Queen bans fox hunting!

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I'm was saying nothing of what a person might be aware of (beyond themselves - whatever that may be), I'm talk about what the real implications of a sentience derived from computation are.

You are saying that sentience being derived from computation implies, logically, that self-awareness is being aware that one is determined. However, that is not the case at all (that A implies B) because self-awarness and sentience do not mean total awareness of every aspect of the self.

But if every aspect of the self is at it's core a calculation, an awareness of any aspect at all would be an awarenss of a calculation. Now, if there is an inability to identify these "aspects of self" as the calculations that they really are, that is another matter...

It doesn't change that self-awareness is an awareness of the calculations that make up "self". It may be that those calculations are erroneously labeled as a choice made by a "spirit", "soul", or "duality" that exists as the person's "consciousness" but that is just an erroneous answer that has been come to by a (supposedly malfunctioning) calculation. Not any kind of free will.



Although, thinking about my fist paragraph somemore, following that logic could lead to saying that "true" self-awareness actually requires the ability to identify the "aspects of self" as the calculations that they really are, and by extension a "conscious" (calculated) acknowledgmentor exceptance that there is no free will, and that they are nothing but a calculator. Which would mean that self-awareness is actually counter-productive to consciousness (which is in reality nothing but delusion). Perhaps computers and other "unthinking" machines are the only truely self-aware beings after all, while real "consciousness" relies on the principle of "ignorance is bliss" and an inability to idenfy it's true self - so that it can pretend the erroneous calculations it makes are actually intentional and are directed by conscious self that possesses free will.

Have you, all along, been saying that a fox is too perfect a life form to be sentient?

... and I guess Humans really are "special", afterall - they have a mental disorder! I love it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
wait, so if there was a program that would develop itself ( which is theoretically possible) , it would suddenly aquire rights, feel pain, etc.? crap-o-plenty.

I am not sure what you are getting at. This reminds me of the Farside strip where step 2 was labelled "Then a miracle occurs."

Originally posted by Azazel
After all, remember we learn through the evolution of neural connections, not because we "choose" to learn, since any such choice is in the neural connections as well, and amounts to tautology.

1. We learn through the development of new neural connections - "evolution" doesn't fit

2. Are you saying that we make decisions independently of outside factors?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
OK, how about this: when you look at something, you aren't aware of just a bunch of one's and zeroes like a computer camera, or a set of nerve impulses like an animal; you see a picture, in your mind.

Actually, that's my point. Our thoughts are determined. But they are determined by ourselves. No one else comes in and determines what you think, you do. Those small bits of matter are you.

Except those atoms happened to be arranged such that, given appropriate stimuli, my brain can actually reach logical conclusions.

I don't just think that I am conscious; I experience my consciousness. Yes, it is the result of my brain making calculations, but that doesn't mean that any instance of a brain making calculations results in consciousness.

It's not computational power that is required. A litre of water has immense computational power. It just has relatively useless (to us) programming. It is the basic programming of the brain, which is practically similar between all humans, that results in consciousness.

It is an automatic response to external stimuli. However, it is also the product of a conscious mind. I know that I am conscious, because I experience it directly. Just like I know that I see a computer screen in front of me, even if it's just an illusion or hologram, because it's not a statement about the world around me, but a statement about my immediate sensations.

So, if I follow you closely, the specificity of the human brain is that we have logical thought. Thus we can think. And thus we are able to see pictures instead of a bunch of 0/1 or nervous stimuli.

And still, despite your many posts (that I read), I don't see why you believe that animals (especially mammals) can't have sensations. Is it because a lack of logical thought? Is it because a lack of self-awareness? Is it because a lack of computing programmed in such a way that they sense things?
For the first two questions, you have not proven the link between these factors and the ability to feel. For the third question, you haven't proved that animals are devoid of such 'programming'.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap


IIRC, cats have less of the teeth than can be used to grind plant matter than dogs. I see dogs eating grass all the time- I have never seen a cat munching on grass.

They do eat grass, and for the same reasons as dogs.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


No, though foxes apparently never had any natural enemy, at least in England, I think.

Wolves and whatever version of large cat used to inhabit Britain I'm sure. Here it's wolves, coyotes and wildcats (aka mountain lions, pumas).

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Sikander


They do eat grass, and for the same reasons as dogs.

Because it's a part of their diet?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by General Ludd


Because it's a part of their diet?

I think they do it for vitamins and sometimes to vomit.