Organic statue - human being?

[Spock]

Yes, in this case we have established successful communication, but that does not mean that the proposition has objective meaning. The meaning is still dependent on the subjects allowing it to have that meaning.

What do you mean by objective, in this context? Suppose that you and I secretly agree that from now on we invent and use a private language, grammar and vocabulary. No one else would understand us, since we do not share the details. When we talk to each other, the meaning of our propositions is clear to both of us. Is that meaning now objective of subjective?

And therefore subjective. A meter is a meter, no matter where I go.

A meter is an arbitrary unit of measurements. The result of the Turing test is not.

Again, how long is long enough? Do we simply talk until we both decide we’re human? If an experiment has no set end-point, it is not objective.

We could agree on an arbitrarily established end point. But it shill would be arbitrary and yet objective. I would say that a few days would be sufficient after the communication channel is established.

How wide should our margin of error be?

Again, we could set up an arbitrary tolerance level.

But you know, I’m less worried about the humans who show up borderline on the Turing test than the humans who are unable to engage it at all.

That is a much more difficult problem, for sure. It is possible that dolphins are sentient, but we cannot detect it, since we have no communication channel. We observe their behavior, and come to a conclusion. Our conclusion may be in error.

 

[inocente]

I am sure there cannot be a concensus as long as people want to include undefined categories (soul) in the definition.

Of course my point is that such an inclusion is unnecessary, we can find out objectively if a being is sentient of not, if there there a communication channel established - by using the Turing test. If such a communication channel cannot be established, then we can observe the behavior of this other being, and use the less rigorous method: “human is as human does”. In this letter case the chance of error can be very high. But when we can commincate, the Turing test - while maybe a lengthy process would be also objective, repeatable, scientific and accurate. And since the Turing test does not need the assumption of a nebulous “soul”, the “soul” (whatever it is) is not necessary any more. It will belong to heap of discarded ideas.

You say it yourself - “human is as human does”. So “Spock is as Spock does” and you want everything cut and dried, that’s fine, but a Turing test wouldn’t do it for me because it only tests for intelligence, not for being human. There’s something subtle about how we recognize another human, something that can’t be put into words, something arty and wet that comes down across the centuries.

Something soulful.

http://www.famouspictures.org/images/d/d6/Afghan_girl.jpg
Afghan Girl, Steve McCurry

 

[Spock]

You say it yourself - “human is as human does”. So “Spock is as Spock does” and you want everything cut and dried, that’s fine, but a Turing test wouldn’t do it for me because it only tests for intelligence, not for being human.

Well, to be precise, it does not test explicitly for intelligence, it tests for sentience. It does not test for the material that being is composed of, it does not test for DNA, it only tests for what is common in all the humans - sentience. And my point is that it would be a narrow definition to restrict “humanness” to a specific DNA, especially since the DNA changes from human to human. It cannot be defined as having two arms, two legs, etc… since that can change. If we disregard all the incidentals and look what is common in all of us, it is that we are able to think and conceptualize - in other words we are sentient.

There’s something subtle about how we recognize another human, something that can’t be put into words, something arty and wet that comes down across the centuries.

Something soulful.

As long as the soul is undefined (and different people define it in a different manner), it is not helpful.

 

[inocente]

Well, to be precise, it does not test explicitly for intelligence, it tests for sentience. It does not test for the material that being is composed of, it does not test for DNA, it only tests for what is common in all the humans - sentience. And my point is that it would be a narrow definition to restrict “humanness” to a specific DNA, especially since the DNA changes from human to human. It cannot be defined as having two arms, two legs, etc… since that can change. If we disregard all the incidentals and look what is common in all of us, it is that we are able to think and conceptualize - in other words we are sentient.

Strictly the Turing test can’t be used to test sentience. The subject is separated from the experimenter and communication is limited to text, so the subject may only be able to respond to text (name removed by moderator)ut, it doesn’t have to be conscious or have sense perceptions.

We’re agreed that being human is more about behavior than specifics like DNA, the problem is human behavior is something we recognize but is hard to define. I’d argue that my dogs are sentient, not just because they respond to their senses but also they have a level of consciousness. They can’t read or talk of course, but then a baby can’t either. All this squidginess is summed up by the word soul, but if you can come up with a precise definition you’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

 

[Spock]

Strictly the Turing test can’t be used to test sentience. The subject is separated from the experimenter and communication is limited to text, so the subject may only be able to respond to text (name removed by moderator)ut, it doesn’t have to be conscious or have sense perceptions.

