Originally posted by Bosse de NageIntelligence, as a phenomenon created by a complex nervous system, logically leads to greater capacity for suffering. Such beings can be tortured without even touching them simply by ruining their self esteem. They can fear for their loved ones, and anticipate the future with dread. Their nervous systems - the system that creates pain - is more complex.
Why should intelligence be the criterion for legal protection? Is it somehow less immoral to strike a stupid person than a smart one? Is it less immoral to inflict pain on a creature with equivalent sensitivity but lower mental capacity than a human being?
Setting that aside: What about animals with intelligence equivalent to small children? Should they not receive the same protections as small children?
No. No, but I don't think such exist.
Any animal with the intelligence of a small child should be given legal protections appropriate to their status as persons.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDo you mean that intelligence adds to the ways in which beings can suffer? That is true, I think. But the actual pain experienced on application of a red hot poker does not increase with intelligence.
Intelligence, as a phenomenon created by a complex nervous system, logically leads to greater capacity for suffering. Such beings can be tortured without even touching them simply by ruining their self esteem. They can fear for their loved ones, and anticipate the future with dread. Their nervous systems - the system that creates pain - is more com ...[text shortened]... ence of a small child should be given legal protections appropriate to their status as persons.
I've read that adult chimpanzees have intelligence equivalent to 5-7 year old human children. Considering the shared genetic inheritance, not to mention just how obviously smart they are, it's easy to believe. Clearly they qualify for protection.
I see that you can adopt a chimpanzee ...
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHow about a newborn human baby? Not as intelligent as a small child yet.
Any animal with the intelligence of a small child should be given legal protections appropriate to their status as persons.
How about a computer with a high sofistication in its artificial intelligence neural system? Far more intelligent compared to a small child.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagemmm Edward the II just might agree with you, mmmm, interesting name for a Jazz band, Edward the II and the redhot pokers.
Do you mean that intelligence adds to the ways in which beings can suffer? That is true, I think. But the actual pain experienced on application of a red hot poker does not increase with intelligence.
I've read that adult chimpanzees have intelligence equivalent to 5-7 year old human children. Considering the shared genetic inheritance, not to menti ...[text shortened]... to believe. Clearly they qualify for protection.
I see that you can adopt a chimpanzee ...
Originally posted by FabianFnasA computer hasn't got a neural system. In fact computers, lacking self-awareness, cannot be considered intelligent at all. A chess computer does not understand that it is playing chess.
How about a newborn human baby? Not as intelligent as a small child yet.
How about a computer with a high sofistication in its artificial intelligence neural system? Far more intelligent compared to a small child.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageA sufficiently advanced computer/robot/etc could be an intelligent, self aware person. I'd expect it to have analogous structures and electrical patterns though.
A computer hasn't got a neural system. In fact computers, lacking self-awareness, cannot be considered intelligent at all. A chess computer does not understand that it is playing chess.
Originally posted by FabianFnasRe: the baby - the intelligence of a child is sufficient but not necessary. The baby is a person because of tradition. Many cases should be evaluated on a case by case basis.
How about a newborn human baby? Not as intelligent as a small child yet.
How about a computer with a high sofistication in its artificial intelligence neural system? Far more intelligent compared to a small child.
In an almost ideal world, we'd have a gradual range of crime severity depending on the exact victim and exact circumstances based on a utilitarian model. Of course a perfect world would have no crime. However this utilitarian model of morality is impractical and not widely accepted, so I work through the rights model when discussing legal issues.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo, not a biological neural system, I meant more like a neural programming technique mimicking the human nervous system. I don't see a chess program as intelligent, no matter how skilled it is.
A computer hasn't got a neural system. In fact computers, lacking self-awareness, cannot be considered intelligent at all. A chess computer does not understand that it is playing chess.
I'm not at all talking of computers of today. I talk about a computer of the future, having an AI way over the todays. Like Asimov's kind of positronic brains.
When do we know if a computer has a self-awareness? Is it even defined properly? Does a baby have it? What about a dolphin? If it is a criterium then we must understand what it is. We don't.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYour answer is acceptable.
No, not a biological neural system, I meant more like a neural programming technique mimicking the human nervous system. I don't see a chess program as intelligent, no matter how skilled it is.
I'm not at all talking of computers of today. I talk about a computer of the future, having an AI way over the todays. Like Asimov's kind of positronic brains. ...[text shortened]... it? What about a dolphin? If it is a criterium then we must understand what it is. We don't.
