 |
|   | Subject: A world without people
Posted Jul 11, 2009 by  KB
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 41
|
Not convinced it's the same thing as intelligence, though. It seems to be a word with a lot of connotations attached to it.
A starting point, my mac's dictionary:
sapient |ˈsāpēənt|
adjective
1 formal wise, or attempting to appear wise.
• (chiefly in science fiction) intelligent : sapient life forms.
2 of or relating to the human species ( Homo sapiens) : our sapient ancestors of 40,000 years ago.
noun
a human of the species Homo sapiens.
DERIVATIVES
sapience noun
sapiently adverb
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French, or from Latin sapient- ‘being wise,’ from the verb sapere.
Wisdom and intelligence aren't the same thing, either. I constantly have to give my rpg chars points in both when they level up 
| | Subject: A world without people
Posted Jul 11, 2009 by Alfster
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 44
|
A world without people...what would be the point in that? None. It might as well not exist...why wold anyone create something like the earth and not populate it with people who could appreciate it all rather than with animals that just ate, slept, shagged and died?
<<animals that just ate, slept, shagged and died?>>
To be fair, not all Glaswegians are like that.
3dots-it's been that way for millions of years and no-one was complaining
"Appreciation" has little to do with it; and going with the principle that animals can't appreciate things is wrong.
Some people seem to think we're the Crown-achievement of the evolution (or creation), but I see us as something of an interesting accident. If that accident is turning out to be good news for the planet remains to be seen (the signs are that things are turning out quite badly).
> and going with the principle that animals can't appreciate things is wrong.<
Where's your evidence for that? Appreciating things is as a result of our highly developed cerebral cortex, which has enabled things like cultural constructs of 'appreciation' and 'beauty' to occur. It's nothing to do with us being the crowning point of evolution, just a neutral biological fact that we have this enormously developed cerebral cortex of the brain compared to any other animal.
And what's with the human value judgment of things being 'good news' or not for the planet. Right now all over the universe stars are dying, solar systems are disintegrating, and a hundred other things we can never know about...is that good or bad news for them? No of course not, the question is ultimately meaningless because the idea of something being good or bad news is entirely a human cultural construct connected with the idea of morality.
Where's the evidence that beauty or appreciation can *only* be experienced by a highly developed cerebral cortex? At what point is the cerebral cortex big enough to experience beauty or appreciation? Because the implication there is that there is some line to cross over, before you get to that you can't experience beauty, after that you can. What about other animals with large cortexes? (what is the plural of cortex anyway?).
I don't think it is just about morality. Some people feel considerable pain about the destruction of life on this planet. That's not a moral thing, it's about being sentient. Sentience is shared by many life forms.
What's your definition of sentient then?
And no, no other animal has such a hugely developed cerebral cortex of the mammalian brain as Homo sapiens. I'm not a neuroscientist but from what little I know it appears that areas of it have been investigated via brain scans to examine which areas are mainly concerned with things like eg 'language'. Yes ultimately we can't know for sure what other animals perceive, any more than I can know that you perceive things the same as me, but I actually think its fairly arrogant to assume that other creatures are in any way living their lives in any way connected with *words* we use, because we have acquired a complex spoken language which is the basis of cultural ideas. They are too busy getting on with survival according to their own biological structures which are different to our species, not 'inferior' just different. We should accept and respect that difference and not project our own way of 'being alive' onto other species.
In terms of 'beauty' different cultures have different ideas of it. Different individuals can't even agree on it. It's a purely human construct.
Jane Goodall believes that chimps appreciate beauty - she tells a story of chimps in a sort of "rapture" at a waterfall.
>>They are too busy getting on with survival according to their own biological structures which are different to our species, not 'inferior' just different.<<
But that in itself is an idea that is a human construct. And by no means a universal one. Most cultures on the planet historically have believed that animals and the rest of nature are alive in a sentient sense. Not in a big cortex, I can speak words way, but nevertheless sentient.
And by sentient I mean the ability to experience the world via that senses.
Just because we have the biggest brain, doesn't mean nothing else has the capacity to experience appreciation. Anyone that has had a close relationship with an animal knows that appreciation is no only for humans.
 |  |
Nice one, Feisor.
Effers, science has long held that animals are not sentient (at least some parts of science). It's the big justification behind experimenting on animals, because the idea is that they're poor dumb creatures that can't suffer*. Unbelievable really, because it's so obvious to the rest of the world that animals can and do suffer, and that they are sentient.
*Fortunately there has been some good work done refuting that notion.
Well being sentient by your definition is completely different from saying animals might 'appreciate things' and 'be aware of beauty'. That's a totally different argument. I myself have made the point on other threads that many mammals can clearly experience 'pain'. Their brain structures indicate pain centres in the mammalian brain. And we obviously see clear cut behavioural response to pain stimuli. I had a bit of a run in on the TGD thread about different ways animals are dispatched and argued strongly against 'Halal' methods because it takes no account of being the most humane method. Others argued against me.
I think different things are being muddled up here in the discussion. Things like 'beauty' are conceptual cultural concepts that have nothing to do with things like ability to feel pain. As I say I stick to my argument that it is arrogant of us to project things that are to do with human culture onto other creatures.
And I never said we have larger *brains*. Just larger *cerebral cortexes*, which are enlarged out of all recognition say from that of chimps. Evolution in the great apes should be respected as a fact.
>Jane Goodall believes that chimps appreciate beauty - she tells a story of chimps in a sort of "rapture" at a waterfall.<
I have no idea what that statement means, Feisor
I often watch squirrels in my garden having fun rolling around with a stick or sunbathing. To me it looks like something done purely for pleasure, just like humans.
Effers, the issue wasn't whether animals feel pain (obviously that is measurable by science). It's how animals experience that pain i.e. whether they suffer. Science has long held that they don't. They used to say this about babies too, which partially why we developed such barbaric birthing practices.
I still don't see how you can claim that beauty is a human construct only. That is a belief, and I don't like see THAT projected onto the rest of life. Likewise the ability to feel appreciation.
SS I've often watched animals do this too.
| | Subject: A world without people
Posted Jul 11, 2009 by Xanatic
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 58
|
The bower bird is probably a good example of a creature that appreciates beauty. It might not like the Mona Lisa though.
I'm afraid it's getting a bit off-track. Back to the original posted question; I think it would be bliss for the eco-system and earth as a place to live on if we just all got on that spaceship and moved to mars (to make a mess of that planet). We're behaving like a socially challenged family in a rented house; breaking through the walls in the sake of 'Home Improvement" and forgetting the roof's beginning to collapse. Using floorboords for heating until we forgot to install a decent chimney.
Am I a pessimist? You bet! And I still hope I'm completely wrong and we're improving things over the next few years...
> It's how animals experience that pain i.e. whether they suffer. Science has long held that they don't.< kea
Really has it? That would be unscientific because we can't be certain of what other animals actually 'feel' or 'experience' things. My view would be that mammals with highly developed nervous systems, with areas of the brain which have been shown to be responsible for the perception of pain would more than likely 'suffer'...whatever that really means...because it would make biological sense for survival to avoid it. But are you suggesting a worm suffers because it appears to writhe when stuck on a hook...we can never know for sure how pain is actually perceived by other species, but the likelihood is that certainly mammals with highly developed nervous systems suffer. Hence we should aim at the most humane ways of dispatching animals in modern agriculture, and vets should do the same when a dog or cat is put down. (BTW I'm not talking about eg hunter/gatherer societies that are trying to survive as best they can - that's a different context).
I really don't see much more point in discussing the idea further of whether other animals percieve what I understand to be human cultural constructs. I've stated my view.
As a general point though I certainly am someone who has a great interest and love of nature, but I always bear in mind that it is 'other' and I enjoy it for its own sake and the wonders of its variety and how it all interacts. That's why I studied biology. It does bring out feelings of 'love' in me, but that's very much a product of my rather soppy about animals culture.  ...and because I'm fundamentally a caring person. 
Please note that Not Panicking Ltd is not responsible for the content of any external sites listed. The content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. Unlike Edited Guide Entries, the content on this page has not necessarily been checked by a h2g2 editor. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please
click here
.
|
