What is Human?

Jon Miller · September 20, 2003, 20:31

basically this is a common idea, but I like it

basically every person is a different person than the person who went by the same name and had many of the same moeculeswho inhabited the space he is currently in a moment ago (we won't go into what a moment is)

so when we come down to it, it is a different person doing things all the time

now who that person is, is a combination of decisions by past selves (we will call them this just to aid in delivering the concept) as well as the environment

now, I like existing (I wouldn't want to live forever but that is a different issue) right now, and so would not like to not exist

but the best I can hope for is to have a lot of control over future people (especially future versions of myself)

now this is my problem with drugs

you lose a lot of control over future versions of yourself, because it is messing with your mind in ways that you are not in control of

my dad has a car accident in 1990 and we had a lot of talks where he would say that he died that day

and he did, I now think

the head injury was such that he was not only not the same person (which he wouldn't be anyway), but he was a different person in a way in which he had no control over

now I know that drugs aren't usually as sudden as that, but once you make the choice to use them, you have little control over what sorts of effects they will have on you, those aren't effects that you create independently of other forms of reality

I try to be affected by others as little as possible because effecting future realities is all I can do now

anyways, it is something to think about

Jon Miller
hopefully this thread will not be closed (I made the orgy thread because one of my freinds was involved in one and I was wondering about them, I am sort of pissed off that it is closed)

chequita guevara · September 20, 2003, 20:36

I am human.

Anything that can make the above statement on its own, is a human.

Agathon · September 20, 2003, 20:39

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I am human.

Anything that can make the above statement on its own, is a human.

A computer can do that, if you teach it to.

Anyway, an alien life form could do that (and be lying) and it wouldn't be human.

chequita guevara · September 20, 2003, 20:40

A computer can repeat the statement. It can't make the statement.

Agathon · September 20, 2003, 20:41

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
A computer can repeat the statement. It can't make the statement.

But the same goes for a child. You have to teach it language first.

The word "make" is doing too much undefined work in that sentence.

Nubclear · September 20, 2003, 20:45

But the computer is non-sentient.

Agathon · September 20, 2003, 20:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
But the computer is non-sentient.

Define "sentient".

Nubclear · September 20, 2003, 20:55

OK.

Quote:

sen·tient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snshnt, -sh-nt)
adj.
Having sense perception; conscious: “The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage” (T.E. Lawrence).
Experiencing sensation or feeling.

Agathon · September 20, 2003, 21:09

How can I tell that you are sentient?

chequita guevara · September 20, 2003, 21:16

And this is completely on-thread.

chequita guevara · September 20, 2003, 21:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
But the same goes for a child. You have to teach it language first.

I would argue that babies and infants aren't really human beings yet.

GePap · September 20, 2003, 21:34

I am human, now the rest of yous..that is questionable.

I go for the simplistic upright naked Ape from Africa that happens to have the gift/curse of setience definition.

St Leo · September 20, 2003, 22:17

If you are a liberal, you are a human. Next question.

Nubclear · September 20, 2003, 22:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
How can I tell that you are sentient?

Because I'm posting here.

David Floyd · September 20, 2003, 22:44

Quote:

I would argue that babies and infants aren't really human beings yet.

So, by extension, we can simply kill babies and infants if they become bothersome, sorta like we can put down dogs, right?

chequita guevara · September 20, 2003, 23:03

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
So, by extension, we can simply kill babies and infants if they become bothersome, sorta like we can put down dogs, right?

You think that isn't done in parts of the world and wasn't done throughout history? Ever hear of exposure? But our society finds such things deplorable and has outlawed such behavior.

St Leo · September 20, 2003, 23:03

We shouldn't be putting down dogs.

chequita guevara · September 20, 2003, 23:04

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
We shouldn't be putting down dogs.

An even better answer.

Agathon · September 20, 2003, 23:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

Because I'm posting here.

Why? Is it possible that your ramblings could be mimiced by a suitably complex machine (in the case of non-CPA members it's a simple unsexy machine running Windows)?

If it is possible, what evidence do I have one way or the other?

GePap · September 20, 2003, 23:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

Why? Is it possible that your ramblings could be mimiced by a suitably complex machine (in the case of non-CPA members it's a simple unsexy machine running Windows)?

If it is possible, what evidence do I have one way or the other?

Nah, smiley usesage is far too complex to model accrately, and some things said are so dumb not even a computer rogram would do so, like empty posts

Agathon · September 20, 2003, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Nah, smiley usesage is far too complex to model accrately, and some things said are so dumb not even a computer rogram would do so, like empty posts

That's unlikely, not impossible.

Anyway, look at how all the horndogs swarmed to the pretty girl's picture thread.

Predictable schmictable.

GePap · September 20, 2003, 23:32

A few of the posts by theselves are unlikely, not impossible, but take the whole opus (if we dare call it that) of most posters, and given the state of computer tech, it becomes impossible to assume they are computers.

Agathon · September 20, 2003, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
A few of the posts by theselves are unlikely, not impossible, but take the whole opus (if we dare call it that) of most posters, and given the state of computer tech, it becomes impossible to assume they are computers.

I don't see how. Unlikely, yes, impossible, no.

****! Ate post!!!!

But who says it's our computer tech?

Anyway, consciousness need not figure in the explanation, which is the real point.

Nubclear · September 20, 2003, 23:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

Why? Is it possible that your ramblings could be mimiced by a suitably complex machine

No. Thanks for asking

GePap · September 20, 2003, 23:40

It is not impossible that a 50 mile asteroid will land on your head right.NOW!.....waits for the boom to hit NYC........
la, la , lalalala, lalala, lala....

Nope, didn't happen. If you want to be technical, the probability approches 0, and get very, very, very close. Is it technically utterly impossible (is probability surely a 0?)? no, but close enough man, close enough.

Agathon · September 20, 2003, 23:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

No. Thanks for asking

That sounds like a machine talking to me.

Agathon · September 20, 2003, 23:47

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
It is not impossible that a 50 mile asteroid will land on your head right.NOW!.....waits for the boom to hit NYC........
la, la , lalalala, lalala, lala....

Nope, didn't happen. If you want to be technical, the probability approches 0, and get very, very, very close. Is it technically utterly impossible (is probability surely a 0?)? no, but close enough man, close enough.

Being able to determine that another being is conscious based on probabilities is hopeless. This is because we only have one case - our own - and that's it.

GePap · September 20, 2003, 23:53

Well, not really, unless you discount the ability to define any other adult person you have met and interacted with as being sentient becuase you lack some telepathic link.
ihave been with enough people (including not the most stable people) to trust that Tassadar is a human being, and you as well.

SKILORD · September 20, 2003, 23:58

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

You think that isn't done in parts of the world and wasn't done throughout history? Ever hear of exposure? But our society finds such things deplorable and has outlawed such behavior.

Rather we have not, but simply shortened the deadline

Historical prejudice against the young is a travesty and a blight on our history. Sure, Adolf Hitler killed a few hundred thousand (million) jews because he felt them inferior. But how does that stand next to the massive amount of infants which have been killed throughout history because they were 'inferior' or 'unwanted'.

To make my point work though, I have to define human as a being with the potential for free thought and the ability to express that thought, posessing free will. This makes Infants just as much human as the average person on the street. It also manages to disclude beasts, who operate primarily upon instinct.

Urban Ranger · September 21, 2003, 00:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Define "sentient".

"Deep-seated hatred for philosophy majors."