Poll: I am Aware!

[feather240]

It's been forever since I've made a thread. Almost a whole week. Alright here we go!

You know how when you play a game in the first person perspective so much you stumble occasionally and almost wake up with a jolt. Just like when you realize you're talking to your self, or maybe that's just me. You're suddenly aware that you're in first person, so here's the dilemma. We are currently in first person, but we don't need our senses, only our brains. When it comes down to it we are just arrays of chemicals, so how come we are aware that we can think. A computer or machine does not analyze the world, or does it? Perhaps it can't sense like we can, but it can change things, since everything we do is decided by input how are we different than machines? They react to input. Is a calculator conscious? When it multiplies numbers it is because they were punched in. When we are hungry we look for food. We don't have to, but we want too. When a rock is eroded by rain are the molecules aware? They are given input and react, don't they? How do we classify life? If there is no input is something aware, or does no input count as input? After all when we don't use a calculator it reacts by not working. What are your views on what counts as life, and why?

Edit: Animals includes Plants too, sorry...

Edit:Changed life to sentience in poll and OP.

 

[grimsprice]

I doubt anyone has an answer to this. Nice question though. I would like to know where the aware part of us comes from. There has to be some source of 'random' if we truly have free will.

I believe the random lies within quantum mechanics; at least thats what i've heard.

 

[ZeroMachine]

Life is organic beings with the ability of thought/instinct/breeding. Pretty simple, but I stand by it.

 

[feather240]

Life is organic beings with the ability of thought/instinct/breeding. Pretty simple, but I stand by it.

Breeding makes sense, but explain the other two.What about bacteria?

 

[Maze1125]

Life has a clear definition which encompasses plants, animals, microbes and fungi.
I believe you're referring to either sentience, sapience, self-awareness, personhood or something else along those lines, but not life.

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

I beleive that shit just happens if thats what your asking.

 

[Ossum]

Johnny Five is alive, he always needs more input.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Meh, its too late to think about the mind.

Especially because I have a migrane

 

[Epifols]

This poll is just a mess.

Animals do NOT include plants, they are completely different.

And you can't even question whether those are alive or not.

I think what you meant to ask was what has a conscious or reasoning ability or a soul?

 

[ZeroMachine]

Life is organic beings with the ability of thought/instinct/breeding. Pretty simple, but I stand by it.

Breeding makes sense, but explain the other two.What about bacteria?

Good point... I guess "thought" is optional, but I'd consider programmed ways of acting to be instinct. That covers bacteria, in my view at least.

 

[thiosk]

bacteria breed. its often asexual but, hey, plasmids can get jiggy too.

Fungi get funky as well.

Viruses are just packets of genetic material-- the pirates of the pantheon of life, if you will, able to hijack cells to do the work for them. Since they don't do any of their own work, like respiration and etc, they are right on the border of biology (things that wiggle) and chemistry (things that smell bad) because depending when you look at them, they are more of one than the other.

Consider robots of today as the bacteria of 3.5 billion years ago. Robots are "evolving" a million times faster than we did-- they can see, hear, and according to today's newspaper, solve sudoku puzzles. http://gizmodo.com/5345967/lego-roboto-solves-sudoku

I do not feel robots constitute life as of now, but artificial life will probably get there in the next hundred years, or even more fun, we could get a state where human can transcend and go silico.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

No computer we have created as of yet has been aware. That said, it is not impossible. We still struggle to understand even philosophically how it is that we are not just aware, but self aware, so needless to say the chemical software of our brains is complex beyond imagination. That said, given time it would not be impossible to duplicate. Just very very hard.

 

[feather240]

This poll is just a mess.

Animals do NOT include plants, they are completely different.

And you can't even question whether those are alive or not.

I think what you meant to ask was what has a conscious or reasoning ability or a soul?

I forgot to put plant in, don't be an ass...

 

[Berethond]

Everything.
And Nothing.

 

[Korolev]

Everything from bacteria to us is "alive". Whether or not it has consciousness or self-awareness, is the better question, and if something is not self-aware then I don't think it has any "rights".

Some animals do possess rudimentary self awareness - no doubt about that. Dogs, cats, most large mammals, all have memories and can even think on a very primitive level. I have never disputed that.

However, they are beneath human beings. It's not because they don't have hands - we have tested their cognitive abilities, and we can be quite sure that the most intelligent non-human animal, can at most aspire to become as intelligent as a severely retarded human.

