Talk:Background Races

Sapience vs. sentience
Insofar as the two terms have a difference in meaning: sentience, being sensation or the capacity for sense perception, is common to all animals such as roaches and gold fish, whereas sapience is not. Countless races have attained sentience on earth alone (which is not news), but only the human race can claim to have forged civilizations (societies with high development of the arts and sciences), let alone gone into space. Sapience, which is wisdom or the capacity for it, would then appear to belong to the "countless" races (in the ME universe) who have specifically "forged civilizations [and] explored the depths of space", and thus better fits the meaning of the opening paragraph (otherwise the triple predicate should have different qualifications). Notwithstanding anything on the page being a direct quote, I'm returning to a previous user's edit of "attained sapience" (and even changing the Aphras' adjective to "sapient" as well, since the capacity for entering into any "metallic" age really applies to sapient beings; such would also agree with the Aphras main page). -- AnotherRho 19:26, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that we've already had a discussion on this matter and sentience is more accurate than sapience, hence why the article was written the way it was. See here for more. Lancer1289 19:59, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and one other thing. If you have a problem with an undo, then one is supposed to bring it up on the talk page first before undoing an edit. Lancer1289 20:00, January 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey! That's my rant that is being linked to! Neat! Basically, what it boils down to is this: The definition that AnotherRho provides for sentience amounts to "new-speak". It's not the traditional definition of the word. Traditionally, the definition does include sense perception, but is further narrowed down to include consciousness. This definition of the word has been in use since at least the 19th century. The definition of the word as simply being responsive to sense impressions is the medical definition of sentient, which doesn't really apply here.


 * Sapient, on the other hand, quite literally means having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment. The word actually derives from an old Middle English word (and an even older PIE base word) meaning "to taste". Compare this to sentient's base in Latin, which means "to perceive". So, while sentient, traditionally, means to be self-conscious, sapient implies a level beyond mere self-consciousness. It's why we use the word to distinguish modern man from earlier, but still fully self-aware, man. (We are, after all, homo sapiens sapiens, or "wise wise man".) We can also see evidence of this differentiation in the Mass Effect universe. For example, it could easily be argued that the vorcha are sentient, but not particularly sapient.


 * And that's it, in a nutshell. Just to point out too: As far as we know, only one species currently residing on Earth has attained sentience in the traditional, non-medical definition of the word, that being humanity, which is also sapient (or so we proclaim ourselves to be). Other species in the past have attained sentience, but are no longer present, and some people maintain that one or two other species may be sentient even now. There are many species on Earth that are medically sentient, but that's it. So I'll have to agree that sentient is the word we want to use here, being the more accurate of the two, due to its broadness, as opposed to a very specific word like sapient. SpartHawg948 21:10, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Lancer, hello! long time no talk. Thank you for your advice; many times I've followed it only to have no responses. In this case, since your stated reason for the undo was "there's a difference", and the difference is as was subsequently stated, I posted both the reason and the change. The reference to the past discussion is helpful; I would reply that canon also uses sapient and much more often (witness the Aphras, the Codex "Non-sapient creatures", Codex: Quarians Religion, etc.), and the Yahg at least haven't taken to space (nor are they on this page). As for Spart's dictionary references (which don't give much of an account, but don't distinguish between being conscious and having sense perception), his interesting account will suffice.

Spart, hello! long time no talk as well. Thank you for the interesting account of the meanings and histories of the words. It is worth adding that "sentience" as I spoke of it is both etymologically more accurate and historically; its use as "conscious" is as you said a product of the 19th century (so, compared to centuries of tradition, a neologism). "Conscious" also has suffered the same neologistic use, probably for the same cause or causes, to refer to any being which is "aware" of something (whereas before it referred to having scientia or demonstrable knowledge of something, i.e. a specifically human capacity), perhaps because of Rousseau and others making "sentiment" so important in human things. Also worth noting is that sapient is also of Latin origin (sapientia), and was (in its reference to "wisdom" or theoretical knowledge) coined and always used by Cicero to distinguish it from practical wherewithal (prudence).

