To give examples from media properties rather than quizzing everyone on philosophy stuff I only learned this year: Blindsight and Westworld
Personally I find the insistence on this annoying and I think consciousness is really important for correcting errors in vision. Who decides when to loose the arrow on the deer, so you don’t starve? That’s not something which can be handled subsconsciously, training to do it requires presence of mind and imagination.
Let me know if you think I’m misinterpreting it. I am curious what everyone thinks about the fabric of reality.
See, compiling and uploading stuff is good for the brain, it gives us time to reflect. 🧘♀️
Edit: want to add that treating human nature as the driving factor in human extinction (which won’t happen btw we will win) instead of capitalism is Bill Gates tier liberalism. I am deeply skeptical due to having done a little research on why this stuff is promoted, but dismissing it outright wouldn’t make sense, as people with a sufficient amount of money thrown at them in academia tend to produce some valuable nuggets
Distinct thing from consciousness and sapience. I am conflicted about, it since there doesn’t seem to be a hard divide between human and animal consciousness, but that has been used to create pseudoscientific justifications for racism. Even if we see some animals on a track that could eventually lead somewhere like this, they’re only just getting started. I said consciousness a few times where I should have said human consciousness. I am the one yammering, so by all means go ahead. 🌠🛌
Hmmm, but that standard, I would err on it being inseparable, and mostly on the side of being a benefit.
Any complex life form needs complex environmental feedback of some kind, because if it’s anything like life as we’ve conceived of it, it needs external energy (food in our case) and avoidance of damage (no matter how mild the environment).
Sentience is just a high grade of that fundamental concept. It’s the difference between something like a plant that grows towards light and away from competitors; and something like a shrimp that makes a constant loop of processing external stimuli vs internal algorithms that predict probable outcomes.
As such, it can only be a benefit on an evolutionary level that the form of sentience become as complex as the niche the organism needs to fill/exploit that niche. A shrimp only needs a low grade of sentience because it’s a fairly simple and small niche. An eagle would be a higher complexity sentience because the scale it functions in is massive and involves wider risk/reward variables, with attendant import to outcomes.
I don’t think any organism will develop more sentience capabilities than it needs for long, nor will it keep it for long once a given level of need is past. If eagles all get sent to a large underground bunker, they don’t need the brain power to process everything, nor the energy it takes to maintain it. You’ll end up with a simpler processing of stimuli. Less flexibility, but also less “stress” from repeated decision making.
None of that requires thought though. Decisions on that scale “is a rabbit going to fight back enough that I should avoid it”, where accumulated data in memory can be used to guesstimate outcomes, they don’t require a conscious process, any more than us catching a ball does. To the contrary, thinking about some things makes them harder to do well. If an eagle had to think its way through snagging a running rabbit, it would be fucked.
And that’s really where sentience ends: thought. When there’s a “self” to make a decision based on conflicting stimuli and memory.
So I don’t think sentience can ever be more of a drawback than a benefit. By its nature, it happened because it was a more successful way of surviving long enough to breed.