Most animals cannot recognize their reflections in mirrors. A few can recognize their reflections (certain types of monkeys and elephants and most likely dolphins), but they fail the intelligence test in other ways - for instance, no animal has a language as complex as any human language. Yes, dolphins, and whales can communicate to each other through squeaks and songs, but the range of those songs and squeaks is not broad enough/long enough to convey as much information as the spoken language. Some monkeys have learned very rudimentary sign language, but never enough to be compared to a human being (a few, noble minded researchers have falsified data saying that apes can learn full language, but that was later revealed to be just another plot to give another reason to preserve them. Seriously, all those "tests" that showed that an ape could fully learn language were later revealed to be the products of an over-active imagination on the part of the researchers who WANTED to believe that they could, and so were confirmation-biased).

The animal-rights crowd is right to take up an interest in defending animals. We do not have to be cruel to them. I would even say we don't or shouldn't eat them. But to pretend that animals are as intelligent as us, is frankly, silly. There is no evidence that they are, aside from wishful thinking. These PETA people and the like, have watched too many disney films with the anthropomorphized animals.

I have pets. I have been around quite a few animals in my life time. I have even studied them. They aren't automatons, no. They even have some very basic emotions. But if you are going to pretend that, even for a moment, an animal could look up at the stars in wonder, and comprehend the vast distances between them, that how the light which falls upon our eyes is actually millions of years old, and marvel at the majestic wonder of the Eagle Nebula - then you're daft.

Animals don't ponder their existence. They don't spend their time thinking about their life, why they are here, or what they are going to do. Animals eat, sleep and die, and are merely driven by their instincts. That's not REAL self-awareness.

You could make the point that many human beings are quite similar - that we only obey our instincts. And that is true for many people - however, human beings, all normal human beings, have the POTENTIAL for self-reflection. A human being can ponder their existence, even if they don't. A cow, on the other hand, just eats grass all day and goes Moooooo.

An animal's life is also limited - they can't improve themselves via their own actions. Evolution is not improvement by the way - merely adaptation. Human beings, on the other hand, can Dream and Dream big. We can envision a better future and actively work towards it. Animals can't.

I am also an atheist - I do not believe that we have been given a purpose in life, that we are a mere cosmic accident. I do not believe we were created to serve god. In the absence of any known god, what gives the world meaning? Well, we do. Meaning is created by an intelligence. Humanity has been given a blank sheet of paper on which to draw out our own meaning. We are not gods, far from it. Yet we are the creatures closest to the traditional notion of god, and we are the only creatures which have a shot at becoming something more than ourselves, through science and technology.

Thus, we are more important than animals. Yes, some are "aware" that the environment exists. Some even display primitive emotions. Yet their lives are fundamentally meaningless since they are not intelligent enough to give themselves meaning. Their lives, as our lives, are the products of nature, meaningless nature. Yet we can give OURSELVES meaning. They cannot. They are doomed to eventually go extinct, like all other species when the sun runs out of fuel. But humanity doesn't have to go extinct - our technology might enable us to travel to other planets, find new stars on which to live, and who knows, maybe even create our own universe to ensure the eternal survival of our species.

We are the high species. We must survive, no matter what. Otherwise the universe has no meaning.

 

[Emphraim]

Awesome post

*clap-clap*
Your final remark made me think of the classic question:If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

And OP, you should change to poll to what is sentient, not what is alive.

 

[Skeletor 0]

The whole of the universe is just one long physical reaction that was set in motion by the big bang.

The answer is 42 by the way

 

[Skeletor 0]

Everything from bacteria to us is "alive". Whether or not it has consciousness or self-awareness, is the better question, and if something is not self-aware then I don't think it has any "rights".

Some animals do possess rudimentary self awareness - no doubt about that. Dogs, cats, most large mammals, all have memories and can even think on a very primitive level. I have never disputed that.

However, they are beneath human beings. It's not because they don't have hands - we have tested their cognitive abilities, and we can be quite sure that the most intelligent non-human animal, can at most aspire to become as intelligent as a severely retarded human.

Most animals cannot recognize their reflections in mirrors. A few can recognize their reflections (certain types of monkeys and elephants and most likely dolphins), but they fail the intelligence test in other ways - for instance, no animal has a language as complex as any human language. Yes, dolphins, and whales can communicate to each other through squeaks and songs, but the range of those songs and squeaks is not broad enough/long enough to convey as much information as the spoken language. Some monkeys have learned very rudimentary sign language, but never enough to be compared to a human being (a few, noble minded researchers have falsified data saying that apes can learn full language, but that was later revealed to be just another plot to give another reason to preserve them. Seriously, all those "tests" that showed that an ape could fully learn language were later revealed to be the products of an over-active imagination on the part of the researchers who WANTED to believe that they could, and so were confirmation-biased).

The animal-rights crowd is right to take up an interest in defending animals. We do not have to be cruel to them. I would even say we don't or shouldn't eat them. But to pretend that animals are as intelligent as us, is frankly, silly. There is no evidence that they are, aside from wishful thinking. These PETA people and the like, have watched too many disney films with the anthropomorphized animals.

