The philosophy thread general discussion

There's a vast difference between "language" and "communication". Virtually all animals engage in communication in some form (I'd say all since I can't think of any that don't off the top of my head, but there could be something I'm not aware of), but humans are the only ones that use language. Language is a very specific thing that involves vocabulary, syntax, and grammar. Some animals can use some of these (dogs can understand verbal commands, which involves understanding vocabulary, for instance), but only humans use all of them.

That's sentience, not sapience. Sentience is "feeling" (same root as "sensation") while sapience is ''wisdom" (same root as "homo sapiens", ie "wise humans"). The ability to have feelings/perceptions/sensations is sentience rather than sapience, even if it's internal (eg, emotions) rather than external (eg, sight). Sapience is... well, what we're trying to define. But sapience is the quality that makes something a person rather than merely an animal. It implies a level of self-awareness that mere sentience doesn't (thus the discussion of things like the mirror test), but given that humanity is the only example of sapience we have to work with, it's kind of hard to nail down a general-case definition.

I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about "degree of sapience". Either something is sapient, or it isn't. You can be closer to sapience or farther from sapience (a chimp is closer to sapience than a dog, and a dog is closer than a mouse), but sapience itself is a binary yes/no thing. I think this goes back to the sapience/sentience distinction — it makes sense to talk about something being more or less sentient (capable of a larger or smaller range of feelings or experiences; eg a human has a wider range of emotion than a dog, and a dog has a wider range than an ant), but not sapience (either you're a person, or you're not, there's no in between).

One mistake that I think people fall into with this sort of discussion is that assuming the distinction means we place moral value on sapience alone, rather than sentience. But this isn't true — sentience also has moral value (though not as much as sapience), which is why we frown on causing or allowing unnecessary suffering even among nonsapient animals, and why we frown on both beating a dog and frying ants with a magnifying glass, but we frown on beating the dog more (because a dog has a higher level of sentience than an ant).

In any case, back to the language/sapience thing — I'm not prepared to say that it's a causation thing (ie, that the ability to use language is what makes something sapient, or vice versa), only that it's a correlation thing (ie, that all sapient things can use language, and vice versa). This isn't a particularly strong argument, since it's based on a sample size of one (humanity, which are the only sapient beings we know of and also the only language-users we know of), but it's the best definition that I know of.

And to poke a hole in my own argument, I can think of at least one theoretical example of sapience without language use — a being (or species, or whatever) that communicated psychically. With the ability to communicate thoughts directly, they don't need language, so it's likely that they would never develop it, but they would still undoubtedly be sapient.

And in the interest of transparency, it's probably worth mentioning that part of where I got the idea for drawing the line at language is from Mass Effect 2 (I think, might have been 3), where one of the characters (a medical scientist with a Morally Ambiguous Doctorate) says that he never does experiments on species capable of doing calculus unless they volunteer. That's a rather higher standard than mine, and there's at least one race in Mass Effect (the vorcha) that would pass my test but likely fail his.

edited 8th Feb '17 7:15:09 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I rather think language is an outcome of sapience, not a cause. Remember, in order for the natural environment to select it, whatever cognitive process makes us humans different has to be something that can begin simple and scale up, but in response to a selection pressure that our closest relatives, nor any other intelligent species, has experienced. The need to mentally model inter and intra-group competition and cooperation fits the bill perfectly.

Don't forget tool use. The point is that sapience/intelligence/symbolic language is a synergistic affair, building on itself in a feedback loop.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Again, tool use has fed back on how we've developed, yes. But, you don't need opposable thumbs or making tools to make tools to test out as both highly sapient and sentient... <points at porpoises, dolphins, whales, octopoids and squid>

Again: falling into the trap of measuring how other brains function in comparison to ours isn't necessarily a good yardstick when it comes to personhood and problem solving. As, how somebody both persons and/or problem solves may legitimately vary in ways the observer cannot conceive of, even when faced with obvious behaviour that indicates how it works.

Heck, we're pretty awful at identifying when other humans are self-aware or intelligent when they don't fit what are assumed to be standard templates of expression and behaviour. <_<

edited 8th Feb '17 10:35:51 PM by Euodiachloris

Science fiction involving robots has, since its inception, been a strange echo of slavery and the conflicts it brings. "The horror! Slaves have been self-aware from the beginning! So many of our actions are questionable!"

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Tool use is not limited to sapient creatures — it was once thought to be the purview of man alone, but other animals (not just great apes, but also things like crows) have been observed using tools as well. You certainly seem to be right that it all feeds into each other, though.

