Where does sapience start?

Not sentience, mind you.

Well? We can't call a disabled person a stupid useless animal, so we need to step around that.

So where does sapience begin? Is it intelligence based? Or is it something else?

Good decision, by the way. We were getting off-topic.

I'd have to argue that a chimpanzee, a dolphin, and a severely retarded human are all not sapient. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated with more care than an organism with no sense of self, though. Plus, the human should receive extra consideration for said humanity, even if the chimp is technically smarter.

Hmm, then why give special consideration to the human?

The only non-religious answer I can think of is that the law is designed for our purpose, to keep things running smoothly. However, the law doesn't decide good and evil, so I dunno.

Admittedly, I have more respect for creatures like dolphins and monkeys than squirrels and chipmunks.

edited 7th Feb '11 9:56:30 PM by TheMightyAnonym

There are mental tests one could theoretically do to determine how intelligent an animal is, but you'd have to be careful to recognize when different animals are showing their intellect in different ways.

First of all, the human probably has relatives. Secondly, I think it's fair to discriminate against non-humans until we find something comparable to us.

edited 7th Feb '11 10:10:35 PM by Ultrayellow

Are humans really sapient? Or do we just kid ourselves that we are?

How do I know that other humans are sapient?

My first thought was that sapience is the ability to intentionally improve one's welfare and consciously avoid detriments to that welfare. But by that definition, animals would be sapient.

It's a tough question. I think that sapience involves an understanding of consequences. Non-immediate consequences and externalities.

edited 7th Feb '11 11:17:40 PM by Grain

Well, since the concept of sapience was invented by humans as something to describe the cognitive qualities that we as a species possess, I think it's safe to say that we have it.

Maybe sapience isn't a black/white concept, but a sliding scale. I don't know if this would fit with the technical definition of sapience, but you could say that a human is more sapient than a dolphin is more sapient than a dog is more sapient than an insect.

Problem is though, while it may be true to describe it as a sliding scale, we cannot default to that because it opens a slew of Unfortunate Implications about disabled people, folk with low IQs, and so on. We have to draw a line somewhere.

Good point. To be honest, I don't know a lot about this kind of thing, but at a guess I would say that someone with a very low IQ still has better cognitive functions, at least in some areas, than the more intelligent species of animal? I can't confirm that but I would imagine that someone with a very low IQ is still better at comprehension, social interaction, etc, than an elephant or a dolphin or whatever.

I'd be willing to bet that the world's smartest chimpanzee is smarter than some humans.

Considering orangutans and crows are smarter than chimpanzees and dolphins, if studies are to go by, I'd say either we include things on the degree of a chimpanzee as sentient, or we focus on Homo sapiens+Pongo spp.+Corvidae.

Of course, anecdotally elephants are claimed to have a more human mentality than chimps, but again its anecdotally.

I'd say that crows, dolphins, elephants, various primates and some cephalopods all show a certain degree of sapience. What does this mean? I do not know.

Yeah, I'd add some cephalopds to that list too, if we're counting corvids. Plus african grey parrots.

Of course, the implications of seeing octopuses as sentient are worrying, seeing as they're the only one of that list we eat.

Well, we do kill crows and magpies; as it was stated somewhere else on this wiki, we treat creatures more intelligent than children as pests.

Are any cephalopods really smarter than your average mammal or bird? Octopuses are astonishingly smart for invertebrates, sure, but I didn't think they were that clever.

Here's a bit on a smart octopus.

I can't find the story of the octopus that shot jets of water at ceiling lamps to escape its aquarium under the cover of darkness.

I have memories of wondering, "Why am I myself and not some one else?" at three, so not after that.

You guys do realize you are purposefully adjusting the definition of sapience to include only human and as few other animals as possible, right? I second the "why do humans get special consideration," because it seems to me like humans use words like sapience to make themselves feel superior to all other animals.

First of all, the human probably has relatives. Secondly, I think it's fair to discriminate against non-humans until we find something comparable to us.

Er, all animals have relatives. I think humans need to accept that all life deserves equal respect, regardless of intellect, and that other animals can be smart like us even if they can't build cars and skyscrapers.

This is different from discrimination, though. To an extent all species discriminate, as like humans they all prioritize lives of their own species over lives of other species. That's just how it goes, though, for each species to ensure their own survival; it's not because humans are "special" or "more important" than any other life.

Saying every animal is equally valuable is just as arbitrary a statement of value as any other.

I value certain kinds of mental behavior. Theory of Mind via the mirror test seems pretty reasonable to me for sapience.

Now, about treatment of animals. I don't care about avoiding giving sponges pain because sponges don't feel pain. I'd probably also say the ability to remember pain (easily tested by seeing if an animal will avoid experiences that gave them pain in the past) is probably a good benchmark for animals demanding a certain level of lawful protection for ethical treatment.

Fair enough. What I'm actually arguing against is the sentiment that humans are the only ones who matter because the rest are "just animals." You're right about value being arbitrary; it's actually kind of funny when I catch myself talking about it, because I agree that humans' perception of the value of other animals isn't important (except where it leads us to commit cruelties like fur farms, destabilize ecosystems by overhunting, etc.). What I'm saying is I don't see a reason why humans are the most important except "I happen to be one."

edited 9th Feb '11 6:16:58 AM by KillaClass1

Two reasons:

First, yeah, we're human, there's self interest involved here.

Second, we can give humans rights, because we can also give humans responsibilities. Since I can't expect a polar bear to obey the law, I can't give a polar bear free range over New York City.

@Killa: That human probably has relatives ''more intelligent than any other known animal could ever be". Sorry if you misunderstood that.

No, humans are inherently more valuable. Until anything comes up that's even comparable to us, we shouldn't assign equal value. There is literally no way in which another species is more intelligent than we are. How does that not qualify us for special treatment? I'm not getting your argument here.

Look, if any animal, in a medium of its choice, ever manages to ask for rights for its species, it'll get them. Until then, if they can't and won't ever appreciate or want them, they shouldn't get them.

There is literally no way in which another species is more intelligent than we are.

I think you're wrong on that point. Not saying that invalidates your argument, just pointing it out. There are ways that animals can be more intelligent than we are - it's just not the same sort of intelligence.

Really? What?

This isn't an attack, I'm genuinely curious. If there is, I'll retract that statement.