Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

[R. Steve Walz]

To be fair, if you put a human in an isolation cell, he would not
likely come up with thousands of interesting problems to solve.

People need input too.

----------------
Admittedly it would be opportune to have more input, but we would
continue to change and grow from merely the input we have currently
amassed, despite none-further. Isolation does drive the physical
being insane, however, in that it loses stability without new input,
but otherwise that is unimportant.

-Steve

 

[Gerry Quinn]

Animals are NOT conscious, because if they were, and I mean in the same
manner as we call it so, they would actively seek our recognition and
company and try desperately to win our acknowledgement of their
awareness so that we would not eat them or let them die.

You are trying to re-define "conscious" as "having a mind similar to a
human mind". Why not use that construct, and see whether you still have
points to make?

My cat actively seeks my recognition and company. The thoughts that I
might eat her or let her die probably don't cross her mind, but I have
no reason to believe that my human neighbours are concerned about these
possibilities either.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Roedy Green]

Animals are NOT conscious, because if they were, and I mean in the same
manner as we call it so, they would actively seek our recognition and
company and try desperately to win our acknowledgement of their
awareness so that we would not eat them or let them die.

They do. See http://mindprod.com/intel.html But no matter what they do
to someone locked in your mindset they will always remain inferior.
It is a similar mechanism that convinces some people their race or
nation make them superior to others.

 

[Roedy Green]

My cat actively seeks my recognition and company. The thoughts that I
might eat her or let her die probably don't cross her mind, but I have
no reason to believe that my human neighbours are concerned about these
possibilities either.

LOL. Well put.

 

[George W. Cherry]

They do. See http://mindprod.com/intel.html But no matter what they do
to someone locked in your mindset they will always remain inferior.
It is a similar mechanism that convinces some people their race or
nation make them superior to others.

Right. It's called speciesism. Speciesism grounds
cruelty to animals just as racism grounds cruelty
to other races and nationalism grounds cruelty to
members of another nation. Try

http://www.etsu.edu/philos/faculty/hugh/species.htm

for a philosophical article on speciesism.

George

 

[R. Steve Walz]

You are trying to re-define "conscious" as "having a mind similar
to a human mind".

--------------------
Since that's the only kind we know and understand, it seems
reasonable. We can't do this kind of "analysis from within"
for any other kind honestly.

Why not use that construct, and see whether you still have
points to make?

----------------------
You do it, you seem intrigued.

My cat actively seeks my recognition and company.

----------------------
It hangs around if you feed it, who knows or cares why? If it knew
of itself in anything like the way that WE know of ourselves, however,
it would be trying to learn to read and write.

The thoughts that I
might eat her or let her die probably don't cross her mind,

 

[R. Steve Walz]

They do. See http://mindprod.com/intel.html

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Right. It's called speciesism. Speciesism grounds
cruelty to animals just as racism grounds cruelty
to other races and nationalism grounds cruelty to
members of another nation. Try

http://www.etsu.edu/philos/faculty/hugh/species.htm

for a philosophical article on speciesism.
George

--------------------------
And one that reveals this critique to be trivially dismissed.
Loyalty to our species and its needs makes speciesism mandatory
in order to be moral! Equating racism with speciesism is such
a patent category mistake that innumerable examples of moral
choices would easily change your mind: Your child who needs an
experimental operation versus a test monkey, etc.

It's also irrelevant for us irreligious who don't specifically
REQUIRE "dominion over" all the other lifeforms. They're still
not capable of human awareness, so much so that they can be
reasonably regarded as non-"beings", which is why we permit
each other to eat them.

But MY point is one that seems to escape humans most of the time just
because we have always lived on this planet with these animals:

Our awareness is SO CAPABLE and that of lower animals is SO INCAPABLE,
that one is quickly left wondering whether lower animals are OR CAN
BE CONSCIOUS OR AWARE AT ALL, or whether they must actually be classed
as a kind of bio-device that simply SEEMS so because we have a raft
of similar features and reflexes and behaviors UNRELATED TO OUR
AWARENESS!!

