Author Topic: Consciousness, or something.  (Read 6731 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Levyathan

  • That that guy.
  • 27
Consciousness, or something.
...So I asked Thunder a question and he said that I'd have to start another thread if I wanted to discuss the subject.

Here's the question. If someone else wants to answer, it's fine by me. But I'm specially interested in Thunder's view.

Quote
Originally posted by Levyathan
At what point, exactly, do you draw a distinction line between two entities which, even though they exist, have no consciousness of themselves?


The specific case was about a dog and a Tamagotchi. That's all there is to it.

 

Offline magatsu1

  • 210
Consciousness, or something.
And he said forum. And I think you're pishing your luck here..
Blitzerland: Knows what he's talkin' about

 

Offline Levyathan

  • That that guy.
  • 27
Consciousness, or something.
Quote
Originally posted by Kalfireth
If you want to debate consciousness then start your own thread.

 

Offline Knight Templar

  • Stealth
  • 212
  • I'm a magic man, I've got magic hands.
Consciousness, or something.
So you want to debate whether there is a difference between a tamogotchi and a pet?

Where should I start?
Copyright ©1976, 2003, KT Enterprises. All rights reserved

"I don't want to get laid right now. I want to get drunk."- Mars

Too Long, Didn't Read

 

Offline Levyathan

  • That that guy.
  • 27
Consciousness, or something.
Exactly. I'd appreciate any and every effort.

 

Offline Knight Templar

  • Stealth
  • 212
  • I'm a magic man, I've got magic hands.
Consciousness, or something.
Okay, I guess I'll start off with (animal) pets being living creatures, while tamogotchi's are a mass of cold, heartless, technology, with a bit of programming.

Then you have living pets, such as dogs, who provide tangible companionship, protection, fun, etc.

Tomogatchi's vibrat when you don't press the button that makes them sleep.

Is there really a point to this, or are you just trying to piss off Thunder?
Copyright ©1976, 2003, KT Enterprises. All rights reserved

"I don't want to get laid right now. I want to get drunk."- Mars

Too Long, Didn't Read

 

Offline TopAce

  • Stalwart contributor
  • 212
  • FREDder, FSWiki editor, and tester
Consciousness, or something.
Something like: What is the difference if you die in FreeSpace or in real life?

You can see the difference

*out*
My community contributions - Get my campaigns from here.

I already announced my retirement twice, yet here I am. If I bring up that topic again, don't believe a word.

 

Offline Levyathan

  • That that guy.
  • 27
Consciousness, or something.
Quote
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Okay, I guess I'll start off with (animal) pets being living creatures, while tamogotchi's are a mass of cold, heartless, technology, with a bit of programming.

And a dog is a mass of flesh with a bit of natural instinct. The difference between them is what I'm looking for.
Quote
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Tomogatchi's vibrat when you don't press the button that makes them sleep.

Just as dogs respond accordingly if you don't feed or take them to a walk.

 

Offline TopAce

  • Stalwart contributor
  • 212
  • FREDder, FSWiki editor, and tester
Consciousness, or something.
You do not have to pay to feed your Tamagotchi.
My community contributions - Get my campaigns from here.

I already announced my retirement twice, yet here I am. If I bring up that topic again, don't believe a word.

 

Offline Fineus

  • ...But you *have* heard of me.
  • Administrator
  • 212
    • Hard Light Productions
Consciousness, or something.
By what you're saying - humans act in exactly the same way as a Tomogatchi does. Yet we consider ourselves to be conscious of ourselves.

 

Offline Levyathan

  • That that guy.
  • 27
Consciousness, or something.
Quote
Originally posted by TopAce
You do not have to pay to feed your Tamagotchi.

If that's the only difference you could find, by logic one should be less sad when a dog dies than when a Tamagotchi dies.

 

Offline TopAce

  • Stalwart contributor
  • 212
  • FREDder, FSWiki editor, and tester
Consciousness, or something.
I could say at least 20 differences if I had ever played with Tamagotch. But I am not interested in things like that.
My community contributions - Get my campaigns from here.

I already announced my retirement twice, yet here I am. If I bring up that topic again, don't believe a word.

 

Offline Levyathan

  • That that guy.
  • 27
Consciousness, or something.
Quote
Originally posted by Kalfireth
By what you're saying - humans act in exactly the same way as a Tomogatchi does. Yet we consider ourselves to be conscious of ourselves.

So you're saying that dogs and Tamagotchis are aware of themselves just like humans are?

  

Offline Levyathan

  • That that guy.
  • 27
Consciousness, or something.
Quote
Originally posted by TopAce
I could say at least 20 differences if I had ever played with Tamagotch.

Considering your previous posts in this thread, I'd have to say that I don't agree with that.

 

Offline Fineus

  • ...But you *have* heard of me.
  • Administrator
  • 212
    • Hard Light Productions
Consciousness, or something.
No, but that's my point - you're saying that tamagotchis and dogs respond in the same way to the same stimulus - but that a dog is no different from a tamagotchi. It deserves no sympathy.

