Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Sentience
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread: Sentience Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Jun 24th, 2003 11:38 AM
kellychaos
Re: Life
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibecrewangel

Quote:
Time is a constant, and your self-centered, snap-shot criteria completely ignore that.
Time as movement does not actually exist. All that exists is now. The concept of time is how we as a species perceive the flow of events from one to the next. And that perception is relative to the one who is experiencing the events.
The fact that the speed of light is constant and, as implied by the famous Einstein equation in his Theory General Relativity, time is relative to the observer has been proven proven time and again since it's publication @ 1919. It doesn't require acid to see that ... just some fancy schmancy scientific calibration techniques. Please try to keep up with the rest of the class, Vinth.
Jun 23rd, 2003 03:31 PM
mburbank Antacid tabs should be given out for stomaching you, you big runaway, crybaby, submarine letter in pants.
Jun 23rd, 2003 03:15 PM
VinceZeb

Acid tabs should be given out before reading this thread...
Jun 23rd, 2003 03:11 PM
Vibecrewangel
Life
I know this will get some grumbles......

I don't believe that human life is any more valuable than any other form of life. Now, I'm not a bleeding heart, three hugging, animal loving hippy. I eat meat. I wear leather. I work in a med lab that does animal testing. (I don't do it personally, but I understand the need) Humans tend to go from self-aware to self-centered. And I believe that is primarally a learned behavior.



Next.....



Quote:
Time is a constant, and your self-centered, snap-shot criteria completely ignore that.
Time as movement does not actually exist. All that exists is now. The concept of time is how we as a species perceive the flow of events from one to the next. And that perception is relative to the one who is experiencing the events.
Jun 21st, 2003 12:31 PM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helm
Too much anime there, Kelly. Artificial Intelligence is really just a catch-phrase for self-altering database. There's yet been no public experiment at duplicating human intelligence, to the best of my knowledge.
Perhaps I mispoke. I agree that all we have at this point are logic programs that work, recursively, to "learn" from their mistakes and adjust accordingly ... which is what I think you said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
And if there was, it wouldn't so much be a problem of the technical aspects as much as figuring out the interactivity of the various logical nodes. I'm thinking you pulled this out of your ass, but if I'm wrong I'd like some links.
We have to figure out oursleves before we can figure out how to duplicate ourselves ... it's like the machine looking in on itself in order to fix itself. We hardly gotten past the point where psychiatry is considered more than a "soft science". I think that when we start figuring out this "interactivity of nodes" that our brain patterns are not going to conform to some logical or linear algorithm so much as to a variant of patterns seen in chaos theory. What I will say is interesting development is the intermingling of such sciences as psychiatry, neuroscience and pharmacology in not only mapping the brain through MRI but also in testing the brain chemically to see what affects what. There are some pretty informing articles on www.newscientist.com about the subject.
Jun 21st, 2003 12:05 PM
Helm Too much anime there, Kelly. Artificial Intelligence is really just a catch-phrase for self-altering database. There's yet been no public experiment at duplicating human intelligence, to the best of my knowledge. And if there was, it wouldn't so much be a problem of the technical aspects as much as figuring out the interactivity of the various logical nodes. I'm thinking you pulled this out of your ass, but if I'm wrong I'd like some links.
Jun 21st, 2003 11:48 AM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
All this just illustrates my point. You cannot have a neat and tidy definition of what is human -- because "humanness" in ordinary language is much more than what biology can describe. You have different perspectives from which one can describe what is human, and all of them contribute to some degree in our understanding of the concept.
What a paradox! Were not intelligence enough to figure out our own complexities ... or even to decide which arena in which we want to duke it out. A touch of Godel, methinks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
By interpreting a scientific event in a moral or metaphysical context you are always going to have contradiction and untidiness. Why this is so unobvious to so many of you is beyond me. To say, "science tells you that humanness begins here" is utterly wrong because it is nonsensical.
Or vice versa. Brings to mind the problems computer scientists are having in developing artificial intelligence. Yeah, they can get the logic parts down but are missing the "ghost in the machine". It's like they're working "top down" and haven't even figured out the heart of the problem yet.
Jun 21st, 2003 11:37 AM
Helm
Quote:
"metaphysical" over "moral"
Methaphysical? Why choose this already established philosophical term, when it has little to do with the case at hand? Why do you use this narrow definition of morality?

Quote:
Anyway, point is, one can define "humanness" in terms of what occurs when a sperm and an egg meet, the onset of consciousness, the onset of self awareness, intrinsic genetic differences between homo sapiens and other species, the ability to reason, the ability to create language and skyscrapers, the ability to do evil... Whatever. There cannot be a "correct" explanation of what is human because the contexts in which these definitions operate are distinct. The meaning of the word human depends on the context. And for many of us, most if not all of these explanations are relevant in our super-definition of "humanness".
This is a very good point which I've never considered in the past. However, if any, which context would be the applicable one in the case of abortion, seeing how the latter is mostly a moral issue?

