Post

Shamian wrote:

Apologies folks - that post should have said "sapient, sentient and sophont"; I got sidetracked by a thought about how to deal with hive intelligence.

A clarification on my thinking though; as noted in the post I refer to an individual/species - this was not aimed at judging every single individual on their own abilities, but rather to cover a situation where either a unique individual (perhaps the first member of a newly evolved species) arrises.

I guess that does make a bit more sense, although if we're saying that someone being born with either one or multiple characteristics makes them a part of a new category of being then doesn't the reverse of that also follow, if someone is born without that/those characteristics wouldn't they then not be a part of that category?

Especially if that category is built entirely around having those/that characteristic(s)?

Brightbayuniversity wrote:

I think that sophont should not be the only determining factor on the basis of rights.

"Sophont", per Burton's Legal Thesaurus, is defined as intelligence.
Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. S.v. "Sophont." Retrieved August 13 2019 from https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sophont

Sentience and subjectiveness might be better determining factors.
"Sentience", per American Heritage Dictionary, is defined as
[quote]
1. The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.
2. Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. S.v. "sentience." Retrieved August 13 2019 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentience
I would add that the potential for empathy or the ability to emotionally connect with others, should be included in the definition of sentience.

I would define Subjectiveness as "will" in 'free will' if a definition clarifies my meaning.[/quote]
That's definitely a bit better, sentience is still very much controversial but it's definitely at least a bit more solid than species or intelligence, and even by using far less inclusive definitions of this there are a lot of implications as far as the rights of nonhumans go if we're going to use this as a moral characteristic

One test of consciousness is the mirror test which tries to get animals to show that they recognize themselves in a mirror, and many types of nonhuman animals have passed this test

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test#Animals_that_have_passed

And there's certainly a lot of criticisms to be made of this test, certainly of its limitations, there are many cultural/behavioral differences between different individuals that might cause them to fail, gorillas, for instance, see looking into someone's eyes as a challenge and would likely avoid even looking into their own based off of this, although famously Koko the gorilla did pass the test and recognize themselves in the mirror. Another criticism to be made of this test is that it relies too heavily on a single sense, sight, an implication of this is if a blind human were to go through this test they would not pass, and if we're using this test as some measure of moral worth they would fail and not be afforded the same rights as other people

There was a report made by Steven Hawkings and a whole panel of renowned neuroscientists a few years back called the "Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness"

"We declare the following: “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.” "

That's the conclusion and you can read the rest if you want to, it's only 2 pages

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

And sadly many definitions of consciousness, if believed, would take rights away from many types of humans with disabilities; because they go beyond pain and pleasure and go into things like abstraction, which many individuals are not capable of

I would also say that someone being sophont should not be used to give moral value at all, because using it at all puts some groups of humans with certain disabilities on a lower moral stratum then others, and that's an issue even if the difference would be minuscule, and for that same reasons using empathy or the ability to emotionally connect is also problematic because there are many disabilities that affect those two things