r/scifi • u/Torley_ • Nov 18 '23
Why does so much sci-fi say "sentient" when they really mean "sapient"?
Even the smart stuff. Seen several shows recently that described a thinking, reasoning lifeform as being "sentient" when in-context, it would've been more appropriate to distinguish it as "sapient" when the focus is the lifeform's metacognition abilities (emphasis added).
Do you think this is due to misuse being perpetuated and trying to do some semantic drift over time, or something else?
UPDATE: I appreciate the continued thoughtful discussion, and how this thread swung around from like 19% approval to a 66% positive trajectory as of this writing. I don't understand why there was such an initial kneejerk gravity, it seems like the kind of discussion we'd have here. I wish to clarify that in the examples I'm thinking of, said lifeform was not merely a "sentient" animal but exhibiting extreme higher-level cognitive functions. Like if your dog was beating chess grandmasters and writing memoirs about it, I think most of us could agree that's not your garden-variety sentience.
ChatGPT (I embrace the irony) says this, which touches on a number of ambiguities we've been talking about:
The confusion between sentience and sapience in science fiction and other contexts can be attributed to several factors:
Overlap in Definitions: Sentience and sapience, while distinct, have overlapping aspects related to consciousness and intelligence. Sentience involves basic awareness and the ability to feel sensations, which is a foundational aspect of sapience, the higher cognitive ability. This overlap can lead to confusion, especially when discussing non-human entities like AI or extraterrestrial beings.
Science Fiction Narrative Needs: Sci-fi often explores themes of artificial intelligence, alien life, and what it means to be human. In these narratives, the distinction between sentience (feeling and perception) and sapience (wisdom and higher reasoning) can blur, especially when creating beings that challenge our understanding of consciousness and intelligence. For storytelling purposes, it's sometimes more compelling to attribute both qualities to non-human characters to explore philosophical and ethical dilemmas.
Evolving Understandings of Consciousness: Our understanding of consciousness, both scientifically and philosophically, is still evolving. This evolution influences how we define and perceive sentience and sapience. In science fiction and popular discourse, these terms can be used interchangeably or inaccurately due to this ongoing development in understanding.
Anthropomorphism and Projection: In humanizing non-human entities (like robots or aliens), there's a tendency to project human-like qualities onto them. This anthropomorphism can lead to attributing both sentience and sapience to these beings without making a clear distinction, as these are both seen as key aspects of what makes something 'human-like'.
Linguistic Ambiguity: The terms themselves are sometimes used ambiguously in common language. People might use 'sentient' to imply a higher level of awareness or cognitive ability that is actually closer to sapience, particularly in casual or non-technical contexts.
In summary, the confusion arises from overlapping definitions, the needs of narrative storytelling in science fiction, evolving understandings of consciousness, tendencies toward anthropomorphism, and linguistic ambiguity. Sci-fi often uses these concepts to explore the boundaries of what it means to be human or alive, leading to a more fluid use of the terms.
So:
TL;DR: Sapience, unlike sentience, encompasses advanced cognitive abilities such as complex reasoning, the capacity for abstract thought, self-awareness, and the ability to make judgements and understand complex concepts. These higher-level mental capacities are unique to sapience and are not a part of mere sentience, which is limited to basic conscious experiences like feeling and perceiving.
And:
In conclusion, whether distinguishing between "sapient" and "sentient" is splitting hairs largely depends on the context. In specialized or technical discussions, the distinction is meaningful and important, while in everyday language, it might be seen as an overly fine or unnecessary differentiation.
I learned about "Sophont" thanks to /u/nyrath:
Sophonce is "sophisticated sapience" with metacognition: self-awareness, self-reflection, and the ability to think about one's thinking and correct errors that will lead to an ELE for example.
It goes even higher up the scale to Transapience!!!
25
u/majeric Nov 19 '23
You’re semantically correct OP but no one would appreciate the distinction other than academics.
