Theorycrafting: Flexible Sophant Rating · 5:11pm May 8th, 2017
All ponies in Equestria thus far have been demonstrated to be sapient.
All griffons too. And all (of one) minotaurs, and all dragons, and that chimera...
But let's get more mundane. Cows? One or two have had speaking lines. Sheep? Only one talked. And then there are goats--a couple of whom worked for Iron Will, but, uh, weren't exactly talkative.
I think we as a fandom might have made a crucial assumption which should be reassessed. I think the idea that all members of a species in Equestria are sapient--or not--might need to be jossed.
That is to say, one out of every hundred sheep can talk and reason and the rest are animals. Or that goats can be intelligent--if they really luck out. Exactly the percentage of each race that is person and that which is animal... that might vary, but I get a sense that more herd-based species would have a better chance of producing intellectuals, and that mythical critters might get smarter the more... let's call it OffTheWall they are. Like manticores are lions with extra bits, so not very off the wall, but chimeras are combos of multiple critters so they're kind of off the wall, and dragons have little relations to mundane animals, so they're really off the wall.
Why is this? I'd point to the harmonic resonance of Equestria's background magic. Could be wrong though.
That’s not the real issue, though, is it?
It’s actually about whether we can reconcile the notion that Equestria is a “nice place,” whichever level of nice you prefer, with the notion that it is possible for a sapient person to be treated as a non-sapient animal, if only by mistake.
If we can’t reconcile these two ideas, Equestria suddenly becomes exceedingly dark. Because in the history of our world, what happens when people are equated to animals is a cautionary tale, quite pertinent for more than a few people.
If “belonging to a species that is normally known to be sapient” is no longer an effective criterion, suddenly, we’re left with a huge mess of possible criteria for determining if a given creature is sapient, all of which can unduly exclude someone who is normally sapient but already suffering, and permit them to suffer more.
One way out of it would be to assume that ponies always treat animals as people. But we know that ponies do not necessarily do this, because face it, those sheep cages are the opposite of a nice hug.
So the problem with your supposition isn’t whether it is plausible or not – it very much is – but what exactly happens to the world outside the margins of the story if we accept it, because that is the world we write about.
4524757 In point of fact, there are certain people, including alleged philosophers of reputation and note, who are ready and eager to blur the definitions of 'animal' and 'person' according to their preferred schema - subjective competence, age, reduced capacity, etc. *Without* any help or aid from the variable application of miracles or magic.
And it's amazing just how ugly things get if you concede even so far as to say "I wouldn't eat anything I can have a conversation with," which is a rubric I've seen floated in certain well-meaning HiE stories. What happens with mutes and coma patients then? Cows who only start speaking in high-magic districts? Goats who can't talk, but can use tools and read and write?
And you can't make an inverse distinction between predators and herd animals, because griffons break that symmetry, as do certain other predatory monsters like the Chimera. But not, surprisingly, the manticores...
I like your style masterweaver, as your idea fits into the sporadicity of world elements presented in MLP.
4524757
4524774
Allow me to list a few groups from the real world.
Elephants. Corvids. Macaws. Cetaceans. Celephopods. Great Apes.
I have seen arguments for all these species actually being sophants.
In all honesty, I don't see the idea of a "Some members of species aren't intelligent" model being morally troubling. Legally, certainly, but I don't think the issue of right and wrong really changes that much. My go to model is "List of X traits, weighted by point count, and if they meet Y amount they qualify for Z legality."
Equestria isn't sunshine and rainbows. It's a good place, certainly, but their treatment of mental magic as 'something that happens' and the implications of cutie marks sort of implies they might not put as high a value on equal opportunity and personal freedom as we in america do. Individuality and accomplishment, certainly--friendship, almost definitely. But... well... there are hints here and there that their values aren't quite equivalent.
4524834
“We?” I’m nowhere near the place, you know, and somehow, not very anxious to visit. :)
My point is, it’s quite difficult to propose a waterproof list of traits, for which a counterexample would not exist, that would make the pony culture completely morally incompatible with any human culture.
Eventually, we might hammer out something, but by then, it will be entirely impossible for any given pony to practice this list of criteria.
4524865
That's why the list isn't "You must meet all these traits," but "you must meet enough of these traits."
4524884
What, exactly, makes that different?
4524918
If passing grade is 100%, only 1% pass. If passing grade is 50%, 99% pass.
4524962
I don’t follow this particular math. I’m pretty sure it’s wrong. Depending on how you’re testing for a trait, and which trait it is, it’s perfectly possible for nobody or everybody to achieve a 100% score on any given test, and it has no intrinsic relation whatsoever to the exact numeric cutoff you set. But ok.
Assuming traits that do sound reasonable, like “language use” or “tool use,” what would be defined as “100%” for either? If you meant some other trait, which?
