View Full Version : If there's life on mars...
All these worlds are your except Europa. Attempt no Landing there. - 2010
Assuming I've got the quote right, that was the message humanity recieved from the monolith after Jupiter turned into a new sun. The warning was clear - humanity was not to interfere with the new life evolving on Europa.
It occurs to me that a lot of our recent exploration on mars has to do with finding traces of life on the red planet. Bacteria buried in the ice for millenia, things along that line. But a thread I saw elsewhere in the org on who would own a colonized Mars got me thinking. If there IS life on Mars, do we have any right to be there?
It occurs to me that if there's life there, then the planet belongs to that life - even if it is just a bacteria, and we have no buisiness invading them. Heck, after the reports of Earth bacteria surviving living on the moon for months in hard vacuum, I have to wonder if our little probes haven't already played the role of interstellar typhoid Marys, bringing death to anything that lives there in the form of little bacterial stowaways. I have to say, if there is any life on Mars at all, then morally we are obliged never to set foot there with man or machine again.
What do the rest of you think?
PseRamesses
01-29-2004, 06:58
I have no hope at all that mankind will respect a planet with inferior life upon it. Through history we have shown a bloodthirst and an obsession to take over our neighbours lands and possessions.
Clearly Mars has had water, which is a must for life as we know it, and has an atmosphere. On Earth bakteria can survive in equally poor circumstances so why not on Mars.
Mankind should really focus on the planet we have, solving our problems with the environment, pollution, starvation, erodation etc. But as always we just spoil and move on. I love agent Smith´s visdom in Matrix where he compare the human race with a virus, he he Bullseye
Am I the only one who finds it telling that Cliinton sent a probe to Venus (Goddess of Love) and Bush sent a probe to Mars (God of War)?
Also, I swear that one arm on the rover looks like a drill rig
anyway, back on topic. If there is life on Mars (or any other planet) then my guess is that it will be incompatible with our organic systems - one would eat the other. But who gets to eat and who gets to be lunch?
ichi
ahh, the old red vs green debate. the chances that there is life on mars are extremly slim, the chances of humans eventually colonizing mars are quite high, the question is, when we get there do we leave mars as it is, and keep looking for life? or do we bring life to mars?
go read Kim Stanly Robinsons mars series, a great read
Eastside Character
01-29-2004, 09:04
Bacteria? - life on Mars?, oh come on, what kind of life is that really. If there were some intelligent creatures, but Bacteria? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif
I think it is our duty to invade and colonize Mars, before some space scum do this. After all, it's our solar system, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Life expands into all available niches - basic rule of all life everywhere that we have ever encountered. The MOST unnatural thing would be for human life to refuse to go to Mars.
However, they may well not have been water on Mars; a very gtood theory came to light a few years ago that the apparent water erosion was instead caused by explosive outgassings of carbon dioxide behaving very much like the pyroclastic flow seen in volcanoes, in which a cloud acts like a fluid.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
01-29-2004, 12:38
Quote[/b] ]I have no hope at all that mankind will respect a planet with inferior life upon it. Through history we have shown a bloodthirst and an obsession to take over our neighbours lands and possessions.
Clearly Mars has had water, which is a must for life as we know it, and has an atmosphere. On Earth bakteria can survive in equally poor circumstances so why not on Mars.
Mankind should really focus on the planet we have, solving our problems with the environment, pollution, starvation, erodation etc. But as always we just spoil and move on. I love agent Smith´s visdom in Matrix where he compare the human race with a virus, he he Bullseye
Very true words...
Quote[/b] ]Am I the only one who finds it telling that Cliinton sent a probe to Venus (Goddess of Love) and Bush sent a probe to Mars (God of War)?
Also, I swear that one arm on the rover looks like a drill rig
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
Quote[/b] ]Bacteria? - life on Mars?, oh come on, what kind of life is that really. If there were some intelligent creatures, but Bacteria?
I think it is our duty to invade and colonize Mars, before some space scum do this. After all, it's our solar system, right?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif A FUNDAMENTALIST http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif
So, what do you classify as inteligent? Or is the criteria variable according to the convenience of some greedy objectives?
What scum? HUMAN SCUM, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif
In the first place it seems rather absurd that I should bother with the life of a few Mars bacteria if I unwittingly kill thousands of Earth bacteria every day.
But to the point: there might be some more advanced life-forms on Mars, but it certainly will not amount to anything intelligent (and with intelligent I don't mean human intelligence). But when you say that Mars belongs to them, you say that the possession of Mars is their right. Can they understand that? Can they understand the consequences off it? From what I've seen, almost nobody, even most UFO-believers, think that life on Mars does not amount to more than a few simple creatures. These creatures are not aware of anything except their immediate surroundings. You cannot assign them rights, for they do not understand the consequences off it. Saying we shouldn't harm them does not make sense either, since they are equally not aware of it. They just experience 'damage' and give a stress-response to it, in the same way a computer would do.
Talking about rights, about respect for their lives, assumes these creatures have a, for want of better word, soul. And I don't think they have one. But that is just my opinion.
Black Arrow
01-29-2004, 14:09
Course there is Who do you think keeps snapping the aerials of our space probes so that they vanish without trace?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
Seriously tho' The Mars Express orbiter has reported discovering traces of water ice on the surface
Aymar de Bois Mauri
01-29-2004, 14:57
Quote[/b] ]These creatures are not aware of anything except their immediate surroundings. You cannot assign them rights, for they do not understand the consequences off it. Saying we shouldn't harm them does not make sense either, since they are equally not aware of it. They just experience 'damage' and give a stress-response to it, in the same way a computer would do.
A computer is not a sentient living creature. Don't compare the incomparable.
Besides, every animal on Earth feels pain. It is proven that even plants feel something when threatened.
SmokWawelski
01-29-2004, 15:20
To quote agent Smith again, I think that it is inevitable that we, as humans will colonize other planets, and if there is life anywhere on them, we will try to subdue it, if only it is inferior to us. Simply said - human nature.
I just hope that we do it before some aliens do that to us http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif
However, I also believe that if we, as humans again, can evolve our society to a higher level, we can achieve some form of peace-centered culture (ala Bentusi from the Homeworld series) and obey by the laws of no-interference.
And as far as Mars, I doubt that we will find anything more than some bacterias, and as some people here already said: I kill enough of them here on Earth not to worry about some alien ones on Mars...
Besides, people always divide living creatures into cute and not-so-cute ones that are OK to eliminate, so I do not expect that a lot of us will actually feel emotionally connected to some Mars form of SARS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
Overall, VERY INTERESTING topic
First of all, how are you going to stop human colonization?
Second, what if the theory that our life came from Mars (you know, bacteria on asteroids, etc.) -- wouldn't it be our right to go back?
This brings up a second point (Second, part b if you will) which is: say life did go from Mars->Earth or Earth->Mars at one point; it appears that it is the duty of life to travel to new worlds
Third, it is our duty as a race to expand, to get all of our eggs out of basket Earth. If there is life on Mars, then the odds are there is life elsewhere in the universe, and given the size of the universe, the odds are that there is intelligence in the universe. Even if the distances are too great for us to ever come in contact with them, it is our duty to hedge our bets against any future competition (by expanding and colonizing)... because it *is* competition. (Us living friendly with aliens is a myth... I guarantee there will be at least 1 war)
SmokWawelski
01-29-2004, 17:15
Well, well...
Much as I respect you, Lord Aymar, I must disagree with your statements.
Quote[/b] ]A computer is not a sentient living creature. Don't compare the incomparable.
As a matter of fact I meant that bacteria are not sentient creatures and therefor I compared them with a computer. Both have a program (in the form of digital information or DNA) that makes them execute actions, but without understanding what or why.
Quote[/b] ]Besides, every animal on Earth feels pain.
But bacteria are not animals. They are procaryots, unicellular organisms without a nucleus. Neither do unicellular animals like protozoa feel pain. They too work on a program.
Quote[/b] ]It is proven that even plants feel something when threatened.
Feel? Surely you are not saying that plants have a mind? Yes, they have responses on outer stimuli and some plants send out warning signal to inform other plants of danger. But again, they react in the same way a computer does: pre-programmed.
I sincerely hope that you are not referring to the experiment of Cleve Backster who 'proved' that plants have emotions. This experiment was carried out with very sensitive equipment that is vulnerable to all kinds of interferences. This was in contrast with his crude set-up, which allowed all kinds of interferences. When other scientists tried to redo his test, they found nothing.
If there were Sentient beings on Mars then I would say to leave the planet alone. However as of now the only life is bacteria, and I’ve never met a sentient bacteria life form before. At least none have ever come up to me and requested anything.
Quote[/b] ]So, what do you classify as intelligent? Or is the criteria variable according to the convenience of some greedy objectives?
Sentient beings are life forms that are:
1. Self aware: They are able to say I exist and i am here. I am sitting in this chair typing at the .org, I live. (that was me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif )
2. Intelligence: a life form needs to show some sort of articulated thought before it can be classified as sentient; achieving the 1st is a good example. But another is the development of their own language, cave drawings, tools to do things ect.
3. A Desire to live: There must be a need to survive, to spread to learn. And before you even say some of humans don’t have a desire to live, i answer that with this. Why don't they have a desire to live? They want to end their life because of some stupid event in their life, notice i say life meaning they once had the desire and they do realize who they are.
If a strand of bacteria strolls up to the first humans that someday land on mars and says Yo, teh hell you doin on my Rock? then we have found life that understands Mars is their home and we need to leave. If not, then w/e. If Humans go to Mars then thats fine, i'd rather work on Earth before we screw up another Planet http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
This was just the rambling of a monk who saw a topic, feel free to flame me all you like... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif
Sounds like all three are heavily dependent on the ability of the observer to see those qualities for what they are. Especially if you start dealing with lifeforms completely alien to humanity, what guarantee do we have that it's not there, and that we're just not missing it?
Quote[/b] (Phatose @ Jan. 29 2004,18:43)]what guarantee do we have that it's not there, and that we're just not missing it?
We don't have one, and you're right, it's possible that we may not be seeing the signs of Sentient life, maybe since we are looking for the wrong things. The Question of Sentient life on Mars has been a discussion for many decades, first we said there was life there, then we said no, then we said err maybe. It might be that some sign of Intelligence has been overlooked and by colonizing mars we would be invading what these lifeforms call their home.
I don't believe we should go and claim mars as our own. or even try to colonize it, if it were up to me i'd study the planet until i was sure, 100% without a doubt there was nothing overlooked before and no life capable of thought was present before i sent any sort of colonization mission. As i said before, i really don't know if we have overlooked something, some place or sign of life. I only know that the issue of Planet colonization should NOT be taken lightly.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
01-30-2004, 01:08
Quote[/b] ]But bacteria are not animals. They are procaryots, unicellular organisms without a nucleus. Neither do unicellular animals like protozoa feel pain. They too work on a program.
I will never compare a living beeing, no matter how basic, with a computer. They aren't comparable.
Quote[/b] ]I sincerely hope that you are not referring to the experiment of Cleve Backster who 'proved' that plants have emotions. This experiment was carried out with very sensitive equipment that is vulnerable to all kinds of interferences. This was in contrast with his crude set-up, which allowed all kinds of interferences. When other scientists tried to redo his test, they found nothing.
No, I wasn't. Not emotions. I was talking about quimical alterations to external stimulae.
Quote[/b] ]2. Intelligence: a life form needs to show some sort of articulated thought before it can be classified as sentient; achieving the 1st is a good example. But another is the development of their own language, cave drawings, tools to do things ect.
What about dolphins? They have no technological achievement to show, but are extremelly inteligent.
We, as technologically orientated species, tend to regard all manifestations of intelligence as dependent of the invention of artifacts.
The fact that for making artifacts, inteligence is necessary, does not mean that all inteligence manifests itself by displaying that same hability.
The fact that we are technologically orientated, depends as much from inteligence, as from our grapling hability: our thumb.
My problem and of the scientists too, isn't a matter of we shouldn't go there because the planet belongs to the bacterias. What is important is to study all possibilities to learn what an investigation on extraterrestrial life-form can tech us. For that to be possible we can't just walk in and infest. If we do that, we are altering it's living conditions and therefore making wrong conclusions.
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 29 2004,19:08)]
Quote[/b] ]2. Intelligence: a life form needs to show some sort of articulated thought before it can be classified as sentient; achieving the 1st is a good example. But another is the development of their own language, cave drawings, tools to do things ect.
What about dolphins? They have no technological achievement to show, but are extremelly inteligent.
We, as technologically orientated species, tend to regard all manifestations of intelligence as dependent of the invention of artifacts.
The fact that for making artifacts, inteligence is necessary, does not mean that all inteligence manifests itself by displaying that same hability.
The fact that we are technologically orientated, depends as much from inteligence, as from our grapling hability: our thumb.
I said (or meant to say) they needed Those Three Things to be sentient. Not one or two, but all three. They themselves have to recognize they have life as much as we do. I didn't make that as clear as i had hoped.
once something becomes Self-aware it has basically gained all three at once, it took Intelligence to obtain it, and the creature obtains the desire to live on.
Eastside Character
01-30-2004, 01:35
Quote[/b] ]
A FUNDAMENTALIST
Me? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Not at all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/handball.gif
Quote[/b] ]To quote agent Smith again, I think that it is inevitable that we, as humans will colonize other planets, and if there is life anywhere on them, we will try to subdue it, if only it is inferior to us. Simply said - human nature.
I just hope that we do it before some aliens do that to us
just my point http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif
Quote[/b] ]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, how are you going to stop human colonization?
Second, what if the theory that our life came from Mars (you know, bacteria on asteroids, etc.) -- wouldn't it be our right to go back?
