• oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Based on my understanding of the brain and nervous system, and the strong evidence that those things give rise to my sentience, I think that it’s reasonable to extrapolate that other, similar nervous systems/brains are also sentient and their experience is worth consideration in a similar way to how I consider my own experience (among the many other reasons to have a basic level of empathy)

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      the same can be said of DNA. this is a completely arbitrary standard, and you would be better served to embrace that than pretending it’s somehow objective.

      • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I’m not saying it is objective, I’m saying it’s not arbitrary.

        If my dna was isolated in a test tube and it could experience things then I would also care about what it experiences. There isn’t any evidence I’m aware of that that’s the case. Dna is the instructions and tool to build the sentient being, not the sentient being itself. So no, the same couldn’t be said of dna. Extrapolating from how much I care about what I experience, I think it’s reasonable to care about what things that experience things experience

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’m not saying it is objective, I’m saying it’s not arbitrary.

          this can’t be true. it’s self-contradictory.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I mean there is no objective reason to set the standard at sentience any more than any other standard.

                  • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Once you go to a deep enough layer I think you’re right. But, the one subjective thing my argument rests on is that you care about your own experience. Anyone who flinches away from touching a hot stove because it hurts cares about their experience at least a little. The next step is recognizing that from an objective view, there’s no reason to think your subjective experience is any more important than anyone elses (subjectively there is).

                  • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Hell even to get past solipsism you have to subjectively assume to that your mind and senses accurately reflect the world at least a little bit, otherwise gathering any accurate data or reasoning about that data productively would not be possible