Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: Politics  (Read 367064 times)

Bla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • The stars died so you can live.
Re: Politics
« Reply #480 on: January 27, 2014, 01:56:12 PM »
cleverbot becoming sad or suffering when someone disconnects is relevant because both the bot and the pig can suffer. although cleverbot isn't programmed that way, if it is, would it be unethical to break away in the middle of a conversation?
While we know that the pig can suffer, we have no evidence or reason to tie cleverbot's messages to actual feelings. You can also sit and type a text file saying that you suffer. Does that mean you actually suffer? No. Same goes for cleverbot.

or to have something more concrete, i could type up a script right now that, when executed, would write to a text file how sad it feels. if the terminal is exited, a very large amount of sadness is recorded. does this make it unethical to end the script?

They both can suffer too
Again, writing a script that says it suffers can be compared to you writing a text file saying that you suffer. In either case we cannot conclude that any of you actually suffer.

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Politics
« Reply #481 on: January 27, 2014, 02:06:17 PM »
is there a difference between "actually suffering" and "apparent suffering" (as in claiming suffering through a text file note)?

if there isn't, then there is no difference between me, the cleverbot scenario, and the pig

if there is, then how do we know the pig is actually suffering and not apparently suffering? is it ok to make a pig that feels no pain or hunger (through genetic modifications) suffer?

i don't believe there is a difference between actual and apparent suffering. or at least i can't think of one at this time

Dan Dixon

  • Creator of Universe Sandbox
  • Developer
  • *****
  • Posts: 3244
    • Personal Site
Re: Politics
« Reply #482 on: January 27, 2014, 02:06:33 PM »
Pigs have a nervous system and brain that is very similar to that of humans ... pigs can and do feel suffering in a way that is very similar to ourselves.

I completely agree with this. Elephants, horses, dogs, cats, pigs, cows, dolphins, whales, and humans are all mammals and experience a negative emotional reaction to pain.

This is also one of the main reasons I'm vegetarian.

then how do we know the pig is actually suffering and not apparently suffering?

We know that the pig is actually suffering. There's no doubt about this.
(this could be determined objectively via brain scans, for example)

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Politics
« Reply #483 on: January 27, 2014, 02:16:52 PM »

then how do we know the pig is actually suffering and not apparently suffering?

We know that the pig is actually suffering. There's no doubt about this.
(this could be determined objectively via brain scans, for example)

you can examine variables in running code using the watch function in visual studio (or i imagine any number of other tools), usually to debug code, but in this case it could be used to show that a piece of code actually does increase the value of integer pain. or there could be a camera focused on my fingers typing into a text file that i'm suffering. so how can the observation differentiate between actual and apparent suffering?

Bla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • The stars died so you can live.
Re: Politics
« Reply #484 on: January 27, 2014, 02:16:58 PM »
is there a difference between "actually suffering" and "apparent suffering" (as in claiming suffering through a text file note)?

if there isn't, then there is no difference between me, the cleverbot scenario, and the pig

if there is, then how do we know the pig is actually suffering and not apparently suffering? is it ok to make a pig that feels no pain or hunger (through genetic modifications) suffer?

i don't believe there is a difference between actual and apparent suffering. or at least i can't think of one at this time
Example: I write a Word document that I suffer, my foot is burning, without feeling pain in my foot.
Then my apparent suffering would say my foot is hurting, but my actual suffering would say it isn't, so clearly there is a difference.

I agree that it's hard to determine where this border goes in some cases. But the mirror test certainly is a horrible tool to determine this. We know how many similarities we share with pigs and other mammals, because of all the similarities, we know they do feel suffering that is similar to us.
As for tiny insects, I don't claim to know that, as for robots and scripts, I'm not going to say that I'm 100% sure, but I'd go with 99 point many many 9's on a script that simply outputs text files saying it's suffering. Fracturing a pig's leg certainly comes vastly closer to fracturing a human's leg than it comes to outputting suffering statements in text files.

Dan Dixon

  • Creator of Universe Sandbox
  • Developer
  • *****
  • Posts: 3244
    • Personal Site
Re: Politics
« Reply #485 on: January 27, 2014, 02:24:42 PM »
Fracturing a pig's leg certainly comes vastly closer to fracturing a human's leg than it comes to outputting suffering statements in text files.

The blurry line of what is suffering is an interesting discussion... but I feel confident in agreeing with Bla that there's no doubt about a pig's capacity for suffering.

I think is fair to generalize that birds also suffer, but perhaps less than mammals, fish less so than birds, and insects mush less than fish.

FiahOwl

  • *****
  • Posts: 1234
  • This is, to give a dog and in recompense desire my dog again.
Re: Politics
« Reply #486 on: January 27, 2014, 02:27:34 PM »

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '116693'.