This brings up a second point (Second, part b if you will) which is: say life did go from Mars->Earth or Earth->Mars at one point; it appears that it is the duty of life to travel to new worlds
Well, maybe not entirely related but since you've mentioned travelling to new (not new?) worlds, let me bring up some of the earth's lost history (some say it's true
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-surprised.gif ):
The Earth Chronicles: Time Line
I. Events Before the Deluge Years Ago 450,000 On Nibiru, a distant member of our solar system, life faces slow extinction as the planet's atmosphere erodes. Deposed by Anu, the ruler Alalu escapes in a spaceship and finds refuge on Earth. He discovers that Earth has gold that can be used to protect Nibiru's atmosphere. 445,000 Led by Enki, a son of Anu, the Anunnaki land on Earth, establish Eridu - Earth Station I - for extracting gold from the waters of the Persian Gulf. 430,000 Earth's climate mellows. More Anunnaki arrive on Earth, among them Enki's half-sister Ninhursag, Chief Medical Officer. 416,000 As gold production falters, Anu arrives on Earth with Enlil, the heir apparent. It is decided to obtain the vital gold by mining it in southern Africa. Drawing lots, Enlil wins command of Earth Mission; Enki is relegated to Africa. On departing Earth, Anu is challenged by Alalu's grandson. 400,000 Seven functional settlements in southern Mesopotamia include a Spaceport (Sippar), Mission Control Center (Nippur), a metallurgical center (Shuruppak). The ores arrive by ships from Africa; the refined metal is sent aloft to orbiters manned by Igigi, then transferred to spaceships arriving periodically from Nibiru. 380,000 Gaining the support of the Igigi, Alalu's grandson attempts to seize mastery over Earth. The Enlilites win the War of the Olden Gods. 300,000 The Anunnaki toiling in the gold mines mutiny. Enki and Ninhursag create Primitive Workers through genetic manipulation of Ape woman; they take over the manual chores of the Anunnaki. Enlil raids the mines, brings the Primitive Workers to the Edin in Mesopotamia. Given the ability to procreate, Homo Sapiens begins to multiply. 200,000 Life on Earth regresses during a new glacial period. 100,000 Climate warms again. The Anunnaki (the biblical Nefilim), to Enlil's growing annoyance marry the daughters of Man. 75,000 The accursation of Earth - a new Ice Age-begins. Regressive types of Man roam the Earth . Cro-Magnon man survives. 49,000 Enki and Ninhursag elevate humans of Anunnaki parentage to rule in Shuruppak. Enlil, enraged. plots Mankind's demise. 13,000 Realizing that the passage of Nibiru in Earth's proximity will trigger an immense tidal wave, Enlil makes the Anunnaki swear to keep the impending calamity a secret from Mankind. II. Events After the Deluge B.C. 11,000 Enki breaks the oath, instructs Ziusudra/Noah to build a submersible ship. The Deluge sweeps over the Earth; the Anunnaki witness the total destruction from their orbiting spacecraft. Enlil agrees to grant the remnants of Mankind implements and seeds; agriculture begins in the highlands. Enki domesticates animals. 10,500 The descendants of Noah are allotted three regions. Ninurta, Enlil's foremost son, dams the mountains and drains the rivers to make Mesopotamia habitable; Enki reclaims the Nile valley. The Sinai peninsula is retained by the Anunnaki for a post-Diluvial spaceport; a control center is established on Mount Moriah (the future Jerusalem). 9780 Ra/Marduk, Enki's firstborn son, divides dominion over Egypt between Osiris and Seth. 9330 Seth seizes and dismembers Osiris, assumes sole rule over the Nile Valley. 8970 Horus avenges his father Osiris by launching the First Pyramid War. Seth escapes to Asia, seizes the Sinai peninsula and Canaan. 8670 Opposed to the resulting control of all the space facilities by Enki's descendants, the Enlilites launch the Second Pyramid War. The victorious Ninurta empties the Great Pyramid of its equipment. Ninhursag, half-sister of Enki and Enlil, convenes peace conference. The division of Earth is reaffirmed. Rule over Egypt transferred from the Ra/Marduk dynasty to that of Thoth. Heliopolis built as a substitute Beacon City. 8500 The Anunnaki establish outposts at the gateway to the space facilities; Jericho is one of them. 7400 As the era of peace continues, the Anunnaki grant Mankind new advances; the Neolithic period begins. Demi-gods rule over Egypt. 3800 Urban civilization begins in Sumer as the Anunnaki reestablish there the Olden Cities, beginning with Eridu and Nippur. Anu comes to Earth for a pageantful visit. A new city, Uruk (Erech), is built in his honor; he makes its temple the abode of his beloved granddaughter Inanna/lshtar. III. Kingship on Earth 3760 Mankind granted kingship. Kish is first capital under the aegis of Ninurta. The calendar begun at Nippur. Civilization blossoms out in Sumer (the First Region). 3450 Primacy in Sumer transferred to Nannar/Sin. Marduk proclaims Babylon Gateway of the Gods. The Tower of Babel incident. The Anunnaki confuse Mankind's languages. His coup frustrated, Marduk/Ra returns to Egypt, deposes Thoth, seizes his younger brother Dumuzi who had betrothed Inanna. Dumuzi accidentally killed; Marduk imprisoned alive in the Great Pyramid. Freed through an emergency shaft, he goes into exile. 3100 350 years of chaos end with installation of first Egyptian Pharaoh in Memphis. Civilization comes to the Second Region. 2900 Kingship in Sumer transferred to Erech. Inanna given dominion over the Third Region; the Indus Valley Civilization begins. 2650 Sumer's royal capital shifts about. Kingship deteriorates. Enlil loses patience with the unruly human multitudes. 2371 Inanna falls in love with Sharru-Kin (Sargon). He establishes new capital city. Agade (Akkad). Akkadian empire launched. 2316 Aiming to rule the four regions, Sargon removes sacred soil from Babylon. The Marduk-Inanna conflict flares up again. It ends when Nergal, Marduk's brother, journeys from south Africa to Babylon and persuades Marduk to leave Mesopotamia. 2291 Naram-Sin ascends the throne of Akkad. Directed by the warlike Inanna, he penetrates the Sinai peninsula, invades Egypt. 2255 Inanna usurps the power in Mesopotamia; Naram-Sin defies Nippur. The Great Anunnaki obliterate Agade. Inanna escapes. Sumer and Akkad occupied by foreign troops loyal to Enlil and Ninurta. 2220 Sumerian civilization rises to new heights under enlightened rulers of Lagash. Thoth helps its king Gudea build a ziggurat-temple for Ninurta. 2193 Terah, Abraham's father, born in Nippur into a priestly-royal family. 2180 Egypt divided; followers of Ra/Marduk retain the south; Pharaohs opposed to him gain the throne of lower Egypt. 2130 As Enlil and Ninurta are increasingly away, central authority also deteriorates in Mesopotamia. Inanna's attempts to regain the kingship for Erech does not last. The Fateful Century B.C 2123 Abraham born in Nippur. 2113 Enlil entrusts the Lands of Shem to Nannar; Ur declared capital of new empire. Ur- Nammmu ascends throne, is named Protector of Nippur. A Nippurian priest-Terah, Abraham's father - comes to Ur to liaison with its royal court. 2096 Ur-Nammu dies in battle. The people consider his untimely death a betrayal by Anu and Enlil. Terah departs with his family for Harran. 2095 Shulgi ascends the throne of Ur, strengthens imperial ties. As empire thrives, Shulgi falls under charms of Inanna, becomes her lover. Grants Larsa to Elamites in exchange for serving as his Foreign Legion. 2080 Theban princes loyal to Ra/Marduk press northward under Mentuhotep I. Nabu, Marduk's son, gains adherents for his father in Western Asia. 2055 On Nannar's orders, Shulgi sends Elamite troops to suppress unrest in Canaanite cities. Elamites reach the gateway to the Sinai peninsula and its Spaceport. 2048 Shulgi dies. Marduk moves to the Land of the Hittites. Abraham ordered to southern Canaan with an elite corps of cavalrymen. 2047 Amar-Sin (the biblical Amraphel) becomes king of Ur. Abraham goes to Egypt, stays five years, then returns with more troops. 2041 Guided by Inanna, Amar-Sin forms a coalition of Kings of the East, launches military expedition to Canaan and the Sinai. Its leader is the Elamite Khedor-la'omer. Abraham blocks the advance at the gateway to the Spaceport. 2038 Shu-Sin replaces Amar-Sin on throne of Ur as the empire disintegrates. 2029 Ibbi-Sin replaces Shu-Sin. The western provinces increasingly to Marduk. 2024 Leading his followers, Marduk marches on Sumer, enthrones himself in Babylon. Fighting spreads to central Mesopotamia. Nippur's Holy of Holies is defiled. Enlil demands punishment for Marduk and Nabu; Enki opposes, but his son Nergal sides with Enlil. As Nabu marshals his Canaanite followers to capture the Spaceport, the Great Anunnaki approve of the use of nuclear weapons. Nergal and Ninurta destroy the Spaceport and the errant Canaanite cities. 2023 The winds carry the radioactive cloud to Sumer. People die a terrible death, animals perish, the water is poisoned, the soil becomes barren. Sumer and its great civilization lie prostrate. Its legacy passes to Abraham's seed as he begets -at age 100- a legitimate heir: Isaac.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-anxious.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-anxious.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-anxious.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-anxious.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-anxious.gif
Revenant69
01-30-2004, 02:27
Reading this thread made me come up with a semi-educational story. I hope you enjoy reading it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif Here it goes.....
Two bacteria are sitting on the surface of Mars, one of them is Martian and the other one is from Earth. They are both increadibly hungry as there is no food for many many centimetres (c'mon be realistic they cant travel further than that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ). Facing the prospect of starvation, both bacteria come to a nasty argument.
Earth bacteria: Well we cant go on like this. One of us has to sacrifice itself for the greater good of Life.
Mars bacteria: What do you mean?
Earth bacteria: I mean that I am going to eat you because I am really hungry.
Mars bacteria: You CANT do that. I was here FIRST This is MY planet First you come barging in onto my planet and now you want to EAT me????
Earth bacteria: Errrr, I was sent here by our chief Earthly bacteria, which we so affectionatly call our Great White Bacteria Upon a Smelly Hair (aka G. W. BUSH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif ). And my mission was to explore this planet and add it as our colony. SO, I am the new master of this planet.
Mars bacteria: Yeah, well, you can go scr*w yourself and you are NOT going to eat me.
This debate heats up and goes on like this for a few nanoseconds..... Suddenly.....the sun is blocked out by the shadow of a gigantic (to bacteria's view) 12 legged cockroach, who promptly eats them both.
So whats the moral of the story?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It doesnt matter who eats who, both are going to end up in the same sh*t pile http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
discovery1
01-30-2004, 06:40
Even if there's life on Mars, I think that we won't colonize it for at least a thousand years. The simple reason is that it is too inhospitable. It would be possible to terriform it though. This would likely be done over thousands of years by seed the poles with genetically engineered plants, really simple plants, like moss or licken.Or if you're in a hurry, slam the poles with a comet or nuke, perferably the comet. I am almost certain that it would release more gas into the atmosphere= more greenhouse affect.
Also, I think that it would be more profitable to first develope asteroids(both Near Eath Asteroids(NEAs) and Belters). Lots of high quality minerals, low gravity and NEAs are easier to get to than the moon. Begs the question:why didn't we go to one of those rather than the moon? Also, the tech used for exploiting these could also be used to deflect potiental killer asteroids.
BTW, first private moon mission schedualed to take off in the fall (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/transorbital_040129.html) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Also, with the X-prize (http://www.xprize.org/) coming to a conclusion with Burt Rutains design, SpaceShipOne (http://www.xprize.org/teams/scaled.html) almost flight ready, things are looking good for private space flight. Could be better though. Oh, mark my words, Bush II's space initiative will add up to about as much as his dad's did.
One final note, please drop by nuclearspace.com (http://nuclearspace.com)
and its messageboard (http://pub97.ezboard.com/bnuclearspace). Even if you don't agree with its stated goals, we would love to have as many rational people as possible. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif
Oh, yeah, ichi, I don't remeber Clinton sending any probes to Venus. Are you talking about Magellen? I believe it was approved under the Regan administration.
Edit:Address to ichi, grammar and misplace smilies
Gregoshi
01-30-2004, 07:29
When you think on it, all life is SCUM, not just humans. I'm sure if we dropped a dandelion on Mars the Red Planet would soon be yellow. Just look what happens on Earth when an animal or plant from one part of the world is introduced in another part where there are no natural predators. The zebra mollusk in the NE US/Canada springs to mind. Of course, I'm assuming condition are favourable to the animal/plant.
The only difference is that we human are SCUM with style.
From the stuff I've read a while back on terra-forming, lassoing a comet (preferably) or small asteroid and crashing it into the planet is the recipe for a quick terra-forming of Mars (or other planets lacking an atmosphere). The comet itself would provide some of the atmosphere, but I think the massive heat produced in the collision would release the oxygen and other gases trapped in the planet's rock and soil.
PrinceBrobex
01-30-2004, 14:20
Mars? eh. It's alright but, like the Midwest, you can't get real pizza or good Chinese food.
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 30 2004,01:08)]I will never compare a living beeing, no matter how basic, with a computer. They aren't comparable.
It seems that this is a fundamental difference between our viewpoints: you award living creatures a special status, I don't. To me, a bacteria is just a cleverly constructed machine.
I could start a debate about this, but I don't think that it would lead us anywhere except to a flame war. So perhaps we should just accept our differences? What do you think, prince Aymar?
Quote[/b] ]No, I wasn't. Not emotions. I was talking about quimical alterations to external stimulae.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif What do you mean with quimical?
On a side note, dolphins are not really very intelligent. Their brain mass approaches ours, but the organization of their brain resembles that of a hedgehog. Today's dolphin intelligence myth was created by hippies who ascribed all kinds of mental and emotional powers to it. But this is OT.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
01-30-2004, 16:24
Monk wrote:
Quote[/b] ]I said (or meant to say) they needed Those Three Things to be sentient. Not one or two, but all three. They themselves have to recognize they have life as much as we do. I didn't make that as clear as i had hoped.
So a dolphin, in your opinion, isn't a sentient creature? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif
Strange you think that way... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif
Ludens wrote:
Quote[/b] ]It seems that this is a fundamental difference between our viewpoints: you award living creatures a special status, I don't. To me, a bacteria is just a cleverly constructed machine.
I could start a debate about this, but I don't think that it would lead us anywhere except to a flame war. So perhaps we should just accept our differences? What do you think, prince Aymar?
You're right. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif
Quote[/b] ]What do you mean with quimical? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Sorry. Right word, wrong letters. I meant chemical.
Quote[/b] ]On a side note, dolphins are not really very intelligent. Their brain mass approaches ours, but the organization of their brain resembles that of a hedgehog. Today's dolphin intelligence myth was created by hippies who ascribed all kinds of mental and emotional powers to it. But this is OT.
The Hippies? LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
Funny http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin.gif
In fact, their brain mass is bigger than ours (between 1600cc and 2200cc). But, what's really important is the (brain mass)/(body mass) ratio.
The organization of a hedgedog? Shure. We have limiteless knowledge about how the brain works http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
It's one of the most unknown areas of science. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif
Manuel Damásio (a coutryman of mine) is one of the leading world specialists in the study of the way the human brain works. He is living in the USA since the late 70s. And he hasn't 1/10 of the secure knowledge that you claim for certain in regard to other species. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif
In fact, most international biologists agree on the myth. They are inteligent. It's narrowmindedness to deny it... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 30 2004,10:24)]Monk wrote:
Quote[/b] ]I said (or meant to say) they needed Those Three Things to be sentient. Not one or two, but all three. They themselves have to recognize they have life as much as we do. I didn't make that as clear as i had hoped.
So a dolphin, in your opinion, isn't a sentient creature? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif
Strange you think that way... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif
The words a Dolphin is not sentient did not escape my mouth, and i don't ever remember claiming such a thing. I was only making clear my former post. And if yo ask me if a Dolphin is a sentient being, well then look at the research done on them. They show intelligence, and they show awareness of both surrounding sand their own body. Two dictionaries describe the word sentient
Sentient:
1. Responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2. Aware ( having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge)
3. Finely sensitive in perception or feeling
Sentient:
1. Having sense perception; conscious
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling
Under these definitions, yes a Dolphin can be considered a sentient life. Is that what you wanted to hear? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif
Mysterium
01-30-2004, 19:18
Quote[/b] ]It seems that this is a fundamental difference between our viewpoints: you award living creatures a special status, I don't. To me, a bacteria is just a cleverly constructed machine.
But Ludens, if bacteria are simply cleverly constructed machines, then that naturally extrapolates to us being infinitely more cleverly constructed machines. The cleverest part about us would be the ability we have to convince ourselves that decisions we make are made by us, and not simply by the specific chemical reactions in our brains. If a sharp divide is not made between biological and mechanical, then you encounter the slippery slope in both directions: are machines alive, and is life simply machines?
As to the dolphin brain's make-up, Amyar's got a point that we know hardly nothing about the human brain, let alone other animals. A hedgehog might also be a very complex brain pattern (though pet-owners and evidence might disagree). I mean, catfish have tastebuds all over their bodies, and a special processing section of their brain just for those sensory inputs. What must that feel like? We have absolutely no idea, because we're stuck in our own perception of the world, of intellignce, etc.
I think we'll get to Mars, not in the next 30, but maybe in the next 100 years. And it doesn't need to be terraformed at all for us to go there, but it would be nice if we could . . . and even if none of Bush's plan ever gets off the ground, at least it might kill the space shuttle program, and that would be excellent. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif
Bravo Mysterium You have correctly identified the problem that bothered me when writing that reply to Aymar. If simple creatures are identical to machine, that would mean that complex creatures, like ourselves, would also be identical to machines. What is the difference between man and a machine? After thinking that problem over several times, I reached the following conclusions:
1. It is unclear what life exactly is. Life was usually defined as the ability to feed, thrive and eventually replicate.
However, the border between living creatures (organisms) and things is vague. Even if one would renounce my statement that bacteria are 'just' machines, than there still would several problematic borderline cases. For example: the pathogen that causes BSE (mad cow disease) and the disease of Creutzfeld-Jacob is a protein: a molecule. It is definitely a thing. Yet, somehow it manages to replicate itself, forming large 'plaques' of protein that damages the brain.
This is why I stated that I do not award organisms a special status.
2. What sets humans apart from machines is our ability to reflect. We can not only analyze our surroundings, but also take a step back and analyze our analysis. I do not know whether other animals can do this. I don't think so, since analysis of inner process requires you to give names to these processes. Names require language, and no animal except humans has a language that is sophisticated enough to do that.
Regarding your and Aymar de Bois Mauri's point about dolphins: yes, we don't know how the brain works exactly. But we've got a pretty good idea about what some parts of the brain do, so I don't know what Aymar wanted to prove with his sarcasm.
