It's a complex thing and I'll need to think about/look into it more but the way I see it is why should a rock be happy or sad that it is a rock?

(obviously day to day it functions as a rock and even if it thinks about the purpose of being a rock it will always function as a rock if you get me, unless it desides to stop being a rock.... emmm end of metaphor for tonight 4am nearly.... )

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

Everyone knows the story that its better to teach someone how to fish, because you feed them forever rather than simply giving them a fish and feeding them for a day.

The universe says, its better to give someone an infinite supply of mediocre food, and a single delicious fish. Then the universe leaves you to figure out the whole catching thing.

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

Well of course a rock can't feel it is a rock. Human's are uncomparable to any other living organism known to man because of one distinct attribute. The ability to apply labels for the tangible and intangible world. I read an interesting essay that said Helen Keller, before she could apply labels was not human, because she did not possess this key ability which is what separated us from apes and monkeys. Its an obvious separation. Because we can apply a label, we can pass down tradition, we can communicate with subjects beyond our physical world. Yet another subject touched on in the movie Waking Life, amazing how many subjects can be related to that movie. A person is then happy or sad because they judge their life to others using these labels, these manisfestations of human kind, love or lack of love, success, etc. This is why I do not believe people are simply just the machines that people makes us out to be. So for, no form of artificial intelligence, that I know of at least, has been able to manifest a label and then apply it. However, I am seeing how this vaguely relates to what we are talking about here, but if you can clear up the connection for me that would be nice. Thank you.

___________________
Lost Souls

dont make us bust out "what is a person?" !!

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant "The encyclopedia wand's a theoretical puzzle, like Zeno's paradox. The idea is to engrave the entire encyclopedia onto a single toothpick. Know how to do it?" "You tell me." "You take your information, your enxclopedia text, and you transpose it into numerics. You assign everything a two-digit number, periods and commas included. 00 is a blank, A is 01, B is 02, and so on. Then after you've lined them all up, you put a decimal point before the whole lot. So now you've got a very long sub-decimal fraction. 0.1783947609009....Next, you engrave a mark at exactely that point along the toothpick. If 0.5000's your exact middle on the toothpick, then 0.3333's go to be a third of the way from the tip. You follow?" "Sure" That's how you can fit the data of any length in a single point on a toothpick. Only theoretically, of course. No existin' technology can actually engrave so fine a point. But this should give you a perspective on what tautologies are like. Say time's the length of your toothpick. The amout of information you can pack into it doesn't have anything to do with the length. Make the fraction as long as you want. It'll be finite but pretty near eternal. Though if you make it a repeating decimal then it is eternal. You understand what that means? The problem's the software, no relation to the hardware. It could be a toothpick or a two hundred meter timber or the equator - doesn't matter. Your body dies, your consciousness passes away, but your thought is caught in the one tautological point an instant before, subdivin' for an eternity. Think about the koan: An arrow is stopped in flight. Well, the death of the body is the flight of the arrow. It's making a straight line for the brain. No dodgin' it, not for anyone. People have to die, the body has to fail. Time is hurlin' that arrow forward. And yet, like I was sayin'. thought goes on subdiving that time for ever and ever. The paradox becomes real. The arrow never hits." "In other words," I said, "Immortality."

Ummm I could be wrong but isn't this like Zeno's paradox in that it has been proven wrong? The problem at issue is the infinite regression. If a runner in a race closes upon the leader by distances of 1/2, than 1/4, than 1/8, and so on, "paradoxically" the runner will never surpass the leader due to the infinite regression of time. However, the "paradox" may be solved by the summing of an infinite series or by finding the limit. You cannot take an infinite set of distances and encompass that within a finite overall distance. Even in an infinite regression, the supposed "infinite" finite distances sum to a finite limit.

The arrow paradox has often been used as a further challenge to the above solution, can you sum an infinite series with a value of 0? But like the Achilles problem, it has similarly been disproved. An infinite series makes a progression, otherwise there would be no series. You cannot solve the conundrum of an infinite number of zeros by postulating an infinite number of limits. If the arrow were imagined to be "at an instant" its velocity must be imagined to be zero. Therefore the solution is that the arrow is never at an instant. A stopped arrow in motion is a mathematical abstraction. It is a physical impossibility. An arrow is either in motion or it is stopped. It cannot logically be imagined to be both. Thus the contradiction in Zeno’s paradox where he imagines the arrow to be both stopped and in motion. An object cannot be in motion over a zero-interval ... it would be a contradiction of logic.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings Well of course a rock can't feel it is a rock. Human's are uncomparable to any other living organism known to man because of one distinct attribute. The ability to apply labels for the tangible and intangible world. I read an interesting essay that said Helen Keller, before she could apply labels was not human, because she did not possess this key ability which is what separated us from apes and monkeys. Its an obvious separation. Because we can apply a label, we can pass down tradition, we can communicate with subjects beyond our physical world. Yet another subject touched on in the movie Waking Life, amazing how many subjects can be related to that movie. A person is then happy or sad because they judge their life to others using these labels, these manisfestations of human kind, love or lack of love, success, etc. This is why I do not believe people are simply just the machines that people makes us out to be. So for, no form of artificial intelligence, that I know of at least, has been able to manifest a label and then apply it. However, I am seeing how this vaguely relates to what we are talking about here, but if you can clear up the connection for me that would be nice. Thank you.

I'm somewhat confused by this "label" applying ability that makes us "human" and thus distinct from every other animal species in the world. Can you be more specific as to what learned behaviour Helen Keller displayed that earned her her "humanity"? In what way can a human exhibit behaviour that excludes them from this distinct characteristic that seperates a human from the animal world? Philosophically I see animals passing down traditions and ascribing labels. I don't see them communicating with subjects beyond their physical world, but then again I don't see us doing that either.

___________________
Retro ...

What I'm meaning really is that to me happyness or sadness or whatever is something we make up within ours selfs as are labels or any other thoughts. These are parts/products of our function. Just because we (possibly) have more complicated operation doesn't, in my mind, elevate us a great deal about a rock.

(but obviously I choose to function as I should, because I'm bound to by all the chemicals and so on floating around and being created in my body)

I mean if you give people certain pills you can make them happy or sad or whatever how could you do that if it wasn't mearly based upon chemicals we create (that is being purely a "machine")?

EDIT: glaring grammer

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

Last edited by Dervish on May-04-2005 at 14:00

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm somewhat confused by this "label" applying ability that makes us "human" and thus distinct from every other animal species in the world. Can you be more specific as to what learned behaviour Helen Keller displayed that earned her her "humanity"? In what way can a human exhibit behaviour that excludes them from this distinct characteristic that seperates a human from the animal world? Philosophically I see animals passing down traditions and ascribing labels. I don't see them communicating with subjects beyond their physical world, but then again I don't see us doing that either.

I am somewhat familiar with the Keller story as well. To sum up the story, basically she was deaf, dumb and blind. And as such had never been socialized, and basically was a little monster careening about her world.

Within this world, she had no concept of objects, because she had no means with which to distinguish one object from another.

Then she was taught sign language (by signing into her hand), but there was still no change, because she didn't attribute different signs to different objects.

The moment of revelation came when she was at a water pump, and she learned that "water" and "mug" were seperate things, and this is what Helen Keller later had to say about the experience.

"I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motion of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten - a thrill of returning though; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that "w-a-t-e-r" meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free!"

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

Good explanation subey, but I will type out the article for all of those interested. I read it for my sociology course, and it was probably the most interesting article I read this year.

Symbol: The Basic Element of Culture
Leslie A. White

... All human behaviour originates in the use of symbols. It was the symbol which transformed our anthropoid ancestors into men and made them human. All civilizations have been generated, and are perpetuated, only by the use of symbols. It is the symbol which transforms an infant of Homo sapiens into a human being; deaf mutes who grow up without the use of symbols are not human beings. All human behavior consists of, or is dependent upon, the use of symbols...

... Fairly apparent, too, are man's behavioral similarities to many other kinds of animals. Almost as obvious, but not easy to define, is a difference in behavior which distinguishes man from all other living creatures... It is impossible for a dog, horse, bird, or even an ape, to have any understanding of the meaning of the sign of the cross to a Christian, or of the fact that black (white among the Chinese) is the color of mourning. It is not, as we all know that the lower animals can do these things but to a lesser degree than ourselves; they cannot perform these acts of appreciation and distinction at all. It is, Descartes said long ago, "not only that the brutes have less Reason than man, but that they have none at all..."

There is more, but I this is a very unpractical way of doing this. I will scan the remainder within an hour.

___________________
Lost Souls

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I am somewhat familiar with the Keller story as well. To sum up the story, basically she was deaf, dumb and blind. And as such had never been socialized, and basically was a little monster careening about her world. Within this world, she had no concept of objects, because she had no means with which to distinguish one object from another. Then she was taught sign language (by signing into her hand), but there was still no change, because she didn't attribute different signs to different objects. The moment of revelation came when she was at a water pump, and she learned that "water" and "mug" were seperate things, and this is what Helen Keller later had to say about the experience. "I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motion of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten - a thrill of returning though; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that "w-a-t-e-r" meant the wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free!"

So than babies are not “human” until they develop the mental capacity to distinguish objects? Furthermore, doesn’t that quote from her merely reference her discovery of language, not the discovery of distinguishing one object from another? If she couldn’t distinguish one object from another than she wouldn’t have been able to eat (or would have been content with eating inanimate objects), she wouldn’t have been able to dress herself (or would have tried to wear a chair or something), she wouldn’t have been able to recognize that fire is hot, and so forth. She always had the sense of touch; I would assume that she had the mental recognizance to differentiate shape through touch in as much as any other human has that ability through sight. Therefore I’m not quite sure how she “acquired” her humanity in a way that is any different from any other human. Furthermore, I’m not entirely sure how this ability to distinguish objects is in anyway different from behavior exhibited by animals.

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings Good explanation subey, but I will type out the article for all of those interested. I read it for my sociology course, and it was probably the most interesting article I read this year. Symbol: The Basic Element of Culture Leslie A. White ... All human behaviour originates in the use of symbols. It was the symbol which transformed our anthropoid ancestors into men and made them human. All civilizations have been generated, and are perpetuated, only by the use of symbols. It is the symbol which transforms an infant of Homo sapiens into a human being; deaf mutes who grow up without the use of symbols are not human beings. All human behavior consists of, or is dependent upon, the use of symbols...

How is a deaf, mute excluded from the use of symbols? If I find a deaf, mute they won’t understand the significance of a religious icon?

quote:

... Fairly apparent, too, are man's behavioral similarities to many other kinds of animals. Almost as obvious, but not easy to define, is a difference in behavior which distinguishes man from all other living creatures... It is impossible for a dog, horse, bird, or even an ape, to have any understanding of the meaning of the sign of the cross to a Christian, or of the fact that black (white among the Chinese) is the color of mourning. It is not, as we all know that the lower animals can do these things but to a lesser degree than ourselves; they cannot perform these acts of appreciation and distinction at all. It is, Descartes said long ago, "not only that the brutes have less Reason than man, but that they have none at all..."

I’m not sure how true that is. There is some evidence to suggest animals have performed traits that are indicative of acts of appreciation, distinction, and symbolism:

quote:

Professor Donald Broom, from Cambridge University, studies the behaviour of cows. His team put them in a special pen which had a lever that, when pressed, would release the cows into a field with lots of delicious food rewards. Non-human animals probably feel emotions like fear and anger The researchers found that when the cows finally "clicked" and worked out how to press the lever to reach the food, they showed signs of delight. "When they learnt it they showed an excitement response," Professor Broom told the BBC. "Their heart rates increased and they were more likely to jump and gallop when they went down towards the food. "It was as if the animals were saying 'Eureka! I've found out how to solve the problem'." . . . Dr Goodall, 71, who has spent 45 years studying chimps in Africa, told the CIWF Trust delegates that humans and chimps were strikingly similar - that both shared a capacity for barbarity but were also capable of great altruism. She described how she had seen chimps come to the aid of others who had been frightened, orphaned or injured, demonstrating "a care and compassion indistinguishable from our own". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4360947.stm

quote:

Apes are physically unable to produce human speech, so investigation of their ability for symbolic communication has been difficult. Gardner and Gardner taught American Sign Language (ASL) to Washoe, and subsequently to four other chimpanzees Washoe's instruction began at age one and continued for five years. Washoe learned 132 signs and formed novel combinations of signs. Other researchers, notably Francine Patterson and Roger Fouts, also instructed Chimpanzees to use ASL. E. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, in the Animal Model Project, improved on the ASL system with lexigrams and a symbol keyboard system (accompanied by special lighting on the keyboard, image projection and accompanying sounds to correspond to the symbols). Savage-Rumbaugh taught two chimps, Austin and Sherman, lexigrams to symbolize tools needed to acquire food, among other symbols. Using only the lexigrams, Austin and Sherman had to communicate which tool was required to access food. Their success rate was 97 percent correct when the keyboard with lexigrams was available, and dropped to 10 percent with the keyboard turned off. This established that their communication was indeed symbolic. Sherman and Austin had learned to communicate with each other through the use of learned symbols in the setting of cooperation to obtain food. These experiments established that chimpanzees are capable of acquiring or learning symbolic communication. http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/primates.html

___________________
Retro ...

To use the Interpreter, which by the way I loved, we are on opposite sides of the river. I am afraid there is a misunderstanding of how Subey and I are referring to the ability to use symbols. I am going to scan the rest of the essay here and I believe it will be more clear. After my class today I will come back and respond to your examples of animals, and hopefully by then you have had a chance to read my article so that hopefully we can be on the same bank. Yes, let the cheese flow.

___________________
Lost Souls

Last edited by kush paintings on May-04-2005 at 20:54