Using Human History as a guide Could Our Present Civilization Fall Into a New Dark Age?

[sknox]

>And we're back to the need to define human intelligence.

I will suggest again (and then will leave it be) that we in fact do not need to define this. Or, rather, that we humans have always and will always continue to use the term loosely and that it changes over time. It wasn't that long ago we defined anyone from another tribe as being either less than human or not human at all.

Machines will not "become" intelligent. We will simply adjust what we mean by intelligence. And we will treat certain interfaces in ways much as we do humans. Whatever definitions we might come up with here will slip and slide and fade into the distance with each passing year. Humans will continue to behave and misbehave, despite the finest of philosophical definitions. And that's why writers ultimately walk closer to the truth than do philosophers--we trade in people more than in ideas.

 

[Montero]

Not being flippant here - a train of thought starting with the number of times I talk to my computer (rarely politely) - and moving on to how humans like to assign intent and personality to things which (probably) don't have them - rivers, weather systems, trees - and then leave offerings to placate them. Nice river, please don't flood, here is a shiny lump of metal that is really valuable to me that I hope you will like and as a result you will treat me nicely.

And a further thought - so it is perverse that some people deny that animals have intent and personality. Go figure.

 

[Parson]

Is intelligence the same thing as sentience? I don't think they are, but if they are each animal is sentient to some degree.

One of the definitions of sentience that I like (from a novel long ago, about which I remember nothing else): Sentence is the ability to make fire and have a conversation around it. --- A low bar, but one that no present animal can cross, and for that matter no computer either.

 

[Vladd67]

This might be of interest.

 

[tinkerdan]

This is the common problem of trying to mix sentience and sapience as though they are the same thing.(refer to my previous post with links.)

Is intelligence the same thing as sentience? I don't think they are, but if they are each animal is sentient to some degree.

One of the definitions of sentience that I like (from a novel long ago, about which I remember nothing else): Sentence is the ability to make fire and have a conversation around it. --- A low bar, but one that no present animal can cross, and for that matter no computer either.

 

[Parson]

??? Sapience is "wise or attempting to appear wise." Sentience is is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively.

I'm using the word as subjective intelligence. The ability to reason a situation out, or to understand how someone else might feel given a set of circumstances. So, I believe Sentience is the right word.

 

[tinkerdan]

Sorry, now I'm just totally confused and I shall depart this conversation.

Is intelligence the same thing as sentience? I don't think they are, but if they are each animal is sentient to some degree.

I'm using the word as subjective intelligence. The ability to reason a situation out, or to understand how someone else might feel given a set of circumstances. So, I believe Sentience is the right word.

 

[Mirannan]

??? Sapience is "wise or attempting to appear wise." Sentience is is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively.

I'm using the word as subjective intelligence. The ability to reason a situation out, or to understand how someone else might feel given a set of circumstances. So, I believe Sentience is the right word.

This gets down to a matter of word definition, doesn't it? The way I've always thought of it: Sentience is the ability to take in information from the outside world and act on it in some manner, often with a view to making changes outside. It is very much a continuum; to take a silly extreme, a central heating thermostat has the minimum of sentience. The top of this range is probably intelligent mammals such as cats.

Sapience is sentience plus something more; self-awareness and an ability to make plans. Also, usually, the ability to create theories of mind, in that one is able to guess what someone else is thinking. On Earth, humans have this; which others is a matter of debate, but probably orcas and dolphins, also elephants, and all the anthropoid apes with the possible exception of gibbons. Maybe also some birds, such as corvids for example.

And sapience is also a continuum. However, humans do not stand on a pedestal here. I've heard it said that chimps are at about the level of a 5-year-old human child. Marine mammals are a lot more difficult to place.

 

[Parson]

Sorry, now I'm just totally confused and I shall depart this conversation.

I'm sorry too, that I am obviously not communicating what I mean well enough.

This gets down to a matter of word definition, doesn't it? The way I've always thought of it: Sentience is the ability to take in information from the outside world and act on it in some manner, often with a view to making changes outside. It is very much a continuum; to take a silly extreme, a central heating thermostat has the minimum of sentience. The top of this range is probably intelligent mammals such as cats.

Sapience is sentience plus something more; self-awareness and an ability to make plans. Also, usually, the ability to create theories of mind, in that one is able to guess what someone else is thinking. On Earth, humans have this; which others is a matter of debate, but probably orcas and dolphins, also elephants, and all the anthropoid apes with the possible exception of gibbons. Maybe also some birds, such as corvids for example.

And sapience is also a continuum. However, humans do not stand on a pedestal here. I've heard it said that chimps are at about the level of a 5-year-old human child. Marine mammals are a lot more difficult to place.

