AdeleneDawner comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 3 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Unnamed 30 August 2010 05:37AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (560)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 25 September 2010 04:14:48PM 7 points [-]

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.)

Comment author: gwern 25 September 2010 05:55:48PM 5 points [-]

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'.

Comment author: TobyBartels 28 September 2010 08:32:07AM 5 points [-]

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?

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 25 September 2010 04:33:52PM *  12 points [-]

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.

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 25 September 2010 04:49:43PM 4 points [-]

Sorry, I thought it would be obvious enough what I was objecting to.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 25 September 2010 05:04:09PM 5 points [-]

It is, I just think it's a healthy debiasing style to keep the intentions explicit.

Comment author: komponisto 25 September 2010 05:53:14PM 2 points [-]

Upvoted. This should be on the advice-to-new-users page, if it isn't already.