« Last Edit: March 22, 2021, 01:09:18 AM by FiahOwl »

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Politics
« Reply #487 on: January 27, 2014, 02:27:38 PM »
i agree that pigs are closer to humans than code, but instead of
code <<<<< pig < human
i believe it to be more like
code < pig <<<<< human

i do think the mirror test, which is an indicator of consciousness, is important.
as pointed out before, anything can appear to suffer, in the form of a number, a value, or some other format. however, a piece of silicon probably can't "actually" suffer.
neither can a bag of water and ions (the brain).
i think it is the consciousness that actually suffers. but only a human (and a few other animals) are conscious.
i don't have a proof for this, and i think consciousness is more like a numerical value than a boolean value, but i think the pig is vastly closer to the code than a human, based on the mirror test

perhaps we'll know in a few decades

Dan Dixon

  • Creator of Universe Sandbox
  • Developer
  • *****
  • Posts: 3244
    • Personal Site
Re: Politics
« Reply #488 on: January 27, 2014, 03:46:05 PM »
If you're saying that perhaps birds suffer less than pigs, then could that also mean perhaps pigs suffer less than humans?

Yeah... I think that's fair, but I think the suffering of a pig is not much less than a human. That a human is self-aware gives them the upper hand (if I had to choose one to suffer over the other, I would pick the pig) but both are capable of immense suffering.

i think it is the consciousness that actually suffers.
perhaps we'll know in a few decades

Rip the leg off of a living pig... and you'll see it suffer (or hook up a brain scan and notice how similar the results are to that of a human). Pigs don't need to be self-aware for the pain to be emotionally devastating and terrible.

It's more like this:
code <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< pig < human

That said... given that you think consciousness is so critical, you'd agree that killing elephants, dolphins, and monkeys is abhorrent?

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Politics
« Reply #489 on: January 27, 2014, 04:05:03 PM »

i think it is the consciousness that actually suffers.
perhaps we'll know in a few decades

Rip the leg off of a living pig... and you'll see it suffer (or hook up a brain scan and notice how similar the results are to that of a human). Pigs don't need to be self-aware for the pain to be emotionally devastating and terrible.

i'll see it, but as i said before, i can examine variables in running code using the watch feature in visual studio and see that an instance has a positive integer pain. there can even be a variable for emotional devastation. i don't see the difference between this and a pig


That said... given that you think consciousness is so critical, you'd agree that killing elephants, dolphins, and monkeys is abhorrent?

yes

Dan Dixon

  • Creator of Universe Sandbox
  • Developer
  • *****
  • Posts: 3244
    • Personal Site
Re: Politics
« Reply #490 on: January 27, 2014, 04:09:39 PM »
i'll see it, but as i said before, i can examine variables in running code using the watch feature in visual studio and see that an instance has a positive integer pain. there can even be a variable for emotional devastation. i don't see the difference between this and a pig

So what's the difference between this computer program that can also recognize itself in a mirror and a human in pain?

Have you ever seen a pig or other non-human mammal in pain? There's a huge difference between that and watching a variable on screen.

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Politics
« Reply #491 on: January 27, 2014, 05:27:02 PM »
I agree that there's a huge difference.

I hypothesize there's a huge difference because:
  • I'm conditioned by society to react to animal cruelty
  • Evolution conditions humans to have an aversion to pain and suffering
  • The process is much more complex and visceral

But I don't think these three effects should also change my moral views, so I abstract them out and forget about them by using examples such as robots and code

Bla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • The stars died so you can live.
Re: Politics
« Reply #492 on: January 27, 2014, 06:02:03 PM »
But I don't think these three effects should also change my moral views, so I abstract them out and forget about them by using examples such as robots and code
What do you think of a photo-sensor with a program running that lets it detect itself in a mirror, but no code for saying anything about pain? Are the well-being of these more important than that of pigs?

i'll see it, but as i said before, i can examine variables in running code using the watch feature in visual studio and see that an instance has a positive integer pain. there can even be a variable for emotional devastation. i don't see the difference between this and a pig
How about writing down pain on paper? What does this have to do with feeling pain? You typing feeling pain in a document doesn't mean you actually feel it. I don't get why you keep comparing the program to living beings. Your example of making a program outputting painful messages has already been debunked long ago by the example of writing the same messages yourself in a document. There is no reason to believe that those things have any connection to actual feelings whatsoever.

Now your biggest issue seems to be distinguishing the pig from the programs because they don't recognize themselves in a mirror. Try abstracting from this mirror and think of all the things you can find pigs have in common with, or share similarities to, with humans. Then do the same with humans and some photo-detector with a program for seeing itself in a mirror. As you'll see the pig is vastly more similar to humans still.

Also, there's 100% correlation between the human consciousness and the physical state of their body (their brain and nerval system). Pigs too have an advanced nerval system, brain, and react to stimuli the same way as humans. Even if they can't recognize themselves in a mirror, they're not that far from humans.

Also, again, I can only stress how utterly ridiculous the mirror criterium is for judging whether people are conscious or not... A blind person isn't conscious because it can't see itself in a mirror, a cleverly designed program in a computer hooked up to a photo-detector, recognizing its shape in a mirror, is... Need I really say more?

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Politics
« Reply #493 on: January 27, 2014, 06:23:05 PM »
photosensor does not suffer, therefore even if it is conscious, its well being is not important
also, photosensor noticing itself does not make it conscious

pigs are vastly more similar to humans in many aspects. i don't think they are vastly similar to humans in the one aspect that does matter in terms of whether suffering is ethical, that is consciousness.

i'm not sure what you mean by a correlation between the human consciousness and the physical state of their body

a blind person is conscious. a clever photo-detector is not conscious.

"Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind."

the mirror test is one method used to establish whether an organism is conscious. it is not the only test, but it works well because many animals have eyes. this doesn't mean a sightless organism can't be conscious

Bla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • The stars died so you can live.
Re: Politics
« Reply #494 on: January 27, 2014, 06:54:39 PM »
photosensor does not suffer, therefore even if it is conscious, its well being is not important
also, photosensor noticing itself does not make it conscious
Good, agreed.

pigs are vastly more similar to humans in many aspects. i don't think they are vastly similar to humans in the one aspect that does matter in terms of whether suffering is ethical, that is consciousness.
Based on what do you say consciousness is what matters? Shouldn't it be the capability to feel suffering - that is, our feeling of suffering is due to our central nerval system and our brain, so wouldn't it be sensible to judge based on whether organisms have a developed central nerval system and brain centers for processing pain rather than whether you can classify them as "conscious"?

i'm not sure what you mean by a correlation between the human consciousness and the physical state of their body
This:
i think it is the consciousness that actually suffers. but only a human (and a few other animals) are conscious.
i don't have a proof for this, and i think consciousness is more like a numerical value than a boolean value, but i think the pig is vastly closer to the code than a human, based on the mirror test

perhaps we'll know in a few decades
A brain combined with a central nerval system (or any other system that could input the signals that would've come from the nerval system) can feel pain.

"Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind."
Pigs are aware of external objects (their environment, food, other pigs, predators, knives for example). They fulfill many of those criteria to a big extent even though not as much as humans. They react to things in ways that resemble human feelings, they make noises in cases where you'd expect humans to feel fear or pain, for example. As you yourself said, consciousness isn't boolean.

the mirror test is one method used to establish whether an organism is conscious. it is not the only test, but it works well because many animals have eyes. this doesn't mean a sightless organism can't be conscious
Why would you use a boolean test to categorize animals into two types if you say consciousness isn't boolean?
In the end, you say you just believe pain is tied to the non-boolean consciousness which should be judged by a boolean test that in the end proves absolutely nothing in relation to actual pain... So I'm not sure if there is really that much more to say, other than feeling sorry for any pigs who would've been treated according to those beliefs. Asking for why you believe it I guess won't really accomplish anything, but feel free to answer.

Meanwhile from neuroscience we know how pain in humans is completely attached to the chemistry within specific parts of the brain, and we can see this happening in both pigs and humans, so I think there's plenty of reason to say pigs can feel suffering similarly to humans.

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Politics
« Reply #495 on: January 27, 2014, 07:31:02 PM »
Quote
Based on what do you say consciousness is what matters? Shouldn't it be the capability to feel suffering - that is, our feeling of suffering is due to our central nerval system and our brain, so wouldn't it be sensible to judge based on whether organisms have a developed central nerval system and brain centers for processing pain rather than whether you can classify them as "conscious"?
no i do not think this is a good classification scheme. what separates a brain and a nervous system from a silicon processor and pressure sensors? both transmits signals and manipulates information.
i say consciousness matters because it seems to be the only divider that successfully separates a robot and a human

Quote
A brain combined with a central nerval system (or any other system that could input the signals that would've come from the nerval system) can feel pain.
what does it mean to feel pain? why does a brain which processes signals feel pain but a computer not? how are the ionic pumps of the individual neurons firing to give pain signals any different from how the circuits inside memory add one to a variable (or however ram works, i'm not familiar). i don't think it is any different.

Quote
Pigs are aware of external objects (their environment, food, other pigs, predators, knives for example). They fulfill many of those criteria to a big extent even though not as much as humans. They react to things in ways that resemble human feelings, they make noises in cases where you'd expect humans to feel fear or pain, for example. As you yourself said, consciousness isn't boolean.
i don't think a pig is aware of external objects. its brain might process the data from its eyes, but it is not aware that they exist. if it was aware, then it might be able to pass the mirror test or other tests of consciousness

Quote
Why would you use a boolean test to categorize animals into two types if you say consciousness isn't boolean?
because we haven't developed a non-boolean test yet. this is the best i can do with what i have

Quote
Meanwhile from neuroscience we know how pain in humans is completely attached to the chemistry within specific parts of the brain, and we can see this happening in both pigs and humans, so I think there's plenty of reason to say pigs can feel suffering similarly to humans.
there are similarities between humans and pigs, and similarities between robots and pigs.
although a pig may seem much more similar to a human than a robot, i believe this is not the case.

Bla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • The stars died so you can live.
Re: Politics
« Reply #496 on: January 28, 2014, 08:23:23 AM »
no i do not think this is a good classification scheme. what separates a brain and a nervous system from a silicon processor and pressure sensors? both transmits signals and manipulates information.
The brain has evolved and uses a completely different method than computers. Brains of animals are vastly more similar to each other in structure than they are to any computer. For this reason there is much bigger reason to think animals are capable of suffering just like humans than there is to think they can't.

i say consciousness matters because it seems to be the only divider that successfully separates a robot and a human
There's simply no connection in what you're writing. First you say pigs aren't conscious because they don't pass the mirror test. Then you say a blind person is conscious, a photo-detector isn't, in other words that your mirror test can't even establish whether they're conscious or not. That's a rather interesting idea, to think that dozens of millions of pigs should be treated according to a simple test that you yourself clearly don't even trust as a tool to establish whether they're conscious or not, and even more as for whether this ability to recognize itself in a mirror is really what's vital to the ability to feel suffering.

