# Non-Human Sentience On Earth



## mac1 (Jun 11, 2004)

_Littlemissattitude raised this point in the "spiritully" thread in the lounge, off the back of some comments made by Hypes. I decided that while it was off topic for that thread, it deserved to be looked at discussed. So I have made a new thread for it here._



			
				littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> Ah. But how do you _know_ that insects are not sentient? Certainly all evidence indicates that such is the case. Still, how arrogant is it that we as a species think that we can tell with certainty whether another species is or is not sentient? Their version of it might well be so alien to our version that it would be impossible for us to tell that they are sentient, or for them to tell that we are sentient. And what about the cetaceans (whales, dolphins)? There are theorists who claim that they are as smart in their way as we humans are in ours. But they don't have limbs to manipulate tools as we have, so their intelligence - to whatever extent that it might exist - could be nearly as hard to evaluate as any intelligence in an insect.
> 
> You do know I'm just playing with you, don't you, Hypes? It's very late at night here, and I just couldn't resist.... ...


 
The above may have been a windup littlemiss, but you are actually hitting on a point of interest that I have had for many years now. You joke about whether insects are sentient, but there is some fairly strong evidence that perhaps insects are intelligent, and no that most certainly isnt a windup. Let me explain... 


The most notable example of this is in the case of termites. Termites build enormous structures without written plans and somehow seem to have a collective knowledge of how to build mounds as large as 20 feet tall. Considering a termite is usually less than half an inch in size, such mounds are gargantuan. It is the human equivilant of building a skyscraper over a mile high, something which we are nowhere near achieving. These 20 feet tall structures are not just tall thoug, they also have beautiful and intricrate structures and are created in complete darkness. How is this done?


This is a question which has eluded scientists and biologists for years. All evidence points to the termites being extremely intelligent and having the ability to communicate with each other. For a human sculptor to build a termite mound would take years and the plans would have to be meticulaus. The fact that every single mound is individual also shows that this is not some form of mysterious inherited knowledge. 


Are termites sentient? Who knows? But it does make you wonder doesn't it.


----------



## erickad71 (Jun 11, 2004)

I just got done writing about bugs(insects, whatever!) in another post. My thoughts are: If they stay out of my house, I'll stay out of theirs.

Sorry, the ants are getting on my nerves!


----------



## Hypes (Jun 11, 2004)

It's very late so I will have to limit myself to a short comment.

There is a key difference between human architectural advancement and that of termites and other similar insects. It is a process driven entirely by instinct - as you mention, it is not a planned endeavour. It could be argued that instinct is simply another form of intelligence, but I am inclined to disagree with this - sentience is the power to create something new. 

Creativeness in the _individual_ -something which is not found in insects, as they are usually governed the hive mind - is strong evidence for sentience in my book. The ability to create something new within the span of a generation without major evolution. In other words, the ability to act _impulsively_.

_Sentience is the power for the individual to create based on thought, not instinct._


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 11, 2004)

It's all a matter of degrees, IMO.


----------



## dwndrgn (Jun 11, 2004)

Hypes said:
			
		

> It's very late so I will have to limit myself to a short comment.
> 
> There is a key difference between human architectural advancement and that of termites and other similar insects. It is a process driven entirely by instinct - as you mention, it is not a planned endeavour. It could be argued that instinct is simply another form of intelligence, but I am inclined to disagree with this - sentience is the power to create something new.
> 
> ...


I take your point, Hypes but must add this:  Instinct only governs certain patterns of actions.  How do you explain their ability to adapt their 'building' process to the environment.  For example, when they build inside a house their structures take on new forms that fit where they are built and are actually built differently than those built in nature.  Is this just a process of evolution or do they actually adapt their building styles for each site?  If a creature can be taught to do something against their instinct, does that make them sentient?  I don't know, I just enjoy playing devil's advocate .


----------



## mac1 (Jun 11, 2004)

Those are my thoughts exactly dwdrgn. You cannot simply expain it away by saying it is instinct as every mound is individual. It is almost as if the termites are behaving as one sentient being with a collective mind. There must be a far more logical explanation than that, but science has yet to find it.


----------



## polymorphikos (Jun 11, 2004)

Random evolution of design within the hive. With that many variables there's bound to be some divergence. Then, as to adapting hives, I think that is instinctual common-sense. They feed off of the conditions and create a solution, just like any other animal. Some might say this is intelligence, and perhaps it is, but it certainly isn't *sentience*. Even computers can be "intelligent" to a degree. It is being self-aware and able to react beyond immediate stimuli and needs that defines the next level, which we are on. There is no immediate barrier, however, between the groups, so expect some cross-over.


