Since the term "sentient" is, as far as I know, universally used for intelligent life in Star Wars, should we move all the talk about "sapience" to the Behind the Scenes section? jSarek 22:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think so. I have heard the word "sapient" used a few times in Star Wars literature, but very rarely. Also, most "sapient" droids do have pain receptors, so I think that qualifies them as sentient as well. To me, it basically seems like semantics.Darth Ceratis 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- You have the basic definition of sentience and sapience down, but you are not correct to state that there is a consensus that all animals are sentient. Many philosphers argue that reacting to pain is not enough, that one must feel suffering in order to be sentient. Animals, some argue, merely react to stimuli in instinctual ways and therefore are not sentient. I revised that part of the article to include that distinction. --Darth borehd 01:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Do any modern philosophers still hold this speciesist notion? I thought it had been dispelled long ago. jSarek 02:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Philosophy is not science. While some ideas go in or out of fashion at various times, philosophical views can't be dispelled or proven false. The above distinction is still subject to debate and is far from a consensus, particularly in discussions on animal cruelty. --Darth borehd 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- How is this at all relevant to Star Wars? The point of this article is to detail on the term "sentient" as it is used in Star Wars in-universe. Discussion of what real-world philosophers think about sentience belongs on Wikipedia, not Wookiepedia. I've deleted the Behind the Scenes section for a lack of any relevance to Star Wars. 68.226.16.122 09:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's relevant to note that the word is used differently in Star Wars than it is in the real world, though. jSarek 09:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- How is it used differently? In Star Wars, it's used to classify "intelligent" organisms. In real-life, it's used to classify "intelligent" organisms. In both instances, the exact definition is ambiguous and not exact, so why should there be a note about real-world philosophy? (I'm the same person as 68.226.16.122, by the way. I just bothered to log in this time.) VillageBaka 09:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it's used in modern real life for both intelligent creatures and for creatures that most would consider non-intelligent. People are sentient, but so are dogs and snakes and squid. The terms "sapient" or, less commonly, "sophont," are the terms used for beings with intelligence comparable to humans. Only in Star Wars, Star Trek, and similar SF with roots in much older stuff is it used to refer solely to creatures we would regard as "intelligent." jSarek 09:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is no scientific definition of this term. Would you include single-celled organisms with your dogs, snakes, and squids? What about plants? Jellyfish? Coral? Nematodes? Algae? Individual cells of your body? How much and what kind of perception is needed to qualify? Trying to define sentience so exactly is impossible. It's a very fuzzy and ambiguous term. Science fiction authors are not technically wrong when using the word that way. Sapient may make their intended meaning more clear, but sentient is still acceptable. --Darth borehd 01:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Like many terms, it may be fuzzy and ambiguous at the edges, but it's not ambiguous that higher vertebrates and some other animals like cephalopods experience sensations. Thus, the word is not being correctly used when limited to sapient beings. jSarek 01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no scientific definition of this term. Would you include single-celled organisms with your dogs, snakes, and squids? What about plants? Jellyfish? Coral? Nematodes? Algae? Individual cells of your body? How much and what kind of perception is needed to qualify? Trying to define sentience so exactly is impossible. It's a very fuzzy and ambiguous term. Science fiction authors are not technically wrong when using the word that way. Sapient may make their intended meaning more clear, but sentient is still acceptable. --Darth borehd 01:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it's used in modern real life for both intelligent creatures and for creatures that most would consider non-intelligent. People are sentient, but so are dogs and snakes and squid. The terms "sapient" or, less commonly, "sophont," are the terms used for beings with intelligence comparable to humans. Only in Star Wars, Star Trek, and similar SF with roots in much older stuff is it used to refer solely to creatures we would regard as "intelligent." jSarek 09:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- How is it used differently? In Star Wars, it's used to classify "intelligent" organisms. In real-life, it's used to classify "intelligent" organisms. In both instances, the exact definition is ambiguous and not exact, so why should there be a note about real-world philosophy? (I'm the same person as 68.226.16.122, by the way. I just bothered to log in this time.) VillageBaka 09:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's relevant to note that the word is used differently in Star Wars than it is in the real world, though. jSarek 09:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- How is this at all relevant to Star Wars? The point of this article is to detail on the term "sentient" as it is used in Star Wars in-universe. Discussion of what real-world philosophers think about sentience belongs on Wikipedia, not Wookiepedia. I've deleted the Behind the Scenes section for a lack of any relevance to Star Wars. 68.226.16.122 09:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Philosophy is not science. While some ideas go in or out of fashion at various times, philosophical views can't be dispelled or proven false. The above distinction is still subject to debate and is far from a consensus, particularly in discussions on animal cruelty. --Darth borehd 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do any modern philosophers still hold this speciesist notion? I thought it had been dispelled long ago. jSarek 02:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- You have the basic definition of sentience and sapience down, but you are not correct to state that there is a consensus that all animals are sentient. Many philosphers argue that reacting to pain is not enough, that one must feel suffering in order to be sentient. Animals, some argue, merely react to stimuli in instinctual ways and therefore are not sentient. I revised that part of the article to include that distinction. --Darth borehd 01:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)