Should you buy plants with less animal deaths then other plant products?

[thebestofenergy]

Did we determine all these things about the brain and stuff are responsible for sentience thru how the creatures reacted due to stimuli?

Reaction to stimuli doesn't mean sentience. A computer reacts to stimuli, plants react to stimuli, and even baking soda reacts to stimuli with vinegar.
But like you said, how (i.e. motile vs not motile) a being reacts to stimuli can be a teller.

We're able to know all those parts are required for sentience because of the role they play, and all those roles are required to achieve sentience.
We know that to have subjective experiences (qualia), certain steps are needed after information about the environment is gathered - or the information would just be that, information with nothing else to it.
We are able to determine they are not only responsible for sentience, but required for sentience, because of the steps that would be needed to achieve sentience biologically (explained in the quote), and because those parts fill in those steps that are required to arrive at 'qualia' being possible.

It's easier to understand with the letter example written in the page:

To understand this more clearly, a comparison can be made with delivering a letter, where the letter is an information that can be interpreted subjectively:

1- Without the somatosensory system, there is no letter. The delivery person (thalamus) carries nothing, and the receiver (your awareness) receives nothing.

2- Without the thalamus, there is no delivery person. The letter is there, and you're ready to receive it, but nothing happens.

3- Without the thalamocortical radiations, you can't grab the letter from the delivery person and open it, nor can you and the delivery person see each-other. The letter exists, and it's ready to be delivered, but it's not able to be grabbed and opened.

4- Without the cortex, you don't know how to read the letter. The letter exists, it's delivered, and it's opened, but it's unreadable.

In all the cases, you won't know what the letter has to say (can't be aware/sentient).

All those parts coming together will make a being be aware of his surroundings and be able to experience subjectively (interpretation).

And yes, of course, you can test and verify this with every organism you can find. Without these steps, no organism is sentient. No organism is able to feel and experience subjectively - and their behavior confirms it.
While when all those steps are there, there's at least a basic form of sentience (like insects).

There are different ways to test if a being is sentient: Turing test, prolonged observation to see how it behaves and if it shows signs that would mean sentience (like showing fear by cowering and running away, and learning to actively avoid what was causing fear), seeing if it's limited to classical conditioning or has operant conditioning, etc.
Once you understand that a being is sentient, you can examine how it's possible, and compare it to non-sentient beings to see the difference.
And the difference is a central nervous system, which is at the very least made up by the parts written above (in some cases, the mid brain functions as the cortex for a more primitive brain).

As soon as a being is able to gather information, and transmit it to the central nervous system (brain) to be interpreted subjectively, sentience is possible. But a brain is required to have qualia, otherwise there is nothing that can process the information in a way that would make the being be able to interpret it himself.

The more these parts get complex, the more complex experiences you can have (and therefore more intense, more nuanced and unique, etc.).

[NickNack]

@thebestofenergy
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said the terms classical conditioning versus operant conditioning. In some possible world, a thing could show be sentient and show operant conditioning without having all the neurological structures we would expect so I would argue you know something is sentient when it shows operant conditioning. And if something has all the neurological structures you would expect for sentience but doesn't show operant conditioning, Its most likely not sentient. Would you agree with this assessment? That its really just about operant conditioning.

P.S.- I didnt know what operant conditioning was before you told me about it so thanks for the distinction of the two different types of reaction to stimuli.

[NickNack]

@thebestofenergy
I'm not familiar with all these ways scientist discover something is sentient or not based on the way creatures react to stimuli so the comment before this one may not have made a lot of sense. Could you elaborate on the Turing test one? My dads a phycologist and he corrected me on my understanding of classical versus operant conditioning after I made the comment before this one.

But about the fear one, how would you go about determining if something has fear? Is it just running away that's the sign or does it need more signs? Like shaking in place or something? Its really hard to know what's going on in some beings mind that cant communicate to you like humans with language or even animals with facial expressions.

[NickNack]

@thebestofenergy
Sometimes I question weather or not other humans or bigger animals have sentience like me but I think I'm convinced about humans and bigger animals, but I'm not so sure about insects.

[thebestofenergy]

Can you elaborate on your understanding of classical conditioning vs operant conditioning, giving some examples?

