Queen bans fox hunting!

[GePap]

Question: why is anyone continuing to post a pointless discussion with an obvoiusly non-sentient Kuciwalker?

After all, Can Kuciwalker provide any of us with any evidence that the posts we see are created by a human being, and not a computer? I have seen no evidence whatsoever to show that the posts by the "entity" kuciwalker are the work of a human being and not a computer- I have never met "Kuciwalker", there exist no empirical evidence whatsoever that those are the post of a human being, and you must rule out occams razor or anything that might point towards perhaps those posts being those of a human being because they would be irrelevant to the theoretical discussion of whether Kuciwalker is actualy self-aware- something for which he has shown nothing, nor made any valid arguements.

So again, why are we wasting time arguing with some computer program?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
A computer can only do 1 & 2.

It can't reconize a sentient being, niether can it put itself into that other being's "eyes" and understand how that being is percieving it and likewise, it can not understand or anticipate how other beings would react to it's actions. That is awareness.

Ah, but it CAN do those. A computer could be programmed to recognize sentience (inasmuch as sentience is recognizeable), and a computer could even be programmed to examine something from another beings point of view. And anticipating how other beings would react to it - have you ever played chess against a computer? It does exactly that!

Awareness is not empathy. (As a side not, I believe they are closely related in evolution, but there is no necessary connection between the two.) There are many sentient beings without empathy - we call them psychopaths.

But itself is nothing but the very same computations. How is this control? it's just a system going through calculations and not being controled by anything except the information that is feeded into it.

The system controls what calculations are done, because the system is the calculations (well, it's the particles, but particles are just calculations anyway). The reason that electrons don't have will is because will is meaningless without sentience.

Or do you suggest that there is something within us that is outside of these calculations - outside of our mechanical body - that is able to input extra information and influence the calculations that we make?

No! Everything is calculations. This isn't even an empirical claim; an object's behavior must be determined, else it would not know how to behave! Somewhere, something must determine what that behavior is, and it has to use some process, even a probabilistic one, to arrive at its conclusion. This process is calculation.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Ah, but it CAN do those. A computer could be programmed to recognize sentience (inasmuch as sentience is recognizeable), and a computer could even be programmed to examine something from another beings point of view. And anticipating how other beings would react to it - have you ever played chess against a computer? It does exactly that!

A computer playing chess does not do any of that. It doesn't reconize it's opponent, it doesn't percieve how that opponent thinks or sees of it, and it doesn't anticipate what that opponent will do. It merely calculates all the possible outcomes and picks the course of action which is the most statistically likely to bring it to it's programmed objective.

If you where to make an illegal move - something that it was not programmed to "anticipate" - it would be at a complete loss.

Awareness is not empathy. (As a side not, I do believe they are closely related in evolution, but there is no necessary connection between the two.) There are many sentient beings without empathy - we call them psychopaths.

I wouldn't say that is neccisarily true of psychopaths, but the real question (as it relates to what I said) is; are there any empathic beings without sentience? To be aware of another being you have to first be aware of yourself, or there can be no distinction between "self" and "other".

The system controls what calculations are done, because the system is the calculations (well, it's the particles, but particles are just calculations anyway).

So it's the calculations that control themselves - ie. it's the particles (the calculations) which have free will?

but then you go on to say...

The reason that electrons don't have will is because will is meaningless without sentience.

Oh.

No! Everything is calculations. This isn't even an empirical claim; an object's behavior must be determined, else it would not know how to behave! Somewhere, something must determine what that behavior is, and it has to use some process, even a probabilistic one, to arrive at its conclusion. This process is calculation.

So where, exactly, does free will come into play?

You seem to be teeter-tottering between saying that there is no free will and everything is the result of calculations, and saying that the calculations are sentient themselves (which would imply that that electrons - or anything at all - is sentient).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
A computer playing chess does not do any of that. It doesn't reconize it's opponent, it doesn't percieve how that opponent thinks or sees of it, and it doesn't anticipate what that opponent will do.

It does too anticipate what the opponent will do.

If you where to make an illegal move - something that it was not programmed to "anticipate" - it would be at a complete loss.

It's not possible to make an illegal move. Chess programs on the computer don't let you.

Nevertheless, it would be trivial to add code to have it say "that was an illegal move".

If a fox's prey suddenly teleports 100 miles away, it would also be at a loss what to do. So?

And if you made a chess program that played on a physical board and ran inside a robot with arms and a video camera, it could too recognize its opponent, and even determine from the facial expression the opponent's thoughts. While programs that do things like that are currently somewhat primitive, the visual interpretation part of the brain has little to do with actual sentience.

