Humanity: First Sentient Speicies?

[superglucose]

Now before I get laughed out of here...

How old is the universe theorized to be? 14 billion years? And Earth is 6 billion? Now granted, this isn't my idea and I don't want to take credit for it, but if the Universe is supposed to be young, and we are about half as old as the universe is, isn't it not entirely too crazy to think we're the first species in the universe to develop this far? And one of the species has to be first, right? So why can't Humans be the first? We should still be looking, just in case there's some secret to traveling interstellar distances that we're missing, and we find someone, but...

That was just my thought of the day.

[WraithXt1]

I have the Deep Field image as my desktop wallpaper. Just looking at that is enough for me to decide that we are but one of many sentient creatures out there.

I cant imagine we would be the first. It only took us a billion years to evolve, what about those systems/planets that formed billions of heard before us?

[superglucose]

But how many of them support life? And it didn't just take one billion years, it took six billion years from the formation of the planet to this point.

[WraithXt1]

But how many of them support life? And it didn't just take one billion years, it took six billion years from the formation of the planet to this point.

Okay, are we considering only life as we know it? Or can we consider the possibility of other forms of life?

[gmalivuk]

The Earth is actually quite a bit younger than 6 billion years, and no life could likely have survived the impact theorized to have created the moon, so life really only had about 3.5 billion years to evolve. There are trillions of stars older than our sun, any one of which could have planets like our Earth. I don't see why it makes any sense to suppose we're the first sentients when we know damn well that ours is far from being the oldest star.

[quintopia]

However, it's entirely possible that f_l and f_i are so minutely small that N really does equal 1. It's all speculation, no matter what your opinion.

[zenten]

We're hardly the first sentient species on Earth.

We're most likely not the first sapient hominid on Earth, and it's entirely possible hominids are not the first sapient group of species.

[Robin S]

The problem comes with defining "sapient".

[Pause]

The Earth is actually quite a bit younger than 6 billion years, and no life could likely have survived the impact theorized to have created the moon, so life really only had about 3.5 billion years to evolve. There are trillions of stars older than our sun, any one of which could have planets like our Earth. I don't see why it makes any sense to suppose we're the first sentients when we know damn well that ours is far from being the oldest star.

The impact is believed to have been about 4.5 billion years ago, and the Earth's crust should have reformed and cooled fairly quickly, which leads us to a reasonable assumption that life managed to get going here within a billion years of having the opportunity. But multicellular life has only been around for another billion years or so, within which time it's rocketed along. Which leads me to think that the hard part is not the creation of life, but the creation of complex life.

Sample sizes of one are dangerous things, 'course. We might have been lucky to have life so early, or unlucky to have taken so long to create complex organisms. But as WraithXt1 already expressed, the sheer size of the universe, plus the knowledge that it's had twice as long again before we came along to produce something, with a good proportion of heavy elements (for making solid planets and organic molecules) for much of that time, makes me believe the chances of Earth being the first planet to have life are quite small.

Even if you subscribe to the strictest definitions of things like the galactic habitable zone, density of heavy elements required, galaxy formation and collisions, etc., that's a lot of annuli around a lot of galaxies' worth of opportunity, with a couple of billion years head start on us.

So yeah, I think it all comes down to complex life, and how easy it is to get it started. And I'm not sure we'll ever have a really good idea how lucky or unlucky we were to get sentient or sapient life from that state. I want to say it seems a natural progression, but... more dangerous assumptions.

[Kizyr]

We're hardly the first sentient species on Earth.

We're most likely not the first sapient hominid on Earth, and it's entirely possible hominids are not the first sapient group of species.

Yeah, I don't even think humans (as in homo sapiens) are the first sentient Earth species. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Neanderthal man was every bit as sentient as we are.

Then again, I also think that some higher-life forms like dogs, dolphins, chimps, etc., may have some very rudimentary form of self-awareness. KF

[Engma]

There's no particular reason why we have to be the first...but there's also no particular reason why we aren't the first. I think it's possible either way; the Universe is a big place, so there's plenty of room for a lot of things to happen.

In the way of actually looking for other sentient species, it's a lot more of a challenge. My favorite illustration of humanity's very young state was given by Carl Sagan in the series "Cosmos". Basically, if the entire history of the Universe was put into a calendar year, then humanity as we know it has only existed for the last few minutes of December 31st.

It's a common enough model, but my point is that if there are other sentient species, the window of time for us to find them or them to find us is extremely small. Of course, we do have to assume that sentience took just as long for them to evolve as us, which may be a flawed assumption, but since we aren't discussing the other possible tracks of evolution....I'll leave it alone for now.

If there are/were other sentient species in the Universe, the might be billions of years dead and gone. If more are to arise, we might be billions of years dead and gone before they show up.

[Belial]

Then again, I also think that some higher-life forms like dogs, dolphins, chimps, etc., may have some very rudimentary form of self-awareness.

Define self-awareness.

[22/7]

Then again, I also think that some higher-life forms like dogs, dolphins, chimps, etc., may have some very rudimentary form of self-awareness.

Define self-awareness.

