|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
Very soon, we will say machines think as we do, consciously. It won't be because we have any idea what consciousness is. But we will mean something when we say it. And that we will say it--and, finally, forget to say it--has a meaning of its own. Machines will think as we do when we recognize them doing so. We will not come to realize that machines think through analysis, machines will come to think when we have empathy for them. Machines have been cultivating empathy in us for a long time.
Last night, I watched part of a documentary on Jane Goodal; really, it was on chimpanzees. The documentary's strategy was simple. It showed the chimps behaving, apparently thinking, as humans do when we attribute thinking to them. It even showed that chimp and human intelligence develop at about the same rate. The chimps were adorable. It was easy to fall in love with them on television.
Next, the documentary showed hunters killing chimps for meat. To be sure, chimps are not the only bush meat. They are just part of an abundance of it. The documentary showed chimp arms being smoked over fires to prepare them for shipment to market. The documentary showed piles of chimp corpses. It showed a chimp baby being forced to play with its dead brother by its brother's killers. The documentary showed the faces of chimps: skin burned and shrunken back, exposing teeth; eyes cooked like egg whites in their sockets and filled with ash. It showed the carnage on tables in the market, in cooking pots, in peoples' mouths.
To permit a holocaust, remove empathy. Had the documentary not followed the strategy of first likening chimps to humans, the viewer would have been less likely to show concern for what is happening to them.
But the chimps' was not the only holocaust documented. Theirs took place within the larger one of the forest, and that one within the politics of civil war in Africa.
But what was striking about the documentary was its need for this strategy at all. It is, sadly, not strange that we can have no empathy for chimp, man, or forest. What is interesting is that reverence should require empathy at all.
It is possible that machines have already begun to think, and it is possible they have begun not to recognize us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
Dear IP,
I should be interested in knowing if this "documentary" left a lasting impression in your mind, and if yes, what sort of? Did it change any of your habits, ways of thinking, or attitudes? did you think it had an education value? BTW was it on a commercial channel?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Wsieber as usual punched right to the core: what was the point of the documentary? Well done. Insel., I am struggling a bit to "connect the dots" and come up with the whole picture you were drawing. Here is what I conclude,
and please correct me if I am wrong: We humans project our ways of thinking on to machines, so that even if they
don't "think as we do", if we believe they do, the results in terms of our behavior will be the same. And, like some science fiction that I have read, there may come a time when we believe that machines are more powerful than we are, and that they, not having any empathy for us, will either destroy us or that we will destroy ourselves before they can "get us"?
If the above is an accurate summarization, surely you jest.
However, your point about lack of empathy, and the need to build it, is very valid. If you are a typical human being,
you have very little empathy for a resident of a far galaxy.
But if he moved in next door and you got to know him, you probably would have a lot more. That's the way most of us are.
I would add, though, that I think a holocaust could occur even if the perpetrator(s) had empathy for their victims.
The perpetrator could think, "I'm really sorry that you have to be sacrificed, but it's for the greater good."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
What was the point of the documentary?
The point of the documentary wasn't my point.
(Without impuning wsieber in any way, if my point seems to have been the point of the documentary, then I haven't suceeded in making it.)
And, like some science fiction that I have read, there may come a time when we believe that machines are more powerful than we are, and that they, not having any empathy for us, will either destroy us or that we will destroy ourselves before they can "get us"?
I am writing about attributes of language and about ethics, not science fiction.
I would add, though, that I think a holocaust could occur even if the perpetrator(s) had empathy for their victims. The perpetrator could think, "I'm really sorry that you have to be sacrificed, but it's for the greater good.
Here I cannot agree. Look at Nazi propoganda. Consider words like "nip," "gook," "kike" and their use and impact. Even a version of "for the greater good," was used in Stalin's USSR to make individuals disposable.
I wrote a much more complete response to wsieber, which seems to have been lost to the ether.
wsieber: I may have sent it to you as a PM by accident. If so, would you either post it or send me a copy so that I can? Thanks. IP
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
if my point seems to have been the point of the documentary, then I haven't suceeded in making it.)
No, the point of the documentary did not seem to be the point of your post, to me.
I am writing about attributes of language and about ethics, not science fiction.
