If I had to wager money on what future societies would condemn us for, I'd bet a lot on our treatment of animals.
Even if other highly-encephalized animals aren't conscious, they are still open to a wide range of experiences that we can empathize with. They can learn and play. They feel hunger and pain. Some species can even form friendships and mourn the passing of their kin.
Despite all indications that our treatment of these creatures is reprehensible, cultural inertia and the tastiness of meat are enough to prevent us from changing our behavior. To treat even 1% of humans the way we treat animals would be to perpetuate the greatest war crime in history. But do the same thing to some funny-looking microencephalitic relatives of humans and hardly anyone bats an eye.
Couldn't agree with you more. Upwards of 60 billion animals are slaughtered for human consumption each year[1]. The scale of it is mind-boggling. We just recently agreed on vegetarian team lunches at my startup to do our small part.
'If I had to wager money on what future societies would condemn us for, I'd bet a lot on our treatment of animals.'
This. Times a thousand.
Paul Graham's article "Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas" has this quote, which I love:
"One of my tricks for generating startup ideas is to imagine the ways in which we'll seem backward to future generations. And I'm pretty sure that to people 50 or 100 years in the future, it will seem barbaric that people in our era waited till they had symptoms to be diagnosed with conditions like heart disease and cancer."
When I look to the future and imagine what will seem backwards, two of the big things in my mind are what PG mentions and what you mention.
The worst thing I find is the "I'll eat a sausage but I couldn't possibly eat a cute bunny wabbit". The sausage in its natural form is capable of being a valuable and loyal human companion.
I haven't eaten meat since I was at university in the distant past after I got addicted to a combination of ramen noodles, mushrooms and home made pepper sauce. The ethical dilemma made it hard to go back to eating meat so I didn't bother.
Regarding tastiness, Indian vegetarian food (particular aloo, gobi is far tastier than anything with meat in and you can grow ALL the ingredients yourself if you want without having to shovel a single turd.
If future societies are condemning our behavior now, then we would not have progressed that far.
This isn't about kindness and cruelty, this is about awareness. As long as we perceive other living beings as The Other, we're not truly aware -- we can't empathize, we can't be compassionate, we can't be a complete human being. Condemning people for barbarism is a subtler form of separation, of saying "those people are not us." But they are, just as we're growing as a species and society to be aware of non-human awareness.
There's another part to this story. We have brought animals back from the brink of extinction purely because someone realised they were really tasty. A lot of our domestic animals, in particular, wouldn't even be able to survive without us ... but they're tasty, so we make them live, breed them in large numbers, feed them, etc.
To treat even 1% of humans the way we treat animals would be to perpetuate the greatest war crime in history.
If you want to start treating animals with the same sanctity as humans, you need to watch out. Countries that use the death penalty should be executing all the carnivores for mass murder.
And what does "the way we treat animals" mean anyway? Plenty of pets are doted on and loved to bits. Plenty of wild animals are left alone, ignored, or even unknown. Plenty of animals are treated inhumanely. Overgeneralisations are an enemy to progress.
I don't find this argument compelling. Why is 'consciousness', or the ability to suffer or feel pain in a way comparable to us, important?
I don't eat or kill other humans, not just because I know they would dislike it, but because if we didn't all generally keep to that rule of not doing so, I run a higher risk of being eaten or killed myself. It's a behavioural contract, not some innate universal rule that suffering is bad.
For me, the question of what to eat is solely one of sustainability. Under that line of reasoning, veganism is better than vegetarianism which is approximately equivalent to eating no red meat, which are both better than eating red meat. How sentient the animal is doesn't factor into the decision.
Come on! We just recently sort of came to agree that watching people getting tortured is not the best kind of fun. Give us few centuries to manufacture something tastier.
This is great news. Now that we've proven the animals are conscious, we can put more resources into communicating and reasoning with them, and convince them to stop maiming, killing and eating each other. Peace on Earth, maybe within our lifetimes!
There is no philosophical definition of consciousness, but there is none of gravity either, in the sense of "what gravity really is". Science doesn't examine what things "really are", but tries to make useful predictions and the definitions employed are only means to this end. In fact there are operational definitions of consciousness and I think they certainly deserve to be called "scientific", see for example:
But too many people can't tell the difference between supporting an idea and publishing a repeatable experiment to test a falsifiable hypothesis in a peer reviewed journal.
What has this to do with anything? They issued the declaration to put to attention conclusions exactly from "repeatable experiments testing falsifiable hypothesis in a peer reviewed journal".
The difference is that the second is science and the first is every thing else. They are signing it to give the idea greater credence outside of their community, not within it. Obviously they hope to influence the world at large.
Machine learning might be a useful model of what happens in the brain but just like the map isn't the territory this doesn't make us robots, what would that even mean? Everything aside, biological systems are completely different than everything we have ever built and so far it seems current machine learning techniques not necessarily have to have much to do with what happens in the brain.
I think we are fairly close to achieving consciousness in silicon (graphene or whatever). We will improve algorithms, increase computing power and achieve system of consciousness of a mouse, then just by tossing in more computing power and optimizing speed of algorithms one of consciousness of a dog, then monkey, then human and then we'll be surprised that when we toss in even more computing power we'll get even more conscious system because there's no reason to believe that evolution that gave us consciousness we recognize is capped in any way by some objective limit. It's more likely that our level of consciousness is just accidental value nowhere near theoretical upper limits.
However, please note that there have been a few individuals in human history who did have complete understanding of consciousness. The story of this world is that nobody wanted to learn from those people when they were alive.
The reasons that modern scientists do not understand consciousness is that
1. they do not apply a specific principle to their research (In math, when we want to solve a question, we apply the equality to operate the question.) and because
2. their research only investigates half of the set of existent relevant phenomena - that which can be seen with the naked eye.
