{"id":1623,"date":"2022-01-20T12:36:35","date_gmt":"2022-01-20T12:36:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/?p=1623"},"modified":"2022-01-20T12:38:08","modified_gmt":"2022-01-20T12:38:08","slug":"consciousness-the-f-words-vs-the-s-words","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/2022\/01\/20\/consciousness-the-f-words-vs-the-s-words\/","title":{"rendered":"Consciousness: The F-words vs. the S-words"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\u201cSentient\u201d is the right word for “conscious.”. It means being able to feel anything at all<\/em> \u2013 whether positive, negative or neutral<\/em>, faint or flagrant, sensory or semantic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For ethics, it\u2019s the negative feelings that matter. But determining whether an organism feels anything at all<\/em> (the other-minds problem) is hard enough without trying to speculate about whether there exit species that can only<\/em> feel neutral (\u201cunvalenced\u201d) feelings. (I doubt that +\/-\/= feelings evolved separately, although their valence-weighting is no doubt functionally dissociable, as in the Melzack\/Wall gate-control theory of pain<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The word \u201csense\u201d in English is ambiguous, because it can mean both felt sensing<\/em> and unfelt \u201csensing,\u201d as in an electronic device like a sensor, or a mechanical one, like a thermometer or a thermostat, or even a biological sensor, like an in-vitro retinal cone cell, which, like photosensitive film, senses and reacts to light, but does not feel a thing (though the brain it connects to might).<\/p>\n\n\n\n To the best of our knowledge so far, the phototropisms, thermotropisms and hydrotropisms of plants, even the ones that can be modulated by their history, are all like that too: sensing and reacting without feeling, as in homeostatic systems or servomechanisms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Feel\/feeling\/felt<\/em> would be fine for replacing all the ambiguous s-words (sense, sensor, sensation\u2026) and dispelling their ambiguities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Although \u201cfeeling\u201d is somewhat biased toward emotion (i.e., +\/- \u201cfeelings\u201d), it is the right descriptor for neutral feelings too, like warmth, movement, or touch, which only become +\/- at extreme intensities.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n The only thing the f-words lack is a generic noun for \u201chaving the capacity too feel\u201d as a counterpart for the noun sentience<\/em> itself (and its referent). (As usual, German has a candidate: Gef\u00fchlsf\u00e4higkeit<\/em>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n