0:01
And we believe that if AGI is ever created, US will have that ability to suffer as well.

He is

artificial general intelligence. So it's like the idea of creating programming actual intelligence. Not just like a really smart chess player, but general intelligence. Okay, so this is kind of sounds like an evolution thing. Like we evolved to experience these sorts of things and other species didn't.

Uh,

0:36
I don't think it's a matter of evolution. Like it's not like a

we evolve. Because I don't think the the argument comes from evolution itself is just, I think it's just our ability to generate explanatory knowledge.

Okay, and so like, what what is it like what physical characteristics Do we have like, maybe a certain

parts of the brain or something that other species don't have that allows us to experience this like, like, Can it be explained in that way? Or? No, I don't think it's a matter of the brain itself.

1:13
Or the brain, but like just kind of anything can be observed and is tangible.

Yeah, I think that's what's difficult about it, because I don't think it's something that can be observed. Like, we can't say, if the brain looks this way, then we have much, much more knowledge. I think it's a matter of so I think it's, I think the term they use in computation is like substrate independence. Meaning, you you it doesn't matter how how the hardware looks like, what matters is the software so our minds is what matters not really the brain.

Okay, well, cuz like the way I'm thinking about, it's like, surely there must be some sort of physical difference between like our brain and a cow's brain that allows for this,

like difference in the way that they operate.

2:00
And allow us to perceive the world. But maybe I'm just thinking about it in a wrong way. Sorry, repeat that I didn't quite catch it. Because like you're saying that it's about the software, not necessarily the hardware, but in but I'm thinking like, well, there has to be some sort of difference in the, the hardware in order for this in order for there to be a difference in the software because like,

I don't even know how to explain it, like coming here. Like so tired. I can't think I'm sorry. It takes a while to get it to like, cuz I don't. The reason why. Well,

this is where like, I fall short, because I think this has to do with like the laws of computation.

It's really not a matter of how the hardware looks like. So it really shouldn't be about the brain.

2:51
We're universal computers, but not, but that ability should be. You should be able to program it if we ever figure it out. If we ever run

Standard we should be able to do it not on a brain but like on a robot for example we're figuring it out

yeah

um so what kind of evidence is there to support this idea that like consciousness and such as a human exclusive experience

3:22
while

I don't know about evidence review considered as evidence but like, we actually demonstrate explanatory knowledge so we can explain things. We don't behave based on our DNA like we change for example, we

we have like an inborn fear of heights, but we jump out of planes for for fun kind of thing. Yeah.

Okay, so is it kind of just like, behavioral thing? Yeah, I don't I don't know. That's where I think I look

4:00
Talk to Avi, as I say, every Avi Avi Avi and I think I mentioned, it might have been a behavioral thing, but that's probably not right.

Yeah, well, animals display behavior that as that we can program, everything that they do. We can't program but we can't program our intelligence yet. So I guess it's sort of behavioral in that sense. Mm

hmm. So like, I'm, I'm you guys say that you've been talking to vegans a lot. So I'm sure that someone's brought this up. But just to humor me, like, I'm sure you could find a human that those sorts of

behaviors don't apply to. So in that case, would you say that the human is still capable of suffering and pain and sentience and so on?

4:52
Yeah, this is something we brought up. Do okay. So what if there was a

week

He brought the way he the way he put it was something like

imagining a human being that lost the ability to enter an explanatory knowledge.

5:14
And what I still stabbed him the throat or something like that.

That's what he was saying, is that what you're getting at? Yeah, pretty much Yeah.

Well, this is the issue I have with with that argument is I don't think it's I don't think it's possible because he said and this person will also be able to have every other human aspect like ability to feel joy, you know, that. I like as like I said, I think that it comes out that comes in, in a package, but it's all creativity is for internal and it all comes together. So I don't think it's physically possible.

Logically, like it's, we can ignore physical possibility and only talking about logical possibility. So

6:00
So we came to the conclusion that acquiring knowledge is like sufficient but not

necessary, but not sufficient.

But

yeah, I don't think it's possible for human to lose explanatory knowledge, but also still be a human or a person runner.

6:21
Okay, all right, this guy, there it is. Okay. So, um, if they were to lose, like all the relevant characteristics, and you'd say that they probably wouldn't even be human anymore.

You can say there'll be human. So, but it wouldn't be a person as defined necessarily as as an entity that can generate expand your knowledge, this universality

can still be against a human being, but not a person anymore. Okay. And

sorry, is there is there like, a particular list or something you guys have where you

7:00
Like, identify the characteristics that you believe humans possess but other non humans don't like you know, sentience consciousness, etc.

I'm sure that's in his website. Okay.

Yeah, I clicked on the first leg and it's just

Yeah, it's a time

7:25
he writes a lot and we've been going through like every single sub ready we can find in communities and just kind of asking, or literature or arguments. Some some have been okay must have been pretty mean.

Yeah, I mean, like, you go to Vegas, and you're like, animals don't feel pain. Like I can't imagine you probably gonna

be hostile.

Um, okay, so then how would you explain things like like,

7:59
like

When cows look like they're they're fighting for their lives or resisting slaughter and like when pigs are being gassed to death, like when they scream out and, you know, things like that, like, Yeah, I know you mean

it's kind of horrific to see what the way explain is it's simply an algorithm like,

in order for these

8:26
essentially for our DNA to replicate like the they're really what the replicates is the DNA that needs to be some strategies to survive to replicate the GC pass on that includes Brian away from things that kill you.

You know, reacting to stimuli that will probably kill you.

So like, you know, human humans have that as well. Like if, if we perceive danger we run from it Are we fight for our lives and if we are in pain, then we react in a way where maybe we cry out or

Something like that. And then from those behaviors, we can usually infer that what the human is experiencing is a negative mental state or a state that they would prefer not to be in. So is, is the reason why we can't grant that same sort of principle to non humans, because you feel that humans have like, the the other characteristics like,

9:24
well,

so I'll go back to the video they have in order for us to, in order for us to be us, in order for us to have the ability to suffer, we'd have to explain our current situation, we have to make a value judgment. So for example, if I feel like, you know, pain in my chest, and I realized, Oh, shit, I'm having a heart attack. Now I'm suffering. And I go to the doctor, he tells me Oh, you just have heartburn, then I'm not suffering anymore. The pain still the same, the stimulus is still the same, but I'm not suffering anymore.

