Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

[Saint Guinefort]

I never said you did.

Disagreed. Present evidence they are the same and we can discuss it. I've never read any evidence other than they are intelligent compared to most animals.

But we don't know how intelligent they really are. We know almost nothing about their "minds". I don't know how we could short of getting them in an fMRI (like we do with dogs and that is showing us a lot of interesting stuff).

The idea that humans are somehow "special" from other sentient life forms (dolphins, whales, elephants, etc.) is simple human chauvanism. OF COURSE we think we're special. We're the ones thinking that. But there's really no evidence that we are other than we have opposable thumbs and have found effective ways to destroy the only home we have.

Maybe we ARE speical....especially evil.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Dolphins are higher sentient life forms, but you are right that humans are unique for sophisticated and abstract thought and belief.

The Navy was training them as weapons.

https://www.ussjpkennedyjr.org/the-navy-marine-mammal-program-training-animals-for-military-tasks/
The Navy Marine Mammal Program: Training Animals For Military Tasks

Since the Cold War, the U.S. Navy has been training dolphins and other marine mammals for a variety of military tasks, including mine detection and clearance, harbor security and rescue operations. The Navy Marine Mammal Program (NMMP) is based in San Diego, California, and currently trains dolphins, sea lions and beluga whales. The program began in the 1960s as a way to investigate whether marine mammals could be used for military purposes. The Navy was interested in dolphins because of their natural sonar ability, which could be used to detect underwater mines and enemy swimmers...

...The Navy Marine Mammal Program has been successful in a number of military applications. The dolphins and other marine mammals have helped to save lives and protect property. They have also been used to locate environmental hazards and to assist in scientific research.

A California sea lion and a bottlenose dolphin are quite hardy, smart, and extremely trainable, according to Nachtigall.

Dolphins can be taught a variety of behaviors by trained marine trainers. An operant conditioning system is used by them to reinforce positive reinforcement. The trick is broken down into a series of steps in their first step. Animal trainers teach the animal one step at a time.

Dolphins have been trained to deliver equipment to underwater personnel, locate and recover lost objects, and protect boats and submarines. The Swimmers have been trained to detect enemy swimmers, as demonstrated during the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf War.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I understand you won't want to address it...

Here come the insults.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

But we don't know how intelligent they really are....

Disagreed for this reason:

Maybe we ARE speical....especially evil.

Name another creature on that planet that is evil.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Totally irrelevant to what I wrote.

Actually no. It shows that hate, an emotion, a state, an action, has its origins in physical brain function. And we KNOW that some drugs can induce hate and violence. So we KNOW it has a correllary in the physical. As such it can be understood physically. It can be modeled. We can even figure out how to make it happen without a given stimulus.

I asked if it's okay to hate.

Of course it's OK to hate. It's a perfectly normal human emotion. I read someone on here who claims to be able to moderate that in themselves but I have my doubts.

That's normative knowledge. The kind science cannot provide

Disagree. Given that "normative knowledge" is little more than those things related to cultural expectations and "norms" it is wholly arbitrary to whatever group is doing the analysis.

Science doesn't provide an opinion, guidance, enlightenment, because it's not supposed to.

I will 100% agree that science doesn't provide an opinion. Nor would a "universal law". A universal law or truth would simply "be" regardless of value judgement.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Here come the insults.

Not an insult.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Not an insult.

It was demeaning. Ergo, it was an insult.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Nice frantic googling.

Please stop. There's no reason to simply attack. I was raising a valid point in this debate.

I do note, however that when one person apologizes and the other person responds with unending insults that is a great sign that one of the interlocutors loves the feeling of the hatred.

Is it wrong to hate? I don't know. I see some on this forum who seem to relish it.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

It was demeaning. Ergo, it was an insult.

No, it was an ascession that numerous points I've made have simply been ignored. Hence not an insult. Just what appears to be most likely. Statistical analysis if you will.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No, it was an ascession that numerous points I've made have simply been ignored. Hence not an insult. Just what appears to be most likely.

Now you're proving you are deceitful and dishonest.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Now you're proving you are deceitful and dishonest.

How so?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

How so?

You insulted Cypress then denied it. You claim he runs from all of your comments while you've done exactly the same to me which not only means you are a liar, but also a hypocrite. Sad.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You insulted Cypress then denied it. You claim he runs from all of your comments while you've done exactly the same to me which not only means you are a liar, but also a hypocrite. Sad.

Incorrect. I noted that since approximately 80% of the comments I've put up in the last half-day are usually ignored that this would be likewise considered inappropriate to the discussion. More of an agreement that sometimes the points I make are considered less valuable.

I have been more than pleasant today on here and I will continue to do so. Regardless of how little enjoyment it provides.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Incorrect. I noted that since approximately 80% of the comments I've put up in the last half-day are usually ignored that this would be likewise considered inappropriate to the discussion. More of an agreement that sometimes the points I make are considered less valuable.

I have been more than pleasant today on here and I will continue to do so. Regardless of how little enjoyment it provides.

You ignore 90% of mine. Once again you are proving to be both dishonest and a hypocrite.

Disagreed. You been insulting, demeaning and dishonest. Lying to and about people is not "pleasant".

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You ignore 90% of mine. Once again you are proving to be both dishonest and a hypocrite.

Disagreed. You been insulting, demeaning and dishonest. Lying to and about people is not "pleasant".

I understand how your frontal cortex is functioning now as well as some subcortical structures; putamen and insula. That's the value of science.

 

[ZenMode]

It impinges on morality (e.g., child abuse is always wrong), but it extends to human behavior more broadly --> all other things being, equal small classes are better for learning than big ones, or courage is defined as a golden mean between recklessness and timidity (per Aristotle).

Those aren't the kinds of things you can quantify, make mathmatical equations for, or develop formal knowledge of.

So, the assertion was made that not all AI is based on electronics, but based, more fundamentally, on mathematics. Do you not believe that if we truly understood the way external influences impacted the neurological functionality, we couldn't explain really all human behavior in some mathematical manner?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

So, the assertion was made that not all AI is based on electronics, but based, more fundamentally, on mathematics. Do you not believe that if we truly understood the way external influences impacted the neurological functionality, we couldn't explain really all human behavior in some mathematical manner?

This is a great question. I suspect the system is ridiculously complex and probably hard to characterize (in the same sense that the old "clockwork universe" hypothesized that you could take the position and speed of all particles to determine where they would be at some future time).

While it may be "incalcuable", it at least is hypothetically possible that, given a complete knowledge of the state of the neurochemicals in a brain, the state of the neuron network in the brain, and an understanding of the role of previous "training sets" (ie stimuli the brain has developed a response to) it should be possible to model human behavior statistically.

In fact we already kind of do it empirically. We utilize behavior patterns to determine future behavior. It's how all the programs like Facebook and Insta work. And arguably it is proving to be EXTREMELY effective (if not hella annoying).

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I understand how your frontal cortex is functioning now as well as some subcortical structures; putamen and insula. That's the value of science.

QED, Perry PhD.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

QED, Perry PhD.

Thanks. I agree. QED.

 

[Cypress]

Of course it's OK to hate.

That is probably a common opinion for moral relativists and those who believe they lack free will.

Many of the great moral leaders of history taught that hate is a poison and ultimately self-defeating, e.g. Jesus, Confucius, the Buddha, Marcus Aurelius, Martin Luther King Jr.

Hatred can be suppressed and managed through a consistent program of self discipline, concious reflection, and cultivation of virtue.

The Buddha famously taught that things like not letting go of hate ultimately contribute to our own suffering.