----------



## mac1 (Jun 11, 2004)

Sorry to play devil's advocate again, but who are we to decide what is and is not self aware? As littlemiss states Dolphis and Whales have been evolving far longer than man, and just because they dont have hands with which to build tools (ie have some clearly visible form of intelligence) does not by any means prove beyond resonable doubt that they or any other creature is either sentient, non-sentient, intelligent or otherwise. It is just such a human trate that mankind feels it should be the judge of all things on our planet as it has built machines! Not necessarily my own beliefs on the matter, but food for thought none the less.


----------



## Hypes (Jun 11, 2004)

Trees of the same kind grow to different heights varying on the level of light. By your definition, trees are also sentient.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jun 11, 2004)

> The above may have been a windup littlemiss, but you are actually hitting on a point of interest that I have had for many years now. You joke about whether insects are sentient, but there is some fairly strong evidence that perhaps insects are intelligent, and no that most certainly isnt a windup. Let me explain...


Mac...Well, I was teasing Hypes as it was late and I just couldn't help myself. But I was certainly very serious about what I said in that post. I do believe that it is arrogant on the part of humans to think they can know without doubt what is sentience and what is instinct.

For example, Hypes said:



> Creativeness in the _individual_ -something which is not found in insects, as they are usually governed the hive mind - is strong evidence for sentience in my book. The ability to create something new within the span of a generation without major evolution. In other words, the ability to act _impulsively_.


I'm not exactly sure how it is that we can say, unequivocally, that sentience must necessarily be individual and not collective. In humans, apparently, our sentience is individual (although I have read a few things - sorry, no references or links at hand at the moment - that call even that complete independence into question). Does that mean that this individual sentience is the only form that it can take. That's like saying that the only kind of life there can possibly be is carbon-based. From the evidence at hand, this seems to be the case (although I'm not sure of even that; I can't remember what the verdict is on some of those exotic life forms that live around volcanic vents in the deep sea), but there is no way that we can know that this holds true everywhere in the universe. Certainly, silicon-based life forms have been speculated about fairly widely.

I'm not saying that collective sentience is definitely possible, or that there are certainly life-forms other than the carbon-based ones we are familiar with here on earth. I'm just saying that, scientifically speaking, we cannot say with certainty that they aren't.

Oh, and Mac, thanks for bringing this discussion over here from the other thread. I think it is fascinating.


----------



## Hypes (Jun 12, 2004)

Give me thirty minutes on the internet and I can find you a perfectly serious site that states that the Earth is in fact disc-shaped and controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency. Therefore, unless you can give me a reference point with reasoned and well-defined arguments, I am inclined to ignore this. Personally, I find the notion that humanity is not individual, but rather a form of hive mind society preposterous. 

I have no illusions that our form of sentience is the end-all, be-all of intelligence, but it is our only _certain_ form of measurement. By those measurements, we are the only sentient species on the planet Earth. The ability to say whether a form of life is carbon-based or not is not dependant on our own configuration, and therefore hardly applicable to the argument at hand. The question whether it is life at all might be a bit more ambiguous, however. 

Obviously we cannot say for sure, because we have not yet encountered anything that we can call intelligent, but according to the laws of possibility, we will at some point.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jun 12, 2004)

I'm sorry, Hypes. I wasn't clear enough in what I wrote. I did not mean to say that I had read any idea that human sentience was hive-like, in the same way as bees or ants are. Not at all. What I was referring to were things I had read indicating that there is a connection between humans that cannot be explained by conventional knowledge about consciousness and communication. I don't have references only because it has been awhile since I read those things, and I cannot recall the exact sources. I wasn't even implying that this possibility came from mainstream research, although my hazy impression that at least part of it was. It had something to do with physics and subatomic particles and connections between different parts of the universe, and the speculation that it can have a more local effect, resulting in what we have labeled such things as precognition and extra-sensory perception, not to mention the "connections" that some twins claim to have in one twin knowing that the other twin is in pain (sometimes even feeling that pain) even when the two of them are very far apart and not in any sort of conventional communication.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. And I'm sorry I didn't take notes in order to be able to furnish you with exact references - I did enough of that when I was in university and writing papers all the time. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

But, I do have to say that I think my comparison of the sentience/non-sentience argument to ideas of whether or not non-carbon-based life is possible is applicable.  In both cases, those who argue that the only possible way to be sentient is the "human" way (individual and not collective) and those who argue (as some do) that the only kind of possible life is carbon-based are both depending on generalizations that have not been, and probably cannot be at our present level of scientific sophistication, tested adequately, simply because we don't have a large enough sample to make tests valid.  We are, after all, limited for samples at this point to the life forms found on Earth, one very small planet in a very large universe.


----------



## Hypes (Jun 12, 2004)

The “bond” you are talking about most closely resembles the prime instinct found in most mammals: the pack instinct.

As for the sub-atomic particles, those are quantum twin-photons, which are perfect copies of each other regardless of their physical divide. That’s all good, of course, but I don’t see how it relates to sentience in itself.



