Glenn and other ASAers:
Glenn Morton wrote on Sunday, February 13, 2000 7:16 AM,
> At 10:03 PM 2/12/00 -0600, Russell Maatman wrote:
> >ASAers:
> >
> >I'd like to respond to one rem ark Glenn made. See my comments below.
> [snip]
> >Glenn, I keep thinking that you are very close to the position I took in
> >the post that started this discussion a few days ago. You rightly
deplore
> >judging whether a being is human on the basis of its looks or
appearance. I
> >agree. But I make the same claim for fossils and the behavior of the
beings
> >that were fossilized. I realize you have not included behavior.
>
> I am really lost here.
So am I. Scratch that last sentence of mine and see my further explanation
below.
> I have been arguing for behavior, not looks as the
> key to being a human. So I don't understand this sentence stating that I
> have not included behavior. That is about all I include. However, there
is
> one caveat and maybe this is what you are picking up on. Being human with
a
> normal body allows certain behaviors to leave physical remains which are
> evidence of humanity. This is what I have done with fossil man (see
> http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/chron.htm) As is always the case, the
lack
> of those behaviors in an abnormal body not proof of the lack of humanity.
> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A case in point would be
> the situation of quadraplegics.
>
>
> Really--can
> >you draw a line between a static being and that being in motion? Isn't
the
> >appearance of a being related to its behavior?
>
> I am still lost here and not fully understanding where you are coming
from
> on this one. I will take a stab anyway. If I totally misunderstand your
> point, then try again.
>
> First, I don't think appearance and behavior are necessarily related
> although we have trouble jumping fences that deer can easily hop over
> because our appearance doesn't allow us to to that. Nor can we fly. So
> there is some behavioral limitations due to appearance. But these sorts
of
> things are not what we refer to when we define humanity. High jumping or
> flying isn't basic to making a human.
>
> If you are suggesting that a human must be capable of motion, whereas a
> computer AI sits like a lump of silicon on a desk top, I am not sure that
> this is an adequate definition that will differentiate us from computer
> intelligence. Consider the quadraplegic. They don't move very well and
> must have machines assist their motion. All an unfortunate quadraplegic
is,
> is a brain siting on a motionless body. Before everyone takes offense
here,
> my Aunt was awarded Polio mother of the year in 1954 or so, being totally
> paralyzed and having given birth to my cousin in an iron lung, who then
> came to live with us for a while. In point of fact, at that time in my
> aunt's life, she was merely a brain being kept alive by a breathing
> machine. She was still human. Quadraplegics are still human.
>
> Lets examine a couple of possibities. What is the difference between a
> computer who can reason, tell you that he feels sad, who can remember
> previous conversations, etc and a person who does the same thing? You
> might say that the computer can't feel emotions. In point of fact you
> don't really observe or know the feelings I say I feel. To you, they are
> inaccessible. All you can do is hear my description of those feelings and
> believe me. On what basis would you disbelieve a computer saying the same
> thing? So what is the difference?
>
> Now take another example. Maybe technology can't create a silicon brain
for
> some fundamental physical reason. But, we are becoming quite knowledgable
> in manipulating biological materials via genetic engineering. Suppose in
> the future genetic engineers (GE) use cat neruons to create a very large,
> very complex brain which is not the same as a cat's brain but is bigger
and
> more complex. This can be done merely by altering the developmental
program
> of brain development. We already know in principle how to do this:
>
> "The size of the cortex depends on the number of cells in it, and that in
> turn depends on the number of founder cells in the ventricular zone. If
> the timing of one crucial moment in development when the founder cells
> start producing migrating neurons instead of more founder cells-were to
be
> delayed, the result would be a bigger brain. A single additional cycle
of
> cell division would double the number of founder cells and ultimately the
> size of the cortex. Two added cycles would produce a four times bigger
> cortex and so on exponentially. Such a small change in the timing of
cell
> division, says Rakic, could conceivably be controlled by a single gene.
> "Alternatively, a change could have happened in a gene that programs
> founder cells to die when they have reached the end of their usefulness.
> Rakic and his colleagues have identified such a gene in mouse brain
cells.
