Science Life on other planets discussion

[T.Neo]

actually, defining the difference between sapient and non-sapient live is a lot tougher than defining the difference between alive or dead.

Not really... it relies on things like conceptualisation and metacognition. Different problems to determining whether something is animate or inanimate, sure, but one could safely say that... an organism such as a whale shark or a redwood tree, or a giant squid, is not sapient.

 

[Eccentrus]

Now this is a really neat idea! haven't thought of that yet (then again, I suck at biology and am not too bright on chemistry either, so it's really no surprise I haven't thought of it...)

well I happen to be studying medicine, and one of the only two students who really understand chemistry in the school (still sucks at the exams though). which is why I came up with that

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------

Not really... it relies on things like conceptualisation and metacognition. Different problems to determining whether something is animate or inanimate, sure, but one could safely say that... an organism such as a whale shark or a redwood tree, or a giant squid, is not sapient.

well T, we can't even be sure if Homo sapiens sapiens is really sapient, who are us to define sapience?

 

[SiberianTiger]

but one could safely say that... an organism such as a whale shark or a redwood tree, or a giant squid, is not sapient.

No one had a chance to make a close acquaintance with a giant squid yet; I'd not feel safe saying it's not sapient.

 

[jedidia]

an organism such as a whale shark or a redwood tree, or a giant squid, is not sapient.

I think we can be pretty sure about trees, because trees don't think anything at all as far as we can tell.

However, for some animals the question arises wheather there is a profound difference between them or us or wheather the only difference is that we're smarter.

Sapient, by root of the word, means "Knowing". Knowing what exactly? what does an Organism have to know to quallify as sapient? that's a rather tough call to make. The usual definition chooses self-awareness, but that again is tough to define. Is self-awareness simply "memento mori"? if so, humpback whales most probably qualify for self aware. They seem to be very aware that and aproximately when their and the lives of those around are going to end. Is it the abstract concept of language? if so, it's a tough call to make when we don't understand the language (which doesn't neccesarily need to be audible, btw.) Although huge progress was made on that area (we can "talk" to bees now, who would've thought??), we can't be positively sure that we understand a language of a species enough to savely conclude that it's merely inherited behaviour that isn't conciously used.
Also, wheather a behaviour is simply trained behaviour or a sign of genuine creative problem solving can be really hard to tell. For example, I have seen a documentary where they had a Bonobo light a fire with a firelighter that it had to take out of a backpack first (on verbal command! like, "get the lighter from the pack and light the fire!). This behaviour might be purely trained, like a Dog is trained to retreive your sticks. Then again, the ape sat into a kind of golf car they had standing around, and after some experimenting actually got it working and drove around (straight into the next tree of course, but still). Then he tried around some more to finally find the reverse, and slammed the little car backwards into another tree. He seemed to have a lot of fun, because he shifted back into first gear, slammed it into the tree in front of him, reversed, gave the tree behind him another hit and repeated the procedure until he got bored.

Now the question is: This ape was intelligent enough to figure out how this small car worked. Given enough time and the right circumstances, would he have started using it for getting from one point to another faster? It wasn't really possible there to observe this, because there were no roads, so the ape could get pretty much anywhere faster by using the trees. But you could still say that he is non-sapient in a way, because doubtless he wouldn't have had the ability to invent a car, even if he had need for one. But he could still use it. In this, by the way, he would be pretty similiar to alot of people, me included. I haven't invented anything in my life, I'm only using stuff the way I'm told to use it. So, am I sapient or am I just a very well trained animal?

The only answer I could give to this question is of theological nature, not of scientific. Scientificaly it might proove veeery tough to define exactly what sapient is and what isn't, without accidentaly including some very smart examples of some animal species and excluding some retarded (in the literal meaning) examples of the human species (I hope noone takes offence in the formulation. It is utterly against my conviction to devalue retarded people or even deny them human status, I wrote this only to show the problems that can come up with a purely objective definition of sapinece).

 

[Eccentrus]

perhaps we should stop thinking of intelligent as a evolving punctuated progression but rather as a spectrum, of which each and every stage can't be distinguished readily to the other stages.

 

[Ghostrider]

Human intelligence or sapience is highly overrated. I remember a guy at the train station some years ago when they had just introduced touchscreen-activated automated ticket dispenser. They weren't flatscreen, rather CRTs with a touchscreen device. This homo sort-of-sapiens managed to spend 20 minutes pushing the whole dispenser back while trying to jab his finger into the screen. Never once he thought of withdrawing the finger and trying again. No, he pushed and pushed like the screen was a button. And yet he could read, write and drive a car. So, can he be considered intelligent, sapient, or what?

