The misuse of the word sentient is one of those things which annoys me, not enough to be that annoying prick who corrects people mid-sentence but enough for it to grate on me when I hear it misused.

Sentience is merely the ability to perceive your environment, got eyes? You’re sentient. Ears?…

I was wondering if that was a me too oops moment, but, I use it correctly so no. With respect, I have to say I don’t think your definition is correct. Sentience refers to your autonomous awareness of your own existence.

Your description is something else and important enough, especially if denied. We take too much for granted at times. The ability to perceive and sense your environment is fine.

By the way, I hold no vanity about the specialness of humans. I’ve never got that and I’m not invested in it. We just are, whether we are special or not.

Are you sure? That’s the first I’ve heard of that definition of sentience, it seems identical to self-awareness, which would make the use of separate terms somewhat redundant.

Also, from the link you provided:

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.”

This appears to match the definition I gave in my original post almost exactly.

But yeah, humanity is not that special, it’s long been known we’re not the only animal to be self-aware. Every other species of great ape has passed the mirror test described in my original post, as have asian elephants, bottlenose dolphins, orcas and even the eurasian magpie (although the corvids are unusually intelligent for birds). And the mirror test is biased towards species whose primary sense is sight.

And whether or not we’re the only sapient species is highly debatable.













the source doesn’t support that claim at all.

a vote of the audience after a vote showed that people wanted pluto to be a planet again. That’s not actually news, and NASA had nothing to do with it.

Now now, let’s not confuse the issue with facts.








Batman: The Animated Series

This is one criminally underrated Batman villain.


Her physical condition didn’t allow her to age

No one took her seriously as an actress

And even when she was trying to get into a happy romantic relationship (albeit with another villain) he still couldn’t take her seriously as a consenting, sexually active and romantically interested adult

That’s a lot of blows to someone’s psyche 

and Babydoll is both a sympathetic villain and a formidable one

I remember this episode fucked me up a a kid. 

And man, do I wish we could see this Batman again: the Batman that consoles his villains, because the majority (if not all) of them are mentally ill people. And Batman knows this and wants them healthy again, not punished and GOD definitely not dead.

Baby Doll is so underrated as a Batman villain 

but her episode was perfect 

Batman: The Animated Series

The story of one fucked up, traumatized little boy, doing his best to help other fucked up traumatized people.

Much better than the right wing “criminals are just poor people who need a good punching” narrative Batman’s often used for.

(via garmbreak1)


Why didn’t the Jedi sense that Palpatine was an evil Sith lord way before they finally found out? Why couldn’t they sense it when he first started using the dark side of the force or came into the government (whichever came first)?

The way I figure, there’s only two possibilities, unless there’s something I’ve been missing after watching the movies and tv episodes over and over and over. Either the Jedi’s ability to use the force isn’t as powerful as it’s hyped up to be and their use of the force was too week to sense it, or Palpatine/Darth Sidious’s use of the dark side of the force was honed and powerful enough that he could make it undetectable. Hmmm…

Yoda: Blind we are, if creation of this clone army we could not see. 

Mace Windu: I think it is time we inform the senate that our ability to use the force has diminished. 

Yoda: Only the Dark Lord of the Sith knows of our weakness. If informed the senate is, multiply our adversaries will.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)









Give me a reason why I should embrace your ideology. I dare you.

It’s the basis for human evolution


I’m going to do this in several parts because it’s a subject worthy of books upon books


we are as closely related to pan paniscus (bonobos) as we are to pan troglodytes (common chimps), and troglodytes regularly engage in inter troop warfare and are cannibalistic

so i wouldnt use bonobo behavior as an argument for human socialism

SavageRumbaughs study shows that bonobos have greater language understanding thus they are closer to modern humans

but genetically, bonobos and chimps are equidistant to us

and chimps could be considered closer to us in many other respects, like how they create tools for hunting, don’t form all non-familial relationships around sex, and commit genocide just like we do

Bonobos have also been found to use tools so realistically this breaks down to their sex habits (which is very open to debate) and the genocide thing  I’ll give you 

Just wanted to drop in with some information; humans and the common chimpanzee have 96% identical DNA, whereas for humans and bonobos it’s 98%. So we are, in fact, more closely genetically related to bonobos than to the common chimpanzee.

Sentience, sapience and self-awareness.

The misuse of the word sentient is one of those things which annoys me, not enough to be that annoying prick who corrects people mid-sentence but enough for it to grate on me when I hear it misused.

Sentience is merely the ability to perceive your environment, got eyes? You’re sentient. Ears? Sentient. A nose? Sentient. Tastebuds? Sentient. Sentience is nothing special, all animals are sentient, even plants can be considered sentient.

Sapience is the word you’re looking for; it’s the ability to think, to reason, to judge. It’s kind of hard to define and/or measure. It’s where the name for our species comes from, Homo Sapiens: thinking man.

Self-awareness is the ability to recognise yourself as a separate entity, knowing that you exist. It’s much easier to test for than sapience, the most well known test being to put a mirror in front of the animal, if it reacts as it would to the presence of another animal, then it is not self-aware.

For example, put a mirror in front of a cat and it will react as it would to seeing another cat it is not familiar with, it does not recognise itself. On the other hand, if you put a mirror in front of an elephant, not only will they recognise their own reflection, they’ll often start admiring their own tusks.

Skipping Breakfast

I don’t know if many other people are like me, but I’m usually not hungry in the morning, in fact eating at all in the first three or so hours after waking up just makes me feel nauseous. But I eat breakfast anyway because that’s how I was raised; whenever I said I didn’t feel hungry and only wanted something to drink I was subjected to a lecture about how “breakfast is the most important meal of the day”, a point which would be reiterated until I gave in and ate something.

In more recent years I’ve been seeing an interesting little factoid thrown around; that skipping breakfast makes you fat, the logic being that not having breakfast makes you more likely to eat more in later meals. I recently found out where this came from; a study into the habits of people who have maintained significant weight loss found that eight out of ten of them eat breakfast every day.

After a further ten seconds on google I found that one in five adults regularly skip breakfast, i.e. there is no significant difference in the rate of breakfast consumption between those who have maintained significant weight loss and the general population, the majority of which, according to the statistics, are overweight.

This is just bad science and laziness; not only did they not investigate the effects of skipping breakfast before making the claim, they didn’t even check if this behaviour deviated from the average. So I’m not going to worry about breakfast anymore, I’ll eat it if I wake up hungry, but most of the time that’s not the case. At least until I see any real evidence on the matter.

Biscuit vs. Cookie

The word biscuit derives from the Old French term bescuit, which itself derives from the Latin for “twice cooked”.

The word cookie derives from from the Dutch term koekje, which is the diminutive form of koek, meaning “cake”.

Whilst the debate on the use of these terms has more to do with cultural differences than language, I believe that anything referred to as a biscuit should be brittle & dry and anything referred to as a cookie should be soft & moist.

Therefore; these are biscuits…

…and these are cookies.

I always thought I’d be a Ravenclaw.

Having read the books, it just seemed like the house which would fit me best, though I’d never given it a lot of thought. More out of curiosity than anything, I signed up for Pottermore, having heard good things about it.

Then this happened.


Hooray for a year of sporadic posts and wasted time!

Hooray for a year of sporadic posts and wasted time!

(Source: assets)