What is life?

[duordi]

How do you know that dolphins can not contemplate the existence of a god or the supernatural. Do dolphins think we are non-sentient because they can not tell us about their gods?

Do dolphins believe in a rain god? A sun god? Do they believe that natural phenomena have supernatural causes? How can we know this?

If dolphins had intelegence of people they would develope communication to the point that if we didn't communicate with them they would communicate with us.

As this is not the case I have assigned the fact that many wish the animals to be aware to the watching of to many Desney movies.

This brings us to an interesting point.
The intelegence of animals must have been measured scientifically.
So the maximum intellegence of an animal is which animal and has the equivelent intelegence of what age of a human.

Duane

 

[duordi]

I have always preferred "replication and organized metabolism" as the definition of life. This would exclude fire and viruses while including everything in the commonly held taxonomic trees.

What is your definition of a soul?

 

[duordi]

Humans are animals. There is no credible distinction such as that which you suggest.

Computers, as they work today, are not going to be aware of what they are thinking because they don't think. They follow instructions. A computer is a vast series of switches which are "flipped" on the basis of the settings of other switches. Think of them as being very much 2-dimentional. Actual thought appears to require something mimicking a neural network where some components are capable of monitoring and analyzing the states of other components within the network as the processes of the network progress. Think of a neural network as being more 3-dimensional.

Human brains are animal brains and function in precisely the same manner. The difference between a human brain and the brain of a chimpanzee is primarily the number of repetitions occurring during the development of the brain. As an organism developes, there are genes which determine the number of times the first neural cell will replicate, and the number of times each resulting neural cell will replicate. Thusly, this follows a standard binary sequence of growth, (i.e. 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 - 32 - 64 - 128 - 256 - 512 - 1024 - 2048...). The difference between the chimp brain and human brain is indicative of two extra replication sequences in the human.


All animal brains are made up of neurons. And at any reasonable level of analysis, a neuron is a neuron is a neuron. You can't isolate the way a human neuron functions from that of a chimpanzee or a sea slug, for that matter. The difference is in the number of neurons, not the functioning of those neurons. The key is in the genes passed to each species from its parent(s). Take a single neuron and set a gene to cause that neuron to undergo a dozen rounds of cell division and you have enough neurons to run a sea slug. Change that single gene so that the neurons undergo 25-rounds of cell division and you have enough neurons to make a human brain. Stop 2-3 rounds short of that and you have a chimp brain.

Sea Slug - Neurons 2^12​

Chimpanzee - Neurons 2^23​

Human - Neurons 2^25​

(NOTE: While the reference to the genetic function which determine the number of neurons is accurate and the article from which the information came does claim 2^25 as an accurate representation, most sources indicate human brains contain closer to 100 billion neurons, (approx. 2^37), which seems more accurate. The point here to focus upon then, is that all one must do is alter the gene which determines the degree of replication for the first neural cell to create the difference between a human brain and that of another animal.)​

Your division of human and animal brains simply doesn't exist. We are animals.

(Source: Discover Magazine, April 2006)

We are not all animals because we have the ability to choose.

Understanding the process which allows this does not suddenly change that we are different from animals.

You description does however suggest that the thinking process can be duplicated which is my reason for starting the discussion.

I have searched for a scientific attempt at this with a computer program with no success.

Is this still beyond technical ability or is there more to it then the process you described?

Has this been accomplished in an animal ( have we made a smart chimp?)

Duane

 

[Beastt]

If dolphins had intelegence of people they would develope communication to the point that if we didn't communicate with them they would communicate with us.

As this is not the case I have assigned the fact that many wish the animals to be aware to the watching of to many Desney movies.

This brings us to an interesting point.
The intelegence of animals must have been measured scientifically.
So the maximum intellegence of an animal is which animal and has the equivelent intelegence of what age of a human.

Duane

Though you're obviously not aware of this, dolphins have a very complex communication system which must be recorded and slowed down before feeble human hearing can even sort out the data. And while many animals have been taught forms of human communication, humans seem significantly inferior at mimicking the languages of other animals. Gorillas and parrots have been taught human languages, (not just replication of the sounds but actual communication skills as well as demonstrating the ability to combine known words to represent objects for which they have been taught no specific words). The closest humans seem to have come is to decypher the dance bees perform to indicate the direction and distance to sources of pollen.

You're placing humans on a pedestal which doesn't exist at the height you suggest.

 

[Beastt]

We are not all animals because we have the ability to choose.

