Minds and Machines - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Jozrael · 10-30-2006, 12:59 PM

So my philosophy 101 class at RPI, "Minds and Machines" just finished our first group oral presentation, but our notes are published on the web on Google documents. I was the group leader and basically coordinated the effort, and I'm proud of the work we've put in, so I'm posting it up here. I'd love comments and challenges, etc. Some definitions are assumed by our class, so if there's anything you don't understand, please ask me to define it.

The Question of Cyborgs

MuadDib · 10-31-2006, 06:58 AM

I've always wanted to somehow work the threat of zombies into a paper.

Seriously, I disagree with some of your answers, but it seems like you did your home work. Congrats on your presentation.

CSflim · 10-31-2006, 10:24 AM

Didn't read it all, but it seems pretty good. However, the colour highlighting on the page looks awful, and makes it really difficult to read. I'd find some other way of differentiating the various contributions.

Jozrael · 11-01-2006, 06:48 AM

The colors have been removed (I agree, it shouldn't have been there in our publication, just in our group work. I overlooked that when deciding it was ready to be published).

Also, an addendum added on future persons, because although we were prepared to answer it in class, I realized that it should really be in our online publication as well.

MuadDib, what do you disagree with? While I'm not fluent in the research done on this but have only done cursory examinations slightly beyond that which is required of us in class, but I have a decent grasp of the material and where to look up the research if need be. I'd love to debate some of this with you.

Keep in mind, my personal views differ slightly from the group's, but we all made sacrifices to come to a mutual decision. Also, there are two separate views I hold - A: the views presented here, on what actually has rights and what is morally WRONG in my opinion.

B: What my inner conscience tells me.

For example, take a dog. It doesn't have the right to live, under our definitions, which I agree with. However, would I be okay with myself actually killing a dog? No. Society has molded me to anthropomorphize them and assign them a value greater than their actual worth because of the 'soul' I think I see when I look in their eyes. If I actually cut past all the illusory values that are unfounded that I hold...there's actually nothing really wrong with killing a dog. But it would still make me feel terrible, and I wouldn't be able to do it myself without an extremely good reason (i.e. someone I care about being threatened by said dog.) And even then, incapacitation seems far more likely.

Anyways, I digress. What can I debate with you about on this?

Yakk · 11-08-2006, 09:00 AM

What is the problem with "Philosophical" Zombies? I'm am a Zombie -- I have no internal consciousness. It doesn't seem to cause any issue with my interaction with other humans, and they can't tell the difference.

Now, I'm pretty sure that if you did a sufficienly advanced brain-scan, you would see simulations of conversation, images, and other symbol-like manipulation going on inside my head. But that is no more proof I'm not a Zombie than my ability to speak or type in a conversation is.

I am an intelligent Zombie. I can solve problems, run simulations, predict actions. The simulations I can run include the actions and personalities of other intelligences -- this aids in interaction with other intelligences. You can almost certainly detect the rough action of simulation via fMRIs, and eventually more of the pattern once technology can figure out detailed neuron firing patterns.

...

Personally, I don't like killing cute animals. Cuteness in animals generates empathic bonds. I don't mind a cute animal being killed.

I especially don't like killing animals that humans have formed bonds with -- that causes emotional hurt. I do mind cute animals that intelligences are bonded with being hurt. For many of the same reasons, I don't like killing, or the killing of, babies (plus most babies took a pretty damn huge amount of work by an intelligent actor -- the mother -- so killing a baby is also very much like destroying a work of art).

I value intelligence -- so killing developed humans is also a thing I avoid. Even isolated intelligences (which are quite rare).

...

To me, cyborgs are no different than young children whose brain tissue develops as it gets older, or birds whose singing neurons are replaced every year. It is simply a matter of a new substrait on top of which an intelligence runs.

It isn't the substrait I'm all that interested in -- other than as it is used to form emotional bonds with (people get attached to their bodies, and to the bodies of others), and how it is useful to the intelligence which uses it.

...

Now, onto the actual paper you put forward. It has at least one error.

Your paper seems to be internally inconsistent.

Quote:

Dennett thinks that the concept of zombies is ridiculous, because in order to be behaviorally identical to us, they must have the exact same chance of developing mentalistic vocabulary, making their thought processes identical to us, giving them interests.

We believe that Dennett is correct, because we follow his reasoning that the ability to emulate a person is only able to be achieved through a person directly. To act the way we do, you would need the same thought processes, which are derived from our interests.

Above, you assert that Zombies are ridiculous.