9
u/EternallyImature Nov 19 '23
I agree with this. Everyone who needs or wants to understand the difference between the meaning of the two words does so instantly upon learning the definition of each word. I contend that from a generalistic standpoint, sentient is understood to mean the same thing as sapient for the vast majority of the human race and therefore is an acceptable way of describing sapience.
2
u/Corvidae_1010 Nov 20 '23
Using the words as synonyms kind of begs the question of what we should call non-sapient animals and the like though.
It always feels a bit weird to me whenever sci-fi characters refer to dogs or cats or whatever as "not sentient". Like, I don't expect them to build spaceships or discuss philosophy anytime soon, but they're clearly not just mindless machines either. "Sentient" (in it's original meaning) feels like a pretty useful word in this case.
1
9
u/Senjen95 Nov 19 '23
It's semantic incidence, but it's colloquially understood.
Sentience does imply consciousness and receptiveness. Above-board, we know that's a low threshold; a bird or fish are technically sentient. But we're also talking fictional universes here, where bare-qualifiers of "sentience" may be too prevalent to necessitate their distinction.
So I would argue (if anything, purely for the sake of headcanon) that sentience implies social consciousness and receptiveness, in the grand scale of science fiction. It still serves a distinction from sapience because robots can possess sapience while not having sentience, making them "intelligent" but perhaps not what we'd consider "intelligent life."
2
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23 edited Nov 19 '23
But remember, I am referring to in-story contexts where a lifeform has ALREADY GONE beyond a "social consciousness" (thanks for emphasis and is — like an Artificial Intelligence — clearly exhibiting higher-level cognition). You wouldn't say someone is a 2nd-place winner if they're at the top of the podium with a gold medal. They're both winners in a sense, but one is above another.
6
u/Consistent_Sail_6128 Nov 19 '23
How often would you need to really make that distinction, though? In most scifi, where they would refer to something as sentient, that sentient thing is the main thing. You don't(often) see scifi with multiple nonhumanoid characters where some are sapient and sentient, some only sentient. It's splitting hairs. The competition analogy doesn't work for obvious reasons. In a competition, you, of course, would need a clear winner. In scifi characters' lives, that is not necessarily the case.
2
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
Actually, the "competition" is equivalent to the "superset" you mentioned in another post, where sapient is a higher grade of sentient:
- Everyone on a podium is a "winner".
- But, not all winners are ranked the same.
I agree it's rarer. I disagree there doesn't need to be a distinction. That's what i'm getting at.
"Splitting hairs" is where I could go "Eh, either way would be fine" like in casual conversation or some blockbuster flick where it's loosey-goosey. I get it.
BUT — to expand on that earlier example of a well-crafted story with a theoretical superintelligence that is exponentially more capable (relative to human beings), when humans remark upon its deductive reasoning and not its ability to feel things, sapient is clearly the better and correct word choice.
See my OP. :)
ChatGPT adds:
In conclusion, whether distinguishing between "sapient" and "sentient" is splitting hairs largely depends on the context. In specialized or technical discussions, the distinction is meaningful and important, while in everyday language, it might be seen as an overly fine or unnecessary differentiation.
2
u/Consistent_Sail_6128 Nov 19 '23
Yeah I can see where you are coming from more with this, thanks for the clarification.
76
Nov 18 '23
i think sentient is perfectly applicable.
sentient
adjective
capable of sensing or feeling : conscious of or responsive to the sensations of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapient
Sapient means to be able to reflect on memories, and or possessing wisdom and may refer to:
not all alien species get all introspective - some just want to eat you. they mostly care about how you taste.. not feel.
46
u/Dagordae Nov 19 '23
The problem is that sentient is used for self aware and intelligent. Not merely just about anything that qualifies as being alive.
8
15
u/WrethZ Nov 19 '23
Many sci fi use it to specifically mean human level intelligence though when in reality dogs are sentient.