One thing I'm sure we can both agree is true - if I were to kick a tamagotchi it would not cry out in pain. If I kicked a dog or a human - they both would. They are both aware that they are in pain - if perhaps, the dog does not understand why, it still understands that it feels it.

A few years ago when we first got my dog - Harry - I accidentally trod on one of his paws - he cried out in pain and wouldn't go near me for the rest of the day, and spent the next few days being warey around me. Clearly then he understood that I had caused him pain - he made a distinction between me, the world we both occupy, and himself.

Ergo, dogs are quite different from Tamagotchis.

 

Offline Solatar

  • 211
Consciousness, or something.
The Tamagotchis cannot think for itself. If you put it in a situation where it has to make a decision and LEARN something outside it's programming, it's screwed.

 

Offline Ghostavo

  • 210
  • Let it be glue!
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Consciousness, or something.
wowow....

Quote
At what point, exactly, do you draw a distinction line between two entities which, even though they exist, have no consciousness of themselves?


You are saying an animal (in this case a dog) has no consciousness?
Do you have consciousness?

A tamagotch is not conscious because it has no thoughts, it is just a computed script!! It can change on it's own, it can't act on it's own, etc, etc, etc...

The irracionality in some decisions every animal takes is proof enough of their own consciousness.

Happy now :mad:
"Closing the Box" - a campaign in the making :nervous:

Shrike is a dirty dirty admin, he's the destroyer of souls... oh god, let it be glue...

 

Offline Killfrenzy

  • Slaughter-class cruiser
  • 210
  • Randomly Existing
Consciousness, or something.
This is going to dissolve into a flame war with remarkable rapidity.....

Let's look at things logically.

Firstly we must define what 'consciousness' is. The Oxford Compact English Dictionary defines consciousness as:

1) The state of being conscious
2) Awareness, perception

Dropping the first definition as it's irrelevant to the point, we are left with option 2, that of consciousness being defined as awareness and perception.

Feeding that definition seamlessly back into a real-world context, you and I are both aware of our surroundings. For example, I'm sitting here at my computer, and I'm aware that there's a light on in the corner, and that my pet rabbit is scratching away at something in his hutch. As I look around the room, I see things. Percieve them.

Living things, besides some of the more obvious functions that they carry out, all have some element of awareness and perception. A plant is aware of where the sun is and adjusts the position of its leaves throughout the day accordingly. My rabbit, Dandelion, is aware of where he is (in a hutch in the corner) and where his food bowl is, for want of a better example.

Looping back to the original argument, that of a Tamagotchi vs a dog for 'consciousness' we must ask ourselves this: Is a Tamagotchi actually aware of its surroundings? Can it percieve things?

The answer is 'no' in both cases. A Tamagotchi is programmed to react to certain pre-defined stimuli. When playing with a Tamagotchi you have a choice of things to do. IIRC you can feed it, play with it and do a couple of other things. What you can't do is throw a grenade at its feet and see how it would react. The Tamagotchi doesn't have a 'grenade' option in its code.

On the flipside, if you throw a grenade at a dog's feet, it would react in any number of ways. It might run away, it might sniff at it wondering what it is, or indeed it might pick it up in its mouth and return it to you as if it was a stick that you'd thrown. Naturally, we view two of those options as downright stupid, but that's because we know what a grenade is - the poor dog doesn't until it blows up, by which point it wouldn't care anyway.

Consciousness, as I've stated, is a difficult thing to define. Even when you've got the definition from a dictionary you need to interpret it correctly. I suppose it comes down to this:

Consciousness is the attribute that a thing has if it is able to percieve its environment, be aware of what it is and what it is doing, and being able to react to unexpected stimuli. Living things can do that to varying extents, artificial life like a Tamagotchi can't. At least, not yet.

In the original example, Singh's dog was a perfectly happy, healthy and energetic creature who was as much a part of Singh's life as his sibling(s), his parents or his friends. Losing that companion, even though said companion wasn't human, left a large hole in Singh's heart. He could never replace that dog, not even if he managed to find another animal of exactly the same breed, temperament and colouration as the one he's lost. If it had been a Tamagotchi, you'd just reset, hatch the egg and start again. Sure, you might feel a slight sense of loss as you'd worked hard to evolve that Tamagotchi, but it's still technology. You can't pet it, you can't hug it and you sure as hell can't think of it as a companion in any stretch of the imagination.

In my life, I've got a house rabbit as I mentioned earlier. He's about seven years old now, and I'm quietly preparing for the day when it'll all be over. Most rabbits live on average for about eight years, so I doubt I've long left. But I've shared some moments with him, mainly because he's been a close part of my life. He's been 'there' during some of the toughest parts of my life, such as losing my father suddenly nearly two years ago. He's more than just a pet, he's a companion and a friend. Sure, he can't speak to me or play multiplayer F-Zero on my Gamecube, but with him around at least one thing will go right in the day. He'll always be happy to recieve a scratch on the nose or to hop around like a maniac when I waggle his food container in front of him prior to pouring it into the bowl. Although he's a rabbit, with all the lower intelligence that comes with it, sometimes he acts so 'human' it's untrue.