No, that is not necessary. It may be a text only communication, but that is not a requirement. The two entites can communicate via a phone, or even face-to-face) for example if one of the parties is an artifical “human” or android.

We’re agreed that being human is more about behavior than specifics like DNA, the problem is human behavior is something we recognize but is hard to define.

Yes, we agree that “being human” is more than the specifics of DNA, and biology. However, I don’t think that the definition is hard or complicated, even though the process of detecting sentience is not easy.

I’d argue that my dogs are sentient, not just because they respond to their senses but also they have a level of consciousness. They can’t read or talk of course, but then a baby can’t either.

Indeed. Animals exhibit some level of sentience. As usual, the concept of sentience is not a “binary proposition”, which is either there or not. (Very few things in real life are black and white.)

All this squidginess is summed up by the word soul, but if you can come up with a precise definition you’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

I am not even attempting to define the “soul”.

 

[levinas12]

There’s been much talk about sentience.

But where does rationality come in?

One definition of rationality is the ability to understand things as they are in themselves. This goes beyond satisfaction of hunger, sex, or other biological needs.

Rationality would explain why anybody would devote time and energy to any theoretical subjects (relativity, quantum mechanics, mathematics, etc).

Such activities, which stem from rationality, are indulged in simply to satisfy the human desire to know. They are not indulged in for the sake of utility.

At least, this is how Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Gauss, Riemann, etc saw it. This is not to deny practical applications of their work. But their primary motivation was not utilitarian.

 

[Spock]

There’s been much talk about sentience.

But where does rationality come in?

Good question. But without sentience there can be no rationality. First you need abstract thinking before you can rationally contemplate problems.

One definition of rationality is the ability to understand things as they are in themselves. This goes beyond satisfaction of hunger, sex, or other biological needs.

Rationality would explain why anybody would devote time and energy to any theoretical subjects (relativity, quantum mechanics, mathematics, etc).

Such activities, which stem from rationality, are indulged in simply to satisfy the human desire to know. They are not indulged in for the sake of utility.

Yes and no. It is not that simple. The research of these fields is partly for fun and for its own sake. But they all came from a practical need to solve a real-world problem. Consider games. At first glance they are an impractical endeavor. But it turns out that some games are excellent models of reality, and furthermore playing the games “exercises” some parts of the brain, which are otherwise inactive. Nowadays we even know that actively exercising the brain can prevent Alzheimer’s disease. So there is a practical use, even if it comes on the long run.

 

[levinas12]

But they all came from a practical need to solve a real-world problem …

Yes and no. Take astronomy. You could argue that pre-modern astronomy was entangled with astrology … so there may have been “practical needs” behind astronomical pursuits.

But Aristotle’s astronomy seems remarkably free of astrological obsessions. And certainly his metaphysics was purely theoretical.

Socrates, and Plato, may have been motivated by the social decline in Athens… and so, again, there may have been “practical needs” behind their philosophy. But there was also a definite theoretical interest.

Unless the Marxists are totally correct, humans have a theoretical side which cannot be reduced to biological drives, at least in any straightforward sense.

Think of number theory. Why would we want to know exactly how many prime numbers there are below an arbitrary number N?

There may be some practical results, e.g., more secure encryption. But this does not seem to be the primary or original motivation. As you pointed out, the practical value often doesn’t come to light until much later.

This is why Aristotle thought that the theoretical life was closest to the divine (as he understood it) - because the prime mover has no biological needs, his (?) activity is purely theoretical.

 

[Spock]

Yes and no. Take astronomy. You could argue that pre-modern astronomy was entangled with astrology … so there may have been “practical needs” behind astronomical pursuits.

But Aristotle’s astronomy seems remarkably free of astrological obsessions. And certainly his metaphysics was purely theoretical.

Socrates, and Plato, may have been motivated by the social decline in Athens… and so, again, there may have been “practical needs” behind their philosophy. But there was also a definite theoretical interest.

Unless the Marxists are totally correct, humans have a theoretical side which cannot be reduced to biological drives, at least in any straightforward sense.

Think of number theory. Why would we want to know exactly how many prime numbers there are below an arbitrary number N?

There may be some practical results, e.g., more secure encryption. But this does not seem to be the primary or original motivation. As you pointed out, the practical value often doesn’t come to light until much later.

