Sentience...

wow - it took over 15 minutes to believe my eyes thanks for coming back and sharing, OWD.

So "sentience" might often be used as a "class distinction"... and as such I would regard it erroneous. Mostly to the fact that humans tend to look at other organisms from outside, caught up in their own conceptions and delusions.

This "mind" most of us are using for determination can actually pose a greater hurdle than it comes as a blessing - depending on its usage.

I'm not certain you are there, but I follow on that slope of "capacity". In "perception", "processing" and "expression" (of sentience) - this said we're still to understand exactly how much plants (and animals) do communicate with each other (on which topics) and to exactly read their way of expression. One might be surprised what is in the craw of a crow.

Maybe a tree neither feels the necessity to mourn nor to suffer, or simply does it in a way we can't understand it due to our limitations.

From the first part of your response I take one thing:

Is "sentience" applicable for the human level alone? Or are we trying to compare a... MIG23 with a... mountain bike? Both specifically designed for their environment and (better) not to be exchanged for one another...

From the second part of your post I take:

Though it could take less animal products to feed a human being sufficiently than it takes plant products (the current dietary habits of many carnivores set aside), not ethical - just maths.

A cow for example feeds on a variety of plant life, but grazing itself mostly involves "grass". Itself a rather simple and perennial plant life form. Can be mowed, grows back...

But before now embarking on a rather lengthy journey, it's helpful to cut it down: (disclaimer: I personally oppose the current industrial farming of livestock - no question that it's inhumane and perverted; poses the source of unnecessary suffering on a large scale; spoils the environment to an intolerable degree. Which is why I do subscribe to "the numbers game" myself.)

Have you ever considered that this "suffering" referred to, might be a mere human conception?

When looking at nature, it is apparent that (physical) life and death are two inevitable components. Pain as such is also... inevitable.

Is "suffering" a human invention? A mere concept?

Don't get me wrong: empathy, true empathy is a gift. Projection on the other hand is a curse.

This is a philosophy student's answer, but in ethical discourse "sentience" is used to denote the ability to suffer (whatever that happens to mean). It is also sometimes used, largely outside of analytic philosophy, to denote what most philosophers call "sapience", or possessing of some manner of intentionality (where "intentionality" is a further technical term)...

I recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online for more on what the terminology means in academic philosophy (which is probably where a lot of translators of Buddhist ideas borrow their terminology from).

hahaha I actually ho ho'ed before I laughed while reading that. God I hope I'm not the only one to find that funny.

Why funny exactly?

Oh it wasn't at your expense I promise. If I explained it it wouldn't be funny.

I think I understand why it might be amusing.

Also, I can handle amusement at my expense; what I was mostly worried about was being grossly incorrect without somehow knowing it

quite interesting...

"sentience denotes the ability to suffer"... gives food for thought.

Animals (or plants) are not able to suffer to the same extent that humans are, thus they are not (as) sentient as humans are and thus we can kill and eat them without suffering from remorse...

I've already expressed that I absolutely doubt any underlying philosophy of any religious concept to still be "pure" or the way their founding mothers/ fathers have intended them... so to me it doesn't really matter how much Buddhists today borrow or not. "- isms" by large don't appeal to me.

Thanks for pointing out the Stanford website, right now I'm a bit short of time but I willl browse it and shall return thereafter...

in the meantime merry x-mas

Hey, Tom!

Are YOU sentient?

Oh, you are? Then prove it.

Interesting documentary on the (undiscovered) life of plants...

Yet it didn't even reference my favorite botanical documentary, Day of the Triffids...

how would you know? you didn't even watch 30% ...

Hmmm... Buddhist ideas + Stanford =

I know because it's funnier my way.

SE: telling from the time you posted your reply, you were not able to watch even 30% of the documentary - so how would you know that "day of the triffids" would not be referenced?

now - "sentience" is all about "being funny" and unsolved equations... ?

wow the video on a tour through reality blew my mind wow

I think it's all funny because when we start applying this term to plants we are in danger of loosing maple syrup because of unnecessary stress on the tree or subjecting produce to the torment of refrigeration. We may as well return to hunter gatherers and give a general disregard to our own nature.

possibly...

One Wheel Dave once put it this way: ~ many vegetarians only play a numbers game ~ meaning that by consuming plants they only aim to minimize their impact of suffering on the planet (as in their opinion meat already contains accumulated suffering)...

it is in the nature of the human mind to simplify things and thus to blur the fact that plants might have emotions - and that other life forms do feel compassion and do have conception.

My personal approach is less about loosing maple syrup - or steak - it is more about realizing where it comes from, and... (*) Many "civilized" people simply don't (want to) realize. They eat beef but would never eat horse or dog. I personally (for the first time in my entire life) cleaned fish from its intestines (before putting it on the grill) and saw the chicken before its life been taken.

(*) for me it's more about awareness and gratitude.

"Perhaps it would be useful to move away from senient/not-sentient to the idea of degrees of sentiency."

Thank you for that view OWD.

I would think that in doing this we are also placing some sort of value system upon the degrees of sentience. How would we make the comparison? Does dog awareness equate to only 20% of a human? This leaves room for debate on weather or not we would diminish suffering with the adaptation of vegetarian lifestyles.

We would increase the amount of suffering on plants. We would be consigning countless millions of livestock to oblivion because they no longer serve our purposes. I would think in degrees of sentience, suffering mainly, that we would be inflicting suffering upon the farmer that depends on these animals economically.

FT, I think your last statement was defiantly food for thought to all of whom, do not consider such things. It was a beautiful thing. Being grateful and giving consideration for the value of life is something that many 'civilized' cultures do fail to recognize because they think it's unnecessary, but it is if you are truly civilized.

Thanks for sharing that personal realization with us FT.