This causes me to wonder if you've ever even been around any animals. Animals most certainly can make choices. To suggest otherwise simply cannot be supported. A dog may want a treat resting on a counter and might rise to try to retrieve the desired food item. Upon being admonished by a person, an animal might sometimes give up his quest to obtain the food item and other times will snatch it quickly before dropping back to all fours. In each instance, the animal has made a choice to either seek what it desires, (the food item), or seek to satisfy the communicated desires of a member of its pack, (which is what we become when we keep dogs as pets).

Understanding the process which allows this does not suddenly change that we are different from animals.

You can state this as often as you wish but it will do nothing to change some facts you may not be terribly comfortable with.

Fact 1: Humans are animals

Fact 2: Humans are mammals

Fact 3: Humans are primates

There is nothing you can do or say which will change those facts.

You description does however suggest that the thinking process can be duplicated which is my reason for starting the discussion.

There is no known reason why thinking, (either that of humans or that of other animals), can't be replicated at a mechanical or bio-mechanical level.

I have searched for a scientific attempt at this with a computer program with no success.

Perhaps you lack the necessary understanding of the difference between the working of an electrical circuit and that of an animal brain such as that of a human. I tried to explain some of the basics, but not only was the explanation extremely simplified for the purposes of the forum, it was likely still too complex for anyone who can't allow themselves to come to grips with the fact that human brains are animal brains. The only difference is the number of neurons.

Is this still beyond technical ability or is there more to it then the process you described?

It is currently still beyond the ability of man to replicate a truly "thinking" machine. Current research suggests that the first successes may come from merging biological components with electrical and mechanical components.

Has this been accomplished in an animal ( have we made a smart chimp?)

Certainly not. A the complexity of a chimpanzee brain is so decidedly above the current aspirations of neural network research that no such attempt has even been made. Were we able to replicate the functioning of a chimpanzee brain in a synthetic neural network, a functioning synthetic human brain would be only a few years behind. The technology would be precisely the same. Assuming something akin to Moore's Law were applicable, it would take approximate 6-years to progress from a synthetic equivalent of a chimpanzee brain to that of a human. All that would be necessary is to increase the number of nodes in the network.

Let me ask you this; why do you think human brains and the brains of non-human animals are substantially different in their abilities? From where does such a notion arise?

 

[USincognito]

Life is a method for the Cosmos to understand itself. - Carl Sagan.

 

[fromdownunder]

Well if I found out your cat had an opinion about God's existence I would have to say he/she was sentient.
But you can’t be sentient for your cat.

If the cat or the computer was trying to find out if I was sentient then its ability to think would be verified.

Duane

You seem to have reached the point where you believe that self awareness and sentinence is purely based on questioning ones own existance in the context of the suprnatural (i.e, the existence of gods). In which case, I respectfully bow out of the discussion and say only that I doubt if computers which only work on the basis of "0" and "1" will ever reach a point of self awareness.

Your definition of "life" is far too narrow, and in any event, I doubt that computers will ever reach even a primative form of "life"

Norm

 

[Gracchus]

So you are saying that a dolphin realizes it is thinking?

Then why can I not form a language with the dolphin which we can use to discuss Gods existance.

Duane

Perhaps for the same reason a moron can't form a language with a physicist which they can use to discuss string theory.

If dolphins had intelegence of people they would develope communication to the point that if we didn't communicate with them they would communicate with us.

I think dolphins are smart enough to realize the futility of trying to communicate with idiots. The dolphin intelligence deals with a different sensorium and a different environment.

As this is not the case I have assigned the fact that many wish the animals to be aware to the watching of to many Desney movies.

You have assigned a fact? What does that mean?

This brings us to an interesting point.
The intelegence of animals must have been measured scientifically.
So the maximum intellegence of an animal is which animal and has the equivelent intelegence of what age of a human.

How much i-n-t-e-l-l-i-g-e-n-c-e does it take to use the forum spell checker?

And it would seem that there is no such thing as "intelligence" per se, just a set of problem solving skills.

Nevertheless, baby chimps are better at solving problems than human babies of the same age until the babies learn to talk.

 

[duordi]

You seem to have reached the point where you believe that self awareness and sentinence is purely based on questioning ones own existance in the context of the suprnatural (i.e, the existence of gods). In which case, I respectfully bow out of the discussion and say only that I doubt if computers which only work on the basis of "0" and "1" will ever reach a point of self awareness.

Your definition of "life" is far too narrow, and in any event, I doubt that computers will ever reach even a primative form of "life"

Norm

Everyone has a God, even you do.

If you consider yourself the highest life form that exists then you consider yourself God.

The thought that oneself is God is not a new idea of course.

Acient peoples have worshiped animals spiders and even rocks.

Of course, I am assuming that you do believe that you exist.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Let me ask you this; why do you think human brains and the brains of non-human animals are substantially different in their abilities? From where does such a notion arise?