This is where the idea of calling one species sentient and another not fails for me. I would consider many animals to be self-aware, especially mammals, fish, etc. who interact on a large scale with other animals. A cat of some sort, domestic or tiger, for instance, I would consider to be self-aware. But could a computer not interact in the same way with other people/computers?

[Prole]

Define self-awareness.

Cue philosophy debate.

[oxoiron]

Self-awareness.

What is the knowledge that you are mortal?

[Belial]

If we became immortal would we cease to be self-aware?

[Indon]

Define self-awareness.

The ability to recognize your reflection, is the most fundamental I can get.

[Kizyr]

Then again, I also think that some higher-life forms like dogs, dolphins, chimps, etc., may have some very rudimentary form of self-awareness.

Define self-awareness.

A conscious perception that you exist. Perhaps also a mental distinction between oneself existing and not existing. It's not tied to mortality, but tied to existence.

It's a vague, maybe unhelpful definition, really, because it's such a difficult concept to codify. I mean, we all know we're self-aware and sentient (which I'm using as interchangeable terms here), but how can we prove that someone else is? The reason why I think that some animals have some basic self-awareness is mostly because I think that self-awareness is part of some evolutionary advantage. That is, being self-aware can help an animal interact with others of its same species, or part of some larger society beyond just itself or its own family group (packs, colonies, pods, etc.). Although, I don't think it's of the same level as humans--maybe something more akin to us in a dream state.

There isn't any proof of this, either. I just tend to agree with the above since I find it the most logical conclusion. And I'm more than open to new information on the matter. KF

[oxoiron]

If we became immortal would we cease to be self-aware?

Absolutely!

[Robin S]

On the other hand, talking about what would happen if we were immortal is meaningless because that is not physically possible.

[Belial]

Define self-awareness.

The ability to recognize your reflection, is the most fundamental I can get.

Then yes, several animals (elephants and certain birds jump out in my mind) demonstrate that level of self-awareness.

[zenten]

Define self-awareness.

The ability to recognize your reflection, is the most fundamental I can get.

Then yes, several animals (elephants and certain birds jump out in my mind) demonstrate that level of self-awareness.

Mind you, it is a poor one, as it only works if you have a good facility with visual images. A blind person for instance fails.

[Indon]

Mind you, it is a poor one, as it only works if you have a good facility with visual images. A blind person for instance fails.

You could probably rig up something to test the same principle with echoes. The big problem with that is because sound is less precise, many of the test subjects might not react to such echoes at all.

[Belial]

A conscious perception that you exist. Perhaps also a mental distinction between oneself existing and not existing. It's not tied to mortality, but tied to existence.

Conscious perception that you exist is pretty much necessary in any social animal, and is probably present in anything that can recognize it's own reflection or relate to another animal in any non fight-or-flight fashion.

Such a level of self awareness is present in many animals including, but not limited to:

Primates, cetaceans, elephants, dogs, wolves, bears, rats, cats, meerkats, prairie dogs, parrots, corvids (crows, ravens, and the like), and Cephalopods (especially octopi)

Distinction between existing and not existing is a bit tougher to say...

Mind you, it is a poor one, as it only works if you have a good facility with visual images. A blind person for instance fails.

Let's toss that one, then.

[zenten]

Mind you, it is a poor one, as it only works if you have a good facility with visual images. A blind person for instance fails.

Let's toss that one, then.

*nod*

It is a commonly used one however. My dog for instance fails that test, while at least some elephants can. However, my dog is much more likely to respond to vocal or scent cues than visual ones, sometimes when I come home from work for instance she barks at me, but once I say something or she can smell me she calms down, and greets me happily. It could just be that she fails the mirror test because the types of information conveyed in a mirror are not terribly relevant.

[Belial]

Also, there are certain types of brain damage to the occipital lobes that can cause a human to be incapable of understanding a mirror as a reflection: if asked to reach for an item displayed in a mirror, they'll consistently try to reach behind the glass.

But they retain all the usual trappings of self-awareness. I think mirror-sense may require self-awareness, but it requires certain visual processing centers as well, and an animal could lack those and still be self-aware

[Puzzlemaker]

Hmm.

You are self aware when:

You bite yourself and you know why it hurts. Good example: Dog chasing tail. OH TAIL TAIL TAIL I GOT YOU! HAHAH OW!!! Oh right, thats ME.

[3.14159265...]

Its easier to give a list of sufficient conditions for self-awareness.
1) Bieng able to recognize one's own relfection (I like this one).
2) Bieng able to write a biography of one's self.
3) Questioning the purpose of one's existence.

etc.

It is much harder to give a neccessary condition.

So as for the OP's question. Very likely yes, maybe not, but here is the thing, currently that question is as intriguing to me as "Is there a god", "Do we have free will" etc, it is unscientific.

[Izawwlgood]

Self aware - Being aware of your own awareness. No other animal has exhibited the "Why am I aware of being aware of (so on and so forth)...?"