These are not the definitions of which I'm aware but using them, sapience is more what I mean. I most assuredly agree with the continuums about which you are speaking. I'm not sure I'd agree with the analogies though. I think to equate a chimp with most 5 year old humans is either to to undervalue the ability of the child or over value the ability of the chimp. (I'm thinking in terms of communication, insight, and planning.) I'd put my money on undervaluing of what a normal 5 year old human is capable of doing/understanding/accomplishing. If you deal with exceptional humans the idea of a chimp having the same abilities is laughable.

 

[dask]

Me want smarts.

 

[Mirannan]

I'm sorry too, that I am obviously not communicating what I mean well enough.



These are not the definitions of which I'm aware but using them, sapience is more what I mean. I most assuredly agree with the continuums about which you are speaking. I'm not sure I'd agree with the analogies though. I think to equate a chimp with most 5 year old humans is either to to undervalue the ability of the child or over value the ability of the chimp. (I'm thinking in terms of communication, insight, and planning.) I'd put my money on undervaluing of what a normal 5 year old human is capable of doing/understanding/accomplishing. If you deal with exceptional humans the idea of a chimp having the same abilities is laughable.

Sure. But how about exceptional chimps? As for communication - well, it looks as if the real problem that all apes have is not the mental apparatus to communicate but the physical apparatus; they simply don't have the right shape of mouth and respiratory system, or fine enough control of it, to talk. However, there has been quite a lot of success in teaching apes (strangely enough, gorillas appear to be better at it) sign language. I believe the one used is usually ASL, probably because the researchers are American. Try searching for Koko the gorilla.

 

[Parson]

Primate language is mostly overblown. They can point to and in some cases name things, but seldom to never put a sentence together. A lot of what is claimed for Koko by her handler is disputed strongly by other researchers. Her ability to communicate to people who are not her handler is very limited. I actually suspect that it's a case of a "mother" giving cues to her "child" and putting together ideas that the "child" doesn't even have. Even if everything claimed for Koko is accurate her vocabulary is still only a 1000 words and that without syntax. A human 5 year old is at least an order of magnitude beyond that. From what I've read and seen I would compare Koko to something like an 18 month old.

 

[Mirannan]

Primate language is mostly overblown. They can point to and in some cases name things, but seldom to never put a sentence together. A lot of what is claimed for Koko by her handler is disputed strongly by other researchers. Her ability to communicate to people who are not her handler is very limited. I actually suspect that it's a case of a "mother" giving cues to her "child" and putting together ideas that the "child" doesn't even have. Even if everything claimed for Koko is accurate her vocabulary is still only a 1000 words and that without syntax. A human 5 year old is at least an order of magnitude beyond that. From what I've read and seen I would compare Koko to something like an 18 month old.

Maybe. The point is that there is an overlap between primate and human capabilities; whether we like it or not, humans are not of a completely different order of being. Incidentally, one description of man is "homo ludens"; although other animals do what looks like playing, it's more like training. However, at least one other creature does something that looks much like playing and has people scratching their heads trying to figure out what they are doing; I've seen video of dolphins surfing. For which, of course, they are much better suited than humans are.

 

[Parson]

Completely agree. I even remember watching a documentary that said that it was known that an infertile female dolphin, (did not go into heat) sometimes had a male copulate with her, leading the commentator to speculate it was done just for pleasure. --- I'm not sure I buy that. I grew up on a farm and I've seen plenty of steers mount other steers, of course to no effect. But the dolphin idea has stuck with me.

 

[BAYLOR]

Then there was the program Life After People .

 

[Parson]

Talk about a show with no no possible verification! --- I actually thought that it was dumb and didn't watch much of it.

 

[BAYLOR]

Talk about a show with no no possible verification! --- I actually thought that it was dumb and didn't watch much of it.

It didn't explain what happened to humanity , Probably a plague. But I thought interesting how they showed how quickly cities and towns would be overrun plants and animals and how various famous monuments would crumble once neglect set in.

 

[Parson]

It didn't explain what happened to humanity , Probably a plague. But I thought interesting how they showed how quickly cities and towns would be overrun plants and animals and how various famous monuments would crumble once neglect set in.

People are temporary. Life is eternal.

 

[Venusian Broon]

It didn't explain what happened to humanity , Probably a plague. But I thought interesting how they showed how quickly cities and towns would be overrun plants and animals and how various famous monuments would crumble once neglect set in.

True, but really in terms of geological timespans...human buildings are mayfly-like in their ability to last. It just goes to show that it requires a great deal of effort and energy to maintain stuff!

I'm more concerned on longer term effects on the whole environment that humans have managed to impact.

 

[BAYLOR]

True, but really in terms of geological timespans...human buildings are mayfly-like in their ability to last. It just goes to show that it requires a great deal of effort and energy to maintain stuff!

I'm more concerned on longer term effects on the whole environment that humans have managed to impact.

The Permian Extinction event .