1) Scientist have managed to ascertain the functions of several parts of the brain by finding out in which situations they are used. A part of the brain that becomes active when you give an animal or human a visual stimulus, is probably involved in the processing of visual information. Thus, we can guess at the functions of structures in the brain.
2) The brains of mammals (actually, the brains of every vertebrae) are very alike. They grow out of the same basic structures in the embryo. Since we know what part of the brain is involved in what process in, for example, humans, we can find the same structure in other mammals, for example dolphins, by deducting the location of this structure in our embryo, picking the same location in the dolphin embryo and then looking where it ends up.
For example: the frontal cortex serves for storage of long-term memory and is probably responsible for complex behavior (I have no doubt, however, that this will turn out to be a gross simplification). Humans, apes and elephants are distinguished by having a relatively large frontal cortex. Dolphins and hedgehogs definitely don't. This is not to say that they are stupid, but it doesn't support the myth that they are amongst the most intelligent creatures of this planet. They are beautiful, social and very agile, yes, but certainly not as intelligent as apes.
I hope you now understand why I made these statements.
EDIT: Aymar, if you think that quimical and chemical are pronounced the same in English, something is very wrong. Either with your English, or with mine http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Mysterium
01-31-2004, 00:11
Oh no, Ludens, not the prion Perhaps the most confounding little organism in the quest for a defenition of life. You just HAD to bring that one in, huh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I've heard it theorized by a metaphysicist that the prion possesses the smallest possible unit of a soul. A spiritual Planck space, sort of. But that's a bit too wishy and/or washy for me.
I will definitely cede that the brains of dolphins, while equivalent to ours on some scales such as the body mass/brain mass, are distincly different on others. And how intelligent, or what type of intelligent, they really are remains to be seen.
I actually choose to embrace that 'problem' you had in your post. I've got no problem with being a terribly complex machine. In fact, I think Gregoshi's comment - The only difference is that we human are SCUM with style - is a very stylish summation of something that I've always thought. I choose to skip over the metaphysical plane of thought, and instead of pondering whether I can actually be thinking or am just bouncing chemicals, go straight to the Cartesian I think, therefore . . .
But to bring it back down to the Solar System, if not Earth, I think that the one thing we both agree on here is that a line must be drawn some point. Bacteria cannot be counted among the reasons for us not to expand starward. In fact, I think it would be a disservice to the anti-entropic nature of life for us not to move into the nearest uninhabited (or sparsely inhabited) regions. We're just really complex bacteria, with a pretty distinct advantage over those poor Martians. Antibiotics - the ultimate arms race
Aymar de Bois Mauri
01-31-2004, 03:03
Monk wrote:
Quote[/b] ]The words a Dolphin is not sentient did not escape my mouth, and i don't ever remember claiming such a thing. I was only making clear my former post. And if yo ask me if a Dolphin is a sentient being, well then look at the research done on them. They show intelligence, and they show awareness of both surrounding sand their own body. Two dictionaries describe the word sentient
Sentient:
1. Responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2. Aware ( having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge)
3. Finely sensitive in perception or feeling
Sentient:
1. Having sense perception; conscious
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling
Under these definitions, yes a Dolphin can be considered a sentient life. Is that what you wanted to hear?
OK. Now I understand. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif Thank you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif
Mysterium wrote:
Quote[/b] ]But Ludens, if bacteria are simply cleverly constructed machines, then that naturally extrapolates to us being infinitely more cleverly constructed machines. The cleverest part about us would be the ability we have to convince ourselves that decisions we make are made by us, and not simply by the specific chemical reactions in our brains. If a sharp divide is not made between biological and mechanical, then you encounter the slippery slope in both directions: are machines alive, and is life simply machines?
As to the dolphin brain's make-up, Amyar's got a point that we know hardly nothing about the human brain, let alone other animals. A hedgehog might also be a very complex brain pattern (though pet-owners and evidence might disagree). I mean, catfish have tastebuds all over their bodies, and a special processing section of their brain just for those sensory inputs. What must that feel like? We have absolutely no idea, because we're stuck in our own perception of the world, of intellignce, etc.
Preciselly my points. That was what I wanted to say. You've explained it quite well. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif
Ludens wrote:
Quote[/b] ]Bravo Mysterium You have correctly identified the problem that bothered me when writing that reply to Aymar. If simple creatures are identical to machine, that would mean that complex creatures, like ourselves, would also be identical to machines. What is the difference between man and a machine? After thinking that problem over several times, I reached the following conclusions:
1. It is unclear what life exactly is. Life was usually defined as the ability to feed, thrive and eventually replicate.
However, the border between living creatures (organisms) and things is vague. Even if one would renounce my statement that bacteria are 'just' machines, than there still would several problematic borderline cases. For example: the pathogen that causes BSE (mad cow disease) and the disease of Creutzfeld-Jacob is a protein: a molecule. It is definitely a thing. Yet, somehow it manages to replicate itself, forming large 'plaques' of protein that damages the brain.
This is why I stated that I do not award organisms a special status.
2. What sets humans apart from machines is our ability to reflect. We can not only analyze our surroundings, but also take a step back and analyze our analysis. I do not know whether other animals can do this. I don't think so, since analysis of inner process requires you to give names to these processes. Names require language, and no animal except humans has a language that is sophisticated enough to do that.
Regarding your and Aymar de Bois Mauri's point about dolphins: yes, we don't know how the brain works exactly. But we've got a pretty good idea about what some parts of the brain do, so I don't know what Aymar wanted to prove with his sarcasm.
1) Scientist have managed to ascertain the functions of several parts of the brain by finding out in which situations they are used. A part of the brain that becomes active when you give an animal or human a visual stimulus, is probably involved in the processing of visual information. Thus, we can guess at the functions of structures in the brain.
2) The brains of mammals (actually, the brains of every vertebrae) are very alike. They grow out of the same basic structures in the embryo. Since we know what part of the brain is involved in what process in, for example, humans, we can find the same structure in other mammals, for example dolphins, by deducting the location of this structure in our embryo, picking the same location in the dolphin embryo and then looking where it ends up.
For example: the frontal cortex serves for storage of long-term memory and is probably responsible for complex behavior (I have no doubt, however, that this will turn out to be a gross simplification). Humans, apes and elephants are distinguished by having a relatively large frontal cortex. Dolphins and hedgehogs definitely don't. This is not to say that they are stupid, but it doesn't support the myth that they are amongst the most intelligent creatures of this planet. They are beautiful, social and very agile, yes, but certainly not as intelligent as apes.
I hope you now understand why I made these statements.
What's the matter, you don't like a little tiny sarcasm, Ludens? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif
I hope you weren't offended by it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif
I was just joking... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-embarassed.gif
As for the rest, very good text. Great analysis on the difficulty of defining life. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif
You have mentioned that Humans are the only animals to have a language. What other animals might claim the title of an language?
Chimps are capable of recognizing their mirror reflexion as themselves and not as another chimp, unlike most other animals. So, their level of awareness is quite high.
They can also make right decisions by themselves in a opposite situation to the one they were trained for. They can select information in quite a surprising fashion.
But they can't speak, although they live in a very complex social environment. That's because of 2 factors:
-Their brain is smaller and isn't suficiently developed in certain brain areas, related to the abstract behaviour, as we are.
-Their vocal cords aren't structured for the process of producing complex sounds.
I believe, with specific differences in certain points, that the same can be said of dolphins. Their social structure is very different from the Human and chimp structure (which are quite similar). This makes their brain development to follow a very different path. We tend to think the chimp to be more intelligent than the dolphin, because we think much more like the chimp. We can recognize patterns of behaviour similar to our own. But that doesn't define inteligence per se. This might sound stupid but, I believe we are biased in classifying inteligence. Preciselly because we think in a certain way, we tend to fall under certain boundaries of what is or what is not inteligence. Since we use our own inteligence (with the bahaviour pattern it possesses) to define inteligence, we tend to identify signs that we know to be familiar to us. We are falling in a double ambiguity.
Yes, you have a point about the frontal cortex. But the frontal cortex might be associated more to memory, as you claim, than complex behaviour. We just can't be sure. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif
What I meant, was that we are just at the beggining of the road to understand brain organization and functions. Therefore, most conclusions are precarious.
Quote[/b] ] Aymar, if you think that quimical and chemical are pronounced the same in English, something is very wrong. Either with your English, or with mine http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Since English isn't my native language, the wrong is on me... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-oops.gif
Aymar de Bois Mauri
01-31-2004, 03:13
Quote[/b] ]Oh no, Ludens, not the prion Perhaps the most confounding little organism in the quest for a defenition of life. You just HAD to bring that one in, huh? I've heard it theorized by a metaphysicist that the prion possesses the smallest possible unit of a soul. A spiritual Planck space, sort of. But that's a bit too wishy and/or washy for me.
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
Quote[/b] ]I will definitely cede that the brains of dolphins, while equivalent to ours on some scales such as the body mass/brain mass, are distincly different on others. And how intelligent, or what type of intelligent, they really are remains to be seen.
Preciselly. Well put. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif
Quote[/b] ]But to bring it back down to the Solar System, if not Earth, I think that the one thing we both agree on here is that a line must be drawn some point. Bacteria cannot be counted among the reasons for us not to expand starward. In fact, I think it would be a disservice to the anti-entropic nature of life for us not to move into the nearest uninhabited (or sparsely inhabited) regions. We're just really complex bacteria, with a pretty distinct advantage over those poor Martians. Antibiotics - the ultimate arms race
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
The fact of colonization shoudn't even be a discussion point. Every one, or almost, agrees on that point.
The real point is: HOW?
We just have to avoid errors, and for that to happen, we must be carefull and look at our mistakes troughout History. Even if it seems we won't learn from them, beeing in such a different situation.
I kinda skimmed some of the longer arguments above, but I wanted to give my take on consciousness (since that is one of the debates going on here):
As far as I am aware, the brain is definitely considered the center of consciousness.
The brain is essentially a mass of interconnected neurons.
Neurons have weighted inputs, and when enough weight accumulates, they fire. (Oversimplification, I know.)
The neurons of the brain, therefore, receive inputs from the neurons in the spinal cord, which link to the fingers, etc etc...
Thought process is essentially firing neurons.
The question is: where does consciousness enter into this?
Is a complex system of neurons enough to generate consciousness? For lack of a better idea, this seems to be an at least minimally plausible theory.
My friends and I put together a computer program which builds simulated-mini-brains built out of simulated neurons in a simulated environment. Inputs are things like: location of food, current energy level, nearest other creature, etc... and the outputs are turn left, turn right, move forward, attack, eat, etc...
With random weights and connections at first, they can quickly evolve (with mutation) into figuring out how to act. Simple brains, right? They succeed in living and reproducing (well, cloning with mutations).
Now: if there were enough neurons, connected most complicated-ly, would this be sentience? Granted, there is no hardware available on earth to test this... our guys have like 20-40 neurons tops, and we're talking billions. But the question stands: is some biological necessary? If a computer could mimic sentience down to its very thought process, is that not sentience?
I am no neuroscientist, there are probably mistakes and mistaken assumptions contained above. Forgive me. This is also horribly off topic, but hey, I find it interesting
(Maybe you don't: http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-zzz.gif Wakeup I'm done)
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Jan. 31 2004,00:11)]Oh no, Ludens, not the prion Perhaps the most confounding little organism in the quest for a defenition of life. You just HAD to bring that one in, huh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I've heard it theorized by a metaphysicist that the prion possesses the smallest possible unit of a soul. A spiritual Planck space, sort of. But that's a bit too wishy and/or washy for me.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
Good one Mysterium. But a prion is not an organism. It is a thing that behaves very much like an organism, and that is the problem.
A soul? A molecule with a soul? What kind of guy comes up with that? It is not as if the thing has a choice. It can't even make a choice: it's a thing
Quote[/b] ]I will definitely cede that the brains of dolphins (...) are distincly different on others. And how intelligent, or what type of intelligent, they really are remains to be seen.
I agree with that too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]I actually choose to embrace that 'problem' you had in your post. I've got no problem with being a terribly complex machine. In fact, I think Gregoshi's comment (...) is a very stylish summation of something that I've always thought. I choose to skip over the metaphysical plane of thought and (...) go straight to the Cartesian I think, therefore . . .
Behind you there. If we are scum, let us at least be scum with style
Quote[/b] ]But to bring it back down to the Solar System, if not Earth, I think that the one thing we both agree on here is that a line must be drawn some point. Bacteria cannot be counted among the reasons for us not to expand starward. In fact, I think it would be a disservice to the anti-entropic nature of life for us not to move into the nearest uninhabited (or sparsely inhabited) regions. We're just really complex bacteria, with a pretty distinct advantage over those poor Martians. Antibiotics - the ultimate arms race
Yes, there has always been survival of the fittest. I don't mean that this gives us the right to do it, but it says we don't have to spare them just because they are weaker than us. We might want to spare them for other reasons, though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .
Aymar de Bois Mauri,
Quote[/b] ]What's the matter, you don't like a little tiny sarcasm, Ludens? I hope you weren't offended by it
I was a little offended by it, but that was just oversensitivity on my part. I thought that you were attacking my (admittedly not very great) expertise in neurology. I felt that I knew what I was talking about when I mentioned that dolphin brains are not as complex as ours.
It is so hard to discover what someone's words mean when you do not have face-to-face contact.
Quote[/b] ]I was just joking...
Glad to hear it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]You have mentioned that Humans are the only animals to have a language. What other animals might claim the title of an language?
Chimps are capable of recognizing their mirror reflexion as themselves and not as another chimp, unlike most other animals. So, their level of awareness is quite high.
They can also make right decisions by themselves in a opposite situation to the one they were trained for. They can select information in quite a surprising fashion.
But they can't speak, although they live in a very complex social environment. That's because of 2 factors:
-Their brain is smaller and isn't suficiently developed in certain brain areas, related to the abstract behaviour, as we are.
-Their vocal cords aren't structured for the process of producing complex sounds.
Good point. Unfortunately for you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif , I saw that one coming:
Quote[/b] ]no animal except humans has a language that is sophisticated enough to do that.
I only said that I thought that animals don't have a language suited for reflection. But in that case, your next point applies:
Quote[/b] ]I believe, with specific differences in certain points, that the same can be said of dolphins. Their social structure is very different from the Human and chimp structure (which are quite similar). This makes their brain development to follow a very different path. We tend to think the chimp to be more intelligent than the dolphin, because we think much more like the chimp. We can recognize patterns of behaviour similar to our own. But that doesn't define inteligence per se. This might sound stupid but, I believe we are biased in classifying inteligence. Preciselly because we think in a certain way, we tend to fall under certain boundaries of what is or what is not inteligence. Since we use our own inteligence (with the bahaviour pattern it possesses) to define inteligence, we tend to identify signs that we know to be familiar to us. We are falling in a double ambiguity.
Yes, you have a point about the frontal cortex. But the frontal cortex might be associated more to memory, as you claim, than complex behaviour. We just can't be sure.
What I meant, was that we are just at the beggining of the road to understand brain organization and functions. Therefore, most conclusions are precarious.
So it might just be that I am ordering chimp and dolphin levels of intelligence by human standards. Thus, I agree with everything you say here.
Quote[/b] ]Since English isn't my native language, the wrong is on me...
Why? English isn't my native language either http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Welcome to the discussion, Myrando. I really like your contribution, although it is indeed off topic. But as far as I can see, only Aymar, Mysterium and I are left discussing, and we are getting off topic too, so nobody will mind.
I would like to know more about your experiment, although I am not a programmer (I am not much of a neuroscientist either).
However, two side notes:
1) One of the problems under discussion are definitions. What exactly is intelligence? Wat is sentience? Wat is life? If you want to simulate intelligence, you must first (broadly) know what you understand under intelligence.
2) As for your point about: enough neurons = sentience, I don't think that is true. Organization and interaction are just as important, or even more important than sheer numbers. It is just like the human genome project: we might have only two times the number of genes of a simple nematode, but our genes our more complex, better organized and interact more with each other, as to create a much larger number of possibilities.
The same applies to neurons. If I somehow were to give that simple nematode (C. Elegans) the same number of neurons as a human has, it still wouldn't be clever, because its neurons aren't complex enough. They aren't very organized (normally, it has got only 300 of them and about 700 other somatic cells) and they don't interact much compared to humans. Quality beats quantity, or at least, that's what I think http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif .
Aymar, I almost forgot this. I just noticed you have been awarded with a nice icon. Congratulations on winning the screenshot competition.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
01-31-2004, 21:05
Quote[/b] ]However, two side notes:
1) One of the problems under discussion are definitions. What exactly is intelligence? Wat is sentience? Wat is life? If you want to simulate intelligence, you must first (broadly) know what you understand under intelligence.
2) As for your point about: enough neurons = sentience, I don't think that is true. Organization and interaction are just as important, or even more important than sheer numbers. It is just like the human genome project: we might have only two times the number of genes of a simple nematode, but our genes our more complex, better organized and interact more with each other, as to create a much larger number of possibilities.
The same applies to neurons. If I somehow were to give that simple nematode (C. Elegans) the same number of neurons as a human has, it still wouldn't be clever, because its neurons aren't complex enough. They aren't very organized (normally, it has got only 300 of them and about 700 other somatic cells) and they don't interact much compared to humans. Quality beats quantity, or at least, that's what I think.
True. Again, good analysis. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif
Quote[/b] ]Aymar, I almost forgot this. I just noticed you have been awarded with a nice icon.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif AAAAAAAAAHHH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-shocked.gif
ME? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-shocked2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_fainting.gif
Where? Where? Where? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
Quote[/b] ]Congratulations on winning the screenshot competition.
Thank you indeed, Lord Ludens http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-blush.gif
Ludens,
Well, I wasn't trying to prove (or even say) that neurons=sentience, just float it as an idea. I don't know that I quite believe it, but what if?
Quote[/b] ]Organization and interaction are just as important, or even more important than sheer numbers.
I agree completely The various types of linkages between neurons (neurons that link back recursively, patterns of linkings, etc etc) are vitally important Our little program does not emulate this in the slightest. However, I think my point still stands: I can see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to build a computer that could emulate this (besides the need for *vast* amounts of processing power.... I am assuming future technology here, of course). Soooo... if this is in a computer, does it count as intelligence or sentience?
I also agree with you on point #1; definition is half the battle. However, I would look at it this way: by studying and simulating (or attempting to, at any rate) intelligence, consciousness, life, (fill in the blank with other metaphysical/philosophical term), we are defining it.
Mysterium
02-01-2004, 11:36
Ah, now y'see, while I don't wholly jump on the bandwagon when it comes to the prion/soul idea, I do at least have to defend it in this context. The very fact that we view it as a thing, as you say, Ludens, is indeed the entire point in some ways. If we say that we as humans - with all of our vast cognitive powers - have a soul, that is something most people can accept. Try to expand the idea to animals, who have less in the way of pure rational thought ability, and they can be seen to have less of a soul, but still something spiritual. Follow that train of thought, and you have the prion: a molecule, less complex, even (I think?) than DNA or RNA, but still replicating itself nonetheless. The spiritual Planck space comes about because the prion is the smallest, least assuming form of what we could possibly ever, in any sense, call life. It's on the very event horizon of sentience in that sense, and that, I believe, is where that defenition comes from.
Now, Myrano, to your digital sentience questions. I think it is absolutely possible for the same sort of sentience to evolve in a computer as has evolved in our biological mechanisms. That's necessarily inherent in my conception of life as complex machines, and machines as complex life. But I think that the idea of mimicry is a false one. For something to be sentient, I don't think it can simply be a reasonable facsimile of something else that is sentient. A big part of sentience is, or at least should be, creativity, and the ability to adapt and respond in new ways to familiar situations. In short, the ability to learn. If there was a computer that could predict my every move, it would not be sentient. If there was a computer that could predict my move and then develop a response to it, that would be sentient.
Alright, there's a multitude of examples out there, so let's try shoot some holes in this argument of mine. I have very little faith in my point, but I can't quite figure out where I go wrong. Ludens, you'll find it, I'm sure . . . or maybe my quasi-sentient computer will beat you to it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-computer.gif I hate being outsmarted by silicon . . .
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Feb. 01 2004,11:36)]I have very little faith in my point, but I can't quite figure out where I go wrong. Ludens, you'll find it, I'm sure . . .
Actually, I refuse to debate further until you define what you mean by soul. Yes, this is a nasty trick, but I cannot prove that a prion has or hasn't got a soul unless I know what you mean by it. Furthermore I need to know what you mean by Planck space, since I only vaguely remember Planck from my physics class.
Because you knew what I meant with the prion, I assumed you knew some molecular biology, but by your reference to DNA I see that I was wrong. I apologize, and will try to explain the relative positions of these.
DNA (DesoxyriboNucleic Acid) is a class of chemical compounds. The cells (the cells is the basic building block of every living creature. Bacteria are a cell by themselves, but humans are built of millions of cells) of any living creature contain long, double chains of DNA-blocks. The entire structure is also called DNA and forms our genome.
The genome (the DNA) has been called the blueprint of life, but this is only partially true. It could be better describe as a 'cookery book' which describes how proteins are to be made, and in which situation they should be made. (RNA is a less stable form of DNA. It is used as a transient copy of the DNA, to carry the instructions for protein production to the protein-production machinery.) Please keep in mind that this is a simplification.
A protein is a chain of amino acids. They are the tools of the cell: they are used for construction, signaling and catalysis of chemical reactions.
A prion is basically a misfolded protein. Protein folding is one of the mysteries of molecular biology: why do proteins always fold in one, specific way? And why does it sometimes go wrong?
A prion is so misfolded that it has two characteristics that a normal protein does not have.
1) It is almost indestructible by means which destroy any normal protein.
2) It forces other, normal proteins, to misfold and also become prions. For example: misfolded protein of type A (the prion) will force a normal protein of type A to become a prion too, but a normal protein of type B is unaffected. The clusters of prions will form a large plaque which damages and kills surrounding cells. This leads to a disease.
THIS IS NOT NORMAL PROTEIN BEHAVIOR IT IS AGAINST NATURE IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN is what scientists think when first confronted with the prion. It behaves in a way which would be considered impossible. For a scientist, seeing a prion is like seeing cows fly.
So science is busy trying to find out how this is possible. It might not be as impossible as flying cows, but it is still pretty weird.
So basically a prion is a chain of amino acids, which differs only slightly of millions of chains of amino acids which are in our body.
That was a pretty long explanation for a simple answer. It is also horribly off topic.
Myrano,
Quote[/b] ]Soooo... if this is in a computer, does it count as intelligence or sentience?
We are back at square one: how do you define sentience? This is a rather awkward question, and I asked it to Mysterium too, but it essential for a proper debate.
Anyway, I am very curious as to what where the results of your experiments with artificial intelligence.
EDIT: just read the last part of the post. I suppose I overlooked it because I was tired. I have been studying molecular biology the entire day.
Yes, it is a very practical way to arrive at a definition via experimenting, but if you want to discover what sentience by trying to simulate it, how do you know whether the results you get are sentience or something that looks like sentience?
If this is not very clear, please respond. I am not very clear-headed at the moment http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-zzz.gif
Mysterium
02-02-2004, 07:50
I'll come back to the prion after I've had a bit more time to mull it over. I forgot exactly where I made the connection: I should go re-read what I had been reading. I have at least the cursory understanding of molecular biology to have thought that I made a connection there, and I have a vague recollection of how exactly I jumped from the concept of the DNA to prion as both being active agents. No offense taken at the simpilfication and explanation above, Ludens, I certainly didn't have that concise or in-depth a knowledge base, and having it in the post will serve as a reference point.
To the defining sentience, though, I'd like to throw out what I put in an earlier post. I don't really wanna quote me, but I basically said that a computer that could predict my moves (mimic me exactly) wouldn't be sentient; a computer that could predict and develop a response to those moves (learn/adapt) would be sentient.
I have no reservations about the mechanics of a being that is sentient. It could be an animal, plant, computer, collective of cells, whatever. I think any defenition of sentience can ONLY include - how do I phrase this - interactions with an environment? Actions? Basically I'm saying that the thing carrying the 'brain' cannot affect whether or not that 'brain' is sentient.
Prions to follow. Sleep to follow. Prions to follow sleep. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-zzz.gif
Mysterium
02-02-2004, 23:44
Okay, I've totally got it now. I think. We'll see.
First off, the Planck space. I'll do as well as I can with the astrophysics, since you gave that lovely Microbio primer. If anyone knows better, be my guest. Basically, the Planck space is the length which is effectively the smallest in the universe. I forget how this was first arrived at, but recently the proponents of superstring theory have shown a theoretical basis for the idea that there is a length in the universe at which it is physically impossible for something to be smaller. Based on vibrating strings and such. A guitarist's vindication, perhaps?
So, when i tossed out the term 'spiritual Planck space', I was pointing to what people have thought to be the absolutely most rudimentary thing that could possibly be called 'life'. So, in that regard, 'soul' as I use it isn't about an afterlife, but is about life itself. If a human has a soul, then a dog has a less complex soul, then a fish has . . . on down to the outer limits of what can be called alive.
Now, my link between prions and DNA. You'll have to excuse me, that was heavily influenced by the context of what I'm reading these days, and I made a few mental leaps which were (even for myself later) un-followable. So, that context is the evolution of DNA. If we're accepting evolution (if we're not we should grab a beer and adjourn to the Science in Schools thread) then we also accept that DNA did not always exist as a means for cells to code for genes necessary for their functioning. In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint (yes, it's backward and you've heard it, but yes, it's coming . . .) DNA is simply using US.
The first instances of DNA (or RNA) didn't force with the purpose of becoming the genetic storehouse for more complex creatures. It began as something that found it could replicate, and therefore did. Then, it either co-opted phospholipid bi-layers and the rest of the cell's baggage to keep itself safe, or was ingested and found to be useful, like mitochondria of chloroplasts. So the link to the prion was through the concept that DNA was originally independent and self-replicating.
Of course, prions aren't independently self-replicating, they're parasitically self-replicating, as are viruses, and are those alive? Also debatable. So, while I'm not saying prions are alive, they may be slightly alive. There has to be SOMETHING in the world that is the smallest amount of alive/thinking/feeling that it is possible to be without being entirely inanimate. Could be prions, could be bacteria, could be humans. Could be my toaster. But there must be an outer bound somewhere.
Oh, and my defenition of sentience in the earlier post was obviously not a universal one, but simply one to answer your question How do you know if it's sentience or something that looks remarkably like it?
Off topic. There was a topic??? Aw, crap
Uh, well . . . all your Mars are belong to us
Ironside
02-03-2004, 10:31
Interesting discussion here. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif
About the prion, I think that it's working on the same way as cancer and viruses, the mutations have been enough to give the prion the defense of not being destroyed by the body and the ability to mutate other proteins. This is the same as cancer that have the ability to grow, expand and to avoid the immune system and viruses that have the ability to avoid the immune system, to infect cells and to force the cell to replicate viruses in a extreme rate. Remember that for every cancer cell or new virus it must have been millions that failed.
But is this life? Or is it only a program that has ran amok? That's a hard question. And if they are a program that have run amok, where's the line between life and things. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif
Citera[/b] ]Of course, prions aren't independently self-replicating, they're parasitically self-replicating, as are viruses, and are those alive? Also debatable. So, while I'm not saying prions are alive, they may be slightly alive. There has to be SOMETHING in the world that is the smallest amount of alive/thinking/feeling that it is possible to be without being entirely inanimate. Could be prions, could be bacteria, could be humans. Could be my toaster. But there must be an outer bound somewhere.
Well put http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif
Citera[/b] ]. Follow that train of thought, and you have the prion: a molecule, less complex, even (I think?) than DNA or RNA, but still replicating itself nonetheless. The spiritual Planck space comes about because the prion is the smallest, least assuming form of what we could possibly ever, in any sense, call life
Actually the smallest life form is probably some simple virus, proteins are very complicated structures. What's is shocking about prions is that proteins shouldn't work the way that they are working.
And to get even worse about the definition of life, they have found a non-parasitic life-form that is smaller than they thought was possible. They actually speculates that this life-form is cooperating with other cells to get a hole body, so to speak.
Think in this terms, you got three humans (no Siamese twins) and one got the heart, one got the lungs and one got the brain. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif
And about Mars, if we can take it, take it Why not, every simpler life had conquered it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Life is very fuzzy at the base chemical layer. Therefore, I don't think that life is anything more than a complex set of mechanical, chemical, and electromagnteic reactions.
The alleged intelligence of dolphins is not a hippy myth, even if it did suffer from being popularised that way. There's too many weird things about cetacean behaviour to simply discount in such a cavalier manner. And equally, the claim is not necessarily universal to all cetaceans - that is, if cetaceans are a class like apes, we could easily say that only one sub-group is aware in a way qualitatively similar to humans and the others might be aware in the range from gorillas to chimps. The orca, specifically, is the single best candidate for human level intellect.
Intelligence is not identical with technology.
Mysterium and Ironside,
I apologize for my lack of promptness in replying to your posts, but I have been very busy during the last few days. I am preparing for an exam on molecular biology (amongst other things, prions are part of the examined readings, although little more is told about them than what I have written here). When I have finished my studying for the day and visit the Org, I find that composing a simple message in English is a difficult task, let alone trying to translate philosophical arguments. I will reply to your messages as soon as I am less busy: next Sunday at latest.
I will not post here unless I can properly translate my thoughts into understandable English. Else it would do nothing but harm the discussion, and I hope you'll agree that that should be avoided at all costs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .
Mysterium
02-04-2004, 19:48
Quite alright, Ludens, wouldn't want you to risk serious intellectual injury or anything. Good luck on your exam And congratulations on 500 posts
Of course, the occasional intellectual slip-up is allowed. Think of it as some sacrificial peasants for me to ride over . . .
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Feb. 01 2004,02:36)]Now, Myrano, to your digital sentience questions... But I think that the idea of mimicry is a false one. For something to be sentient, I don't think it can simply be a reasonable facsimile of something else that is sentient. A big part of sentience is, or at least should be, creativity, and the ability to adapt and respond in new ways to familiar situations. In short, the ability to learn. If there was a computer that could predict my every move, it would not be sentient. If there was a computer that could predict my move and then develop a response to it, that would be sentient.
Ahhh.... but an accurate mimicry of the human brain would have the ability to learn and counter your moves, would it not? For is not learning centered in the brain as well? Would it not also gain creativity?
Learning is nothing but the modification of existing neurons (I believe... you know, forming new pathways and whatnot), and creativity is the application of afore-modified neurons.
Somebody Else
02-05-2004, 05:39
Rene Descartes : I think therefore I am.
Karl Marx : I do therefore I am.
Frank Sinatra : Doo bee doo bee doo
Quote[/b] (Myrano @ Feb. 04 2004,22:21)]
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Feb. 01 2004,02:36)]Now, Myrano, to your digital sentience questions... But I think that the idea of mimicry is a false one. For something to be sentient, I don't think it can simply be a reasonable facsimile of something else that is sentient. A big part of sentience is, or at least should be, creativity, and the ability to adapt and respond in new ways to familiar situations. In short, the ability to learn. If there was a computer that could predict my every move, it would not be sentient. If there was a computer that could predict my move and then develop a response to it, that would be sentient.
Ahhh.... but an accurate mimicry of the human brain would have the ability to learn and counter your moves, would it not? For is not learning centered in the brain as well? Would it not also gain creativity?
Learning is nothing but the modification of existing neurons (I believe... you know, forming new pathways and whatnot), and creativity is the application of afore-modified neurons.
Or in short, in order to mimic a person, it must be to do what a person does. A person, in making their moves, will predict and learn/adapt - so to accurately mimic you, it would neccessairly need to be able to learn/adapt.
While I'd disagree that this makes the computer sentient, I would say that the you-simulating program, if it's accurate, is sentient. The computer is dispensible, since any sufficient hardware is capable of running the program and simulating you. Even more, I'd say that your body is the equivalent of the disposable computer, and you are the equivalent of the you-simulating program. A mind is the equivalent of a program IMHO - a combination of a complicated pattern with procedural rules to how the pattern changes - and to how those rules can change.
So the human brain is sentient, but the body is not?
I buy that.
Therefore, you believe that sentience *can* be created by mimicry?
I think we agree on this...
It is now 5 o'clock, the time for the exam is over. Please put down your pencils, turn over your papers and lay them on the upper right corner of your table so the assistants can collect them. You can leave as soon as your paper has been collected. Do NOT speak.