History aside, I don't quite see how you mean "broad", or how its breadth is more appropriate for this article. Whereas it's admitted on all sides that "sentient" at least includes "capable of sensation/feeling", or the sort of consciousness shared by all animals, "sapient" is more specific by referring to beings which are in principle capable of high science (wisdom). And are any of the other beings on this page believed to be as dumb as the vorcha? Yet all the beings on this page were capable of being (it would seem) targets of the Reapers. The first paragraph (and the page's contents) refers to beings all of whom achieved spaceflight and interplanetary travel/habitation, and nuclear or astral warfare, which require at least the capacity for high theoretical or demonstrable knowledge (which we now call science). The exception is the apparently "bronze age" Aphras, who are described on their page as "sapient". In other words, "sentient" (assuming it can include a being which is capable of more than just sensual consciousness) is too broad, whereas "sapient" is a term with less ambiguity.

Scanning the contents of this wiki and perusing a few pages, it seems to me that many editors use sentient and sapient interchangeably, whereas the game's writers almost always use sapient to refer to beings capable of independent space travel and/or profound theoretical reasoning (or, wisdom). For the purposes of this page, I think "sapient" is more appropriate since every being listed had the mentioned capacities in common, and some are called sapient (but none sentient), and the game writers tend to use "sapient" for beings who have the mentioned capacities, regardless of what we say here. -- AnotherRho 22:43, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, as regards your last point, you'll find (if you follow the link that Lancer provided) a comment from Dammej which I failed to mention earlier. He points out that the writers describe the yahg in their Codex entry as sentient, not sapient, and in doing so, seem to indicate that, from their perspective (i.e. the perspective of the writers at BioWare, the people who establish canon) "sentient" does in fact mean self-aware. I mean, if the Shadow Broker isn't, as you put it, "capable of high science (wisdom)", then who is? Yet, per the Codex (aka canon), the Shadow Broker and his people are described as sentient, but not necessarily sapient. So, I must argue that your contention that the writers use sapient "almost always" when referring to beings capable of "wisdom" is in error. They too seem to use the terms interchangeably.


