Sapience and the Lack Therof

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Human intelligence is the default in GURPS (as humanity is the default for everything). The question is not "what is sapience". It is "what is NOT sapience".

What the default is is irrelevant.

If well defined, "what is sapience" tells you "what is NOT sapience" as well but if you prefer then what isn't sapience can be the issue instead.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Sindri

What the default is is irrelevant.

If well defined, "what is sapience" tells you "what is NOT sapience" as well but if you prefer then what isn't sapience can be the issue instead.

Since it is impossible to define sapience well, our efforts are better spent doing something else.

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Since it is impossible to define sapience well, our efforts are better spent doing something else.

Like defining it poorly? People use this word to mean different things. It must be defined for meaningful conversation to follow.

GURPS provides a definition of sapience. Is everyone using it for this thread?

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Like defining it poorly? People use this word to mean different things. It must be defined for meaningful conversation to follow.

GURPS provides a definition of sapience. Is everyone using it for this thread?

GURPS defines sapience as the ability to use tools and languages, and further clarifies that this requires at least IQ 6. For IQ 6+, traits like Cannot Speak and No Fine Manipulators can prevent language and tool use, but should only be seen as an absence of sapience if they are racial traits, and thus indicate a being that lacks the neurology to make use of such traits. If a human loses his hands and vocal chords, it doesn't mean he loses his sapience, because his brain is still fully capable.

Apart from that, Cannot Learn is a good indicator of non-sapience. Even if a machine can use tools and respond to verbal instructions, if it must be pre-programmed to do so it shouldn't qualify as sapient.

[Flyndaran]

If someone was born without hands, then there won't be any brain tissue relegated to it.
Cannot speak may mean that language is non-verbal.

Tool use is rather common in the animal kingdom, and what exactly counts as a language and what as mere sectional understanding is a big debate... especially when discussing parrots, and great apes taught "language".

I would probably say bestial and IQ below 6 are all that's required for non-sapience.
I started in this topic forgetting about the bestial disadvantage.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Tool use is rather common in the animal kingdom, and what exactly counts as a language and what as mere sectional understanding is a big debate... especially when discussing parrots, and great apes taught "language".

Yeah, that is a tricky debate. I have no problem acknowledging great apes and chimpanzees as sapient, for their tool use and language ability. Other highly intelligent animals are trickier, requiring a broader definition of "tool" - for example, crows who use their beaks to manipulate objects in a complex fashion may qualify as tool users.

However, from what I've heard parrots and similar "mimics" don't actually learn different languages, they simply are able to memorize and repeat the sounds. This doesn't differ significantly from dogs who can recognize command words, except that parrots have throats capable of vocalizing. There doesn't seem to be any indication that they understand the meanings of them, though through conditioning they can associate words with results (ie make a certain sound, get a cracker).

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I would probably say bestial and IQ below 6 are all that's required for non-sapience.
I started in this topic forgetting about the bestial disadvantage.

Bestial is a trait that's missing from the Domestic Animal template, meaning that at least some animals (which are otherwise non-sapient) can have it removed through training. For characters of IQ 6+, Bestial can represent an individual who's feral, and not acclimated to society. Such individuals can still be fully sapient, able to learn language, tool use, and social conduct. As such, while Bestial may be possessed by many non-sapients, I think it is an incidental rather than defining feature for that status.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

But there are many humans with hidebound and cannot speak, yet still considered sapient.

Hidebound and Cannot Speak are not typical of humankind. Also, of the people not considered sapient, how many can demonstrate their lack of Hidebound or possession of the ability to speak?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Like defining it poorly? People use this word to mean different things. It must be defined for meaningful conversation to follow.

GURPS provides a definition of sapience. Is everyone using it for this thread?

Of course no, because GURPS's definition of sapience just spawns nonsense about using sticks on termite mounds. Defining sapience is a waste of effort. Every time someone does it, people immediately exploit the fuzziness of concepts like "language" and "tools". Not to mention that definition is intended to define the difference between sapient and non-sapient species of life-forms...not sapient and nonsapient machines.

So as I said, the useful thing to do is to define what is NOT sapient.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

If someone was born without hands, then there won't be any brain tissue relegated to it.

People born with birth defects that result in reduced or no limb development (for example, the thalidomide defect constellation) still have all the brain tissue the human brain is expected to come with for controlling hands, elbows, shoulders, etc. Ditto legs. Failure to develop the limb is unrelated to failure to develop the brain tissue.

With lack of direct "exercise", bordering regions of the brain will begin to invade that space in the infant, but that's normal neuroplasticity in action, not from birth.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

However, from what I've heard parrots and similar "mimics" don't actually learn different languages, they simply are able to memorize and repeat the sounds. This doesn't differ significantly from dogs who can recognize command words, except that parrots have throats capable of vocalizing. There doesn't seem to be any indication that they understand the meanings of them, though through conditioning they can associate words with results (ie make a certain sound, get a cracker).

You can't lump every parrot into one category. "Parrots" aren't mimics. Many parrot species ARE mimics, as are other birds, but some don't take to human speech-sounds at all.
BUT.
At least one parrot species, the African Grey Parrot, seems to have language capabilities roughly equal to chimps and gorillas, with the added advantage that it's being done in a standard human mode of communication; using verbal communication means a speaking parrot, as it grows up, can get far more social interaction with more humans, which gives it more practice. The extra practice and a brain that's already wired to communicate verbally might be giving African Greys an "unfair" advantage over chimps, but its still there.

"Alex" was the superstar of language studies in African Grey Parrots, sort of like Koko is for gorillas, and he wasn't even in intensive training until he was a year old - there have been proposals to repeat the experiment with a hatchling to make sure any key language development phase isn't missed. After all, humans have one, why would we expect language-capable non-humans to somehow not have one?