So ended the exam in molecular biology, leaving Ludens free to do more interesting things, like discussing dolphin brains in a forum dedicated to warfare.
Squippy, I'm afraid the discussion about dolphin intelligence is already over. I ceded that dolphins might be very intelligent, but not intelligent like humans.
Quote[/b] ]Intelligence is not identical with technology.
I couldn't agree more.
Ironside,
Quote[/b] ]About the prion, I think that it's working on the same way as cancer and viruses, the mutations have been enough to give the prion the defense of not being destroyed by the body and the ability to mutate other proteins. This is the same as cancer that have the ability to grow, expand and to avoid the immune system and viruses that have the ability to avoid the immune system, to infect cells and to force the cell to replicate viruses in a extreme rate. Remember that for every cancer cell or new virus it must have been millions that failed.
This is a very original way of looking at it. It had not occurred to me to look at prions from an evolutionary point of view. It took me some time to realize that it was, unfortunately, wrong. However, it requires some knowledge of biochemistry to realize were it wrong.
The basic (and practically only, if one discounts cultural evolution) way of evolving is through genetically stored information: DNA or, in the case of some viruses, RNA. Today we think that life evolved around DNA/RNA. The reason for this is that DNA is self-replicating: when put into the presence of basic biochemical compounds, a DNA strand will form a complementary second strand from those basic compounds. This may sound rather wonderful to you, but anyone who knows the molecular structure of DNA can understands that this is actually very logical and far from a miracle. Of course, in practice (in the cells of our body) this never happens, because it is too slow and too little accurate.
However, a prion is protein: is a long chain of amino acids ordered in a specific sequence. The prion is self-replicating only if it is presented with another identical protein (one that isn't misfolded). Proteins are built, they do not self-assemble in a way that suits the prion. In other words, a prion can only replicate if there is something (a cell) that makes (correctly folded) proteins for the prion to misform.
You can not speak of evolution either since a prion has no genetic material. A prion is just as likely to evolve as a rock. Mutations play no part in it, since it doesn't have genetic material. The mutations should be in the the producing cells (our cells) and would work against the prion (cells who produce prions cause their own death).
Quote[/b] ]But is this life? Or is it only a program that has ran amok? That's a hard question. And if they are a program that have run amok, where's the line between life and things.
If one looks at it from a molecular point of view, one might say life is a program that has run amok.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]Actually the smallest life form is probably some simple virus, proteins are very complicated structures.
I beg your pardon? A prion is a protein. A virus is a particle consisting of genetic material (DNA or RNA) and a protein envelop. Some viruses also have a membrane with even more protein in it.
Quote[/b] ]What's is shocking about prions is that proteins shouldn't work the way that they are working.
Correct. Prions have upset us scientists. You think the universe is neatly ordered, but No, some stupid little protein has to be different than we predicted. Honestly, couldn't this world be somewhat simpler?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-annoyed.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif
Quote[/b] ]And to get even worse about the definition of life, they have found a non-parasitic life-form that is smaller than they thought was possible.
I haven't heard of that one. Could you be somewhat more specific? Because it is hardly possible for it to be smaller than a prion.
Mysterium,
Quote[/b] ]First off, the Planck space. Basically, the Planck space is the length which is effectively the smallest in the universe. I forget how this was first arrived at, but recently the proponents of superstring theory have shown a theoretical basis for the idea that there is a length in the universe at which it is physically impossible for something to be smaller.
So, when i tossed out the term 'spiritual Planck space', I was pointing to what people have thought to be the absolutely most rudimentary thing that could possibly be called 'life'. So, in that regard, 'soul' as I use it isn't about an afterlife, but is about life itself. If a human has a soul, then a dog has a less complex soul, then a fish has . . . on down to the outer limits of what can be called alive.
I see. So what you are basically saying, and please correct me if I misunderstood you, is that the soul is the thing that separates living things from dead things.
This makes it a rather 'metaphysical' concept, doesn't it? It would be outside the bounds of the universe. I mean that it has as much existence as 'justice': it exists only in our minds.
Of course, this is the opinion of a scientist-in-training, and part of the training is the scientific ground rule: if it exists, we can measure it. If you do not agree with this point of view then this discussion is rather pointless.
Quote[/b] ]You'll have to excuse me, that was heavily influenced by the context of what I'm reading these days, and I made a few mental leaps which were (even for myself later) un-followable.
I'm curious as to what you are reading these days.
Quote[/b] ]If we're accepting evolution (if we're not we should grab a beer and adjourn to the Science in Schools thread)
I already did that, and shocked Gregoshi with my long rant against creationism. I believe that this post is getting equally long http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .
Quote[/b] ]Quite alright, Ludens, wouldn't want you to risk serious intellectual injury or anything. Good luck on your exam And congratulations on 500 posts
Thank you very much. I believe the exam went actually quite well. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I wanted to reply to the 'sentience'-discussion as well, but I guess this post is long enough already. Perhaps tomorrow.
Please do reply to the sentience discussion I don't want to see this drift to the netherworld in the back of the forum list... this is (to me) far more interesting than abortion, US culture, etc...
Sentiecne eh? I'm sentient. (2nd ever post, woohoo)
Seriously though, I've never really made up my mind about sentience. On the one hand, once you have a concious brain that makes choices then yes, deffinite sentience.
But then again, I do have a slightly different viewpoint.
What if, sentience is not so much a state, but a stage?
Example= Human embryo. Sentient? Nil point, it makes no decisions (early stage embryo here) it just sits and suckles.
From my way of thinking, you could look that same way about everything. Where most animals follow the whole process, non-sentient right through to sentient, at some point in their lives, maybe looking at micro organsims through to whales is like a time line, evolutionary left overs at one end, and the front runners at the other.
Just a thought.
Anselm
Crimson Castle
02-07-2004, 19:26
I don't want to sound like a wetrag and I am just as thrilled to see us discoverying new things in outer space, but.... doesn't anyone else find it a little sad that we spend so much money on space exploration but we know so little about our own planet Earth?
With all the talk about colonizing Mars - I mean what about certain regions of Earth?
Cheers,
CC
Hello Anselm. Welcome to the Org and to this discussion.
Your contribution made clear what you think, but not why you think it. If you see sentience as a stage, then what are the other stages? And what is the difference between sentience and not-sentience?
Myrano,
Quote[/b] ]Please do reply to the sentience discussion I don't want to see this drift to the netherworld in the back of the forum list... this is (to me) far more interesting than abortion, US culture, etc...
I wholeheartedly agree. I just looked up sentience in my 'New Oxford Dictionary of English'. [B]Sentient = able to perceive or feel things{/B]. Now, a rock cannot feel things, but a bacterium could. How do I know that? A bacterium can respond to a changing environment, a rock cannot. So the important part of sentience should be ability to respond.
But does a bacterium respond to the environment in a different way than a rock does (for example, a rock in the sun becomes warm)? All that happens in the bacterium is that a chemical cascade is initiated, which activates a response. More complex than what happens to a rock, but still essentially the same: a chemo-physical reaction. Is this the same as 'feeling / perceiving' as mentioned in the definition?
If you would ask me to define 'sentience', I would answer that sentience means awareness of your surroundings and being aware you can change these. Every animal feels things like hunger or pain and is aware that it can change these, but that is not your surroundings. Those feelings arise internally. Sentience would include the realization that the environment could be alter to supply your (future) desires, like food. We could move away to a place with more food. Or something more advanced: we can change this field into farmland.
However, that is my definition, which has been based on the idea that sentience is something only living organisms posses, and then only quite complex organisms. In other words, this definition does not prove that insects are not sentient, because one of the assumptions of this definition is that insects are not sentient. It is a circular argument, if it was applied that way.
I believe that the phase of the discussion we are now in is the comparing of definitions. The next phase, should we arrive at that, would be the challenging of the assumptions behind one another's definitions. Therefor, I have presented both my definition and the assumption behind it. I hope you will do the same.
Apologes for my somewhat indefinite post. To clarify then, my point was this: looking at life - all life- as it is presented to us now, there is almost a clear timeline of evolutionary stages.
Bacteria, to me, are not sentient. Ignoring the oxford dictionary, they do little that represents sentience. All they do is follow their genetcic programming, they don't make decisions which I think is a key part of sentience.
Then you can look at the human embryo in its early developemental stages. It does not have sentient characteristics. It does not percieve, it does not make choices. If it does not make its own choices then its choices are made for it, by instinct or genetic programming. But if this is so, how can it differ from the non-sentient characteristics of a rock? A rock reacts to its surroundings, but due to outside control again. It gets hot because the sun heats it. The principles of physics govern the rocks status just as the genetic instructions govern the growth of a baby. So are the inputs of genetics part of the same manipulative category as those of science? If so then the problem we are faced with is thus; we have the stages quite clearly arrayed in our evolutionary timeline, but the changes that happen are not physical. These are not changes that can be seen.
This means therefore that there must be some other level of activity in a body that changes from a autonomous state to a concious state. Seemingly now, the only possibility is that the change is a reaction in the chemicals of the brain or brain waves them selves. If this is so, then maybe we could find someway to measure what change is taken to effect when a baby developes sentience, when it changes from a multitude of cells to a single organism.
The problem is, if we keep looking into these causes, we end up trapped in an infinite regress; cause after cause after cause and so on, meaning there is no way for this switch from a non-sentient being to a sentient being to ever be a physical change.
If it is not a physical change then very few choices are left, and here is my assumption(s).
1. There is such a thing as a soul. If there was, it could be a likely explanation. An awakening of a subconsious part of the brain triggereing or inhancing the thought process to allow the state of 'choice' to become active. This in a way makes sense to me. Aside from all the ecto plasm theories and so on, a non-physical part of the brain beginning to operate at somestage inside the womb could well explain a sudden switch between the two states or
2. That when scientists (albeit optimistic ones) tell us that the large unused parts of our brains could be telepathy capable they are correct. Perhaps when the brain of a human, and other sentient organisms, reaches a certain size then this part of the brain is developed. If the telepathy theory is indeed true, then like any form of waves and so on in the universe, there will be a measure of background static and interferance. If this so, perhaps the 'noise' of this static awakes the brain and triggers the choosing and percieving areas also.
Out of the two I have no idea which I find to be more likely, as having written this mainly on a logical basis, they both still seem slightly far fetched.
Anyway, that is the more indepth version of what I was trying to get at.
Anselm
Or perhaps 'sentience' is nothing more then a subjective term used to describe a pattern who's reactions to the outside world have become too complex to track and predict.
Quote[/b] (Phatose @ Feb. 07 2004,14:58)]Or perhaps 'sentience' is nothing more then a subjective term used to describe a pattern who's reactions to the outside world have become too complex to track and predict.
An interesting point, but by that definition, the weather is sentient (assuming that you cannot fully predict it... and gosh darnit it was sunny and cold where I was today).
Anselm,
Quote[/b] ]1. There is such a thing as a soul. Your definition of soul,if I understand you right, seems to be that a certain region (subconscious) of the brain is the source of the soul. I could believe that, but it just seems to reduce it to a brain-size qualification for sentience. (Again, if I understand you.)
Your point #2 seems to me to be similar to point #1 except telepathy replaces the soul. (I think.)
Ludens,
Quote[/b] ]If you would ask me to define 'sentience', I would answer that sentience means awareness of your surroundings and being aware you can change these.
The issue that I would have with this is that that definition would make a dam-building beaver sentient, but a tree-swinging monkey (that doesn't necessarily act to change its' surroundings other than by moving from tree to tree) non-sentient.
My definition of sentience would have to be self-awareness. I guess this is rather basic and more than a little circular, but I think therefore I am seems to work for me.
I am aware that the above 3 definitions are both more specific than mine, yet somehow I feel that the specificity takes away from the definition.
Sorry, I shall now post to clarify my clarification.
In a lot of religious philosophy, especially greek, the soul is refered to not just as a part of a human but as a seperate entity in itself. They are described as immortal. When I was speaking of a soul 'waking up' the brain, I meant exactly that, another sentient being inside of your body/mind. In the philosophies of plato, many seemingly instictual drives are put down to the will of the soul. (Ill go through this for anyone who is not familiar with Plato's Theory of Forms, if you already know it, my brief account will not help you much so you may as well just skip to the next post.)
Platos theory looked at the idea of categorising and grouping objects. Example: How do I know a chair is a chair? It has four legs. So does a dog. How do I know a stool is a stool? It has four legs and a flat surface, but why is it not a table?
There are many types of horse, but even though some are very different from others, there is something naturally 'horsey' about them that just lets you know its a horse.
Plato said that in the world of ideals there are forms. Each form is the perfect verion of its own category. Example: The perfect horse. All horses on this earth are imperfect copies of the Form or Ideal horse, and this is where the soul comes into play.
The soul is immortal and is from the world of Ideals. When you are born the soul becomes trapped in your body and largely forgets its experiences in the world of ideals. When it is seeing the earth, it is seeing loose copies of the perfect ideal world it once inhabitted. This is how we learn, the soul remembers things it used to know. The soul realises, as it encounters more and more of these copies, that it is getting closer to the Ideal forms and that is what drives us to learn. We can say, that horse is a horse, and this other completely different horse is still a horse, because our soul remembers the Ideal form of a horse which links them together.
With this concious soul in mind, it seems reasonable therefore to assume it must have some impact on the brain when it arrives during birth/development.
Hope that makes it all more clear
Anselm
Ironside
02-08-2004, 14:03
Interesting responds here Luden
Citera[/b] ]This is a very original way of looking at it. It had not occurred to me to look at prions from an evolutionary point of view. It took me some time to realize that it was, unfortunately, wrong. However, it requires some knowledge of biochemistry to realize were it wrong.
The basic (and practically only, if one discounts cultural evolution) way of evolving is through genetically stored information: DNA or, in the case of some viruses, RNA. Today we think that life evolved around DNA/RNA. The reason for this is that DNA is self-replicating: when put into the presence of basic biochemical compounds, a DNA strand will form a complementary second strand from those basic compounds. This may sound rather wonderful to you, but anyone who knows the molecular structure of DNA can understands that this is actually very logical and far from a miracle. Of course, in practice (in the cells of our body) this never happens, because it is too slow and too little accurate.
However, a prion is protein: is a long chain of amino acids ordered in a specific sequence. The prion is self-replicating only if it is presented with another identical protein (one that isn't misfolded). Proteins are built, they do not self-assemble in a way that suits the prion. In other words, a prion can only replicate if there is something (a cell) that makes (correctly folded) proteins for the prion to misform.
You can not speak of evolution either since a prion has no genetic material. A prion is just as likely to evolve as a rock. Mutations play no part in it, since it doesn't have genetic material. The mutations should be in the the producing cells (our cells) and would work against the prion (cells who produce prions cause their own death).
I see it this way, prions is simply a protein that accidentally is very hard to destroy and accidentally have the function that it changes the correct protein to prions. Cancer is also a kind of genetical faillure, it's successful of spreading itself, but it kills its host and cannot spread as viruses. All three is some kind of destructively lifeforms.
Citera[/b] ]If one looks at it from a molecular point of view, one might say life is a program that has run amok.
I know, isn't that horrendous http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-lost.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
Citera[/b] ]I beg your pardon? A prion is a protein. A virus is a particle consisting of genetic material (DNA or RNA) and a protein envelop. Some viruses also have a membrane with even more protein in it.
A protein is a very complicated structure compared to a bunch of RNA. Do you know if prions is a complicated protein or a simple one? If it's a simple protein than you're probably right. But proteins can consist of thousands of amino-acids that is put in the right order.
Citera[/b] ]Correct. Prions have upset us scientists. You think the universe is neatly ordered, but No, some stupid little protein has to be different than we predicted. Honestly, couldn't this world be somewhat simpler?
Then you scientists would complain about how simple the world is, and then you would lose your jobs, for if you know everything what is then science for? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
Citera[/b] ]
And to get even worse about the definition of life, they have found a non-parasitic life-form that is smaller than they thought was possible.
I haven't heard of that one. Could you be somewhat more specific? Because it is hardly possible for it to be smaller than a prion.
They are called nanobs (I think, needed to translate) (the article was three years old, it took a while to find it) and they are bigger than prions and viruses. But they are a lot smaller than bacterias (size between 20 and 150 nanometers) and even smaller than one ribosome. And yet they are still alive and non-parasitic.
