simple test: if you can't predict the behaviour of something then it's conscious (sentient).
because if you can then the thing doesn't have its own mind to make decisions.
because if you can then the thing doesn't have its own mind to make decisions.
Or, every mechanism in the physical world has some (occasionally very low) chance of behaving unpredictably (for devices we designed for some purpose, we usually call this something like failure/error). For example, an airplane engine may unpredictably fail. Do airplanes gain additional sentience as maintenance is put off?
that's just high probability guess work at the best. what I mean by conscious is you won't be able to predict each and every move of a living thing throughout their lifetime. Nobody "designed" us unlike machines or algorithms. We do not have any function to perform (ironically the cause of all misery :P )
> For example, an airplane engine may unpredictably fail.
same argument you can make for the unpredictable direction of wind or the probability of rain. But, still these things are bound by the laws of physics and chemistry hence theoretically 100% predictable.
That's rather a difficult test. Let me give you a simple one: can you predict yourself i.e. your own behaviour? you could at most make high probability guesses but you won't always know what you gonna do unless and until you are faced with that situation
Try to look at it from this perspective:
We are made of 2 things: 1. consciousness and 2. a physical body. Only way to operate in this physical world is via a physical body so our bodies are bound to the laws of physics and chemistry.
When someone dies their physical body is still part of this physical world but not their consciousness. Consciousness is like a visitor to this physical world.. it doesn't belong here so laws are not applicable either.
When philosophers separate the world into 'high probability guess work' and 'logically provable laws,' pretty much all of experimental science gets put in the former bucket.
I think the level of precision in describing behavior can't be it. If we assume human minds are by definition sentient, we can imagine all sorts of hypotheticals -- plug a brain into a virtual reality with very constrained choices, and you'll I guess be able to construct a situation in which it behaves very predictably. Do it from birth, and we've chipped away at your 'lifetime' objection. I think we'll have trouble getting the ethics board to approve this one.