The only inconvenient part is that you get absolute morons that hear words like “communicate”, “warn”, “react”, etc, given to chemical reactions, and believe it’s sentience and shit.
There’s a difference between sentience and consciousness. There’s also the fact that there is no actual way to measure these concepts and say for a fact if something experienced one or not.
Plants have goal oriented behavior, plants have chemicals that respond to stimuli. Sentience is simply the basic ability to feel and experience. There are absolutely arguments to be made around that.
Most arguments against things being sentient or not is a lack of a neural structure. But that’s like saying things without mouths cannot eat. The limited human experience makes one both arrogant in assumptions and ignorant of other’s experiences because they can’t relate.
“Sentience” is just chemical reactions all the way down. There’s no reason to fully assert plants are not sentient. Especially when we can’t even define what makes something conscious or not.
Ok then. Tell me why you think a chatbot could be sentient then.
First, read and try to understand the definition of sentient:
Capable of sensing or feeling, conscious of or responsive to the sensations of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling
Aware
Finely sensitive in perception or feeling
(Clue: look up the definition for “inanimate”, and also for any words that you don’t understand from the previous definitions. Do this in the dictionary, not with an LLM)
Also the Human is, like plants, a colony of specialized living beings, cells, which comunicate each with others in chemical and electrical way. We all have the same ancestor, the first replicant cell at the beginning of life on earth. Each one evolving individually or in colonies to adapt as best as possible to their corresponding environments.
We share a large part of our DNA with a potato (some more than others)
Right, I just brought it up because the people with moral objections to meat tend to ground them in the cruel treatment of animals. If you can be cruel to plants too then I don’t see a way out of making a moral compromise unless you just eat rocks (not the computer rocks though, too smart).
Yeah but you can’t be cruel to plants and even if you could, it takes way less plants eating them directly than filtering the nutrients through an actually sentient animal.
Yeah, what you just described is a moral compromise. “Eating the plants is cruel, but less cruel than letting more get eaten to feed animals to eat instead.”
I don’t think vegans argue that sentience is what makes it cruel, either. Otherwise they’d be fine with eating fish, bugs, and probably chickens. If plants are capable of suffering then that would probably be enough to at least make the argument about eating them being cruel. You’d basically have to follow the diet of the alien hive mind from Pluribus; foraging windfall, scavenging, and autocannibalism.
Are mixing up sentience and sapience? Fish and chickens are definitely sentient, e.g. they have a subjective experience of their existence. Bugs as well, I’d guess.
Maybe! I used sentience because you used it in your comment and can never keep the two straight. If sentience is a subjective experience then plants would have that by having feelings and intelligence, wouldn’t they?
deleted by creator
Death metal works better, but for an interesting reason: it makes the dust vibrate off of the leaves.
The only inconvenient part is that you get absolute morons that hear words like “communicate”, “warn”, “react”, etc, given to chemical reactions, and believe it’s sentience and shit.
Fr. Plants are as sentient as my phone. Right now it’s sending pain signals because it’s at 8% battery. Am I torturing it by not plugging it in?
Exactly this
deleted by creator
I mean there are arguments to make for sentience…
Not any sound ones
What?
There’s a difference between sentience and consciousness. There’s also the fact that there is no actual way to measure these concepts and say for a fact if something experienced one or not.
Plants have goal oriented behavior, plants have chemicals that respond to stimuli. Sentience is simply the basic ability to feel and experience. There are absolutely arguments to be made around that.
Most arguments against things being sentient or not is a lack of a neural structure. But that’s like saying things without mouths cannot eat. The limited human experience makes one both arrogant in assumptions and ignorant of other’s experiences because they can’t relate.
“Sentience” is just chemical reactions all the way down. There’s no reason to fully assert plants are not sentient. Especially when we can’t even define what makes something conscious or not.
Ok then. Tell me why you think a chatbot could be sentient then.
First, read and try to understand the definition of sentient:
Capable of sensing or feeling, conscious of or responsive to the sensations of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling
Aware
Finely sensitive in perception or feeling
(Clue: look up the definition for “inanimate”, and also for any words that you don’t understand from the previous definitions. Do this in the dictionary, not with an LLM)
I’m talking about plants.
Oh, well in that case I agree with you actually, my apologies.
I guess I’ve just gotten used to having to argue with people on here about whether or not their shitty software is sentient.
Lol it’s cool I had a chuckle.
Who’s ‘we’ here, because I have plenty of qualms with eating animals.
We know for a fact that humans think and feel, even if not on our level, and we still have no qualms about eating them.
That noise the human makes when you put them in boiling water is just air escaping.
Also the Human is, like plants, a colony of specialized living beings, cells, which comunicate each with others in chemical and electrical way. We all have the same ancestor, the first replicant cell at the beginning of life on earth. Each one evolving individually or in colonies to adapt as best as possible to their corresponding environments. We share a large part of our DNA with a potato (some more than others)
deleted by creator
Some people do have qualms about eating them, though.
Tbf, it’s pretty hard to eat a gpu, and they’re really expensive to boot. I’d have qualms too in their position
deleted by creator
Right, I just brought it up because the people with moral objections to meat tend to ground them in the cruel treatment of animals. If you can be cruel to plants too then I don’t see a way out of making a moral compromise unless you just eat rocks (not the computer rocks though, too smart).
Yeah but you can’t be cruel to plants and even if you could, it takes way less plants eating them directly than filtering the nutrients through an actually sentient animal.
Yeah, what you just described is a moral compromise. “Eating the plants is cruel, but less cruel than letting more get eaten to feed animals to eat instead.”
I don’t think vegans argue that sentience is what makes it cruel, either. Otherwise they’d be fine with eating fish, bugs, and probably chickens. If plants are capable of suffering then that would probably be enough to at least make the argument about eating them being cruel. You’d basically have to follow the diet of the alien hive mind from Pluribus; foraging windfall, scavenging, and autocannibalism.
Are mixing up sentience and sapience? Fish and chickens are definitely sentient, e.g. they have a subjective experience of their existence. Bugs as well, I’d guess.
Maybe! I used sentience because you used it in your comment and can never keep the two straight. If sentience is a subjective experience then plants would have that by having feelings and intelligence, wouldn’t they?
Plants don’t have feelings and can’t suffer.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator