Dave, may I take your thought one step further? Who defines 'smart'? Doesn't the bushman see the rocket scientist as a ignorant, and vice versa?
Muhammad, perhaps we need PBN- PhilosophyByNet?
Dave, may I take your thought one step further? Who defines 'smart'? Doesn't the bushman see the rocket scientist as a ignorant, and vice versa?
Muhammad, perhaps we need PBN- PhilosophyByNet?
Dave, I think we need to negotiate a common understanding of sentience, a shared definition, if you will. Often people are in virtual violent agreement on something but because of differences in meaning of certain key words and phrases central to the discuasion they will argue about nonexistant differences. Even if folks don't agree in the main to the key features of a discussion, it still makes the exploration of their differences easier and less frustrating if there is agreement on terms.
Sentient and sentience are terms that are often used by different people to mean quite different things. For a good deep belly laugh take a look here:
www.sentientbeings.org/
These are the Susan Sarandon type of idiots who want farm animals accorded full rights of citizenship.
From the American Heritage Dictionary
SYLLABICATION: sen·tience
PRONUNCIATION: snshns, -sh-ns
NOUN: 1. The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness. 2. Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought.
1) sentient. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
...1. Having sense perception; conscious: The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage (T.E. Lawrence). 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling. Latin...
2) sentience. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
...1. The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness. 2. Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought....
Given these well accepted meanings for sentient and sentience and a careful review of your post, I can't see the sense of what you are saying.
If the above definitions are accepted then some of your remarks may be self contradictory (and some of the rest are non-sequitors irrespective of the definitions of the terms.)
I'm sure you have some very interesting information, understanding, and surmise that you are intending to communicate, I just don't see how it relates to sentience. For example: You said, "Are all smart people trainable?" Define smart, define trainable. Then we may discuss the question posed profitably with no cross purposes. It might be interesting and illuminating, especially if you could show relevance to sentience. Neither smartness or trainabilitiy are conditioins for sentience.
Another question is, Can dead men vote twice? Interesting perhaps, full of meaning, hidden to the uninitiated but also not related to sentience or its definition.
LIke Eli the Ice man, "can dead men vote twice" is a pneumonic device, in this instance for remembering the relationship bewteen: compass, deviatioin, magnetic, variation, and true.
What has the last example to fo with sentience? It is my assertion that it has as much to do with it as your training and smart question which is precisely nothing. Interesting, just not self evident that it is on the topic.
It would be interesting indeed if you would show relevance in a straight forward easilly understood manner.
[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
"I'm not from your planet, monkey boy!"
[img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] Stuff like this drives me nuts. [img]/forums/images/icons/crazy.gif[/img] That's why I can never go near philosophy....YEEK! [img]/forums/images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] I give up! [img]/forums/images/icons/blush.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/blush.gif[/img]
CJDave
It's the heat Dave, those two fellows have been confined to air conditioned premessis all summer and are going stir crazy. Perhaps some of the recirculating air is also going bad and haveing deleterious effects on the synapse responses!
I just hope no permanent damage has been done.
Egon [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
Dave, You mentioned some very interesting topics, I only pointed out how they didn't seem connected to sentience.
Interestingly enough, Alan Turing (father of modern computer science) was one of the heroes of the British WW II effort to crack the code of the German's Enigma machine. However, certain acts between even consenting adults of the same sex were illegal in England so he also became a convicted sex offender.
Hmmm, philosyphobia huh? My dad once told me the epitome of uselessness in education was a doctor of philosophy degree (Phd) in philosophy. I'm sure there is some good to come of that stuff, sometimes it isn't apparent to me.
You say stuff like this "DRIVES" you crazy... for me it would be just a short putt.
[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
"I'm not from your planet, monkey boy!"
Geeze [img]/forums/images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] am so sorry it is five below and blowing in Nebraska right now LOL. Or have you been working and playing so hard that you neglected to notice the summer? I have really been enjoying the posting that has followed your initial statement, thanks for the fun! Chris
[img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] Yeah, I recognized Turings name. His work saved a LOT of allied lives. Patton was right: "Whatever else man does pales compared to war." ...or at least a statement to that effect. It IS true that nowhere else do you see the EFFORT expended as you do in warfare. [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]
CJDave
Right again Dave. It is unfortunate but true that conflict resolution by other means short of war gets such a small amount of energy earnestly applied. It is as if everyone is programed to believe that since they can prevail in battle they need not risk any losses through compromise at any negotiations. Of course all sides often believe they will win but instead frequently all parties loose.
I personally think that our nations best interests are often served when others are also winners. I think we should clearly state our policy and intent such that other nations and their leaders don't have to consult a Ouija board to devine our intent. Once we have selected a "FAIR" course we should stick to it as much as evolving circumstances permit.
When someone needs their toes stepped on we shouid not shriink from doing it. When someone needs help we should lnot shrink from helping. We need to do that which is required to develop credibility. It is far less important that we are liked by all nations than we are respected by all and trusted to keep our word either in friendship or armed conflict if required. We need to make the criteria to draw our UNFRIENDLY attention very clear, like a parent with their children, establish clear firm guidelines as to permisible conduct and be willling to back our position as required. //RANT MODE OFF//
[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
"I'm not from your planet, monkey boy!"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote