[an0n]

Uh, no, Thundypants.

If you dump a baby out in the woods (assuming it doesn't encounter any animals) it would just lay there until it dies.

[Fineus]

Ever tried it?

Seriously - there's been stories of ferral children who've been discovered living in harmony with wolf packs and what have you - and those were actual reports (I've not read far into them, but know of their existance at least).

But you seem to be missing the point - if we're talking about an absolute newborn then yes without care it would probably die. An infant dog or child might explore and even survive without aid. The Tamagotchi would lay there untill it died no matter what - even if you did give it legs, arms and a mouth. It is limited entirely by its programming. If you don't tell it to go and find food and shelter on its own then it won't do jack but sit there where you left it. An infant dog or child might well make some effort to move around - maybe even survive (however unlikely they may be). You haven't programmed them to do anything at all - but they'll do something. The tamagotchi won't. If you really think that dogs and humans are on the same level as a tamagotchi? Well you've got issues

Nico, no - I wouldn't slam it. As I said if I knew something could feel pain I would not cause it to feel pain unless it gave me due cause (if a dog is attempting to rip my throat out - I'll fight back, if a human attempts to shoot at me and fighting back is possible, I'll fight back).

Now, lets see how an0n tries to justify a tamagotchi being the same as a human or a dog. This should be stunning.

[Stryke 9]

"In harmony with wolves"?

Yeah, wolf spots child, wolf eats child. Wolf is at harmony with its lunch.

[Fineus]

No, the child was alive untill humans found it.

[an0n]

If a baby encounters the wolves (or any animal for that matter) it learns from them.

And the only factor limiting the Tamagotchi are those imposed by its world.

Think of it this way: Every function in the Tamagotchi's programming is like a law of physics in our world.

We have all these laws of physics which dictate how we act, what we see, what we sense. The only factor limiting the Tamagotchi is that it doesn't have all these laws in its world.

If you took all the Tamagotchi's programming, converted it into some form that could be understood by say the brain of a dog (as well as adding some 'make heart beat' functions so it could work with our laws of physics) and let it loose in the real world, it'd do just as well as any normal dog.

That's what you've got to understand about the universe; intelligence and life are not quantifiable because they are non-existent. All things have the exact same amount of 'intellectual potentional', and they are limited only by the things in their environment and their ability to interact with them.

The Tamagotchi has almost no ability to interact and almost no environment. If you gave it more, it would react more.

In short: it's a bloody tiny life, but it's a life.

[Fineus]

Here's a question for you then, if I was to shoot a Skaarj in Unreal 2, would that be murder? By the criteria you set it's a life - it just has very limited options in its world.

Also, you seem to have gone off at a tangent from this thread - we're not debating what quantifies life, we're debating consciousness (at least the last time I checked...).

And at the end of the day - a dog is aware of itself, a Tamagotchi shows no such awareness. It also does not want for food or anything else in its world - it reaches a preset time period and - by reference to its programming - becomes hungry. Humans can and will eat because they enjoy it - not because it is necessary. The Tamagotchi is not actually hungry, it will not grow weak and die because it was not fed - it will grow weak and die because whoever programmed it told it that is what it should do. A dog or a human could be dying of starvation but have several options open to them - they could give up and die or go and find food.. or an array of other options. A Tamagotchi would be compelled to stay where it was and die because that is what it is programmed to do (again assuming a Tamagotchi could move around and find food on its own).

Moving on slightly, if you were to give a human, a dog and a Tamagotchi equal understanding of a hand grenade (as someone said earlier, and lets assume that all 3 could have an equal understanding of it... perhaps show them a video of a grenade exploding next to a dog, human and tamagotchi... whatever works for the sake of arguement) - the human would chose to move away from the grenade, as would the dog. The Tamagotchi would not. It feels no pain or desire for self preservation. It is not concious of its situation or care for its own survival.

Ergo, I suppose one would have to enable computers to feel pain before you could have trouble making distinctions between a Tamagotchi and a human or a dog. Since feeling and situational awareness to the world around you seems the deciding factor in states of conciousness at this stage.

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
What I think Stryke 9 is saying is that every undiscussed discussion is worth taking. Do not procrastinate anything, physicaly and mentaly.

Isn't it?

I disagree, though. Well, not about procrastination, but the other bit.