I wouldn't say that is neccisarily true of psychopaths,

psy·cho·path Pronunciation Key (sk-pth)
n.
A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

You lose.

but the real question (as it relates to what I said) is; are there any empathic beings without sentience? To be aware of another being you have to first be aware of yourself, or there can be no distinction between "self" and "other".

No you don't. Conceiving of the universe from anothers' point of view does not require self-awareness, except in the trivial sense of the term, the knowledge in memory that one exists (which any computer can contain). It does not require the awareness that I'm talking about. Stop confusing the two. Awareness, in the context of my argument, is not just knowledge of something.

So it's the calculations that control themselves - ie. it's the particles (the calculations) which have free will?

"Will" is meaningless outside the context of sentience!

but then you go on to say...

So where, exactly, does free will come into play?

You seem to be teeter-tottering between saying that there is no free will and everything is the result of calculations, and saying that the calculations are sentient themselves (which would imply that that electrons - or anything at all - is sentient).

I'm not teeter-tottering. Everything is the result of calculations (obviously), and sentience is an emergent property of calculations - that is, when particles (computers) are arranged in certain configurations, they give rise to sentience. Not all particles or systems of particles are sentient. Those that are, however, have a will (and a free will).

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GePap
Question: why is anyone continuing to post a pointless discussion with an obvoiusly non-sentient Kuciwalker?



So again, why are we wasting time arguing with some computer program?

Clearly some of us have been inflicted with one or other of the diseases or have developed the syndromes which play havoc with the body's and brain's abilities to recognise and steer clear of pain and injury- mass outbreaks of peripheral neuropathy, or Raynaud's Phenomenon for instance.

This has meant that those of us who should know better are unable to keep themselves from repeatedly banging their heads against a brick wall.

[Kuciwalker]

Pain is a stimulus, like any other, such as pleasure, or hearing, or sight. When certain nerve endings are triggered, the brain feels pain. Pain is the label we give to those stimuli we dislike acutely and that generally tell us something is wrong with our body. Given this, it would be entirely appropriate to label a sensor that detected damage to a robot as a pain sensor, and to say that, when that sensor is triggered, the robot feels pain. Living beings happen to have evolved (and learn, in many higher organisms) certain responses to feeling pain, especially strong pain. Generally, they try to avoid it. Of course, some people (masochists) enjoy it, and others are able to ignore most pain, so it is not necessary to have those reactions to be feeling pain. A robot could also be designed or trained to have similar reactions (in fact, the sensor would be useless otherwise), and to, as part of its goal, try to minimize its pain. However, unless the robot or animal is sentient, it is not feeling the pain in the same way humans do.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Question: why is anyone continuing to post a pointless discussion with an obvoiusly non-sentient Kuciwalker?

After all, Can Kuciwalker provide any of us with any evidence that the posts we see are created by a human being, and not a computer? I have seen no evidence whatsoever to show that the posts by the "entity" kuciwalker are the work of a human being and not a computer- I have never met "Kuciwalker", there exist no empirical evidence whatsoever that those are the post of a human being, and you must rule out occams razor or anything that might point towards perhaps those posts being those of a human being because they would be irrelevant to the theoretical discussion of whether Kuciwalker is actualy self-aware- something for which he has shown nothing, nor made any valid arguements.

So again, why are we wasting time arguing with some computer program?

Because you misunderstand Occam's Razor - it is far more likely that I am a human than that someone has designed a computer and a program so incredibly intelligent as I am

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
Personally, I don't agree with this law, it will lead to Foxes being shot instead of hunted (as has previously been said) and is only serving to create divisions between the countryside and the cities.

No. It'll create divisions between the landowning horsey set and the rest of the country. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the rural inhabitants of Britain are some sort of massed pro-hunting lobby group, despite what the hunters would have you believe.

I also think the law technically is unworkable, I will be writing to my local police to ask them how much time they will waste on this issue, and wether they were given additional funding to chase the real criminals in our society ... I think not. !

Why is England doomed to failure in this issue? Scotland wasn't. The fact is that most hunts look set to switch to lure-hunting in order to keep their infrastructure and hope the law gets changed back in the future.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by General Ludd
A computer playing chess does not do any of that. It doesn't reconize it's opponent, it doesn't percieve how that opponent thinks or sees of it, and it doesn't anticipate what that opponent will do.

It does too anticipate what the opponent will do.

If you where to make an illegal move - something that it was not programmed to "anticipate" - it would be at a complete loss.

It's not possible to make an illegal move. Chess programs on the computer don't let you.

Precisely. It doesn't anticipate anything because it acts on a very rigid set of pre-determined rules that it has been programmed around. It doesn't react to it's surroundings, it merely applies it's pre-determined rules to everything.