This is why Aristotle thought that the theoretical life was closest to the divine (as he understood it) - because the prime mover has no biological needs, his (?) activity is purely theoretical.

No arguments from me. We are “homo ludens” among many things. We have reason, rationality, emotions (irrational ones, too), we are playful, etc… How does this tie back to the original question?

 

[levinas12]

How does this tie back to the original question?

Since much of the discussion revolved around criteria or tests for “sentience”, I wondered what would count as markers for “rationality”.

When Aristotle weighed in on this, he suggested two “indices” for “rationality”. One was theoretical activity; the other, political activity. Of course, there may not be a Turing test for these activities.

But we do have a sense of what is meant by the “theoretical” and the “political”. Both involve giving reasons or justifications. And both involve personal accountability. And both are “done” through conversation with others.

 

[Spock]

Since much of the discussion revolved around criteria or tests for “sentience”, I wondered what would count as markers for “rationality”.

When Aristotle weighed in on this, he suggested two “indices” for “rationality”. One was theoretical activity; the other, political activity. Of course, there may not be a Turing test for these activities.

Why wouldn’t there be? Of course, my personal opinion is that politics is the occupation pursued by the lowest scum of the Earth. I recall an old joke: “What is the difference between the flounder and a politician? Answer: one is a bottom-feeding, scum-sucking disgusting creature… the other one is simply a fish”.

 

[Spirithound]

What do you mean by objective, in this context? Suppose that you and I secretly agree that from now on we invent and use a private language, grammar and vocabulary. No one else would understand us, since we do not share the details. When we talk to each other, the meaning of our propositions is clear to both of us. Is that meaning now objective of subjective?

Thank you, I understand now. I still couldn’t separate “absolute” from “objective”

A meter is an arbitrary unit of measurements. The result of the Turing test is not.

Of course the results of the Turing test are objective; they can be transcribed and printed out for all to see. The interpretation, however, still comes from within the reader of the print-out. I’m worried here because the criteria for passing the test seems so nebulous. An actual litmus test gauges the acidity of a liquid, and the colour of the strip matches a shade on a scale the scientist has there in his hands. Has there been any work done in describing what abstract thinking or conceptualizing looks like?

We could agree on an arbitrarily established end point. But it shill would be arbitrary and yet objective. I would say that a few days would be sufficient after the communication channel is established.

Again, we could set up an arbitrary tolerance level.

That is a much more difficult problem, for sure. It is possible that dolphins are sentient, but we cannot detect it, since we have no communication channel. We observe their behavior, and come to a conclusion. Our conclusion may be in error.

What do you propose we do about those beings which might be human?

 

[Spock]

Thank you, I understand now. I still couldn’t separate “absolute” from “objective”

In my vocabulary “absolute” means “under any and all circumstances”. While “objective” means “reagrdless of our opinion about it happens to be”. Examples to clarify: “stealing is wrong under any and all circumstances; no matter what is being stolen, and no matter why it has been stolen” - that would be an absolute rule. On the other hand: “stealing is wrong, unless… one steals a piece of bread to save someone from starvation” would be relative, but objective.

Of course the results of the Turing test are objective; they can be transcribed and printed out for all to see. The interpretation, however, still comes from within the reader of the print-out. I’m worried here because the criteria for passing the test seems so nebulous. An actual litmus test gauges the acidity of a liquid, and the colour of the strip matches a shade on a scale the scientist has there in his hands. Has there been any work done in describing what abstract thinking or conceptualizing looks like?

Yes, I see what you mean. “Abstract thinking” or “conceptualizing” does not lend itself to precise description, specifically since there are so many aspects to it. So here we can use the duck principle: “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it is a duck”.

What do you propose we do about those beings which might be human?

Respect them as “if” they were biologically our “brethren”. No matter what material they are “made of”, no matter where they came from. If the behave like humans, extend the courtesy to them what we give to our “biologically human brothers and sisters”.

 

[Godzilla]

Let’s consider a thought experiment. Suppose that biochemists, and associated other scientists figure out a way to build or grow a biological “statue”, which looks like a human being. It is all composed of organic material, it has a DNA which falls into the category of “human DNA”. It has a brain, too, but it does not function, there is no chemical-electical activity. (As such, none of the other organs “work” either.) I think we can all agree that it is truly just a statue, nothing more.

