= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 3 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (560)
If snakes are sentient, they can't work as Patronus 1.0.
If. I don't think they are; it would have been obvious to some scientist at one point or another, not to mention anyone who lives in close contact with them.
It seems more plausible to me that their apparent intelligence is another product of magic; that when you're talking to a snake, you're actually talking to a magic-induced AI of some kind that will, if you asked it to do something, control the snake afterwards to suit your purposes.
The laws of physics here are already AI-complete, so it doesn't seem like a large leap to me.
Possibly the important thing is whether Draco thinks of them as being sentient (sapient) as he's casting the charm.
Yes, I originally thought of it as the most plausible explanation. But then, Harry's remark must also make Draco's Patronus ineffective, just as explanation of Patronus 2.0 would, which very likely isn't the case.
It might yet make it ineffective, but only if Draco grasps the implications. Harry might begin the next chapter by deciding to shut up and not explain to Draco why it matters to him that snakes have a language. (It obviously doesn't matter to Draco, who I don't think has fully accepted that Muggles are sapient, despite their obvious language.)
...Unless there's something very weird about their psychology. Which, given that they're snakes, seems entirely plausible.
Actually, I'm pretty sure snakes are sentient. They're not sapient, though, as far as we can tell.
(Yes, I'm aware that the error is in the original text.)
I have seen so many people use them interchangeably, and I think I've even seen dictionaries disagree about which is which, that I've pretty much given up on the words 'sentient' and 'sapient'.
Even though people use the words inconsistently, those people who distinguish them at all do so consistently, and you can use cognates to remember which is which: ‘sense’ = ‘feel’, so ‘sentient’ = ‘feeling’; ‘Homo sapiens’ = ‘wise man’, so ‘sapient’ = ‘thinking’ (more literally ‘discerning’ in the Latin).
I usually take it for granted that snakes are sentient but not sapient, although I don't really know enough about snakes to be sure of either.
But there's another idea, neither of which these words quite captures, that seems to be what really matters to Harry: self-awareness (‘anything that lives and thinks and knows itself’). A snake may sense its prey, but does it sense itself? It may discern that its prey is food, but does it discern that its self is a self?
Please don't allow arguments about definitions be presented as arguments about substance, as objecting to something previously said. Distinguish them by making it clear that your observation is on a separate and unrelated topic of English language, and thus doesn't constitute an irrational argument.
Sorry, I thought it would be obvious enough what I was objecting to.
It is, I just think it's a healthy debiasing style to keep the intentions explicit.
Upvoted. This should be on the advice-to-new-users page, if it isn't already.
Perhaps they're just not conscious of mortality?
Wouldn't that be convenient? What's special about mortality making it a plausible gap in the mind?
You know what? A WIZARD DID IT.
Giant cheesecake fallacy!
It actually makes quite a bit of sense to be unaware / indifferent to death for a family of species that do not take care of their offspring (with a few exceptions, eg. pythons, which might also never appear as Patroni).
Personal survival is a basic drive in any case, and being aware of something doesn't require caring about it, only the potential for instrumental worth.
Never mind the snakes, what about the birds?