I have pets. I have been around quite a few animals in my life time. I have even studied them. They aren't automatons, no. They even have some very basic emotions. But if you are going to pretend that, even for a moment, an animal could look up at the stars in wonder, and comprehend the vast distances between them, that how the light which falls upon our eyes is actually millions of years old, and marvel at the majestic wonder of the Eagle Nebula - then you're daft.

Animals don't ponder their existence. They don't spend their time thinking about their life, why they are here, or what they are going to do. Animals eat, sleep and die, and are merely driven by their instincts. That's not REAL self-awareness.

You could make the point that many human beings are quite similar - that we only obey our instincts. And that is true for many people - however, human beings, all normal human beings, have the POTENTIAL for self-reflection. A human being can ponder their existence, even if they don't. A cow, on the other hand, just eats grass all day and goes Moooooo.

An animal's life is also limited - they can't improve themselves via their own actions. Evolution is not improvement by the way - merely adaptation. Human beings, on the other hand, can Dream and Dream big. We can envision a better future and actively work towards it. Animals can't.

I am also an atheist - I do not believe that we have been given a purpose in life, that we are a mere cosmic accident. I do not believe we were created to serve god. In the absence of any known god, what gives the world meaning? Well, we do. Meaning is created by an intelligence. Humanity has been given a blank sheet of paper on which to draw out our own meaning. We are not gods, far from it. Yet we are the creatures closest to the traditional notion of god, and we are the only creatures which have a shot at becoming something more than ourselves, through science and technology.

Thus, we are more important than animals. Yes, some are "aware" that the environment exists. Some even display primitive emotions. Yet their lives are fundamentally meaningless since they are not intelligent enough to give themselves meaning. Their lives, as our lives, are the products of nature, meaningless nature. Yet we can give OURSELVES meaning. They cannot. They are doomed to eventually go extinct, like all other species when the sun runs out of fuel. But humanity doesn't have to go extinct - our technology might enable us to travel to other planets, find new stars on which to live, and who knows, maybe even create our own universe to ensure the eternal survival of our species.

We are the high species. We must survive, no matter what. Otherwise the universe has no meaning.

Don't you think it's arrogant to assume we are the only beings in existence that can give the universe meaning?
PS way to long for a thread post dude

 

[LongAndShort]

I think what you're actually asking (what is sentient) raises other interesting questions. If we find bacteria, fungi or plants on other planets does that necessarily mean that we 'are not alone'?

 

[Korolev]

For example, if I kill a chicken, what do I kill? A clucking organism whose only aim in life is to eat grains, copulate and sit on eggs. What a tragic loss.

If I kill a human, what do I kill? Potentially, almost anything. I could be killing a low life drug dealer whose only goal is to amass money, just another pointless "chicken-like" life if you will. Or I could be killing an artist, who creates some of the finest music or literature of his/her generation. I could be killing a potential scientist whose work elevates humanity higher, uncovers more of the fundamental workings of the universe. I could be killing a social worker who works to keep human beings happy in society. I could be killing an electrician who helps maintain the wiring which allows our technology to work, to improve, to advance. If I kill a human being, I kill something with POTENTIAL. If I kill a chicken, well, it's not like that chicken would have done anything with its life, correct?

A chicken's life, a rat's life, a cow's life - is one of such unbearable, pointless, mindless drudgery, that it couldn't possibly be worth anything. Their lives are so limited, so pathetically mundane, that the life of these creatures, shouldn't matter. That's not to say we should hate them or be cruel to them - even a chicken feels pain (they have nerves). And yet..... if we need to kill them, why not? Medical science needs animal organisms to test drugs on. PETA claims we don't, but I am an ACTUAL scientist who does biological research at the University of Queensland. PETA are wrong - we need animal models because tissue cultures are not advanced enough to simulate how a working organism processes a drug. Animal models are very useful because the biological processes of a mouse at a GENETIC level are quite similar to how human genes work. The fundamental cellular mechanics between many animals are very similar. The difference between a mouse and a human arise out of the higher-level ORGANIZATIONAL differences between us. But the similarities between humans and mice allow us to obtain useful data from mouse experiments.

Simply put we need to kill mice to do research. We cannot use human beings - that's immoral because human lives can have meaning and it's also too expensive and difficult to house/hold/test hundreds of human test subjects (it would be completely impractical, and immoral)

A human being can become something greater than what they currently are. The human species, might, through gene modification, become perfect, noble, immortal. I am a transhumanist - our technology will one day enable us to become something greater than what we are.

But mere animals lower than human beings, cannot do this. Animal lives are not worth as much.