What is the purpose of sentience?

Firstly: I think on this occasion Polemarchus was restricting his comment to the application of the concept of purpose to evolutionary processes only - he may not have been asserting that concord with the tenets of teleology as a whole is “a trap”.

Secondly: purpose or teleological ‘intentions’ are usually construed as being final, rather than efficient, causes; however, if what you are implying is that we ‘project’ our expectation of purpose onto the world (perhaps in hope of the existence of a purposeful agent) in the same way as Hume describes with regard to cause and effect, then i think what you are saying is very plausible.

Er… No.

In as much as it is important, a more fully developed self is one that has been put through its paces, either by accident or conscious design.

The more you have done, the more you are.

I disagree with soph and Polemarchus.

Sensory perception of an environment must be placed within a structured reference point.

If not, then the perception is a wasted activity, as without a reference point, is does nothing to aid the entity.

i.e. If the feline in the woods does not recognize itself, then the auditory perception of canine footsteps, are a blank stimuli. It not recognizing itself, self-awareness, leaves no relational point. Thus devoured, the species die.

again, it’s important to distinguish between consciousness and self-awareness/self-consciousness. animals possessing the faculty of sense-perception are conscious, that is, they are aware that it is they themselves who are sensing. in your terms, their sensory perception is placed within a structured reference point by consciousness.

however: self-awareness is the acknowledgement that one exists with one’s own private thoughts, separate from other people who also exist with their own private thoughts. self-consciousness can plausibly be defined as a deep introspective understanding of the core of one’s own identity. i don’t think that all animals who are sentient, that is, who possess the ability to sense, necessarily possess either of these; if anything, they necessarily possess the former but not the latter.

Gods…so much talk of ‘lower animals’…gotta love mental masturbation.

Anyhow, it could be that the over-analysis of thought evolved through strictly survivalistic conditions, much like skitzophrenia (sp?) supposedly did (don’t remember the author who proposed the theory). In the begining, our cognitive abilities allowed us to bipass traps and outhink our prey. As we evolved, those who were unable to comprehend the abstract were eventually weeded out through natural selection.

This inevitably was made all the more useful when we interacted between groups, with each one communicating differently — the more abstract the person’s thoughts could become, the better their chance of survival when dealing with others.

Now, the only thing it protects us from is ourself…its become such that we’ve outwitted all the other animals, and gone on to spread and destroy indiscriminantly anything that can’t communicate with us on our level…that or capture it and presume to call it tamed.

In doing so, we’ve defied our evolutionary tendancies by joining all of humanity as a single species, and becoming our own preditors. Perhaps, in this, we’ve become lower than the other animals, if you must place it on a scale: We’re cannibals of the worst kind…the ones who throw away the meat.

You’ll pardon me soph, but that strikes as an exclusively humanistic definition, and I feel it fails the mark considerably.

Judging from the numbers of mammalian species that form hierarchical social groups; for resource reciprocity, mating, protection, etc., it would first be essential that the individuals within these groups have a determinate recognition of self, i.e., self-awareness.

Felines and avies of every variety and proportionate size show egotism and vanity, canines choose submissive service, dolphins/porpoises engage in sexual intercourse for pleasure … a few examples. These behaviors show an awareness of entity, and further the social interactions of these animals show an acknowledgement of others as an affirmation of acknowledgement of self.

Naturally, there are gradient levels, but from observational experience, I tend to disagree.

The question of the purpose of life is a product of the sentient mind, hence the purpose of sentience must be related to the purpose of life. Disregarding the fact that in in order to create a civilisation or interact with other people a sentient mind is prerequisite, for all of these things are trivial in contrast to what life and the fundamental purpose is all about. I have always viewed our sentience as a flawed awareness that is by its very nature cursed to ask questions to which it has no means of answering. I have always liked to think that the purpose of our sentience is not to answer things to which we have no answer to (for that would in itself be a meaningless and eternal search for something we cannot define nor comprehend) but that our sentient questions are merely there to stimulate and serve as product for the need (the thing in itself) to fill the void which comes with our flawed perspective on reality. Only when we are capable of seeing eveything, seeing the moment in all the senses that’s possible will we be rid of these philosophical dilemmas, but then again, no questions about life or its meaning would exist. The mere fact that we ask these questions makes us incapable of understanding the answers.

So what is the meaning of sentience? No one can say…

The Senator has forced his motion upon you.

