Should probably read up on all definitions of the word before making that argument.



If you could tell me simply what a person is, that would be appreciated.



Computers can reason too. Does this make them human? And are we talking about the same humans who justified the dropping of atomic bombs on cities destroying innocent people and animals? Also polluting the atmosphere and completely ruining the lives of thousands of Japanese by giving incurable radiation diseases? And you're saying we're morally superior to an animal, which lays around and eats grass all day.

That is a very crude form of altruism and surely you would not disagree it is vastly different to the mammalian altruism we have been talking about. This type of altruism which was nowhere present in almost all of our evolution.
attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Saying that a certain kind of complex altruism didn't appear in 99% of our evolution is merely stating the obvious. It's complex, that's why we had to evolve it. You're not going to get away with making this category error. You cannot apply a specific form of altruism in this case, and then apply it to your argument in a completely different context.

Look at this thread dude. It is a thread about how humans should treat animals. What OTHER type of altruism would I be referring to? I have been talking about complex altruism from the start, and how it was never present in almost all of our evolution's history. This is why I kept asking you over and over how are you possibly trying to dispute something so simple. And now you turn around and go I'm stating the obvious!

Just look at the twists and turns your argument has gone through, just to avoid apologizing for misinterpreting my first post:
First you go on some big ramble about stuff that was entirely unrelated to my post...

Then when I tried to tell you this you went on another tangent about greed in societies.


And then you jumped from that to an article about altruism hardwired into the human brain, even though I had already talked about complex altruism appearing in mammals...

Finally you abandoned that and then started talking about rudimentary altruism in today's bacteria.

Maybe if you would just stop arguing for arguments sake we would not have had to suffer through this winding discussion. And to think after all this you turn around at me and say I am the one stating the obvious. Wow. Well at least now we are finally on the same page.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 18 2011, 9:01 am by Oh_Man.

Citation?

Where do computers reason? They do math and perform extremely specific instructions, one after the other. They have no feelings, thoughts, or ideas. If they did, they would not be computers.. they would be an intelligence.

Just a couple things that stood out to me. ;o


This video to me still just feels like "the-worst-of-the-worst"-case scenarios and, ultimately, just propaganda... Where did they get this footage anyway?

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on May 18 2011, 3:18 pm by FaRTy1billion.

Linky. Not that it needs to be told that picking cotton in extreme heat for no pay in averse conditions is pleasant. Only a few got treated well.



Their entire existence is to reason:

Reasion (v.) (2) - Find an answer to a problem by considering various possible solutions.


Yes, and a few are advanced enough to reason very well in some very specific areas. Such as Deep Blue and Watson.

There is actually a raging debate in philosophy about whether computers can think, or more correctly, whether the potential exists for them to think. Several problems exist, like defining what understanding is.

That says nothing about their attitudes. If it does, point it out.
Again, citation? I would argue that only a few got treated poorly. The reason being that slaves cost money (a lot) and and make their owners money, so owners would have to keep them in good condition in order for high productivity.

They don't do the reasoning, though. They follow very specific rules and instructions. The "reasoning" they perform is hardcoded into them by the programmer, and as a result of the programmer's creativity and understanding.

After reading those links, I'd say Watson is close ... but that is one instance.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on May 18 2011, 4:20 pm by FaRTy1billion.

That's a good idea. "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism)." Glad we cleared that up. The words principle, concern, and devotion all imply some sort of intention.


Now you're just being dumb. People are humans. Or, to cut off further semantic idiocy, homo sapiens. Happy?


Computers can't reason. They can do math really fast. Given complex instructions, they can solve some classes of problems. However, they are incapable of thinking for themselves, meaning their results are merely functions of their inputs. They will give determinate answers.

I read your link. It actually doesn't even support your point at all. In fact, it contradicts it.
"The Revolutionary War helped lead to new attitudes about slavery, especially among whites in the North. The war inspired a spirit of liberty and an appreciation for the service of the black soldiers. Partly for this reason, some Northern legislatures adopted laws during the late 1700's that provided for the immediate or gradual end of slavery. Another reason for such laws was simply that slaves had no essential role in the main economic activities of the North."

Again, look at the definition. A computer doesn't consider various possible solutions. It does math. It is an automated abacus. Yet no reasonable person would say that an automated abacus can reason. Deep Blue is designed to play chess, based on what its creators decided were the best possible strategies. Watson is designed to parse plain English. It does this through many complex algorithms and a huge database. It does not think.

Merriam Webster confirms by the second definition that the bacteria are acted altruistically. This is the context it is being used, I am not suggesting that bacteria have concern.


No, not really. Are you saying that intelligent aliens would not be persons? Or even that God does not possess personhood because he is not human? The concept of person as per philosophical academia refers to one that is subject to rights and duties. I should have made this clear.


Welcome to philosophy.


Yes, in the North. It supports my claims quite well. If you read further you see, "By the early 1800's, most Northern states had taken steps to end slavery. Besides former slaves freed by law, free blacks included those who had been freed by their masters, who had bought their freedom, or who had been born of free parents."

Because these people are no longer slaves, they no longer fall under the blanket of slaves during the early 1800s and any northern slaves would represent a minority. In fact, if you read before that, even more is uncovered, "... Southern cotton industry expanded, and cotton became the chief crop in the region. The planters needed more and more workers to pick and bale the cotton, which led to large increases in the slave population. The thriving sugar cane plantations of Louisiana also used many slaves during the first half of the 1800's. By 1860, about 4 million slaves lived in the South."

Directly after affirms my claim, "Numerous slaves protested against their condition. They used such day-to-day forms of rebellion as destroying property, running away, pretending illness, and disobeying orders. Major slave protests included armed revolts and mutinies."

You are either trolling, red herring, or otherwise, because there is no possible way any rational person would believe slaves enjoyed being slaves.