Sentience is meaningless. Sapience is what matters.

[Sapientist]

Hello all.

I didn't make an introduction post because I really want to just put forward and test these specific ideas, and don't know how much I will stick around.

I've read up on some philosophy relevant to veganism, and I'm OK with logic to a certain degree, but I'm not as into it as many others. But that's part of why I am here to test my ideas and see how they hold up. I may not know every fallacy or all the jargon, but I am comfortable that I can defend my ideas. I'd actually like to write an informal article, perhaps on medium.com or something arguing my position, so I hope this will be a good exercise to test it.

Anyway. The crux of my argument is that it is not wrong to kill a sentient animal, but it is wrong to kill a sapient animal. I will try and summarize my argument by making bullet points, look forward to feedback and I expect to expand and refine it throughout this discussion.

• Sentience simply means having enough of a 'mind' to use senses. Most insects, worms and other basic creatures are 'sentient', and because of this I find that meaningless. They have no mind, no self-awareness in any sense...they are not sapient. They are essentially organic robots, and I see little difference betweem them an an advanced model of roomba (which needs to sleep, can automatically recharge, can learn, and is limited to a few basic functions). Essentially, my view is that if a being is not self-aware, i.e. not capable of valuing their own life, they have no right to life.

• People often invoke comparisons to mentally deficient humans, the argument from marginal cases. I find this to be an incredibly flawed argument which is not much more than an appeal to emotion. Mentally disabled humans are still leagues ahead of an animal in most cases, and in other cases it's hard to say exactly what their level is. In cases where it is abundantly clear that they completely, absolutely lack self-awareness, I think they deserve moral consideration only if their is potential for them to improve. Otherwise, the reason we look after them so well is for the comfort of people who care about them. Then there are infants...the main difference with infants is that an infant has the potential to grow into a fully functional human. A cow will never be anything more than a cow.

• People also like to make the 'what if super advanced aliens came to eat us' argument. This is a flawed argument. Humans are so, so, so, so far pasts even our closest animal companion. There is not a single type of animal that actually asks questions, that seeks to learn, not even chimps or gorillas that we can communicate with pretty well via sign language. Not once has a gorilla or chimp asked how something works or why something is the way it is. Humans are so clearly past a threshold that, no matter how much more advanced aliens may be than us, it would not be morally justifiable to eat us (just as I don't think it is moral to eat pigs, or dolphins, or chimps or dogs).

• People also try to use the precautionary principle. What if animals we don't think of as self-aware are in fact self-aware? Well, that is not so much a problem with my position as a problem with getting accurate data. Even so....there are grey areas, but in most cases, I think it is pretty straight forward and I feel confident with the evidence we have available to say if some animals are self-aware and others are not. The small likelihood of me choosing wrong here is outweighed by convenience, which is actually how most humans make decisions when they are not 100% sure of something.

Now, this is to say, I strongly disagree with factory farming and suffering. I don't agree that killing equates to suffering...I would like to see a world where meat is far more expensive, where people eat significantly less meat, and where all livestock truly do live happy lives, outside, no hormones or any bullshit, no cages etc, and when killed are done so in a way that is absolutely pain and fear free. For that reason, I do follow a mostly vegan diet, and I agree with most talking points, but I don't see a problem in killing a chicken or a cow in a humane way. I just don't.

It occurs to me as I post this, I have not made my argument well at all. I apologize for that, it's late and I am doing a lot, but hopefully my basic points come across, and I look forward to clarifying and elaborating further to test the merits of my position.

[carnap]

• Sentience simply means having enough of a 'mind' to use senses. Most insects, worms and other basic creatures are 'sentient', and because of this I find that meaningless. They have no mind, no self-awareness in any sense...they are not sapient. They are essentially organic robots, and I see little difference betweem them an an advanced model of roomba (which needs to sleep, can automatically recharge, can learn, and is limited to a few basic functions). Essentially, my view is that if a being is not self-aware, i.e. not capable of valuing their own life, they have no right to life.

That isn't what it means for an entity to be sentient. An animal is sentient if it has the ability to experience its senses subjectively or put it another way there is something that it is to be that animal. Why this is seen as relevant for ethics is that if an animal is sentient than its likely to have the ability to suffer in a subjective sense.

Though sentience is a very contentious notion and there is no way to test an animal to see whether they are sentient or not, instead sentience is inferred if the animal has achieve a certain level of behavioral and neurological complexity. As such there are very few that would argue that insects are sentient where as its typically maintained that mammals and birds are sentient.