For those of you that have a pet, give it a hug right now. Unless it's a goldfish or a boa constrictor, that might not be a good idea. With them around, our life feels less empty. Your life might suck big time, but it'll suck less if you spend just five minutes with your pet.

That, my friends, is joy.
Death has more impact than life, for everyone dies, but not everyone lives. [/b]
-Tomoe Hotaru (Sailor Saturn
------------
Founder of Shadows of Lylat

 

Offline Stryke 9

  • Village Person
    Reset count: 4
  • 211
Consciousness, or something.
Ah, this tired old thing... well, if you want to go by sheer observation, it's mostly a matter of level of complexity. Technically speaking, there's no way we can actually be sure that, say, all of the forumites here are actually self-aware humans and not just highly accurate simulations. There've been quite a few bots that passed the Turing test in our time.  There are very few who'd claim that such scripts are self-aware, and those individuals are so terribly ignorant they're not worth speaking of any further.

The problem is, it's not really possible to find a flawless test of self-awareness. You can prove that you yourself are a conscious being, if you're clever (and Descartes' famous statement ain't a solution, by the way), but you can't make that claim about anything else in the universe.

However, despite the lack of solid proof we take for granted that quite a lot of things in the world are conscious, starting with those most like ourselves. If something displays rudimentary signs of semisentience, such as dogs and most other predatory mammals do, we presume them to be conscious on a level somewhat below ours. No proof, just our observations, but if we take it as a given that, say, those we converse with on a regular basis are aware human beings like ourselves rather than cleverly constructed automatons, and things like chairs are not conscious, then we must assume that the same property of awareness extends through the rest of the universe in varying quantities by the same token. Dogs act quite a lot like us in terms of external signs of consciousness, and it is understood that they work in a very similar way to the way we do, and are adaptable intelligent beings by any definition- they will act to preserve their own existence and are capable of rudimentary problem-solving of a sort that's difficult to explain if one doesn't presume the idea of a self. Tamagotchis have some extremely crude simulations of consciousness, but we also know how they work and know that these are actually hardcoded reactions whose similarity to our own is present purely by means of our own interference and imaginations- the "feed" button does not actually feed them, or indeed do anything analogous to a feeding, it simply sends the Tamagotchi data that it interprets by lighting up certain pixels on a screen, which in turn small children interpret as the reaction of a recently-fed animal. The actual process is no more intelligent than a pile of rocks falling over. Hence, we must presume that the dog (a being similar to us) is conscious to some extent and that a Tamagotchi (a being wholly dissimilar) is not.

Since the alternative is being the one real human being alive in all of existence, I'd go for presuming that other things are conscious.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2004, 04:10:25 pm by 262 »

 

Offline Blaise Russel

  • Campaign King
  • 29
    • http://mysite.freeserve.com/sbre/index.html
Consciousness, or something.
Does it actually matter?

Look, dude, the guy could be grieving over a screwed-up Post-It note - and I would still give him my sympathies. Now, you may chortle and say "Post-It notes don't matter, dude!" and expect him to "buck up", stand up straight and say "You're right! These emotions are stupid! They are so *very* human, emotions - another reason why they are such a weak species. Hahahahaha!"... but I would disagree.

The dog means nothing to me. It has no value to me whatsoever. Not only is it something that I've never met, never seen, and can only vaguely imagine as one of any number of different kinds of dog... but I'm also a cat person as well. I do not give my sympathies for the dog, because I never knew it and I don't give a damn about it.

But someone did. And that someone is really torn up about it. Now, in a supremely self-centred way, I could say that I don't know what's wrong with him - because, in my arrogance, I could blithely assume that just because the dog means nothing to me, it must mean nothing to him too, right? However, I'm not stupid like that; I understand that there are other people in the world who aren't really basically just like me, but with different names... they're completely different people with different values and different feelings about stuff. I can accept that he grieves for something that he values greatly and I don't care about at all.

No, I don't feel bad for the dog's death. I feel bad for Singh feeling bad. To quote someone roughly, "I grieve for your grief." This guy is feeling low, and I don't like it when people are sad, so I offer him my condolences as a way of saying "I'm sorry, hope you get better soon."

So if my sympathies are offered based on the person's grief, and not on what I think they ought to feel, then it doesn't matter if it's a human dead or a dog dead or a Tamagotchi frazzled or a Post-It note all messed up... if they're sad about it, they get a little piece of sympathy in digital form.

Doesn't matter, does it?



Which reminds me: my condolences. To lose something as dear to your heart as a pet is pretty bad. I hope you feel better soon.