Desire: is that what makes us human/sentient?

[walfin]

Logic seems like an applied practice that's cold and robotic. Dependable, but variables can quickly stack up leaving us frustrated by blind spots and misunderstandings.

Strangely, a lot of what motivates the careful application of logic is an emotional yearning. A calculator can crunch mad numbers yet has no desire to do so until it's commanded to.

Is this the difference between us and any other nonsentient being? That we want things, and don't just merely react? Or is there something more?

[kendoiwan]

No actually it's the ability to delay gratification that makes us human...

Edit: More importantly it's our ability to pass down what we learned through the generations and therefore build on what came before us that makes us human.

[Oso Mocoso]

Ptah would totally disagree with this thread.

[Anonymous]

I think the definition of sentience is the ability to recognize yourself as an individual, iirc. Nothing nearly this philosophical.

[Ariel]

No actually it's the ability to delay gratification that makes us human...

Edit: More importantly it's our ability to pass down what we learned through the generations and therefore build on what came before us that makes us human.Many other animals do this too. Herd animals like horses, elephants, and whales teach their young where to graze or find food. Predators do the same, actually. How to hunt, how to behave, how to attract a mate...-- most of the time, these essential codes of conduct must be taught rather than simply catalyzed.

So based on this standard, many animals must be human.

Or should this discussion be broadened as to include sentient animals too (whatever those may be)? Which of course begs the question: how can we distinguish sentience?

[kendoiwan]

Many other animals do this too. Herd animals like horses, elephants, and whales teach their young where to graze or find food. Predators do the same, actually. How to hunt, how to behave, how to attract a mate...-- most of the time, these essential codes of conduct must be taught rather than simply catalyzed.

So based on this standard, many animals must be human.

Or should this discussion be broadened as to include sentient animals too (whatever those may be)? Which of course begs the question: how can we distinguish sentience?

Err... You're being far to kind. Humans have a standardized method of passing along innovation. Not just from parent to child but from a whole generation to another. I.e. We have t.v. because we able to build from the advent of electricity. We can have this conversation because Al Gore invented the internet (he did!!! kinda. well he helped, maybe...) In short no other species stands on the shoulders of their ancestors the way we do.

[Ariel]

Err... You're being far to kind. Humans have a standardized method of passing along innovation. Not just from parent to child but from a whole generation to another. I.e. We have t.v. because we able to build from the advent of electricity. We can have this conversation because Al Gore invented the internet (he did!!! kinda. well he helped, maybe...) In short no other species stands on the shoulders of their ancestors the way we do.
Would you consider "waggle dancing" as a standardized method of passing along information? I think I would. Humans have done similar things in the past, and we still do today, hahaha.

We build our empires of knowledge and wealth on those of the generations before us. But so do termites.

Edit:
Humans are not so special. We may have built most complex empires that we know of (thanks to written language, in my opinion), but I'm sure there are aliens out there that have done far better and that are not humanoid. Besides, when it all boils down, we still build these empires for the same reasons that other living things do-- for power, for life, and for convenience.

[kendoiwan]

Would you consider "waggle dancing" as a standardized method of passing along information? I think I would. Humans have done similar things in the past, and we still do today, hahaha.

We build our empires of knowledge and wealth on those of the generations before us. But so do termites.

err... To compare human innovation to termites is a stretch don'tcha think?

[Saeculustra]

Crap. I voted no, but maybe I agree after all.

I think it's at least partially true.

[Ariel]

err... To compare human innovation to termites is a stretch don'tcha think?
Well, we are good at problem-solving and we have made a pretty impressive world for ourselves, but up until the Renaissance I'd say their accomplishments as a society were comparable.

[kendoiwan]

Well, we are good at problem-solving and we have made a pretty impressive world for ourselves, but up until the Renaissance I'd say their accomplishments as a society were comparable.

Err... Name one thing termites have done to compare to say, Idk the Great Pyramids...

