5 ms·

One example that comes to mind on what I see as a key difference between the two: Let us consider, say, ants and bears, they're obviously intelligent and reaso

One example that comes to mind on what I see as a key difference between the two: Let us consider, say, ants and bears, they're obviously intelligent and reasonably well adapted to their environment (especially ants). If they could somehow consciously realize that they exist both as an individual and as a species and would feel threatened by some common enemy, maybe humans, they could then band together as a species against the common foe. If that happened, they would cause way more trouble that they usually do. Luckily for us, these types of thoughts never enter their minds. Even if a bear goes rogue and starts attacking people, they never reach a point where they band together and go on a crime spree or decide to take over the world. Somehow, we are able to imagine those possibilities, but they cannot and it isn't because they aren't intelligent enough. Something else is missing. In other words, if the animals had the minds of humans, we can only imagine what the world would come to. Probably an us vs them death-match.

jemmyw 3y ago
That doesn't mean that those animals aren't conscious though. It just means it's a scale. And while we're at the top of the scale, we might have accelerated away from the previous rung by social, rather than biological, means. Studies with animals have shown than we can build on their base intelligence with specific interactions. I'm not sure your scenario would play out. If animals always had our level then it would just be a different world. If they suddenly acquired it then I'm guessing, just as with humans, some would fight, many would ingratiate and look at how to become entwined with us. Livestock might trample the farmer but them hooves aren't going against human weapons. It's a silly thought, but I think if what you say were true then given planetary resources and environmental concerns most of the humans should be rising up against those of us exploiting then and living the good life.
- indigoabstract 3y ago
  Well, it was just a thought experiment, since we have no way to find out. Yes, animals can learn many skills and also find surprising solutions to reach and open that food recipient you thought was safely locked, but there also seems to be a fuzzy limit to the thoughts available to them and it's plausible that, even given a human like level of intelligence, an average intelligent talking dog might be content to live its life in a human household with other dogs, while an average intelligent talking wolf might not. We don't know where feelings and desires come from, why somebody has a burning desire to be free or do some particular thing, while somebody else can be satisfied without freedom if their basic needs are met. Many people are preoccupied with AI these days, and most seem to consider consciousness as something that emerges from intelligence on a gradient, if they ever think about it. To me, consciousness looks more like something complementary to intelligence. In principle, wouldn't it be possible for an artificial system to be intelligent and react to its environment without having any feeling or experience about it, just by being trained to successfully respond to its survival challenges and perhaps be able to repair or construct copies of itself? Is there a survival advantage in being able to experience life? Doesn't it just needlessly complicate things? For some unknown reason, I find myself wondering about this from time to time.
  - jemmyw 3y ago
    > In principle, wouldn't it be possible for an artificial system to be intelligent and react to its environment without having any feeling or experience about it I don't know that we can answer the question. We don't even know if that awareness is parasitical or a necessary result of the required feedback we have in our brains to make us autonomous and adaptable. I hope for it being required.

jemmyw 3y ago

That doesn't mean that those animals aren't conscious though. It just means it's a scale. And while we're at the top of the scale, we might have accelerated away from the previous rung by social, rather than biological, means. Studies with animals have shown than we can build on their base intelligence with specific interactions. I'm not sure your scenario would play out. If animals always had our level then it would just be a different world. If they suddenly acquired it then I'm guessing, just as with humans, some would fight, many would ingratiate and look at how to become entwined with us. Livestock might trample the farmer but them hooves aren't going against human weapons. It's a silly thought, but I think if what you say were true then given planetary resources and environmental concerns most of the humans should be rising up against those of us exploiting then and living the good life.

indigoabstract 3y ago
Well, it was just a thought experiment, since we have no way to find out. Yes, animals can learn many skills and also find surprising solutions to reach and open that food recipient you thought was safely locked, but there also seems to be a fuzzy limit to the thoughts available to them and it's plausible that, even given a human like level of intelligence, an average intelligent talking dog might be content to live its life in a human household with other dogs, while an average intelligent talking wolf might not. We don't know where feelings and desires come from, why somebody has a burning desire to be free or do some particular thing, while somebody else can be satisfied without freedom if their basic needs are met. Many people are preoccupied with AI these days, and most seem to consider consciousness as something that emerges from intelligence on a gradient, if they ever think about it. To me, consciousness looks more like something complementary to intelligence. In principle, wouldn't it be possible for an artificial system to be intelligent and react to its environment without having any feeling or experience about it, just by being trained to successfully respond to its survival challenges and perhaps be able to repair or construct copies of itself? Is there a survival advantage in being able to experience life? Doesn't it just needlessly complicate things? For some unknown reason, I find myself wondering about this from time to time.
- jemmyw 3y ago
  > In principle, wouldn't it be possible for an artificial system to be intelligent and react to its environment without having any feeling or experience about it I don't know that we can answer the question. We don't even know if that awareness is parasitical or a necessary result of the required feedback we have in our brains to make us autonomous and adaptable. I hope for it being required.