For Anselm
To puncture your theory, you can have brain damages that prevent you from recognizing different things. If you show them a picture of an Elephant then they will say that it's a cat. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif
But they are still sentient and still functions normally in every other way.
Sorry to puncture your puncture, but that sort of brain damage, in the Corpus Callosum, merely divides the langue parts of the brain from the regonition areas of the brain. The person will reallise that is an elephant, but the brain cannot tell the language part what it can see, so words are often incorrect.
Anselm
Anselm, from your post I gather that you see the soul as a non-physical entity which distinguishes sentient beings from non-sentient. Sentience is in your terms: able to make a choice.
The problem with declaring the soul non-physical is that it assumes the existence of two worlds: a physical one and a non-physical one (the world of ideas, according to Plato). This is a problem that has plagued metaphysicists ever since Plato: how can a non-physical entity influence the physical world?
Quote[/b] ]The problem is, if we keep looking into these causes, we end up trapped in an infinite regress; cause after cause after cause and so on, meaning there is no way for this switch from a non-sentient being to a sentient being to ever be a physical change.
I do not see the connection between these two problems. Yes, assuming the existence of an infinite chain of causes* has problems but this applies to anything, not just sentience. One might as well renounce the existence of the world, because there too we have to assume the existence of a infinite chain of causes.
*(For other readers: this is Parmenides problem, which states that there can be no 'first cause', because that first cause has to be caused by something else. So one ends up with an infinite chain of causes.)
Quote[/b] ]That when scientists (albeit optimistic ones) tell us that the large unused parts of our brains could be telepathy capable they are correct. Perhaps when the brain of a human, and other sentient organisms, reaches a certain size then this part of the brain is developed. If the telepathy theory is indeed true, then like any form of waves and so on in the universe, there will be a measure of background static and interferance. If this so, perhaps the 'noise' of this static awakes the brain and triggers the choosing and percieving areas also.
Telepathy? This has always been more in the realm of pseudo-sience than of real science. What you are referring to is the way humans are able to instinctively gauge what another person is feeling. But they do not know how they do this.
This is because the conscious part of the brain is not the only one collecting information from the outside. Unconscious to us, the expression, stance and tone of voice of the person we are talking to are analyzed by our brain, and our brain gives us hints how to react in the form of emotions. This has little to do with telepathy.
A large part of the brain is unused because if we would use our entire brain all the time: 1) we would be exhausted pretty soon (at normal exertion, the brain is responsible for 20% of the energy consumption in our body); 2) We would be in a continuous state alike to epilepsy, because all of our muscles, glands and organs would be stimulated by the brain.
Quote[/b] ]Ignoring the oxford dictionary, they do little that represents sentience.
In fact, the Oxford dictionary did not state that bacteria are sentient. That was just me interpreting the meaning of to feel or perceive. I gave alternative interpretations later on. I do not believe bacteria are sentient any more then you do.
Myrano,
Quote ]My definition of sentience would have to be self-awareness. I guess this is rather basic and more than a little circular, but I think therefore I am seems to work for me.
Perhaps you are right. We are filling in the definition by what we want to be sentient, not determining what is sentient by using the definition. Phatose might have meant the same. But I think sentience is self-awareness too. Of course, self-awareness does not come alone.
Ironside,
Quote[/b] ]I see it this way, prions is simply a protein that accidentally is very hard to destroy and accidentally have the function that it changes the correct protein to prions. Cancer is also a kind of genetical faillure, it's successful of spreading itself, but it kills its host and cannot spread as viruses. All three is some kind of destructively lifeforms.
I am unsure what you mean to prove with this. I maintain that it is incorrect to compare viruses and bacteria with prions, since both the former evolve and prions do not, for reasons explained in my last post.
Quote[/b] ]A protein is a very complicated structure compared to a bunch of RNA. Do you know if prions is a complicated protein or a simple one? If it's a simple protein than you're probably right. But proteins can consist of thousands of amino-acids that is put in the right order.
I think you are confusing viruses with transposons. Transposons are simple DNA/RNA strands (this is simplification). A virus could be described as a very sophisticated transposon: it has DNA/RNA plus proteins to ensure efficient delivery. These proteins are not very complex by necessity. But the virus structure is made of multiple elements which work in unison, whereas a prion is just a single protein, no matter how complex.
Quote[/b] ]Then you scientists would complain about how simple the world is, and then you would lose your jobs, for if you know everything what is then science for?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Quote[/b] ]They are called nanobs (I think, needed to translate) (the article was three years old, it took a while to find it) and they are bigger than prions and viruses. But they are a lot smaller than bacterias (size between 20 and 150 nanometers) and even smaller than one ribosome. And yet they are still alive and non-parasitic.
I haven't heard of this one. You could very well be right but I will retain my skepticism until I see some scientific publications on it. It might just be a biological Tachyon.
Mysterium
02-09-2004, 19:29
Harumph I've been away too long, and there's more than one bite here. Lessee.
Ludens, I think we've come to an understanding as to my meaning when I spoke about the spiritual Planck space. And I agree that any discussion of the soul becomes a rather metaphysical concept, and anything with metaphysics becomes a discussion of defenitions, and then we'll be here until Judgement Day . . . (ed: I apologize. That was a horrible pun).
Oh, and the book is Carl Sagan's (and someone else's) Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. It traces why humans are the way they are all the way back to the physical laws that caused our solar system to be created in the way it was. Also of interest if you're into this post would be Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs. One of the most interesting and well-run specifics case studies of evolution I've seen. Very informative.
Now, alas, it appears that all this regression to the infinite has caused me to mis-represent myself. I don't actually think prions are sentient. In fact, I think humans are the only sentient thing on the planet. That is, of course, not going by the dictionary able to perceive definition, but something more along the line of Phatose's
Quote[/b] ]Or perhaps 'sentience' is nothing more then a subjective term used to describe a pattern who's reactions to the outside world have become too complex to track and predict.
I don't think it's arguable that dogs think and feel. They feel pain, and bark accordingly. And can express that. A coyote stuck in a trap makes a sound that puts any creature on edge for miles: my friend runs a horse ranch, and a night of that spooked the horses so much that she called off the lessons for the next day. But I don't think any of the creatues involved there is 'sentient'.
I think that being a social creature, while not a necessary condition of sentience, is perhaps a necessary step to becoming sentient. It's widely believed (Widely, in Thesis-speak, means: there's evidence, but I'm too lazy to go find it) that the expansion in brain size that occured in the ancestors of modern primates came about because of the social interactions in those primate groups. In a herd/flock, one is simply part of the herd, and a mob mentality is all that's needed. But in a social group, a clan of the type primates have, rank and heirarchy is important. One has to know whom one can hit on without getting yourself pummelled by the alpha male. Those primates who didn't know they were dorks got taught so pretty damn quick.
Dolphins have social groups, dogs have social groups, whales have social groups, but none of these have quite the same finely-honed heirarchies/geneaologies that primate groups do. So the need to track these things spurred some changes in brain chemistry (again, widely believed, I swear).
But then, in humans, the final thing that pushed us over the precipice into sentience was the ability to manipulate our environment to a high degree. Experimentation, tool-building, all of these things required and fostered a greater/more complex brain.
SO I think that humans are the only sentient things on the planet. If dolphins develop opposable flippers, well, then, we're doomed, and you and I both know it.
Oh, and Crimson Castle - absoLUTEly. I think that a well-funded, well-researched, and well-built colony/research station on the sea floor is a) well within our reach and grasp, certainly moreso than mars, and b) would do more for science and more for the space program than attemptin to get to Mars before we're ready to and before the public really wants to.
Edit: me type good.
So Mysterium, your definition of sentience would include a complex social structure and the ability to manipulate the environment? Or are they just the causes (or effects) of sentience?
Did a social structure stimulate brain growth, or vice versa? Did tool-building require a large brain or give it? Or is it more of a positive feedback loop, that is, a brain allowed tool-building, which enhanced the brain, which allowed more complex tool-building, which further enhanced the brain...
That seems logical to me, but I would phrase it thus: A larger brain (as brought about by social structure and tool-building) allowed humans to develop a sense of self-awareness, thereby becoming sentient. That is, I would believe that the tool-building and social structure helped us on our road to sentience, but are not in the definition of sentience.
Mysterium
02-10-2004, 18:53
Absolutely, Myrano, I think feedback loop is the best thing to describe it. Evolution, after all, relies on pressures to drive selection, and the requirements imposed on the brain by complex society and the need to make tools were the bottlenecks which weeded out the less intellectually lofty of out race. I'm still waiting for the next one, by the way . . . http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
So, complex societies and manipulating the environment helped to bring about brains CAPABLE of sentience, then.
Mysterium, it sounds to me that your really talking more about morality and reason than actual sentience.
I am presuming in your statements about dogs that you do not own one, because as an owner, my dog shows evidence of being both able to think and to feel.
Dogs are naturally playful animals. They run around playing with balls and so on and so forth. How can anyting be playful without sentience? Think of indesputably non sentient things eg, computers. They do not play. They function. They have programming, task and operation. They have no choice or self motivation.
Also dogs deffinetly feel. My dog is sad when me and my family are not at home. He shows affection when we are with him and has a humorous devotion that far out strips that witch most people have to each other. Recent research has suggested (fairly convincingly) that the rasping and panting sounds dogs make whilst playing are in fact a form of laughter or expression of joy and enthusiasm.
Some times my dog does things that are so human it scares me. You probably all know the feeling you get when someone is staring at you eating. You can't help but keep checking to see wether they still stare at you, and always end up repeating What? many, many times and grinning with embarressment.
If my dog has his ball and drops it at his feet, and I stare at him, he looks at me from beneath his brow. He knows I'm watching. He starts to wag his tail (dogs expression of happiness). When I persist with my staring, he barks at me and tilts his head. A head tilt is often deciphered in dogs as a questionning look.
Perhaps the thought paterns aren't as complex as mine, but his reaction is the same as mine (though I tend to bark less often) so what makes me and him so different?
And secondly, you mention tool using and so on as a degree of sentience.
A scientist named Jane Goodall who has being studying chimps in the Gombe National park has found some rather, interesting but disturbing information.
Clothing: The chimpanzees put twigs on their feet to proctect the soles form thorns on the floor.
Man made Political Propoganda: In chimp social groups, leadership or importance is often shown by noise, one chimp nick named mike, used two empty oil cans to bang together to seem more important than he really was.
Psychology: Fagan was the leader of a group of chimps, when he went missing, his brother Finnigan imitated him, and the group thought he was fagan, and finningan was in charge.
Medicine: Some chimps swallow Aspillia leaves, a plant proven to ease stomach pains and to kill intestinal parasites.
Just a few examples of how they are creative.
My definition of sentience is a creature that can think, learn by itself and have emotions. That is sentient.
Anselm
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Feb. 09 2004,12:29)]Dolphins have social groups, dogs have social groups, whales have social groups, but none of these have quite the same finely-honed heirarchies/geneaologies that primate groups do. So the need to track these things spurred some changes in brain chemistry (again, widely believed, I swear).
I disagree. Cetaceans have quite developed social structures, and more interestingly, variable ones. For example, there are two orca modes, the locals (which migrate around a relatively fixed shore-based course) and the transients (which migrate apparently across the open ocean - I say apparently because we don't actually know).
More interestingly, transients and locals show linguistic differences. Its already the case that any given pod of orcas will have a dialect that nuances the way they vocalise, and newcomers to or babies adopted by the pod will pick up this dialect. But, local groups show much more variety in their sounds AND in their dialects than transient groups do.
Orcas can and do work cooperatively, can and do communicate, can and do work in teams and carry out a plan of action. The photographer with the Scott expedition, while filming seals, was tipped into the water by a pod of orcas all 8 of whom popped up in a line to take a look at him. Two orcas in seaworld are recorded as having taken turns holding a gate between two pools open so the other partner could speed through the interconnecting tunnel from pool to pool. Orcas hafe also been known to be fascinated by bicycles, levers, and other mechanical objects.
We know that bottlenose dolphins understand grammar - that is, they recognise ball take board as different than board take ball, and can hold mental images in their heads: shown an object out of the water, they could still identify which box it must be in under the water by, presumably, matching echo-location returns from the object to what it looked like visually.
I will agree that to say they are sentient is at this time unporven. But I don't see sentience as something requiring a soul or spiorit, I see it instead as a spectrum,. and orcas are at least very high on that spectrum, and arguably at about the same level as us. I acknowldge that cetacean brain structures do not follow the pattern for other mammals, but orcas returned to the water prior to much of those developments if I understand correctly and, as pretty much the only ocean-going mammals, they have had a unique set of circumstances to adapt to.
We also know very little about the life or orcas in the wild - we do not, for example, even know how many are on the planet or where most of them are. Needless to say, this makes research hard, and we are more or less still at the tagging and counting stage. Watch this space.
[footnote: cetaceans are also, intriguingly, quite sexually ineterested in humans. Its likely the interest does not map exactly, becuase cetaceans have lots of casual sex and its more likely a friendly gesture. But to identify US as potential partners and attempt to do so makes me wonder how much the cetaceans understand about us.]
Mysterium
02-11-2004, 19:09
Squippy,
To begin with, and I apologize in advance because this is just too fun to pass up, but I don't think sexual interest in anything can be cited as evidence for intelligence. Dogs hump legs all the time, and frogs mount green bottles quite vigorously. Sexual interest really only shows that an animal doesn't think I'm gonna eat it. Being really freakin' horny/randy was one of the first things selected for in sexual evolution. But that excuse doesn't work on your girlfriend, so don't try it . . .
I also view sentience as something like a spectrum, but with something at the top, namely us, that is 'sentient'. I'll fall back on Phatose here, I liked his def. that sentience was simply unpredictable complexity. And after looking up the dictionary definition (feel and perceive) and following the 'perceive' line of thought, that defenition included 'reasoning' in it. So I think that higher mental powers are inherent in anything dubbed 'sentient'. Which is why I only put humans there.
Don't get me wrong, cetaecans are intruiging. Squippy, you should read Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs that I mentioned earlier, you'd devour it, I think. Watching orca's hunt in packs and bring down a grey whale, or surf a wave onto the beach to get seals is, in its own right, terrifying. And I think the linguistic possibilities of echolocation are also amazing. Ie, when one dolphin 'pings' the water, do the other dolphins take the source of the ping, listen to the echos, and then triangulate positions from there? The mental capacity required for that kind of undertaking isn't to be underestimated, and the fact that dolphins can correctly identify a shape visually when they've been shown it sonically also speaks to a more universal, less compartmentalized view of their intellect. Cetaecans are nifty.
BUT, and here I'll fall back on a line of reasoning I was developing that maybe only Myrano and me were following, but if I'm positing that social structure and environmental manipulation are precursors to sentience, then I'll also say that language is a distinct POSTcursor. I know, this gets very sticky when talking about things with no vocal cords, and there's all sorts of ambiguity in the cetacean analogies. But complex grammatical constructs capable of expressing non-conrete nouns (hope, faith, charity) is definite sentience. As in, I don't think anything with a language can be called NOT sentient.
Oh, and Anselm. Reason, perhaps. Morality, no. But reason is actually part of the definition of sentience, if you follow the line for a bit. Some of what I said above is applicable to a rebuttal of your post, but to speak more directly to it:
A dog CAN be playful without being sentient, through the natural mechanisms of evolution. First, we've had dogs as pets for a while now, so in some ways, our artificial selection has reinforced traits in dogs that express themselves in ways that are easy enough to read. As in, the dog that bit people when he was happy didn't hang around very long. But being playful, things like catching a frisbee or chasing a ball, are activities which at least mimic what a dog would do in the wild when chasing down prey, right? Dogs are naturally hard-wired to have a good time when they're doing things good for their survival (okay, everyone's wired like that, see sex paragraph above) and chasing down balls is a similar, though not identical, stimulus. How much of their emotion is learned, how much is hardwired, is the question?
So, am I just a victim of my hard-wired genome? Perhaps. Maybe I'm only sentient because I can convince myself I have free will. Oh, now I'm depressed . . . http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
What about Asmiov's view on conciousness (see the last two Foundation novels...).
Mysterium
02-11-2004, 20:09
BDC
Synopsize, and I'm sure it'll come in handy. I have great respect for that man's ideas, if not his writing.
Asimov side-note: I was in a movie theater and some preview came on, sorta billing itself as a commercial. Don't even know the movie, but it involved robots, and as it was fading out, the words Three Rules Compliant came up on the screen. I laughed at the witticism of it, and suddenly found myslef very alone . . .