Quote:
BTW, you may notice that I seem to be contradicting stuff I said a few months before. My thoughts are always changing, but more on that later.
I could say the same thing. I've taken a somewhat steep turn towards some aspects of determinism. The thread about free will played a part in broadening my understanding on a lot of subjects. At some point, I'd like to discuss the nature of emotion with you.


Quote:
Should we bring up the ability to be self aware as well to include if something can be human? Humans are one of the few beings that can understand the whole concept of "me" and "I". We look in a mirror, we know we are seeing ourselves. The only animals I know that can do that are monkeys and dolphins. Should that be a measuring stick as well?
In a philosophical context, my point was that yes, to be human you must be self-aware.
Jun 21st, 2003 10:46 AM
Raven
Quote:
Originally Posted by FS
You'll have to pick here. If "humanness" were a strict set of points to determine whether or not something was human (which, of course, is impossible), then OF COURSE it would be human. Simple as that. Bar none.

But since that is not the case, the term "humanness" bears no definition and is therefore useless.
Was that directed at me?
Jun 21st, 2003 10:28 AM
Preechr
Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
You can spontaneously decide to do something entirely unpredictable whenever you wish.

No. You have the phenomenal experience of spontaneous decision making (and it's important), but underneath that experience are the causal brain mechanisms that are not in your "control". The short of it is -- the experience of will comes with your actions sometimes, but you do not will your actions.

You seem to be working very hard toward absolving us of fault for ill-considered actions. If you would take your head out of that book for long enough, you'd see that its pretty obvious that making well-considered choices throughout one's life produces a better life than not ever thinking things through.
Jun 21st, 2003 06:04 AM
FS You'll have to pick here. If "humanness" were a strict set of points to determine whether or not something was human (which, of course, is impossible), then OF COURSE it would be human. Simple as that. Bar none.

But since that is not the case, the term "humanness" bears no definition and is therefore useless.
Jun 21st, 2003 12:08 AM
Raven
Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
All this just illustrates my point. You cannot have a neat and tidy definition of what is human -- because "humanness" in ordinary language is much more than what biology can describe. You have different perspectives from which one can describe what is human, and all of them contribute to some degree in our understanding of the concept. The perspectives are distinct however, and blindly mixing them up creates confusion. By interpreting a scientific event in a moral or metaphysical context you are always going to have contradiction and untidiness. Why this is so unobvious to so many of you is beyond me. To say, "science tells you that humanness begins here" is utterly wrong because it is nonsensical.
But discovering the humanness of something doesn't actually tell you if its human. As humanness is nothing more than the state of being human. Of which is completely and utterly relative to the observor. Of which is no basis to produce laws. As such it creates far to many flexible boundries.
Jun 20th, 2003 04:08 PM
theapportioner You can spontaneously decide to do something entirely unpredictable whenever you wish.

No. You have the phenomenal experience of spontaneous decision making (and it's important), but underneath that experience are the causal brain mechanisms that are not in your "control". The short of it is -- the experience of will comes with your actions sometimes, but you do not will your actions.
Jun 20th, 2003 03:48 PM
theapportioner You are forgetting completely about the intense organization required for embryonic development. For it is not the size of the organization that matters. If that were true there would be animals that are "higher" than humans. They utilize greater organization of their neurons. Is an elephant now a greater being?

All this just illustrates my point. You cannot have a neat and tidy definition of what is human -- because "humanness" in ordinary language is much more than what biology can describe. You have different perspectives from which one can describe what is human, and all of them contribute to some degree in our understanding of the concept. The perspectives are distinct however, and blindly mixing them up creates confusion. By interpreting a scientific event in a moral or metaphysical context you are always going to have contradiction and untidiness. Why this is so unobvious to so many of you is beyond me. To say, "science tells you that humanness begins here" is utterly wrong because it is nonsensical.
Jun 20th, 2003 11:49 AM
Raven
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellychaos
I hate to seem like I'm sitting on the fence here but I believe that we have only "limited will". The amount of variables are infinite and, subsequently, unconscionable. That is to say, you make THINK that you taken all options into account but the fact that you've been not only socially conditioned but conditioned by nature itself (i.e. five senses whose brain's very thinking process lay victim to a "matrix of thought" which is based only in the space-time continuum). Long story short is that you may FEEL like you have free will but that is due to the lack of a broader vision that is beyond our capability. This narrow field of sentience is good enough for most of us, though.
Sentience on the other hand requires a choice. An ability to choose whether you wish to do one action or another. An it is improbable that such a choice exists. With the mass quanity of variables affecting each individual person, we must take into account how physics has determined the universe works. Not only in the basic linear form of Cause and effect, but also in the form of Chaos theory. Which dictates that each effect actually has multiple causes, as well as each cause producing multiple effects. Now with this in mind it is logical to believe that each action a human performs is nothing more than an effect from various amoujnts of causes. As such the human didn't choose the action, so much as just perform it. And with the human simple performing this action, they are not truly choosing anything. Nullifying sentience. For without this choice, there can be no sentience.
Jun 20th, 2003 11:24 AM
Preechr I don't think that qualifies as "fence sitting" really. I think you're bringing a good point to the table, personally. The concept of free-will is also a defining characteristic of humanity in many circles, and your view here is perfectly reasonable.

A human performs billions of independant operations per minute, and seldom do we think about any of them. Nearly all of our actions, big and small, are performed on auto-pilot. As the great philosopher Getty Lee said, however, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." At any given moment you could spontaneously decide to jump out of a window, taking control of all those minute functions all at once, in a way. You are deciding to let your body operate on its own every second you choose to stay alive.

You can spontaneously decide to do something entirely unpredictable whenever you wish. Yes, you are constrained by many constants that you can't ignore when making your choices... you can't suddenly decide to fly, for instance... but just because you have limitations doesn't make your options so limited as to appear any less than infinite from our perspective.
Jun 20th, 2003 10:42 AM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven
If one can discern a certain amount of variables, than one is able to affect those variables. If one can affect those variables, than one is able to generate a separate option. If one can generate a separate option, than one has created a choice. Thus the existance of this choice actually contradicts determinism.
I hate to seem like I'm sitting on the fence here but I believe that we have only "limited will". The amount of variables are infinite and, subsequently, unconscionable. That is to say, you make THINK that you taken all options into account but the fact that you've been not only socially conditioned but conditioned by nature itself (i.e. five senses whose brain's very thinking process lay victim to a "matrix of thought" which is based only in the space-time continuum). Long story short is that you may FEEL like you have free will but that is due to the lack of a broader vision that is beyond our capability. This narrow field of sentience is good enough for most of us, though.
Jun 20th, 2003 09:37 AM
Raven
Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
An adult human being is different from a morula in more ways than just sentience. Another one: organization. The human body is an amazing interaction of trillions of cells in a dynamic environment. Just as one neuron does not make a brain -- indeed brain functions only occur as a result of interactions between neurons, one embryonic stem cell does not make a human. But these discussions are more a matter of taste than of science. You can use science as a guide, but that's it.
You are forgetting completely about the intense organization required for embryonic development. For it is not the size of the organization that matters. If that were true there would be animals that are "higher" than humans. They utilize greater organization of their neurons. Is an elephant now a greater being?

Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
I used to think a bit like you, but one need not use the determinism based on fundamental laws of physics to describe human activity. Indeed I would say it would tells you nearly nothing. Hence, while the traditional Christian formulation of free will would be nixed if you take the universe to be determined, the experiences of will and consciousness are fully compatible with it.
You are right and wrong. On a basic level determinism can go with consciousness. But once you move past the icing, and begin to delve into the true nature of the cake, you begin to see a contradiction. If one is conscious of one's self, than one is able to discern their own emotions, attitudes, and beliefs. If one is conscious of the environment, than one is able to discern the environment's effect on one's self. If one is conscious to both, than they are able to discern both. If one can discern both, than one can discern a certain amount of variables. If one can discern a certain amount of variables, than one is able to affect those variables. If one can affect those variables, than one is able to generate a separate option. If one can generate a separate option, than one has created a choice. Thus the existance of this choice actually contradicts determinism.
Jun 20th, 2003 08:07 AM
VinceZeb Should we bring up the ability to be self aware as well to include if something can be human? Humans are one of the few beings that can understand the whole concept of "me" and "I". We look in a mirror, we know we are seeing ourselves. The only animals I know that can do that are monkeys and dolphins. Should that be a measuring stick as well?
Jun 20th, 2003 08:06 AM
Preechr You say I'm being to subtle. I say you're being to complex. I'm also saying you debate like a teenager that just read its first really thick book on an obscure subject. I also said in my second post that I was re-explaining my admittedly simple point because you responded to my first post with childish insults which led me to believe you weren't catching on. It seems you still aren't. You're just stuck on seeming smart.

Whatever. You are the smartest person ever. Feel better?

I just pushed a boy scout into a wood chipper. Is my backyard human now, too? All the insects seem to be quite organized, and there's human DNA all over the damn place.

I'll repeat this one more time, just for you. For all your fluff and thunder, however you wish to catagorize a human as worthy of your consideration, it's just not that complicated of a thing to do. Instead of focusing so much on all the trivia you actually know at this time, it seem apparent that you need to start considering what you, and science, does not know at this time.

