--- In SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com, "inkwell_01" <inkwell_01@...>
wrote:
>
> One problem in sentient and sapient discussions is that the
> defintions of each word tend to get blurred together in trying
> to describe the intelligence capability of species. Tests and
> observations are used to try and predict current and future
> capabilities. Reference points are needed, but the only set of
> points people have, so far, are on Earth.
>
> Here's an example of a useful reference point, up to a certain
limit:
>
> If you want to know if a species is possibly intelligent and has
> the chance of developing sophisticated capabilties like language,
> music, math, art, wisdom, tools, etc; Watch how the species
> manipulates it's food; ie, Watch how the species combines one or
> more food items and non-food items together to make a third food
> item. If the species simply eats what's there,(no matter the order
> of what it eats; nuts and berries, then berries and nuts), and you
> never observe any change, then that species will (probably) not
> have the advanced intelligence you are looking for. Notice the
> word "probably". The weakness for this reference point is the time
> period of observation. If I observed proto-humans 500,000 years ago
> I probably wouldn't see them combine two or more foods for the
> pleasure of the taste of the end product; Nor would I see salt
> being put on meat or fish. But if I do see food being combined into
> an end product before being eaten, then we may have something
> intelligence wise; (and probably French too boot).
>
> This a starting reference point. Notice fire isn't in the equation.
> But add fire to food combining and you have a strong candidate
> species who might one day build language, music, radio, T.V., and
> A-bombs.
>
> (Then again, there's the human race, which is why people are
> wondering if there is intelligent life on Earth).
>
> Go at it folks.
That . . . actually makes sense. Animals, unlike humans, don't
combine foods together to make a very crude recipe.
Here is something else to consider in terms of sapience and that
is . . . power.
Sapience is power. Everything rests upon power. Benevolence and
malice alike both depend upon power. No matter how intense either
spectrum is, they are nothing without the power to act upon them to
their fullest use. When was the last time an animal created cures
and treatments for various diseases? Or even created a gun or bomb
for that matter? These are things that can only be accomplished
through sapience. We can harness ideas into benevolent or malevolent
acts. Animals cannot do this sort of thing. The malice of animals
may be grossly stunted, but so is benevolence too.
The things about us humans is that we have the ability to reshape
our environments to suit our needs. Animals do not. We can improve
out lot in life, keep aiming for something better and better.
Animals cannot. We can understand that something is wrong and should
not be done, even object to it enmass with complex thoughts and a
complex verbal or manual communication that can be made sense of.
Animals do not possess this capacity.
As for babies and the mentally handicap in the grand scheme of
things? A baby will advance mentally and a mentally handicapped
person is a human being who is not supposed to be that way. But even
they can understand the significance of right and wrong.
Then again, there are those who would read this post and throw it
all back in my face. There is one thing that we can all agree upon.
This argument will go on forevermore. Even one hundred or even one
thousand years from now. Humanity will NEVER see itselves as
animals. That is a profound certainty.
And to those same people: Do you really believe that you are
accomplished in hating your own species? Would you truly want the
entire human race to go extinct?
-Brandon Payne
Received on Tue Feb 20 2007 - 07:23:48 CST