Hi all, lurker here posting for the first time. I was watching Schisms the other day and couldn't get over the fact that Data said in his poem about Spot that he was not a sentient being. This seems out of character for Data, and the ST universe. He considers himself sentient, after all. Or at least others do. Thoughts?
Why does Data consider Spot not a sentient being?
- Thread starter stevenflow
- Start date
I wondered that as well. I consider all animals sentient, mostly. They definately can feel certain things even if it is only instinctual, such as fear, love, etc. They can learn (even pigs can learn to play simple video games), even if they are not "intelligent" like human animals.
Then again, Star Trek has always confused me with its back-and-forth views on animals- in "Lonely Among Us", Riker tells the Selay, "we no longer enslave animals for food", yet in DS9 its apparently ok for Joseph Sisko to serve real meat in his restaurant. Maybe the "enslave" part was the main point.
Then again, Star Trek has always confused me with its back-and-forth views on animals- in "Lonely Among Us", Riker tells the Selay, "we no longer enslave animals for food", yet in DS9 its apparently ok for Joseph Sisko to serve real meat in his restaurant. Maybe the "enslave" part was the main point.
Star Trek kind of mucked up "sentient" and "sapient" a lot, actualy. To the point where they seem to think the two words mean the same thing. Spot, and all cats, might have a degree of sentience to them but they're certainly not sapient.
But, as Data says in "Measure of a Man" Webster's 24th Century edition of the dictionary defines sentience as something being aware of itself and its own ego.
Cats are not entirely self-aware nor posess any sense of "intelligence." So maybe by 24th Century definitions Spot isn't sentient.
But, as Data says in "Measure of a Man" Webster's 24th Century edition of the dictionary defines sentience as something being aware of itself and its own ego.
Cats are not entirely self-aware nor posess any sense of "intelligence." So maybe by 24th Century definitions Spot isn't sentient.
J
Jetfire
Guest
^
Who is defining "self-aware" & "intelligence" here? [edit] I am aware of what the dictionary says.
My cat may not be able to communicate with me directly but he seems "self-aware" & "intelligent" more so then some people I have met.
This kind of statement bothers me in the sense you might as well be comparing a cat or any like creature to a rock.
Who is defining "self-aware" & "intelligence" here? [edit] I am aware of what the dictionary says.
My cat may not be able to communicate with me directly but he seems "self-aware" & "intelligent" more so then some people I have met.
This kind of statement bothers me in the sense you might as well be comparing a cat or any like creature to a rock.
Is your cat aware of who he is? Would he he recognize himself in a mirror? Does he know his place in the world and in the universe? Does he know the difference between himself and another cat it meets on the street? Most animals are not self-aware. They only function on instinct and have no higher brain functions.
Cats, and most animals, cannot create art, music or understand or even grasp the concept of science. A cat is never going to contemplate the structure of an atom, the origins of life or write a poem. In those respects a cat is a rock.
while i agree with the above i'd like to add that there is another factor to consider. my cat knows when i am sad. either through its own observation or some sort of sense. it knows and it responds accordingly. while a cat will never compose music or write it does have certain 'human' aspects. at least, that's how i see it.
J
Jetfire
Guest
1 & 2. Cannot be answered because I cannot communicate directly with him.
3. Do you?
I bet not.4. Based on observation...yes.
5. Smacks of arrogance.
Those who deny that cats, or other animals, are entirely lacking in feelings do this to justify their own treatment of animals rather than through any true understanding of those animals.
I do not deny that they have feelings. But their feelings are not "on par" with humans. A cat, dog, or anyother animal domesticated or otherwise is not the same thing as a human. There's some, limited, exception to this as some animals have demonstrated sings of sentience/sapience. Most notably dolphins and pretty much any semian (apes, monkies, etc.)
A cat is a wonderful animal to have as a pet. It'll show love, compassion and an "understanding" in some manner. That doesn't mean its exsistance is on par with a human's nor is it entitlted to be treated as such. A cat cannot create, think, or expand its exsistance. Humans can.
A cat is a wonderful animal to have as a pet. It'll show love, compassion and an "understanding" in some manner. That doesn't mean its exsistance is on par with a human's nor is it entitlted to be treated as such. A cat cannot create, think, or expand its exsistance. Humans can.
J
Jetfire
Guest
As carlmarx pointed out above...ST has back an fourth views on animals...and so do many scientist...who still don't know what makes a cat tick.
Either way this is a fun read; http://cats.about.com/cs/humor/a/catsbeingcats.htm
Either way this is a fun read; http://cats.about.com/cs/humor/a/catsbeingcats.htm
That assumption is a decade or two behind the times. Animal behavioral studies in recent years have called that assumption very much into question, as we've discovered that many cognitive processes we liked to think were exclusive to us are found in other animals as well, and that many animals have behaviors that can't be reduced to mindless instinct. There is no sharp divide between how humans think and how other animals think. We're just one part of a continuum. Our cognitive abilities and behaviors are different in degree than those of other animals, but every one of them can be found to some extent in other species.