I have to disagree (as would anyone who enjoys speculating on random issues and digging up debates at every term) with the idea that nothing comes of these thoughts into higher things we can’t answer. After all, lots of inventions have come on accident, usually when someone’s looking into something else thats unanswerable.

Perhaps, instead of totally meaningless, they give us a place to aim for that we can’t justifiably reach…but can bring ourselves closer with each and every straining attempt?

To say that there is a purpose to humanity at all is quite a statement.
I’m not saying its not possible…but my take on it is that life is just another spontanaety of this chaotic universe.
I like self-awareness though, because I can go onto philosophy forums and stuff.

Although I see your point, I do not agree that inventions based on mere accident are proof of our sentience’s fundamental purpose. Theories on how the universe works do not bring us closer to finding out the truth nor the purpose of our existence, it shows us more closed doors than opened ones, and in that sense, we are just being more aware of how ignorant we really are. The paradox of that statement, however, is also explainable, in that the knowledge we base our understanding in is like fractions of a mathematical number. We begin with a finite realm of possible awareness, then break that number, or realm up, adding always less and less understanding in relativity to what that realm was based on from the beginning. The result being that we add an infinite number of “smaller” fractions of knowledge to our initial pot of possible expansion, and get the sense of moving ahead when we are in reality only digging ourselves deeper and deeper in ignorance. It doesn’t matter how much we observe or calculate, we are too puny and insignificant and foremost subjective from our anti-empirical relativity that even the so called “discoveries” that we make are mere hints of what is really the truth.

I do not, however, accept the fact that because of our limited view on life believe that we, as a species and as conscious beings, have no meaning at all. I think the fact that we can discuss this matter is proof enough that we are, and therefore we have meaning. But to say that sentience, as product of our physiological development, has somekind of objective meaning or purpose as a prerequisite of it, strikes not only me as frightfully religious, but also naive because the fact that we are able to pose questions on things, do not make it necessarily so that we can answer them. Why? you might ask. Because we do not even understand what it is we are searching for. Define that, and I shall admit that I am wrong and that we are destined to rule the universe.

Never said they were…I meant that the accidental answers might be proof
of the purpose that the illogical or unanswerable questions have in our existance…more of an evolutionary purpose, or a survival tactic (learn more about individual parts of the universe, apply, repeat, while looking for ‘something bigger’ that doesn’t exist, per say).

See: Socrates

Well, from these false mathmatical calculations, we can learn things that are useful. Although you can’t learn everything by studying who or what or why we are, you can certainly obtain insights into human life that can allow for better manipulation. of other people — which, in today’s society, where we’re both predator and prey to our own species, can be viewed as a viable survival tactic.

Although I’m not sure how an objective meaning for critical thinking is more religious than a subjective meaning for the species derived from the factor of sentience, let me try to phrase it this way:

The actual answers of the questions we ask (such as “who am I?” or “What am I?”) are inconsequential, and yes, I agree, unanswerable. However, its the side tangents of these questions, the whys that occur in context of our ignorance-finding, that are valuable. “Why do I think” turns to “Well, why do I think differently than him?” and thus unto the basis of psychology…which in turn can be used for survival by converting principles into working models for the behaviors of our predators (us), and thus giving those who think critically a stepping stone to bypass getting ‘eaten’ by our ever-evolving world. This is the type of meaning that I’m insinuating: It aids survival…or at least, the side-effects of it are. (in such context, however, the actual questioning nature becomes the side effect)

Gods, I hope we don’t rule the universe. Although, i admit myself somewhat of a spiritual person (only because there’s no religion fully matching my values to make me a religious person), I would shudder in terror if we got that far. I think the main problem is that you’re interpretting my use of the word ‘purpose’ as religious mandate…I mean it in the utilitarian way.

Sorry for the post length. But got carried away with the mental work out.

If I have understood your point correctly, you claim that the side-effects of the questions that are a product of our sentience, the life-aiding “survival tactics” is the purpose of the sentience itself. That from, an objective reason behind it, derives yet another completely subjective and circumstantial aid to us as humans to learn about ourselves and progress within our own species?