If the topic is unanswerable; if any discussion is going to end up like any good religion thread, with a 'Well, that's what you believe, and this is what I believe, and that's the furthest we're going to get,' because we can't look at the world and simply see who's right and who's wrong... I don't really see much point in telling our viewpoints to other people if that's all we can really do. The issue of, say, are other people and animals conscious like me, or am I the only one who's not an automaton acting a part, is not going to be resolved by a handful of people on the HLP message boards.

Plus, I'm not sure what benefit knowing all about consciousness would have, apart from the actual knowing about it, which doesn't really count per se. As far as *I* am concerned, anyway. If it turns out animals are also conscious, or aren't conscious, then it won't mean anything to me; the state of being self-aware is not important to me in how I treat other things. Nor am I a scientist or psychologist to know just how knowing this could benefit the human race; I don't know any practical application for this knowledge. If there is one, great! turn me all around, this issue is important. But if not, and I'm not about to assume there is one without evidence or something, then... meh.



Meanwhile...

they still deserve compassion as any living thing does

Why?

[Fineus]

Why not? It pleases me to behave differently from the rest of the human race and actually be nice to things around me. If I am kind to a dog, I get something back from that because the dog behaves in what I believe to be an affectionate way towards me. It's mutually beneficial and does no harm to anyone.

I know that it may shock you, but just because something isn't up to our standards of what we gauge as intelligence, doesn't mean we have to dominate it, mistreat it and be generally human towards it. There is another option.

[Blaise Russel]

That assumes that you actually *care* about what happens to other creatures - after all, you can generally get twice as much out of something if you work for your benefit at its expense than if you work for mutual benefit.

Now, I do actually care about how other creatures feel, because I'm all compassionate like that... but I don't think it's a very good basis for a moral system, because as soon as someone says "It's in pain? So what?" you run into a huge problem that undermines everything you've built up from that.

I prefer my base, where harming others means others harm you, so it is better to not harm others at all, which works for almost everybody because almost everyone has a modicum of self-preservation. Furthermore, it hits where it counts, because the kind of person who screws over others is most likely going to be doing it for their own benefit, and this system directly addresses that. It's worked for thousands of years, as well. True, it suffers from the same problem, in that it assumes that you care about yourself, but in practical terms it is more likely for someone to care about themselves than about some other entity that *isn't* themselves.

Just a thought. Not exactly a disagreement, just a difference in method in coming to the same conclusion of not harming others. Because, you know, I do actually think about these sort of things... when it's worth my time to do so.

[an0n]

Pfff. I care about me and my laziness.

So I'll always look first-off for a way that will make everyone happy regardless of their opposing opinions, that way more people owe me. But if someone appears to be refusing to co-operate and deharmonising the system, they're quickly and extremely violently removed from it.

This way you can keep things orderly and even provide an outlet and purpose for anyone who enjoys causing harm to others.

[Whitelight]

How is it that this topic lasted 3 pages

[an0n]

Because it's one of the few subjects that's never had its own thread.......in recent memory, anyway.

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
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.

Then consider a dog that has a disease which keeps it from feeling pain. Would it be 'okay' to kick this dog, break its legs, set it on fire and nail its eyes onto a wall? Would it deserve less sympathy than a normal, healthy dog?

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Clearly then he understood that I had caused him pain - he made a distinction between me, the world we both occupy, and himself.

If you don't feed a Tamagotchi or play with it every once in a while, it'll get mad at you too. Programming? Yes. But what's the difference between artificial programming and natural instinct?

This has already been said, but as your post was a direct reply to mine, I felt the need to respond to it.

[an0n]

The only difference, as I keep saying, again and again and again and again, in various forms and contexts: It's got nothing to do with the mind and everything to do with the body.

[Levyathan]

Exactly. When I ask that kind of question, I'm not actually asking, but implying that there's no difference.

[Fineus]

So whats the point of the thread? You just fancied an arguement?

[Levyathan]

Why don't you consider it a true question and answer it?

[Fineus]

Can it actually be answered though? Or is it just an opinion similar to the question "is red a nice color?". I can voice my opinion (I think I already have) - but I can't give you an answer to a question that works for you.

[Levyathan]

So now you're saying it's all a matter of opinion?

What about the dog that feels no pain?

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]I still think the tamagotchi is a bad example and is ultimately limiting the argument.

Kalfireth, if you shoot skarrj or whatever his name is, in unreal it's not inflicting suffering, if you could make him fear for his life and have your ramifications negatively effect his wellbeing then you would be in effect doing something morally wrong as you're getting pleasure from creating suffering, even if it is to a digitally created person.

This is pretty much all down to how you as a person identify the rights of an entity.
[/color]