3 ms·

> I think the argument you shared contains a logical fallacy. You'll have the formalize that argument, because I'm not seeing the fallacy. > In its central ex

by vlan0 7y ago

> I think the argument you shared contains a logical fallacy. You'll have the formalize that argument, because I'm not seeing the fallacy. > In its central example, a human being, with their degree of thoughts, feelings, intelligence and all, is transferred to an animal, and the animal is still subsequently labeled as an animal. An accurate representation of my view would, at the very least, label the new animal as one with human-level sentience. Let's walk this through using your example of intelligence as the trait. I'll also quote the definition of intelligence from Wikipedia as the frame of reference. >Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. Let's use the reducteo. If we replace animal with a severely mentally handicapped human, the human would fail the meet the above criteria for intelligence. We also have studies that show examples of animals demonstrating problem solving, emotional knowledge, etc. Which would likely place the intelligence of the animal above that of a mentally handicapped person. That being said, do you also support medical experimentation on the mentally handicapped?

keenmaster 7y ago
A mentally handicapped person belongs to the species of sentient beings which I have placed at the top of the hierarchy for its typical/average characteristic of high intelligence. The mentally handicapped should be treated very well under my framework, because a cruel lottery has robbed them of some of the intelligence that they otherwise would have had. Even then, the vast majority of them are capable of more abstraction than any animal that we know of. Additionally, they trigger my mirror neurons, which I assume had some degree of influence on my arbitrary ethical framework. Those same mirror neurons would be triggered by a teddy bear with human intelligence by the way, even if it’s a mentally challenged member of a species of sentient teddy bears with human-level intelligence. I am not bothered by the arbitrariness of my framework, so long as it is internally consistent. I do not believe you have revealed an inconsistency. Find me a dolphin that has 200 unique calls, and I’ll show you how its language doesn’t meet the esoteric definition of abstraction which I am using, one which is not any less esoteric than yours, just as my ethics are no less arbitrary than yours. I am entirely, exhaustively aware of the subjectivity of intelligence. What are words such as “intelligence” other than imperfect summaries with some degree of private meaning to the speaker that is never 100% conveyed into the listener’s brain? I can further break intelligence into a series of abstraction hurdles that humans meet but not animals, but that increases entropy beyond what I believe is necessary here.
- vlan0 7y ago
  >I am entirely, exhaustively aware of the subjectivity of intelligence. What are words such as “intelligence” other than imperfect summaries with some degree of private meaning to the speaker that is never 100% conveyed into the listener’s brain? I can further break intelligence into a series of abstraction hurdles that humans meet but not animals, but that increases entropy beyond what I believe is necessary here. You're creating a straw man. You said previously you wanted "...intelligence being defined as it is common understood, and calling that definition arbitrary or saying that it’s not commonly understood would further illustrate the point in my OP)." And I gave you the commonly accepted definition of intelligence, just as you requested. Do you refute the definition I give. And then you go and claim its subjective and you can give it whatever definition you want.... I'm done here.
  - keenmaster 7y ago
    Got it. Well, in case you're still reading: Most people, after interacting with someone with Down's Syndrome, would conclude that that person is more intelligent than any animal on Earth. Animals cannot grasp abstract first principles, and then undertake non-genetically programmed, non-rote actions that demonstrate their understanding of first principles. People with DS, the most common genetic cause of intellectual disability, have the IQ of an 8-9 year old child. They are capable of learning the first principles of basic math, and, after doing so, add 13+8 together when they have never been told what that particular sum is. Animals are significantly more pre-programmed, and whenever we find a parrot that dances to music, dolphins that exhibit wildly unexpected behavior, and a primate that can make use of symbols, it inevitably turns out that those behaviors aren't rooted in as much cognition as one would first assume. The commonly understood intelligence that I am referring to is that which can be clearly observed in someone with Down's Syndrome above and beyond what we observe in animals. Part of it is a matter of magnitude. Dogs seem to have empathy. I'm sure they do, but without sufficient cognition, that empathy is severely bounded. They will jump up and down and wag their tail when you return from a 5 minute walk. If, however, you die and there's other food in the house, they might nonetheless eat your face in short order.

by vlan0 7y ago

keenmaster 7y ago

A mentally handicapped person belongs to the species of sentient beings which I have placed at the top of the hierarchy for its typical/average characteristic of high intelligence. The mentally handicapped should be treated very well under my framework, because a cruel lottery has robbed them of some of the intelligence that they otherwise would have had. Even then, the vast majority of them are capable of more abstraction than any animal that we know of. Additionally, they trigger my mirror neurons, which I assume had some degree of influence on my arbitrary ethical framework. Those same mirror neurons would be triggered by a teddy bear with human intelligence by the way, even if it’s a mentally challenged member of a species of sentient teddy bears with human-level intelligence. I am not bothered by the arbitrariness of my framework, so long as it is internally consistent. I do not believe you have revealed an inconsistency. Find me a dolphin that has 200 unique calls, and I’ll show you how its language doesn’t meet the esoteric definition of abstraction which I am using, one which is not any less esoteric than yours, just as my ethics are no less arbitrary than yours. I am entirely, exhaustively aware of the subjectivity of intelligence. What are words such as “intelligence” other than imperfect summaries with some degree of private meaning to the speaker that is never 100% conveyed into the listener’s brain? I can further break intelligence into a series of abstraction hurdles that humans meet but not animals, but that increases entropy beyond what I believe is necessary here.

vlan0 7y ago
>I am entirely, exhaustively aware of the subjectivity of intelligence. What are words such as “intelligence” other than imperfect summaries with some degree of private meaning to the speaker that is never 100% conveyed into the listener’s brain? I can further break intelligence into a series of abstraction hurdles that humans meet but not animals, but that increases entropy beyond what I believe is necessary here. You're creating a straw man. You said previously you wanted "...intelligence being defined as it is common understood, and calling that definition arbitrary or saying that it’s not commonly understood would further illustrate the point in my OP)." And I gave you the commonly accepted definition of intelligence, just as you requested. Do you refute the definition I give. And then you go and claim its subjective and you can give it whatever definition you want.... I'm done here.
- keenmaster 7y ago
  Got it. Well, in case you're still reading: Most people, after interacting with someone with Down's Syndrome, would conclude that that person is more intelligent than any animal on Earth. Animals cannot grasp abstract first principles, and then undertake non-genetically programmed, non-rote actions that demonstrate their understanding of first principles. People with DS, the most common genetic cause of intellectual disability, have the IQ of an 8-9 year old child. They are capable of learning the first principles of basic math, and, after doing so, add 13+8 together when they have never been told what that particular sum is. Animals are significantly more pre-programmed, and whenever we find a parrot that dances to music, dolphins that exhibit wildly unexpected behavior, and a primate that can make use of symbols, it inevitably turns out that those behaviors aren't rooted in as much cognition as one would first assume. The commonly understood intelligence that I am referring to is that which can be clearly observed in someone with Down's Syndrome above and beyond what we observe in animals. Part of it is a matter of magnitude. Dogs seem to have empathy. I'm sure they do, but without sufficient cognition, that empathy is severely bounded. They will jump up and down and wag their tail when you return from a 5 minute walk. If, however, you die and there's other food in the house, they might nonetheless eat your face in short order.