An interested point Carl Sagen brings up is the law of telescoping returns. It took us about 4 thousand years (+/- say 2000 years) to go from newly emerged from caves, to discussing the merits and short comings of Marxist though while trying to harness the power of atoms and establish extrasolar outposts. Think about where we were 100 years ago (no antibiotics, no true anesthesia, no concept of atomic structure, global communications, tv's, etc...) and think about where we'll be in another 100 (Probably still no flying cars).

Now, imagine where another species would be if they emerged from caves even a SINGLE earth's ice age cycle before us. 10000-50000 years headstart on the "I think therefor I am" and "Which brand of shampoo better prevents dandruff?" questions, and we wonder why we can't detect anything? We're not alone, we just don't have the technology to see whats out there (They're also hiding in my molars).

And NO, this is not an advocacy for increased faith in religion (the cosmos are SOOOO overwhelming, so I MUST believe in God), but be amazed at the anti-entropic/anti-enthalpic nature of LIFE.

[quintopia]

(Probably still no flying cars).

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3398892
http://www.howstuffworks.com/flying-car.htm

[yy2bggggs]

Self aware was defined reasonably above (being aware of your own awareness).

Sentient refers to the senses--capable of subjectively perceiving.

[Robin S]

Its easier to give a list of sufficient conditions for self-awareness.
1) Bieng able to recognize one's own relfection (I like this one).
2) Bieng able to write a biography of one's self.
3) Questioning the purpose of one's existence.

etc.

It is much harder to give a neccessary condition.

Isn't sentience a necessary condition?

Self aware was defined reasonably above (being aware of your own awareness).

That looks like a circular definition to me. How do you define awareness?

[crazyjimbo]

The meaning of self-awareness is obvious from the phrase surely? It is being aware that one is a thing and is a 'self' as opposed to just being an input and output device. Worms are unlikely to be self-aware, having only a central nervous system and no brain as such. They respond to stimuli and react appropriately. We on the other hand are very aware of ourselves and that we are infact a 'thing'. I suppose it boils down to consciousness. Either way, it's really hard to put into words

Unfortunately, this is not a satisfactory definition for use in these sorts of debates since as Pi said, we can not measure whether an animal meets this definition. We can only come up with conditions that probably imply some sort of self-awareness.

[zenten]

Guys, can everyone try to use sentient as the word actually means, instead of how Commander Data kept on using it? I'm finding it hard to follow some of the points here because I'm not sure what meaning people are intending.

[3.14159265...]

Isn't sentience a necessary condition?

You caught yy2bggggs on his circular definitions, but not yourself. tsk tsk.

[Kizyr]

Guys, can everyone try to use sentient as the word actually means, instead of how Commander Data kept on using it? I'm finding it hard to follow some of the points here because I'm not sure what meaning people are intending.

I'm using sentience and self-awareness interchangeably, since in common usage the two terms are interchangeable. I believe I've clarified that above, and I don't see any particular point in dividing the terms, since most people here are talking about the same thing--only different ways of coming up with some objective measure of it.

...also, Data was totally sentient. KF

[Robin S]

Isn't sentience a necessary condition?

You caught yy2bggggs on his circular definitions, but not yourself. tsk tsk.

Assuming you mean what I think you mean, sentience being a necessary condition for self-awareness is not circular because they are not the same thing. For example, at least some flatworms are inarguably sentient - they have light-sensing organs, and have been shown to possess learning abilities - yet it is highly doubtful that they are self-aware (unless, of course, you define self-aware in such a way that it is implied by sentience, which I do not, zenten does not and nor do most people who do not use the two terms synonymously).

I'm using sentience and self-awareness interchangeably, since in common usage the two terms are interchangeable. I believe I've clarified that above, and I don't see any particular point in dividing the terms, since most people here are talking about the same thing--only different ways of coming up with some objective measure of it.

The fact that two words are synonymous in "common usage" does not mean that we should continue to use them as such when it is necessary to distinguish between their differing meanings. As zenten explained, sentience is not the same as self-awareness or sapience; yet, as I explained, it is requisite for both.

[3.14159265...]

Actually you are correct, the problem wasn't the same as y22.

Can you give a definition of sentience, and why you think intelligence (Not necessarily as we know it) needs sentience (as we know it).

[Robin S]

I was talking about self-awareness, not intelligence. I do not think that intelligence needs sentience.

Definining sentience itself in a meaningful way is extremely difficult. While we all subjectively know that we experience it, and extrapolate that other humans and even distantly-related animals do too, the only objective way to define it is in terms of experiencing sensations, which is itself inherently subjective. Wikipedia puts it better than I do:

Sentience refers to utilization of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different usages in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".

Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.

[zenten]

I was talking about self-awareness, not intelligence. I do not think that intelligence needs sentience.

Definining sentience itself in a meaningful way is extremely difficult. While we all subjectively know that we experience it, and extrapolate that other humans and even distantly-related animals do too, the only objective way to define it is in terms of experiencing sensations, which is itself inherently subjective. Wikipedia puts it better than I do:
[quote="Wikipedia"]Sentience refers to utilization of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different usages in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".

Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.

[/quote]

A worm is likely sentient, my thermostat likely is not.