Because I have an explanation of what the situation that I'm in

Are you saying that like for you specifically? That's for like,

10:07
human beings? Or people specifically? Oh, can she say that just like, the sensation of being in pain is like enough to suffer because he would prefer to not experience that.

Like just the stimulus, but just the stimulus is enough to suffer. Yeah.

I think I mean, I don't know how how stimulus will be like we don't know. Because we don't understand. We haven't spoke quality yet. Yeah, you can, you can talk just

but so I'm good enough. I'm still have I still have a cold so I'm kind of wrong with that. But like we haven't solved quality. So this is really it's hard to know. If animal I don't know if animals can actually experience pains. It was the same way that we can

11:01
But I don't think that they can suffer. So, because like I mentioned, you have a knowledge in order to explain suffering.

Yeah, I think maybe there's just a disagreement on what we think of suffering to be because to me, it's just like if you're experiencing something that you would rather not experience to certain degree, then that would be enough to constitute suffering. Sorry, what?

I was just going to say the interpretation of something as suffering, like it's for human being, it's an interpretation and in fact, people can interpret things that are painful as pleasure. People, when exercising, they feel the burn or whatever, and they they enjoy it.

Or, you know, there's people who are into BDSM or something like that. So it's not necessarily like

11:57
it is the case that if you do not

Want something according to your values, then in many cases, you know, that's that's something that

you're going to experience as suffering. But it's not necessarily the case that the mere pain sensation causes a suffering. And I think there's, there's counter examples that illustrate that.

Yeah, I mean, there there are certain cases where someone might find pain pleasurable, but i don't i don't think from what we've seen from you know, like pigs and cows and such Shall we can say that about them. And I also wouldn't attribute suffering to, to something moral based or value based. I would attribute it to just whether or not an individual would prefer to be in that state or not, if that makes sense. I mean, I guess the issue is like,

12:54
because I think a lot of people and like I you know, I don't have

a clear picture of your view because I just jumped on here, but a lot of people on the

vegan animal rights sort of perspective, they try and root a moral argument against slaughtering animals or whatever, on the basis of a capacity to suffer. And then they try and route that capacity to suffer. And I capacity to experience physical pain sensations. And I guess where the

Elliot, for you now perspective which much i think i broadly agree with

13:47
the first one that he wouldn't he wouldn't dispute that there's some sort of electrical pain signal

but that there is he would say that

As a prerequisite for interpreting that experience, or any experience suffering, you need to have a essentially a mind and thinking entity.

And that's, that's really the core issue that the whole

14:22
moral value thing flows from. And that's sort of that sort of the higher level issue that determines, you know, what we put in the category of human where you can just arbitrarily, you know, mess with them and her harm them or what you treat as a rock or Roomba.

Sarah, you know, hello,

here. Yeah, yeah, I have to go now, but I appreciate you guys coming in here and talking because I think your view is actually really interesting. And I'd be interested in you know, hearing you guys debate and stuff.

Yeah, hopefully I can talk to you guys later.

15:04
Yeah, sounds good. Alright, see ya. See ya. Hi.

Hi there. Hey, how you doing?

Good. How are you?

It's the ride on here. I am here think so. Oh, hey there is I just heard that.

15:26
Yeah, what's up?

What's up you can continue. Which we wait, you were saying?

You want me to read like

what we were saying on voice just heard for the most part what you had to say?

15:42
And

I don't know it's kind of weird talking on voice chat with

people but

I think the argument isn't the argument isn't fine by the way

15:58
that's fine

Yeah, we just jumped on here because well rattled on here because Nicole wanted to voice chat and I jumped on here because I, I want to hear discussion and I want to make a point. I just basically can't help myself. So.

But

the vegan argument, I think, isn't just about pain, though, right?

16:22
There. That's, that's one argument. That's because I think, because even I don't think

everyone

I don't think that the

the pain argument is a very good one because I do see that there is a, like a loophole to it where they say, like, oh, shoot it, shoot the animal in the head or something before the signal comes in. And, you know, animal doesn't feel pain. So Problem solved. But I think the strongest argument is that the animals acknowledge that they exist

16:59
and you are taking that

away from them.

Like, that's as hard as I can make the argument. What do you mean? So what do you have to say about that library? What do you mean by that? self aware, basically, right. There are self aware.

So I think that's sort of, I think that sort of aware and with assuming something that would be in contention as part of the argument, like, because because I guess part of our our position is

17:33
that

they animals don't have minds. And so they would lack the capacity for meaningful, you know, self awareness, they might have some, I don't know, they could have some

algorithm that makes them react a certain way if they see a reflection of water or something, but that's different than like contemplating yourself and that sort of thing. So but if you will,

elaborate, because I'm not sure. I mean, anyway, that is why I'm, I probably should not or would not

18:08
carry on this conversation for too long. Because I have to read everything that Curie has to say about it.

It's okay. I think because I think because, because

I think if it's okay, I could jump in if you want us to whenever you want to step out

that

18:30
that, you know what evidence, for example, a lot of people use Yes, I know. Test.

Right? Yes, so some fish can do that. And some ants can do that. But so can the camera on my phone.

I mean, I'm sure you don't have an IBO robot do that. That would be pretty trivial right now.

Like, like, that's a big thing. That's like if you don't like people say oh, the animals

19:00
Dream or whatever, but like, I mean, the little the little Sims in the sense can scream if you walk here.

Like Can I can I love you a question here?

So what is what are the intelligent behaviors that separate the mentally handicapped humans that we give more place moral consideration on from the animals What's our epistemic standard for making a judgment that these mentally handicapped humans what what behaviors do they exhibit that distinguish them episodically from animals when we talk about their minds versus the animals

I mean, one thing is mentally handicapped is a pretty

19:46
Yeah, it's like, like there's there's plenty of literally like, people who be classified severely retarded, who have jobs and he can have a conversation with so like

Like, there's plenty that Oh, so So yeah, I'm specifically talking about the people. Yeah, no, I'm talking about the, the, there's plenty of severely mentally handicapped people who cannot have jobs. And I mean, have you looked at the like the example like, the typical example I'm talking to is Bree, have you heard of Brie? I don't know if anyone can link the brief.

I'm sure ever it's

raising Brie or something. But like that's the type of level of mental mental handicaps I'm talking about. And yet, people don't really want to have an epidemic standard that says that even though it seems like the behaviors Yeah, there we go. So it's linked in general. That's that's the degree of mentally handicapped I'm talking about right mentally handicapped so you can play I mean, one thing is, like we know humans as a category

20:53
can do all sorts of stuff. And so you want to

era

On the side of really, really cautious before you, like D humanize the clear the big category where the general case is, you know a person

like that you could have somebody who's just like,

21:19
like a completely brain dead vegetable or something and I would say well, okay that like, you know, their their brain so that's not the question is well I understand that but I'm just I'm just setting like the extreme like

the question the question is not about the question is about our epidemic standard now you will if you want to tie the species into the atmosphere,

I'm sure you can, you can try to do that. That'll have it problems of its own though. So

but i'm, i'm i'm i think it's an easier like, like to give a broad bubble around humans.

22:00
You know, you may be you may be over inclusive, but you're not including like gophers, you know, so that's

just the question. The question is Okay, so here's the question of the day what what is the episode when we're met with the creature? And it doesn't have to be an exact epistemic standard but what's the epistemic standard for determining what has a mind from What does not have mind is it behavior is it today what is it and why do they are they able to engage in like open ended creation of knowledge I guess would be the standard so like, like, would you say this this if you look at this video raising would you say when you look at the behaviors exhibited focus yeah individual talking talking about the the the species as a whole and then within that I'm back to my because we're not judging like whatever like I haven't watched the breeze it but like, like she's a member of the human rights.

Very, what does that have to do the why is that just like, so she's a member of the human rights. But what does that have to do with? So then we don't like? Yeah, like there's been, there's been historical issues with

defining the human bubble little narrowly.

23:20
And so I just don't understand. I just don't understand why that gives us more reason when we're met with a creature that happens to fit within the category of the human race.

Why does that give us a systemic standard?

Especially when the behavior seems identical? Like let's say we have a human who behaves exactly like a cow, like exhibits all the behaviors like

I don't, I wouldn't see why the fact that the human is a human is relevant for our standard of determining a bond. If the thing is

23:52
you would need to explain that like, like either. I say, you have Oh, sure.

At one point, I don't know whether I should be making this or not. But at one point I have Steve in my in this argument, because after thinking about it for a while

comparisons, why don't you know we eat retarded people?

argument? Well, that's the thing like I know he I don't Yeah, I'm going to give you the answer, I'm going to give you the answer because it really falls back to

24:27
the same reason that it would be considered immoral for me to crash into a person's house. The fact that a retarded person when we look at it, or when we meet a retarded person, or any person that would qualify in the same category as animals,

we still acknowledge that they are an offspring of some human that we hold some moral consideration to.

To make this as simple, as easy, as simple as I can. If there was only me and a retarded person in the world, like where's the only one

Once that existed,

25:02
then Truly, I think that it wouldn't matter between a cow or a retarded person, I would have treated them, I probably wouldn't treat them the same. But the people making that argument seem to be that if that truly was the case where, you know,

this acknowledgement that retarded people aren't offsprings of people that we hold, dear.

They wouldn't be making that argument.

So I think that that is where the argument falls back on. I don't, I don't think you want to go with something being an offspring of something. And now it has moral value, because So do they bother? That's exactly but that's exactly where you guys are arguing. Where's where the argument is going to know. That's exactly where it's going to. We don't know what else bring it all. Okay. Well, look here. here's here's the question.

25:51
The question is, if you have a human who exhibits all the behaviors of a cow, you're met with that creature

by whatever

aesthetic standard, are you going to separate the mind of that say that you have reason to believe that this human has a mind? While this cow does not have a mind? I think that one needs to explain what is happening in that situation because that is a very strange situation. And I recognize it's a hypothetical, but I'm gonna I'm gonna bite down on hypothetical and say, Okay, we have a human acting like a cow. What's going on? Do we have a very silly human who's putting up a pretense? Is it Oh, no, you it's transformed into this account being transformed into a human by wizard. I

know what he's saying is, do you acknowledge Do you acknowledge

26:46
that there are humans, there are humans that would be whatever you consider a cow. Whatever you consider a cow,

cow humans.

There are humans that are exactly like a cow, except for the fact that they are humans

don't do or otherwise. But they are a cow. In all regards except for the fact that they are humans. Why do you give those moral consideration? That's the question. Yeah. say

27:20
that's not the point. That's that's almost sort of violating non contradiction, almost saying, well, it's a human but it's

a contradiction.

Because I think maybe lovey didn't, didn't relate to your point. What once was, what's the contradiction? Well, the way the way to put it in

chess, is it okay, Bobby explains it again, because I don't quite I don't think they're making the same. So the question we are making this we army. Yeah, go ahead. The question on the table. Go ahead. avi. You see

28:00
What we observed like we're on the same page that we observe different creatures, and we observe different creatures exhibiting different behaviors. Now, with respect to the problem of other minds, there's a spectrum of skepticism between Penn psychism and sobs is everyone on the same page about that?

That you can't yet look you can't prove you can't prove that unconscious you can't i can't prove that your conscious you may be able to have there's some arguments that you might be able to make that you yourself are conscious you could prove it to yourself even that is question question, but you might be able to make that case but you can't make the case that any other human is conscious you can't

Yeah, it was it is there's no actual reputation.