If the “statue” has natural human DNA then it is human. If this “statues” brain and other organs are not functioning then it is a human coprse. However If the “statue” has artifical DNA that mimics human DNA then it is not a human nor could it ever be a human.

Now the fun begins. Let’s suppose that the experimenters are able to “switch on” some very limited brain activity, namely the area of the brain, which controls breathing. Now the statue’s muscles, which control the rise/fall of the rib-cage are active, the statue is “breathing”, the air moves in and out of the lungs. Breathing consumes energy, so now the heart must be “turned on”, to deliver the nutrients to the muscles. So the experimenters switch on the area of the brain, which controls the heart. To produce the necessary nutrients, the statue is hooked up to an IV tube and fed intravenously. Now we have a partially active statue.

At this stage the “statue” is a disabled human provided that it is made up of natural human DNA.

Now, making the process short, the experimenters keep “turning on” different parts of the brain. At the end of the process the “statue” will become fully functional, “it” can be “decoupled” from the sustaining machinery, and “it” start “its” independent life. No outsider can ever know how “she” (assuming the gender was female) came into existence.

If her human DNA is not artifical then the way in which she was created whether through natural or artifical process would be irrelavent since she would still be human. A test tube baby is no less of a human than a non-test tube baby. Furthermore if her DNA is not artifical she is human regardless whether she counscious, unconscious or a coprse.

There are a few questions here, worthy to be contemplated.

The first one: “Should she be granted a fully human status?”.

The second one: “At which point of the process does she become a human?”. (provided, of course that one answers the first one affirmatively).

The third one: “Should these artificial humans (androids) be forced to wear a distinctive sign so that they could be told apart from the ‘real’ humans?”.

How can you be truly human and truly artifical at the same time?

Caveat: I am aware that this scenario is very farfetched. It may never come to pass, even if the technology will be there (why wouldn’t be?). But it has serious philosophical implications. What makes us human? If you wish to bring in the concept of the “soul” into the analysis, by all means, do so. However, tell us, at which point of the process the “ensoulment” takes place? (I would very much prefer not to see empty posts declaring that this scenario is impossible, and should not even be contemplated. If that is what you think, please don’t post. Empty posts only waste bandwidth and they are annoying. But, of course, it is your choice.)

What makes us human is our DNA but what makes us alive is our soul. Nothing that is alive is without a soul unless it is artifical (robot, android, etc). If her genetic makeup is artifical then she is just a very advanced robot wearing a flesh costume and is no more human than the Terminator. She then could not and should not be given the same classification as humans and she should have to carry some form of identification that specifiys that she is an android.

 

[Spock]

If the “statue” has natural human DNA then it is human. If this “statues” brain and other organs are not functioning then it is a human coprse. However If the “statue” has artifical DNA that mimics human DNA then it is not a human nor could it ever be a human.

How can anyone tell the difference between a “real” human DNA and the “artifical” one? Moreover, what IS a human DNA? Every human’s DNA is different. At best we can call a DNA “human” if it happens to fall between the arbitrary boundaries we “call” human. What if the DNA is outside these boundaries in some respect?

What makes us human is our DNA but what makes us alive is our soul.

And what kind of experiment shall we use to decide if this being has a soul or not? How can you prove that humans have this nebulous “soul”?

 

[Godzilla]

How can anyone tell the difference between a “real” human DNA and the “artifical” one?

I really couldnt tell you how we could know the differences between real and artifical dna. I know that scientists are working with artifical dna but I have yet to find any imformation that explains why its artifical and how it differes from real dna.

At best we can call a DNA “human” if it happens to fall between the arbitrary boundaries we “call” human. What if the DNA is outside these boundaries in some respect?

Considering that the dna blueprints of chimps is 96% similar to ours and that they are not classified as human would lead me to believe that anything that falls less than 100% of these boudries would likewise not be classified as human. Also why do you believe these boundries to be arbitrary? Not arguing just wondering.

And what kind of experiment shall we use to decide if this being has a soul or not? How can you prove that humans have this nebulous “soul”?

Your asking me what kind of physical experiment could we conduct to prove the existance of something spiritual? I have a feeling you already know the answer to that question.

 

[Spock]

I really couldnt tell you how we could know the differences between real and artifical dna. I know that scientists are working with artifical dna but I have yet to find any imformation that explains why its artifical and how it differes from real dna.