I would have to agree on that point I’m afriad, but that fact does not satisfy anyone that searches for an explanation other than the ‘accidental’ Darwinistic point of view as to how and foremost why we can pose questions and have an excess of emotional and mental activity. All our behavior as product of sentience does not serve us in the hunter-gather/predator-pray view on its fundamental purpose. There is just too much unexplainable to simply put our sentience in a mere natural development to protect us from ourselves. Poetry, art and music - these are all things that are also a product of our sentient minds. They have no means of further developing the “life-aiding” process that takes place in our society. There is no need here to develop or adapt as product of another being the ‘predator’ - it is a medium of self-awareness and self-development. A means to explore our minds most abstract and ‘unnatural’ parts if you wish. What is this a product of?

No, my friend. The predator-pray theory is not satisfactory.

And yes, anything relating to us haveing a predestined purpose or reason, a prerequisite state of importance at all is too religious and utopian for me to consider. Although you have meant this in an utilitarian way, it is still obvious that such a train of thought to you is not as alien as it is to me.

Predator and prey is only the most basic of examples. Maslow, for instance, proposed his Hierchy of Needs…which, in terms of darwinian psychology, or darwinism in general, constitutes a secondary and triciary set of survival fields. At the lowest level of it, of course, is primal darwinian survival…which is what I’ve been referring too up until now. Once this urge is satisfied, which takes base sentience, and, in the case of a being devoid of physical benifits beyond thumbs, at least some semblance of cognition, we move upwards to the next level: Safety Needs.

On this level, cognition becomes crucial, for the preventative measures. Learning what will get you outcast, in a culture, for instance, or even the act of prohibiting actions that may harm the community in and of itself. Keep in mind, though, that by this point, knowledge has come into play, so outdated superstitions can be interwoven, creating a ‘flawed’ version of safety that one strives to adhere to.

The next level, the one where love and belonging is sought, brings the bases of the arts…like the mating songs of the birds, or the communal howling of wolves to show oneness in their remorse for a passing clan member, the arts attempt to draw attention from promising mates, display wealth and beauty, like the peacock’s tail, and even warn away rivals. Indeed, stretched even further, they can simply be used to vent psychological frustration, or to show yourself to a group, in hopes of acceptance.

Next comes the need for self esteem, once the lower ones are dealt with (or, as multitasking humans, while the others are still being wrastled with). In this portion, the person seeks to say “I am me, and I am important” …a fallacy in which the equivelent of beta males fighting against alpha males for dominance is exemplery. It is this section that shows most of cognitions worth, and its interrelation with the level below it: People think, inherently, that there is something worthwhile about them if they can outthink others…much as a jock outruns a competitor, or a whore out-performs the others in her turf.

Finally, we come to the touchiest part of the pyramid, which is almost pure cognition: The self actualization needs. Here we have the yearning for psychological soundness, the seeking of ends for our internal turmoil — and yes, the base questionings that lead to developments in other areas. Though not in the least directly related to survival, this use of cognition stems from all that is before: Our self esteem, our need for love, our respect for safety, and our basic urge for survival all meld here, making us wonder why we’re doing it, suspecting some higher pattern, since we have such needs.

All of this can be a view of the extension of survivalist intentions…when we seek to survive, we don’t just do it to survive, as darwin assumes, but we do it to survive well. Our society demands refinement, because it demands, at the topmost level of that pyramid, to seem happy, to seem fit, whether it is or not. It keeps things running, and those things, in turn, perpetuate and add to the glit of civilized living.

So in the end, it can all be seen as survivalist tendancies that give us cognition, and in turn, that cognition that requires seperate levels of cognition for survival and function within the species. It may not be satisfying to the askers of how or why, but in the end, many of life’s answers aren’t satisfying…but perhaps, for this answer, I can offer a possibility as to why:

We do it for love of the hunt,
For love of the springtime moon,
All aglitter upon its throne,
As the passing days, take us farther yet,
From home, sweet home.
-Anonymous

As for this portion…you’re right, its not an alien concept for me…I’ve seen some things that fall far more into place than they should…or coincidences lining up to give exact results. So, I’m not entirely closed to the idea…but I don’t exactly believe it, either.

We are talking at cross purposes here. My claim is that not all animals who are sentient are self-conscious/self-aware in the sense we mean it. Your claim is that there are some animals who are both sentient and self-conscious/self-aware. I fully agree with you - many different varieties of animal and bird do indeed show signs of both of these faculties; however, I see no good reason why we should believe those sentient beings who do not show signs of self-awareness/self-consciousness to be self-aware/self-conscious - I am not convinced that the two must go together. If you have an explanation for why they must, I shall be interested to read it.