I

28:50
I reject solace ism as well. I like to see the reputation if you think there's reputation we can go into that but it looks like

in real time, so yeah.

Alright, alright, we can. All right, that's fine. We can go. This is, this is a tangent, but I think that's why there's time available. Yeah. As a now, I'm not convinced this reputation is awesome, but I'm willing to look at it and see if they're interested. Even if even if they're even if there isn't, even if there is a reputation of solid system, it doesn't entail that you'd be able to demonstrate that all other humans, even the ones that can have conversations with you have mines.

So, well, you need to explain, it's an entity. But that's where we were the idea of the universality of computation comes from so if, if one of us can do it if all of us can do it, way, how does that What does one of us can do it all of us can do it. Yeah. If if we're able to. Well, so can it Well, well, can you're using the word can but that doesn't mean that it is like sure you can make say that a human can be conscious. That doesn't mean that they are conscious. You can say that I can just if I can be conscious then

30:00
It can be conscious but doesn't mean Avi actually is conscious.

But the thing is, if you want to pose the obvious not conscious theory, then you have to explain why he seems able to maintain

different, you know, to be able to have a lengthy voice chat conversation in which he argues very various intellectual points in a way that seems, you know, like, from my perspective, if I was going within know, Avi theory, like Well, here's this person, he's arguing these points. I don't quite know what he's gonna say his perspective seems different than mine. So then is is the Avi perspective, somehow just a shadow of my own consciousness that I don't fully understand or something like you have to you have to be able to explain that somehow. I think so. I I think that's sort of what David Guetta it's it's Yeah, but I actually think all I actually think all it seems

That all state of affairs are actually compatible with both hypotheses equally. And even though it seems counterintuitive, but I actually am not. It seems very counterintuitive that all states all have these facts that you would observe the nature of how I'm speaking and arguments of loving toward you. Yeah, I think all that is equally compatible with Salafism as it is with non solves. Yeah, I think that's the point that curry was making, or Elliot was making earlier about there are

31:34
as you're saying, like, it's compatible.

The data is compatible, multiple interpretations, but what really differentiates one from the other is a good explanation. So, what makes a good expert that's Whoo, that's a whole other account. Yeah. So whenever you talk about like, like Justin was saying there's a non conscious Abby that acts like a conscious savvy. So now you have to explain. Basically, you have you've already you've already way, you've already have to

done it, you've already done it. When you say there's a conscious, there's an unconscious, it acts like a conscious lobby, the solid says would you say the opposite to you? You say no. This is if there wasn't it would say the opposite way around know if we found the conscious lobby I would just say he's acting like an unconscious lobby. This is the way non conscious obbies operates. You've already you've already assumed your conclusion know the SOP says would you say you've already assumed your conclusion when you're saying you're liking they're acting like this this offices when there is no like that? They would just reject what you're comparing it to?

I understand that. I'm just saying that would be a bad explanation.

32:33
How would it be abadox

texts I mean, it is basically your swing for jobs is it basically is like

in order for us to explain follow up system will have to explain everything around us the world and solipsism. Instead of just explain the world around us. If they reject that things have an identity then how can they assert that they don't have an identity? Like it's it just it just declares into nonsensical

instantaneous I add green. I agree it's sufficient. I don't want to take I don't. I'm not seeing how it how it's any more non how strictly on the level of logic. It's any more. I mean, I agree it's nonsensical, but I don't see how I can make that case. So if you're saying

33:19
like they're claiming that non conscious,

Avi has certain attributes, and then they're denying those attributes to conscious of a their their interpretation, their definition.

Like they would need to have some argument for it. They would say the same for you. They would say the same for the arguments or the contrary, they would say they could just have that position and say, well, what's your argument that the status versus a better explanation are more compatible with the conscious lobby rather than I would say, it seems it seems like there's an autonomous entity who's doing thinking that I'm not

privy to. Are you a phenomenal conservative

34:03
phenomenological conservatism or is the seeming providing a non inferential justification?

I mean, I, I think that lots of

like you sort of the way I look at is is you start with a guess as to the nature Wait, hold on do you are if you don't understand, by the way, if you don't understand any of the words I'm saying just don't like go off on something. Just say can you explain what that means? Like, do you know what like cuz you said you what you just said was, it seems it seems like this is compatible with consciousness something along those lines, the seeming like there is a view in philosophy where the seeming is a form of a non inferential justification. It's a form of justice. Well, I'm not I'm not I'm not arguing justification is type. So what is the relevance what is the relevance of this evening? So the relevance of this evening is said it's a starting point for trying to figure out like, like you said,

Anger. No, it's true. Okay, no so then I don't understand. Yeah. So what I guess then if it doesn't yes isn't criticism essentially, you have a guess you criticize it, you formulate and other guests that stands up to the first criticism, you criticize that until, you know you're happy with you know until you until you've dealt with all the criticisms you happy with the status your guests you've solved your problem then why can't the follow up sister say that they're they're making a guest to and then they're happy with their guess.

35:32
Yeah I mean that's that's the whole point that car talks about like the idea you don't have to constantly justify everything because you will always have to justify and justify and then infinite regress. We're getting off on we're getting off the tangent, but like i the key here, but I don't understand. Yeah, I'd like to get back to the topic but the topic is like I here's what I don't get. And I'm not I'm not convinced this. This has been lucky. I'm not convinced this has really been made clear.

All, when if we were met with a human who, who, whose behavior is indistinguishable from that of an animal.

What is our epidemic standard for concluding are giving us good reason

to, to the degree that which we wouldn't let the precautionary principle on one creature but another, not just like one little bit of or over another, but to the

36:24
premise. It's what do you mean you reject the premise that specifically the thing about a human is indistinguishable from an animal? I don't think that, you know, that's not what that wasn't hypothetical human is distinguishable in some aspects, but not other aspects. So they're distinguishable in the sense that they're human. They're just not distinguishable in the sense that they are. They are human that they are not non human animal.

