Talk:Sentience Quotient

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have written a new article at the temporary subpage while waiting.

The main phage about this article on Sentience Quotient says:

POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION

The previous content of this page appears to infringe on the copyright of the text from the source(s) below:

http://mv.lycaeum.org/M2/hypno-sq.html

But it is Robert A. Freitas Jr. which owns the copyright, not lycaeum.org. As Robert A. Freitas Jr. says;

"I am indeed the originator of this idea, and this formula. The phrase "sentience quotient" and the associated formula first appeared in my Analog article on "Xenopsychology" back in 1984, although I originally conceived the idea circa 1977 while writing my book Xenology. The copyright for the Analog article is owned by me.

It is lycaeum.org that is in violation of my copyright. I have attempted to write to them in the past, insisting that they give me proper credit for this usage at their website, or alternatively to take down the material, but they have never responded. I would appreciate it if you would delete the infringing reference and URL to their material and cite only my Xenopsychology article in your Wikipedia posting, as this is the original and only true source. It is my wish that they not be given any undeserved publicity for their infringement -- until and unless they clean up their site by inserting a proper reference to my work. I believe lycaeum.org may have cribbed the material in question from a 1988 issue of Daedalus, which may or may not have included a reference back to my original material. The Daedalus material was not online, the last time I checked.

BTW, I now have revised my Xenopsychology page to make the infringement clear to any visitors."

The text itself is rediculously small, (in fact it is little more than a simple equation) and because of this I imagine those in charge at lycaeum.org probably believe it is small enough to be considered fair use. I tend to agree. Can you copyright an equation? Even if you can, what purpose would it serve to do that? -- 216.234.56.130 14:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply by RAFJr: The primary issue here is not with their fair use, but rather with their failure to simply attribute this concept to its actual creator. Had they done this (i.e., added about 4 words to their website), I'd have no complaint whatsoever with their usage. [RAFJr 18 Sept 2005]

[edit] Political correctness

How political correct is it possibble to get? This theory is a formula based on math and physics, so why is it compared with phrenology and other pseudoscience? It is not a theory that are meant to be used on races or individual humans, but as an idea on how fast or slow a bran in theory can be.

"The theory is controversial because it defines sentience according to a relationship between information processing rate and brain mass, yet there is no evidence that such a relationship is in any way related to a measurement of sentience."

Well, information processing rate, design, size and programming as a whole has anything to do with it. If we were talking about computers, would there still be any problems with the SQ? If you look at these elements one by one, you can't tell how fast a creature can process information. But all the elements together will tell a lot.

No offence, but I suspect it is compared with phrenology because lack of understanding and a little too much political correctness.

I totally agree this need not be under pseudoscience. If the theory 'defines' sentience in a certain way, you can simply assume that this is a term not necessarily implying equivalence with sentience, but simply introducing a variable that is used as a numerical model. I do not see any problem.

The problem is that the defenition is lacking support in main stream science, though an interesting one. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 13:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe a major obstacle regarding the use of such a construct would be the practical applications of purely hypothetical neural relationships. Moreoever, the lack of sophisticated processing systems in our contemporary world relegates this concept as something of a far-reaching exploration of cognitive possibilities. The concept of a definable, falsifiable Sentience Quotient will be possible as our understanding of silicon-based systems improves.

The idea of a quantifiable "Sentience Quotient" isn't necessarily the same substance that directly fuels the engines of science fiction; rather, the measurement of abstract intelligences beyond the scope of simple organic functioning is a hefty equation that requires intensive analysis into perspectives we have yet to identify.

This concept is debatably akin to the introduction of photosynthesis into humans via cyanobacteria. Again, its an ideal that is too advanced to analyze with a truly skeptical mind.

Thanks, Aaron. 9.29.2006

[edit] Criticism

I deleted the part about criticism because it only focused on the information processing rate and brain mass, while ignoring design and programming. Secondly, this is a theory, not a claim, and before there is enough data to support that it is correct or incorrect, it can't be described as pseudoscience. And if we are talking about the processing rate in single celled microbes, then we are talking about a different subject. 217.68.114.116 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)