The Nature of Innocence and Exorcists

[KidWicked13]

Also, is the Innocence really sentient? Sentience is not the ability to percieve one's surroundings. It is "a state of having the power of sensation by the five senses." Does the innocence smell? Does it see or taste or hear?

We've only ever seen the Innocence react to two things (to the best of my memory): evil/sin (Suman's betrayal, Allen's arm invoking of it's accord to attack Mana as an akuma/the third exorcists/akuma/dark matter in general, Krory's Innocence causing him to attack akuma, the multiple times it protects Lenalee) and a willingness to fight/some kind of resolve (Miranda's Innocence invoking for the first time, the Dark boots evolving, Choaji's absolute hatred for anyone on the Earl's side/attempts to save Lenalee). So basically, the Innocence reacts to direct threats to itself and favorable conditions to fulfill its purpose of destroying akuma.

Scientifically, those two characteristics do not alone qualify for sentience. Case in point? Viruses will avoid hazardous conditions and will attack host bodies where they are best able to replicate themselves and they technically aren't even considered living organisms...

[Manda]

Good argument, but I s'pose, ofcourse, it all comes down to own sentience, and what we perceive as being sentient. To better organize out thoughts, the technical and accepted definition of sentience is as follows...
1.)–adjective
1.
having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2.
characterized by sensation and consciousness.

2.)— adj
1. having the power of sense perception or sensation; conscious

— n
2. rare a sentient person or thing

[C17: from Latin sentiēns feeling, from sentīre to perceive]

Also . . . .
Word Origin & History

sentient
1632, "capable of feeling," from L. sentientem (nom. sentiens ) "feeling," prp. of sentire "to feel" (see sense). Meaning "conscious" (of something) is from 1815.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

So, technically, anything that shows "intelligence" would be considered sentient. Honda even has a robot that is in fact sentient by the scientific definition of the word "sentience". The example of a virus is compelling, I s'pose a good avenue to ponder. However, a virus does act on a sort of instinct. This isn't a sign of "intelligence" perhaps, but an impulse mother nature programed into its functionality. You're right, its not alive because of this but there is a difference between sentient and instinctual actions. Instinct requires no thought process whatsoever, while sentience is defined as "thought" period.

So I s'pose if you rendered the innocence a sort of Virus, then you would have to call its reactions pure instinct. However, this doesn't seem to fit what we have seen so far. Sure, you could say they attach themselves to suitable hosts [Why they choose whom they choose is still up for grabs, so you can't say it is because they are "suitable" because its not certain] like parasites and viruses, but this also does not provide any proof that there is no thought process involved in how an innocence functions. For instance, a flat worm my attach itself to host because instinct tells it to regardless of the circumstances while a conman attaches itself to a sucker because he "thinks" it will work out well for him.

Because of the varied nature and "will" of the innocence, I find it hard to believe that there is no consciousness involved. As a matter of fact, some of the very situations you mentioned in your post point to the very opposite of your conclusion. You see, a sentient being is something that is "aware" of its surroundings regardless of use of senses. Not sensing something through all five senses. That would mean that a blind person, or a deaf person is not sentient because they do not use all five senses in order to become aware of their surroundings. The very nature of the word "sentient" is rooted in "concious".

Now, if you consider the meaning of "evil/sin" you will see that these are relative terms in condition to direct relation to the thought process of the perceptee. In other words, say you think I'm evil because I kicked a dog. I say I'm good because the dog bit me. You say I'm evil because I shot my husband in the kiwis. I say I'm justified because he slept with five other women, and that was just since yesturday. So, really, there is no instinctual solid ground when it comes to "evil/sin" therefore this choice is purely made by ones perception of reality [Which equals sentience].

I mean, technically, if you remember when Innocence was first explained by the BRO, they list the Innocence as being a weapon that was given to us by god. Therefore, the Innocence is anything but sentient on its own [This could also be considered a stasis state when it is not sync'd at all]. Its a solid material used to forge weapons in correspondance with the user's will [or sentience whatever]. Therefore, the innocence is sentient by proxy because it acts according to the concious of its wielder. It acts/reacts according to the senses of its user, and their perceptions of reality. So you could argue that the innocence is completely aware of its surroundings by using the senses of its user, and is there sentient by a use of all five human senses. Therefore, it would be a sentient being, because it would in fact posses a conciousness, even if it is shared with the user.

[KidWicked13]

But if it requires a host to perceive anything, it's not truly sentient. And blind and deaf individuals are still sentient because they still perceive themselves and their surroundings through sensory input.