No violation of the law of identity.

Right. No, I so she basically talking about something. That's a he

in shape, but an animal like mine, or animal behavior, whatever, if you had to look at the brain, it has all the morphology of the human brain, if you were to look at the, the genes, it has the it has the genetics of the human.

37:13
If you were to just it's just that there's some sort of defect in this human spine and Siemens brain

that their behavior can't be seen, none of their behaviors observed seemed more intelligent or more. Yeah, more intelligent than that of a cow. And should I watch the brief video and you Yeah, yeah, I would. Yeah, just watch the video. And watch it a little bit. I think. I think this goes back to the idea like, you need an explanation for why this happened is this human? Because this is the whole problem with like things like this and trolley problems and right, let's say you don't want let's say you don't know the explanation. Because we don't know the explanation for why cows are the way cows aren't necessarily, like we have just as much let's say we have just as much of an excellent

Why this human is the way the human is. As for why this the cows are the way the cows are?

What separates What's our epistatic standard for concluding that the human has a mind in the cow?

38:12
And in this hypothetical human? Yeah, we don't Yes, because we don't have the explanation we would have to earn the side of caution that we don't know you have an explanation. Do you have an explanation for why cows are the way cows are that that somehow gives you reason to believe that they don't have mines?

They don't, they don't display the ability to generate explanatory knowledge. They don't have creativity. How do you know how do you know that means they How do you know that means they wait, what do you mean just real quick, quick, what do you mean when you say

explanatory knowledge?

So I guess an easier way to differentiate would be like there's there's there's a knowledge that we have energies. So the knowledge that presumably I'll animals display

39:00
knowledge for beaver to build a dam. It's within

the knowledge for bacteria to split. That's Well, not all of those behaviors are within the genes, actually, some of those needs actually to be learned. And if you were to just isolate, right, if you were to just isolate those organisms, they wouldn't actually learn some of those behaviors.

Well, it's called the word for the word it's called imprinting. Some of those behaviors are are imprinted dependent, which means they actually do need to learn it from other beings. They can't just get it from their genes alone. Right and that is why I say that the argument then just boils down to you saying that Oh, they are human or something like that.

argument is what not

39:51
all I'm saying is that not all behavior is knowledge gained by from from just from innate genes away, there are imprinted pendant knowledge this

infant depend knowledge that exists in animals. sure there's pattern recognition, you can you can say that no imprinting, imprinting, and there's also other forms of learning as well. There's, I forget the word for it. There's, there's there's types of learning in animals that that don't isn't pattern recognition, nor is it trial and

forgot the word. The word is escaping me. I just came back from a holiday from a holiday work party and I had a few drinks of alcohol. So you'll have to forgive me for being a little bit slow.

But the the issue is I'm just not seeing the symmetry breaker. I'm still not seeing it from you guys. Like what is the film because if your heart

40:41
because if your argument is that humans present this sort of fluid intelligence, and then you come across humans that do not express that thing that you are saying is the criteria why you consider humans to have more worth than what are you saying? What's your point?

loss.

If I if I would say the same thing I said before, I would need an explanation of why that human Why do you need an explanation? Wait, wait, wait

wait, wait, wait, you're gonna go down this rabbit hole? Don't you don't need to go down? Why do you need

41:19
zero reply to this you have a much easier to fly when he says you an explanation is just like that's just something like you You. The question is let's say you don't have an explanation because you don't have an explanation for the cow which would for the cow by which you would say they don't have they don't have minds to the same degree that you don't have an explanation for the human where she doesn't have a mind. So when you say so look, did you to whatever degree that you don't have an explanation

by which the human doesn't have mind you have the same degree of an of a non explanation by a cow for which a cow has on mind. So this seal is not a symmetry breaker.

You don't need to ask this guy, why do you need an explanation, you're going to go down a whole rabbit hole, all you have to do is equalize the degree of explanation between the human and the animal, just ask for a symmetry breaker.

So let's say whatever degree of explanation you have for the animal and the human are the same. You have either you have a good explanation for both of you have a non explanation for both. What's the symmetry breaker? What do you mean you have an explanation for humans? It means to whatever degree that you don't know how the human got to be this way. You don't know how the cow got to be that way.

42:35
Right. But

humans generally display general rights. That's that's irrelevant, because we're dealing with this human at some point is not that's irrelevant, though. Is it though, because you have to explain why that is, you know, yeah, but it actually is irrelevant. The reason it's relevant is because we're dealing with a specific hypothetical, where we know that the human is on par with the cow regardless of what humans just

are generally, if you're isolating a specific Yeah, it doesn't matter what humans you say that excuse me, you just said a human is on par with the cow that means you, you have

your own in

43:13
what it's like just let me let me be clear, let me be clear, let me be clear the human behavior the way a cow behaves. Now, when you say humans are generally a certain way, what is it that you mean? They're generally you mean they behave a certain way?

They have what I believe to be consciousness, which and how do we and how do we know and how do we know that the human other humans have are generally conscious is it through their behavior?

their behaviors through a log, they build? Wait, wait, that's all behavior. Wait, that's all behavior through what they build is also a form of behavior.

relation is not waving or somebody explained to me how, how eclipses work. That's not behavior.

44:00
That's that is absolutely Wait, wait if suck that's that. All you don't know. No, you don't know that they're consciously giving you an explanation you're you're giving you're making an assumption that they're conscious because of the behavior, which is the words coming out of their mouth, I

think I think it

is an example. Wait, hold on, hold on. Let me just let me just let me just have a sample. Wait, wait. I think I thought of an example that can make this easier. Now if you haven't seen Brie at all.

And I explained to you how Bree is

44:36
just like that. I say Bree is someone that you know, a human wakes up feeds and all that description, described Bri on one paper and I describe a cow on another paper.

ask you which of the two is a cow. Which of the two is a cow, which is a cow or if I asked generally, a lot of people which of the two is a cow or a

Or if both our cows

if you have a difficulty in pointing out which one of the two is account that in of itself shows

45:12
as what we are seeing if I can actually see now I show you who Bree is. What does that change?

