Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

[Roedy Green]

I see similar arguments put forward why animals can't be intelligent
or can't be conscious.

I think what we mean by conscious is "does this creature suffer?".

We assume that a computer churning away for hours seeking a solution
to some problem does not experience frustration.

It is really then an ethical question. Which creatures is it
permissible to frustrate or kill? Or just how big a sin is it to do
so?


It is likely silly to go to great inconvenience to care for one of
those Sony mechanical dogs. There is likely nothing home inside.
However, it appears to me there is likely something inside a real dog
quite capable of suffering if it is mistreated.

An ethical view might be the idea is to minimize the total suffering
in the universe, with differing notions as to how pain should be
shared.

The crazy thing that seems to be about to happen is computers take
over, and change the world in some way, yet not actually enjoy in any
sense the fruits of their labours. All we humans could be gone and
this empty shell of a culture keeps running propelled solely by the
notion of natural selection. Without some consciousness to enjoy the
show, what point in producing it?

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Better: You THINK you're in charge. Most social animals still devolop
their normal society within the human oppression, what I laugh at most
however, is a human calling him self the leader of a pack of dogs that
he claims possesion of.

-------------
Then we eat the dogs and make you the fool.

Basicaly, if you take your dog, with whom you've spent your entire life
and inflict a wound on him that will not be directly leathal, the resent
will be noticed. And if you do that in a pack of dogs, the other
membmers will assure you they realise what you have done (if it's not
the Alpha you've killed).

-------------------
They will kill each other trying to get away, or take over as alpha.

BTW, personaly, I don't belive pray animals deserve to be called
particulary intelligent tho. But then again, humans ARE pray animals.

------------------
Were, that was a LONG time ago.

Hmm. When I look at a dog and the dog looks back at me and we run allong
a cupple of meters, keeping a steady distance between the two of us, the
symbol communication system in my brain generates that magical gut
feeling that we understand each other, that system signals to the other
systems in my brain, one of which logicaly conclude that that constant
checking on eachother and the fact that we are both carefully keeping a
constant maximum range between us must mean that we both exist.

---------------------
That dog's advanced existence, and your own, is all in your mind.

Natural leanguage is equaly extrasensioary.

---------------------
You mean imaginary.

So are most animals. Are you faceblind or something?

 

[Seebs]

The people who should, perhaps, "quit it" are those who have
an alternative agenda about posting styles; an agenda that is
irrelevant to this NG in particular and to Usenet in general,
and who try to masquerade their emotional intolerance as
another cause.

Agreement on posting styles (for instance, the obvious wrongness of
top-posting) is fundamental to usenet. No structure for communication,
no communication.

-s

 

[Bent C Dalager]

Agreement on posting styles (for instance, the obvious wrongness of
top-posting) is fundamental to usenet. No structure for communication,
no communication.

As far as I'm concerned, there are two separate Usenets. One in which
participants respect eachother enough to make an effort to make their
posts legible to their readers. And another in which posters couldn't
care less about their readers and so top-post and mass-quote with gay
abandon, leaving it to the readers to decipher the resulting mess. I
only participate in the former and have a highly honed delete-key
reflex to deal with the latter

Cheers
Bent D

 

[R. Steve Walz]

blather means "loquacious nonsense"

------------
Yes, and?

I think my report was accurate, even if you discredit the guy's work.

------------
Many do.

I do run on often, but I think I described that succinctly.

 

[Chris Uppal]

As far as I'm concerned, there are two separate Usenets[...]

Nicely put.

-- chris

 

[R. Steve Walz]

there IS a discontinuity in anatomy.

The human brain is made of three parts, sometimes called the
reptitilian brain, the mammalian brain and the rational brain.

Reptiles have only the reptilian part. It deals with basic survival
like respiration and eating.

Mammals have the reptilian part and the mammalian part. One thing the
mammalian brain handles is emotions.

Then there is the rational brain that handles things like deductive
reasoning.

Some psychological troubles can be traced to the imperfect integration
of the three. They can be at odds.

If you use that is your discrimination of value or intelligence, you
run in to a problem. Elephants and whales have much larger rational
brains that humans do.

Those tarred with religious-induced species chauvinism argue their
larger brains do not count because these animals have bigger bodies.

This is invalid on three grounds.

1. Whales have no more complex musculature than humans.

2. the fine control of musculature is not done by the rational brain.

3. brontosauri managed to control humongous bodies with brains smaller
than a walnut.
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.

------------
All that is nice, but where are their efforts to communicate?
Where are their artifices.
If we can kill them, they can't be brighter than we are, that
would be stupid by definition.

Brain weight is not as important as brain structure.
Who says the cortex has to be used for deduction, it may only be
needed for spatial interpretation of sound in cetaceans?

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

I think what we mean by conscious is "does this creature suffer?".

We assume that a computer churning away for hours seeking a solution
to some problem does not experience frustration.

------------
Give us a break!

It is really then an ethical question. Which creatures is it
permissible to frustrate or kill? Or just how big a sin is it to do
so?