> In both cases, those who argue that the only possible way to be sentient is the "human" way (individual and not collective) and those who argue (as some do) that the only kind of possible life is carbon-based are both depending on generalizations that have not been, and probably cannot be at our present level of scientific sophistication, tested adequately, simply because we don't have a large enough sample to make tests valid.



I am not one of those, however. I argue that since we have no other yardstick that our own intelligence to measure by, our temporary thesis must be that we have no peer on this planet in terms of sentient development. A more or less agnostic approach, I’d say.

Hamilton, amongst others, have brought this up in his writing, choosing the POV of a radically different alien mind giving us some interesting insight into how a hive-mind intelligence might have developed.



> But, I do have to say that I think my comparison of the sentience/non-sentience argument to ideas of whether or not non-carbon-based life is possible is applicable.


It doesn’t assist either argument, however, though the debate in itself has some parallels.



> We are, after all, limited for samples at this point to the life forms found on Earth, one very small planet in a very large universe.



I am speaking of primarily terran life; insects, fish, birds, and so on. I completely agree with you that there is other life in this galaxy, and most likely some of it sentient as well. However, this does not automatically prove that the termites gnawing at your wooden supports are simultaneously mulling over great mathematical theorems and the finer points of French wine.



> And I'm sorry I didn't take notes in order to be able to furnish you with exact references - I did enough of that when I was in university and writing papers all the time.



Came off a bit snottish, didn’t I? Sorry about that.


----------



## polymorphikos (Jun 12, 2004)

Bigmacscanlan said:
			
		

> Sorry to play devil's advocate again, but who are we to decide what is and is not self aware? As littlemiss states Dolphis and Whales have been evolving far longer than man, and just because they dont have hands with which to build tools (ie have some clearly visible form of intelligence) does not by any means prove beyond resonable doubt that they or any other creature is either sentient, non-sentient, intelligent or otherwise. It is just such a human trate that mankind feels it should be the judge of all things on our planet as it has built machines! Not necessarily my own beliefs on the matter, but food for thought none the less.


Dolphins and whales probably are sentient. I thought we'd already established the differences. They are also quite bright, in an odd way. I believe that ceteceans and apes are all sentient to a degree (re: the mirror test), just not termites or finches. Termites are a super-organism that has no real intelligence but compensates for this by running like a complex computer programme.


----------



## Hypes (Jun 12, 2004)

Both of these are mammals, which poses the question: are mammals the only kind of species able to evolve into sentience?


----------



## polymorphikos (Jun 12, 2004)

Nope, just most conducive. They can produce enough power to run a big brain. Birds probably could, too, and cephalopods show promise.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jun 12, 2004)

Hypes said:
			
		

> Both of these are mammals, which poses the question: are mammals the only kind of species able to evolve into sentience?


That is a good question, and a valid one. In my completely unprofessional opinion, the jury must considered to be still out. On the other hand I, like Mac, have been being somewhat the devil's advocate here. I'm not really saying that I necessarily think that "lower" species are sentient; I'm just saying that I'm personally not as comfortable as you are in making assumptions based on the information we have so far. As you said, Hypes,




> I argue that since we have no other yardstick that our own intelligence to measure by, our temporary thesis must be that we have no peer on this planet in terms of sentient development.


I guess that maybe what it comes down to is that I'm comfortable with saying that I feel our temporary thesis, as you call it, must be that we just don't know if there are other sentient species on (or off) the planet. Probably just comes down to different ways of looking at the world/universe. That's okay. I would worry if everyone looking at questions such as this came at the problem with exactly the same philosophical outlook.

It's kind of like having too small a gene pool. Biologically, if you have too small a gene pool, everyone starts to look alike after awhile. In the intellectual pursuits, if you have too small a pool of ways to look any given problem, all the approaches to that problem start to look the same and unique solutions tend not to get found so that they can be tested out. This is not to say that all of the unique solutions will turn out to be fruitful, but if we don't take a look at them, we never get the chance to know if they could have been fruitful.

If that makes any sense. I probably shouldn't get into these deep philosophical discussions after nine at night (and it's just past ten p.m. here right now).


----------



## Hypes (Jun 12, 2004)

Don't worry, it makes perfect sense. Disagreement is much more productive than agreement.


----------



## jonak (Nov 28, 2004)

This all can be brought into one simple word: _Survival._ Every living creature on this planet, does whatever it has to do, to survive. I believe that with anything that a bug does to survive, is almost...programmed into it, like a computer. The species of that particular bug, take for example, the termite...has been doing what it does for millions of years in it's existence, so when one is born, it automatically _knows_, what it needs to do to survive. It doesn't create that 20 ft mound of wood or dirt to sit back and admire it's work and say, "Wow! This turned out great!". It just does it, because that's what it has to do to survive.


----------



## Circus Cranium (Nov 30, 2004)

Whether the bugs are or are not sentient, I'll always enjoy it when artists/writers play with that theme. I'll never be the same after Naked Lunch. Mugwump Juice anyone?


----------

