Post Reply
Page 9 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9
5 years ago  ::  Jul 26, 2009 - 12:47PM #81
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Jul 26, 2009 -- 4:24AM, bluehorserunning wrote:

So >/=5 definitions given for each word doesn't count as defining a word, now?



I explained this to you before, but seeing as how you totally ignored it the first time, I 'spose I can explain it one more time.


Once again, I know what each words means. I'm asking you to define sentience and/or sapience (What qualifies as sentient and/or sapient? What are the defining characteristics of sentience and/or sapience? What things are or aren't sentient and/or sapient? How do you know something is sentient and/or sapient? When does an object become sentient and/or sapient? What causes an object to be sentient and/or sapient? Etc.). These are the questions you continuously FAIL to address. Why? Well, it could have a little something to do with the fact that neither sentience nor sapience is easily definable and that neither contains any kind of demonstrable boundaries.


I've pointed this out a gazillion times over, but there's a fundamental difference between merely stating what something is and defining what it is.


And WTF does a non-existent, hypothetical robot have to do with extant zefs, and their brains (or lack therof?



Just what I said. Both sentience and sapience are commonly discussed within the realm of philosophy when talking about not only humans, but non-human animals, plants and, yes, even robots. You want to play in the realm of philosophy? Then you play by the rules of philosophy (Philosophers philosophize. Duh!). You don't like the rules? Then don't play.


The more you type the more apparent it becomes that you don't understand the dialogue you're trying to engage in.


I'm part of the reality-based community; you can make up whatever you want, and you can even wish to base policy on your robot fantasies, but reality can and will bite.  Nothing that currently exists can be either sentient or sapient, by the accepted English definitions of those words, without a functioning brain, including zefs.



It's funny how you bring up purely philosophical concepts, and then when the discussion turns to philosophy you somehow have a problem with it because it's not grounded in "reality". How, exactly, does that work?


And I'm still waiting for you to define either word. You can see my response all the way at the top :-P

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 27, 2009 - 3:53AM #82
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

*snort*


I am reminded, once again, of the contempt with which I hold philosophizers in general. 


It is perfectly possible, Bei, to discuss the sentience and/or sapience of a zef, or the lack therof, without wandering off into the ether.  Both concepts have real-world applications, as their English definitions show - and the fact that you cannot accept multiple definitions on even a working basis shows that you're either flailing for any excuse to avoid discussing the topic on real-world grounds ('no brain required'...! krhikh) or that you're so airy-fairy that you have no real concept of real-world grounds ('just don't have sex'...!  Never mind that your spouse will leave you).

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 27, 2009 - 11:45AM #83
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Jul 27, 2009 -- 3:53AM, bluehorserunning wrote:


*snort*


I am reminded, once again, of the contempt with which I hold philosophizers in general.



That's okay. No philosopher cares what you think of them, as they're too busy debating people who understand their arguments ;)


It is perfectly possible, Bei, to discuss the sentience and/or sapience of a zef, or the lack therof, without wandering off into the ether.



Sentience and sapience is to philosophy as god is to theology.


Both concepts have real-world applications, as their English definitions show - and the fact that you cannot accept multiple definitions on even a working basis shows that you're either flailing for any excuse to avoid discussing the topic on real-world grounds ('no brain required'...! krhikh) or that you're so airy-fairy that you have no real concept of real-world grounds ('just don't have sex'...!  Never mind that your spouse will leave you).



You're kidding me, aren't you?


*le sigh*


A.) Unbeknownst to you, you haven't defined anything. You posted a bunch of dictionary definitions to words I already know the meaning of. I'm still waiting for you to define either sentience or sapience. And since you ignored the exact quote the first time, I'll just restate it for you, so you'll have no reason to claim that you didn't.


What qualifies as sentient and/or sapient? What are the defining characteristics of sentience and/or sapience? What things are or aren't sentient and/or sapient? How do you know something is sentient and/or sapient? When does an object become sentient and/or sapient? What causes an object to be sentient and/or sapient? Etc.?



Try to not ignore it this time. In other words, try to answer the questions.


B.) Let's recap, shall we?


You: Sentience and/or sapience requires a brain.


Me: Neither sentience nor sapience requires a brain, and that just because something has a brain doesn't mean it's sentient nor sapient.


You: *snort* (Which is your way of ignoring what people wrote out)


Me: Imagine I create a robot which can feel and think. It will be sentient and/or sapient, by your own definition of the word, even though it lacks a brain in favor of advanced circuitry. Furthermore, newborns lack self-awareness or any form of wisdom to act in appropriate judgment, therefore they lack a component of sentience and/or sapience. What do you have to say that about?


You: This is the real world, not your fantasy world.


Me: If you're going to play in the realm of philosophy, then you philosophize. That's what most philosophers do.