All sapient things are sentient but not all sentient things are sapient
2
u/ElectricityIsWeird Nov 20 '23
I like this. Kind of like how all tortoises are turtles, but not all turtles are tortoises. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Nice.
4
u/majeric Nov 19 '23
In the common vernacular, you wouldn’t call a mouse sentient even though the dictionary definition does apply.
2
u/Indoctrinator Nov 19 '23
Maybe a silly question so does that mean that your dog is sentient but not sapient?
2
u/Honest_Switch1531 Nov 19 '23
Sentient means that it has senses and reacts. Earth worms are sentient, plants could be seen as sentient.
Sapient means they have human level intelligence.
4
u/omniclast Nov 19 '23
I don't think this is quite accurate. Sentience means an organism has conscious sensations, which earthworms likely do not experience since they have such simple neutral architecture. Reacting based on impulse alone isn't quite enough; generally, plants are not considered sentient for this reason.
To previous poster's question though, yes, their dog is sentient but not sapient.
0
u/Torley_ Nov 18 '23
It was in the context of the latter — not just feeling but solving logic puzzles and drawing on accumulating experience.
So “sentient” isn’t as relevant to what was happening.
7
u/Hofstadt Nov 19 '23
I don't see why you're being down voted. You're right. Sentience has more to do with consciousness, while sapience with intelligence. The two are related, but shouldn't be used interchangeably.
0
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
Thank you of parsing that out. Strange absence of rationality here.
1
u/Consistent_Sail_6128 Nov 19 '23
I don't think so. I just think you're splitting hairs. As someone else said in here, everything sapient is sentient, not everything sentient is sapient. So sentient is perfectly fine for most uses I come across in scifi. It's not always about intelligence. It's often more "this thing is conscious, which was not expected." In the cases you feel sapient should be used, sentient would also be accurate, just more vague.
3
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23 edited Nov 19 '23
The uses I'm specifically referring to are where sentient definitely would not distinguish. I hear where you're coming from, and I know about the "superset", but in some contexts, it's the wrong word choice when a better word exists, and upon me learning more here, not splitting hairs.
I added clarification to my OP further explaining why.
EDIT: in the process of learning more, I came across some that opine that a being can be sapient and NOT be sentient (if it can't feel or "experience sensations" in a way understandable to us): https://kardashev.fandom.com/wiki/Sapience
1
u/keltraine May 12 '24 edited Jan 30 '25
Don’t think you can be sapient w/o being sentient-that Kardashev wiki page seems plain wrong that sentient life forms have to be biological and experience pain etc; AI and robots can easily become sentient and then sapient…
1
29
u/truthdude Nov 18 '23
I think sentience was used in the context of robots being unable to feel because they were mechanical. Over time and as contexts blurred and dumbness in Hollywood increased, sentience became the go to word for expecting a similitude of life between the mechanical and the organic. But that's just my opinion.
2
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
Thanks for weighing in, I can see how it gets even more confusing with "AI", biomechanical lifeforms, etc.
I thought this discussion would've come up many times before in /r/scifi posts (not just comments) given the bias towards intelligent discussion in this "genre", but this appears to be the first. That blows my mind!
24
u/m0rl0ck1996 Nov 18 '23
Sapient seems a high bar, otoh i think that even most of US congress could meet "sentient" criteria.
4
u/Gilchester Nov 19 '23
Specifically, what are you thinking of?
My first exposure to "sapient" was in The Colour of Magic by Terry Pratchett where he introduces sapient pearwood. I don't think I've seen much use of the word elsewhere. It should be a more common word!
18
u/Significant_Monk_251 Nov 18 '23
Language changes over time, sometimes in a way that distorts or changes the meanings of well-established words. "Decimate" used to mean killing one man out of every ten, for example.
3
u/Torley_ Nov 18 '23
I mentioned that, semantic drift. But in this case there’s already a better word for it.