The point?

That I'm sorry, but that doesn't make it easier. Because we're talking about it like

I described, right? If I described breelan, man, I

45:34
will not do anything to let you go long term.

We were talking about humans being able to tell if other humans have given explanatory knowledge. And I mentioned things like being able to explain things, such as eclipses. Maybe I didn't know how to sign Eclipse work before. That's not behavior. Yeah, so it is. So here's why its behavior. I can explain it. So I can explain to you why it's completely behavior and I can explain why so

implicit in what you've said, when you say, the human can explain this to me, you don't actually know that the human is explaining anything to you, you've assumed it, you've assumed that the human is explaining things to you, because they're saying things. And there's word, there's vibrations of sound waves coming out of their mouth. And you're interpreting that as something that has explanatory coherence. You don't actually know that they are actually explaining anything. They could be a robot, they could be an autonomous robot, for all you know, it's just that you've made that assumption, you've already assumed that they've explained something, the only thing that you really could have knowledge of prior to that is that they're behaving a certain way. They're giving you some sort of, there's some sort of soundwaves to you, and you're interpreting that as an explanation. You don't know that they're actually explaining anything. Even that is a behavior. The behavior comes prior. So if everything is based on behavior, then we're back to the same problem when we're dealing with the hypothetical human behaves the way accommodates and you're still stuck in the same problem.

No, I think there's something not quite getting through here.

47:07
I'm talking about if before I knew, like before, as a species, I guess we knew why eclipses happen. The reason why we say other humans are have the ability to generate explanatory knowledge is because we're able to generate these explanations we didn't have before.

You again, you've you've already you've already something that nothing else can do. A robot can. A robot any guesses that you make happen in a context? Sometimes you'll hear human voice and judge it not to be somebody engaged in the discussion or explanatory process with you Like if you go to the here, I don't know the animatronics at the hall, the President and Disney World or whatever. You know that those aren't actual people, even though they actually kind of look like people and they sound like people and they have voices that are programmed that sound like the

part of your judgment there. You don't sort of passively sit there and say, oh, there's human soundwaves hitting my eardrums. So now I'm going to make a whole series of assumptions. Contrary to the other evidence in front of me, you judge according to the context in front of you, which is the right time way.

If they were the right soundwaves, you absolutely would. That's why that's why you see example. Yeah, but but the problem with that, because yeah, the problem with that is that's just saying, that's just saying that just that just reduces to the right types of behavior. You see the obvious problem with this. All that just reduces to is the while the right types of behavior is something that is the right type of context and the wrong types of behavior as long as you don't

48:44
like being in like, not everything is behavior, like the

great example. Give me an

example. If I cared, no, here's the open challenge. Give me an example.

which you are making some sort of inference of another mind that does not stand for behavior from an epistemic standard go?

49:07
Well, I'm just saying part of the context you judge is like, the I mean, various things are part of context that don't include behavior. Like I gave the example already of being, being in the hall of the President's in Disney World. That's, that's a location context. That's not a behavior context. You know why true? Yeah, that's doesn't get up that doesn't get around behavior. Either we can. So the reason that doesn't get around behavior, even that is because humans behave a given way and they behave because of their behavior. They tend to have certain things that are conscious and certain things that are not conscious in these halls. They tend to play certain things, they behave a certain way and you do that you're still relying on some form of prior behavior.

What about it in high Converse, and I

This

transcript, if you look at a transcript, and this is something that they've been doing for a long time, since, I guess it's torn or whatever, about trying to create these chat bots, but they always fail. It's not behavior. It's simply

50:17
you can tell based on how they talk that they don't have the ability to ask this. You mean you mean based on their behavior know based sounds like a behavior based on what you read? Not as you read? there, there's the okay, but like, you kind of jumped

there's something that's just No, I don't think there's something that's being generated. That's that I would consider that a form of the Bader but it regardless, even if it's not a 40 mean, it's it's it's okay.

Though, you can't tell based on any behavior, you just lose reading transcript. There was no no, there's absolutely to what something is generating words on attacks. That's a form of behavior. So I'm talking about like you seen the transcripts.

Like not when it came out where it came from just reading the script, you can tell then they could.

51:07
Yeah, you'd be unfortunately, confirming some sort of prior behavior that you wouldn't be observing the behavior of something you've been first some sort of prior.

Because it didn't get their transcript didn't just appear. It didn't appear from nothing.

Further.

No, because not not not all the knowledge is based on

51:28
the problem i would i would like to know that look, here's what I would like. I feel like there's an equivocation going on here. I don't know to bring that up. equivocation. Cuz cuz there's the manner in which a person behaves and reacting to certain stimuli definition of behavior. But then there's the cue peculiar reaction of a thing under given circumstances, like the behavior of a car or something like that. And I feel like I'm not equating between those two, I'm using a broad definition of the two

include all all actions that can be taken all all engagements of affairs by

what

can we separate? Why do you think we should not eat other humans?

52:17
On don't go on

like we kind of said this a few times a day it's

the same I can I can explain to you why they they would what they would say because of general intelligence or whatever right? They would say no they would say that humans have other minds. Humans that humans have explanatory knowledge they were they can explain things to you they can fire

Do you guys agree with that?

52:45
I was I don't write yet. I don't get guys agree with what he just said.

I mean, he didn't go into detail but it sounded okay. From what I heard. Okay. Okay. Anyway,

So if a cow

did all of those things, displaying explanatory power knowledge, explaining eclipses and so on, would you eat a cow?

53:13
No, I elevated alien cow.

Would you eat that cow? Yes or No, if a cow could explain things like cow ellipses, I would consider that morally a person. And I wouldn't, we wouldn't need that cow, right?

Like, our position is in some like human shaped biological race and I know. I know. So what I'm saying is, if a cow displayed all those abilities, explaining eclipses, like the example you're given, shouldn't eat a cow. Right? Right.