Michael the Great
02-11-2004, 20:25
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Jan. 29 2004,05:46)]Saying we shouldn't harm them does not make sense either, since they are equally not aware of it. They just experience 'damage' and give a stress-response to it, in the same way a computer would do.
Talking about rights, about respect for their lives, assumes these creatures have a, for want of better word, soul. And I don't think they have one. But that is just my opinion.
Oh,you...you...... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif
GAH
Here's what I think (again):
One cannot define sentience or intelligence by actions; dogs want to play and exhibit human characteristics, dolphins want to mate (a *very* human characteristic), etc. but that does not define either of them as intelligent or sentient.
Intelligence/sentience requires a large brain, but I also don't think a large brain/body ratio or whatever defines it.
What is my definition, then? Self-awareness. Granted, you cannot determine whether something is self-aware without talking to it (or maybe even at all), but I still hold that it is the best definition. Language, I believe, evolved after intelligence, not as a way for communication, but as a way for organizing thought (abstract concepts--one of which is self-awareness).
I'm reposting my idea because I disagree with all the discussion that dolphins and dogs etc. are sentient: I don't think that actions should be part of the definition, for mimicry is not sentience.
Man this mars stuff is a quandry for me. I can't decide if it's worth it or not. On one hand I find myself visiting the Rover web page a lot and downloading images, facinated by the thought of our little carts bobbling around on a foriegn planet....but on the other there are lots of starving people on Earth that 800 million dollars would feed....and you can't eat the photos sent to earth (at least I wouldn't reccomend it) Tough call for me because I think it's an AMAZING endeavor, but not necessarily one that is noble in my mind. I'd rather we spent the time money and effort cleaning up around here, maybe funding our schools. We landed a man on the moon in 1969 and what's it gotten us? Velcro?
You've probably all heard this.
Nasa realizes when they sent the first person into space that conventional pens would not write in zero gravity. So they spent over a decade and $12 billion inventing a pen that writes upsidedown, underwater, on glass/plastic as well as paper and at temperatures below 300 degrees C.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The russians used a pencil.
Enjoy tax season folks.
A
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif
I am afraid that this discussion is going round in circles. This is partially my fault because I insisted on defining sentience. We are trying to prove our definition of sentience but that is impossible. A definition is something you give, you cannot prove it. We might as well be discussing the color orange.
Despite all the interesting facts about supposedly intelligent creatures, we are, IMHO, not getting anywhere. Am I alone in thinking this?
Quote[/b] ]Oh,you...you......
GAH
Could you please be somewhat more specific?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Mysterium
02-13-2004, 19:16
Oh, don't take all the credit now, Ludens. I have been arguing either one extreme or the other, without really expressing myself. Oh, and as to the color orange, I think it's more red than yellow. Take that.
I think we've all reached a point where we don't mind trouncing on a few bacteria if we end up on Mars. If, however, we turn up a colony of space-faring land dolphins, we may have to resume our discussions . . .
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif
I think the problem with the discussion is that it is not unified... we started with Mars, and moved on to sentience and dolphins without ever really defining what we were talking about. Everyone is concerned with trying to prove one thing (sentience of dolphins, origins of sentience, life on Mars) that we cannot come to an agreement about what to talk about. I propose a new thread in the Tavern or Entrance Hall titled, What is sentience? and the tagline is You *must* give a definition
After that, we can talk about dolphins.
Ironside
02-16-2004, 08:39
Citera[/b] (Mysterium @ Feb. 13 2004,12:16)]Oh, don't take all the credit now, Ludens. I have been arguing either one extreme or the other, without really expressing myself. Oh, and as to the color orange, I think it's more red than yellow. Take that.
And how does the colour red look like http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif? Describe it for a blind person. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
It's uuuhhh RED http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif
Or orange and yellow for that matter.
Take that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif
Quote[/b] (Myrano @ Feb. 16 2004,03:07)]I propose a new thread in the Tavern or Entrance Hall titled, What is sentience? and the tagline is You *must* give a definition
Myrano
I like the initiative, but it suffers from another problem: you cannot prove a definition. A definition is (by definition) unprovable. It is like the rules of chess: you cannot argue about it. If we do not work with the same definitions, we cannot have a discussion (see Mysterium's orange-example).
I think I can summarize this discussion by stating that way agree on the fact that we are allowed to kill bacteria, but sentient life forms deserve special treatment. But our ideas about sentience are so diverging that it could include anything from homo sapiens (modern man) to drosophila melangoaster (fruit fly). Even if we accept the Oxford dictionaries definition (sentient = able to perceive or feel things), we could still be arguing about the meaning of feeling and perceiving. But agree with you that the discussion seems to diverge to much to details about dolphins. Perhaps this is because there are many participants which each his own approach to the problem.
Of course you can't prove a definition, but you can discuss it. That's the point, is it not? And the definition of sentience would tell us just who is sentient, right?
Quote[/b] (Myrano @ Feb. 16 2004,18:35)]Of course you can't prove a definition, but you can discuss it. That's the point, is it not? And the definition of sentience would tell us just who is sentient, right?
Perhaps you can discuss a definition in general, but discussing this particular definition will prove difficult because people (including myself) tend not to work in the way you described. Rather, they work the other way round.
Coming back on my first statement: a definition can be compared to a game rule, like a rule in Monopoly. You cannot play without rules. And everybody can have his own rules and insist on those. In the case of Monopoly, you might argue that your particular set of rules makes the game more fun, more challenging, etcetera, but in our discussing this is not possible. So discussing a definition is, according to this analogy, not possible.
I guess I had a different idea for what this discussion was about. I thought it was about discussing what sentience consists of (hence discussing the definition of sentience) whereas others would prefer to discuss whether something qualifies for sentience (dolhpins, Martians, etc), in which case a definition is necessary.
Personally, I believe that discussing the definition would be far more fascinating, for once we agere on a definition it is a piece of cake (relatively) to decide whether or not something is sentient.
Mysterium
02-18-2004, 00:29
But if we're going to define sentience, don't we have to be discussing whether or not different animals are sentient? Like you said Ludens, even if we accept the OED definition, we can then break down that definition and discuss that. Since we all seem to feel that sentience is relative, we have to define sentience in relation to other things.
I also think that the color orange is sentient.
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Feb. 13 2004,12:16)]I think we've all reached a point where we don't mind trouncing on a few bacteria if we end up on Mars. If, however, we turn up a colony of space-faring land dolphins, we may have to resume our discussions . . .
I've got a better idea - lets take the dolphins to space with us. What we have here is an animal thats adapated to an emission-echo detection system, is adapted to a 3D environment which constantly moves. IOW, they have evoilved brains that solve all the problems inherent in a space environment composed of orbiting bodies; I want cetaceans to be pilots.
I think sentience as a discreet phenomenon is a red herring. We have organissms of varying complexity that have varying degrees of comprehension of their circumstances. I don't think that our particular degree quakifies for any special label. It think that all/most mammals have an internal experience that is very much like ours, like say, 98% like ours. It seems to me that differences between our perception and that of the cetaceans are probably more limited by the assumptions implicit in the medium in which we evolved than any observable qualitative difference in our mental processes.
So from my perspective, it is precisely because humans and chimps (or bonobos) are very likely very close to us psychologically that I expect it to be quite common. We have a tendency to think sentinece is some rare pinnacle, but it may well be that its much more common than we think because we keep looking for our own reflection.
I saw an experiment with an orangutan a little while ago on a prog discussing this very issue; they spoofed the orangs little word-to-symbol board to give it a Wrong answer feedback when in fact the answer was correct. The orang displayed a shame response, it kinda went oof and covered its eyes with its hands. If you saw a human do that, you'd think nothing of it.
Theres also a photo of a bonobo chimp walking out of the jungle, upright, with a thick stick in its left hand,. looking for a leopard. Again, unremarkable in a person.
I think we've spent too much time with a view of sentience that has to do with controlling the external environment. But the cetaceans provide the counter-argument; if you had an environment in which basic technology like fire was essentially impossible, the absence of technology would NOT imply the absence of sentience.
I think it is quite plausible that the dolphins are sentient; and if thats true, then they have BEEN sentient for 55 million years. Which is a bit of a mindfuck; it would mean that there are TWO sentient species living on the planet for many millions of years. And while only a speculation, it would radically change how we pose the question. We have a tendency to think of evolution as progressing inexorably toward intellect, but is it not also possible that some of the big critters in prior geological periods had big enough brains to be sentient? We keep looking for technology, partly becuase of lack of other evidence, but it is quite possible the sentience evolves freequently... and that in our case, the big difference is that it evolved in a primary tool user. And it is that synthesis which makes us us powerful as we are, not sentience alone. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And yes, I think computers will soon be sentient, and that our little mars robots are essentially us reinventing beetles.
Mysterium
02-20-2004, 00:31
Quote[/b] (squippy @ Feb. 18 2004,04:06)]So from my perspective, it is precisely because humans and chimps (or bonobos) are very likely very close to us psychologically that I expect it to be quite common. We have a tendency to think sentinece is some rare pinnacle, but it may well be that its much more common than we think because we keep looking for our own reflection.
I think it's most certainly true that we are confined to the view of sentience that our medium gives us. As an example, if we were to assume that binobos and dolphins were equally sentient (whatever the hell that means) we would recognize it much more readily in binobos than dolphins, because the environment of the dolphin shapes the brain of the dolphin in a way radically different to our way of thinking.
Quote[/b] ]I think we've spent too much time with a view of sentience that has to do with controlling the external environment. But the cetaceans provide the counter-argument; if you had an environment in which basic technology like fire was essentially impossible, the absence of technology would NOT imply the absence of sentience.
BUT, I still maintain that the ability to control the external environment is such a boon to intellect that it almost HAS to be viewed as a waypoint on the way to sentience. The intelligence necessary to manipulate the environment, and then the evolution of intelligence that comes from that, and the whole feedback loop there, is a major factor in evolving sentience. I think. I guess I'm stating that the use of tools provided a 'stress' on the brain, forcing it to push the envelope. So I'll wager that non-tool-using, non-opposable-thumb-having things can become sentient too, however, they need an equal 'stress' to force their brains to that next order of magnitude.
That being said, I think that echolocation and the ability to distinguish an item viewed visually and again by sonar might just be that sort of 'stress'. But since we can't even accurately measure brain function/level/skill in humans, the question with sentience ultimately remains Who knows?
Oh, and the dolphin-pilot idea is cool I like that Dolphin starship pilots. Because they do already think in community/fleet structures and in 3-d physical space. Now, we need sentient computers that are powerful enough to translate cetacean intelligence into something we can understand, and then it'll be Seaquest meets The Matrix
Quote[/b] (squippy @ Feb. 18 2004,13:06)]We have a tendency to think sentinece is some rare pinnacle, but it may well be that its much more common than we think because we keep looking for our own reflection.
I agree with both statements: sentience does not necesarily have to be the pinnacle of evolution, and we might overlook other forms of sentience because they are unlike ours.
Of course, the latter statement implies that the term sentience has more meanings.
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Feb. 20 2004,00:31)]I think that echolocation and the ability to distinguish an item viewed visually and again by sonar might just be that sort of 'stress'.
I do not agree. There are several methods of spatial localization (visual, audial, echo, EM), which are used by 'higher' and 'lower' organisms. Spatial localization by whatever means does not require intelligence.
I think that everyone agrees that intelligence is required for sentience.
I don't see how intelligence isn't required for sentience. If it's not, then there are two completely different ideas of sentience floating around. Perhaps it would be easier for us to discuss what is intelligence, and, having narrowed our field, move on to which of those creatures is sentient.
I guess we lost this one, guys.
Mysterium
02-25-2004, 21:17
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Feb. 21 2004,10:40)]
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Feb. 20 2004,00:31)]I think that echolocation and the ability to distinguish an item viewed visually and again by sonar might just be that sort of 'stress'.
I do not agree. There are several methods of spatial localization (visual, audial, echo, EM), which are used by 'higher' and 'lower' organisms. Spatial localization by whatever means does not require intelligence.
I think that everyone agrees that intelligence is required for sentience.
Ah I lost it anyway. And right after such an opportunity as well.
But it's not just spatial localization that I'm speaking too, in this case. Certainly, the echolocation used by bats is, in essence, the same as that used by dolphins, and I'm not saying that bats are particularly intelligent. At least, not until they turn into their evil, vampiric, blood-sucking, humanoid forms.
However (and I don't think this was expressed) in the case of dolphins, an individual can 'look' at an item (in studies, a very complex twisted PVC pipe assembly was used) that is behind a screen, using sonar. Then, when presented visually with three pipe assemblies, can correctly identify the one that was behind the screen. I think that the kind of mental agility implied by that, and the duality of perception, etc., is the sort of 'stress' I was referring to. Eyes are drifting toward vestigial on bats, but dolphins still use theirs, and being able to draw connections between different forms of perception both necessitates and facilitates higher brain function.
Were we deciding to head in another direction with this, or still wankin' around with sentience?
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Feb. 25 2004,12:17)]Were we deciding to head in another direction with this, or still wankin' around with sentience?
Whatever you want, man.
As far as echolocation goes, the ability to identify pipes hardly strikes me as proof of sentience. I don't think that one specific ability is proof.
Is there a difference between intelligence and sentience?
Mysterium
02-27-2004, 20:39
It's not just the ID'ing pipes, really. It's the fact that they can use two different senses and then compare the results of both. It'd be like me feeling three different wire constructs with my fingers and then opening my eyes, and picking out the correct one by sight. There's some intellectual complexity behind the ability to form a 3-d image from one sense, and imagine what it would look like with another sense.
But for our definitions to even matter, there has to be a difference between intelligence and sentience. I guess I place sentience as some fuzzily-delineated, next-order-of-magnitude of intelligence. They're not two differenct spectra.
Do you think that potential has to be somewhere in the definition? Like, is a human baby sentient, or will it be sentient? Or should we just leave it with species-wide definitions. Individuals can open a big can o' worms.
Quote[/b] (Myrano @ Feb. 27 2004,20:20)]Is there a difference between intelligence and sentience?
Sure. A lizard has some intelligence, but the way this discussion is going, it is not sentient. Perhaps sentience is the same as 'higher' intelligence.
(Then what is higher intelligence? Oh dear, here we go again...)
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Feb. 27 2004,20:39)]It's the fact that they can use two different senses and then compare the results of both. It'd be like me feeling three different wire constructs with my fingers and then opening my eyes, and picking out the correct one by sight. There's some intellectual complexity behind the ability to form a 3-d image from one sense, and imagine what it would look like with another sense.
Has this test been repeated with other animals? I remember a story about how dolphins (yes, dolphins again) could be trained to perform a new trick every time without their instructors giving them orders (other than 'do something'). This was held to be proof of their creativity, and hence intelligence. However, the same researcher successfully repeated the experiment with another species. Pigeons.
You can compare information from two different senses almost unconsciously. I don't think this requires special intelligence. To be sure of that, we should do a test with a 'simpler' organism (bird, reptile, or perhaps a simple mammal) to see if it works for them. If it does, then your position is false. If it doesn't, I think I can still argue my way out of it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif .
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Feb. 25 2004,21:17)]Were we deciding to head in another direction with this, or still wankin' around with sentience?
Sentience for me, or else this discussion is just arguing about who is right.
I'd like your opinion about the identification of sentience with 'higher intelligence'.
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 29 2004,07:57)]Besides, every animal on Earth feels pain. It is proven that even plants feel something when threatened.
And I suppose you live off a diet off of purified, filtered, and distilled water?
Mysterium
02-27-2004, 22:50
Excellent, Ludens, good to see you. Ha-hmm, as Hornblower would say . . .
Quote[/b] ]Sure. A lizard has some intelligence, but the way this discussion is going, it is not sentient. Perhaps sentience is the same as 'higher' intelligence.
I think you're getting at the same thing I was poking at when I said that sentience is intelligence, but an order of magnitude greater. The line is fuzzy, but I believe they're on one spectrum. I think we've all got that in agreement.
