Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
One of my favorite movies was The Attack of the Crab Monsters directed by Roger Corman. These super intelligent crabs not only gobbled up research scientists but absorbed the intelligence of those scientists. Making them very cunning indeed.
Let's not get too far out there. If you define "sentient being" as anything alive, then there's no difference between the bacteria and mold in the dirt and a newborn baby. Why does DNA magically carry the quality of "sentient being" when it's just molecules arranged in a helix? Or do we claim the very rocks are sentient beings? Or do we consider the Earth itself capable of feeling emotions?
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Metta seems appropriate to 'give' (or whatever it is we do when metta-ing) to any substance, whether it contains DNA helices or quartz crystals.
Sentience has a very specific definition, so it would be inaccurately applied to my rock collection or tomato garden.
So, you know that tomato plant 'smell' when you are pruning or moving them around looking for ripe ones? According to research botanists, the 'smell' is a kind of tomato scream, a reaction to being molested. But is it the same scream as a rabbit in the mouth of a fox? Nah. A human scream is again that much more than a rabbit scream. Is it more important? I'm not saying that at all, but I'm willing to consider it is no more or less than a less sentient creature, in the great scheme of things, whatever the case actually is, if there is a case at al.
I heard this on a TED Talk a few days ago -- the neocortex, among many other newfangled things it does, is also a 'simulator'. This ability to simulate is considered particular to neocortices.
This simulator (think of it like a flight simulators used to train pilots) takes us into the future and into the past all inside a moment, and there is a more complicated experience inside a human in the mouth of a predator than that of a rabbit. The rabbit lives entirely in the moment without excess simulation. Upon dying, the rabbit does not regret or fear it's death, think of its kits languishing in the burrow -- apparently it does not have the brain apparatus with which to perceive in this way.
Yet a rabbit is 'sentient', is aware of its environment, has intentions, perceives minutiae and responds in unique ways. It's likely, with what we understand so far of the human brain, our newborns are no more sentient than a rabbit. Terminating an early pregnancy, in this mindset, may not be 'different' than killing a slug. I'm not saying I believe this, but it is logical, if sentience is a function of brain complexity, which it seems to be.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Cinorjer said:
Let's not get too far out there. If you define "sentient being" as anything alive, then there's no difference between the bacteria and mold in the dirt and a newborn baby. Why does DNA magically carry the quality of "sentient being" when it's just molecules arranged in a helix? Or do we claim the very rocks are sentient beings? Or do we consider the Earth itself capable of feeling emotions?
I'd think if the Earth felt emotions, it would most likely be through us.
What if it is all a rudimentary form of sentience and sentient beings are just a natural result of evolution?
As it takes an intelligent being to make use of intelligence, maybe it takes a sentient being to tap into sentience.
Comments
One of my favorite movies was The Attack of the Crab Monsters directed by Roger Corman. These super intelligent crabs not only gobbled up research scientists but absorbed the intelligence of those scientists. Making them very cunning indeed.
Cunning crabs - I like that....crafty crustaceans cunningly conniving...
one misplaced 't' and it's an outright ban....
.
..precocious prawns playfully prancing....
@federica Don't worry, he's one cunning linguist!
I see what you did there......
He speaks in tongues.
Let's not get too far out there. If you define "sentient being" as anything alive, then there's no difference between the bacteria and mold in the dirt and a newborn baby. Why does DNA magically carry the quality of "sentient being" when it's just molecules arranged in a helix? Or do we claim the very rocks are sentient beings? Or do we consider the Earth itself capable of feeling emotions?
Metta seems appropriate to 'give' (or whatever it is we do when metta-ing) to any substance, whether it contains DNA helices or quartz crystals.
Sentience has a very specific definition, so it would be inaccurately applied to my rock collection or tomato garden.
So, you know that tomato plant 'smell' when you are pruning or moving them around looking for ripe ones? According to research botanists, the 'smell' is a kind of tomato scream, a reaction to being molested. But is it the same scream as a rabbit in the mouth of a fox? Nah. A human scream is again that much more than a rabbit scream. Is it more important? I'm not saying that at all, but I'm willing to consider it is no more or less than a less sentient creature, in the great scheme of things, whatever the case actually is, if there is a case at al.
I heard this on a TED Talk a few days ago -- the neocortex, among many other newfangled things it does, is also a 'simulator'. This ability to simulate is considered particular to neocortices.
This simulator (think of it like a flight simulators used to train pilots) takes us into the future and into the past all inside a moment, and there is a more complicated experience inside a human in the mouth of a predator than that of a rabbit. The rabbit lives entirely in the moment without excess simulation. Upon dying, the rabbit does not regret or fear it's death, think of its kits languishing in the burrow -- apparently it does not have the brain apparatus with which to perceive in this way.
Yet a rabbit is 'sentient', is aware of its environment, has intentions, perceives minutiae and responds in unique ways. It's likely, with what we understand so far of the human brain, our newborns are no more sentient than a rabbit. Terminating an early pregnancy, in this mindset, may not be 'different' than killing a slug. I'm not saying I believe this, but it is logical, if sentience is a function of brain complexity, which it seems to be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XvqZwAR6Uio
I'd think if the Earth felt emotions, it would most likely be through us.
What if it is all a rudimentary form of sentience and sentient beings are just a natural result of evolution?
As it takes an intelligent being to make use of intelligence, maybe it takes a sentient being to tap into sentience.