Robots and humans are separated by millions of different factors, but they depend entirely on how you build the robot. A robot may not have legs, it may not have skin, the robots we build today don't use brains like humans and animals, and I'd say that's a very important difference, because we know the link between our brain and our ability to suffer. Had we built a robot out of human cells, with a brain, from scratch, putting every atom together making it just like a human, then I'd assume it does have consciousness and the exact same properties like any other human. Had it been put together like a human brain but no body but still the same inputs, I'd say the same, just like what we've observed in humans who have lost parts of their body, eyes, etc.

Consciousness, established by the primitive mirror-test, is really just one factor that you're cherry-picking to suit your needs in this case.

what does it mean to feel pain?
That is not an easy question to answer. But what we know is that it is 100% related to parts of our brain processing stimuli from our nerval system.

As for whether there are other ways that could be like pain, such as in robots with a completely different structure, I see no evidence for this. But the evidence says that feeling pain is parts of the brain processing signals. So I'd rather go for preventing slightly different brains from processing such signals than I'd put them into a category with robots and ignore them.

why does a brain which processes signals feel pain but a computer not?
There's simply no evidence for what any computer might feel, unlike the brain.

how are the ionic pumps of the individual neurons firing to give pain signals any different from how the circuits inside memory add one to a variable (or however ram works, i'm not familiar). i don't think it is any different.
Well making a variable is simply like writing a statement on paper. If you make a truth value and set it to true whenever a program sees the pattern "1 + 2 = 4" it doesn't mean the result is correct. There's no reason to think those variables will have any connection to what you call them. You might as well call the pain variable stupidity but give it the exact same properties as before, shouldn't make the program stupid every time it detects pressure on some pressure detector.

On the other hand we see the clear connection between what's going on in human brains and painful events, which is evidence that human brains are capable of feeling pain. Computers have a completely different structure than brains and I don't see any reason why you should be able to generalize from human brains onto computers.

Quote
Pigs are aware of external objects (their environment, food, other pigs, predators, knives for example). They fulfill many of those criteria to a big extent even though not as much as humans. They react to things in ways that resemble human feelings, they make noises in cases where you'd expect humans to feel fear or pain, for example. As you yourself said, consciousness isn't boolean.
i don't think a pig is aware of external objects. its brain might process the data from its eyes, but it is not aware that they exist. if it was aware, then it might be able to pass the mirror test or other tests of consciousness
So which other tests so you suggest, now that the mirror test did not work?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347209003571
Consciousness is a rather nebulous subject and from all we know about it it's clearly nothing like boolean, it's very gradual. Most babies can pass the mirror test by 1.5 years, but earlier can use the mirror image for other things, pigs similarly can use the mirror for understanding where objects are without going there.
(Also, I find it a bit ironic that you're against abortion yet no fosters would pass your mirror test and yet you still find it irrelevant how pigs are treated, or maybe now it doesn't matter how you treat babies until they can pass the mirror test? :P).

because we haven't developed a non-boolean test yet. this is the best i can do with what i have
I disagree, consciousness is clearly very gradual and instead of using that one single rather bad test, we should look at the biology of animals, and see that the more they have for pain processing that is comparable to what humans have, the more we should consider their well-being important.

there are similarities between humans and pigs, and similarities between robots and pigs.
although a pig may seem much more similar to a human than a robot, i believe this is not the case.
http://sites.psu.edu/psych256fa13/2013/09/19/similarities-between-humans-and-pigs/

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Politics
« Reply #497 on: January 28, 2014, 09:00:42 AM »
Quote
The brain has evolved and uses a completely different method than computers. Brains of animals are vastly more similar to each other in structure than they are to any computer. For this reason there is much bigger reason to think animals are capable of suffering just like humans than there is to think they can't.
while this does say an animal is more likely to be capable of suffering than a computer, I don't think there is a much bigger reason to think animals are capable of suffering just like humans than there is to think they can't, because there's no quantitative measure to suggest that

Quote
There's simply no connection in what you're writing. First you say pigs aren't conscious because they don't pass the mirror test. Then you say a blind person is conscious, a photo-detector isn't, in other words that your mirror test can't even establish whether they're conscious or not. That's a rather interesting idea, to think that dozens of millions of pigs should be treated according to a simple test that you yourself clearly don't even trust as a tool to establish whether they're conscious or not, and even more as for whether this ability to recognize itself in a mirror is really what's vital to the ability to feel suffering.
i say pigs aren't conscious and cite the mirror test as one test of consciousness that supports this idea. that doesn't mean something must pass the mirror test to be conscious or that the mirror test is the fail-proof test of consciousness. i use the mirror test, or rather i use the results from the mirror test, because it works on organisms with sight (which the blind man doesn't. in that case there is a scent version of the mirror test i believe). the photoreceptor could imitate an conscious animal and pass the mirror test, but only if it was programmed to specifically do so. however, most other organisms aren't programmed to emulate consciousness, but rather to survive, so I have more confidence that they are really conscious and not just faking it.

