Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group

From: Roy Jose Lorr (mosestorah_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 08/10/04 

Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:28:45 GMT

"Brandon J. Van Every" wrote:

> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >
> > Players shifting within the order does not effect the process. The
> > process where it holds sway is immutable until such time as the
> > subject species "transits/evolves" into a species not constrained
> > by pecking orders. Give me a jingle when you find such a species.
>
> Go to many places in the world today and you will still find obvious, harsh
> pecking orders among human beings that cannot be broken out of. Nowadays we
> call them human rights abuses.

Is that so? Whatever we choose to call our limitations there's nothing
we can label them that will change their nature.

> It really wasn't until Marx that the notion
> of Class Struggle was formalized.

Formalized?

> Ergo, perhaps if you released the wolves
> into a more forgiving environment, they might become more flexible as to
> their pecking orders. Wolves are never so released, humans have taken up
> all the space, so we won't know.

Hmm... as an experiment place a pack of wolves into a fully
stocked meat packing plant and observe how they become
over generations less captive to their natural pecking order.
Perhaps these wolves will evolve into a new species, having
grown wings and begun building hives and TV sets.
... Y'never know.

>
>
> Alternately, one could say the wolf is limited to pecking order because it
> never acquired a more intelligent food gathering strategy than hunting its
> prey.

What kept/keeps wolves from cognizance? Perhaps there is a pecking
order when it comes to acquiring this attribute?

> Alternately, maybe wolf experts know better than either of us how
> they behave?

Most so called "wolf experts" tend to imagine wolves as four legged people.

>
>
> Maybe the pecking orders of primates are more flexible. For instance, I've
> read an account of a monkey who subverted the usual alpha males by finding a
> metal object that he could bang on and make a lot of noise with. For a time
> it scared the alpha males off, and he got lotsa monkey ***! Then they
> wised up and realized the noise wasn't a threat. Monkeys, actually, have
> all sorts of ways of subverting the pecking order to get away with ***.
> Which usually means fucking the hell out of some she-monkey when its proper
> he-monkey is not looking. Tune into The Discovery Channel for monkey
> dicking lessons galore.

Trying to get around the pecking order is all part of the
pecking order system.

>
>
> >> It is a dynamic process,
> >> and we shouldn't ignore the aggregate dynamic behavior of a species.
> >> So, 1 human does within his own brain what 30 wolves do by battling
> >> it out with each other. They're both computation / decision making,
> >> one is just more compact and efficient than the other. [1]
> >
> > I believe you are anthropomorphizing "dynamic".
>
> No, I'm saying they're both computation. If anything, I'm cockroaching it.

Right, we're all roaches.

>
>
> >> Perhaps you are
> >> unduly impressed by people's ability to make decisions about
> >> conscience?
> >
> > It is impressive, is it not?... that we alone of all the creatures in
> > creation are endowed with the ability to recognize moral/immoral
> > situations and respond to them on a level that transcends the
> > rapaciousness of pure instinct.
>
> Not really, it doesn't impress me one bit. It's about as impressive as
> deciding whether that *** looks good to bang on or not.
>
> >> Wolves can decide other things; the ability
> >> to make a decision isn't uniquely human.
> >
> > What is uniquely human is the ability to make moral decisions.
>
> But morality isn't interesting. You only think it's interesting because you
> want to see something very special about us. Try embracing the cockroach
> perspective on how we behave. Mostly you are performing 'right' actions
> because they lead to environmental stability, economic exchange, resources,
> and mates. So big deal.

> Cockroach on, my brother!

God forbid.

>
>
> Animal precursor: most animals do not wantonly destroy members of their own
> species. At least in the 'primarily hardwired' lot, it's evolutionarily
> disadvantageous to do so. Sacrificing *some* of your species is plenty
> viable, however.

You are anthropomorphizing "sacrifice"... how convenient.

>
>
> > There are no previous animal forms that can make moral
> > decisions of conscience..
>
> Conscience is our version of two baboons posturing and one backing down.
> We've just extended the notion of 'backing down' into the symbolic realm,
> into future events. The remarkable achievement is future event processing,
> *not* morality.

What is "regret"?

>
>
> > Well, if you can demonstrate this conclusively you'll have
> > earned yourself a place in the annals of science.
>
> Yep. Keep an eye for my thinking machine 30 years hence. Not that I'm
> working on it now, as I've got games to write. But since I know why we are
> as we are, I should do something with the insight.

Amen, brother.

>
>
> The main insight is that we are not special, or precious. Most of what we
> call 'intelligence' is environmental interaction and sensor-motor response.
> This is not a new idea. Intelligence is just a glueing of these lower
> elements. It is not that remarkable a layer above them, it is searching in
> pursuit of a goal. Often just random searching, until a better method is
> stumbled upon.
>
> We're search engines. That's all we are.

Sure thing.

>
>
> >>> If conscience is such 'good "evolutionary" business' why is it
> >>> restricted to humans?
> >>
> >> Why is advanced toolmaking? Why is the internet? Nobody promised
> >> you that all useful evolutionary advantages would show up in all
> >> species.
> >
> > Ah, but why did it show up in ours?
>
> Because we conquered the planet, dude. Honestly, our science may not be
> advanced enough / well funded enough to know if there's conscience in other
> higher mammals, even if it *is* actually out there.

What?... and here I thought you said: "But since I know why we are
as we are, I should do something with the insight.". Equivocation is
not an admirable character trait... especially not for a self defined
'cockroach' machine such as yourself. Hope you keep a good
mechanic on call.

>
>
> Also I think we should look carefully at our own domesticated animals.
> Certainly many dog and cat owners refer to their animals as "acting guilty,"
> and considering our intertwined evolution, that may be much more than just
> anthropomorphization. They have emotional bonds to their masters and
> receive instruction as to good or bad. Maybe they're just fearing getting
> hit or or sprayed with a water bottle, but then again, isn't this how human
> children typically learn 'morality' ?

No.

>
>
> Plus when you look at the cross-cultural picture, there are so many versions
> of morality that are clearly local gobbledygook. Everyone has the fear /
> guilt / future prediction mechanism, so what's really going on is behavioral
> conditioning.

Behavioral conditioning does not account for conscience.

>
>
> I suppose the higher mammals may engage in their own behavioral
> conditioning. Pecking orders, playfighting. Learning to hunt in a pack.
> Some things aren't instruction, just instinct, hardwired from millions of
> years of trial and error and breeding.

> Birth, rebirth, and the environment
> did the computation for that.

Hallelujah!

> Nevertheless, our domesticated animals can
> learn, so we have to consider how they may behaviorally condition each
> other. Maybe the main problem is that the domestics don't have that job;
> *we* have that job, as masters. They couldn't get it done on their own.

You mean they aren't self sufficient mechanisms?... more equivocation?

 I guess 'rebirth' isn't all that its cracked up to be. 

--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
Quantcast