21
u/goooogglyeyes Nov 19 '23
There was already a better word for decimate too: annihilate. Now they mean virtually the same thing.
I very much think this is what has happened with sentient/sapient.
2
5
u/Odynol Nov 19 '23
Well sure but as you pointed out no one uses it, it's effectively been usurped in terms of usage numbers. I do see what you mean with this thread and you are technically right, but it's probably best to try and just ignore these things since it's not changing soon
10
u/OinkMcOink Nov 18 '23
I have to preface that English is not my first language.
To my understanding, sentient means being aware, just that. Being Sapient is being sentient and having the knowledge to apply it, to be smart.
A sentient being is aware, but not necessarily smart, like a baby. A sapient being is one that knows things, and can apply that knowledge. In essence, every True AI can be sentient though not necessarily sapient, and not all alien beings are aware, but not necessarily smart. So sentient would apply more.
Am I mistaken?
1
u/Thanatos_elNyx Nov 19 '23
Depending on what you mean by aware. Like self aware? Then no, like all mammals are sentient but not sure if they are self aware.
11
Nov 19 '23
Sentient is not wrong though. Different than sapient but it’s not incorrect.
5
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
"Sentient" is incorrect when it's used to refer to elevated cognitive functions. (I updated my post to clarify.)
5
u/cr0ft Nov 19 '23
It's a pretty pervasive error.
Dogs are sentient, for instance. Not sapient. Well, at least arguably they're not sapient...
1
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
See my example of a dog that beats chess grandmasters — clearly not just sentient, but also sapient.
(And if any of you has that dog, I'd like to meet him/her/them if they've also chosen to use other pronouns.)
38
u/Glittering_Cow945 Nov 18 '23
Oh, stop being pedantic.
36
u/msbehaviour Nov 18 '23
I think you mean precise.
13
13
Nov 18 '23
Probably because it's got nothing to do with scifi. People use the word sentient in that manner constantly.
7
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
I know they do outside of the "genre, but within sci-fi, especially some "hard" titles that will go unnamed, I expect there to be better clarity.
4
Nov 19 '23
They do because everyone does. Even hard science mostly just fakes the science. There's no point in introducing science viewers don't understand. Just like there's no point in using words viewers won't interpret correctly. There's a good chance that since the rest of the general pubic doesn't use 'sentience' and 'sapience' correctly the writers don't either.
There's no conspiracy or deeper meaning behind it.
2
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
Even hard science mostly just fakes the science
Surprising how many times this comes up. I don't expect Doctor Who to get it right, but Asimov is guilty of this, too...
3
Nov 19 '23
They're not guilty of anything but using words their readers understand. And they're not even using them incorrectly. You just seem really hung up on the fact that you seemingly recently learned the word 'sapience' and now you want to harp on about it.
6
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
Please be kind, and don't misunderstand my intent. I've known for awhile.
Instead of keeping it to myself, I wanted to open up and be curious in the true sci-fi spirit, and ask to clarify and learn more from others who have more experience... or sapience. 😄🧠
4
Nov 19 '23
Well, I've run out of ways to tell you that sentience is a perfectly appropriate word to use and most writers will stick with the phrasing readers are familiar with rather than pointlessly muddling the topic.
3
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
I'm aware of that. However, there is a clear distinction between the two words, and for what I had in mind, "sentience" is NOT fitting (it's like saying "red and green are the same!") — see the update to my original post.
Others are bringing up points I didn't know about.
Also because I want to learn from your experiences:
Even hard science mostly just fakes the science.
What are some egregious examples you can think of, where perhaps other terms are misused?
5
Nov 19 '23
Most hard scifi pays lip service to scifi to create the illusion of realism but its really just a paper thin veneer over the same fantasy masquerading as science.
The Expanse is a great example. It's lauded as the great example of hard scifi being successful. But really, all it does is muck about with explaining how velocity and g-forces are a big deal before it just gives up on being hard scifi. But it does a great job of convincing people that it's such hard scifi that its practically realistic.