That is a big relief. Okay, language: it seems to me that you are saying when we ascribe the property of thinking to machines, it will be at that point that they begin to think?
In the way we imagine them thinking as we do, I mean? Oh dear, if I got your first paragraph right, you said it better than I am. Basically: machines are what they are, in actuality. But we imagine them to be more than that, when we start giving them attributes such as empathy.
Is that about right?
Of course language plays a huge role in ethics. We have had many discussions about political correctness here, which cover a good deal about ethics. I can't recall if any of them discussed language used as propaganda, though.
The perpetrator could think, "I'm really sorry that you have to be sacrificed, but it's for the greater good.
Here I cannot agree. Look at Nazi propoganda.
Please note: I said "could", not "did". I think it could happen.
----------------------------------------------------------
I had wondered if I could appropriate a usage of the word holocaust in a specific way, and after looking it up, realized I couldn't. But Atomica had something interesting:
"USAGE NOTE Holocaust has a secure place in the language when it refers to the massive destruction of humans by other humans. Ninety-nine percent of the Usage Panel accepts the use of holocaust in the phrase nuclear holocaust. Sixty percent of the Panel accepts the sentence As many as two million people may have died in the holocaust that followed the Khmer Rouge takeover in Cambodia. But because of its associations with genocide, people may object to extended applications of holocaust. When the word is used to refer to death brought about by natural causes, the percentage of the Panel accepting drops sharply. Only 31 percent of the Panel approves the sentence In East Africa five years of drought have brought about a holocaust in which millions have died. In a 1987 survey, just 11 percent approved the use of holocaust to summarize the effects of the AIDS epidemic. This suggests that other figurative usages such as the huge losses in the Savings and Loan holocaust may be viewed as overblown or in poor taste.•When capitalized Holocaust refers specifically to the destruction of Jews and other Europeans by the Nazis and may also encompass the Nazi persecution of Jews that preceded the outbreak of the war.
WORD HISTORY Totality of destruction has been central to the meaning of holocaust since it first appeared in Middle English in the 14th century, used in reference to the biblical sacrifice in which a male animal was wholly burnt on the altar in worship of God. Holocaust comes from Greek holokauston (“that which is completely burnt”), which was a translation of Hebrew ‘ōlâ (literally “that which goes up,” that is, in smoke). In this sense of “burnt sacrifice,” holocaust is still used in some versions of the Bible. In the 17th century the meaning of holocaust broadened to “something totally consumed by fire,” and the word eventually was applied to fires of extreme destructiveness. In the 20th century holocaust has taken on a variety of figurative meanings, summarizing the effects of war, rioting, storms, epidemic diseases, and even economic failures. Most of these usages arose after World War II, but it is unclear whether they permitted or resulted from the use of holocaust in reference to the mass murder of European Jews and others by the Nazis. This application of the word occurred as early as 1942, but the phrase the Holocaust did not become established until the late 1950s. Here it parallels and may have been influenced by another Hebrew word, šô’â (“catastrophe,” in English, Shoah). In the Bible šô’â has a range of meanings including “personal ruin or devastation” and “a wasteland or desert.” Šô’â was first used to refer to the Nazi slaughter of Jews in 1939, but the phrase haš-šô’â (“the catastrophe”) became established only after World War II. Holocaust has also been used to translate ḥurbān (“destruction”), another Hebrew word used to summarize the genocide of Jews by the Nazis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
Wittgenstein's later reflections on language can be summed up in the statement (a paraphrase) "Of the things of which we cannot speak, we should remain silent." His reflections comprise a group of thought experiments which partially delimit language.
Among these reflections is the question "When can we say a child has learned to read?" What he is investigating is the question itself. This question's answer may be described as belonging to its grammar.
The question seems to imply access to a "private experience" of the child's, something which is 'demonstrably' impossible. Rather, at a certain point we simply say, "Oh, the child has learned to read."
Not only can't we ascertain the child's "private state," we can't speak speak of a its 'private state' at all: because the expression is inadequate to its purported meaning, its meaning can't be expressed; and because its meaning can't be expressed, the expression a meaningless term. While we can say the words, they will never mean anything.
