I think there’s a subset of living things that are “sentient,” and then within that set there are humans—most of whom are additionally “sapient.” Though I could be wrong on this, for example, are chimps ever considered sapient? or is it exclusively reserved for humans?

@gorillapaws It’s an interesting question, isn’t it?

Sapient refers only to humans (homo sapiens). Because we like to think we’re special.

Yes it is a great question.

1. Academics may have already worked all of these things out and we’re just bumbling our way through it without reviewing the literature.

2. That said, my hunch on this goes back to hearing references to statements I’ve heard over the years that say things like “Species X has the intelligence of a 3-year-old child.” I know there are psychological intelligence tests that involve things like mirrors, liquids in wide short containers and tall narrow ones and object permanence. I’m under the impression that these are roughly hierarchical and that creatures who can pass one type of test will generally pass all tests below it (but that could be an erroneous belief). If this mental model of intelligence is correct, then we might define sapience as the ability to pass X test, where X is a test that is the lowest in the hierarchy where only humans have ever passed it.

@gorillapaws Nobody would deny that a chimpanzee or a dolphin is intelligent. But are they sapient?

@Caravanfan I would suspect that they are excluded by definition—that sapience necessitates a human mind. My suggestion was moving the goalpost of that threshold to just beyond the capacity of other species, whatever test of intelligence that may be. Alternatively, it could simply be framed as Sapients is the property of being sentient and human (which may be more accurate, but also less interesting).

@gorillapaws David Brin wrote a series of books a couple of decades ago about uplifting other species—dolphins, chimps, gorillas to sapience, and more recently Adrian Tchaikovsky, more recently wrote a series of books about uplifting spiders, dogs and birds to sapience. Interesting stuff. There have been others, obviously.

Dogs are intelligent. If you go around a well trained dog and you say the words “walk” or “treat” then you will get a response. Cats are less intelligent, fish even less. None are sapient.

I never liked the “X has the intelligence of a three year old” statement. To mix metaphors, it’s comparing apples and oranges. And there have been wild claims about animals like Koko which turns out to probably just be wishful anthropomorphizing.

I have read that there are primates who yes, are aware of their separateness, aware of them selves. They know that the chimp in the mirror is them. too lazy to look it up right now

@Caravanfan – You’re wrong about cats being less intelligent. They may be less responsive or willing to perform or please us, but they can be taught the same things as dogs.

I’m sure that different disciplines will use slightly different definitions, but here is a summary of how I present them in my class on moral personhood:

Sentience: the ability to feel and experience things. If there is something it is like to be you (i.e., if you have first-person experiences), then you are sentient. Merely reacting to outside stimuli is not enough. A creature must have the capacity to be consciously aware of what it is reacting to in order to be sentient. Pleasure and pain are key examples of things that sentient beings experience.

Sapience: the ability to think and reason. If you can form and evaluate ideas in order to make decisions (i.e., if you are capable of internal deliberation), then you are sapient. Behaving in a way that makes sense or is advantageous is not enough. A creature must have the capacity to actively consider information in order to be sapient. Planning and learning are key examples of things that sapient beings do.

@SavoirFaire Great answer. So non-humans can be sapient?

@Caravanfan I’m convinced many dogs are indeed sapient.

We call ourselves homo sapiens, implying that we are the only species that is sapient.

Experiments involving the chimpanzee Sultan suggest some rudimentary reasoning ability. The chimpanzee was put in a cage and given two sticks that were individually too short to reach a frut treat outside the cage. It stopped trying to reach the treat and, after a short while, attached the sticks to one another to form a larger stick, allowing it to reach the fruit.
another link

@gorillapaws The definitions are broad enough to allow for sapient non-humans. Which creatures might count is a subject of debate, of course, but there are some obvious examples from mythology (e.g., angels, demons, the Norse gods) and fiction (e.g., Kryptonians, Vulcans, Wookies) that make it clear we should not assume that only humans could be sapient and that humans of eras past did not universally assume that we were the only sapient beings (even if they thought we were the only sapient Earthlings).

Unsurprisingly, the real debate is about whether or not non-human animals could be sapient. Every time some scientist or philosopher has tried to draw a strict line—use of foresight, use of tools, use of language—some species has come along to challenge it (typically some species of bird or primate). But there have also been many arguments that these apparent counterexamples are better classified as proto-planning, proto-innovation, or proto-language.

While there are certainly researchers whose interest in this is purely conceptual, most of the debate is generated by discussions of moral personhood and animal rights. This means that the conversations can get a bit tied up in people’s views about the broader issues. My students have mostly managed to contain themselves, but I have been to one conference where two very well-educated adults nearly came to blows.

@SavoirFaire I’m glad you saw this and answered. You’re probably the best person to comment on this question. I don’t see use of tools as a metric for being sapient—as you pointed out many animals use tools. Corvids are very clever, but they’re not sapient. The line blurs of course at bonobos, but the line also blurs because emotion and anthropomorphizing get in the way.

So first one has to agree on a definition, and second, one has to test it. But that’s the scientist in me talking; I’m not a romantic.

Son of a bitch, I’m sick of these dolphins.

@gorillapaws Great pull!

https://youtu.be/d1RnYfFZK2k

@Blackwater_Park You know what? I’ve never seen the film but I saw about 15 seconds and I said, “I bet that was directed by Wes Anderson.” Then I looked it up!

Yes, love his films. It’s always a toss up between this one and Rushmore for me.

@Blackwater_Park Off topic but whatever. My question. Have you seen his latest, Asteroid City?

@Caravanfan You should definitely watch The Life Aquatic if you’re in the mod for a dark comedy Wes Anderson retelling of Moby Dick. Is Asteroid City good?

@gorillapaws I really liked it, but it won’t be for everybody. You have to be a big Wes Anderson fan to really enjoy it. I’ll send you a PM of my Letterboxd review.

@Caravanfan Saw the preview but have not seen it yet