Sentience:Blessing or burden?

[Super Communist]

Do you see our high intelligence as a gift or an unwanted annoyance?

[Venomous Dragon]

Seeing as I have never been without it I cannot say.

[Anomonyous]

An animal doesn't have to be intelligent to be sentient, but on the topic of such matters, I'd say it's a blessing. The ability to consciously communicate with the outside world and create decisions is great.

[Ultimategrid]

I think people view intelligence in a rather bias way. Often we consider social bonds as a sign of intellect, yet ants and termites have complicated social structures and take care of their young in an almost ghastly human-like manner. Do we consider them intelligent?
I am willing to bet my carpet python could outcompete any cat in a memory test, but at the same time my carpet python would eat his own young given the chance.
I've had emotional bonds with snakes (eg. Rosy), does that make them as intelligent as a dog? Does the fact that snakes do not form bonds often make them less intelligent?

As a social species we are quick to assume intelligence revolves around social interaction, however solitary animals can be intelligent as well, (sometimes solitary animals are MORE intelligent).


Anyways to get back on topic I consider our sentience to be a burden, we work on emotion rather than logic, and that has been our downfall more times than I can count. The fact that people will kill each other over money, or being cheated on, is clear evidence of that.
If we operated on a more logic-based method our species would be flourishing, as opposed to clinging onto a world that's falling apart.

[Anomonyous]

Indeed, solitary animals can be more intelligent. (ie. octopi) Perhaps I should have said "interact"; that would have gotten it across more clearly.
As for that topic on emotions over logic, if we did go on that, parents would abandon children with birth defects and fatal inherited medical conditions and doctors wouldn't help them knowing the chances of those people living to adulthood would be slim. Of course, the absence of sentience begs the question of whether we could even use logic at all. If you can't think, how do you make intelligent decisions? And what would wars and crap even matter if we could not perceive them in any way, shape, or form?
Non-sentient animals kill each other too during reproductive affairs; they just do it BEFORE it happens.
Perhaps we should look at what we gain through consciousness rather than what we're missing out on. If I weren't sentient, I probably wouldn't be typing this.

[Ultimategrid]

Jun 3, 2012 19:53:27 GMT -5 Anomonyous said:

Indeed, solitary animals can be more intelligent. (ie. octopi) Perhaps I should have said "interact"; that would have gotten it across more clearly.
As for that topic on emotions over logic, if we did go on that, parents would abandon children with birth defects and fatal inherited medical conditions and doctors wouldn't help them knowing the chances of those people living to adulthood would be slim. Of course, the absence of sentience begs the question of whether we could even use logic at all. If you can't think, how do you make intelligent decisions? And what would wars and crap even matter if we could not perceive them in any way, shape, or form?
Non-sentient animals kill each other too during reproductive affairs; they just do it BEFORE it happens.
Perhaps we should look at what we gain through consciousness rather than what we're missing out on. If I weren't sentient, I probably wouldn't be typing this.

As harsh as this sounds, I don't believe that people with extreme birth defects should go on living. It is such a pain for them to be alive at all, why make them suffer? Are we really prolonging their life or just postponing their death?

[Anomonyous]

Hmm, that is interesting. I've never thought about it before.
Ideally, some system could be worked out where they could be euthanized at request, but I don't see this working out particularly well in practice.
A teacher from a long time ago told me this story. Her mother had cancer, and she was offered the chance to undergo a test that might help cancer patients. She didn't take it, and I'm wondering why, because she wouldn't have had anything to lose. Makes sense to me now, because she still had a long time to live and, after all, we all have to die sometime so that simply wouldn't make any sense. I see no harm in it towards the end of her life though.

[Tyrannosaurus]

There are two definitions of sentience. One just means high intelligence, and by this definition humans are the only sentient beings known. The second means consciousness, the ability to think, and by this definition many animals are sentient.

1st definition(which is the one Commie meant):
I'd say if you'd rather be a wild animal, go for it. You'll realize how ungrateful you are and come to your senses very quickly. Were it not for our intelligence, we'd have no society. No civilization. We'd be at the mercy of disease, predators, and the elements. Don't take your life for granted.

2nd definition:
Saying you'd rather not be a conscious being capable of thought is, for all intents and purposes, the same as saying you'd rather not live. There's no logic in that conclusion. If you as a thinking entity did not exist, you'd have no way of evaluating whether you'd rather exist or not. So the question is irrational.

[Reticulatus]

There are some gray areas, its difficult to draw a hard line between sentience and nonsentience. I guess the desire for self preservation would be my limit. It would be blissful I'm sure to just exist and not worry or question it, no planning for the future or disappointment.