yes, that's the correct definition. "ability to feel and perceive. possessing a subjectivity." plants have this. they are not like rocks. sapience augments sentience with "wisdom", the ability to form judgments through premeditation.
I don't at all see how that disqualifies a roomba from having a subjectivity or being sentient or how the human equivalent of this is not also behavior causally linked with what registers on sensors.
-
-
a roomba is explainable without subjectivity. I am not explainable without subjectivity. occam's razor.
-
you're talking about subjectivity as if it's something special, even unexplainable. it's nothing more than the fact that the sensations experienced by that entity are necessarily linked to the subjective perspective of that entity.
-
i.e. there is a Roomba's eye view of the world due to the fact that the roomba has eyes that see. sensing is the antecedent of subjectivity. it is not possible to explain the fact that a roomba senses without drawing the conclusion that it has a subjectivity.
-
I am not sure if our disagreement is rooted in my failure to communicate the sense in which I mean "sentience" or (in this conversation) "subjectivity" or if it's rooted in a genuine disagreement of fact.
-
I am not entirely sure how to properly define this sense beyond allusion to our (presumably shared) experience as sentient / self-aware / whatever beings.
-
this is what i'm trying to break free from. if we can only make sense of sentience by reference to what human sentience feels like then we will remain blind to the many forms of sentience that exist that are nothing like human sentience.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.