Are there, or are there not, sentient animals.

[Ten oz]

@Raider5678, how are we evaluating logical ability vs instinct? Do you have a ideal example/model for either? I think it can be argued that human's are not logical. While we are really good at problem solving we are equally as bad at it. With the knowledge we have at our disposal things like hunger and war shouldn't exist. We have the know how to ensure safety and security for every human on earth and don't. Humans make illogical choices for themselves and others constantly. Every time we drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, assault one another, kill, and etc. We error so greatly because of emotions/instinct? Despite or knowledge attainment we still are destroying the very environment we need to exist. It is very illogical. We value the skills we (humans) excel at. So we assume we are the most intelligent and logical because we can built tools and have language but those are things we care about. Other intelligent life may value others things which we do not. They may consider us to be purely instinct driven. It is all relative to a large extent.

 

All life which we are aware of is confined to a physical body. We all have basic needs determined by our physical bodies. We all inherit natural characteristics and behaviors (instincts) as a result. It isn't always clear when one is operating with individual choice vs instinct. Because of that I don't think intelligence/logic vs instinct is a good measuring stick for being sentient. Additionally, in my opinion, being aware of self and being aware of the reasons behind every action and or choice aren't one in the same. From addiction, attention deficit, to acts of rage humans have many behaviors we are unable to consciously control or full understand. I don't believe free will is a requirement of being self aware. In my opinion to be sentient the only requirement is to be aware and to be aware the only requirement is an independent concept (instinct, emotion, logical, etc) of self.

[Itoero]

I wonder if elephants understand what rational though is; if not, then they can't think of us as rational. Moreover, I don't always think of people as rational, many seem to make emotional decisions.

Every decision is imo emotional and depending on personal experiences or your state of mind, you can call it rational or not.

[EdEarl]

Every decision is imo emotional and depending on personal experiences or your state of mind, you can call it rational or not.

While writing a program, I decide to use a hash to search for a key instead of a linear search, because it is much faster. What is emotional about that decision

[Itoero]

While writing a program, I decide to use a hash to search for a key instead of a linear search, because it is much faster. What is emotional about that decision

You decide it because you think it's much faster...that's an emotional decision.

An emotion is a brief conscious experience marked by intense mental activity.

[zapatos]

An emotion is a brief conscious experience marked by intense mental activity.

I've never heard that definition of 'emotion' before, and could not find any definitions online that described it as you do. Can you provide a citation that supports your definition of 'emotion'?

[Thorham]

You decide it because you think it's much faster...that's an emotional decision.

An emotion is a brief conscious experience marked by intense mental activity.

 

Wrong. It's a provable that it's faster. I'm not going to present any proof here, just know that this is common knowledge in computer science and that's it's also quite trivial to implement.

 

Here's an example of hash lookups vs plain string compares:

 

You have one million strings. With plain string compares you'll get, on average, half a million string compares. If you use a hash table with 10000 entries, where all the strings are evenly distributed over the table, this drops to just fifty string compares.

 

That's a lot faster, and in practice, you'll get very close to those theoretical numbers.

 

Also, thinking isn't the same as feeling

Edited April 27, 2017 by Thorham

[EdEarl]

Zapatos and Thorham wrote my answer to Itoero. Thanks. I programmed for pay, and didn't care about the programs, except that they were good enough to keep my job, which was easy. Coding is about as emotional as doing a crossword puzzle. It's hard to imagine I suffered intense mental activity.

[Itoero]

I've never heard that definition of 'emotion' before, and could not find any definitions online that described it as you do. Can you provide a citation that supports your definition of 'emotion'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

Wrong. It's a provable that it's faster. I'm not going to present any proof here, just know that this is common knowledge in computer science and that's it's also quite trivial to implement.

 

Here's an example of hash lookups vs plain string compares:

 

You have one million strings. With plain string compares you'll get, on average, half a million string compares. If you use a hash table with 10000 entries, where all the strings are evenly distributed over the table, this drops to just fifty string compares.

 

That's a lot faster, and in practice, you'll get very close to those theoretical numbers.

 

Also, thinking isn't the same as feeling

Ok but proof does not change the 'fact' that it's an emotional decision.

Emotions can be defined as a positive or negative experience that is associated with a particular pattern of physiological activity.