It gets to the point that us talking to animals starts to look as
ridiculous as talking to a doll just because it has eyes and mouth
similarly situated and makes noise when we squeeze it!!!

These sorts of reflexes, features, and behaviors, which we share
ONLY because of our origin, do NOT in and of themselves show
the presence of an AWARENESS ANYWHERE NEAR the order or our own!!!
They can be non-conscious low level subsumption layers without any
real awareness as WE attribute it.

Remember, a switch responds when pushed, it may be part of a device
that responds JUST LIKE US in MANY WAYS! But that doesn't mean it
KNOWS it exists!!

-Steve

 

[Les Cargill]

Right. It's called speciesism. Speciesism grounds
cruelty to animals just as racism grounds cruelty
to other races and nationalism grounds cruelty to
members of another nation. Try

The opposite of speciesism is called "anthropomorphism". It
falsely invests animals with human characteristics.

http://www.etsu.edu/philos/faculty/hugh/species.htm

for a philosophical article on speciesism.

Speciesism as a concept is specious. If cows object to being
made into hamburger, let them hire lawyers to express their
objection - or at least eat grass in an "Eat Mor Chik'n"
pattern like in the Chick-Fil-A ads.

 

[George W. Cherry]

--------------------------
And one that reveals this critique to be trivially dismissed.
Loyalty to our species and its needs makes speciesism mandatory
in order to be moral! Equating racism with speciesism is such
a patent category mistake that innumerable examples of moral
choices would easily change your mind: Your child who needs an
experimental operation versus a test monkey, etc.

It's also irrelevant for us irreligious who don't specifically
REQUIRE "dominion over" all the other lifeforms. They're still
not capable of human awareness, so much so that they can be
reasonably regarded as non-"beings", which is why we permit
each other to eat them.

But MY point is one that seems to escape humans most of the time just
because we have always lived on this planet with these animals:

Our awareness is SO CAPABLE and that of lower animals is SO INCAPABLE,
that one is quickly left wondering whether lower animals are OR CAN
BE CONSCIOUS OR AWARE AT ALL, or whether they must actually be classed
as a kind of bio-device that simply SEEMS so because we have a raft
of similar features and reflexes and behaviors UNRELATED TO OUR
AWARENESS!!

It gets to the point that us talking to animals starts to look as
ridiculous as talking to a doll just because it has eyes and mouth
similarly situated and makes noise when we squeeze it!!!

These sorts of reflexes, features, and behaviors, which we share
ONLY because of our origin, do NOT in and of themselves show
the presence of an AWARENESS ANYWHERE NEAR the order or our own!!!
They can be non-conscious low level subsumption layers without any
real awareness as WE attribute it.

Remember, a switch responds when pushed, it may be part of a device
that responds JUST LIKE US in MANY WAYS! But that doesn't mean it
KNOWS it exists!!

-Steve

Yes, Roedy, there are definitely good cases for killfiling.

George

 

[Gerry Quinn]

It's not reasonable, bacause it is unrelated to the standard meaning. A
dog or cat can, plainly, be unconscious or asleep. Therefore it is
clear that a dog or cat can, at other times, be conscious or awake.

On the contrary, I am pointing out that, if the construction is spelt
out, all that remains of your post is pointless tautology.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Chris Shepherd]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

My initial thoughts after reading your post was that you are unlikely to be a
pet owner. Most -- if not all -- pets exhibit signs of thinking on a quite
regular basis.

They don't rely on you for food.

That statement in and of itself points out the flaw in your argument. If a cat
is hungry, it eats. It knows it should satiate the urge to eat. If a cat knows
that when it is hungry, the human it lives with will provide food, that makes a
great case for self-awareness. The concept of a cat being able to identify a
human as being capable of serving its needs means that it must have learned that
the human provides for it. This also points to the cat examining its needs, and
determining how they can be best satiated. Unless your definition of
self-awareness and consciousness deals not with thought, in which case, humans
don't fit the bill either.

I could also make the point that modern day humans rely on others to provide
food in one form or other, and fewer and fewer people (thanks to
industrialization) are needing to survive by their own skills at hunting and so
forth. Reliance on others does not disprove consciousness.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Yes, Roedy, there are definitely good cases for killfiling.

George

 

[R. Steve Walz]

It's not reasonable, bacause it is unrelated to the standard meaning. A
dog or cat can, plainly, be unconscious or asleep. Therefore it is
clear that a dog or cat can, at other times, be conscious or awake.

-----------------------------
A dog can be blue if painted, and so can we. It's unrelated to
the ineffable nature of full self-awareness. Sleep is not provably
necessary to awareness, nor is any other feature we share with other
animals, hunger, sex drives, etc. These are things that while shared,
only WE are aware of!!! To say they "share" ANYTHING is simply
inaccurate if by that you mean share OUR manner of Experiencing them!

On the contrary, I am pointing out that, if the construction is spelt
out, all that remains of your post is pointless tautology.
- Gerry Quinn

------------------------------
It's far from pointless. There is NO WAY to justify the assertion that
awareness is demonstrated by "shared" behavior features between our
species and LOWER animals that DOES NOT involve the full recursive grasp
of self-existence!! I can't think of ANY feature of animals of their
nature or behavior, that justifies an assumption of awareness on their
part ABSENT AN ATTEMPT TO COMMUNICATE WITH US THAT MAKES THEM LOOK
AS FRANTIC TO DO SO AS A HUMAN MIND TRAPPED IN ONE OF THEIR BODIES
WOULD INVARIABLY DO!! Human self-awareness is a feature of our
existence that is NOT shared with lower animals, or it would PROVE
itself by extensive NON-normal FRANTIC efforts to communicate with us
and have us understand the levels of reason we would then share.

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

My initial thoughts after reading your post was that you are unlikely to be a
pet owner. Most -- if not all -- pets exhibit signs of thinking on a quite
regular basis.

-------------------
Connective memory, discernment, and solution, are not required to be
functions of awareness, and can be carried out without self-awareness.
These can be evolved without the requirement of aware attention over
them. Looking is NOT awareness, anymore than eyes mean awareness.

That statement in and of itself points out the flaw in your argument. If a cat
is hungry, it eats. It knows it should satiate the urge to eat. If a cat knows
that when it is hungry, the human it lives with will provide food, that makes a
great case for self-awareness.

---------------
Nope. Doesn't. As I said, solution can be carried out by unaware
processes, and the proof is that we know how to program simple robots
to do so. Unless you're willing to grant robots awareness now that
is not programmed, or willing to leave our awareness as some mere
phantom inherent in the process, which is irrational.

The concept of a cat being able to identify a
human as being capable of serving its needs means that it must have learned that
the human provides for it. This also points to the cat examining its needs, and
determining how they can be best satiated. Unless your definition of
self-awareness and consciousness deals not with thought, in which case, humans
don't fit the bill either.

-------------------------------
There are many methods of problem solution: Hunger. One is to model
the self and the world and decide a strategy based on a model of
possible futures, this is called self-awareness, since the entity
must them awarely go through its knowledge base and make temporal
inferences.

But the way that cats and other lower animals do it is actually
non-conscious. Their memories are stimulated to make random connections
by their hunger agitating them until the smell memory and the memory
of attendant circumstances of its satisfaction are inadvertantly
juxtaposed and the connection of events causes them to wander to the
right area where they were last sated. this is NOT self-awareness.

This is a process that they need not be at all aware of, and it simply
brings them to where they may find food using their reflexes without
any realization of what has brought them, that is, without awareness.

This is shown by the idiocy of squirrels looking for nuts they buried,
and by many other features to the strivings of lower animals that do
NOT bear the systematized effort that the much more complex internal
modeling of the self and others and the world by an attentive process
called awareness produces, as cognitive science has now determined.