(I know, I know... I'm bored sue me. :P)

[amazingkae]

I have always thought being self aware is what defines us as sentient beings (rather than a simple past of the mass). It seems like desire is a 2nd step level... and if you follow any Buddhist teachings, once we eliminate desire, we are closer to original form. To that premise (if accepted), to function first without desire, one must be aware of consciously relinquishing desire to make a step toward personal refinement. If the consciousness is holding desire and releases it, then consciousness is left. At that point, the argument becomes presumptive based upon your belief. If you believe a being can function without desire while remaining sentient and yet still separated from all that is, then you have an argument that desire may be a common attribute of sentiment beings without existing in the universe outside of sentient beings (unless you include instinctive drives as less complex forms of desires... in which case any form or entity serving its natural function and purpose could be seen as expressing a form of desire, and therein included in your definition of sentient beings). If all instinctive actions or performing of function as a biological imperative, the metaphysical concept that everything has consciousness (from plants to rocks to animals to any atomic or energetic type of structure) has newly defined premise merit. If desire is defined as an emotional yearning linked to complex psychological thought, then you still have to grant the premise that a form of mind must exist to process the thought or feeling, making the chicken and egg question of desire and sentience moot... you have to have some unit base for the desire to bounce around in and direct action or feel effects. I'm sure argument can be made that a key aspect of sentience is desire... and that desire contingently exists as a platonic form that can only act our its own function on the template or blank slate of a sentient being... but I don't think it defines sentience in and of itself. We are limited in our own empirical knowledge about how to answer philosophically until we define "cognizance".

[notjeffgoldblum]

http://www.nenh.com/articles/images/termite.jpg

"The termite is the acknowledged master architect of the creature world. No other insect or animal approaches the termite in the size and solidity of its building structure. The world's tallest non-human structures are built by Australian or African termites. If a human being were the size of an average termite, the relative size of a single termite nest is the equivalent of a 180 story building--almost 2000 feet high. It would easily be the tallest building in the world. How is it possible that this tiny creature has the engineering know-how to erect an edifice of this magnitude? Obviously this knowledge is innate to the termite. The process of construction, the materials and correct combination of materials to yield an elegant, structurally efficient and durable structure is simply awe-inspiring."

[walfin]

To that premise (if accepted), to function first without desire, one must be aware of consciously relinquishing desire to make a step toward personal refinement.

That basically means that you must first have a desire to be without desire.


Obviously this knowledge is innate to the termite.
That's the thing, it behaves as an automaton. It doesn't have any real desire for something more. Like, designing a nicer hive, furnishing its hive room with nicer pieces of sand, etc.

Or maybe they do. IDK.

[Ptah]

I don't think desire is the distinguishing, essential characteristic of humanity -- or sentience, for that matter. Going by observable behaviors, it would seem lower animals exhibit (a kind of) desire, if by desire you simply meen "to want", to seek out or hold something, as a motivator to action.


Ptah would totally disagree with this thread.

... not so fast. While I think the question of the OP as stated throws a somewhat backward premise out there, I do see value in discussing desire and sentience in and of themselves, and how they may or may not necessarily relate according to their essential, distinguishing natures.

[walfin]

While I think the question of the OP as stated throws a somewhat backward premise out there

Yeah I think that makes sense, if sentience makes us desire things...a thing without desire is definitely not sentient, but desire does not a sentient being make.

Sorry for stating the obvious. I wasn't happy with a simple "Yeah, possible".

[Mercurial]

Being capable of self-evaluation seems to neatly fit...

[puzzled-observer]

I think the only two things necessary for sentience are: the ability to interact with the environment (ex. an arm/appendage), and the ability to learn. Desires may lead to learning ability, but they're more of a peripheral factor. I really haven't thought this all the way through, but it seem to make sense as a rough draft.

[walfin]

the ability to interact with the environment
Doesn't everything interact with the environment?

[notjeffgoldblum]

I think the only two things necessary for sentience are: the ability to interact with the environment (ex. an arm/appendage), and the ability to learn. Desires may lead to learning ability, but they're more of a peripheral factor. I really haven't thought this all the way through, but it seem to make sense as a rough draft.

Stephen Hawking disagrees with this post.

[pangolin]

Is this the difference between us and any other nonsentient being? That we want things, and don't just merely react? Or is there something more?

All living beings *want* things. At a bare minimum, they want to consume nourishment and reproduce. This doesn't separate us from 'mere reaction'.

I'm not really sure what exactly is meant by 'sentience' but some of the things that distinguish us from other animals are our memory, ability to abstract, social grouping, and sophisticated tool use. This is not to say that no other animals have these things, but generally, no other species has all of them to the degree that we do.

[puzzled-observer]

Doesn't everything interact with the environment?
Well, that's why i gave the example of the appendage. In other words, its Brain/nervous system is developed enough that it can create an action. Not everything does that.


Stephen Hawking disagrees with this post.

Care to elaborate on why or what post he might agree with?

[Llewellyn]

Is this the difference between us and any other nonsentient being? That we want things, and don't just merely react? Or is there something more?