The use of a hash concerns a positive experience.

[zapatos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

 

 

From your link:

"Emotion is any relatively brief conscious experience characterized by intense mental activity and a high degree of pleasure or displeasure."

 

Might be time to start looking for a new computer. Your copy/paste function seems to be cutting off words at inopportune times and completely changing the meaning the author intended.

[Itoero]

From your link:

"Emotion is any relatively brief conscious experience characterized by intense mental activity and a high degree of pleasure or displeasure."

 

Might be time to start looking for a new computer. Your copy/paste function seems to be cutting off words at inopportune times and completely changing the meaning the author intended.

I let that out because I don't think it has much meaning. I also used 'marked' instead of 'characterized'.

[Thorham]

Ok but proof does not change the 'fact' that it's an emotional decision.

 

It's not. It's a rational decision. In programming, you don't pick an algorithm because it feels good, you pick an algorithm based on requirements. Programming is a rational activity, regardless of why you do it. You can't program on emotion.

 

The use of a hash concerns a positive experience.

 

That's a side effect, and it's not the reason you picked the algorithm.

 

 

 

"Emotion is any relatively brief conscious experience characterized by intense mental activity and a high degree of pleasure or displeasure."

 

There's a lot more to emotion than that.

Edited April 29, 2017 by Thorham

[ModernArtist25]

Which is why the three things I asked for included A: The ability to think logically.

Ravens have that ability.

 

Also, since we can't seem to be able to agree whether it should be intelligent, sentient, etc, we should come up with some way to class animals based on their mental and social abilities. I'm gonna try to come up with a class system. Give me some slack, it's basically so we can have some guidelines. We can change it if need be.

 

Like humans would be a class 5. Not because I think humans are perfect and beat everything, but we have A: The ability to think logically. B: The ability to create language. C: The ability to feel emotion. D: The ability to question our own orgins. E: A lot of other things. Either way, here goes.

 

Animal Conscientiam Classes

 

Class 1 Animal: Little to no logical ability, no ability to communicate, operates mainly on instinct.

 

Class 2 Animal: Small to little logical ability, little to no ability to communicate, Sometimes reasons against instinct.

 

Class 3 Animal: Moderate logical ability, small ability to communicate, Can reason against instinct, little to no emotions.

 

Class 4 Animal: Large to Moderate logical ability, moderate ability to communicate, doesn't rely on instinct, has emotions.

 

Class 5 Animal: Large logical ability, Ability to communicate with a complex language, doesn't rely on instinct, has emotions.

 

 

Now to clear some things up.

 

A complex language can include sign language, but it has to have nouns, adjetives, verbs, etc. Even ancient languages, simple as they were compared to today, would easily be considered a complex language. A moderate ability to communicate can include Apes, which some have been taught some sign language. While not overly complex, it's a fairly decent ability to communicate. Dogs, I would say have small ability to communicate. They whine when they want something, bark to signal somethings up, they have play bows, etc. Fish I would say have little to no ability to communicate. Maybe I'm wrong, correct me here. And for no ability to communicate, I'd say worms or germs. Stuff like that.

 

As for the instinct part. I didn't say humans have no instincts. I said we can reason against them, and we do on a fairly common basis. The strongest instincts obviously, like fear, is a different matter. Other animals, like snakes, rely on instinct much more.

 

I'd also say, any animal capable of using a complex language, would be considered a class 5.

 

.

This is very interesting. I do have a question, in which class do humans with down syndrome fall under??

[quickquestion]

I would like to talk more about intelligence and language...

Intelligence, seems to be a process of division, dividing things up into smaller components.

The base entity, is Consciousness.

The main Question, is why is Consciousness in Me but not in You.

Before we can answer "Can a Frog have Consciousness" we must ask "Why is Consciousness in QuickQuestion, and not some other human being?"

Because that is the absurdist thing. And if consciousness, can be in 7 billion beings at once, then saying, consciousness can be in frogs and other animals, becomes less of a degree of absurdity, since we have already crossed into the realm of the absurd. If it can be in 7 billion, then why not 7 trillion, or 7 zillion.

 

When I think of word language, compared to emotion, I think of the following diagram.