I think you would enjoy reading Roger Penrose: The Emperor's New Mind, an enquiry into the possibility of strong AI. (He thinks it isn't possible; you might be able to refute him!).
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThank you Bosse 🙂
Your answer is acceptable.
I think you would enjoy reading Roger Penrose: The Emperor's New Mind, an enquiry into the possibility of strong AI. (He thinks it isn't possible; you might be able to refute him!).
The problem with self-awareness, intelligence, human rights and a lot of similar stuff, is that they are not properly defined. We are infact discussing things that we don't have a clue of what we are talking about.
In my lectures I sometimes ask my audience "How can we know for sure that this rock (as I show them one) has not an intelligence? And if we're not sure about that, how would we know that it has not a self-awareness, and in fact it's laughing at us in this very moment? What if it has the answer to relativity theory, and quantum theory at the same time? Likely? No. But possible? As long we have not defined all the words in our questions, everything is possible."
What if an astronaut found an object on a distant planet - how would we even know if it has life within, or not?
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasWe can't even define life properly.
Thank you Bosse 🙂
The problem with self-awareness, intelligence, human rights and a lot of similar stuff, is that they are not properly defined. We are infact discussing things that we don't have a clue of what we are talking about.
In my lectures I sometimes ask my audience "How can we know for sure that this rock (as I show them one) has not an i found an object on a distant planet - how would we even know if it has life within, or not?
That we find it hard to draw lines about these concepts doesn't mean we should ignore them when deciding about what rights to grant. Simply because we have to. If we need to decide whether to grant rights to certain entities, we cannot do it without a certain degree of arbitrariness. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce this degree of arbitrariness as much as our current understanding allows us too.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI disagree with your implication that self-awareness is totally undefined and practically meaningless. I think it is fairly well defined and quite meaningful and largely determinable.
The problem with self-awareness, intelligence, human rights and a lot of similar stuff, is that they are not properly defined. We are infact discussing things that we don't have a clue of what we are talking about.
...
As long we have not defined all the words in our questions, everything is possible.
Just because a definition has grey edges does not make it valueless nor does it rule out identifying objects that match the definition.
Further just because we can't always determine whether something matches a definition, it doesn't make that definition useless.
A good example of a very grey edged definition is 'species', yet we make decisions about species and use it in conversation and science every day yet we don't announce that we have no clue what we are talking about.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadPlease, give me an as-good-as-possible definition about self-awareness and how we determine self-awareness to an arbitrary object of any kind. One that includes every obvious case, and exclude the obvious nonself-aware cases.
I disagree with your implication that self-awareness is totally undefined and practically meaningless. I think it is fairly well defined and quite meaningful and largely determinable.
Just because a definition has grey edges does not make it valueless nor does it rule out identifying objects that match the definition.
Further just because we can't alway and science every day yet we don't announce that we have no clue what we are talking about.
Greay areas? Well, I accept some greyishness, no problems.
Originally posted by FabianFnasIsn't the mirror test a good indication of self-awareness? The latest: Crows, when seeing a colored dot on their feathers they can't see directly, will pick at the dot with their claws. Seems cut and dried to me they are self aware. Not many animals have that. That said, that is only one test and probably not a proof but just one indicator.
Please, give me an as-good-as-possible definition about self-awareness and how we determine self-awareness to an arbitrary object of any kind. One that includes every obvious case, and exclude the obvious nonself-aware cases.
Greay areas? Well, I accept some greyishness, no problems.
Fab: What do you lecture about and to what audiences?
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell the definition is more or less based on the two words. A being is self-aware if it has enough intelligence to recognize that it exists ie a sense of self.
Please, give me an as-good-as-possible definition about self-awareness and how we determine self-awareness to an arbitrary object of any kind. One that includes every obvious case, and exclude the obvious nonself-aware cases.
Greay areas? Well, I accept some greyishness, no problems.
I do not think that we have good methods of determining whether an arbitrary object has self-awareness, but there are certainly lots of obvious cases. Human beings for example are mostly self aware. Rocks are not.
I am not convinced that the mirror test is the best test for self awareness, but rather proves a certain level of intelligence (though anything that does pass the mirror test is self aware)
I think my cat is self aware even though I have seen him try to jump through a mirror and can be convinced to bite his own tail.
I am not convinced that you truly believe that rocks may be self aware even though you don't currently have a satisfactory test. The very fact that you give them as a ridiculous example shows that you already believe they do not. What test did you use?