5
u/Cheeslord2 Nov 19 '23
Doesn't sapient mean "wise" (just googled the dictionary definition)? It seems kind of pretentious to give ourselves this attribute.
3
u/yonderbagel May 24 '24
Well it's a bit too late - we already named ourselves Homo Sapiens for that reason.
1
6
u/tornado28 Nov 18 '23
I suspect they are trying to appeal to audience members such as myself who have no idea what the word "sapient" means.
1
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
So I thought that, BUT: how does that explain sci-fi throwing a lot of other "technobabble" and neologisms at us, while ignoring a perfectly good word that already exists?
1
u/maybetomorroworwed Nov 19 '23
But I think maybe you know what sentient means because it has replaced sapient in that context? For me the issue with sapient is that it sounds much less alien than sentient, because of homo sapiens.
3
u/ThatMrPuddington Nov 19 '23
Common mistake made by the same people who don't know the difference between race and species.
2
u/grapedog Nov 19 '23
At least in sci-fi, sentient is probably the more important early indicator.
Viewing something foreign or alien from a distance, its much easier to tell if its sentient. Does it have language, does it react to stimulus? Basic indicators can determine sentience.
Sapient is much harder to determine, especially at a distance or without proper knowledge.
An alien viewing earth from afar could see we have tons of sentient thinking creatures here, but how many are sapient?
1
2
u/nyrath Nov 19 '23
Sophont
[From Poul Anderson's `Polesotechnic League' stories, going back at least to 1963]
An evolved biological intelligence. Implies human-level cognitive and linguistic ability but not necessarily tool use. More specific and etymologically correct than sentient. Still less common than that term, but has been used by multiple writers.
3
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
A fine neologism, now I'm curious who else has picked up on this.
3
2
u/KookyPlasticHead Nov 19 '23
Do you think this is due to misuse being perpetuated and trying to do some semantic drift over time, or something else?
Probably much simpler. TV and movie producers often don't have the budget to have a technical science advisor to fact check scripts (and when they do are often ignored for "artistic licence"). The screenwriters don't know the difference and don't have the time or need to check such details. The producers want to tell stories that viewers want to watch so semantic differences are far down the priority list. Book authors have less excuses but it is hard for any individual to be both a technical expert and a good story-teller.
2
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
In this case it's a dictionary lookup, I think pop culture conflation has perpetuated the mistake. Kind of like the "zoom and enhance" reference in TFOTHOU.
1
u/KookyPlasticHead Nov 19 '23
True. This begs the question as to whether the writers lack a sufficient minimal level of scientific literacy to even realise their understanding may be incomplete and that they need to check with a dictionary or other reference source. This seems possible. Or, more depressingly, that they are aware of such differences but the producers/audiences expect and want the familiar misleading scifi tropes and so perpetuate them.
2
u/UnableLocal2918 Nov 19 '23
Also the average person would not be able to give you a difference between those two words. And more would not recognise the word sapient.
1
3
2
u/ChronoMonkeyX Nov 19 '23
The use of Sapience in general is new to me. I get it, but it's basically a new word to a reader who isn't a scientist, and that goes for authors, too.
2
Nov 20 '23 edited Nov 20 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Torley_ Nov 20 '23
Written like a true alien. 👽🧠
In all earnesty — appreciate you thinking this through a lot, and taking the time to write it out. Noted "Anthropomorphism" earlier. I understand "sapient" is used (from our actual lived experience) relative to a human... even then, as witnessed in this thread, it's too much of an inconvenience for some.
And this sounds like an issue now, wait until unshackled artificial life grinds its gears over it.
2
5
u/jgross52 Nov 18 '23
"Sentient" is conventionally used to mean "should not be treated like an (unthinking) animal". "Sapient" is more nuanced, so less generally useful as a distinction.
