What constitutes "sentience"?

[Thoth]

I used to burn ants with a magnifying glass. It was awesome.

This.

Nowadays, I use the same magnifying glass that I used to burn ants with to read fine print.

[Lorizael]

Does life have "quantity"? Does a human have as much life as one single cell organism or ~37 trillion single cell organisms?

I suspect you can make a case for humans being more valuable than bacteria on a per cell basis, but I imagine it would be hard to do so in an objective sense that didn't include arguments that amount to, "I mean, five fingers per hand? Frickin' awesome."

[Ben Kenobi]

Loinburger, I suspect we will discover that the brain is interdependent with the body. And that these brain in a jar experiments will be banned after this becomes known - that even if it's successfully done we'll discover that the brain quickly deteriorates.

[giblets]

I suspect you can make a case for humans being more valuable than bacteria on a per cell basis, but I imagine it would be hard to do so in an objective sense that didn't include arguments that amount to, "I mean, five fingers per hand? Frickin' awesome."

Can you value life over inorganic matter without saying "it's self replicating and maintains homeostasis? pretty cool" ...?

[Lorizael]

It's easy to argue that self-replication and homeostasis are useful. It's not so easy to argue that they are valuable without showing some biocentrism...

[Dr Strangelove]

The entity should have:
1. Subjective experiences- I can't really conclusively verify this externally but I would expect it to show signs of self awareness and emotions
2. A desire to live- it should tend to care if it lives or not
3. Willingness to respect human life

The ability to feel, perceive and experience subjectively are essential components of the definition of sentience, the desire to live and respect for human life are not. Would you argue that a suicidal person was not sentient? Would you argue that the Mongols and various other barbarians and ancient civilizations were not sentient?

We already have discovered that the brain is interdependent with the body - oxygen, nutrients, sensory input, motor control, etc.

[giblets]

The ability to feel, perceive and experience subjectively are essential components of the definition of sentience, the desire to live and respect for human life are not. Would you argue that a suicidal person was not sentient? Would you argue that the Mongols and various other barbarians and ancient civilizations were not sentient?

We already have discovered that the brain is interdependent with the body - oxygen, nutrients, sensory input, motor control, etc.

Humans generally aren't suicidal, as a species. Generally humans have a strong conscious desire to live. It would be totally acceptable to shut off a self aware computer that by nature doesn't care if it continues to operate or not. And any species that doesn't respect human life should be treated like ants.

[kentonio]

Why do you think there's something wrong with killing bugs for fun? I used to burn ants with a magnifying glass. It was awesome.

Because exercising the power of life and death made you feel powerful?

[Kidlicious]

Because exercising the power of life and death made you feel powerful?

I was powerful.

[Ben Kenobi]

It would be totally acceptable to shut off a self aware computer that by nature doesn't care if it continues to operate or not

Curious to see Gribbler proving my exact point. So much for 'sentience' as the standard. Now apparently if you fail to have enough 'desire' it's ok to kill you.

[Egbert]

This.

Nowadays, I use the same magnifying glass that I used to burn ants with to read fine print.

This is an example to inspire us all.

recycling

[Aeson]

The main problem with judging rights by sentience is difficulty assessing what level of sentience is involved, adn the effects of a given action on the collective sentience. If we could make accurate assessments in those regards, we could apply a utility argument.

We can make assessments to varying levels of certainty, and for purposes of actually being able to physically act in this existence we have to make them allt he time. I can say with very high level of certainty that I am self-aware (to the extent I demonstrably am to myself .. clearly I am not perfectly self-aware), that I have emotions and feelings, and that outside influences impact the value of my existence to myself.

To a lesser degree of certainty I can presume that other entities which share my physical characteristics and have similar outward reactions to stimulus are similarly impacted by those outside influences. Since I myself would like a system which protects me from negative influences, and promotes positive ones, the more closely I can identify to another entity the more I should also support their own rights (in a utility sense). This is because I and those I care about are more likely to be afforded those protections if we act together to protect them, than if we act against each other to try to take each other's rights away.

The further we get from "like me", the less certain I can be of that entity actually having the same level of self-awareness and being impacted the same way I am by outside influences. I can see some traits in other animals, such as hunger, fear, pain, likes, dislikes, etc. They are something that has to be considered. Whether it means they are deserving of protections in an absolute sense (like we tend to give to humans), or if it's something that has to be weighed in a utilitarian sense (positive value of eating bacon vs negative value of causing harm to the pig).

Ideally we'll grow bacon on GMO meat slabs with no nervous system and not have to worry about the inaccuracy of those utility assessments someday soon.

As for shutting down a sentient (not loin's definition*) computer, I don't see why we'd assume a sentient computer would not care about it's continued operation. If it didn't, then it's pretty easy of course. If there was a utility argument for doing so (eg. it's taken control of all the spot welders on the planet and is using them to create modern art) then fine, shut it down. If there's no negative to letting it continue to function, it would seem a clear negative utility action to shut it down. If it actually does care about it's continued operation, that is also necessary to take into account ... and is a very important factor. (I say this because my own care about continued operation is one of the more critical aspects of my evaluation process, and I'd like it to be protected.)

*loin's definition has no place in that argument, since "possessing the right to life" would mean for the computer to be sentient, we'd have already had to answer that question that yes, it is possessing the right to life. So it's not a useful definition in regards to determining if it has the right to life or not.

[Aeson]

This is an example to inspire us all.

recycling

It's reuse, which is > recycling

Killing ants is a waste. Learning how to control ant colonies to do your bidding is a potential path to world domination. And burning them with magnifying glasses doesn't appear to convince them to be your minions

[Kidlicious]

I was 5.

[Thoth]

It's reuse, which is > recycling

Killing ants is a waste. Learning how to control ant colonies to do your bidding is a potential path to world domination. And burning them with magnifying glasses doesn't appear to convince them to be your minions

You don't have to kill them when you burn them. Give 'em a hot foot and watch them run around for awhile.

Flooding them out of their nests with a garden hose is also ineffective but fun to do nonetheless.