Science desk
< June 17	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 18[edit]

Non human animals that are considered sentient beings?[edit]

Does anyone have a current list of which non human species which are now considered by scientists to be sentient? Last I heard it was the gorilla, chimpanzee, the two African grey parrots, the European magpie and perhaps some octopuses. Has there been any more recent additions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.128.34 (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a search. In the UK, octopi, lobsters and crabs in addition to ALL vertebrates are considered sentient beings. Wow. I always thought that intelligence was a factor (edit: are cows/sheep/pigs considered sentient?). I read Professor Pepperberg's books about her studies on parrots and even though she spent 30 years with ONE African grey parrot (Alex) who appeared to demonstrate sentience - looking in a mirror and asking "what colour am I?" (first animal that ever asked an existential question???), she wasn't sure, even now, whether Alex was a one-off unique mind or not. She hasn't found another one as of now, but apparently Alex was utterly furious that the other parrots in Pepperberg's lab were responding inadequately to the same experiments he'd been involved with. Anyway from Psittacus - Birds appear to offer, in their behavior, neurophysiology, and neuroanatomy a striking case of parallel evolution of consciousness. Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots., so there you go. Iloveparrots (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Octopi are definitely smart. They have problem-solving intelligence. Sadly, they have not yet solved the problem of why their lifespans are so short. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The popular meaning of "sentient" seems to have shifted over the years. 'When I were a lad' it was often used (particularly in the Science Fiction I read copiously) to mean something like 'conscious and reasoning', with the implication of having human-comparable intelligence; this popular meaning seems latterly to have been replaced by "sapient", with sentient reverting to its original meaning as detailed in the linked article, implying a capacity to suffer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.228.117 (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is "sentient"? Do we have a stable, widely agreed upon and testable definition? In any case, such a list of sentient (or sapient) animals suggests that somebody devised a test that's supposed to demonstrate sentience (or sapience), then subjected a random sample of animals to the test. Those listed passed, some others failed, most were never tested. Obviously, animal rights activists will assume every animal is sentient unless proven otherwise; hunters and fishermen will assume no animal is sentient unless proven otherwise:

Fisherman: ‘It's OK if we catch grey mullet. They aren't sentient, so they can't suffer.’

Scientist: ‘We've just proven that grey mullets can feel pain.’

Fisherman: ‘OK, I'm sorry. I'll switch to red mullet. They can't feel pain.’

(One year later)

Scientist: ‘We've just proven that red mullets can feel pain.’

Fisherman: ‘OK, I'm sorry. I'll switch to black mullet. They can't feel pain.’

(One year later)

Scientist: ‘We've just proven that black mullets can feel pain.’

Fisherman: ‘OK, I'm sorry. I'll switch to striped mullet. They can't feel pain.’

(etc.)

For the plural of octopus, see the usage notes at wikt:octopus. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Hofstadter discusses Thomas Nagel's What Is It Like to Be a Bat? in The Mind's I:

The image conjured up by the phrase "What is it like to be A"? is so seductive and tempting. . . . Our minds are so flexible, so willing to accept this notion, this idea that there is "something it is like to be a bat." Furthermore, we also willingly buy the idea that there are certain things that it is "like something to be" — "be-able things," or "BATs" for short — such as bats, cows, people; and other things for which this doesn't hold — such as balls, steaks, galaxies (even though a galaxy may contain innumerable be-able things). What is the criterion for "BAT-itude"?

In philosophical literature, many phrases have been used to try to evoke the right flavors for what being sentient really is (“being sentient” is one of them). Two old terms are “soul” and “anima.” These days, an “in” word is “intentionality.” There is the old standby, “consciousness.” Then there is “being a subject,” “having an inner life,” “having experience,” “having a point of view,” having “perceptual aboutness” or “personhood” or a “self” or “free will.” In some people’s eyes, “having a mind,” “being intelligent,” and just plain old “thinking” have the right flavors. In Searle’s article (selection 22), the contrast was drawn between “form” (hollow and mechanical) and “content” (alive and intentional); the words “syntactic” and “semantic” (or “meaningless” and “meaningful”) were also used to characterize this distinction. All of the terms in this huge showcase are nearly synonymous. They all have to do with the emotional issue of whether it makes sense to project ourselves onto the object in question: “Is this object a BAT, or not?” But is there really some thing to which they refer?

Meanwhile (admittedly almost 40 years later, but are we really any clearer?) the UK has the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, and Wikipedia has an article on Animal consciousness (beset with a number of difficulties). Card Zero (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]