As you can see in language, the base energy is there, just divied up and divided into different parts. But the base, intent, is the same.

 

Let me give you an example.

"Intolerable".

Lets say a dog, senses someone who is "intolerable" and who the dog hates. They will just feel an emotional hate of them.

But a human, will take that hate, and divide it up into parts, trying to give a reason and explanation of it. They will say..."I hate that person because I sense they hate me, and I also dislike the style of their clothing because it reminds me of people who wronged me a while ago, and also do not like their politics because their politics aim to reduce the food intake of both me and my loved ones, and I never get any love from them either."

Whereas a dog just says "No food? No love??? I hate!!!" Hate becoming a one word phrase...the feeling of hate it inherently senses if something is a danger to it. But the intent, is the same. The net amount of energy used, is the same. But the approach is different. Human wants to spend all of its energy using mental tactics to defeat its opponent, dog just wants to use physical tactics and mental annoyance by barking on its opponent. But both require energy, energy to think, and energy to bark around.

 

 

I wonder if elephants understand what rational though is; if not, then they can't think of us as rational. Moreover, I don't always think of people as rational, many seem to make emotional decisions.

The original rational decision, should ALWAYS should be at root emotion.

 

Intelligence is a technique to get your way.

 

For example...why do scientist research solar power, wind power, etc.

Because they want FOOD on the table, to satisfy their emotional need to not die in agony.

Why do scientists want to save earth.

Because an apocalyptic wasteland is emotionally displeasing to them.

Emotions should always bee the foundations of the decision.

Logic and communication is how you get the decision done.

Edited April 29, 2017 by quickquestion

[Raider5678]

This is very interesting. I do have a question, in which class do humans with down syndrome fall under??

The same as the other humans.

[ModernArtist25]

Do you think most have above moderate logic? How so?

[Raider5678]

Do you think most have above moderate logic? How so?

What the max limit to perfect logic is and what the average amount of logic is varies.

Unless you're about to argue with me that dogs have more logic then humans, I'm going to go ahead and say humans have moderate logical ability.

[ModernArtist25]

What the max limit to perfect logic is and what the average amount of logic is varies.

.

Can you please give an example? 😌

[EdEarl]

Since post #52, many posts have become speculative with no science to support statements. For example, Raider seems to think the brain is a logic engine; in fact, it is a pattern recognition engine that can learn logic and practice it with some difficulty. Also, Itoero thinks all decisions are emotional, but I think they are not. Moreover, Neural Turing Machine is support for my contention that our brains are neural nets and learning machines that are can emulate a Turing Machine. We are capable of logic, and we are often flooded with emotion, but neither logic nor emotion are the modus operandi of brains.

[Raider5678]

Since post #52, many posts have become speculative with no science to support statements. For example, Raider seems to think the brain is a logic engine; in fact, it is a pattern recognition engine that can learn logic and practice it with some difficulty. Also, Itoero thinks all decisions are emotional, but I think they are not. Moreover, Neural Turing Machine is support for my contention that our brains are neural nets and learning machines that are can emulate a Turing Machine. We are capable of logic, and we are often flooded with emotion, but neither logic nor emotion are the modus operandi of brains.

True.

But does that nullify my point that our brains are more capable then dogs?

[John Cuthber]

I used to think there were at least something like 7.5 billion sentient animals.

Having read this thread, I'm less sure.

[Raider5678]

I used to think there were at least something like 7.5 billion sentient animals.

Having read this thread, I'm less sure.

Just because we're not all brilliant, doesn't defeat the fact our brains are capable of more then a dogs is.

Try getting a dog to have an intelligent conversation.

[Ten oz]

True.

But does that nullify my point that our brains are more capable then dogs?

Capable of what? A dog's brain can process their 300 million olfactory receptors. Their small is 40 times superior to ours (humans). Dogs can also hear up to 45,000hz, 4 times the distance of humans. While it is physical parts of the nose and ear that receive information the processing of all that information is done in the brain. The human brain isn't capable of pocessinng sound and odor the way a dog's brain is.

 

What the brain of any animal is capable of is relative to what was evolutionarily advantageous. You seem to be implying that brains exist to process inofrmation logically and thus the more logical an animal is the more capable in general their brain. That isn't the case. Different anaimals evolved to excel at different things and the brain follows suit. Human brains can't echo locate but a bats brain can. I think you are treating human evolutionary traits as superior. A cheetah's shoulder blades aren't attached to their collar bone. Such traits allow them the flexibility to run at 70mph/112kmh. In my opinion that is as uniquely and highly an evolved trait as the hyoid bone in humans that allow us to produce a wide range of sounds, speak. There is no pinnacle of evolution. No best. When humans are all dead and gone, extinct, Tardigrades will still be around.

[Raider5678]

Capable of what? A dog's brain can process their 300 million olfactory receptors. Their small is 40 times superior to ours (humans). Dogs can also hear up to 45,000hz, 4 times the distance of humans. While it is physical parts of the nose and ear that receive information the processing of all that information is done in the brain. The human brain isn't capable of pocessinng sound and odor the way a dog's brain is.

Okay, because with our brains, which their only purpose isn't to think logically, can think logically.

Due to this ability, we have the ability to improve not only our lives, but the lives of our children.

Our brain is capable of a lot more then a dogs, including memory, processing, reactions, and the ability to keep us alive.

We've developed vaccines, machinery, medicine, and even the ability to fly in space.

This separates perpetrates us from dogs.

 

Previously, in this thread, which I'm hoping you read, I specifically pointed out "I'm not claiming humans are some special thing above all animals, I'm claiming our brains are our strongest evolutionary trait."

 

You're attacking a position I separated myself from very early on in this tread, to avoid having to discuss this.

But the thread is 4 pages long, and it'd be irrational to hope you read it all.

But just so you know, that's not my position.

 

We're animals.

But we have something most animals don't, a highly evolved brain.

But that doesn't mean animals don't have things we don't, like a highly evolved sense of smell.

So stick with the discussion of our brains, rather then saying the discussion of our brains means we think we're superior.

[Ten oz]

Okay, because with our brains, which their only purpose isn't to think logically, can think logically.

Due to this ability, we have the ability to improve not only our lives, but the lives of our children.

Our brain is capable of a lot more then a dogs, including memory, processing, reactions, and the ability to keep us alive.

We've developed vaccines, machinery, medicine, and even the ability to fly in space.

This separates perpetrates us from dogs.

 

Previously, in this thread, which I'm hoping you read, I specifically pointed out "I'm not claiming humans are some special thing above all animals, I'm claiming our brains are our strongest evolutionary trait."

 

You're attacking a position I separated myself from very early on in this tread, to avoid having to discuss this.

But the thread is 4 pages long, and it'd be irrational to hope you read it all.

But just so you know, that's not my position.

 

We're animals.

But we have something most animals don't, a highly evolved brain.

But that doesn't mean animals don't have things we don't, like a highly evolved sense of smell.

So stick with the discussion of our brains, rather then saying the discussion of our brains means we think we're superior.

Humans cannot chase down and kill an elk without tools, wolves can. As such if humans were going to catch and eat elks we needed to develop tools. Wolves simply haven't had a use for our level of intelligence. Humans needed to be more intelligent. By "need" and "use" I mean it spared us from extinction. Humans were on the brink of extinct at several times during our evoliution and only humans with advantageous mutations survived. We have the ability to do the things you listed because we'd be extinct otherwise. That is how it works. Different traits have been advantageous to different species. Sharks evolved almost 500 million years ago and haven't changed much because they have had healthy populations and reproduction rates.

 

Comparing the capabilities of brains across species isn't an apples to apples comparison. Different species have evolved to do different things. We evolved to build and construct tools. Our brains are more capable of performing doing that. However that isn't the exclusive purpose of a brain.

 

As for your early post in this thread I already responded to that, see post #51.

[John Cuthber]

Just because we're not all brilliant, doesn't defeat the fact our brains are capable of more then a dogs is.

Try getting a dog to have an intelligent conversation.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sentient

ADJECTIVE

• Able to perceive or feel things.

Dogs can certainly feel hungry and they can feel pain.

Whether or not that's at the level of self awareness is another argument.

They perceive- as other have pointed out- things like 40KHz ultrasound (which we can't).

So they are sentient.

 

Failing to hold a conversation is a different matter.

(Unless, of course, you have a different definition of the word)