Human life vs Animal life

[Human No More]

On what criteria? If it is fully aware of its existence, able to reflect on existence, to form opinions (without use of a predetermined algorithm or expert system) and to learn and improve itself (the definition there is learning NEW things that weren't anticipated or provided for), then it meets the definition. I'm not talking about an infinitely complex top-down (all possibilities predetermined and coded in) approach, I'm taking about a genuine reproduction of a neural network - modern architectures are ALREADY taking more inspiration form them and complexity is improving all the time.

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by Human No More

On what criteria? If it is fully aware of its existence, able to reflect on existence, to form opinions (without use of a predetermined algorithm or expert system) and to learn and improve itself (the definition there is learning NEW things that weren't anticipated or provided for), then it meets the definition.

How does one actually go about making a computer that is self-aware? You can program a computer to claim that it is sentient but that does not mean that it is. Not having a predetermined algorithm or expert system is where the whole concept falls apart. A computer cannot "learn" things (really just storing inputs in memory and attempting to fit a function to the data) that are completely unanticipated by the programmer.

Let us theoretically entertain the notion that a computer could be conscious. Such a being would only be an observer. A computer has no control over its output. It is predetermined. If you have these inputs you will get a certain output.







Computers, in a nutshell, are basically just long chains of these logic gates etched onto a silicon chip. One could trace the long line starting with a set of inputs and reach an exact set of outputs. We merely study neural networks so that we can better optimize our chip designs and cut out unnecessary steps in the process. In that last diagram I posted, that circuit had a maximum 4-gate delay. The less logic gates that a signal has to pass through, the faster my processor can be (each gate has a delay in changing voltage). There are also other applications for optimizing individual component delay also.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Banefull

...

There's no need to be patronising. I know what a computer is and how it works. I've designed chips too. I've done a whole course on intelligent systems and AI.

Let us theoretically entertain the notion that a computer could be conscious. Such a being would only be an observer. A computer has no control over its output. It is predetermined. If you have these inputs you will get a certain output.

Not true - look at the majority of algorithms - the output is not determined, not known, and based on the input. With some types, it varies from execution to execution with the same input. There are systems, today, that exist and are IN USE, that employ genetic algorithms. These are self-modifying and improve based on the quality of their results. That's essentially the biological process animals follow.

I know what a logic gate is! I know every single kind including flip-flops and latches and how to create another gate type using only NAND or NOR gates. I do not see what relevance it has, AT ALL. Can you face the fact that someone here DOES know as much about this, if not more, than you? I also know what neurons are and how they work, and the structure of the nervous system.

Computers, in a nutshell, are basically just long chains of these logic gates etched onto a silicon chip. One could trace the long line starting with a set of inputs and reach an exact set of outputs. We merely study neural networks so that we can better optimize our chip designs and cut out unnecessary steps in the process. In that last diagram I posted, that circuit had a maximum 4-gate delay. The less logic gates that a signal has to pass through, the faster my processor can be (each gate has a delay in changing voltage). There are also other applications for optimizing individual component delay also.

Which doesn't change the fact that in just about any architecture, multiple passes through the ALU are required for a single instruction other than simple mathematical or logical operations.The speed isn't what is relevant here, the relevance is the fact that self-modifying code is possible, exists, and has exponentially increased in complexity and capability.
As I said in my earlier post, which you conveniently ignored, I am not talking about the kind of system that exists today which simply contain a very large database of scenarios and predetermined responses.

Aurora - you mostly have a point, but you are wrong that all extinctions are due to humans. Do you know what? Species went extinct long before humans existed. They will long after. Neither is it about rules. It's about survival. Yes, humans are massively overpopulated, but that does not mean they are responsible for every single thing that happens. Neither do they consciously make decisions about other species, it is (99%of the time) an unintended effect. Yes, that doesn't justify anything, but you can not say that the human desire to be warm, safe, comfortable, happy and not eaten by predators is wrong while you are sitting in a house, talking over the internet. Stop being naive.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Aurora - you mostly have a point, but you are wrong that all extinctions are due to humans.

Oh that is true of course, but the present exctinction rates are elevated by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude. this means 100000 years ago, 1 species goes extinct every day, now it is 100-200.

Neither do they consciously make decisions about other species, it is (99%of the time) an unintended effect.

Of course it is. There are only few cases humans actually want to exterminate other species, though sometimes that is the intention - at least locally (wolves, mosquitoes, rabbits, rats, mice, cockroaches,...). But it is accepted by this culture that these extinctions happen. And even if it is not about extinctions, it is about accepting the death of many animals, some of them go extinct for the benefit of civilization.

You can not say that the human desire to be warm, safe, comfortable, happy and not eaten by predators is wrong while you are sitting in a house, talking over the internet. Stop being naive.

Oh THAT argument again. For once it is "ad hominem" and secondly it is not true - why can I not say that? Can I not criticize capitalism because I use a computer that was made by capitalist corporations? Or I cannot criticize the use of oil because I am using buses and cars? Or I cannot criticize the deforestation of the Amazon because I am living in one of the countries that profits from it? If that would be true. We could never criticize anything! And in any ways, that was not really the point in this thread anyways - I did not even say a thing in this thread against that humans as all animals have needs and desires - the whole point was how do we humans relate to animals and in extension to that question to plants and mountains and rivers... and what does that mean for our needs and desires? And furthermore is there a justification for humans to make decisions on who may take how much and who dies and who lives in the nonhuman world?

[Woodsprite]

Why am I reminded of Bicentennial Man? :/

[ISV Venture Star]

Has anyone used the phrase 'tragedy of the commons' yet? Because that does seem to be the kind of problem we're facing.

[auroraglacialis]

I do not really see how the very wide and difficult topic of the "tragedy of the commons" fits into the topic on animals vs humans really. I think it can be debated and is certainly interesting, but it is a very anthropocentric concept, focussed mainly on nonhumans as a resource and not as living beings and I do not think it fits into this topic.