From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Mon May 13 2002 - 17:02:26 MDT
--> Ken Clements
> Reason wrote:
>
> >
> > Fortunately I never took freshman logic courses -- too much
> minding of Ps
> > and Qs for me.
> >
>
> You do not have to fall back on the rigor of symbolic logic in
> order to get the
> benefit of basic logical reasoning. I believe that failure to
> teach logical
> reasoning in school leads to many serious problems for society.
I really need to learn to add smileys where intended. But yes, I'm on the
same page there. Along with teaching responsibility and accountability from
an early age.
> As well as begging the question, your original post indicated
> that children who
> fail to pass the test that identifies humans would then not be
> humans. This
> does not necessarily follow; it would require an "if and only if"
> test, one that
> both identifies humans, and rejects those who are not human. For
> example, it is
> know that all men are human, therefore, you can test a given
> subject to see if
> he is a man. If so, you know you have found a human, but if not,
> you do not
> reach a conclusion because the test was only one sided.
>
> People often make this mistake with regard to the Turing test.
> The Turing test
> is one sided. It originated because no satisfactory definition
> of thinking
> could be established. It was generally recognized that humans
> think, so if
> something could pass the Turing test, then that thing should be
> recognized as
> being able to think as well. However, failure to pass the Turing
> test does not
> establish that something cannot think. It is perfectly
> reasonable to envision
> an AI program that is self aware, and has cognitive abilities
> beyond any human,
> but does not pass the Turing test. For one thing, it may refuse
> to play our
> silly game.
All quite true. However, we don't have a black-box "if and only if" test. At
least I don't think we do - anyone care to enlighten me if we do?
I'd probably accept an MRI (or similar) scan white-box test of humanity once
we have a better handle on the workings of the brain. Back to the
aritraryness thing, we could absolutely run this now and decide on humanity
based on brain structure and functionality in response to stimulus. If
society so decided; incomplete or bad science hasn't stopped anyone yet.
So, back the point I was trying to make, again, obfuscated by a
throw-together and probably bad choice of examples: arbitrary, abitrary,
abitrary. All line-drawing around humanity doesn't have to make sense,
doesn't have to be defensible, doesn't have to be logical, doesn't have to
be anything -- there is no outside context judging our choices, there is no
absolute standard, no absolute right or wrong. The rules are what we (or
anyone else) decide to make them. The rules can and do vary from culture to
culture, person to person. We'll fight and argue over them, since people
like imposing their will on other people. It's all relative, all part of the
human condition.
(More circular logic there for you -- perhaps the best "if and only if" test
is to put two alleged humans in a room along with a simple philosophical
theorem and see if they fight :)
Reason
http://www.exratio.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:03 MST