Life Loving - What is that you say ???

[brimstoneSalad]

Can you please confirm that the following definition is conclusive for you so that i may better interpolate the different examples of sentience that have been mentioned?

---
Coogle :

sentient
ˈsɛntɪənt,ˈsɛnʃ(ə)nt/
adjective
adjective: sentient

able to perceive or feel things.
"she had been instructed from birth in the equality of all sentient life forms"

Have you ever heard the expression "the lights are on, but nobody's home"?
Sentient is both sense, and the processing/comprehension of that sense.
Reflex doesn't count as sentience. Sentience requires understanding and feeling of that sense in the mind.

A plant has chemical reflexes, but there's no brain for those to register in, so it doesn't really feel it.
Just like a "brain dead" person. There are reflexes there, but the person is gone. It's an empty shell.
Or the fetus before the around the third trimester where the brain starts to work (called the quickening, classically).

synonyms: feeling, capable of feeling, living, live; conscious, aware, responsive, reactive

"living" and "live" are not good synonyms at all. Non-living things can be sentient, and many living things are not sentient (most living things aren't sentient -- we are outnumbered by plants and bacteria that are non-sentient).

"Responsive" and "reactive" aren't really good ones either. This could be sentience, or it could be programming or a reflex.

Conscious and aware are somewhat OK synonyms, but not exactly the same things.

Distinguishing between a feeling and a reflex can be difficult at times, but it's important.

[VGnizm]

-Ok i have pondered this explanation and i have a question. I will adjust my reasoning to define sentience as the senses and the direct resulting effect of them. If that is correct? In that case can we call the direct resulting effect to be feelings? Or do we need to distinguish if that result is registered into some mechanism that provides memory? Basically is a transient ' feeling' sentience or does it have to be remembered for it to be sentience?

[brimstoneSalad]

-Ok i have pondered this explanation and i have a question. I will adjust my reasoning to define sentience as the senses and the direct resulting effect of them. If that is correct? In that case can we call the direct resulting effect to be feelings? Or do we need to distinguish if that result is registered into some mechanism that provides memory? Basically is a transient ' feeling' sentience or does it have to be remembered for it to be sentience?

It must be remembered long enough to be understood and processed. That is, you need at least working memory.

There are people with no short term memory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwigmktix2Y

It usually results from brain damage.
There have been a few movies made on the topic, from "Memento" to "50 first dates".

I think these people qualify as sentient, but it's an interesting question. They certainly have a very time limited consciousness.

[VGnizm]

-I am sorry I might seem annoying but I honestly need to shelf this in my mind. It is so that I can move on. I have come to understand that sentience is the basic reasoning behind Veganism. In a nutshell sentience is the measure of the importance of the impact that sensory input has on a system, be it electromecanical or biomechanical or other. Am I ok if I shelf that or am I missing something essential?

[brimstoneSalad]

-I am sorry I might seem annoying but I honestly need to shelf this in my mind. It is so that I can move on. I have come to understand that sentience is the basic reasoning behind Veganism. In a nutshell sentience is the measure of the importance of the impact that sensical input has on a system, be it electromecanical or biomechanical or other. Am I ok if I shelf that or am I missing something essential?

Something like that. It's what makes a human being very valuable, and a mouse less valuable than a human being -- but that the mouse still has value.

Without something like that people may make the mistake that all living things, from a mosquito to a man, have the same value and there's no reason to save one over the other.
And then the other kind of mistake is to assume that only humans have value, and that all others have no value.

[VGnizm]

-Thanks! I have corrected that to ' sensory input ' and i will shelf it as such until further notice since it seems to be relevant enough.

[VGnizm]

-And to clarify the part about remaining interest is it correct to compare it to the value that people attribute to saint shrines? Meaning that they go to seek blessings knowing that the person is no longer but their purpose is to partake of some invisible ' value ' that the saint had when living?

-I would like to confirm that to me personally understanding does not have to mean agreeing and knowing does not have to mean accepting. As such i invite any and all to consistently provide their views no matter how divers or conflictive they may seem as they will be considered with equal importance

[brimstoneSalad]

-Thanks! I have corrected that to ' sensory input ' and i will shelf it as such until further notice since it seems to be relevant enough.

Just remember that somebody has to be "home" to understand it; that's the sentience. It can't be on autopilot.

-And to clarify the part about remaining interest is it correct to compare it to the value that people attribute to saint shrines? Meaning that they go to seek blessings knowing that the person is no longer but their purpose is to partake of some invisible ' value ' that the saint had when living?

No, I mean the value to the now dead person.

For example, you worked all of your life on a book, and you died before it was published.
I found your book after you died. I read it, and didn't think it was that good (it wouldn't change the world or anything, it was OK), but I know you worked your life on it and put your "heart and soul" into it and really wanted it published.
I could save myself some trouble and throw it away... OR I could send it to a publisher and see if they want to publish it. It wouldn't be so hard, and just take me a few hours.

Morally, I should do the latter, and I should (because it's not hard for me to do) give your book a chance to be published instead of throwing it out.

If a publisher doesn't want it, should I spend $100,000 self publishing it and promoting it to book stores?
Probably not. That would be nice, but it wouldn't be very effective altruism when the money could go to helping many others instead.

The point is, we should respect the wishes of the dead if it's convenient to do it because of the golden rule: We would want somebody to respect our own wishes after we die.

I hope that helps clarify it.

[VGnizm]

- Ok so for the first answer I believe it says that sentience is the senses and the interaction with them through emotional intelligence and not reflex. Is that close enough?

- For the second part I understand it as a subject that is independent of sentience. Meaning it does not define sentience but rather moral standards in general which can also be applied to sentient beings. Or is it trying to say that moral standards only apply to sentient beings and as such sentience is the determining factor for moral and ethical standards?

[brimstoneSalad]

- Ok so for the first answer I believe it says that sentience is the senses and the interaction with them through emotional intelligence and not reflex. Is that close enough?

Yes, I think so.

Or is it trying to say that moral standards only apply to sentient beings and as such sentience is the determining factor for moral and ethical standards?

Moral value originates through sentience. Although something doesn't have to remain sentient.

That's why we should respect the wishes of the dead if we can -- because they were sentient. Otherwise, they could never have had wishes.

But a rock was never sentient, and never had wishes. We don't need to respect the wishes of the rock, simply because it couldn't have or have ever had wishes.

It's not that moral standards only apply to sentient beings, it's that they can only be applied if a being was at one time sentient to have wishes/interests/desires. You can't respect an interest which never existed.

We could make up a story, like "the rock wants to be warm and to not be broken apart or buried", but that's just imagination, or us putting our interests on the rock because it has none. It's the same with plants.
But with sentient animals, they have their own interests, so we don't have to make anything up: we just have to pay attention to discover them.