But you're right, sentience doesn't imply self-awareness but they often get conflated. I don't think many vegans realize that when they start to discuss sentience they are entering really muddy waters and founding their ethical views on very contentious philosophic/scientific views of the mind.

[Sapientist]

• Sentience simply means having enough of a 'mind' to use senses. Most insects, worms and other basic creatures are 'sentient', and because of this I find that meaningless. They have no mind, no self-awareness in any sense...they are not sapient. They are essentially organic robots, and I see little difference betweem them an an advanced model of roomba (which needs to sleep, can automatically recharge, can learn, and is limited to a few basic functions). Essentially, my view is that if a being is not self-aware, i.e. not capable of valuing their own life, they have no right to life.

That isn't what it means for an entity to be sentient. An animal is sentient if it has the ability to experience its senses subjectively or put it another way there is something that it is to be that animal.

I disagree. I see a lot of vegans defining sentience as the ability to experience reality subjectively, except that definition doesn't appear in either the Merriam-Webster or Oxford dictionaries. It doesn't help that sentience is one of the most elastic words which seems to have several definitions, depending on who you ask. Going by the dictionaries, the definition I gave appears to be accurate.

Why this is seen as relevant for ethics is that if an animal is sentient than its likely to have the ability to suffer in a subjective sense.

Without self awareness, they won't really be aware of what is happening to them though. Not in the same way a self-aware being is. Of course, that doesn't mean I think they should suffer, but it is a point worth mentioning.

Though sentience is a very contentious notion and there is no way to test an animal to see whether they are sentient or not, instead sentience is inferred if the animal has achieve a certain level of behavioral and neurological complexity. As such there are very few that would argue that insects are sentient where as its typically maintained that mammals and birds are sentient.

Again, I disagree. All insects are sentient, of that there is no doubt, at least using the dictionary definition. Most insects are not self-aware however, and almost certainly not sapient. Bees and ants are clearly sentient, ants even pass the mirror test.

But you're right, sentience doesn't imply self-awareness but they often get conflated. I don't think many vegans realize that when they start to discuss sentience they are entering really muddy waters and founding their ethical views on very contentious philosophic/scientific views of the mind.

One of the biggest problems I think, is the numerous arbitrary definitions for sentience. I know it's Star Trek, but I found this entry really useful, as it mirrors the different ways the word is used in real life. In some ways sentient simply means conscious, no matter how basic, and doesn't imply self-awareness, while at other times it is used synonymously with self-awareness. In the episode where someone has to prove Data is sentient for example, the criteria for sentience is: Intelligence, self awareness, consciousness - I don't know that many animals that vegans consider sentient would meet that criteria. On the other hand, on ST Discovery, an incredibly basic animal was also called sentient, and said animal most certainly did not meet those 3 criteria.

Sorry for the Star Trek stuff...not even that into it myself, I just feel it provides good examples over the ambiguity of the term that reflect real world usage.

[Canastenard]

Welcome to the forum!

This can be an interesting discussion, considering from the cognitive abilities of animals we can derivate different interests: for example I doubt that non-human animals have what we would define a "dream" in the sense number 1 objective animals would want to realize in their life.

I'm going to address a few points in particular:

Essentially, my view is that if a being is not self-aware, i.e. not capable of valuing their own life, they have no right to life.

I don't agree that animals needs an advanced notion of the concept of "self" to care about themselves. Any animal who starts becoming aggressive when you bother him/her very obviously wants to stop being bothered, same as a prey animal that tries to espace a predator and doesn't want to be in fear. They actively behave based on their subjective experience, which is an integral part of what we call the "self".

You mention "capable of valuing their own life", which leads to the philosophical question of whether caring about oneself and caring about oneself's life is equivalent. I've argued that one doesn't need what you define as "self-awareness" to care about oneself, so we might ask ourselves what are the cognitive abilities needed to understand the concept of "oneself's life". I would personally assume it's different from the concept of "self" and define it as a first peson story that evolves through a timeline.

Ultimately since us humans understand the concept of "oneself's life" then why do we care about it? In other words why do we want to live? Personally I don't want to live for the sake of living but for the sake of what life is made of, like joy, pleasure, discoveries, and the ability to fulfill my interests in general. Even without the cognitive abilities needed to understand the concept of "oneself's life", all sentient animals have at least immediate interests to fulfill, even if it's as basic as eating grass in peace. It's reasonable to say that it's more wrong to kill a human than a cow because of the wider range of interests humans have, but that doesn't mean it's absolutely okay to kill a cow.

Without self awareness, they won't really be aware of what is happening to them though. Not in the same way a self-aware being is.