Just for clarity, are you claiming that dolphins, squids, et al are sapient? That they're people in the same way that you or I are? Because that seems like an extraordinary claim, and you seem to be using the word "sapient" differently than the rest of us, which is why I'm harping on that point.

Indeed, the word "robot" was coined by a Czech play, and the origin of the word is the term for labor owed to one's master (eg, by serfs). The "robots" in the play are biological rather than mechanical (they're effectively Artificial Humans with limited mental capacity), but they fill the same role — including rebelling and starting a Robot War.

edited 9th Feb '17 6:10:49 AM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Ah, but you see, tool use is just another output. In itself, it is not a selection pressure. By contrast, if we are both members of the same group, and I am better than you at modeling the groups relationships, I will rise higher in the group's heirarchy. In order for your descendants to catch up, they will have to improve their modeling abilities as well.

You could say the exact same thing about "tool use" instead of "group modeling". If I'm the best person in the tribe at making spears and stabbing tasty animals with them, then that's going to increase my fitness (in the natural selection sense) even if I'm crap at social dynamics.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

So robots started out as a form of political commentary, but people missed the point or it was lost in translation? I mean Czechia did use to be a serfdom, and capitalism does concentrate wealth in the hands of a few which isn't too different.

Now that you bring it up, how is everyone using that word?

I wouldn't describe a dolphin as having the same level of "personhood", self-awareness or whatever you'd call it as a human, but I seriously doubt that they're just biological automatons or philosophical zombies either. So... obviously sentient (as much as anything can be, I guess) and close-to-but-not-quite-sapient, maybe?

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

But tool use doesnt scale up in a run-away spiral like group dynamics does. If I develop a more sophisticated model of group dynamics, that alone makes the group's interactions more complex, requiring a more sophisticated model of group dynamics. Using the new development alone forces everyone else to develop in the same way, creating a self-reinforcing loop. Technological development does act in a similar way, but it takes much longer- if you have a more sophisticated tool than I have, I can get away with merely copying it for myself- no need to develop my own internal cognitive tool creation capacity. Indeed, modeling the group will allow me to assign you the role of tool developer, while Hank over there is the group's tracker, Helga is the cook, Joe has the best stalking technique, etc. By assinging group roles, we can simultaneously develop many interdependent capacities, but the "master" capacity is the ability to model all these roles and their relationships to one another. Interpersonal modeling leads to specialized labor, and we all know what that leads to.

Now add in all the complications that result due to the personality differences between the specific people occupying those roles. Hank hates Helga, who is married to Joe, who is cheating on her without her knowing it...

So the question to ask is, do chimpnzees, dolphins or elephants or (insert favorite intelligent animal here) engage in permanent specialized roles within the group? news to me if they do.

For all we know dolphins would totally use tools if they had hands.

They think we are tools...

I think they already use tools. Well, rocks and bones and whatever you find laying around under the sea.

Also, you can make complex group dynamics that doesn't help the group any more than a simpler group dynamics. In fact, you can make a complex group dynamic that hinders the group more than it helps.

This is cute and amusing, but also reminded me that cooking is one of the few activities only humans engage in. I remember reading a magazine article saying some scientist argued "cook" was the first human profession, because all other jobs - hunting, gathering, prostitution - can be observed in other species.

I'm suddenly reminded of those vids of apes cooking marshmallows...

Disgusted, but not surprised

"Also, you can make complex group dynamics that doesn't help the group any more than a simpler group dynamics. In fact, you can make a complex group dynamic that hinders the group more than it helps."

One could, but how would that get selected by the natural environment?

It would be selected out.

Oh. Well ok, then.

Unless the group prospers in spite of it through other traits and or luck. Evolution is a blind idiot God.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

The word 'sapient' tends not to be helpful, because it's just defined to give the answer the definer wants. Like it's usually defined to specifically exclude all other animals. It's not exactly remarkable that we're the only sapient species when you define it that way.

Well, self-evidently something makes us unique on Earth. If it's not our sapience, what is it?

our belief in our own uniquenuess

So dolphins are just weak-willed?

Hey, I found what I was looking for regarding school of thought - we should live authentically.

I identifies with Agnostic Existentialism. Neat.

I tried to start a thread on this question, got referred here instead. Seems as good a place as any.

So, in your view, is morality universal or particular? Is it the same everywhere, and applies equally to everyone, or does it depend based on who or where it applies to?

yey