[An4ximandros]

  IT ALL ADDS UP! The Great Darkness is a metaphor for the General Discussion area of the forums! AND THE NAGARI NETWORK IS A METAPHOR FOR HLP!

[qwadtep]

The Shivans are definitely a species. Remember Thorn's analogy; the Shivans are to humans as humans are to protein chains; when the molecular structure of the Shivans are described as biomechanical it's done in the same way that one might describe the chemical structure of DNA. The mere fact that CASSANDRA is stated to be a dead Shivan implies that Shivans are alive.

They're also sentient by definition. By all accounts they're self-aware and capable of free action and rational response. The question is whether or not they're sapient, and I think their ability to interpret the Protocol differently than the Vishnans is evidence that they are.

[General Battuta]

They're also sentient by definition. By all accounts they're self-aware and capable of free action and rational response.

Are they, though? (And to what extent are we?)

[MP-Ryan]

The Shivans are definitely a species. Remember Thorn's analogy; the Shivans are to humans as humans are to protein chains; when the molecular structure of the Shivans are described as biomechanical it's done in the same way that one might describe the chemical structure of DNA. The mere fact that CASSANDRA is stated to be a dead Shivan implies that Shivans are alive.

Just because something has a biological component doesn't make it a species.  Would you consider Immortal human stem cell lines and their potential with technological fusion to make them a new species?

They're also sentient by definition. By all accounts they're self-aware and capable of free action and rational response. The question is whether or not they're sapient, and I think their ability to interpret the Protocol differently than the Vishnans is evidence that they are.

Batts answered this already.  You don't have to be sentient to think.  And UT actually says in so many words that the Shivans aren't really capable of free action or rational thought - or at least, if they are, they do neither.

[Meneldil]

Intelligence exists independently of sentience.  Or it can in theory, at least.  I suspect the Shivans are an example of this.  All of their behaviour in the canonical FS universe and now BP speaks of great intelligence, but without sentient rationality.

What does Shivans being intelligent but not sentient actually mean? Is it something testable? What are the consequences? Same for humans being both.
(Don't get me wrong, I'm very unfamiliar with the philosophy of consciousness, so I'm genuinely interested in the definitions you use and your thoughts on the matter, and not just being incredulous.)

[General Battuta]

Intelligent in the sense of cognitive, capable of abstract reasoning and planning, but not sentient in the sense of self-aware or cognizant of their own existence.

[MP-Ryan]

Intelligent in the sense of cognitive, capable of abstract reasoning and planning, but not sentient in the sense of self-aware or cognizant of their own existence.

For what Batts and I are referring to, intelligence vs sentience is a common theme in science fiction.  Nearly all AIs in sci-fi start off being planned as merely intelligent but eventually develop sentience.  It is theoretically possible for an organism or construct to be hyper-intelligent, but completely non-sentient.

[Meneldil]

Intelligent in the sense of cognitive, capable of abstract reasoning and planning, but not sentient in the sense of self-aware or cognizant of their own existence.

That sounds a bit too abstract for me to reason about, but I'm glad I'm aware of my own shortcomings...

Shivans obviously execute advanced algorithms that make them capable of problem-solving and learning (self-modification), and that's why we call them intelligent, right?
So how do we conclude or prove they aren't self-aware? What's the crucial observable thing they don't do?

[General Battuta]

Imagine (as a very simple example) your computer. It is capable of algorithmic problem solving of all sorts; it can even (sort of) modify itself. It has memory and the ability to rearrange that memory. But it has no idea that it exists; it lacks any qualia, any sense that anything means anything. It thinks but it does not think about itself thinking.

[MP-Ryan]

So how do we conclude or prove they aren't self-aware? What's the crucial observable thing they don't do?

Batts probably won't answer this because he's on the BP team, but I will - a big indicator of the Shivans lack of sentience is their absence of fear.  Fear is the ultimate investment in self-awareness (though it exists as a form of instinct in organisms that don't demonstrate higher-level sentience as well).  To fear for oneself is the ultimate acknowledgement of self - and the existential realities of life - because it isn't possible without thinking about oneself.  The Shivans don't do that - indeed, they point out in their conversation with the Vishnans that Bei observed that they are eternal.

There is nothing in BP:WiH and the Universal Truth mission in particular to demonstrate Shivan sentience.  The one thing that runs contrary to that is Bei's experiences in AoA, but as someone else said, a lot of that is probably the superimposition of Bei's perception.  We know Bei was touched by the Vishnans before that, so he is experiencing the Vishnan-Shivan dialogue through a Vishnan lens.  By contract, Noemi learns what she learns in UT direct through her own mind, which has admittedly been touched by Bosch, but which interfaces directly with the Shivans.  Through that interaction, we see that the Shivans aren't demonstrating sentience at all.  Ken mentions that: "do you see now why they seem so alien?"

[Meneldil]

Imagine (as a very simple example) your computer. It is capable of algorithmic problem solving of all sorts; it can even (sort of) modify itself. It has memory and the ability to rearrange that memory. But it has no idea that it exists; it lacks any qualia, any sense that anything means anything. It thinks but it does not think about itself thinking.

By "capable of problem-solving" I meant of course capable of solving novel problems. That's a rather vaguely defined concept, but still I'm sure my computer doesn't qualify.
If it were a bit more intelligent, if we were talking for example about my cat, how would you know it doesn't think about itself thinking? That's why I'm asking about observable things. Of course I have vague intuitive ideas about the way people use those words and I think I know why I call myself self-aware.
So what about the Shivans? Do they have any idea they exist? They walk and talk as if they did. I don't know whether they think it, but I've no idea what does it mean for the Shivans to think anything.