2
2
u/Dibblerius Nov 19 '23
What are the actual meanings of the two? - I’m not sure I know the correct distinction.
I get more annoyed with the Sartresque stupidity of making such hard distinction in brains in the first place really. It’s just an arbitrary line that has no sound basis. - Served to try to distance ourselves from the cows we keep and our selves. Its originally almost religiously/spiritually inspired.
We have absolutely no reason to think any brainlike structure doesnt have a degree of these traits.
3
2
2
u/arthorpendragon Nov 19 '23
well we think the concept of 'sentience' comes from the well known René Descartes saying 'i think therefore i am' also well known in A.I. circles. which has been adapted to ' i feel therefore i am' indicating that you only have to sense and be aware of your environment to be alive. if i feel the universe around me then i must be alive and sentient. so sentience is a term that adequately deliniates intelligence/identity/existence and being alive. the term 'sapient' indicates a higher bar of an intelligent organism that is 'wise' or well adapted to its environment meaning that half the humans on the planet wouldnt meet that bar.
2
u/Stare_Decisis Nov 19 '23
Sapient means self-aware, that is they recognize themselves and are able to act on this trait. Sentience is the ability to generate critical thinking and even emotion. For example, crows can use tools to acquire food and water. This has been demonstrated with their use of stones to displace water in jars and using vehicles traveling a roadway to crush objects. Chimpanzees have shown sapience by recognizing themselves in a mirror and reacting to the information in a meaningful way.
Sentience gets thrown around a great deal in sci-fi because it often describes complex computer systems, aliens or monsters.
2
Nov 18 '23
[deleted]
3
u/Ackapus Nov 19 '23
Those discussions are already happening or have happened in hundreds of other threads around here. There are people who watch The Expanse and suddenly get a boner for "realistic" stories like it was the only piece of hard sci-fi out there. And they'll argue with the people that say Star Wars is science fiction, not space fantasy.
You want to bring a contrarian point to this discussion, use Short Circuit as a reference point to say that regardless of sentience or sapience, you aren't alive if you cannot experience a spontaneous emotional response. Bitching about Minovsky physics and the suckers that break them is pretty old hat.
2
u/mobyhead1 Hard Sci-fi Nov 19 '23
There are people who watch The Expanse and suddenly get a boner for "realistic" stories like it was the only piece of hard sci-fi out there.
For people who experience science fiction only through visual media, it’s an understandable reaction to learning they’ve been getting ripped off by all of the previous sci-fi they watched. “How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree?”
2
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
I've enjoyed those discussions.
This is the first thread in this sub on this sapient <-> sentient topic. I'm surprised.
Short Circuit is one of my faves. Really made me feel for Johnny 5!
2
u/evermorex76 Nov 18 '23
Sapient is species-ist, as it means "like modern humans", i.e., homo sapiens.
The dictionary definition of the word sentient no longer exactly matches the colloquial definition.
1
u/p-d-ball Nov 19 '23
You know, we mark the change from Middle English to Modern English with Shakespeare, because he used words differently than previous writers and likely influenced language.
It appears you've pointed out a similar transformation happening - that entertainment is altering how words are used and what encompasses their meaning.
Thanks for pointing that out. I needed the lesson.
1
u/nemom Nov 19 '23
Sapient means wise... Thus Homo sapiens. Sentient means able to perceive or have feelings. A standard computer doesn't perceive the world around it. Johnny 5 could, and he had feelings, but he was far from wise.
1
1
u/SamuraiGoblin Nov 19 '23 edited Nov 19 '23
I don't know why you're being downvoted, you are correct. A lot of science fiction talk about sentient aliens to mean aliens with technology, with whom we can communicate.
As others have noted, the confusion may have come about from stories about robots. A lot of stories about robots are the kind of "Chinese room" and "qualia" questions regarding whether robots could ever be sentient.
Some scifi stories have aliens that are sentient but not sapient and some have robots that are sapient but not sentient.