Quote
Robots and humans are separated by millions of different factors, but they depend entirely on how you build the robot. A robot may not have legs, it may not have skin, the robots we build today don't use brains like humans and animals, and I'd say that's a very important difference, because we know the link between our brain and our ability to suffer. Had we built a robot out of human cells, with a brain, from scratch, putting every atom together making it just like a human, then I'd assume it does have consciousness and the exact same properties like any other human. Had it been put together like a human brain but no body but still the same inputs, I'd say the same, just like what we've observed in humans who have lost parts of their body, eyes, etc.
i think the brain is a prerequisite, but not the only requirement to be able to suffer

Quote
As for whether there are other ways that could be like pain, such as in robots with a completely different structure, I see no evidence for this. But the evidence says that feeling pain is parts of the brain processing signals. So I'd rather go for preventing slightly different brains from processing such signals than I'd put them into a category with robots and ignore them.
--
There's simply no evidence for what any computer might feel, unlike the brain.
--
Well making a variable is simply like writing a statement on paper. If you make a truth value and set it to true whenever a program sees the pattern "1 + 2 = 4" it doesn't mean the result is correct. There's no reason to think those variables will have any connection to what you call them. You might as well call the pain variable stupidity but give it the exact same properties as before, shouldn't make the program stupid every time it detects pressure on some pressure detector.

On the other hand we see the clear connection between what's going on in human brains and painful events, which is evidence that human brains are capable of feeling pain. Computers have a completely different structure than brains and I don't see any reason why you should be able to generalize from human brains onto computers.
the brainscans show areas that pain causes activity in. i'm not familiar with experimentation, but i imagine they had to inflict some pain to figure out what parts of the brain processed pain. and if this is the case, then they showed that pigs can feel pain by causing the pig pain. it's arguing the pig is hurt because they hurt the pig. which seems like circular logic and doesn't convince me the pig is really in pain

Quote
So which other tests so you suggest, now that the mirror test did not work?
i don't suggest any other tests because i don't know of any other tests. any test would work i guess, as long as it doesn't have any major documented flaws which cause bias

Quote
Consciousness is a rather nebulous subject and from all we know about it it's clearly nothing like boolean, it's very gradual. Most babies can pass the mirror test by 1.5 years, but earlier can use the mirror image for other things, pigs similarly can use the mirror for understanding where objects are without going there.
i agree, pigs use the mirror to obtain information, however they haven't succeeded in recognizing themselves. since using mirrors by itself does not indicate consciousness, this doesn't say anything definite.
--
about the abortion, i would lump people under 1.5 years into the same group as pigs and robots. either they should all be treated humanely, or none of them should be subject to laws. but there's no objective measure of whether they should all be treated humanely or all be treated unhumanely, so i pick whichever side suits me in the current discussion.

Quote
I disagree, consciousness is clearly very gradual and instead of using that one single rather bad test, we should look at the biology of animals, and see that the more they have for pain processing that is comparable to what humans have, the more we should consider their well-being important.
what suggests consciousness is gradual?
the pig can process damaging pressure, and reacts accordingly, but what is suffering? the myelin sheath on the neuron can't feel pain, nor can the skin cells, nor the water molecules in the pig's brain. i don't think the pig is suffering because there is nothing to feel the pain with. a human feels pain because a human has consciousness.









Bla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • The stars died so you can live.
Re: Politics
« Reply #498 on: January 28, 2014, 10:13:11 AM »
while this does say an animal is more likely to be capable of suffering than a computer, I don't think there is a much bigger reason to think animals are capable of suffering just like humans than there is to think they can't, because there's no quantitative measure to suggest that
There is - measuring the activity in the brain centers responsible for processing pain.

i say pigs aren't conscious and cite the mirror test as one test of consciousness that supports this idea. that doesn't mean something must pass the mirror test to be conscious

are pigs capable of conciousness? it appears not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Mirror_test

therefore, i don't think how the pigs are treated is important from an ethical standpoint much as there aren't any robot cruelty laws at present. the only consideration is whether this form of production is reasonably efficient.
You cited the mirror test as the only test in your judgement for whether they're conscious and based on that how they should be treated. You go on to compare them to robots. You may have changed your mind now about whether they're equal to robots and whether the mirror test is all that's relevant but I can only go with what you say.

or that the mirror test is the fail-proof test of consciousness. i use the mirror test, or rather i use the results from the mirror test, because it works on organisms with sight (which the blind man doesn't. in that case there is a scent version of the mirror test i believe). the photoreceptor could imitate an conscious animal and pass the mirror test, but only if it was programmed to specifically do so. however, most other organisms aren't programmed to emulate consciousness, but rather to survive, so I have more confidence that they are really conscious and not just faking it.
Good, but then why are you so confident that your variables aren't just faking suffering equal to what you're saying about consciousness now? You could make the exact same argument that animals displaying pain evolved to survive rather than suffer. How is there any difference?