Time. That is the key. Time is much more important than the criteria you describe. You insist on catagorizing things according to their usefulness, while ignoring that the degree of usefulness of human beings in general is extremely slight in the big picture.

Time is a constant, and your self-centered, snap-shot criteria completely ignore that. I started my contribution to this under the assumption that you guys would GET such a rediculously simple idea. You and I are not important as individuals, no matter how scientifically you argue silly points. We are only important as humans to the human race. If you wish to catagorize some humans out of the race, have fun with that. It's your choice to do so. That makes you inhuman by choice, where those that you cast off as "clumps of cells" never got their choice.
Jun 20th, 2003 07:27 AM
theapportioner I used to think a bit like you, but one need not use the determinism based on fundamental laws of physics to describe human activity. Indeed I would say it would tells you nearly nothing. Hence, while the traditional Christian formulation of free will would be nixed if you take the universe to be determined, the experiences of will and consciousness are fully compatible with it.

An adult human being is different from a morula in more ways than just sentience. Another one: organization. The human body is an amazing interaction of trillions of cells in a dynamic environment. Just as one neuron does not make a brain -- indeed brain functions only occur as a result of interactions between neurons, one embryonic stem cell does not make a human. But these discussions are more a matter of taste than of science. You can use science as a guide, but that's it.
Jun 20th, 2003 03:48 AM
Raven But why are they more important? Is it because they are visible and thus take precedence? Is it simple because we can understand their existance with more coherence, than that of the "bundle of cells"? Is it because we have "sentience" and they do not? What is so important about placing such a high value on "sentience"? It is nothing more than an arbitrary belief created by a pseudo-science. I think therefore I am? No. You are molecules, therefore you exist. What are we but nothing more than carbon molecular chains? Should humanity be so high, merely because we have a higher evolved brain? What than shall we do upon meeting any beings that have a higher evolved brain than us? Submit to servitude and lose our "sentience"?
Jun 20th, 2003 12:57 AM
theapportioner Regardless of your inability to articulate, your points are trivial ones.

A quick aside on my opinion on abortion and stem cell research: Functioning members of human societies are orders of magnitude more important morally, ethically, legally, than a barely organized bundle of cells, to the point where the latter's importance is negligible. Hello? Forget about the blastulas and let's get to work on the people living NOW.

Another problem with defining 'humanness' based on cellular DNA and extrapolating that to abortion etc.: Every cell in the human body has the same copy of DNA. In a decade or so, it will be entirely possible to reset some if not all of these cells to an embryonic stem cell state. Therefore, with the appropriate technology, any cell in your body is a potential human being.

Oh, but that's "technological interference", and "nature" doesn't work that way. But we never complain about that when it comes to very prematurely born infants.

Step back a moment. Don't you see what is happening? You are creating all these arbitrary, convoluted, ridiculously subtle, contradictory rules to define what is human because you have made the error in contexts. And those who are pro-choice do this too.
Jun 20th, 2003 12:32 AM
Preechr Yes, Yes... All of that is just silly.

...whatever.

So human is valuable and human is you, and you'll be gracious enough to accept some minor differences in the rest of us then, right? It's funny to watch you deride things you don't already know to be fact. I hope that serves you well in Life, as that's probably not an attribute of being you that's restricted only to your dealings on the internet.

Maybe you just didn't understand my point, or maybe I should take responsibility for not expressing it well enough. How bout this: Human life is of utmost important to humans. We think we're special, and we see Sentience and Self-Aware as reasons why.

It would seem that you guys are confusing these things with individuality, but I'll admit that it's been a long time since I've read a textbook of any sort. I'm pretty sure lower forms of life can make a distinction between themselves and other things.

To have such a hard time defining what is human seems to be indicative of having one's head a bit too far up one's ass, it seems to me. I know this isn't the abortion thread itself, but since this discussion started there, I guess I'll draw the line back to it...

A fertilized human egg is human because it has the potential to be just as human as either of you. That may not be as convenient for you to believe as it doesn't give you the opportunity to split these hairs, but your arguments always seem to include as less than human everything from the earliest point to a child of 5 or 6 years old. You ignore that fact as yet another convenience.

Do you place such a high value on Sentience and Self-Aware because you believe a human is not human until it's useful or complimentary to you? It would seem so. Maybe we should evaluate just what is so damn important in the big picture about a human, Sentient and Self-Aware or not, as compared to anything else.

Are you following me now, or do you need further explanation of my essentially basic viewpoint?
Jun 19th, 2003 11:55 PM
theapportioner BTW, you may notice that I seem to be contradicting stuff I said a few months before. My thoughts are always changing, but more on that later.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:48 PM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.