Quote:

Discuss this issue in relation to the UN ban under consideration.
The UN ban on the creation of cyborgs should NOT be lifted, because there exists the possibility that a zombie may be created. If a zombie is created, a person is destroyed - murder, the violation of a person's innate right to life. We cannot tell whether someone has become a zombie; until this changes, the ban on cyborgs should not be lifted. If later it becomes possible to detect zombiehood, the ban should be lifted only if the process of cyberization does not create a zombie and thus preserves the person and protects their moral rights.

And above you assert that the creation of humans with a modified cyborg substrait should be banned.

One could argue that you are not inconsitent, but are rather being cautious -- that your lack of belief in the possibility Zombies is not absolute, and the chance that they exist is sufficient to argue that one should guard against them.

But without making this explicit, the paper simply looks like it disagrees with itself.

Ourcrazymodern? · 12-02-2006, 01:53 PM

Individual packaging is a wonderful thing. The most wonderful thing about it is maybe that thus we don't have to understand how other people think, but only wonder? I do.
I didn't love "The Machine Crusade".
Humans are too hard on themselves, but I fear that artificial intelligences would find no reason to be softer...
What is a zombie? Why capitalize it?
The agnostic, dyslexic imsomniac stays up nights wondering if there is a dog!

noahfor · 12-02-2006, 03:23 PM

I'm taking a class called "Minds and Machines" as well.

pottsynz · 12-13-2006, 10:50 PM

Hes more of "futurist" than a philosopher, but Ray Kurzweil is always a good read AI / mind-machine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil

It has been a while (ok a year) since I did a paper on philo of mind. I recall being firmly planted in the functionalism camp.

Oh and read some PKD and some Asimov.

10-30-2006, 12:59 PM	#1 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	Minds and Machines So my philosophy 101 class at RPI, "Minds and Machines" just finished our first group oral presentation, but our notes are published on the web on Google documents. I was the group leader and basically coordinated the effort, and I'm proud of the work we've put in, so I'm posting it up here. I'd love comments and challenges, etc. Some definitions are assumed by our class, so if there's anything you don't understand, please ask me to define it. The Question of Cyborgs Last edited by Jozrael; 10-30-2006 at 01:02 PM..

10-31-2006, 06:58 AM	#2 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	I've always wanted to somehow work the threat of zombies into a paper. Seriously, I disagree with some of your answers, but it seems like you did your home work. Congrats on your presentation. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

10-31-2006, 10:24 AM	#3 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	Didn't read it all, but it seems pretty good. However, the colour highlighting on the page looks awful, and makes it really difficult to read. I'd find some other way of differentiating the various contributions. __________________

12-02-2006, 01:53 PM	#6 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	Individual packaging is a wonderful thing. The most wonderful thing about it is maybe that thus we don't have to understand how other people think, but only wonder? I do. I didn't love "The Machine Crusade". Humans are too hard on themselves, but I fear that artificial intelligences would find no reason to be softer... What is a zombie? Why capitalize it? The agnostic, dyslexic imsomniac stays up nights wondering if there is a dog! __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

11-01-2006, 06:48 AM	#4 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	The colors have been removed (I agree, it shouldn't have been there in our publication, just in our group work. I overlooked that when deciding it was ready to be published). Also, an addendum added on future persons, because although we were prepared to answer it in class, I realized that it should really be in our online publication as well. MuadDib, what do you disagree with? While I'm not fluent in the research done on this but have only done cursory examinations slightly beyond that which is required of us in class, but I have a decent grasp of the material and where to look up the research if need be. I'd love to debate some of this with you. Keep in mind, my personal views differ slightly from the group's, but we all made sacrifices to come to a mutual decision. Also, there are two separate views I hold - A: the views presented here, on what actually has rights and what is morally WRONG in my opinion. B: What my inner conscience tells me. For example, take a dog. It doesn't have the right to live, under our definitions, which I agree with. However, would I be okay with myself actually killing a dog? No. Society has molded me to anthropomorphize them and assign them a value greater than their actual worth because of the 'soul' I think I see when I look in their eyes. If I actually cut past all the illusory values that are unfounded that I hold...there's actually nothing really wrong with killing a dog. But it would still make me feel terrible, and I wouldn't be able to do it myself without an extremely good reason (i.e. someone I care about being threatened by said dog.) And even then, incapacitation seems far more likely. Anyways, I digress. What can I debate with you about on this?

12-02-2006, 03:23 PM	#7 (permalink)
noahfor Addict	I'm taking a class called "Minds and Machines" as well.

12-13-2006, 10:50 PM	#8 (permalink)
pottsynz Crazy	Hes more of "futurist" than a philosopher, but Ray Kurzweil is always a good read AI / mind-machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil It has been a while (ok a year) since I did a paper on philo of mind. I recall being firmly planted in the functionalism camp. Oh and read some PKD and some Asimov.