 * Now, as to my meaning of sentient being a broader term: I thought I was quite clear, but apparently, I wasn't. What I mean here is: Sentient, as it is typically defined in a non-medical context, going all the way back to the origins of the word, means any self-aware being. Sapient is a distinction we use chiefly to distinguish ourselves (again, homo sapiens sapiens) from earlier ancestors of ours who were self-aware, but not on the same level as we are (which we term "sapience"). As such, sentient, meaning self-aware but not necessarily "wise", would be a broader term. As such, and since the writers of the series seem perfectly willing to describe advanced beings capable of abstract thought and high science (such as the yahg) as sentient, I still maintain that this is the more appropriate term. It's certainly better (in my opinion) than making sweeping assumptions about all the races on this page, as we don't really have much information on any of them. Who is to say that they are all "wiser" than the yahg, who have been termed (canonically) sentient? I'd prefer to err on the side of caution, using the term we know can be accurately applied to all of them, rather than a term we may assume can be applied to all of them. SpartHawg948 23:06, January 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * For ease of reference, the Codex entry Dammej referred to begins thusly: "The yahg are a race of massive apex predators from the world of Parnack whose rise to sentience in no way blunted their violent nature." (emphasis added) Now, it would appear here that sentience means more than simply feeling and being able to respond to external stimuli. Why else would it be considered unusual that their brutal nature had not diminished with the attainment of sentience? Violence, and a "violent nature", after all, are quite common among beings which are capable of sense perception but are not self-aware. SpartHawg948 23:14, January 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I had read the link and the article (that, and the VI codex's generalization, is why I said "almost always"). Certain it is that the only two species of mere beasts who were written into the Codex are classified as "non-sapient", thus distinguishing them from the other races discussed (who are in several cases explicitly called sapient: e.g. the quarians, turians, salarians).  As for the Shadow Broker, of whom we know little, whether the first Broker was right to consider him an aberration among his people (because of his interest in learning) makes no difference.  The yahg, who aren't on this page, are called sentient in reference to their "rise" or evolution from predatory beasts, as just quoted.  Since you also refer to evolution (by speaking of our ancestors), one may say that this single counter example is no different from speaking of all "humans", i.e. every species in the genus "homo", in their evolutionary development from mere beasts, as "sentient".  So it confirms my assertion about the writers (if the writer of that entry wrote with precision), or at least does not contradict it (if he or she wrote loosely).
 * Thanks for clarifying "broad". I think I divined your meaning, but further asked why it's suitable here.  The "broad" term includes beings who were (as just mentioned, and by current scientific dogma) incapable of even fashioning tools, and yet "conscious".  This use of "consciousness", being possible for a being incapable of art, has thus become very broad indeed, or even vague.  But every race capable of being in a "bronze age", and certainly every race capable of developing interplanetary spaceflight etc., is not properly referred to by a term which includes beasts or things only slightly more remarkable than beasts.
 * This brings me to the charge that I'm being rash by making sweeping claims about these background races. First, I'm not saying we should change every use of "sentient" to "sapient" on the wiki; merely the two uses here (one "sentient", in fact, explicitly contradicts canon).  Also, most of the races on this page are said to be "spacefaring" or to have had starships (or to be starships), in most cases colonizing or attempting to colonize other planets, or employing uninhabitable planets for other purposes (mining, possible grave yards, etc.), or applying cosmetic alterations to a planet's outer atmosphere -- in a word, activities that require extremely high development of the arts and sciences (or, feats which surpass those even of contemporary humanity).  There are two exceptions to this: the 7 whomevers who killed themselves through nuclear holocaust, and the inhabitants of Aphras, who were allegedly in a bronze age before being obliterated by orbital bombardment. But both of these races--the least technically advanced of any described here--are called (in the canon accounts anyway) "sapient".  The more advanced races are said to have had technical or intellectual capacities not inferior to the ME races called sapient (in Codex entries).  On the other hand, not one race on this page is described as sentient.  So nothing I'm saying "sweeps" over the whole but rather agrees with the parts and the general sense; however, calling them "sentient" does exceed the canon accounts since such is never said of them (and in two cases contradicts what is said).  -- AnotherRho 01:06, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * [EDIT] Anyway, if you are interested in discussing this more, I'm game. But please note that I changed the entry on the inhabitants of Aphras to agree with the planet's page, i.e. with canon, for consistency (acting on the assumption, drawn from past conversations, that consistency and canon-agreement is preferable to needless variation and contradiction). -- AnotherRho 01:18, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. That is one hell of an assumption there. Assuming that the Codex means "The yahg, who aren't on this page, are called sentient in reference to their "rise" or evolution from predatory beasts" is just plain old speculation. There is literally no factual underpinning for this, just your own assumption. After all, wouldn't any predatory beast be sentient using your definition? It seems clear (to me, at any rate) that what the Codex is referring to is the fact that the yahg, despite having attained sentience (that is, self-awareness, the capacity for abstract thought and reasoning and all that) still retain a very savage nature. It seems pretty explicitly stated in the line I quoted from the Codex. Implicit in this is the notion that sentience, in this usage, is defined as self-awareness and abstract thought and all that. At no point does the codex define the ancestors of the yahg as sentient, which seems to be an assumption underpinning the second paragraph of your latest response. If this is not the case (that this assumption doesn't factor into your second paragraph), then I'm afraid I can't make heads or tails of it at all.
 * Just to be clear, I did already refer to all the other members of the genus homo as sentient. I'm not sure why you mention this as some sort of hypothetical argument here. Remember the whole bit about us referring to ourselves as homo sapiens sapiens to differentiate ourselves from our equally sentient (i.e. self-aware) but less sapient ancestors? I certainly remember saying that at least once here. I don't, however, remember accusing you of being rash. I warned against making assumptions and such, but never alleged you had behaved rashly. I'm 100% fine with species that are explicitly described as sapient being referred to as sapient. I don't understand why I'd even have to say that. In every other case, though, such as with the article as a whole, I'm still of the opinion that sentient not only suffices as a descriptor, but is preferable to sapient. It really seems to be coming down to a matter of opinion and interpretation of words. Etymologically, the facts would seem to support me, though that doesn't seem to be convincing you, but canonically, both terms are used seemingly interchangeably, so either is acceptable. And, honestly, my personal preference is for sentient. SpartHawg948 01:59, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I really have no desire to continue this discussion. I don't seem to be converting you to my way of thinking, and I can assure you that you haven't made any inroads into changing mine. It seems to really be boiling down to personal preference, as the canon is vague on this one. And I'm concerned that if this discussion continues too much longer, I'll eventually lose my patience and act in a manner unbecoming of a gentleman. So maybe we'd better just let this one go. That's my thinking on the matter, anyways. SpartHawg948 02:03, January 5, 2011 (UTC)