You: This is why I have contempt for philosophers.


~~~


You see, I find it infinitely funny how you bring up a concept firmly grounded in philosophy, yet when the argument turns to philosophy you dismiss it, which leads me to a previous comment I made: "Don't talk about philosophy if you're unwilling to philosophize". And since you're unwilling to philosophize, then stop trying to use sentience and/or sapience as a means by which to discriminate against a ZEF.


C.) Telling one not to engage in an action they're unwilling to accept the consequences of has no foundation in the real world? For shame, for shame...

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 27, 2009 - 6:02PM #84
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

Bei-


your summary of the interaction is actually fairly accurate, but I don't think that it shows what you seem to think that it shows.  :)


Let me ask again, for the record:  do you think that a zef can experience either sentience or sapience without a functioning brain, by the definitions of those words as commonly accepted in English dictionaries?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 27, 2009 - 6:53PM #85
Kat1
Posts: 302

From what I understand (and I may be wrong) sapience is the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgement. May I ask why this is relevant to the abortion issue? There are several people who by definition that are unable to act with appropriate judgement and these people are still protected by the laws that protect everyone else because they are still people. I don't think that you can define "person hood" by sapience, so I don't see why you could make this an issue in abortion.


I also have to say I agree with BH here I don't think that someone without a functioning brain is capable of sapience.


But I don't think that is a good excuse for abortion either.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 27, 2009 - 7:03PM #86
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Jul 27, 2009 -- 6:02PM, bluehorserunning wrote:

Bei-


your summary of the interaction is actually fairly accurate, but I don't think that it shows what you seem to think that it shows.  :)



It shows that you decided to "jump ship" when things didn't start to go your way.


Let me ask again, for the record:  do you think that a zef can experience either sentience or sapience without a functioning brain, by the definitions of those words as commonly accepted in English dictionaries?



Well... If a newborn isn't sentient and/or sapient, then neither is anything prior to that. You know?


And, to Kat1, a quick run-down. Sentience is the ability to be self-aware (That is, to perceive or feel subjective). Sapience is the ability to acquire knowledge and act in apropriate judgment.


BHR said that a ZEF wasn't sentient nor sapient. I said that both sentience and sapience were irrelevent, because they're undefinable. BHR disagreed and posted a bunch of definition, later mentioning the brain. I pointed out to her that not only did she not define either, but that neither requires a brain nor vice versa, and pointed out the whole robot example (Which will happen one day. It's just a matter of when). She ignored it, and told me that I was living in a fantasy. A couple of back and forths later, and here we are :-P

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 27, 2009 - 8:04PM #87
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

Jul 27, 2009 -- 7:03PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Well... If a newborn isn't sentient and/or sapient, then neither is anything prior to that. You know?



Who ever said anything about newborns not being sentient or sapient?  I didn't.


And, to Kat1, a quick run-down. Sentience is the ability to be self-aware (That is, to perceive or feel subjective).


That definition is narrow compared to most dictionary definitions.  Most of them define sentience as the ability to feel, but make no reference to self-awareness.  I have, in the past, linked several times to multiple dictionaries to support this.


BHR said that a ZEF wasn't sentient nor sapient.


That is false.  I have said (probably dozens of times) that the zef is neither sentient nor sapient until well into the 3rd trimester, when its brain is developed and it has recognizably human EEGs. In the 3rd trimester, the zef is almost certianly sentient and possibly (especially later) sapient (again, sapient as defined by the many links I have submitted already).


I pointed out to her that not only did she not define either, but that neither requires a brain nor vice versa, and pointed out the whole robot example (Which will happen one day. It's just a matter of when). She ignored it, and told me that I was living in a fantasy.


Yeah, that about sums it up.  You won't accept definitions as defining, you don't think that brains have anything to do with human sentience and sapience, and you continue to demand that the debate be in the realm of fantasy.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 27, 2009 - 8:26PM #88
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Jul 27, 2009 -- 8:04PM, bluehorserunning wrote:

Who ever said anything about newborns not being sentient or sapient?  I didn't.



...And this is proof that I've been typing for my own enjoyment. I never said you said that. I said that (Exact quote was, "Newborns lack self-awareness or any form of wisdom to act in appropriate judgment, therefore they lack a component of sentience and/or sapience. What do you have to say that about?"). Have you been glossing over my posts?


That definition is narrow compared to most dictionary definitions.  Most of them define sentience as the ability to feel, but make no reference to self-awareness.  I have, in the past, linked several times to multiple dictionaries to support this.



...And further proof you don't read. I believe my exact quote was, "Sentience is the ability to be self-aware (That is, to perceive or feel subjectively)". But, go ahead and ignore the part closed off in parentheses. That's not important in the slightest.


That is false.  I have said (probably dozens of times) that the zef is neither sentient nor sapient until well into the 3rd trimester, when its brain is developed and it has recognizably human EEGs. In the 3rd trimester, the zef is almost certianly sentient and possibly (especially later) sapient (again, sapient as defined by the many links I have submitted already).



You already know what was meant so, *shrugs*, whatever.


But, no, it's not. And this goes back to the questions you refuse to answer, so I'm wondering to myself, "Why do I bother?".


Yeah, that about sums it up.  You won't accept definitions as defining, you don't think that brains have anything to do with human sentience and sapience, and you continue to demand that the debate be in the realm of fantasy.



Okay. Let's see here.


1.) Running to the dictionary and throwing out the meanings found there isn't doing what I asked of you. I know what each word means. I specifically asked you to define both sentience and sapience. My exact words being:


What qualifies as sentient and/or sapient? What are the defining characteristics of sentience and/or sapience? What things are or aren't sentient and/or sapient? How do you know something is sentient and/or sapient? When does an object become sentient and/or sapient? What causes an object to be sentient and/or sapient? Etc.



And yet you still haven't even attempted to answer any of the aforementioned questions. Not a one. Surpsing? Not terribly.


2.) Go back and read what I said. I said that sapience nor sentience required a brain and vice versa, then proceeded to explain to you why this is. You, then, ignored it and tried to tell me how I live in a fantasy world. Excuse me? How does that work?


3.) You insisit on debating philosophy, and then refuse to answer any question directed towards you and blatantly ignore the things people type out to you, yet I'm the one debating in the realm of fantasy? Really? This after you're the one who continues to bring up the issue of sapience and/or sentience?


Jeez Louise.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 27, 2009 - 8:53PM #89
bluehorserunning
Posts: 1,754

Bei,


see my previous response.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jul 27, 2009 - 9:16PM #90
Bei1052
Posts: 986

*And see my previous response*

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 9 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook