Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Montague]

Eh, yer taking it too far. No real way to test that other humans are capable of "I think, therefore I exist, as a thing that thinks." If you program something that can pass every test of self-awareness a human can, it's as self-aware as a human is. Simple as that ♪

If an animal can pass most or even a fair amount of the self-awareness tests that humans can, then it's at least that self-aware. What we can say, then, is that a mature dolphin is more self-aware than humans at certain stages of development, which is a pretty big thing, really.

Well, say a computer is programmed as such to pass self-awareness tests at least as well as a dolphin, does that computer become a 'non human person'? Can you really point to a dolphin and claim it understands the metaphysical concepts related to 'self' and deserves personhood because it can recognize its self in a mirror? What really makes a person, a person anyways, if a 12 month old child can't pass such a self-awareness test? Or perhaps a severely brain damaged adult human?

While yes, you could design a computer program to pass a specific test, I think that at this point it is a stretch to assume you can program a computer to recognise itself. Partly because the test would exist on the computer, so the mirror would be part of itself, so seeing itself in the mirror would mean it failed the test as it saw the mirror as separate from itself.

That isn't even touching on the reality of programming issues that would be thrown at you.

Well, I was thinking that a computer could probably be programmed to recognize itself if you pointed it's webcam at it with something like facial recognition software on it, or used a mirror. "Yep, I'm looking at a Dell Optiplex 9900, serial number ect, ect, which is me, because that's my serial number and my warranty expires in 2 months." Doesn't seem like it would be that complicated, but I'm really just using this as a hypothetical example because if it's not possible today it will surely be possible in the future.

[Max White]

Well that sounds like a lot of it is already in its database of what things are, and what it is, and it just needs to match the two, as opposed to what biological lifeforms do, that is learn to recognise themselves.

[lordcooper]

People aren't wearing enough hats!

[Frumple]

What really makes a person, a person anyways, if a 12 month old child can't pass such a self-awareness test? Or perhaps a severely brain damaged adult human?

Both philosophy and the science that was born from it have been trying to answer that question since the BCs. We don't have an answer yet (Well, we have shittonnes of answers but nothing definitive. Same thing, really.). Behavioral tests are the best we can do, and will have to suffice, really, at least until we figure out some facsimile of telepathy.

The personhood of children or the brain damaged has actually been a long running battle, though. It's a question a lot of people really don't like being asked, huhuhu.

Well, say a computer is programmed as such to pass self-awareness tests at least as well as a dolphin, does that computer become a 'non human person'? Can you really point to a dolphin human and claim it understands the metaphysical concepts related to 'self' and deserves personhood because it can recognize its self in a mirror?

FTFY Considering a significant amount of humans don't even know what the blazes metaphysics are or actually have much of a self-reflective understanding of the self, well...

In any case, hell, sure, if a computer can pass the same self-awareness tests a dolphin can pass, it's as self aware as a dolphin. Self-awareness isn't the only qualifying point for person, though, non-human or otherwise.

[Montague]

The personhood of children or the brain damaged has actually been a long running battle, though. It's a question a lot of people really don't like being asked, huhuhu.

In any case, hell, sure, if a computer can pass the same self-awareness tests a dolphin can pass, it's as self aware as a dolphin. Self-awareness isn't the only qualifying point for person, though, non-human or otherwise.

Well, fair enough, I think my point was how do you define 'person' and self-awareness seems pretty important to that aspect to most people.

The concept of personhood and how it's defined is really rather important.

Corporations and now dolphins and whales are considered people, but a human fetus and particularly dumb/tasty animals and sophisticated computers are not. How the determination is made on how to define personhood does seem to hinge on it's ability to recognize itself and perhaps file litigation against other people.

What other aspects are there to personhood and how do they apply to whales and dolphins, exactly?

[kaenneth]

To me true self-awareness is knowing that you can die.

That is, progressing from "I think therefore I am" to "If I stop thinking, then I no longer exist" (that is, your body might still be there but 'you' are gone.)

[Montague]

To me true self-awareness is knowing that you can die.

That is, progressing from "I think therefore I am" to "If I stop thinking, then I no longer exist" (that is, your body might still be there but 'you' are gone.)

That's a tough bar, I don't think the majority of human beings even grasp that concept.

[Max White]

To me true self-awareness is knowing that you can die.

Does that mean that something that can not die can not be self aware?

[Montague]

To me true self-awareness is knowing that you can die.

Does that mean that something that can not die can not be self aware?

Everything in the universe will cease to exist, thus cease to think, at some point down the timeline.

[Loud Whispers]

Actually, IIRC, it's been believed for a while dolphins and other animals are more intelligent than humans, but couldn't 'evolve' their intelligence due to a lack of opposable thumbs.

Hang on JUST ONE MOMENT.

When it comes to intelligence, brain size to body size, IQ or however you want to measure it, humans come first, bottlenose dolphins come second. Thumbs = Ability to create tools.
Tools + Collective knowledge = civilization
Dolphins = civlization not yet

Dolphins aren't any less evolved than people, they've just followed a different evolutionary path, in the same way that dogs simply devote more of their brain to their senses.

To me true self-awareness is knowing that you can die.

Does that mean that something that can not die can not be self aware?

That was his own personal opinion, and so far humans seem to be the only species that worry about death :/
Plus, we haven't found something that cannot die yet

[Max White]

Everything in the universe will cease to exist, thus cease to think, at some point down the timeline.

That is a very bold assertion. Sort of a white swans fallacy.

[Montague]

Everything in the universe will cease to exist, thus cease to think, at some point down the timeline.

That is a very bold assertion. Sort of a white swans fallacy.

I mean anything capable of thought eventually must cease to exist at some point in the future. Heat death of the universe and all that.

[Grek]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but this is a conference funded by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and the Brittish Helsinki Group (an independant and somewhat dubious offshoot of the Helsinki Human Rights Watch) whose findings were published in the Daily Mail rather than in a scientific journal of some sort. The "supporting evidence" comes from Doplhin.org, Wilddopphinproject.org and a time magazine article by Eugene Linden, who, to my knowledge, has no scientific credentials at all.

Perhaps a bit more skepticism is due?

[Loud Whispers]

Perhaps a bit more skepticism is due?

It's the daily mail, every single one of their topics is basically them saying everyone is stupid but us, here's why.

[Chaoswizkid]

After all, what is the difference between a robotic arm and a mirror, and two robotic arms on the same circuit that mirror each other?

Voltage drop. =P

The "supporting evidence" comes from Doplhin.org, Wilddopphinproject.org and a time magazine article by Eugene Linden, who, to my knowledge, has no scientific credentials at all.

Perhaps a bit more skepticism is due?

Did you take the time to look at Dolphin.org? It's a research facility that is funded by tourism. Just because they have the website name doesn't mean you can immediately discredit them. These are also the only things that I dug up, I can't remember all of the websites I've been to over the years that show evidence of higher intelligence. I can point to Naval Military training of marine mammals if you'd like, or try and find the studies where it shows that cetaceans have their own languages, dialects, and even have distinguishable names. Research into cetaceans has gone on for a long, long time; this isn't just some sudden conclusion being drawn, I think it's just people are being more brave to state it.