Wittgenstein goes through a whole series of such experiments and casts doubt on every expression whose meaning attaches to some 'private state.'*
What he cannot doubt is pain. If someone cries out in pain, I have no doubt of their experience. It is this phenomenon, which is not formally meaning, that I am calling "empathy." I am suggesting that it may lie at the heart of ethics: because we empathize with one another, we recognize one another as members of an ethical community
.
My observations on the documentary concern its strategy of manipulating empathy. How I feel about the ostensible subject of the documentary is completely irrelevant. I did not make this clear.
The question of a private state of a machine is virtually identical to that of the private state of a human being. The question whether they belong to an ethical community will be affirmed when we empathize with them. Whether or not we ever will empathize with them remains an open question. But our capacity to empathize with them is evidenced, among other places, in popular culture--including science fiction.
As a matter of logic, if machines become part of an ethical culture, just as there is no way to discuss the inner state of a child learning to read, there will be no way to differentiate between the ethical expressions of a human and those of a machine.
It was the illustration of this aspect of language I found fascinating in the documentary and which, I felt, made it relevant to the general topic of this board.
* use of scare quotes because, for reasons that are clear, the term is a tortured one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
Basically: machines are what they are, in actuality. But we imagine them to be more than that, when we start giving them attributes such as empathy. Is that about right?
Not quite. I am saying that any concept, like "reality" (and its components, e.g., the possible thinking of machines) is delimited in "fact" by the capacity of language to express it.
Please note: I said "could", not "did". I think it could happen.
I understand. Since your proposition can't be tested, I can't deny it. I will say it goes against my deepest intuition.
Holocaust
I know I wouldn't use "holocaust" to describe a natural catastrophe. As to the exact number of dead, this is reminiscent of our recent discussion of "decimate" and, as percentage was there irrelevant, so is absolute number here.
I would suggest that a holocaust had to be intentional-just as bringing this sacrifice, the hagiga or "festival offering," was necessarily intentional if it was to count as an offering. Since intentionality is a "subjective state," it is worth noting, though noting that the 'presence of God in one's thoughts is at once the reason for the intentionally, and a possible "solution" to the kinds of problems I addressed in the Wittgenstein post.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
> ... is delimited in "fact" by the capacity of language to express it.
Indeed, all forms of science and knowledge must come before the court of language and be judged.
"And the Fool on the Hill sees the Sun going down,
and the eyes in his head see the World turning round." -- Beatles
Mr. Inside-Out
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
I think the use of "holocaust" has two parameters: One, a specific group must be responsible for the carnage and, two, a specific group must be targeted. I've never seen the word used as in "bubonic plague inflicted a holocaust on Europe between 1346 and 1350". Also, for a plausible use of the word, I think that the act of destruction has to be quite deliberate. Here in Zild, a Maori politician given to disengaging her brain before opening her mouth last year accused the Europeans of "inflicting a holocaust" on the Maori during the middle of the 19th century. Her justification for this was arbitrary confiscation of land which drove Maori away from their traditional sources of food (as an unintended consequence); the introduction of measles, chicken pox and tuberculosis (endemic among the European population who arrived from elsehwere) the NZ Wars (which had an extremely low casualty rate) and the very occasional deliberate attempt to spread smallpox through contaminated goods. Maori extremists and bleeding-heart liberal non-Maori agreed with her, but the majority of NZers saw it as grandstanding. While there was a steep decline in Maori population following the European arrival, there is absolutely no evidence to support the concept of a deliberate official policy on the part of European leaders to destroy the Maori. Ergo, no holocaust. See also "post-colonial stress disorder" ...  
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
Maori extremists and bleeding-heart liberal non-Maori agreed with her, but the majority of NZers saw it as grandstanding. Ah, Tariana.  A friend of mine has a rather unflattering nickname for her, which I cannot recall, but is a clever pun on her name, and implies that she is not worth listening to. I found his viewpoint interesting bwecause he was one of the generation that were beaten by teachers if caught speaking Te Reo. Despite that, he does not consider himself the victim of an attempted Holocaust.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,915
Posts230,127
Members9,198
| |
Most Online4,270
Aug 30th, 2025
|
|
|
0 members (),
2,431
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