How would a pony be able to apply such a test in a reasonable situation where they need to determine if creature X is sapient? Do they have to be qualified to administer such a test, do they need experts?
I thought you meant that “out of easily observable traits X₀ … Xₙ, Y must be present,” which is a somewhat more practical proposition, but it still won’t hold water, because it will be trivial to throw counterexamples at it until N becomes too large to remember. But if you meant somehow grading language use, well…
4524969
what?
Okay, let me rephrase.
Let's say there are twenty traits. If you have ten, you are considered a proto-sophant, a creature that is intelligent but not sapient. Infants and specific animals qualify. If you have fifteen, you are considered a sophant. Legally. Also, you can retake the test at will.
4524981
So you won’t list even one trait? Then further discussion is pointless, I’m afraid.
4524986
Oh! That's what you were asking for. You should have said!
Hmm.
Hold on, I think I saw a list somewhere... let me find it.
4524986
And it turns out the list is locked behind a paywall. Because of course it is.
Okay, let me put down a few traits myself then.
1. Self-Awareness. Entity should be aware of self as separate from world.
2. Awareness of others: Entity should be aware of others as separate from world.
3. Deductive reasoning: Entity should be capable of deducing solutions from given problem.
4. Communication, functional: Entity should be capable of communicating survival concepts; Food, Danger, Friend, etc.
5. Emotional reasoning: Entity should be capable of determining emotional state of self.
6. Communication, empathy: Entity should be capable of determining emotional state of others (I know I fail this one personally).
7. Abstract reasoning: Entity should be capable of comprehending abstract concepts such as multiplication.
8. Abstract communication: Entity should be capable of communicating abstract concepts such as beauty.
9. Self-motivation: Entity should not require outside pressures to act. Survival qualifies as outside pressure.
10. Self-expression: Entity should be capable of acting in a manner that communicates personal meaning.
11. Environmental Alteration: Entity should demonstrate ability to alter environment to better ensure survival and or express self.
12. Comprehension of Communication: Entity should be capable of learning to comprehend others communication, or stating they cannot learn other's communication.
So, a protosophant might have six traits, and a full sophant might have nine. This is more a legal framework then a philosophical one.
4525018
A comatose sophont has none. This list is good if you’re estimating a species and then agree to treat every member of this species as sapient or not. If you’re judging an individual it fails immediately.
Even you don’t exhibit most of these traits while asleep, and you spend at least a few hours a day in this state, don’t you?
4525035
Well, hmm. That is an issue I have not considered. Temporary loss of attributes....
Perhaps we should apply a minimum amount of time during which attributes cannot be demonstrated before considering said attribute lost?
4525065
Comas have been known to last for years with eventual recovery, or at least, they do in fiction.
Consider also the issue of Mi-Go making off with your brain and returning with it packaged into a featureless metallic cylinder. What’s inside is actually a sophont, capable of most of this list, except points 4, 5, 11 and 12. But nobody outside the metallic cylinder can tell.
The problem does not exist if you apply the criteria to a species as a whole, because individuals who are temporarily or permanently indisposed remain part of the species. Using any reasonable list of criteria on individuals, however, is inherently problematic.
4525078
In the event an entity cannot be considered a sophant, treatment of entity in question should be determined by most legal sophant guardian. That's actually pretty consistent with laws as they exist--families can determine when to pull the plug, and cow owners usually schedule the raising and slaughter of their livestock for specific times.
Granted, that does mean you end up having a sheep deciding when to shear the herd. Which, actually, could mean that sheep in general are slightly better treated then in the "all sheep are animals" model--if one citizen understands the needs of the animals intimately, then that one citizen could work with the market to produce the best situation for everyone.
4525102
So who’s the most legal and how do you determine that? It’s not at all obvious if one can float into and out of sapient status.
And in general, I would be more concerned with how could one lose sapient status than gain it. Especially as it applies to property and taxation, because the legal minefield one can dance on in this case is endless.
4525123
Actually good questions. I'd assume the laws of Equestria have had that debated back and forth...
A nice stabilizing factor would be to say 'only hospitals/trained doctors can revoke legal sapience, in this and that case,' as most ways of losing sapience would be medically related and it puts a nice stopgap on just fooling the system for fun and profit. I'd also assume that guardienship of nonsapients extends first through biology, then practicality--a sheep would own other sheep, but if there were no sheep that were sapient it would become a wrangler or farmer's job.
And actually, that might explain why rodeos exist--to catch 'rogue' sheep/cows/what have you and drag them in for a sophant test.
Probably not a perfect system, but stable enough, I think?
4525137
Stable, maybe. Morally compatible? No idea, heavily depends on the details and the number of potential holes it has plugged. It’s always possible to find more holes, but not unless actual details are given, you’d need to build it up for me to demonstrate more of them.