i think the brain is a prerequisite, but not the only requirement to be able to suffer
And the other requirement being consciousness, based on the mirror test... but consciousness is exactly a manifestation of the brain that is gradual, we know this from all experiments, accidents, how mind-altering drugs work... The fact that it's gradual is what makes the mirror test a bad tool to categorize animals by, because those who don't pass it aren't just robots, they are just similar to small children in some ways... They aren't born robots and then suddenly become conscious.

the brainscans show areas that pain causes activity in. i'm not familiar with experimentation, but i imagine they had to inflict some pain to figure out what parts of the brain processed pain. and if this is the case, then they showed that pigs can feel pain by causing the pig pain. it's arguing the pig is hurt because they hurt the pig. which seems like circular logic and doesn't convince me the pig is really in pain
They did that on a human. If you took away the brain, or just the centers processing the pain (there are humans born without the ability to feel pain for example), there would be no pain in that case. Then we can study the pig brain and see how it compares to the human brain. Pig brains have centers that process pain similarly to humans, they have a nerval system similar to humans. Therefore it is extremely likely that pigs can feel pain like humans.

The "it's arguing the pig is hurt because they hurt the pig" is a straw man, replace pig with human and you'll see it doesn't represent the experiment. The human is able to communicate that it feels pain clearly to other humans, while pigs display similar traits like screaming/noises they can't tell us in words. Therefore we make the experiment on humans, compare human and pig brains, and get an idea of what it is like for pigs.

i agree, pigs use the mirror to obtain information, however they haven't succeeded in recognizing themselves. since using mirrors by itself does not indicate consciousness, this doesn't say anything definite.
Neither does it to recognize yourself in the mirror, as showed by the self-recognizing camera. The ability of an animal, evolved for survival, to utilize a mirror indicates that it has a position on the consciousness scale that's nowhere near the bottom, although not as high up as humans.

about the abortion, i would lump people under 1.5 years into the same group as pigs and robots. either they should all be treated humanely, or none of them should be subject to laws. but there's no objective measure of whether they should all be treated humanely or all be treated unhumanely, so i pick whichever side suits me in the current discussion.
That's simply hypocrisy.
As for the reasoning I can see the reason to lump them into the group with pigs, but your reasoning to lump pigs into the group with robots based on the mirror test is plain and simply nonsensical.

what suggests consciousness is gradual?
the pig can process damaging pressure, and reacts accordingly, but what is suffering? the myelin sheath on the neuron can't feel pain, nor can the skin cells, nor the water molecules in the pig's brain. i don't think the pig is suffering because there is nothing to feel the pain with. a human feels pain because a human has consciousness.
Children develop gradually and don't turn from robots into humans for example. Mammals, even if able to recognize themselves in a mirror, still can't do things, communicate, display emotions that are as complex as what humans do. Mind-altering drugs affect your brain purely by chemistry, and you see from this how your consciousness merely is your brain and not a magical spirit inhabiting it. Similarly damaging parts of the human brain alters your ability to feel pain - some people are fully conscious, but born without the ability to feel pain, because they're born with certain areas in their brain that are different from others. Damage other parts and you may lose consciousness to an extent:

"Pain, suffering and positive emotions in patients in vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS) and minimally conscious states (MCS) pose clinical and ethical challenges. Clinically, we evaluate behavioural responses after painful stimulation and also emotionally-contingent behaviours (e.g., smiling). Using stimuli with emotional valence, neuroimaging and electrophysiology technologies can detect subclinical remnants of preserved capacities for pain which might influence decisions about treatment limitation."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-011-9149-x

This is evidence that consciousness is gradual.

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Politics
« Reply #499 on: January 28, 2014, 11:03:54 AM »
Quote
You cited the mirror test as the only test in your judgement for whether they're conscious and based on that how they should be treated. You go on to compare them to robots. You may have changed your mind now about whether they're equal to robots and whether the mirror test is all that's relevant but I can only go with what you say.
yes i only use the mirror test because that is the only test of consciousness i'm aware of
i say pigs are closer to human than robots are, yet i lump them in the same category as robots
i haven't changed my mind. i can say pluto is closer to a planet than ceres is, but that they're both still dwarf planets

Quote
Good, but then why are you so confident that your variables aren't just faking suffering equal to what you're saying about consciousness now? You could make the exact same argument that animals displaying pain evolved to survive rather than suffer. How is there any difference?

on the contrary i'm confident my variables are faking suffering.

so at once the pig is suffering and not conscious.

either suffering requires consciousness and
-the pig is suffering and conscious
-the pig is not suffering and unconscious
or suffering does not require consciousness and
-the pig is suffering and unconscious

Quote
Mind-altering drugs affect your brain purely by chemistry, and you see from this how your consciousness merely is your brain and not a magical spirit inhabiting it. Similarly damaging parts of the human brain alters your ability to feel pain - some people are fully conscious, but born without the ability to feel pain, because they're born with certain areas in their brain that are different from others. Damage other parts and you may lose consciousness to an extent:
mind altering drugs that can alter my perception based on chemicals does not show my consciousness is just my brain, and i don't think consciousness is a magical spirit. yes, damaging parts of the brain causes loss of consciousness, but damaging parts of an engine causes car failure and that doesn't mean the engine is the car.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampman
the swampman is the reason i don't think consciousness is just the brain. i would not think they are the same person.

Quote
They did that on a human. If you took away the brain, or just the centers processing the pain (there are humans born without the ability to feel pain for example), there would be no pain in that case. Then we can study the pig brain and see how it compares to the human brain. Pig brains have centers that process pain similarly to humans, they have a nerval system similar to humans. Therefore it is extremely likely that pigs can feel pain like humans.

The "it's arguing the pig is hurt because they hurt the pig" is a straw man, replace pig with human and you'll see it doesn't represent the experiment. The human is able to communicate that it feels pain clearly to other humans, while pigs display similar traits like screaming/noises they can't tell us in words. Therefore we make the experiment on humans, compare human and pig brains, and get an idea of what it is like for pigs.
nevermind then, i thought it was done on a pig. i agree then that pigs process pain in an identical way to humans.

---

i see how close a human and a pig are, i am still not convinced. in fact, i would not be convinced that a human could feel pain if it did not have a consciousness.

Quote
Neither does it to recognize yourself in the mirror, as showed by the self-recognizing camera. The ability of an animal, evolved for survival, to utilize a mirror indicates that it has a position on the consciousness scale that's nowhere near the bottom, although not as high up as humans.
it does mean something to recognize yourself in the mirror without being specifically designed to pretend like you recognize yourself in the mirror.
the animal using the mirror does not mean anything because that is irrelevant to the test. someone can use a car as transportation, or they can use it as a heat source, but using it as a heat source does not indicate that they can drive it any more than an organism that does not use it as a heat source.

Quote
As for the reasoning I can see the reason to lump them into the group with pigs, but your reasoning to lump pigs into the group with robots based on the mirror test is plain and simply nonsensical.
they all have no consciousness. i don't think it'd be much of a stretch to say the robot has no consciousness without using a mirror test, so either way they can be put in a group

Quote
"Pain, suffering and positive emotions in patients in vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS) and minimally conscious states (MCS) pose clinical and ethical challenges. Clinically, we evaluate behavioural responses after painful stimulation and also emotionally-contingent behaviours (e.g., smiling). Using stimuli with emotional valence, neuroimaging and electrophysiology technologies can detect subclinical remnants of preserved capacities for pain which might influence decisions about treatment limitation."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-011-9149-x
they evaluate capacity for pain, which doesn't say anything about gradual consciousness. they use the term minimally conscious states, but that isn't an argument in itself.


Bla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • The stars died so you can live.
Re: Politics
« Reply #500 on: January 28, 2014, 03:12:13 PM »
on the contrary i'm confident my variables are faking suffering.
Ok, that is good. But if it goes for consciousness, why not for suffering?
"however, most other organisms aren't programmed to emulate suffering, but rather to survive, so I have more confidence that they are really suffering and not just faking it."

so at once the pig is suffering and not conscious.

either suffering requires consciousness and
-the pig is suffering and conscious
-the pig is not suffering and unconscious
or suffering does not require consciousness and
-the pig is suffering and unconscious
These categorizations aren't working very well when you realize consciousness is gradual.
This experiment was done to investigate whether consciousness is gradual or boolean (and to debunk the conclusion of another experiment):
http://cnru.dk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Overgaard-et-al.-2006-Is-conscious-perception-gradual-or-dichotomous-A-.pdf

mind altering drugs that can alter my perception based on chemicals does not show my consciousness is just my brain, and i don't think consciousness is a magical spirit. yes, damaging parts of the brain causes loss of consciousness, but damaging parts of an engine causes car failure and that doesn't mean the engine is the car.
In that case the engine isn't the car because it's a part of the car. I'm not going to argue whether consciousness is a part of your brain or all of it, that should be rather irrelevant to this as long as you accept consciousness to be material.
What do you think consciousness is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampman
the swampman is the reason i don't think consciousness is just the brain. i would not think they are the same person.
So you mean it's not material I assume. Or what do you mean when you say 'the same person'? They have different origins but that should be irrelevant to how they are now. If their material composition is the exact same their experiences/consciousnesses would be the exact same and then it's just a question of how you play semantics. You could say they are different persons with identical consciousnesses.

i see how close a human and a pig are, i am still not convinced. in fact, i would not be convinced that a human could feel pain if it did not have a consciousness.
That's because you still cling to an either-or consciousness. How about this example, do you think there's any difference between the consciousness of humans and the consciousness of other animals that pass the mirror test?

Quote
Neither does it to recognize yourself in the mirror, as showed by the self-recognizing camera. The ability of an animal, evolved for survival, to utilize a mirror indicates that it has a position on the consciousness scale that's nowhere near the bottom, although not as high up as humans.
it does mean something to recognize yourself in the mirror without being specifically designed to pretend like you recognize yourself in the mirror.
the animal using the mirror does not mean anything because that is irrelevant to the test. someone can use a car as transportation, or they can use it as a heat source, but using it as a heat source does not indicate that they can drive it any more than an organism that does not use it as a heat source.
Let's try this
"it does mean something to recognize the location of food in the mirror without being specifically designed to pretend like you recognize it in the mirror."
The animal using the mirror had nothing to do with the test. It not having anything to do with your test doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything. There are other tests that can make us understand how animals are without it being the mirror test. Being able to understand locations based on a mirror image shows they're capable of thinking to a degree, although not as much as if they had been able to understand their own mirror image (even if that may depend on other factors such as facial/species recognition that may not be very relevant to consciousness).
I don't see how the car example has any relevance to the discussion, unless you meant it to supplement whether it fulfilled the mirror test. I never intended to imply that.