As to the dolphin/dual sense thing, I'll admit that we end up in something of a dead end, there. The way I see it, in order to perform that test, something must have a) overlapping senses, and b) enough intelligence (and malleability) that they can be trained. Number 1 is because it is pointless to say I want you to taste these three objects, and then tell me what they look like because the senses are too disparate for a comparison to be made. Number 2 is because it would be tough to talk a dog into using it's paws to identify something. So it is by virtue of a dolphin's echolocation/visual overlap that the test can be performed. Primates might also be able to be tested this way (touch/sight, not echolocation/sight), but that gets us nowhere, because we've relegated primates to that same smart animal category already.
However, I would like someone to elaborate on the theme You can compare information from two different senses almost unconsciously. I'm not sure if that's true. Information from two different senses can both be included in a final assessment of something, but I'm not sure if that's what I've been driving at. So, expound, if you would.
Quote[/b] ]Sentience for me, or else this discussion is just arguing about who is right.
But the second option is just so much more FUN And typical
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Feb. 27 2004,22:50)]However, I would like someone to elaborate on the theme You can compare information from two different senses almost unconsciously. I'm not sure if that's true. Information from two different senses can both be included in a final assessment of something, but I'm not sure if that's what I've been driving at. So, expound, if you would.
I am sorry. I really shouldn't discuss things when it is late, but during the last week I had little time to visit the Org, so I was eager to rejoin the discussion. What I meant was that information from 'overlapping senses' is processed in the same way.
For example if you hold an object in your hands, your mind will form a picture of how it looks. When you see it, you will recognize it with the picture you formed in your mind. I believe this 'picture forming' happens unconsciously. It is 'wired' in our brain. You could say our brain is hard-coded to do that and therefor it does not require much intelligence.
Of course the way you see something depends on the surface properties of said object, while feeling also depends on bulk properties, so my example is not perfect.
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Sentience for me, or else this discussion is just arguing about who is right.
But the second option is just so much more FUN
Fun? How do you want to achieve something when you are arguing to no point at all? If find that just as fun as hitting my head against a wall.
Well, slightly more fun.
Mysterium
03-01-2004, 18:56
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Feb. 28 2004,01:47)]For example if you hold an object in your hands, your mind will form a picture of how it looks. When you see it, you will recognize it with the picture you formed in your mind. I believe this 'picture forming' happens unconsciously. It is 'wired' in our brain. You could say our brain is hard-coded to do that and therefor it does not require much intelligence.
See, I'm not sure if that's true. Certainly it is true for humans, and we can identify with that process from our own experience. But who's to say how rats experience different senses? I think it's possible that the depth perception given to us by our eye placement gives us a more 3-D view of the world than other organisms have. And if that's true, then I wouldn't expect other organisms to develop an intellectual capacity to deal with three dimensions. Hawks/gophers, maybe, because they deal in ups and downs, but why would a hedgehog or a deer need to understand how to deal with a Z coordinate, beyond the X,Y of their daily lives.
But I think that here we arrive at an impasse, here, because the assertion can't really be tested for other animals, because of the reasons above. Although it would be interesting if we tried to figure out a method to test for this in animals that can't be trained to the extent dolphins or primates can.
As you can see, I'm a big believer in the feedback loop of intelligence. More sensory input means more processing power is necessary to deal with it. More processing power means a better discernment of the sensory input, etc, etc, until . . . something. The ability to make a cheese sandwich, maybe.
Mysterium
03-02-2004, 23:56
In keeping with the original spirit of the thread, I thought I'd mention that scientists on the Opportunity rover project have found nearly conclusive evidence of water on Mars.
Knight_Yellow
03-03-2004, 00:12
Sentience:
Being aware of the world around oneself. being able to understand how things work.
Man seeks answers.
animals need only know that something happens, but not WHY or HOW it happens.
Russian Threat
03-03-2004, 04:17
Mars? Hmmm...I thought the Cardassians annexed it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Mysterium
03-05-2004, 00:21
I think this site might be helpful. They're certainly on the forefront of the search to define sentience. Truly, the cutting edge of modern science.
Turing Test (http://www.twinkiesproject.com/turing.html)
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Mar. 01 2004,18:56)]See, I'm not sure if that's true. Certainly it is true for humans, and we can identify with that process from our own experience. But who's to say how rats experience different senses? I think it's possible that the depth perception given to us by our eye placement gives us a more 3-D view of the world than other organisms have. And if that's true, then I wouldn't expect other organisms to develop an intellectual capacity to deal with three dimensions. Hawks/gophers, maybe, because they deal in ups and downs, but why would a hedgehog or a deer need to understand how to deal with a Z coordinate, beyond the X,Y of their daily lives.
Other organisms don't develop intellectual capacity to deal with 3 dimensions? That is unfortunate not true. Have you ever seen a chameleon? It catches flies out of the air with its tongue in a split second. This requires serious three dimension positional calculations.
A more general example is that a herbivore needs to localize a predator quickly. Since a lot of predators approach their victims from behind or from the side, sound is just as important for survival as sight. The input of both these senses needs to be combined in a 3D picture to find out where the predator is and where you need to flee.
But I think this discussion about 3D is rather irrelevant. What I meant to say is that the brain is 'hard-coded' to compare information from different senses, and that the ability to recognize the input from one sense as origination from the same source as the input from another sense is not something exclusively for higher animals. In other words: it does not imply sentience.
Quote[/b] ]As you can see, I'm a big believer in the feedback loop of intelligence. More sensory input means more processing power is necessary to deal with it. More processing power means a better discernment of the sensory input, etc, etc, until... something. The ability to make a cheese sandwich, maybe.
True, but remember that evolution is a negative feedback loop: things will stay changing until there is no need for them to change any more.
Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Mar. 03 2004,00:12)]Sentience:
Being aware of the world around oneself. being able to understand how things work.
Man seeks answers.
animals need only know that something happens, but not WHY or HOW it happens.
Animals, or at least 'higher' animals, are just as inquisitive as humans. That would make them sentient too. The only difference is that humans are better at understanding things.
A fresh angle on the subject:
Sentience is capability for abstract thought.
(Most) Humans are able to think abstractly.
Dolphins?
Mysterium
03-13-2004, 01:16
Hmm, I'm not sure about the statement re: evolution. As opposed to things changing until there's no need for them to change anymore, wouldn't it be more apt to say that things change, and then an environmental pressure picks which of those changes is best adapted? Gould's punctuated equilibrium comes about because rapidly changing environments winnow out the genetic drift of a population, no?
W/ regards to the abstract thought, here's a ponderable. How much is intelligence based on context? As in, how much is my intelligence dependent upon my being human? Suppose I were to wake up as a bat; would I be a supremely stupid bat because I didn't have the hard-wiring to understand my own senses, or is my 'intelligence' the ability to understand those things? Totally hypothetical, obviously, and not very scientifically verifiable, but I'd like your thoughts.
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Mar. 13 2004,01:16)]Hmm, I'm not sure about the statement re: evolution. As opposed to things changing until there's no need for them to change anymore, wouldn't it be more apt to say that things change, and then an environmental pressure picks which of those changes is best adapted? Gould's punctuated equilibrium comes about because rapidly changing environments winnow out the genetic drift of a population, no?
True. But if there is no selective pressure, evolution will drift away to all sides in stead off a focus effort to 'more intelligence' as you proposed. If there is no need for more intelligence, why would the species become more clever, since stupid individuals have just as much chance to survive as intelligent ones?
Quote[/b] ]W/ regards to the abstract thought, here's a ponderable. How much is intelligence based on context? As in, how much is my intelligence dependent upon my being human? Suppose I were to wake up as a bat; would I be a supremely stupid bat because I didn't have the hard-wiring to understand my own senses, or is my 'intelligence' the ability to understand those things? Totally hypothetical, obviously, and not very scientifically verifiable, but I'd like your thoughts.
That depends on how much the brain relies on 'pre-wiring'. If a bat brain is pre-wired to act as a bat you are in trouble, since your brain isn't.
But current neurology sees the brain as incredibly flexible. That means that after a few attempt you might be able to figure out how the bat works. You might even be able to figure out how to use echo-location. If you haven't been killed in a chrash landing by then, that is.
On the other hand, for understanding things humans seem to rely on language. If you take away our ability language, it is probable that humans would become just naked apes.
If you want to think of an object that isn't directly in sight, you need to have a mental representation of it. Perhaps words are those representations for us.
Mysterium
03-17-2004, 20:04
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Mar. 13 2004,05:09)]
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Mar. 13 2004,01:16)]Hmm, I'm not sure about the statement re: evolution. As opposed to things changing until there's no need for them to change anymore, wouldn't it be more apt to say that things change, and then an environmental pressure picks which of those changes is best adapted? Gould's punctuated equilibrium comes about because rapidly changing environments winnow out the genetic drift of a population, no?
True. But if there is no selective pressure, evolution will drift away to all sides in stead off a focus effort to 'more intelligence' as you proposed. If there is no need for more intelligence, why would the species become more clever, since stupid individuals have just as much chance to survive as intelligent ones?
Ah-hah, but no. I'm not saying there's no selective pressure, but simply that there's no radical change in environment to kill off 'everyone but people with trait X'. In any given environmental niche, an individual's greatest threat will typically come from their own species (and from things with big teeth, of course). Being able to do things better than the guy next door is the best adaptation one can have. And since being stupider is rarely adaptive, long periods of relatively static environment with only the selective pressure of over-population is just the kinda thing that would foster mutations for greater intellect.
Quote[/b] ]On the other hand, for understanding things humans seem to rely on language. If you take away our ability language, it is probable that humans would become just naked apes.
If you want to think of an object that isn't directly in sight, you need to have a mental representation of it. Perhaps words are those representations for us.
I have a long-standing debate with my brother about the greatest human 'invention' of all time, and his position is staunchly 'Language'. Which I'm tending to agree with. I think that words are that representation, and most of our intellect takes the form of language.
Interesting study on the topic which I remember only few of the details of: Take any population of people with a wide variety of languages. Slave populations, immigrant populations are good examples. The first generation will come up with a sort of pigdin language to get by, and to communicate with each other. But it'll be broken, and not have some parts of speech, and not have much syntax. The second generation - the one that grows up speaking that pigdin language - imposes a grammer on it. The kids will generally impose the SAME grammar as well. I think language/grammar/syntax is definitely hard-wired, and informs much of the way we think.
Heres an argument for communication as an evolutionary driver.
I do not think it is a coincidence that we built computers to handle electromagnetic signalling during WW2, and that biology developed a nervous system to handle sensory inputs. If I understand correctly, the earliest part of our intellectual brain is those bits slaved directly to the eyes, the primary input device. My argument is: sentience is a threshold level of signal processing.
Signal processing ais a Good technology for an organism to have, as it allows them to detect opportunities and avoid hazards. Furthermore, signal priocessing allows better selection from available choices, and the ability to maximally leverage the available resources to best possible effect. Signal processing is Useful. But its only so useful, it is not a panacea, and sharks, for example, have been doing extremely well without any significant intelligence for millions of years (also crocodiles).
Now cetaceans, of course, are arguably even more dependant on serious signal processing than us apes.
Mysterium,
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Mar. 17 2004,20:04)]Being able to do things better than the guy next door is the best adaptation one can have. And since being stupider is rarely adaptive, long periods of relatively static environment with only the selective pressure of over-population is just the kinda thing that would foster mutations for greater intellect.
Overpopulation = not enough resources = selective pressure.
But then the questions remains whether intelligence really gives an edge in survival (over, say, larger muscles or more efficient metabolism) and whether it is hereditary.
Quote[/b] ]I think that words are that representation, and most of our intellect takes the form of language.
I believe this is true. And your study is very interesting, but I wonder if it really is a theoretical as it sounds.
Squippy, you case sounds very convincing. Have there been any theoretical experiments done with it?
Aymar de Bois Mauri
03-19-2004, 22:35
Quote[/b] ]sentience is a threshold level of signal processing.
True, but that ain't so new, is it? The main argument for comparation of capabilities between Computers and Humans is preciselly that: signal processing. Remember Deep Blue? However that does not equate in to higher levels of inteligence.
Aymar de Bois Mauri
03-19-2004, 22:37
Quote[/b] ]I think language/grammar/syntax is definitely hard-wired, and informs much of the way we think.
Sorry. Tought processes are, language is a consequence of that. Not the other way around.
Mysterium
03-20-2004, 00:34
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Mar. 19 2004,13:37)]
Quote[/b] ]I think language/grammar/syntax is definitely hard-wired, and informs much of the way we think.
Sorry. Tought processes are, language is a consequence of that. Not the other way around.
If we're hard-wired to think in a particular way and therefore speak that way, how is that different from saying that the way we speak is hard-wired? The length of the thread of causality doesn't matter, does it?
Ludens, I think the main thing I took exception to was things will stay changing until there is no need for them to change any more. Looking at evolution always becomes a dangerous flirtation with thinking that evolution has 'purpose', and it should be stated somewhere in here that changes occur before the need arises, and then are selected for by the need.
squippy, the signal processing threshold concept was something close to what I was poking at with the concept of dolphins translating between two senses. Whether or not they're above that threshold level, as you said, is up in the air.
I'm going to make a sweeping generalization regarding sensory input's role in sentience: sentience cannot exist without stimulus, which in us comes in the form of sensory input. A brain without stimulus is a car without gas, all potential and no reality. Reactions?
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Mar. 20 2004,00:34)]Ludens, I think the main thing I took exception to was things will stay changing until there is no need for them to change any more. Looking at evolution always becomes a dangerous flirtation with thinking that evolution has 'purpose', and it should be stated somewhere in here that changes occur before the need arises, and then are selected for by the need.
You are right off course, I should have specified. What I meant was that over the entire population, things would stop changing if there is no need for them to change, but not on individual level. And even this is tricky since there never is no need to change, as you pointed out.
My point was that you cannot simply assume that intelligence in evolution is self-propagating.
Quote[/b] ]I'm going to make a sweeping generalization regarding sensory input's role in sentience: sentience cannot exist without stimulus, which in us comes in the form of sensory input. A brain without stimulus is a car without gas, all potential and no reality. Reactions?
I am afraid that that is an open door. Exactly one year ago, a neurology lecturer explained to me that 'the brain is a conductor'. Without input, the brain does nothing.
More sensory input = more sentience? I don't think so, since quite a lot of animals have more senses than us, but are certainly not as clever.
Mysterium
03-23-2004, 00:20
Ah, right, too sweeping. I wasn't trying to say that more sensory input = more sentience, but simply that without sensory input, there was no sentience. A binary statement, not a range of things. In the conductor analogy, I suppose I'd be saying the following: sensory input is the flow of electricity. Sentience depends on the things that are attached to that circuit, but whether sentient or not, a brain does nothing without sensory input. I was trying to see if that statement would be controversial or no.
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Mar. 19 2004,14:47)]Mysterium,
Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Mar. 17 2004,20:04)]Being able to do things better than the guy next door is the best adaptation one can have. And since being stupider is rarely adaptive, long periods of relatively static environment with only the selective pressure of over-population is just the kinda thing that would foster mutations for greater intellect.
Overpopulation = not enough resources = selective pressure.
But then the questions remains whether intelligence really gives an edge in survival (over, say, larger muscles or more efficient metabolism) and whether it is hereditary.
Quote[/b] ]I think that words are that representation, and most of our intellect takes the form of language.
I believe this is true. And your study is very interesting, but I wonder if it really is a theoretical as it sounds.
Squippy, you case sounds very convincing. Have there been any theoretical experiments done with it?
Ludens:
Quote[/b] ] Squippy, you case sounds very convincing. Have there been any theoretical experiments done with it?
Not exactly, not to my knowledge, becuase we still struggle to teach a computer brain to recognise a chair in anything remotely resembling an elegant way. the single best argument for that threshold model is the principle of 'emergent phenomenon' that came from environemntal studies and studies of complex processes. This claims that an incremental increase in a substrate can lead to a new ordering of the substrate that allows it to act in a qualitatively different way. Its a bit like the old 'synergy' argument, only more rigorous.
Quote[/b] ] True, but that ain't so new, is it? The main argument for comparation of capabilities between Computers and Humans is preciselly that: signal processing. Remember Deep Blue? However that does not equate in to higher levels of inteligence.
Well yes and no. Obviosuly, this cuts right to the heart of any claim that humanity is special, divinely inspired, or anything other than a lump of matter. Needles to say, this is challenged in a variety of ways. I like the idea, but point out that if that is the basis which we use to explain human sentience, cetacean sentience becomes an almost unavoidable conclusion IMO.
Life on mars kinda interesting
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.