So why does the reverse apply when a human when a human

53:56
at sort of capacity offer cap you're not willing

To extend the same treatment, right?

to behave like a human and I get back to you and

love you can I get back to you on that? I want to go back to what you said about reading a transcript saying based on previous

54:17
regard that just so the question is clear, the question is what is the predicate by which there's an epidemic standard for determining that a creature has a mind versus not having a mind such that if there is a human that behaves the way a cow behaves? What is in the episode of predicate what is the episode what is the predicate if you're determining that one has a mind and one does not have a mind?

That's the question on the table that I just haven't ever haven't heard an answer. I haven't heard a clear coherent answer from any of you guys.

I would say and I think and I think the rat has gotten that this as well. I'm

are they able to engage in

55:00
Open into, you know, are they able to let's let's even put it more simply than I've said it before, at least

today seem able to

learn things communicate

to the same to the same degree, yet they seem to do it to the same degree that a cow can do it because they're behaving the same way.

55:22
They still so they seem to do it the same way because again, this is just there's an equivalent some behavior. One is a human one is not a human, the humans behaving like a cow behaves.

So let me

let me let me flip this around a little bit.

Because I came across

55:43
an article where somebody was arguing and I don't think this is your position, but maybe it'll clarify if you explain why not. Some somebody was arguing for the

morality for the moral value of video game characters.

And so,

or another example is like, you know, roombas or something. So why, you know which room is by the way they can like build up a, they can they can build up a map of house which is stored and reused for later productive purposes. So they're actually that's, that's the high end model Anyway, you got to spend more for that was pretty impressive. Alright, so they can they can do some, you know, useful problem solving. So I'm wondering, because because we've been we've been talking about

56:35
that's, by the way, at some point, at some point, Amina, I want to get back to what I was talking about before, but at some point, I don't I don't have this view that a video game character, in principle can be conscious. I don't and I don't know where I would draw that line. But at some point, yeah, at some point I would place for consideration on a video game character if, if they behave the same way that a human would behave, I would say, Okay, well, maybe this time

Really?

So one thing is that you can play for narrow purposes like you can, if he I'm sure you probably played the Sims. Sure. Okay. So you can like torture a SIM, like lock it in a room with no exits and it starts peeing on itself and crying out and distress and, you know, banging on the walls or whatever. It's it's not it's it's kind of disturbing. Um, yes. You know, it's squealing it's yelling it's it's making human

sounding distress calls in a human shape. I'm super superficially it's 2d, or I guess it's 3d as it's been a while since I played it. Yeah, but

57:44
but I don't think I don't think reason from that, too. I'm maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think you would say well, then that's that in Do you know why? Well, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, do you know why? Let me just let me go. Hold on. Listen, listen.

Just let me go with this guy. Um, yeah, so I would not but certainly you would at some point, if there was a sin that could have the conversations I'm having with you right now. Well that would be an awesome

What does AGI say artificial general intelligence

just would you if there was a sim that can have this conversation with you and and could demonstrate it could also like appear to have all these feelings and emotions and thoughts? If you came across that sim would you would you conclude that that sim may have another may actually have a mind may actually be Yeah, either? Yeah, I mean, the two explanations would be either that's him has a mind or somebody screwing with me.

58:42
like okay, right right.

thing where right. So at at some point, at some point based on either behavior or based on the CO here some some views can take the coherence of behavior based on like a similar, similar brain structure, whatnot, whatever it is, at some point

You would think the same character is conscious at some point you would not at some, there's some right but but just to be clear, I'm

I'm i was i was talking about like the current level since which you know, aren't even like their sub chat bot right now they're not they're not. I think I agree you could have an AGI in the sense. Sure, theoretically, I'm be a little weird, but yeah. Right. So what I'm saying is that on what it seems like to me is that the reasons we have for whatever reasons we have for believing the sins are conscious are lower on the threshold and believing a catalyst conference. actually think we are there's more reasons to believe account is conscious than the sense. So whatever threshold you are, I apply consistently, but again, this doesn't get to the heart of the question. So could you could you before Could you explain? Yeah, where? Why are you setting goals differently? Exactly. Yeah, sure. Sure. So

1:00:02
So a couple of things. So there's more.

There's more spontaneity with the cow. So the cow can do can do things that the sim cannot, the cow can act spontaneously. Well, first of all, the coding is more complex for sure not to say that entail sentience. But the cow is capable of far more behaviors than the same as Kate is capable of the sim has, has a very limited amount of behaviors that are coded. The cow is capable of far more behaviors.

The other thing the other symmetry breaker is that the if we're reasoning from our minds, that we're that we are, that the consciousness comes from the mind and we are conscious. Then there's also an that comes from the brain then there's also a coherence between that and the neuron atomic similarity between humans and cows in the sense that we're both giants phallic mammals.

We both have we both have

1:01:00
gyrase sockeye, we both have very simple, we both have the cerebral cortex. And we both and both of the behaviors that we exhibit that we attribute to conscious experience cohere with the neural activity that occurs in the cow when they experience these things. So and there's no evidence that happens in sense. Yeah. So more functions more complicated coding all that. And and

wait, and that's not all and coherence between structure and function, right, right coherence between behavior and between the way we behave in what's going on in our brain with the way the cow behaves, and what's going on their brain. Now. Now, when you say coherency, you're talking about like brain scan studies where they show a part of the brain lighting up and you're saying that that okay, or, or, or, or, or, or that really tells us much of anything well, well or not, not just that or, or studies in which that part of the brain is removed and the function is lost.

Or a part of the brain is stroked and the function is lost. It's not just the brain scan, you don't have to, it's not just talking about FMR eyes, there's a clear delineation of what happens when you destroy part of the brain in a human and you can do the same thing in a cow. And the same things happen

predictably repeatedly. So for example, if you were to, if you were to lesion

1:02:28
if you were to lesion the most people, the left temporal lobe,

the human would lose the ability to have language. And if you were to do the same thing in the cow, the cow the way they communicate with each other, so they're there with their moving or whatever, whatever language modality they use, they would lose that ability as well.