And for the record, every cat knows the difference between itself and another cat. Cats are extremely territorial. So even if the rest of your point were valid, that would be a poorly chosen example.
(And of course every cat knows its place in the universe: the exact center.
)That's a gross overstatement, taking something that's a continuum and reducing it to a simplistic black-and-white assertion. Reality doesn't work that way. That's like saying that every color that isn't violet is actually far infrared.
It's also circular reasoning: "Only we are intelligent because I choose to define intelligence as that which only we can do."
Personally, I think that kind of attitude, this desire to treat humanity as something completely and fundamentally detached from the rest of the animal kingdom, is rather sad to witness. It's a very isolated place to put oneself. Isn't it better to be part of a family? To embrace our kinship with the rest of nature rather than erecting imaginary barriers to divide ourselves from it?
Not if that means you spend a lot of time eating your own family.
That assumption is a decade or two behind the times. Animal behavioral studies in recent years have called that assumption very much into question, as we've discovered that many cognitive processes we liked to think were exclusive to us are found in other animals as well, and that many animals have behaviors that can't be reduced to mindless instinct. There is no sharp divide between how humans think and how other animals think. We're just one part of a continuum. Our cognitive abilities and behaviors are different in degree than those of other animals, but every one of them can be found to some extent in other species.
And for the record, every cat knows the difference between itself and another cat. Cats are extremely territorial. So even if the rest of your point were valid, that would be a poorly chosen example.
(And of course every cat knows its place in the universe: the exact center.
Which behavioral studies? I know of studies on apes, which show certain things that are unique to apes, not all animals. Apes can recognize themselves in a mirror and know the difference between themselves and other apes. Cats are different. Cats attack their own tails and they attack mirrors... they don't appear to be aware of themselves because they think every cat is another cat, including their own body and the cat in the mirror. So I think it's still true that most animals are not self-aware.
^My point is that it's not a black-and-white divide between a state called "self-aware" and a state called "not self-aware." It's not as simple as that. It's a continuum, a matter of degree, and there's no simple, clear point within the animal kingdom where you can draw a sharp dividing line between one and the other. The more we study animal behavior and cognition, the more we discover processes that we used to think were unique to us.
I'm not arguing that cats specifically are entitled to go to school and hold down jobs or anything. I'm just refuting the outdated assumption that nonhuman animals are nothing more than mindless drones running on instinct. There's a whole continuum of levels of awareness, sensitivity, decision-making, learning ability, and the like. Researchers keep finding surprising levels of cognitive sophistication in more and more categories of animal -- not just primates, but cetaceans, elephants, birds, and recently octopuses. And going beyond higher cognition to simple matters of sentience, i.e. the ability to be aware of one's own state of being and to experience pleasure or pain, there's no reasonable question that mammals possess it, that cruelty to them is something they're definitely able to perceive and be traumatized by. It's simplistic to say that something that measures only one aspect of cognition, the mirror test, say, is a blanket excuse to dismiss any and all other aspects of cognition.
Cognition isn't like pregnancy, either you are or you aren't. It's a whole network of complex, interacting processes. It's more like, what's the difference between a city, a metropolis, and a megalopolis? They all have most or all of the same processes going on, but it's a matter of degree, scale, and synergy, and there are no sharp dividing lines to draw.
I'm not arguing that cats specifically are entitled to go to school and hold down jobs or anything. I'm just refuting the outdated assumption that nonhuman animals are nothing more than mindless drones running on instinct. There's a whole continuum of levels of awareness, sensitivity, decision-making, learning ability, and the like. Researchers keep finding surprising levels of cognitive sophistication in more and more categories of animal -- not just primates, but cetaceans, elephants, birds, and recently octopuses. And going beyond higher cognition to simple matters of sentience, i.e. the ability to be aware of one's own state of being and to experience pleasure or pain, there's no reasonable question that mammals possess it, that cruelty to them is something they're definitely able to perceive and be traumatized by. It's simplistic to say that something that measures only one aspect of cognition, the mirror test, say, is a blanket excuse to dismiss any and all other aspects of cognition.
Cognition isn't like pregnancy, either you are or you aren't. It's a whole network of complex, interacting processes. It's more like, what's the difference between a city, a metropolis, and a megalopolis? They all have most or all of the same processes going on, but it's a matter of degree, scale, and synergy, and there are no sharp dividing lines to draw.
Your cat isn't self-aware, no matter how he seems. Responding to a sound doesn't mean he recognises his name, it just means he thinks you might feed him or scratch his ears. He wouldn't recognise himself in a mirror. From experience adult cats realise that the cat they see is not a threat but they don't see themselves. Primates, on the other hand, do, so they are self-aware.
Almost all animals are sentient to a certain extent, although it might be a bit of a struggle to prove it in single cell organisms.
Which brings us back to sentience verse sapience.
A cat is sentient but it is not sapient. But by Trek's standards the two words have merged into the same thing. By Trek's definition of "sentient" cats are not sentient.
Cats are not aware of themselves a cat does not think in terms of "me" or "my" (this is demonstrated in "Measure of a Man" where Picard points out that Data is "self aware" because he is able to understand that he is on trial for his rights and very existance.)
A cat has no concept of its own exsistance, it doesn't understand who it is, what it is, or understand the concept of death, what that means and what could lie beyond. It only understands instinct. It only understands "this dog poses a threat, I should defend myself."
This is not to say cats are un-deserving of love, respect, and that they are not smart but that we simply should not apply human concepts and ideas on them. If a cat is self-aware and a sentient/sapient shouldn't we feel guilty for enslaving them in our homes for our entertainment and emotional needs?
Cats are smart creatures in the respect of the order of beings on this planet and are capable of much. But they cannot learn and cannot expand. A cat, or a dog, doesn't know it's name. It knows that whenever that sound is made something happens to it by it's owner, or the owner wants something. It's not "Fluffy" = me it's "Fluffy" = my master wants something.
And, as I said above, what's very important in the order of animals on this planet is what an animal is capable of. A cat cannot create art, cannot understand science, cannot understand the world it lives in. Human beings have involved to not only understand all of these things but to expand on them, study them, and dive deep into them. A cat is never going to cure a disease, create art or even express a true, deep, feeling of love.
Sure, animals and pets show "love" but it's no where near as complex as the human version of it. An animal curling up on your lap for comfort when you're feverish, or dying of a "broken heart" when its master dies is orders of magnitude different that what humans feel when it comes to love. Human feel deep, emotional, connections with their mates. Connections that bond and last for a lifetime. A cat mates out of instinct.
There's a reason why humans run this planet and are at the top of the food chain. Our brains run on a whole other level andour existance is on a whole other level. Saying a cat is anywhere near the same as a human in terms of sentience/sapience is like saying Eniac could be a webserver.
A cat is sentient but it is not sapient. But by Trek's standards the two words have merged into the same thing. By Trek's definition of "sentient" cats are not sentient.
Cats are not aware of themselves a cat does not think in terms of "me" or "my" (this is demonstrated in "Measure of a Man" where Picard points out that Data is "self aware" because he is able to understand that he is on trial for his rights and very existance.)
A cat has no concept of its own exsistance, it doesn't understand who it is, what it is, or understand the concept of death, what that means and what could lie beyond. It only understands instinct. It only understands "this dog poses a threat, I should defend myself."
This is not to say cats are un-deserving of love, respect, and that they are not smart but that we simply should not apply human concepts and ideas on them. If a cat is self-aware and a sentient/sapient shouldn't we feel guilty for enslaving them in our homes for our entertainment and emotional needs?
Cats are smart creatures in the respect of the order of beings on this planet and are capable of much. But they cannot learn and cannot expand. A cat, or a dog, doesn't know it's name. It knows that whenever that sound is made something happens to it by it's owner, or the owner wants something. It's not "Fluffy" = me it's "Fluffy" = my master wants something.
And, as I said above, what's very important in the order of animals on this planet is what an animal is capable of. A cat cannot create art, cannot understand science, cannot understand the world it lives in. Human beings have involved to not only understand all of these things but to expand on them, study them, and dive deep into them. A cat is never going to cure a disease, create art or even express a true, deep, feeling of love.
Sure, animals and pets show "love" but it's no where near as complex as the human version of it. An animal curling up on your lap for comfort when you're feverish, or dying of a "broken heart" when its master dies is orders of magnitude different that what humans feel when it comes to love. Human feel deep, emotional, connections with their mates. Connections that bond and last for a lifetime. A cat mates out of instinct.
There's a reason why humans run this planet and are at the top of the food chain. Our brains run on a whole other level andour existance is on a whole other level. Saying a cat is anywhere near the same as a human in terms of sentience/sapience is like saying Eniac could be a webserver.
Last edited:
In your otherwise excellent post I feel I must point out the factual error. Cats do not have 'masters', they have staff.
J
Jetfire
Guest
I find this interesting in regards to this discussion...
@Trekker4747
I wasn't implying cats are the same as humans as far as intelligence is concerned...
I think with science fiction...these things get mixed up, misused or simply are made to fit the agenda of the writers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
@Trekker4747
I wasn't implying cats are the same as humans as far as intelligence is concerned...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience
I think with science fiction...these things get mixed up, misused or simply are made to fit the agenda of the writers.
I can't resist mentioning that, although extremely impractical, the eniac could be a webserver.
The thing went through vaccum tubes like they were tic-tacs and it took programers days or even weeks to program the thing to do the simpliest of computing functions.I take it you never spent time taking care of a cat.
Cats are aware that they exist. And their ego is their world. Whether they are aware that anyone else exists is another question however!
Cats, like most mammals, are certainly sentient.
Similar threads