Sorry for the possible misunderstanding. I am not looking for a specific way. I am asking about a generic method. We have an “original” and a “copy”. How do we tell apart the original from the copy? If the copy is “close enough” to the original, why even worry about the difference? Suppose that a “perfect” copy machine can create a duplicate of the Mona Lisa - atom for atom. Does is even make sense to speak of the “original and the copy”? Suppose that the machine makes one little glitch, and puts a phosphorus atom where there was a carbon atom in the original. You cannot tell the difference.

Considering that the dna blueprints of chimps is 96% similar to ours and that they are not classified as human would lead me to believe that anything that falls less than 100% of these boudries would likewise not be classified as human. Also why do you believe these boundries to be arbitrary? Not arguing just wondering.

They are arbitrary, because they are hazy and undefined. No one can set up a bunch of parameters, and say: if gene “X” is present then human, if gene “X” is absent then non-human. Let’s look at an example: there are a few people who are musical prodigies, there are other humans who are mathematical prodigies, there are yet other humans who are chess prodigies, artists, and so on… but there are no humans who exhibit such incredible prowess in all of these fields. There has never been one. Presumably because the brain cannot be developed in all these areas. But we only guess here. If there would be someone who exhibits all these genius traits, and who woul also have incredible physical prowess, and exhibit perfect health, who would live to a few hundred years - we would be inclined to call that person “super-human”. But is someone is “above” regular humans, is that person still a human?

Your asking me what kind of physical experiment could we conduct to prove the existance of something spiritual? I have a feeling you already know the answer to that question.

You got that right. But it became important in this case. You argue that the hypothetical android is not human, and it should not have a treatment we give to a human. As such it became a significant issue. And if there is no way to decide it, then it would be a horrible injustice not to treat that android like a human.

By the way, I just saw the number of posts you made: welcome to the forum. I will not be around for about 10 days… see you afterwards.

 

[Godzilla]

Sorry for the possible misunderstanding. I am not looking for a specific way. I am asking about a generic method. We have an “original” and a “copy”. How do we tell apart the original from the copy? If the copy is “close enough” to the original, why even worry about the difference? Suppose that a “perfect” copy machine can create a duplicate of the Mona Lisa - atom for atom. Does is even make sense to speak of the “original and the copy”? Suppose that the machine makes one little glitch, and puts a phosphorus atom where there was a carbon atom in the original. You cannot tell the difference.

Whether or not you can tell the difference is really a moot point. The question is are they the same thing and worthy of the same status and the answer is clearly no. An original Mona Lisa would never be given the same status as a replica because the original is the actual product of the artist’s expression. A part of who the artist is has gone into the making of this particular painting - it has been touched by his brush, his personality, his passion, his imagination, and even though you cannot physically see they nevertheless make the painting worth infinitely more than the replica because know the importance and significance of them.

Personally I think your analogy using the Mona Lisa is a great way for someone to explain why people view the soul as an important part of our human identity even though the soul is something you cannot see.

You got that right. But it became important in this case. You argue that the hypothetical android is not human, and it should not have a treatment we give to a human. As such it became a significant issue. And if there is no way to decide it, then it would be a horrible injustice not to treat that android like a human.

I argued that the android is not human because it does not have human DNA not because it doesn’t have a soul. I must say that I find it odd that the same person that calls this statue an android is also the same person advocating that it be treated like a human. You think equal rights should be given to something that is non-human and I disagree with you. Now I’m not saying this android shouldn’t be treated with some kind of rights but defiantly not those of a human.

By the way, I just saw the number of posts you made: welcome to the forum. I will not be around for about 10 days… see you afterwards.

Thanks Spock…hope you have a good 10 days.

 

[Spirithound]

Yes, I see what you mean. “Abstract thinking” or “conceptualizing” does not lend itself to precise description, specifically since there are so many aspects to it. So here we can use the duck principle: “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it is a duck”.

Well, why don’t we start by answering that formulation of the question? What are the hallmarks of abstract thinking?

Have a pleasant vacation.

 

[Spirithound]

We could agree on an arbitrarily established end point. But it shill would be arbitrary and yet objective. I would say that a few days would be sufficient after the communication channel is established.

Again, we could set up an arbitrary tolerance level.

A further clarification of my question has come to me. Why should we be happy with arbitrary parameters? Should there not be a principled (possibly objective?) reason behind the parameters? If not, isn’t it just going to come down to politics?