A fox, or a dog, can react to unexpected events. A seeing eye-dog can see a car speeding down a street with no intention of stoping, and stop his master from proceeding, despite having never run into this situation before and, based on previous expereinces, would of expected the car to be going slower, or to stop at a particular place.

And if you made a chess program that played on a physical board and ran inside a robot with arms and a video camera, it could too recognize its opponent, and even determine from the facial expression the opponent's thoughts.

It could reconzie it's opnent as a physical object, and perhaps assign a pre-determined meaning that had been programmed into it to particular facial expressions (with only mediocre success, I might add) but it wouldn't be aware of it's oponent as a being.

You lose.

I "lose" because I would contest something?

What am I "losing", exactly?

but the real question (as it relates to what I said) is; are there any empathic beings without sentience? To be aware of another being you have to first be aware of yourself, or there can be no distinction between "self" and "other".

No you don't. Conceiving of the universe from anothers' point of view does not require self-awareness

How can you put yourself into someone elses eyes without being able to put yourself into your own eyes? (and bridging the gap between seeing and "seeing", as you've so liked to talk about)

How can you possibly percieve the thoughts of another being without being able to percieve your own thoughts?

So it's the calculations that control themselves - ie. it's the particles (the calculations) which have free will?

"Will" is meaningless outside the context of sentience!

but then you go on to say...

So where, exactly, does free will come into play?

You seem to be teeter-tottering between saying that there is no free will and everything is the result of calculations, and saying that the calculations are sentient themselves (which would imply that that electrons - or anything at all - is sentient).

I'm not teeter-tottering. Everything is the result of calculations (obviously), and sentience is an emergent property of calculations - that is, when particles (computers) are arranged in certain configurations, they give rise to sentience. Not all particles or systems of particles are sentient. Those that are, however, have a will (and a free will).

Again, if everything including sentience is the result of calculations how does a sentient being - ie a being that is aware that it is a machine - any different in function than a non-senitent being? Or, even more importantly, how does this acknowledgment impart free will - how do the calculations stop being calculations and become choices?

When everything, obviously (as you say) has to be a calculation, there can be no free will. There can be no choice. Only calculations.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Pain is a stimulus, like any other, such as pleasure, or hearing, or sight.

I sincerely hope you're not considering a career in medicine. Or are actively employed in any capacity where you come into contact with people experiencing one the many varieties of pain.

[Kuciwalker]

Since you can't actually argue that I'm wrong, you resort to ad hominems.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Since you can't actually argue that I'm wrong, you resort to ad hominems.

What's the point of arguing with you?

You have the adamantine certainty that comes with youth and inexperience.

Unlike other posters, I avoid hitting the brick wall, and simply scribble a graffito on it instead.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Pain is a stimulus, like any other, such as pleasure, or hearing, or sight. When certain nerve endings are triggered, the brain feels pain. Pain is the label we give to those stimuli we dislike acutely and that generally tell us something is wrong with our body.

So there's your definition of something that even experts can't agree on.


Here's one that I prefer:

" DEFINITION


IASP: "Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage". Even the authors were aware of this definition’s inadequacy, and hastened to add: "Pain is always subjective… This definition avoids tying pain to the stimulus".

Despite the disclaimer, this definition DOES tie the sensation to the stimulus, perpetuating the centuries old fallacy. It does not, and cannot, explain many of the perplexing aspects of pain experience, and it does not consider the crucial influence of the brain on the sensation and the perception of pain.

The brain can generate pain, create a perceptual experience, independent of the peripheral input, i.e., regardless of the presence or the extent of tissue damage or pathology.
The brain is continually modified by experience and sensory input.

THE PUZZLE OF PAIN


Without the contributions of modern neuroscience, it is impossible to unravel the multitude of the pain puzzles:

Well known instances of NO PAIN with major injuries
Excruciating PAIN in missing structures (phantom pains), or denervated structures (below spinal cord section in paraplegics)
PAIN persisting, after complete healing of injury
PAIN provoked by touch, or no stimulus at all
PAIN that is delayed, or non-anatomically spread. "

http://www.medicalmasterclass.com/pain.%20Fulgosi.htm

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by molly bloom
What's the point of arguing with you?

You have the adamantine certainty that comes with youth and inexperience.

Unlike other posters, I avoid hitting the brick wall, and simply scribble a graffito on it instead.

Right. Despite the fact that, almost entirely of my own inspiration, I've managed to come up with and articulate a philosophy similar or identical to that of a famous philosopher? I've never actually read Descartes, btw. Of course I'm absolutely certain. I see know reason to doubt something when I've been able to handle every objection to it so far.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by molly bloom
So there's your definition of something that even experts can't agree on.

I'm obviously talking about the raw stimulus pain, not the intellectualized or emotional feeling. Just like when I say pleasure, I don't mean happiness, but, say, the sensation received during an orgasm.