... I'm sorry, what?
As far as I'm concerned, feeling a positive or negative experience is strictly equivalent to being aware of this feeling happening in oneself's mind. Unless we're arguing that a cow in pain isn't aware that she's in pain? It defies basic logic.

Do you believe being boiled alive feels worse for an animal capable of recognizing himself/herself in a mirror compared to another animal with the same pain sensors but who fails the mirror test?

Then there are infants...the main difference with infants is that an infant has the potential to grow into a fully functional human. A cow will never be anything more than a cow.

So you're basically using the same argument as anti-abortion people who move the goalposts when they're told that the fetus doesn't start having feeling until late in pregnancy? What do you think about euthanizing early a baby with an illness that will prevent him/her to live beyond 18 months (the age at which it's generally accepted that babies can pass the mirror test) but doesn't significantly lower his/her quality of life before he/she dies?

[Sapientist]

Welcome to the forum!

Thanks

I don't agree that animals needs an advanced notion of the concept of "self" to care about themselves.

This is indeed where we fundamentally disagree.

Any animal who starts becoming aggressive when you bother him/her very obviously wants to stop being bothered, same as a prey animal that tries to espace a predator and doesn't want to be in fear.

Yeah, so. This is instinct, and nothing more. pre-programmed behaviour, not much different than bacteria fleeing white blood cells. This will be the crux of the argument, and it's interesting because when I've argued it in the past...it's hard to prove either of our positions with any certainty.

They actively behave based on their subjective experience, which is an integral part of what we call the "self".

They are acting out of instinct, which does not require a sense of self.

You mention "capable of valuing their own life", which leads to the philosophical question of whether caring about oneself and caring about oneself's life is equivalent. I've argued that one doesn't need what you define as "self-awareness" to care about oneself, so we might ask ourselves what are the cognitive abilities needed to understand the concept of "oneself's life". I would personally assume it's different from the concept of "self" and define it as a first peson story that evolves through a timeline.

I disagree that you can care about yourself without-self awareness. Without self-awareness, there is no self to be aware of, thus no self to care about. All there is is instinct.

Ultimately since us humans understand the concept of "oneself's life" then why do we care about it? In other words why do we want to live? Personally I don't want to live for the sake of living but for the sake of what life is made of, like joy, pleasure, discoveries, and the ability to fulfill my interests in general.

Exactly. If someone was trying to chop me with a machete, I would panic and try to flee like pretty much any other animal. But in the moment I am not thinking consciously, and fear would take over 100%, which is instinct.

Right now, if you ask me why I want to live, it's because of my goals for the future, travel, writing, filmmaking, whatever. Most animals lack the capacity for this type of thought.

Even without the cognitive abilities needed to understand the concept of "oneself's life", all sentient animals have at least immediate interests to fulfill, even if it's as basic as eating grass in peace.

Right, but interests alone don't justify a right to life. Again, the bacteria has interests, but I see no moral quandary in killing it. More importantly, I see little moral value between it and, say, a fish.

It's reasonable to say that it's more wrong to kill a human than a cow because of the wider range of interests humans have, but that doesn't mean it's absolutely okay to kill a cow.

I haven't seen an argument that has convinced me it's not OK to kill a cow.

... I'm sorry, what?
As far as I'm concerned, feeling a positive or negative experience is strictly equivalent to being aware of this feeling happening in oneself's mind. Unless we're arguing that a cow in pain isn't aware that she's in pain? It defies basic logic.

I said 'not in the same way as someone who is self-aware', not that they don't feel pain. They feel pain and respond to it instinctually, and yes, I do believe suffering is different for animals with a sense of self.

Do you believe being boiled alive feels worse for an animal capable of recognizing himself/herself in a mirror compared to another animal with the same pain sensors but who fails the mirror test?

Maybe not physically, but psychologically, certainly. I don't think any animal should suffer however, but this took of suffering has little to do with humanely taking their lives.

So you're basically using the same argument as anti-abortion people who move the goalposts when they're told that the fetus doesn't start having feeling until late in pregnancy?

I don't argue in abortion circles (I'm pro-choice and it's not a debate I care to have) so I'm not really sure what argument you are referring to. I stated my position clearly.

What do you think about euthanizing early a baby with an illness that will prevent him/her to live beyond 18 months (the age at which it's generally accepted that babies can pass the mirror test) but doesn't significantly lower his/her quality of life before he/she dies?

Very nice example! I mean, it's horrible, but it's an interesting question.

So, in this example, assuming the illness is absolutely 100% incurable, I really don't think it makes much difference. I would oppose it on the grounds that a) there is no reason to kill in that nothing is gained, no benefit is derived and b) that the infant is not the only person to consider, but also the infants family (who, you may wish to exclude from your argument), who would likely be caused harm by not having as much time with their infant as possible.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

Welcome @Sapientist! Great first post.

The definition of sentience in the dictionary implies and is more concisely stated as what @carnap describes. A subjective experience is defined by an input of sense data and output of some sort of reaction (a thought, a move, etc.) According to the Merriam Webster dictionary to be sentient is to be:

responsive to or conscious of sense impressions

Responsiveness constitutes the latter part of the definition of subjective experience (the reaction) and consciousness, the former (awareness of the input). Thus, a sentient being is one capable of subjective experience.

Without self awareness, they won't really be aware of what is happening to them though. Not in the same way a self-aware being is.

Self-awareness only limits the ability to reflect about one's self, not the ability to subjectively experience. The difference we are talking about is "I am on fire! Make this stop!" (sapient) versus "Fire! fire! fire! Make it stop!" (not sapient). You don't need to know you are you to know you want something. It may not even cross a sapient beings mind that he is the one suffering in an incident. When you touch a hot pan do you think "I am me and my hand is burnt. Owch!" or do you just go to the "Owch!" If you jump to the second option, then you aren't self-aware in that moment (which is probably the case for a sizable portion of your life as well). For all the times that sapient creatures are too engrossed in their tasks or suffering to think about their selves, may way harm them until it comes back to their minds?

[Sapientist]

Welcome @Sapientist! Great first post.

Thanks! I actually should have put a lot more effort into it, I coudl have articulated some stuff more clearly, but we are having this discussion which is what I wanted

The definition of sentience in the dictionary implies and is more concisely stated as what @carnap describes. A subjective experience is defined by an input of sense data and output of some sort of reaction (a thought, a move, etc.)

I take issue with this. The term 'subjective experience' is not mentioned in the dictionary at all, and that it is implied I think is a contention not directly supported.

Would you say an advanced model of roomba can have a subjective experience? It can learn, make decisions, gets tired, knows to recharge (and won't work if it doesn't), performs sub-optimally when on low power...

You might think this comparison is ridiculous, but I see no difference between this really and a simple animal with relatively few neurons. Both are, in my view, essentially just machines following programming (well, one certainly is).

The dictionary definition you quoted matches how I described it...having enough of a mind to use senses, and that's it. Anything on top of that is not sentience, but degrees of self-awareness.

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary to be sentient is to be:

responsive to or conscious of sense impressions

Exactly as i said. Enough of a mind to use senses. That's it.

Responsiveness constitutes the latter part of the definition of subjective experience (the reaction) and consciousness, the former (awareness of the input). Thus, a sentient being is one capable of subjective experience.

I don't rally think this follows. Again, the most advanced roomba model has those traits as you define them. It has senses (it can react tot hings, e.g. bumping into a table and making a decision based on that), and it has consciousness as you use it (awareness of input..it is aware if it has bumped into something).

Neither of those things indicate a subjective experience, and I would indicate a level of self is needed in order to have a subjective experience.

Self-awareness only limits the ability to reflect about one's self, not the ability to subjectively experience.

I don't readily accept this for the reasons I gave above.

The difference we are talking about is "I am on fire! Make this stop!" (sapient) versus "Fire! fire! fire! Make it stop!" (not sapient).

This is why I am against animal suffering, sapient or not. I just don't see why a non sapient being has a right to their life if they are not aware they have it.

If I have something that I am not and never will be aware of, and you take it from me, what is the harm?

It may not even cross a sapient beings mind that he is the one suffering in an incident. When you touch a hot pan do you think "I am me and my hand is burnt. Owch!" or do you just go to the "Owch!" If you jump to the second option, then you aren't self-aware in that moment (which is probably the case for a sizable portion of your life as well). For all the times that sapient creatures are too engrossed in their tasks or suffering to think about their selves, may way harm them until it comes back to their minds?

Interesting point. I would say that sapience is woven into the fabric of the mind in a way that is impossible for non-sapient animals. Our self-awareness may be dulled and drowned out by the physical pain and instinctual reaction, but 'we' are still there, observing, watching and making decisions....reacting in a way that a simple sentient being is incapable of.

[carnap]

I disagree. I see a lot of vegans defining sentience as the ability to experience reality subjectively, except that definition doesn't appear in either the Merriam-Webster or Oxford dictionaries. It doesn't help that sentience is one of the most elastic words which seems to have several definitions, depending on who you ask. Going by the dictionaries, the definition I gave appears to be accurate.

