Like, a piece of paper is sentient, but only minusculey? A block of wood?
Or, a fucking bacteria is 0.2 percent sentient?
Like we’re all millions and billions of sentients in various degrees?
Like things are sentient, even though they never will be US, and we will never have any awareness of them, yet, somehow, they are sentient, even though we will never have any awareness of them and they will never have any awareness of us?
Where do you put the cut off line?
I mean, if some animals are sentient…where is the exact cut off between when one animal is sentient and the other isn’t?
Is it safe to say that IF some animals are not sentient, then it also follows that SOME HUMANS are not sentient either?
I think the degree of sentience is equal to the instrument denoting it. So a human brain generates tons, robot/AI brains would vary eventually surpassing that ~ given that we are not already at the pinnacle. A germ has a slight spark which an article in the new scientist stated was the beginning of life ~ from their studies, so I don’t know if that’s the bottom line. I wouldn’t go that far myself, I think you need quite a complex brain to develop individuality, insects have that but its very basic. ‘The degree of predictability’ is the measure I use to determine intellects at least [insects are quite predictable].
For there to have been a division, we have to assume there was some kind oneness to begin with. It could be that the universe gives birth to individual entities like humans, that you make a universe and then a brain which manifests consciousness, then the spiritual journey after death is towards oneness.
Or perhaps we are getting too caught up in the cardinality; spirit is like air, consider the Celtic ‘awens’ ~ thought-wind, and the eastern ‘chi’ energy, so the division means there is ‘the weather’ occurring in and to that air.
We do experience their timelines, just in the third party. …but you want that, the subjectivity is what gives the winds focus and a point of perspective [or several], and is the root of ones individuality. The eye does see and the body does feel, it may be somewhat composed to the experiencer but that composition is real. Hmm that suggests a duality with nothing else, whereas I do think that we all belong to the same air/spirit, so some part of us connects.
What do you mean, like, we go with Joe to a party, we “experience his timeline” because we see him there? Oh com’on…
I want you to really sit down an think about this…the absurdity of it…
Like…I am me but I might as well be you, but for some odd reason I am me right now and not anybody else, and you are you right now and not anybody else, and you should be Me because i am Me yet you are not, and the whole damn thing doesn’t make a lick of sense.
That would depend on how you define sentience. I take it to mean self awareness. Now how many plants or animals
possess this capability. We can probably only be certain that we do although other primates or mammals might also
Short of actually being able to communicate directly via a common language we may never know the actual answer
It’s not like you determine which one is sentient and which isn’t and then eat the animals that aren’t. You first look at how delicious something is, and if it’s deliciousness outweighs its sentience, then you eat it.
Or you look at it with sentiment. I have hens and roosters that I could never eat or kill and there are those I have no issue killing or eating. The ones that I would never eat, get buried when they die. There are a couple cows that I could not eat.
Some in most species stand out as different , as truly unique. We tend to attach to these individual “food animal”.
Animals that are herd/flock tend to show a severe lack of individuality. They do have minor individual traits and if you observe the group long enough you would see this. Yet we do not or cannot set individuality to such creatures. Our survival has depended upon lines drawn. Does it still?? Yes and no.
you build a robot with consciousness, you will almost certainly have attained the knowledge [in learning/doing that] to swap consciousnesses out. So you got a few million robots and any of them can swap locations with any others, the personality, everything [in degrees as they wish].
You are you and I am me because we don’t yet know how to transfer consciousnesses. I think when we do we will also be able to transfer consciousnesses too, so with all the aspects being interchangeable, there will be nothing left except an observing perspective perhaps akin to a point. Germs will probably also have the point or focus of an observer.
everything in existence is a point of one variety or another [quanta etc], and every point is communicating to every other point, and their mathematical values change correspondingly. Everything inherently has communicative and hence interactive properties!
I guess there is knowing [detecting] and knowing as in the brain processing data. the latter is naturally not the same as information interacting, it is values of objects communicating, rather than a device or a brain processing a given thing ~ these are two different kinds of information entirely.
ergo you ‘know’ people and things innately, akin to information at the quantum level, but not at what I call the upper informational level [as above].
_
