• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    why sentience and not DNA? or literally any other characteristic? your standard is absolutely arbitrary.

    • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Based on my understanding of the brain and nervous system, and the strong evidence that those things give rise to my sentience, I think that it’s reasonable to extrapolate that other, similar nervous systems/brains are also sentient and their experience is worth consideration in a similar way to how I consider my own experience (among the many other reasons to have a basic level of empathy)

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        the same can be said of DNA. this is a completely arbitrary standard, and you would be better served to embrace that than pretending it’s somehow objective.

        • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m not saying it is objective, I’m saying it’s not arbitrary.

          If my dna was isolated in a test tube and it could experience things then I would also care about what it experiences. There isn’t any evidence I’m aware of that that’s the case. Dna is the instructions and tool to build the sentient being, not the sentient being itself. So no, the same couldn’t be said of dna. Extrapolating from how much I care about what I experience, I think it’s reasonable to care about what things that experience things experience