I could also make the point that modern day humans rely on others to provide
food in one form or other, and fewer and fewer people (thanks to
industrialization) are needing to survive by their own skills at hunting and so
forth. Reliance on others does not disprove consciousness.

-----------------------------
Nor did I say it does, but we being aware of whom we rely on on an
ongoing basis is a judgment that ONLY an aware human can make, even
after you feed the cat, the cat doesn't know it "relies" on you, or
even has any things called "ideas" such as that. That requires a
model of the self in the world, and lower animals don't have them.

-Steve

 

[Andrew Thompson]

....

...ABSENT AN ATTEMPT TO COMMUNICATE WITH US THAT MAKES THEM LOOK
AS FRANTIC TO DO SO AS A HUMAN MIND TRAPPED IN ONE OF THEIR BODIES
WOULD INVARIABLY DO!!

Well, no. They have just decided humans
are not worth talking too. ;-)

[ And please don't shout.
...I have a hang-over. ]

 

[R. Steve Walz]

...

Well, no. They have just decided humans
are not worth talking too. ;-)

--------------------
Then they'd better get nukes or resolve to be lunch.

[ And please don't shout.
..I have a hang-over. ]
Andrew Thompson

 

[Gerry Quinn]

-----------------------------
A dog can be blue if painted, and so can we. It's unrelated to
the ineffable nature of full self-awareness. Sleep is not provably
necessary to awareness, nor is any other feature we share with other
animals, hunger, sex drives, etc. These are things that while shared,
only WE are aware of!!! To say they "share" ANYTHING is simply
inaccurate if by that you mean share OUR manner of Experiencing them!

But I don't - why would you imagine that I do? To say a cat is conscious
is not to say that a cat shares our manner of experiencing
consciousness, any more than saying a cat has hair means that a cat has
hair just like ours. Nevertheless, a cat has consciousness, and hair.

------------------------------
It's far from pointless. There is NO WAY to justify the assertion that
awareness is demonstrated by "shared" behavior features between our
species and LOWER animals that DOES NOT involve the full recursive grasp
of self-existence!! I can't think of ANY feature of animals of their
nature or behavior, that justifies an assumption of awareness on their
part ABSENT AN ATTEMPT TO COMMUNICATE WITH US THAT MAKES THEM LOOK
AS FRANTIC TO DO SO AS A HUMAN MIND TRAPPED IN ONE OF THEIR BODIES
WOULD INVARIABLY DO!! Human self-awareness is a feature of our
existence that is NOT shared with lower animals, or it would PROVE
itself by extensive NON-normal FRANTIC efforts to communicate with us
and have us understand the levels of reason we would then share.

Your problem is that you are trying to deny the possible existence of
any form of consciousness or self-awareness that is different from ours,
but your main strategy is to redefine English words, which needless to
say helps not a whit in any argument related to what may or may not be
the case in the real world.

Your last statement may be true, i.e. that animals with human minds
would try hard to make the fact known to humans. But that does not say
anything about whether animals have consciousness or self-awareness.
Animals have animal minds, animal consciousness, and may well have
animal self-awareness.

In short, you can't prove that animals are like clockwork toys just by
proving they are not like humans. Simple enough for you?

- Gerry Quinn

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

But the way that cats and other lower animals do it is actually
non-conscious. Their memories are stimulated to make random
connections by their hunger agitating them until the smell
memory and the memory of attendant circumstances of its
satisfaction are inadvertantly juxtaposed and the connection of
events causes them to wander to the right area where they were
last sated. this is NOT self-awareness.

Sounds like a human discovering the purpose of a refrigerator.

I suggest you go to the animal shelter and adopt a cat.

 

[Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster]

Sounds like a human discovering the purpose of a refrigerator.

I suggest you go to the animal shelter and adopt a cat.

Or perhaps even one of Leslie Fish's culls...

URL:http://home.earthlink.net/~kayshapero/FishTale.htm