With classical conditioning, a being is associating an involuntary response with a stimulus, while with operant conditioning, a being is associating a voluntary behavior with a consequence.

For example, learning through classical conditioning can easily be seen with certain software already.
There are many AI software that can change their behavior according to how they're doing - even prediction-based AI software changing their calculations when they 'get it wrong', with trial and error, until they 'get it right'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl3EjiVlz_4
That video is an example of learning behavior through classical conditioning.

My dads a phycologist and he corrected me on my understanding of classical versus operant conditioning after I made the comment before this one.

What is your understanding?

Classical vs operant conditioning may be used in different scenarios in psychology vs neuroscience, since psychology deals only with sentient beings and neuroscience deals with anything that has a neural network.
Learning through classical conditioning is the most basic form of learning, and it also applies to non-sentient objects we already have, to describe their 'behavior' (something that psychology doesn't deal with, as far as I know).
Where classical conditioning doesn't prove anything in regards with sentience, operant conditioning proves the being wants something, because it will modify its behavior to achieve it in a way that could not be pre-programmed by evolved fixed action patterns plus mere association.

And if something has all the neurological structures you would expect for sentience but doesn't show operant conditioning, Its most likely not sentient.

That would be like saying, if an object has all the parts to be a computer and doesn't function, then it's not a computer.
If it has all the parts that a computer has, then it must be a computer.

Yes, you could still find a dead brain that has all the parts and isn't sentient, or find a vegetable person whose brain has all the parts and isn't currently sentient.
But if all the parts are there and they're working as intended (with each of them doing what they're supposed to do with the information carried), then a being is undoubtedly sentient.

Could you elaborate on the Turing test one?

I would suggest reading up on the Turing test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

how would you go about determining if something has fear?

Different ways.
1. you can observe the being and see if it expresses fear in the usual way sentient beings do (like shaking, running away, hiding), by association with the behavior of the being studied and the behavior of other sentient beings
2. through operant conditioning (making a being want to actively avoid something because of a consequence), and if it does, there's your smoking gun
3. you can observe through a machine what the brain is doing, and if with a certain action, neurons responsible for fear are stimulated (mind you, if you can observe a central nervous system and you can distinguish different neural constructs including one responsible for fear, it's already obviously sentient)

Sometimes I question weather or not other humans or bigger animals have sentience like me but I think I'm convinced about humans and bigger animals, but I'm not so sure about insects.

Certain insects have a basic form of sentience (where you can see fear by at least one of the steps written above), while certain others (like flees or certain small worms) are in a grey area and are likely not sentient.

[NickNack]

@thebestofenergy
Oh my understanding of the kinds of conditioning is different then yours, I thought classical meant something learning to associate X with Y and operant was using negative or positive reinforcement.

But I think the most important question for me to ask would be how do determine if something was a voluntary action versus an involuntary action? Is it through observing behavior or does it have something to do with neurological structures also? Would you say this is really the only question that matters since if you can prove something has a voluntary action, you prove its sentient, right? And fear is just the sign of a bunch of voluntary actions to avoid harms way, would you agree?

[thebestofenergy]

But I think the most important question for me to ask would be how do determine if something was a voluntary action versus an involuntary action? Is it through observing behavior or does it have something to do with neurological structures also?

Voluntary actions stem from having wants/desires. Those are at the core.
Through the same methods where you can determine whether a being has fear or not, you can determine if something has wants (that drive the voluntary action) vs involuntary action.

1. you can observe the being and see if it expresses wants in the usual way sentient beings do (like chasing something, staring at something while showing signs of interest/happiness, trying to reach something actively and finding ways to get to it, showing signs of happiness/satisfaction once they have it), by association with the behavior of the being studied and the behavior of other sentient beings
2. through operant conditioning (making a being actively want something because of a consequence/reward), and if it does, there's your smoking gun
3. you can observe through a machine what the brain is doing, and if with a certain action, neurons responsible for desire are stimulated (if you can observe a central nervous system and you can distinguish different neural constructs including one responsible for desire, it's already obviously sentient)

Would you say this is really the only question that matters since if you can prove something has a voluntary action, you prove its sentient, right? And fear is just the sign of a bunch of voluntary actions to avoid harms way, would you agree?