> When they created a 'knockout' mouse in which that gene was missing, the
> mouse's brain grew so large that it burst through the skull. Its
normally
> smooth surface had acquired small dents and folds." ~ Robert Kunzig,
> "Climbing Through the Brain," Discover, August 1998, p. 69
>
> Now, if this large cat brain was hooked up to a speech synthesizer,
trained
> to use it and then it told you that it was depressed, do you believe it?
Is
> it really feeling anything? I know that my cat can become depressed, so
why
> not a brain manufactured by GEs from cat neurons? Is this talking mass of
> neurons artificially intelligent? It most certainly would be more
> intelligent than my cat.
>
> Another example. Suppose a human brain could be grown in vitro from some
> human stem cells. Of course you would have to have lots of machines to
keep
> the thing alive but so what? Does this count as the creation of
artificial
> intelligence if you hook it up to a speech synthesizer? Is it human? I
> would say yes he/she is human. But they would have no mobility. Mobility
as
> I noted above is not a defining characteristic of humanity. If you
answer
> no, that this is not the creation of artificial intelligence, what is the
> difference between this situation and that of the large cat brain above?
> Why is one not the creation of AI and the other might be? And if the
large
> cat brain can do all the things the human brain can do, what
distinguishes
> it from humanity?
>
> Somthing like this has already been tried. There was a guy back in the
60s
> who was experimenting with transplanting heads. His gruesome experiments
> was shut down because of public outrage. Unfortunately, that public
> outrage shortened the lives of quadraplegics. According to this guy, I
> forget his name, the bodies of quadruplegics cease functioning at a
younger
> age on average. He was trying to prolong the lives of quads by
> transplanting their heads to new bodies when their old bodies wore out.
> The human would still be there, just the machinery keeping him alive
would
> be different. So what is the difference between a person in this
situation
> and a brain grown in vitro? Who has the image of God?
>
> Of course, I know as well as
> >you do that motion and no motion are qualitatively different. But for
this
> >discussion...?
> >
> >> Do I think that AI will be achieved nd the Turring test passed by some
> >> computer? No. But I do think that there will be some close calls.
> >
> >Why no? Because our technology can never be good enough, or is there
some
> >other principial reason?
>
> Basically my predjudice and nothing more. And as I think about it, I may
> very well have been hasty in my condemnation of AI. It may turn out that
> there is some fundamental physical limitation to using silicon as a basis
> for intelligence. However, given Genesis 11:6-7 I am usually one not to
> doubt that mankind can do pretty much as he wants, including making
> artificial intelligence. It says:
>
> "And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one
> language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained
> from them, which they have imagined to do."
>
> If we can imagine AI, we can probably someday produce it--maybe not in
the
> way we originally envisioned it but we will probably produce it.
>
> >
> >I enjoy discussing this with you!
>
> Me too, you are causing me to re-think some things I haven't thought
about
> for a while. Thanks.
> glenn
What I meant was (as the fellow said when he saw his wife's challenging
countenance after he a made a dumb remark) is this:
You rightly resent those who, like the racist gubernatorial candidate I
cited, say,"Just look at them. You can seem that they are not human." He
was talking about black people and referring in particular to facial
characteristics. Up to that point, the black people he was referring to
could have been standing absolutely still. He could have been referring to
still pictures. Or statues. But once real people start moving, they
_behave_ in one way or another. So, looking at facial characteristics or
even body build is not the same as looking at facial characteristics, body
build, and behavior.
Now consider fossil remains. When we look at those remains, it is like
looking at a broken statue. What has always been important on this
listserv, however, is the context of those fossils. What kind of _behavior_
were those beings engaged in? Did they build camps, make tools, build
altars, etc.? At that point, it seems to me, that we take the fossils,
tools, etc., to constitute a single picture. We simply do not say, "I make
no decision about the fossil itself." Of course we make decisions, some of
which are based on the tools, campsites, and all the rest.
Fossil-plus-context is of one piece.
Blacks are human not because of the way they look, not because of their
behavior or any aspect of their culture, but because they are children of
Adam and Eve. The image of God they bear was broken when Adam sinned and,
just as with people of all races, requires restoration by Christ. They,
too, need to be made into his likeness once again.
I hope I haven't made my position more confusing!
Russ
Russell Maatman
e-mail: rmaat@mtcnet.net
Home: 401 5th Avenue
Sioux Center, IA 51250
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 13:38:20 EST