And there's, there's many other examples of this, the similarities.

It's not just brain scans. It's actually

1:03:00
Things that are very definitive.

There's nothing like that, you know, just in the, you know, the the argument why, like adding more and more function and more complexity to like the programming doesn't lead to an AGI like you know white why

that's not that's not my position. My position isn't that more complexity means more likely to be the sentience, necessarily, my position is just that we are reasoning from a starting point, our starting point is that we are conscious. And if we are conscious, then we need some there's certain creatures as a whole litany of creatures that have a certain degree of similarity to us both in structure behavior, both in structure and function, both in terms of the behavior of the brain, where we're all agreeing for the sake of the argument here that our consciousness comes from our minds and our minds come from our brain. And there's certain degree of similarity between our brains and other creatures. There's all certain

narrow point about why a cow

1:04:00
Having, you know, the sort of consciousness that implies moral worth is more plausible to you than a sim. Right? That that was so that was like a subset point that you were going in detail on. Right? All right. I just just trying to put it because, you know, there's the discussion can get a little. Sure, sure. Yeah. Little fragmented. It's more of a, there's more of a reason for the cow to, for me to, uh, to believe that the cow has a mind than the same as mine.

Right.

Now, the question on the table before we got into this tangent is, if we were met with a human who has the capability of behavior to the degree that the cow has the capability of behavior.

Why would we ever conclude

1:04:50
that the human has a mind but the cow does not have a mind. So I think part of the thing is that your perspective is very

And you were talking earlier about the Hall of the presidents and stuff. It seemed like he wanted to put everything in terms of behavior. I'm, I'm quite it's a question. Listen, is the question on the table is in this hypothetical Look, here's the question that I just want to hear and answer I don't want to hear like what I'm doing what I'm this question though. Cuz I think it's it's contextualizing like,

my reply is that part of part of the context

in which I judge

1:05:36
a human, when I'm looking when I'm observing their behavior, is the general characteristics of human capability. Yeah, but this is a relative. We're dealing which is which is not a behavioral issue. I said, that's, that's I'm just I'm just explaining the perspective gap here. I'm not even trying to argue with you right now. I'm just, I'm just sort of laying out like

You know what, what maybe the disagreement is? Oh, okay, great. So the question So then the question is, let's say we have a human. And the question is would say we have a human who has behavioral capabilities matching? Sure by what standard? Would we conclude that the human has a mind and the cow does not have a mark. So I guess I'm

behavioral capabilities matching cow. It's, it's, it's, it's tough for me to reply because

I, I reject the premise so much that I think I interpreted the behaviors differently than you would like,

1:06:39
you know, look.

Yeah, so you're dodging? Well, let's say they really were the same. I mean, here's the thing, though, like we know.

We know that.

Humans do something which

1:06:54
humans have some capacity which animals do not. I think you would grant

Not I'm not for this human I wouldn't

I in general, like you or me

dropping off Hold on one second. Okay, sure.

1:07:13
Sorry, I had to. Okay, I got my headphones in. Yeah. So I don't understand why the general characteristics of humans are actually relevant.

So like, I learned this way. I'm in both computers can play chess in some sense.

Sure. Um, but the way they do it is very different.

And we human force. We talked about this, you were talking about the difference between Yeah. So here's, here's, okay, look, look, just just, I just, I just look, look, look. Here's the question. So the question is, when you have a human and you have a cow, and the

1:08:00
behavior you can't differentiate their behaviors What is the reason for which you can include one has a mind and what does not have a mind?

I mean, I guess

if we if we assume well

like in theory you could have a human who is not

1:08:22
intelligent, I think I

I guess part of it is you know, I have I have difficulty imagining the plausibly like animal level but like there there are humans that are there just

you know, brain dead or whatever, so, like species so,

so, yeah, so, so the question is, would you just conclude that the human that behaves like a cow was brain dead

1:08:50
with something approximating it, maybe I would, you would, you would So, so human that can walk around that would would would would yell out in pain. If there isn't

Put the paint on it that would seem to seem to care about their offspring seem to care do all the things would cry if their offspring is taken away from them. They would exhibit all these behaviors. But you would just conclude that human is brain dead. If they couldn't exhibit other behaviors, other behaviors if

I lost you I if they can, if they can, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yeah, you're back, you're back. And can you if they can exhibit all the behaviors of that of a cow they can experience? Hold on.

Let me go in.

1:09:37
If they can you hear me now? I can hear you. Okay, if they can exhibit all of the behaviors?

Yeah, well, if they can experience all the behaviors of that of

cow if they can exhibit all the behaviors that they can exhibit if you take away their offspring, and then they would start crying out. If they if you would inflict pain on them. They would start

screaming and pain, just the way a cow does. If you played music, they would come and listen to the music just like house do. By the way, when you play music, they enjoy listening to the seat they exhibit behaviors that seem compatible with them enjoying listening to music.

1:10:14
So, if they were to do and I the list just goes on. If they were to do all that, but they couldn't do more than that, then the cow can do you would you conclude that that human is brain dead? Yes or no?

No? Okay, so what so what is the reason by which you would conclude one has a mind and one does not have a mind?

My

humans in general have mine. So we're in under what on the table here? What is okay then what's the differentiator by which you apply the precautionary principle to one or the other?

1:10:48
If they both exhibit the same behavior, why would you apply the precautionary principle to one and not the other?

feminists precautionary principle per se, but Well, that's what rat said. So I'm just for

No, that's fine. That's fine. I mean,

I just don't understand why this is so hard to answer

1:11:07
happened.

All right, well, I'm gonna eat my tofu. I'll tell you guys gonna think about an answer and maybe in an hour or two hours, so if you have one you can ping me or something if I haven't fallen asleep by them. But it's good talking to you guys and I hope you enjoy the server. I'm going to keep working on kresser kinda, but I mean kresser will extubate take care of it.

Yep,

Transcribed by https://otter.ai