As I said, voluntary actions are just merely an expression of the wants/desires the sentient being has.
Once you determine the being has wants/desires, then yes, that means sentience.

Fear isn't necessarily a sign of voluntary actions, as fear can be there without any voluntary actions seen, although it's determinable that it's there through some voluntary actions taken like running away or hiding.
Fear is an unpleasant emotion caused by perceived threats, and both emotions and interpretation of a threat are only possible in sentient beings - and fear is manifested as a want/desire of avoidance of the threat.
Fear was ultimately born out of a way to keep the being safe, by making it want to avoid X threat, and fear, being an emotion and requiring the capacity for the being to be motile to get away to safety (evolutionary biology), is only possible through sentience (awareness of your surroundings and subjective interpretation of the threat to be dangerous -> fear).

[NickNack]

@thebestofenergy
Voluntary actions stem from having wants/desires. Those are at the core.
Through the same methods where you can determine whether a being has fear or not, you can determine if something has wants (that drive the voluntary action) vs involuntary action.

1. you can observe the being and see if it expresses wants in the usual way sentient beings do (like chasing something, staring at something while showing signs of interest/happiness, trying to reach something actively and finding ways to get to it, showing signs of happiness/satisfaction once they have it), by association with the behavior of the being studied and the behavior of other sentient beings
2. through operant conditioning (making a being actively want something because of a consequence/reward), and if it does, there's your smoking gun
3. you can observe through a machine what the brain is doing, and if with a certain action, neurons responsible for desire are stimulated (if you can observe a central nervous system and you can distinguish different neural constructs including one responsible for desire, it's already obviously sentient)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

-I'm confused how scientist determined X about the physical state of neurobiology is directly correlated with wants/desires, because wants/desires are such a hard thing to objectively measure

-What are the signs of happiness/satisfaction?

-Why does something staring at something else and trying to get to it mean it likely has wants/desires?

-When you say through operant conditioning, you say make a sentience want something, but you would have to assume a sentience exist in the first place so isn't that circular since we are trying to prove a sentience exist in the first place?

[thebestofenergy]

-I'm confused how scientist determined X about the physical state of neurobiology is directly correlated with wants/desires, because wants/desires are such a hard thing to objectively measure

They're a hard thing to measure only if the technology doesn't allow it to be tested easily, once the technology is good enough and neuroactivity can be observed well, it's pretty easy.

Scientists determined that the neurological structures are what they are after studying them and understanding them. That's what studying the brain is for.
You can study what the parts of the brain do through what type of neurons they have, how the brain works with vs without them, how and if they're stimulated when X thing happens, what feelings they're associated with once they're stimulated (i.e. dopamine is released once the neurons responsible for satisfaction/pleasure are stimulated), etc.
You can do plenty of tests and studies to see what a part of the brain does and how it behaves, and X part of the brain in a certain animal is similar to the X part of the brain in another animal.

Neuroscience is a very precise science, the study of the brain isn't a vague, unclear thing, it goes really in-depth about each and every small section.
You can study the basics of neuroscience yourself, and you'll see how not-unclear and well understood the brain is compared to what the average Joe thinks - lots still left to discover, but just like physics, lots we know.

-What are the signs of happiness/satisfaction?

I gave some examples in the post before.
What do you think signs of happiness/satisfaction are? What do you do, or see a dog do, when you/they are happy?

-Why does something staring at something else and trying to get to it mean it likely has wants/desires?

It's a sign that it wants that thing, if it's actively seeking after it.

-When you say through operant conditioning, you say make a sentience want something, but you would have to assume a sentience exist in the first place so isn't that circular since we are trying to prove a sentience exist in the first place?

No, I didn't say to test if a sentient being wants something. I said to test if a being (may be sentient or not) wants something.
And if it does, it's a sentient being.

[NickNack]

@thebestofenergy
Yeah its not circular, my bad, If you figure out something has wants/desires then you know its sentient, so then you just look for signs of wants/desires, and if you find any you conclude its likely sentient.

But just because I see a dog that I anthropomorphize as being happy, why should that mean its likely the dog is actually happy? Do you think we could be anthropomorphizing too much with our intuition?

Do you think its not likely a non sentient thing could seek out something beneficial to its survival thru natural selection?

forgive me please, I'm starting to question if anyone else besides me is sentient again