It is likely silly to go to great inconvenience to care for one of
those Sony mechanical dogs. There is likely nothing home inside.
However, it appears to me there is likely something inside a real dog
quite capable of suffering if it is mistreated.

An ethical view might be the idea is to minimize the total suffering
in the universe, with differing notions as to how pain should be
shared.

 

[Hans-Georg Michna]

My Oxford defines sentient as having the power to perceive via the
senses. This suggest only animals could be sentient. Perception by
other means does not count.

Roedy,

that makes my robotic lawn mower sentient, because it has a
sense of touch.

I would rethink that definition.

Hans-Georg

 

[Hans-Georg Michna]

I think what we mean by conscious is "does this creature suffer?".

Roedy,

this leads us not very far, because the word suffer is again
very poorly defined.

For example, an insect apparently suffers when subjected to
damaging forces or heat. But you could build a robot that acts
exactly like the insect, and we could probably today build a
robot that has the same brain and nerve functional structure
with respect to suffering. In other words, such a robot would
suffer exactly like an insect---no difference.

Hans-Georg

 

[Corey Murtagh]

For crying out loud, Roedy... that was YOUR statement that PD was
replying to. If you're going to respond to something, do so as a
response to the message itself, not some damn quote of it.

Or are you so confused that you don't recognize your own posts?

The human brain is made of three parts, sometimes called the
reptitilian brain, the mammalian brain and the rational brain.

If you use that is your discrimination of value or intelligence, you
run in to a problem. Elephants and whales have much larger rational
brains that humans do.

Those tarred with religious-induced species chauvinism argue their
larger brains do not count because these animals have bigger bodies.

I really don't think religion is the primary cause of species
chauvinism. IMO ignorance and arrogance are the more prevalent causes.

 

[Corey Murtagh]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

If we can kill them, they can't be brighter than we are, that
would be stupid by definition.

Ahh... so by your definition a retro-virus is more intelligent than a
human. While this may apply to you, I don't think it's true in the
general case.

 

[Joona I Palaste]

Airy R Bean <[email protected]> scribbled the following

Your computing experience is limited.

The same is true of all languages, when you create subroutines,
or the "verbs" of Forth.

Airy! You bottom posted! Surely this is against all your
principles and dogmas? Are you going to punish yourself for this
heinous sin by flogging yourself in the back or something?

--
/-- Joona Palaste ([email protected]) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"Shh! The maestro is decomposing!"
- Gary Larson

 

[Chris Uppal]

I really don't think religion is the primary cause of [...something...]
IMO ignorance and arrogance are the more prevalent
causes.

Um. I'm unclear on the distinction you're making here...

-- chris

 

[soft-eng]

I doubt we need any excuse at all for eating things (I certainly
don't). The theory of sentience sounds a lot more like something we

The fundamental guilt is always there. Of course, perosnally
you may not feel a need for an excuse, but human psychology
is very complex, the guilt is relatively minor given the
social context, and self-delusion at such minor levels is very common.

But if you were trying to convince people in general you were a saint
or at least a good religious figure, you would often need to
provide a very good explanation to people about your enjoyment of
animal flesh. The simplest explanation is that it's wrong
to attribute "similar to me" to animals. So you would need
a hook to deny this. That hook is "sentience".

 

[Roedy Green]

Chipmunk ain't a language!

Has anyone done a serious study to find out?

Consider that hieroglyphics baffled scholars for centuries until
someone found the Rosetta stone.

It seems to me from watching Walt Disney as a kid, that the chipmunk
relative the prairie dog has a number of sounds, as do monkeys, to
identify various predators.

What is a language? Something for communicating information through
abstract sounds or symbols. It may not be that sophisticated a
language, but it works to warn other prairie dogs to look up or down
for danger.

 

[Roedy Green]

All that is nice, but where are their efforts to communicate?

I ask one more time for you to read about my experiences communicating
with dolphins at the Human Dolphin foundation. Please see
http://mindprod.com/intel.html

 

[Roedy Green]

that was YOUR statement that PD was
replying to. If you're going to respond to something, do so as a
response to the message itself, not some damn quote of it

My post said that X wrote or quoted it. He DID. He quoted me. He
found that interesting to continue discussion.

 

[Roedy Green]

The beings in the universe do. I did not claim the universe as a whole
suffers, merely that ethical systems attempt to reduce the aggregate
suffering.

 

[Roedy Green]

insect apparently suffers

However, I must be getting near the mark or you would not say
"apparently suffers". There is a difference between going through the
emotions and actually suffering.

The main reason to be kind is to prevent suffering. People are quite
willing to set out mousetraps, but are horrified if they discover a
neighbour boy torturing mice to death.

Nazis, in a sense, were convinced Jews could not suffer. They were
just insects. I think it likely many of the people debating here
believe insects cannot suffer. They are just machines mimicking the
throws of suffering, like little windup toys.

What it means from a practical point of view when you say something is
incapable of suffering is that this creature has very low status. Its
needs or desires are extremely unimportant to you. I know of only
handful of people who voluntarily allowed mosquitos to bite them.
I doubt any of us has every felt guilty leaving a computer the
"boring" task of defragging the disk.