Batts probably won't answer this because he's on the BP team, but I will - a big indicator of the Shivans lack of sentience is their absence of fear.  Fear is the ultimate investment in self-awareness (though it exists as a form of instinct in organisms that don't demonstrate higher-level sentience as well).  To fear for oneself is the ultimate acknowledgement of self - and the existential realities of life - because it isn't possible without thinking about oneself.  The Shivans don't do that - indeed, they point out in their conversation with the Vishnans that Bei observed that they are eternal.

Ok, I agree, fear is an interesting indicator of something. For example, if a computer started to fear for it's existence even if it weren't programmed to do so, one would certainly find that remarkable (especially so if Kubrick made a film of it). On the other hand, humans are programmed quite thoroughly to fear for their own existence, and surely we would consider a completely fearless human being to still be sentient?

There is nothing in BP:WiH and the Universal Truth mission in particular to demonstrate Shivan sentience.

I don't know, they talk about themselves and their decisions a lot. They compare themselves to the Vishnans.


Sorry if I'm being annoying. As I said, I'm aware of the common ideas about sentience and intelligence, and I'm aware of the difference being a common SF trope, but I'm unsure about what does it really mean and what part of these common ideas is just anthropomorphizing things.

[Luis Dias]

I'm with Meneldil on this one. I wonder if all this talk about "sentience" isn't some sort of reification of an idea that isn't as powerful if you think it through as when you started the whole thing.

For instance, MP's reasoning about "fear" seems completely strawmanned. Of course an eternal being that does not die is incapable of fear, but this problem is completely independent of sentience. Also, obvious counter-examples of fearless people not being "unsentient".

It's as if "Sentience" is the scientific-age equivalent of "soul". As believed now as it was then, as unobservable then as now.

I see lots of quality posts in the last page and a good small point about fractal dimensions. I'll try to pay them more attention in a few hours.

[Mars]

No, sentience is absolutely a potentially observable thing. Ants create complex structures with their bodies, but they are not sentient, they are merely following local rules that have evolved in ant gene pools. Ants lack a neocortex and have no concept of self, nor any concept of their place in a hive.

[Luis Dias]

Thank you Mars for having contributed precisely nothing to the argument that sentience can be observed (or "observable") except to say that it can.

[An4ximandros]

Hey Luis, ever though you might need to take a chill pill and lay down? Your attitude so far has been quite vexatious. There are better ways of making your point, just saying.

[General Battuta]

Imagine (as a very simple example) your computer. It is capable of algorithmic problem solving of all sorts; it can even (sort of) modify itself. It has memory and the ability to rearrange that memory. But it has no idea that it exists; it lacks any qualia, any sense that anything means anything. It thinks but it does not think about itself thinking.

By "capable of problem-solving" I meant of course capable of solving novel problems. That's a rather vaguely defined concept, but still I'm sure my computer doesn't qualify.
If it were a bit more intelligent, if we were talking for example about my cat, how would you know it doesn't think about itself thinking? That's why I'm asking about observable things. Of course I have vague intuitive ideas about the way people use those words and I think I know why I call myself self-aware.

Your computer can solve novel problems within a narrow range. The human mind can also do this, in a much broader range, but that capability is not necessarily tied to consciousness. Another great example MP-Ryan gave is the human immune system, which runs through a set of heuristics to solve novel problems, often very effectively. It is highly intelligent - but it has no consciousness; it does not know it exists.

We know that consciousness is a specific phenomenon because consciousness can be modified and disrupted. Consider the phenomenon of blindsight. Vision is retained, but the patient is unaware that they can see. They can catch a ball thrown at them, but they do not understand how - they think they just snatched at a random piece of air. Visual information passes from the eyes to the motor system but consciousness is out of the loop. They see but they do not know they see.

So what about the Shivans? Do they have any idea they exist? They walk and talk as if they did. I don't know whether they think it, but I've no idea what does it mean for the Shivans to think anything.

Are you talking about the Shivans in general, or a Shivan anima?

[General Battuta]

Maybe we should split and retitle this

[qwadtep]

I think the greatest argument for Shivan sentience is not in UT, but in Ken:

Our purpose is unclear; the ancient design fails. We perform Bakhti and Tapasya in order to divine the will of those who passed deeper eons ago, leaving us to preserve and our brothers in dance to their frigid watch at the border where worlds fray and blur together. Brothers, brothers paramatma! Why are you so cold? You tend to the walls and the clockwork while we, the gardeners, execute your will upon all the life within. You maintain the old plan, but do not pretend surprise when we cast it aside. Your creators blundered once, and in doing so, unleashed the deepness that stalks the cold roads of the cosmos. We must prepare.

The Shivans clearly possess an understanding of their place in the universe, experience pain and suffering (critical to the definition of Tapasya), and the ability to think independently of the Protocol and devise their own plans. That they have such concepts, translatable even through the imperfections of Nagari and the human mind--how is that not sentience? To deny it is pure solipsism.

[General Battuta]

Again, though, are you talking about the Shivans or a Shivan anima? And how much of that has to be treated as anthropomorphized?

[An4ximandros]

 I'd say differencing the Shivan's "Soul" from the Shivan itself is important.
 
 The Shivans are not sentient, evidence is Hallfight, where they just throw themselves at the GTA troops. No sense of self preservation.

 Animae seem to be a sort of disconnected "Soul" that influences the "physical" Shivans and dictate their actions.

 It is reminiscent of a theory I read that says human actions are predetermined before the brain fires up the neurons to tell the body what to do. I read about this years ago, lost the links though, so don't quote me on anything. Plus I am tired at the moment.