I read in Jung yesterday that he thought so called primitive people merely reacted to what was emotionally relevant (like the Pueblo thought with their hearts, not with their heads - another matter for discussion). And that philosophers around the time of ancient Greece introduced good and bad and all oppositions, as well as the morality to act (a separate mind next to body/spirit), rationality basically. So not desire, but morality would rather be what makes us 'human' (although before that we must have been human...).

[quantumzero]

Is this the difference between us and any other nonsentient being? That we want things, and don't just merely react? Or is there something more?


No actually it's the ability to delay gratification that makes us human...

Edit: More importantly it's our ability to pass down what we learned through the generations and therefore build on what came before us that makes us human.

I observe my dogs, who desire their bones, take a whole afternoon to steal one from another dog in the pack and hide it, delaying gratification (gnawing the bone) until they think no ones looking. I voted no.

[djm]

Is this the difference between us and any other nonsentient being? That we want things, and don't just merely react? Or is there something more?

Most humans do 'just merely react' though.


No actually it's the ability to delay gratification that makes us human...

If that were the case then the current economic meltdown would not be happening.


Many other animals do this too. Herd animals like horses, elephants, and whales teach their young where to graze or find food. Predators do the same, actually. How to hunt, how to behave, how to attract a mate...-- most of the time, these essential codes of conduct must be taught rather than simply catalyzed.

Humans are for the most part herd animals.


So based on this standard, many animals must be human.

More to the point, the statement could be rearranged as 'based on this standard many humans must be animal'.


err... To compare human innovation to termites is a stretch don'tcha think?

Yes, most humans are not capable of the complexity that most termite colonies exhibit. Human innovation is an erroneous term, innovation is normally down to a few individuals. The fact that the majority of the masses can benefit from the ability of the few is what really differentiates humans from other animals.


Being capable of self-evaluation seems to neatly fit...

Another one that most people are not capable of.

[Ferrus]

Yes, I often think that the vast majority of problems with human civilisation (and the great apes, although they are still at tribal level and thus their problems are more in proportion) are down to the fact that we are something of a half-way house, lacking the long eusocial evolution of say, ants or even wolves/dogs but not being capable of solitary living either. And different individuals seem to display differences in social adaptation compared to social insects. Human society is an imperfectly gelled mass, but I still can't help but feel we are more adapted to smaller communities than exist at present. Village and tribal life seems the best circumstance.

Hmm, human 'innovation' has only existed for maybe 5000 years, before that out technological advancement wasn't much greater than chimpanzees. I wonder if the innovators exist as a specific genetic adaptation that have been selected in certain numbers or are merely an accidental by-product of human interaction with the enviroment. There is some evidence that the class system has a genetic element to it.

As for the OP, that is what makes us sentient, yes. Husserl, Bretano and Heidegger (through the guise of the ready-at-hand) wrote about intentionality, and consciousness does seem to be consciousness about something. It is not simple desire though, as all animals have that. It is more the ability to form abstract, conceptual desires that makes us human.

[djm]

Yes, I often think that the vast majority of problems with human civilisation (and the great apes, although they are still at tribal level and thus their problems are more in proportion) are down to the fact that we are something of a half-way house, lacking the long eusocial evolution of say, ants or even wolves/dogs but not being capable of solitary living either. And different individuals seem to display differences in social adaptation compared to social insects. Human society is an imperfectly gelled mass, but I still can't help but feel we are more adapted to smaller communities than exist at present. Village and tribal life seems the best circumstance.

Agree, the human world would be more at ease with itself were the masses to be placed back in villages with a lower level of technology and told what to do.


Hmm, human 'innovation' has only existed for maybe 5000 years, before that out technological advancement wasn't much greater than chimpanzees. I wonder if the innovators exist as a specific genetic adaptation that have been selected in certain numbers or are merely an accidental by-product of human interaction with the enviroment. There is some evidence that the class system has a genetic element to it.

It's certainly possible. But it does not seem to confer any reproductary advantage as for every James Watt there there are a million dullards. The problem is that the work of the great benefits the common man, elevating the weak to a position they would never attain in natural circumstances. This is what will eventually destroy humanity, as giving people that do not have intellect the ability to mass consume will end up with us destroying our ecosystem. Nature always wins in the end.


As for the OP, that is what makes us sentient, yes. Husserl, Bretano and Heidegger (through the guise of the ready-at-hand) wrote about intentionality, and consciousness does seem to be consciousness about something. It is not simple desire though, as all animals have that. It is more the ability to form abstract, conceptual desires that makes us human.

Yes, and Nietzsche also. The argument is 'desire for what?'.