And you haven’t actually introduced magic into the mix yet… For example, is it legal for an evil entity of dark magic to possess a sentient, but normally not sapient animal? Assuming it is, is it moral, from the pony point of view?
Does it make a difference if the entity is actually some manner of a spirit of a sapient individual of the same species?
4525158
This is one of those cases where I thought "Hey, this could be a neat idea" and didn't really think it through. That said, you want to collab on a legal drama based on this premise?
4525161
I wish I had the time. I should be available to talk about it much more readily, though, if you want someone to bounce ideas off.
4525171
Really? How much time do you have?
I mean I kind of figured we could RP a defense and prosecution lawyer lobbying it out. We'd need somebody else to play judge. Or you could play judge and I could get, I dunno, FOME in on this. FOME's kind of a sciency psychosociotheorizing type.
4525185
About 24 more hours I have already allocated to do something else? :)
4525185
4525201 This drama would be really similar to the plot of Wicked, right?
4525509
I'm going to say no for three reasons.
One: Haven't actually seen the show. Read the script, haven't seen it.
Two: Don't like DIRECT mimicries. I find it lazy. Although parodies, those are fine. If things twist a bit, they're fine.
Three: Wicked is about one guy manipulating prejudice for his own purposes, and the struggle against that. This is more, you know, a legal thriller.
So the real amusing question here is that assuming this is true, what happens when you have a heap of ponies that are Winona-level intellect at best?
And what happens if the state of sophant vs. not may not be a fixed thing, and it can go either way?
Cue grass-chewing royals here.
The problem is a problem when we consider a pure materialistic approach. Which is quite interesting, and something we will have to wrangle with in our setting (a.k.a. Reality, but that is a bit of an antropocentric vision of things) and are morally obligated to solve sooner rather than later (hoping it can be solved, but not trying is a defeatist attitude).
But for ponies, well, I kinda think you are missing on the whole "magic is also a way of perceiving the world" angle. It can lead to interesting conundrums (what if magic is not completely pervasive? What if there are self-aware beings not reacting to it?), but, depending on your headcanon, it can also be used as a way of seeing if somebody is a sophont or not.
This latches actually on my idea that souls are a real, demonstrable thing in Equestria, and the reason mind-magic is deemed a minor problem. The existence of transformation magic and the possibility of switching back and forth between forms (if you are skilled enough), plus that ponies can become potted plants a then get better, seems to indicate that continuity of conscience is a non-issue, and that the essence of a being is not stored in the physical form. Hence, mind magic is less of a thing as it doesn't affect the "true" being.
Why all that aside about souls and stuff? Well, because I think the evidence, along with my little rambling, points toward Qualia being a tangible thing in Equestria, and thus a criterion for personhood. If, at the end, it is a horrible thing or an easy solution depends purely on the headcanon and if it is an infallible law of the local reality or not.
Wow.
THAT would be a pretty horrible childhood, if one's parents aren't sapient.
...Don't forget the fact that Fluttershy's animals have a book reading club.
Animal intelligence in Equestria is confusing.
I wouldn't think of it as a clear cut "sapient / not sapient" border, but more of a ... sliding scale.
Either that, or these animals are intelligent but we don't normally see this.
Looking at some of Fluttershy's animals, I can't shake the feeling that these animals, if left to build their own civilization, could easily do so.
I guess the problem is less a matter of intelligence, but the fact that
a) the lives of Equestian animals living in the wilderness are extremely unsafe, so their lives are spent entirely on just "survival". I remember seeing a graphic somewhere that illustrated "the basic needs", and how that starts with "survival", and goes up to "education / entertainment".
b) In pony-society, by contrast, they are treated as pets. So again, they don't get to develop the same skills as ponies do.
Basically, if a human baby was dropped off in Equestria, there's no guaranty it would properly enter society, or either end up growing up in the wilderness, or be mistakenly adopted as a pet - well, until it starts talking I suppose. Though perhaps even then there's no guaranty it'll be treated as a pony would growing up -
Do cows and sheep attend the same schools as ponies? Somehow, I have doubts.
Although a calf or young sheep skilled in maaaath attending a school and trying to fit in with ponies of their age might make for an interesting story setup.
Heck, or perhaps, a peak into an alternate universe - or even just a distant continent - where things turned out differently and these very same animals share societal rights with ponies on equal terms.
Or, sticking with the alternate universe setup... story idea time:
4524969 Estee came up with a test.
The high-magic environment seems to be able to facilitate much easier communication, but for things that apparently can't speak, they have a mimic test.
I think it was FoME that had the idea that Fluttershy's animals were boosted due to being around her all the time.
Most wild bears probably aren't that smart, but Harry *likes* her, and she can talk to basically anything, on some level.