Also, a con man's eye for a mark is based on knowledge acquired through experience as well as thought processes, while a virus simply hijacks the first viable host it comes across...a conman choosing a mark requires deliberate thought. The con man will go off of what he sees and make a decision based on whether the potential benefit outweights the potential cost of getting caught, showing deliberate forethought behind his actions. And if the con man's plans fall through for whatever reason, he will learn from that and use that in later schemes. A virus doesn't think (to the best of the scientific communiy's knowledge); it floats around until it comes to something that will enable it to reproduce itself, then hijacks whatever organism it came across and uses it until it can't be used any more. It might be that only human blood cells have what it needs to reproduce itself, or it may be that both human blood cells and canine blood cells are viable hosts. But the viral cells aren't going to sit and deliberate which one would be more efficient.

And I don't feel there is evidence to support Innocence doing that. I'm not saying the Innocence is not sentient, just that there is little to no evidence to conclude it is. From what I've seen, I've drawn the conclusion that Innocence functions instinctually. The Innocence doesn't really do much beyond a sort of reflexive lashing out or protection of its host; the best illustrator of this to me is that the Innocence doesn't discriminate at all between good dark matter users and bad ones. It injures Allen, who is an Exorcist fighting with the Innocence. It activates itself upon Allen's first meeting with the Third Exorcists. It then tries to destroy the Third Exorcists and has to be forcibly restrained to keep it from killing them.

And while I can grudgingly admit there is a possibility the instinct displayed by the Innocence may be due to a level of sentience, that doesn't mean it is necessarily conscious. That's getting into sapience, which is not something I don't think the Innocence has.

[Manda]

Actually, you just said the same thing I did about the con man xD. My point being, is that they both actively seek out and "Attach" themselves to a suitable host. One uses thought, while one uses Instinct. The question is, whether the innocence is the con man or the virus.

There are plenty of examples I can depict of a single minded determined person who would react the same way as the innocence when it comes to dark matter to argue thought process, but I don't believe thats a though based action. Just because something is sentient, does not mean that it doesnt posses any insticts as well. You can have both, it happens.

You didn't ponder the logic I applied to the way the innocence determines who is a "Fallen One", and who isnt. Good and evil are purely relatice terms, and are descriminated against directly by bias. Which means there is no instinct when it comes to Good and Evil. This would be a perception based on a thought process. This is the hardest evidence yet that the innocence is sentient. Sure, you argue that this was programmed in by God, but you could also argue that God programmed us all to believe what we believe, and it requires no thought process at all also concluding that we are in fact not concious beings but an extention of God's own mind. Another way in which the innocence could be considered sentient, being nothing more then a piece of God's own mind.

Hmm ~Ponders~ Not sure which side of the debate I am on, but there is logic to both arguements and no proof either way. So I would say until we see more evidence its undeterminable whether the innocence is truely sentient or not.

[KidWicked13]

Ohhh. My misunderstanding on that part. hahaha...

Indeed creatures can have both instinct and thought process...look at people. Haha...

I understand. Kinda like Chaoji/Choaji/however its spelled...he hates the Akuma and the Noah absolutely and from his statements onboard the Ark, it wouldn't be too far fetched to extend that animosity towards the Thirds. But his behavior is a direct result of the murder on Anita and his crew...in his mind: Akuma killed his family, therefore Akuma, and Dark Matter users such as the Noah, are evil and need to be destroyed...which displays a behavior produced more by thought and experience rather than instinct.

Also, humans have free will, which enables them to act on their own and independant of whatever God wants them to do...so presuming the Christian standpoint is correct, which is not necessarily exactly true in the context of the series, despite a distinction between what God decrees is Good and what is Evil, we as humans with free will are 100 pecent capable of doing something we know to be Evil.

And it's understandable to not have a side. Haha. Like I said in my last post, I'm not trying to say that I believe that Innocence is sentient. I just that I don't particularly see enough evidence to conclude it is at this point...

[KidWicked13]

Well...the sentience thing is pretty much a non-issue after 203 and 204 ehh? Hard to argue that it's not seeing as there's now a walking, talking Innocence that is for all appearances self aware...haha.,..

---------- Post added at 10:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 PM ----------

I liked how 203 and 204 have definitely given new perspective on the story...I definitely like the Noah more than the Order now. They seem so much more human honestly. And the Noah that seem to be in the inner circle (The Earl, Tyki and Road) are a lot more complex than at first glance. To me, these latest chapters show that the Noah are genuinely good, or at least they believe they are. The only reason I see them as "evil" is that the story set them up that way; from Allen's initial, ignorant perspective, the Earl and the Noah caused nothing but misery and were absolutely evil. Now, the Order and the Innocence itself seem pretty heinous and vile.

I feel like the latest chapters have pretty much put the final nail in the coffin when it comes to my opinion on the morality of the Order as a whole; they're not good. The only reasoning for their virtue is that they oppose the Earl, who may or may not be evil. While I'm not saying the Order is bad or evil, arguing in their defense that they are the good guys in this story seems ludicrous at this point...