The definition in those dictionaries is vague but consistent with what I said. But you're looking up the term in the wrong sort of dictionary, those are common language dictionaries but "sentience" is a technical term in philosophy (and science) so you need to look it up in the Oxford dictionary of philosophy or something similar.

Without self awareness, they won't really be aware of what is happening to them though. Not in the same way a self-aware being is. Of course, that doesn't mean I think they should suffer, but it is a point worth mentioning.

That depends what you mean by "self-awareness". Sentience does seem to imply a sort of basic self-awareness, that is, there is some subject that is experiencing. But not the sort of self-awareness you'd associate with sapience such as being aware of yourself as a self-governing entity.

Again, I disagree. All insects are sentient, of that there is no doubt, at least using the dictionary definition. Most insects are not self-aware however, and almost certainly not sapient. Bees and ants are clearly sentient, ants even pass the mirror test.

As I pointed out above, you wouldn't use the dictionary definition because its entirely vague. Very few scientists argue that insects are as a whole are sentient.

There is a study where ants passed a basic mirror test but that doesn't mean they are self-aware and its never been duplicated, assuming the results are true the far more likely explanation is that its just a simple heuristic. Ants have very poor eye-sight and their brains are tiny, ant behavior is based on a variety of mindless heuristics that result in emergent properties as a group. Ants have a grooming routine so there is probably something about the dot that triggers it.

But this is another issue, like sentience we have no good test for "self-awareness".

One of the biggest problems I think, is the numerous arbitrary definitions for sentience. I know it's Star Trek, but I found this entry really useful, as it mirrors the different ways the word is used in real life.

This is only a problem when you're using the colloquial notion of "sentience", the notion used in philosophy (and science) is far more concrete.

Though I agree, when the average person talks about "sentience" (including vegans) what they are talking about varies a lot from person to person and there is little clarity. And this creates a mess when they try to align it with the more concrete philosophic/scientific notion. For example, for them "sentience" mean imply a sort of sapience but when the scientists talk about sentience that isn't what it means at all. This sort of equivocation causes many vegans to falsely believe scientists support what they think about animal cognition.

[carnap]

And just a couple comments about the overall discussion here:

1.) People tend to anthropomorphize animal behavior. For example someone said:

"Any animal who starts becoming aggressive when you bother him/her very obviously wants to stop being bothered,"

That is how you'd interpret the behavior if it was human, but the cause of the behavior in an another animal could be entirely different. In particular aggressive behavior doesn't require any notion of complex notion of self, it could be a purely instinctual response to particular stimuli.

2.) Self-awareness should really be divided into different types. The most basic being sentience and the most advanced being what we associate with sapience. So the question then becomes at what level of self-awareness does animal slaughter become morally problematic? Obviously sapience, but what about lower levels? I think perhaps the critical capacities is the ability for mega-cognition about one's self, for example the ability to make plans about the future, the ability to understand what it means to die and live and so on. Without those abilities your life is pretty much a day-to-day affair and ending such a life doesn't seem morally problematic.

As an example of "levels", see the development stages section of the wiki article on self-awareness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't want to derail things, but I'll just mention that there's no obvious hard/objective line between mere sentience and sapience as described here.

Sentience implies some bare level of self-awareness to use those senses in an intelligent way to benefit the individual.
Even an insect has to have some sense of itself relative to the environment (required for walking around obstacles toward a goal) even if the insect doesn't know it's an insect.
Yes, some robots with complex neural networks are sentient in the way of an insect, but that's more of a question of true learning/understanding those senses vs pre-programmed reflex.

And on the other end, we have humans who don't really even know they're humans or what that is or means. I'm not talking about people who are mentally retarded, I'm talking about the majority of the population in some areas.

E.g. "You don't have a soul. You are a soul."

Most people don't actually know what they are, they think they're magical floaty ghost things -- so much supernatural halitosis belched into mud -- sitting in a shell and operating it until the angels call them home.

Is that self awareness? Or is it OK to kill basically anybody who has a slightly inaccurate or incomplete concept of self?

The trouble you'll find is explaining at exactly what point you can arbitrary say something has an accurate and complete concept of self. I think you'll find that distinction impossible to substantiate.

Absolutely we need to consider beings along a spectrum, but our best bet is to do that relative to something we can map properly like sentience/intelligence rather than something we can't really define like self-awareness. Leaving the black box of cognition alone and focusing on the clues we get from behavior is much more tenable.