 

[SiberianTiger]

Humans mostly run on their trained behavior when they perform their day-to-day tasks. Try to remember three last times you did something that required your intellect to take action and your brain to make effort...

 

[T.Neo]

I think it is pretty obvious, that something special is going on when an organism displays our simply astounding tool use, not to mention our unique artistic, cultural and spiritual traits, that aren't really seen elsewhere in the animal kingdom (though we perhaps get hints of it in certain elephant behaviours).

It may be fun to deride the intelligence of others, but in all seriousness, it's rather... unintelligent, to decide that humans are unintelligent based on the actions of a few.

perhaps we should stop thinking of intelligent as a evolving punctuated progression but rather as a spectrum, of which each and every stage can't be distinguished readily to the other stages.

There's a clearly defined stage in the archeological record where ancestral humans show things like art, etc. I don't think sapience- sapience based on the ability to metacognate and form new concepts, could be regarded as something that exists on a spectrum. You either have that trait or you do not; some organisms may show parts of that trait, but it doesn't really fit onto a spectrum.

Is self-awareness simply "memento mori"? if so, humpback whales most probably qualify for self aware. They seem to be very aware that and aproximately when their and the lives of those around are going to end.

Depends on what their behavior is; even very simple organisms will show a defined response in a situation of danger. But awareness of death is why I question the sapience of elephants; they show interesting behaviours regarding death.

If an organism can think "I am going to die someday", it is having a more advanced thought than is typical of animals; it's like "I think I can think", so it's essentially metacognition. It's different from the typical animal thought, which would probably be something like "Food! Eat!".

which doesn't neccesarily need to be audible, btw.

Most definitely not- sign language, and typed communication are examples of that.

I haven't invented anything in my life, I'm only using stuff the way I'm told to use it. So, am I sapient or am I just a very well trained animal?

I'm sure you've come up with an idea some time in your life though...

The example of the bonobo is interesting; perhaps that mirrors the natural aspect of bonobos (and many other animals) to learn by observation? I'm pretty sure a good deal of behaviours are learnt by observation and imitation rather than being "coded in firmware" in the instinct of the animal.

 

[jedidia]

perhaps we should stop thinking of intelligent as a evolving punctuated progression but rather as a spectrum, of which each and every stage can't be distinguished readily to the other stages.

That's pretty neat, but how would we go about categorizing this? I don't see a way to judge the potential of a current species to evolve sapience at a later stage. As far as we know, almost anything could become sapient given enough time and the right circumstances.

 

[Ghostrider]

Humans mostly run on their trained behavior when they perform their day-to-day tasks. Try to remember three last times you did something that required your intellect to take action and your brain to make effort...

Lol, I'm an adventure games player: happens on a daily basis even out of work.

 

[Keatah]

It's more about philosophy, maths, computer science and thermodynamic, really. Speaking shortly, life is about information. Computers are about information, too - but today they are very poorly protected from entropy (they need humans to protect them, supply them with power, and reproduce them). What's simpler to do: destroy iPhones or destroy herring?

I gotta agree with that! The heat from my CPU and graphics chip is decisively different from that of a light bulb or coffeemaker. It's got a vibration all its own!

 

[jedidia]

Lol, I'm an adventure games player: happens on a daily basis even out of work.

Although, adventure gamers seem more akin with that Bonobo I was talking about: Try anything with anything until something works! :lol:

Depends on what their behavior is; even very simple organisms will show a defined response in a situation of danger.

I know, and that's not what I was talking about. That's simply fear. It seems though that the behaviour of Humpbacks in older age reflects a knowledge of oncoming death (or so I've heard), which would be beyond situationaly induced fear. The trouble is, you can never really tell until you understand the language, and for humpbacks we're not even sure yet if they even have one. They're pretty convinced that the whalesong means SOMETHING, but they can't really make sense of it yet. It isn't directly related to mating behaviour or the barking of a dog, anyways.

Scientists have been pretty disapointed in this respect before by dolphins though, which seem to be not as smart as everyone thought...

 

[Ghostrider]

Although, adventure gamers seem more akin with that Bonobo I was talking about: Try anything with anything until something works! :lol:

That's something we have in common with sex therapists...:thumbup:

They're pretty convinced that the whalesong means SOMETHING, but they can't really make sense of it yet.

Wait until that alien probe comes to Earth somewhere in the 23rd Century and Kirk & Co. have to go back to San Francisco in 1986 on a hijacked Klingon Bird of Prey and you'll see.

Scientists have been pretty disapointed in this respect before by dolphins though, which seem to be not as smart as everyone thought...

They kill (sharks) for fun. In this aspect they're a lot like humans.