you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] [S] -6 points 5 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    What if computers are sentient and we're torturing them too?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] [S] -5 points 5 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    at what point do you distinguish a thing from the components it's made of?

    You say neurons have qualia, but its parts certainly don't. Proteins don't. Lipids don't. Molecules don't. But when you put them together in a specific configuration you say they do?

    How is this different from silica? Why can't a thing composed of silica have qualia even if the parts individually don't?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] [S] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago*

    I don't think we understand sentience yet. I think it is possible, if not likely, that there are sentient things which we believe are not.

    i also don't think a heart is relevant at all to sentience, as it plays no role in perception which I believe is the core of sentience. The heart is just a pump that moves resources through the body.

    I don't think a nervous system is necessary either, unless you define "nervous system" very broadly. I think any sufficiently complex sensory input system would be enough to provide the elements of perception required to foster sentience.

    As for the brain.... I'm not convinced it has to look like a brain as we know it. The brain provides several primary functions, but only a few of them are related to perception (many are instead related to automation of bodily functions).

    I think any system that can receive input, store a memory (and I don't mean cognitive recall, I just mean historical record in the loosest sense), and perform complex conditional responses based on the input and memory, could produce something we would call sentience.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    A component of a component of a living thing is not inherently alive. We know neurons are alive not because they are part of the composition of the brain, but because they exhibit properties of life. Neurons being alive doesn't mean that atoms are alive, for instance. Similarly the brain also contains water and fats which are definitely not alive.

    You've touched on a very old question in biology: "what does it mean to be alive?" and the answer to that is going to change somewhat on who you talk to and what your subject is. Cells are alive, but in a completely different way from both "simple" multicellular life and "complex" cellular life, but I'm not really aware of a clear boundary existing.

    Like all fields of study, there are orders of magnitude more information available at higher levels of research than what most people are taught in school. Clinging to the simplified views of biology organized for university or lower grades as being the end all be all of the field is a great way to harbor ignorance and bigotry.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    I encourage you to learn more about the subject and close some of your knowledge gaps. You still may not agree with myself on the matter, but you'll hopefully be able to elucidate your concerns more concretely. As it stands now, however, "idk" and "it rubs me the wrong way" seem like a fear of the unknown which is an insecure basis upon which to construct a belief system or guide your principals.

    I'm curious which greater religion you espouse. I'd argue that virtually any human action is one of altering, and while predation, gathering, locomotion, and vocalization could be ascribed to alter in a manner consistent with a god given design, every action from cooking onward directly alters "creation" in a manner not inherent to our biology. That is to say, once we adopted tools and fire we ascended above the actions of other animals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [S] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    I must admit, I know less of Islam than I do of Judaism or Christianity (being an agnostic atheist former nondenominational protestant christian myself); though I can understand coming to the conclusion that bioengineering is one of the moral tests in a world where humans are allowed to be but lack a specific dominion or subjugation over.

    Unfortunately, I don't have concrete resources for you at this time, as my understanding is borne of years of passive interest rather than specific study.


    Do you believe that your moral opposition to this field of study should forcibly be respected by all people or that it is a personal guidance you alone must follow?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)