they all have no consciousness. i don't think it'd be much of a stretch to say the robot has no consciousness without using a mirror test, so either way they can be put in a group
Not fulfilling the mirror test isn't evidence it has no consciousness at all.

they evaluate capacity for pain, which doesn't say anything about gradual consciousness. they use the term minimally conscious states, but that isn't an argument in itself.
Minimally conscious states as phenomenons depend on the fact that consciousness is gradual and not boolean.
http://www.neurology.org/content/58/3/349.long

Bla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • The stars died so you can live.
Re: Politics
« Reply #501 on: January 29, 2014, 03:56:53 PM »
In other news, we were on the barricades today :P against the parlament which will with all probability be voting to sell of 19% of the state's stocks in DONG Energy. Demonstrations or not, it is probably too late to change this, but they deserve to see all the resistance they can get.

Video from the demonstration outside the parlament:

20140129 Dong Demonstration

From the description of my video:

It appears that the parlament will soon vote for selling 19% of stocks in the energy company DONG Energy to Goldman Sachs. The demonstration is against this sale. Frank Aaen from the party Enhedslisten speaks in the video. Enhedslisten has since 2004 maintained its stance: It is against the sale. And as of today, more than 185,000 signatures have been gathered in one online petition to stop the sale.

The American bank Goldman Sachs has a very toxic history and one of making very complex financial products. It has offered highly risky residential loans while at the same time speculating in the collapse of the housing market. They were fined half a billion USD for misinforming customers in 2010. On top of this they make use of tax havens in the Cayman Islands.

This bank is an example of the deeply irresponsible decisions that the irrational economic system of capitalism leads people to take. It is not one that should be have the power to veto the decisions of an energy company whose duty is to serve the interests of the people. In fact, the administration of this company should not have the influence on anything. For their irresponsible and egoistic mindset they should be imprisoned at least and their property seized for the benefit of millions of people and not the few parasites in the top of their filthy administration!

Shame on our corrupt, hypocritical "socialist", "social democratic", "radical left" government!

Sources:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/28/144610.htm
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2014/01/28/162713.htm
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/22/0122072642.htm
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/24/155120.htm

Bla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • The stars died so you can live.
Re: Politics
« Reply #502 on: January 30, 2014, 07:20:04 AM »
Despite 68% of citizens being against the sale, the parlament has now voted yes.
67% of social democrats are against. 10% of them are for. 65% of Radical Left are against the sale. 74% of Socialist People's Party's voters are against.
Even within the parties Left and Conservative People's Party, 62% are against the sale. Even 51% of Liberal Alliance are against the sale. In other words there is not even one single party in the parlament whose majority of voters are not against the sale.
The biggest opposition is within Enhedslisten (87%).

Yet still 94 in the parlament voted for the sale and 30 against. That is a disgrace.

Many within the top of Socialist People's Party have left their positions recently and today it is no longer a part of the government.

Source:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/30/130050.htm
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/30/074502.htm
http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/politik/2014-01-27-megafon-corydons-egne-v%C3%A6lgere-er-massivt-mod-dong-salg

atomic7732

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3848
  • caught in the river turning blue
    • Paladin of Storms
Re: Politics
« Reply #503 on: January 30, 2014, 08:37:52 AM »
democracy in action

i mean representative republics in action

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Politics
« Reply #504 on: January 30, 2014, 10:02:06 AM »

matty406

  • *****
  • Posts: 82
Re: Politics
« Reply #505 on: January 30, 2014, 10:46:48 AM »
Jeremy Paxman would've sorted him out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCo7qbzEX3c

Bla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • The stars died so you can live.
Re: Politics
« Reply #506 on: January 30, 2014, 02:33:37 PM »
News about the situation, now in English.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/socialists-quit-denmark-coalition-goldman-sachs-deal?CMP=twt_gu#start-of-comments

https://guan.dk/dong

Kol. And what can we do about it?..... This is so ridiculously stupid. Grr. Kol. My blood is filled with revolution now. :P

Darvince

  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
  • 差不多
Re: Politics
« Reply #507 on: January 30, 2014, 02:37:58 PM »
Denmark is small, protest for democratic voting.

Bla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • The stars died so you can live.
Re: Politics
« Reply #508 on: January 30, 2014, 03:11:37 PM »
We already protested... and the majority of the parlament ignored us completely. :l

Tl;dr lesson is don't demonstrate, revolt :P

Edit: Oh kol, I see they've called for another demonstration for tomorrow... I really need to get to make my own proper red flag for these events, they need more banners. :P
« Last Edit: January 30, 2014, 03:29:31 PM by Bla »

atomic7732

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3848
  • caught in the river turning blue
    • Paladin of Storms
Re: Politics
« Reply #509 on: January 30, 2014, 03:33:11 PM »
revolt for direct democracy and implementing the use of technology to achieve such goals

and purify parliament with completely new people