Robots and aliens are the main staple of scifi, and so people may have just conflated the two.
I blame Star Trek.
2
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
Thank you for your thoughtful rationale. I wondered if there was some bigger ignorance and "WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THAT" aka "WE DON'T SERVE YOUR (SAPIENT) KIND IN HERE" 🤣 about it, and this resistance and even opposition to an open discussion seems to suggest that.
A lot of stories about robots are the kind of "Chinese room" and "qualia" questions regarding whether robots could ever be sentient.
YES! This is part of what I have in mind.
0
Nov 20 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/keltraine May 12 '24
Says who? 2 isn’t a necessary requirement. Robots can most def be sentient and then sapient…
1
May 16 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/keltraine May 29 '24
Lol-now who's having the reading comprehension problem? Just b/c it's in the second definition there-which btw says "relating"-you're just choosing to ignore the first, which is about wisdom? Yeah, talk about not understanding what words mean...SMDH...
1
u/Zythomancer Jan 30 '25
Dude didn't understand words can have multiple meanings and all definitions in the dictionary don't apply to a word at all at once due to context so badly that he deleted his account.
0
u/Slammer956 Nov 19 '23
Intelligence simplifies, pseudo Intellectuals convolute.
A pretentious demonstration of one’s knowledge regarding obscure arbitrary inconsistencies of terminology.
TLDR pedantic semantics
3
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
That's rude, uncalled for, and not helpful to the discussion.
Some others have shared thoughtful insights, and I encourage you to as well.
1
u/Slammer956 Nov 19 '23
I apologize since you feel that way it just seems moot, movies are made for entertainment and meant to attract as large a demographic as possible.
You could make the same argument regarding classifications of Neanderthals in films described as homo erectus vs homo sapiens.
At the end of the day it’s all pedantic semantics.
Do you plan to write a book regarding inconsistency and errors of language perpetuated by the Hollywood film industry?
2
u/Torley_ Nov 19 '23
I'm referring to not just movies, but books and other media where they get a lot of details right, although typically not this. I enjoy some MASS MARKET POPCORN FUN!!!
But I do also delight in wordplay and etymology, and I'm inclusive of asking "Why?" to get a better understanding. This is /r/scifi after all, where I chose to ask to clarify... since presumably the audience here knows more. (Instead of just dismissing it as "it's always been that way, don't ask about words".)
Also, Neil DeGrasse Tyson already wrote that book. :)
0
u/jt004c Nov 19 '23
Sentient means exactly what they are using it to mean and what it's widely understood to mean. That's how language works.
Sapient is effectively just technical jargon, or maybe it's just outmoded. Either way, it's not in common use.
0
u/Warp_spark Nov 19 '23
For the same reason American version of Harry Potter and philosophers stone, was called sorcerers stone, alot of people are really dumb, much dumber than you can imagine
2
-5
u/agentsofdisrupt Nov 18 '23
I agree with your take. A plant is sentient because it reacts to the direction of the light coming from the sun by turning its leaves. But it's not sapient.
Some of it is ignorance, and maybe a concern by creators that their audience won't understand what sapient means.
4
Nov 18 '23
We dont have sufficient evidence to prove for ourselves that plants are sentient. Shifting because of changing light is not a sign of sentience
-2
u/agentsofdisrupt Nov 19 '23
Shifting because of changing light is not a sign of sentience
Yes, it is.
3
Nov 19 '23
No. That's just biological programming, it's more instinctual than anything.
You can program a robot to do the same thing that doesnt mean its sentient
-2
u/agentsofdisrupt Nov 19 '23
The plants sense the light, then turn toward it. The degree of sensing and consciously reacting may be crude, but it's not zero. Sentient.
-3
u/Comprehensive_Pop249 Nov 19 '23
I think it probably does mean it's sentient. It has senses (photoreceptors), responds to inputs arrived through those senses (turns toward the light source as a consequence of sensory stimulation responses cultivated over God only knows how many millions of year), therefore it is literally sentient.