There is a difference between animals and humans due to abilities.

Living matter is made from the same atoms as non living matter however we do not say that living matter is no different then nonliving matter because living matter has the ability to reproduce and adapt.

So it is the abilities that life has that make it unique.

In the same way although we are similar in structure to animals they are not aware and therefore have no moral issues, while we do.

We have the unique ability to change the course of species variation which could cause great moral good.

We also have or soon will have the ability to exterminate the planet.

Monkeys don't unless your watching Disney movie.

By the way if I was uncomfortable with the idea that intelligence might be created by mankind I would not have started this thread which contemplates an aware
computer program.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Though you're obviously not aware of this, dolphins have a very complex communication system which must be recorded and slowed down before feeble human hearing can even sort out the data. And while many animals have been taught forms of human communication, humans seem significantly inferior at mimicking the languages of other animals. Gorillas and parrots have been taught human languages, (not just replication of the sounds but actual communication skills as well as demonstrating the ability to combine known words to represent objects for which they have been taught no specific words). The closest humans seem to have come is to decypher the dance bees perform to indicate the direction and distance to sources of pollen.

You're placing humans on a pedestal which doesn't exist at the height you suggest.

A computer can communicate faster then I can and it is still dead.
We are trying to understand the Bee's language.
The bee is not trying to understand our language.
That is the difference.

Duane

 

[duordi]

I have a general question for all.

If a chimp was found that was aware and could be communicated with on our mental level in his/her language or ours, the animal would be placed on a pedestal.

If the same intelligent being happened to be human there seems to be a great reluctance on the part of this group to acknowledge an intelligence beyond a dolphins.

Apparently we have prejudices against mankind in favor of animals and not just between ourselves.

Do you agree or disagree that we have this prejudice and why or why not?

Duane

 

[Chalnoth]

That's not a prejudice against humans, just a statement that we are amazed at things which we believe to be impossible. It should certainly be impossible for a chimpanzee, which has only a fraction of the brain size as that of a human, could ever converse with a human on an equal level.

Of course, if chimpanzees are taught language, they can converse with humans, but more on the level of a small child, not an equal level.

 

[jamesrwright3]

You can state this as often as you wish but it will do nothing to change some facts you may not be terribly comfortable with.

The fact is are brains are qualitatively different from any animal

There is no known reason why thinking, (either that of humans or that of other animals), can't be replicated at a mechanical or bio-mechanical level.

I have not seen anywhere that we could teach a machine to learn on its own and actually think without human intervention to set parameters.
Computers may eventually reach the computational power of the human brain in the year 2030 according to many experts, but still, that doesn't mean they will be able to think. They would still need to be programmed at some level and have paramters set so they would still be qualitivately different from a human brain

 

[Loudmouth]

If dolphins had intelegence of people they would develope communication to the point that if we didn't communicate with them they would communicate with us.

What would they say? "Thanks for all the fish"?

You assume that an intelligence sufficient for pondering the existence of the supernatural is also sufficient for communicating with another species. I don't see how you can justify this assumption. Also, it is very apparent that dolphins do communicate with each other but humans have not been able to decipher that communication. We can not speak dolphinese.

This brings us to an interesting point.
The intelegence of animals must have been measured scientifically.
So the maximum intellegence of an animal is which animal and has the equivelent intelegence of what age of a human.

Duane

We are not talking about problem solving skills, which is what these intelligence quotients measure. We are talking about the ability to ponder the existence of a deity. You have not shown how the two are linked.

 

[RavenPoe]

What would they say? "Thanks for all the fish"?

Actually they'd probably sing it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have a general question for all.

If a chimp was found that was aware and could be communicated with on our mental level in his/her language or ours, the animal would be placed on a pedestal.

The gorilla Koko used sign language and communicated very human-like emotions. You can read about it here.

 

[duordi]

The gorilla Koko used sign language and communicated very human-like emotions. You can read about it here.

Fascinating.

I could not find anything she had said, only that she was taught the sigh language.

Did she ask questions like, why are you making me learn this stuff.

I have a cat that rubs my leg every morning.
This means feed me.
Standing at the door means open the door.

Although there are a few other meanings our conversations remain at about this level.

Duane

 

[duordi]

That's not a prejudice against humans, just a statement that we are amazed at things which we believe to be impossible. It should certainly be impossible for a chimpanzee, which has only a fraction of the brain size as that of a human, could ever converse with a human on an equal level.

Of course, if chimpanzees are taught language, they can converse with humans, but more on the level of a small child, not an equal level.

I find nothing I disagree with in this.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Actually they'd probably sing it.

How would you define "sing"?

By some criteria we have, or they have.

Duane