Sentient holograms: Minuet, Moriarity, and The Doctor

[Will M.]

How so? The basis of any legal system is that crime is met with punishment for deterrent, and that the punishment comes in degrees fitting the crime. Killing two people is worse than killing one. So killing an animal from the Homo sapiens species can be defined to be worse than killing one from the Myrmica rubra species, without undermining the system in any fashion. And that's supporting the idea that animals aren't a separate category, but part of the same continuum, with even inanimate objects included somewhere down the line.

Timo Saloniemi

You've illustrated my point exactly. You created a difference in punishment for one species over another. IE that there is a difference in the value.

Also that's a bit too general on the "basis of any legal system" that's a value judgement. If you survey'd 100's of people from across the world each with their own ideas on what the criminal justice system should do you'd get 100's of answers. Some factors of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, preserve civil order , and some for ensuring morality.

 

[Timo]

.

You've illustrated my point exactly. You created a difference in punishment for one species over another. IE that there is a difference in the value.

Which disproves your point completely, as the need to have humans as a totally separate category evaporates.

..The real question is, do we choose to think in terms of a monotonic continuum where humans are one step above every animal, and where there is nothing above humans (in which case we could decide that "the highest step" is a category separate from all others, even though that's a definition devoid of any practical significance)? Or are there more continua, some of which place other species higher (say, because they are far more crucial to the survival of the ecosystem)?

If you survey'd 100's of people from across the world each with their own ideas on what the criminal justice system should do you'd get 100's of answers.

And those differing from mine would simply be wrong, because how people think the system should work, or works, is not relevant to how it actually does work.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Philip Guyott]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Will M.]

Besides, ethics is just one consideration. I'm talking about science, about biology. Genetically, we are essentially neotenous chimps. We are more closely related to chimpanzees than gorillas or orangs are related to chimpanzees. We're not apart from the other great apes, we're right there in the middle of the continuum. We're one of the thousands of branches on the evolutionary tree. Before we start deciding about our ethical responsibilities to animals, we need to start with an honest scientific and factual definition of our nature as animals and our relationship to the rest of the biosphere. Facts come first, then ideology.

A species is more than the sum of its biology. Art, culture, science, structures... just because we can't define the difference doesn't mean one doesn't exist that warrants placing man above all other species on earth. While some questions probably will never have a scientific answer like "Prove to me scientifically that you love your wife" , a great many more are simply unanswered because we lack a sufficient knowledge base of the underlying issue. Our knowledge of other species on Earth has accelerated dramatically but we hardly know all the we will ever know or need to know. The first four elements defined scientifically were "Soil, Wind, Fire, and Water" hardly a correct list that doesn't resemble the modern periodic table at all but as knowledge expands so does our ability to define the universe and understand our place in it.

 

[Will M.]

.


Which disproves your point completely, as the need to have humans as a totally separate category evaporates.

..The real question is, do we choose to think in terms of a monotonic continuum where humans are one step above every animal, and where there is nothing above humans (in which case we could decide that "the highest step" is a category separate from all others, even though that's a definition devoid of any practical significance)? Or are there more continua, some of which place other species higher (say, because they are far more crucial to the survival of the ecosystem)?



And those differing from mine would simply be wrong, because how people think the system should work, or works, is not relevant to how it actually does work.

Timo Saloniemi

Actually your proved my point exactly because you drew a value judgement based on the argument. You inferred a value judgement based on the very principle your arguing against albeit at the extreme edge of the argument.

Those opinions differing from yours? You would make a great dictator. Different cultures and people with different belief systems have different values and expectations of criminal justice. Even among humane cultural norms. What one society wants out of their criminal justice system is different than others. The goal of the Norwegian prison system is different than those of the UK which is different than the Isreali system. That's not just "how is should work" or "how it works" that's actually how those systems do work. Norweigan systems are far more designed to support re-entry with less on deterrence, the UK system still has more retribution , the Isreali system focuses far more on rehabilitation inside its own walls. Those are value based society driven ideals.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ You sound a lot like Christopher.

 

[UnknownSample]

On Mirror Vic, I see an interminate smudge in that capture, Christopher, but thanks for going to that trouble. It goes by really fast. I've never seen sparks. We'll all interpret for ourselves I guess, but I did watch several times after noticing. I thought very well of them for taking that much care to bring their cool joke up above the believability line...