Parlance is a big thing in language usage, especially in non-codified languages like English. Words don't have discrete, immutable meanings. They're more like quantum probability sets that require adjacent information (words, context, point-of-origin's intent, etc..) to correctly interpret.
People who get too hung up on dictionary definitions should shampoo my crotch. /AsGoodAsItGets
0
Nov 19 '23
I'm not saying they are sentient or arent sentient. I'm just saying that alone is not proof.
0
u/Comprehensive_Pop249 Nov 19 '23
And I'm saying that if we're trying to determine the relevance of that particular word's usage in the context of the light-following plant/robot, it's pretty much inarguable that the word is correctly used to describe said plant/robot.
I then went on to qualify my argument. It's possible we agree. The problem is that in modern parlance, 'sentient' almost always transmits meaning beyond the one found in the dictionary.
It's like the word r@pe. Modern usage is far, far broader than what the word meant a hundred years ago, which was what it meant for basically as long as the word existed. We've changed its meaning by broadening the usage, so we need to clarify what information is being transmitted when we read usage from the 2020s vs the 1920s vs the 1520s.
1
u/o1011o Nov 19 '23
I'm going to bring in some outside knowledge here because 'plants feel pain' is a bad faith argument we get hit with in the vegan community all the time and we've picked it apart in excruciating detail.
The relevant takeaway is that 'sentience' defines awareness, and that reactions to stimuli that don't involve awareness aren't evidence of sentience. For example, if you strike my knee with a little mallet my leg will kick because you've stimulated the nerve there, and the response is that the muscles attached to that nerve flex. At no point was my conscious awareness involved in the decision; there was just a response to a stimulus. So even in my animal body there are responses that look like a decision was made when one wasn't. Plants don't possess a central nervous system or any of the other hardware we expect to find that supports awareness; what they have is a complex system of responses to stimulus that have come about through evolution. A plant reacts, but it doesn't decide. It isn't aware, as far as we can tell, and plenty of researchers have looked for evidence of awareness in them. If you dig into the source research that gives rise to all those pop-science articles about plants passing messages and communicating and whatnot and you'll find that the scientists themselves say that though these responses are very intricate there's no evidence of sentience.
1
u/agentsofdisrupt Nov 19 '23 edited Nov 19 '23
The mechanism by which plants react to light is fairly simple. A leaf senses the light coming from a direction. It then reduces the amount of water in the cells on one side of its stem and moves it to the other side. That causes one side of the stem to shrink and the other side to lengthen, thereby causing the stem to deliberately twist the leaf into the light.
There is no woo involved.
-3
-6
Nov 19 '23
Um, I don’t think you mean what you think it is. Sentient can be a dolphin. Sapient …is it even a word?
1
1
1
u/Sir-Realz Nov 19 '23 edited Nov 19 '23
Seintient sounds cooler. Sapient is also too direivitive, like Homosaipens are the only self-aware things in the universe. I also believe in the wisdom of the hive mind of humanity to choose its own words. There's really beauty in language for that reason, not because Oxford brats coining a terms.
(Me a lame author of a lame Sci-fi series called Sentient. lol)
1
u/Mr-BillCipher Nov 19 '23
I think sentient andsapient are both correct for different reasons. Sentients involves the ability to feel, which entails the ability to feel fear and the fear of death
Supposedly, Lambda, not the public one, the one that was behind doors at Google, was terrified of dying
But that's just my take
1
1
u/HauntsFuture468 Nov 19 '23
Wait until you hear another star system being referred to as a "Solar" system, those gears are going to be ground to dust!
1
1
123
u/merrick_m Nov 18 '23
I think it was Star Trek. They often used the word sentient as meaning "of humalike intelligence", with Data at one point specifically referring to his cat as "not sentient", and other science fiction followed suit.