these debates. Animals can show amazing intelligence at times, or just be downright stupid. Hard to tell for me.

 

[Jimpy]

Animals can show amazing intelligence at times, or just be downright stupid. Hard to tell for me.

Though the key words/questions to define here are; sentience, "What is self awareness?", "What is intelligence, versus the appearance of intelligence" (this touches on autonomy of the brain), "Are animals unconscious or conscious? And if so, what about?". Also in the opening post its worded that humans are not animals, which totally changes how we compare our self righteous smart selves to 'them'.

I think those are the big ones that need addressing.

 

[thewrongvine]

lol @ nabbig, "my understanding" doesn't nessecarily refer to your post.

Some animals...

~Hai-Bye-Vine~

 

[Samael88]

Though the key words/questions to define here are; sentience, "What is self awareness?", "What is intelligence, versus the appearance of intelligence" (this touches on autonomy of the brain), "Are animals unconscious or conscious? And if so, what about?". Also in the opening post its worded that humans are not animals, which totally changes how we compare our self righteous smart selves to 'them'.

I think those are the big ones that need addressing.

You missed out on one Jimpy
"What is the definition of being sentient?", I for one don't think that self awareness is the only thing that is required of being sentient, and there have been a few controversis about the meaning of that word.
The definition as of it being self awareness is commonly used by animal rights activists and I can honestly say that the only animal I have ever seemed to see this in are horses.
Btw the mirror example is actually not sufficient, it is more a question if the creature in question has the intelligence to understand the concept of mirrors and does not prove or disprove anything.

 

[ElderKingpin]

Sentient: Having the power of perception by senses ; conscious.

We cannot read the minds of humans, but we do not question humans are sentient. Because they can talk. Animals cannot. But that does not mean they have no conscious. They have a reduced intellect compared to humans and they cannot express their words in human language. They have a conscious but that does not mean it is bad to kill and eat animals because, quite frankly the best source of protein comes from meat. And animals are conscious, but they lack a soul

Spoiler

And for Christians the Bible says to have dominion over the earth

 

[Samael88]

I would rather say the opposite, they have a soul and no contiouns(if you mean as in separating right from wrong).

Perhaps you have a point though, the question can be "theorized" correctly.

See, if we take a dog for example:
You can teach a dog not to bark, right?
Then the question is: "Why does the dog stop barking?"
There has been experiments with dogs and chockcolars, if I get it correct the dogs learn to associate barking with pain and thus get's that barking is a bad thing.
Then we come back to the question "Is it sentience to act to preserve the self?", I mean, the dog does not stop because you want it to, the dog stops because IT benefits from doing so.
That just leads me to another question "Is it awareness of the self = sentience". I for one don't think that it is enought, there just has to be more things to it than that, else almost every animal on this planet is sentient and that just can not be, because self preservation is one of our, if not the most basic instinct/instincts.

From this I draw the conclusion that no, self awareness is not a sign of sentience, it is just an instinct.
And I am left with the question yet again "What exactly is sentience?".

 

[ElderKingpin]

i got that definition from the dictionary :/

 

[Samael88]

i got that definition from the dictionary :/

I for one find that particular dictionary hard to understand What do they mean by that?

Edit: I have googled around a bit on the word sentience, I found that sentience is basically: The ability to have a objective oppinion. That is really simplified though, but I draw my conclusion that: No, most animals are not sentient, I think that they act purely on instinct and does thus not have the ability to perceive objectively. The only animal I am 100% sure that they are sentient are humans, and the one animal I actually have come in contact with that I can say I with a lot of doubt could have that is horses.

 

[Ninja_sheep]

I think animals are sentient, just not as much as we are.
Are they sentient enough to be called sentient?
Dunno

But who gives a damn?
You? Why? (curiosity isn't a valid reason)

 

[Zakyath]

I think animals are sentient, just not as much as we are.
Are they sentient enough to be called sentient?
Dunno

But who gives a damn?
You? Why? (curiosity isn't a valid reason)

If it was proven that animals were as well aware of their own existence and could feel just as much as a rock, maybe then we wouldn't have to treat them good at all. Or if they are just as sentient as humans, maybe it's time to let the animal rights reach higher levels

 

[Samael88]

If it was proven that animals were as well aware of their own existence and could feel just as much as a rock, maybe then we wouldn't have to treat them good at all. Or if they are just as sentient as humans, maybe it's time to let the animal rights reach higher levels

Yeah, right, and I should stop eating hamburgers because it turns out that some dude have rediscovered that none sentient animals actually have feelings?
I don't think so

 

[ElderKingpin]

how do we get sufficient amounts of protein? we need that fat and stuff..

 

[Zakyath]

Yeah, right, and I should stop eating hamburgers because it turns out that some dude have rediscovered that none sentient animals actually have feelings?
I don't think so

I don't think many people would stop eating hamburgers if the animals didn't feel anything.

>how do we get sufficient amounts of protein? we need that fat and stuff..

Yes, all vegetarians are going to die without it.

If animals were just as sentient as humans, we could only treat them bad if we still thought we were better than them. But then, shouldn't I be allowed to do the same to all the people I think I am better than?

This probably isn't the case. I believe myself that animals are far from as sentient as humans, if at all.

 

[Ninja_sheep]

Ethnics and moral are based on emotions. Emotions often aren't logical, yet we still follow them.
Animal rights aren't based on logic but rather on human compassion.