 

[Christopher]

A species is more than the sum of its biology. Art, culture, science, structures... just because we can't define the difference doesn't mean one doesn't exist that warrants placing man above all other species on earth.

See, but that's just it. You're starting with the conclusion you want to reach and saying you can think up a justification for it. That's the exact opposite of how valid reasoning works. And I don't get why Western cultures find it so desirable to reach that conclusion in the first place. "Above all other species." Sheer overweening self-aggrandisement. We thought we were created in God's image -- no, we evolved our shape because it makes sense for tree-swinging primates that came down to live on the savannah. We thought the Earth was created to be our home -- nope, it existed for four and a half billion years before us and it'll be here long after we're a blip in the fossil record. We thought the Sun revolved around the Earth -- nope, other way around. We thought the Solar System was the center of the universe -- nope, we're just in the disk of the second-largest galaxy in a minor cluster. We thought we were the only species on Earth that had awareness or made tools or had culture -- wrong, wrong, wrong. By now we should've caught on that if we try to concoct an excuse for our desire to believe the universe revolves around us, science will smack us down just like it's done every time.

Why are we so narcissistic and insecure that we need to be "above?" Why this obsession with superiority? Why can't we be happy with being an integral part of the whole? Yes, a different part, a part with more ability to make decisions and thus more responsibility to make them wisely; but that doesn't put us "above," it just gives us a distinct role. Things can be different and complementary without one being "above" the other.

 

[Will M.]

See, but that's just it. You're starting with the conclusion you want to reach and saying you can think up a justification for it.

Your starting point isn't any different just with the opposite conclusion.

Beyond that a starting point is actually required for scientific method , a hypothesis that one can prove or disprove.

 

[Idran]

Why should we postulate an absence of selection pressures? No doubt the computing environment is teeming with those in terms of initial conditions already - and then there comes competition between emerging phenomena. Just like in nature.

Because you used the phrase "random walk", and without any modification, that refers to a uniform random walk, as in at every X_t the PMF for X_{t+1} is uniform over the set of all possible transition states. Being a combinatoricist by education, I assumed you meant the literal object.

Apologies for misunderstanding.

 

[Christopher]

Your starting point isn't any different just with the opposite conclusion.

Hardly. I'm saying that the scientific method relies on taking oneself and one's assumptions out of the equation and reasoning from first principles. We have a long historical bias in favor of elevating ourselves as something special, and that bias has gotten in the way of science over and over again. I'm not saying I want to force a given conclusion; that, to my way of thinking, is absolutely corrupt and a betrayal of every principle I revere. I'm saying that there should be no bias in any direction, that we need to start with evidence and first principles and see what conclusion it leads to, without any preconception about what that conclusion "should" be.

Beyond that a starting point is actually required for scientific method , a hypothesis that one can prove or disprove.

Of course, but that's absolutely different from starting with a preconceived notion of human exceptionalism and superiority and trying to justify that ego-stroking conclusion. The views we most want to believe in are the ones we should be most skeptical of, because that desire is a source of bias and bias leads to unreliable results. The whole scientific process is about counteracting subjective preference and belief.

That's what I'm saying about consciousness -- we don't have a good, objective definition of it beyond "what we have." So there's a self-centered bias built into that starting assumption. We need a hypothesis whose test is not defined merely in reference to ourselves. Because the assumption that we are the measure of all things is itself a source of bias.

 

[Will M.]

Hardly. I'm saying that the scientific method relies on taking oneself and one's assumptions out of the equation and reasoning from first principles. We have a long historical bias in favor of elevating ourselves as something special, and that bias has gotten in the way of science over and over again.

That's why your assertion is incorrect. You are starting from a statement that there is no separation, a point which you also cannot prove. That's a bias in and of itself, just because your position is "nicer" and less authoritative doesn't mean it doesn't come from a biased position.

Not to mention my opinion also has a variety of proponents including major research scientists at Harvard http://www.livescience.com/33376-humans-other-animals-distinguishing-mental-abilities.html
Just assuming its all based on bias is as corruptible of the scientific process as any other simply because it sounds egalitarian.

 

[Idran]

Read today's SMBC and thought of this thread.

Edit: Also, @Will M., Christopher is talking about starting assumptions, not final positions. You're arguing where you end up, he's arguing where you start. You don't start out assuming that humans are special and look for evidence to support that, is what he's saying, because that leads to reinforcement and confirmation bias. You look for evidence to prove yourself wrong as much as evidence to prove yourself right. So long as you do that, your starting assumption almost doesn't matter; it's just harder to do that with a stronger starting assumption because while brains are amazing, they're also essentially stupid.

If anything, best practice is to look for evidence that your starting position is false with far more effort than evidence that your starting position is true, because it helps to balance out natural neurological inclinations.

 

[Christopher]

That's why your assertion is incorrect. You are starting from a statement that there is no separation, a point which you also cannot prove.

I am absolutely not starting from that statement, because we have centuries of cumulative scientific evidence debunking the antiquated myth of a separation. Genetic evidence proves that we have more than 99% of our DNA in common with chimpanzees. An overwhelming abundance of scientific evidence proves that we evolved from other animals rather than being specially created. This is a conclusion that has already been reached time and time again, and that is why I have no respect for the need of some people to pretend otherwise.

Yes, we are different, just like many other species are different. Giraffes are different too -- what other species has a neck like that? But giraffes aren't somehow not-animals just because they're a distinctive kind of animal. What I find silly is the notion that the difference between humans and other animals is all-important but the many, many kinds differences between other animal species are somehow irrelevant so that they can be lumped together in a single category. That is an arbitrary double standard, and I think it's based in human arrogance and pride rather than anything reasonable.

Read today's SMBC and thought of this thread.

Oh, that's a good one. It makes my point very concisely.

If anything, best practice is to look for evidence that your starting position is false with far more effort than evidence that your starting position is true, because it helps to balance out natural neurological inclinations.

Yes, exactly. Any liar can talk oneself or others into believing a lie. Honesty demands questioning what we want to believe, not trying to justify it.

 

[Timo]

Actually your proved my point exactly because you drew a value judgement based on the argument. You inferred a value judgement based on the very principle your arguing against albeit at the extreme edge of the argument.

This is negated by me denouncing the "extreme edge" part: the set is not divided in two between humans and animals, but at least in three both above and below humans, and in practice in n. The result? The "special" position of humans is just one out of the n, and that is no longer eligible to be considered special except in a certain sophistic sense.

Note also that "humans" is not really the subset I'm using. "Humans murdering two people" and "humans murdering one people" were already different subsets above. So qualitatively, no difference of significance lies at the human/animal boundary. And this takes us further to the actually interesting stuff, for example whether all subsets of human are above all subsets of animal. Current practices vary: certain human conditions actually deprive the humans in question of rights granted to domestic animals, say.

Those opinions differing from yours?

Can be true or false. Mine is true. Chiefly because it's not an opinion, but a simple statement of fact: all human justice systems have the quality I specified, of graduating the punishment according to the crime. If somebody claims there are exceptions to that, he's wrong, barring exceptional proof.

Naturally, other systems are possible. See for example Larry Niven's classic take on why every offense should carry the capital punishment: mass murderers and jaywalkers alike are good raw material for organ banks. But mankind has never adopted such systems (or at least has not lived to document it for generations come).

What sort of philosophical musings led to the adoption of the one and only system... Can be argued about. Many such philosophies are pragmatic to the degree of being dishonest. Others are just muddy. The effect remains. Dissimilar ethical treatment is not a sign of fundamentally inequal ethics, but of a system of balances utilizing inequal treatment to achieve equality. Treating ants and humans the same, or differently, or both, is of no fundamental interest in whether current human structures for enforcing ethics stand or fall. It's just details on the practical execution of a system on a continuum of ethical subjects.

Because you used the phrase "random walk", and without any modification, that refers to a uniform random walk, as in at every X_t the PMF for X_{t+1} is uniform over the set of all possible transition states. Being a combinatoricist by education, I assumed you meant the literal object. Apologies for misunderstanding.

You are the one owed an apology, and a clarification. I did assume that uniform random walk would inherently exist as a driving force in a system with certain basic homogeneous level of... instabilities, for lack of a more educated guess for a word. That driving force would then meet the bumpy walls and sharp corners of the computing environment, and soon homogeneity would be lost and the simplistic early terminology would grow increasingly inaccurate.

Timo Saloniemi