Once a human recognizes the simple law that governs natural phenomena it is simple to recognize what consciousness is.
I am fairly certain that a large percentage of the human population still operates regularly without the consciousness as described by Jaynes.
At the very least, the genetically built neural machinery that our species would've had 3000 years ago is still likely to reward behaviors such as assuming gods and spirits in almost everything, enthralling oneself in crowd dynamics, and yielding to charismatic authorities.
A computer can easily know right from wrong to the degree most humans are capable of (and too often they aren't very sophisticated at that) even today. But it's safe to assume that that ARM processor has no conscious awareness. Conscious awareness is simply the feeling of observing things, a feeling we assume the machines we've built do not have, for example.
EDIT: to clarify, the title is very confusing because it makes you think they just signed it. It should be completed by a "2012" in the end. That's why I was disappointed when following the link. Nothing new.
> Consequently, say the signatories, the scientific evidence is increasingly indicating that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness.
That's because neurological substrates don't generate consciousness. There is no evidence to the effect that they do. However, when we understand the structure of the system of consciousness it's very easy to see how consciousness is generated and maintained.
The role of all neural systems is
1. to transmit to the consciousness what the body sees, hears, learns, etc., and
2. to express what is in consciousness through the body.
That is actually the best summary of the current state of consciousness research that I've ever read.
That said, they don't talk much about whether they can prove degrees of conscious awareness. There may be homologous structures, but are they as large as in humans? If they're not, then perhaps you'd expect the animal to have a comparable and yet less-detailed experience.
[+] [-] ggreer|12 years ago|reply
Even if other highly-encephalized animals aren't conscious, they are still open to a wide range of experiences that we can empathize with. They can learn and play. They feel hunger and pain. Some species can even form friendships and mourn the passing of their kin.
Despite all indications that our treatment of these creatures is reprehensible, cultural inertia and the tastiness of meat are enough to prevent us from changing our behavior. To treat even 1% of humans the way we treat animals would be to perpetuate the greatest war crime in history. But do the same thing to some funny-looking microencephalitic relatives of humans and hardly anyone bats an eye.
[+] [-] sethbannon|12 years ago|reply
[1] according to http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Rights-Current-Debates-Directio...
[+] [-] edanm|12 years ago|reply
This. Times a thousand.
Paul Graham's article "Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas" has this quote, which I love:
"One of my tricks for generating startup ideas is to imagine the ways in which we'll seem backward to future generations. And I'm pretty sure that to people 50 or 100 years in the future, it will seem barbaric that people in our era waited till they had symptoms to be diagnosed with conditions like heart disease and cancer."
When I look to the future and imagine what will seem backwards, two of the big things in my mind are what PG mentions and what you mention.
[+] [-] kryten|12 years ago|reply
This is typical human hypocrisy at work.
The worst thing I find is the "I'll eat a sausage but I couldn't possibly eat a cute bunny wabbit". The sausage in its natural form is capable of being a valuable and loyal human companion.
I haven't eaten meat since I was at university in the distant past after I got addicted to a combination of ramen noodles, mushrooms and home made pepper sauce. The ethical dilemma made it hard to go back to eating meat so I didn't bother.
Regarding tastiness, Indian vegetarian food (particular aloo, gobi is far tastier than anything with meat in and you can grow ALL the ingredients yourself if you want without having to shovel a single turd.
[+] [-] hosh|12 years ago|reply
This isn't about kindness and cruelty, this is about awareness. As long as we perceive other living beings as The Other, we're not truly aware -- we can't empathize, we can't be compassionate, we can't be a complete human being. Condemning people for barbarism is a subtler form of separation, of saying "those people are not us." But they are, just as we're growing as a species and society to be aware of non-human awareness.
[+] [-] Swizec|12 years ago|reply
Isn't that what biologists call symbiosis?
[+] [-] vacri|12 years ago|reply
If you want to start treating animals with the same sanctity as humans, you need to watch out. Countries that use the death penalty should be executing all the carnivores for mass murder.
And what does "the way we treat animals" mean anyway? Plenty of pets are doted on and loved to bits. Plenty of wild animals are left alone, ignored, or even unknown. Plenty of animals are treated inhumanely. Overgeneralisations are an enemy to progress.
[+] [-] tehwalrus|12 years ago|reply
I do agree though, and this is why I've been a vegetarian for 10 years now.
[+] [-] Blahah|12 years ago|reply
I don't eat or kill other humans, not just because I know they would dislike it, but because if we didn't all generally keep to that rule of not doing so, I run a higher risk of being eaten or killed myself. It's a behavioural contract, not some innate universal rule that suffering is bad.
For me, the question of what to eat is solely one of sustainability. Under that line of reasoning, veganism is better than vegetarianism which is approximately equivalent to eating no red meat, which are both better than eating red meat. How sentient the animal is doesn't factor into the decision.
[+] [-] scotty79|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnoway|12 years ago|reply
Edit: </sarcasm>
[+] [-] scotty79|12 years ago|reply
Why do you connect consciousness and not killing? Not killing all humans is fairly new concept for us and we always knew they were conscious.
[+] [-] i_cannot_hack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ErsatzVerkehr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RivieraKid|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stiff|12 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Neural_correlate...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Defining_conscio...
[+] [-] mseebach|12 years ago|reply
But too many people can't tell the difference between supporting an idea and publishing a repeatable experiment to test a falsifiable hypothesis in a peer reviewed journal.
[+] [-] stiff|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] regal|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aptwebapps|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stephengillie|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelgrafl|12 years ago|reply
To a philistine the Mona Lisa is nothing but a bunch of pigments applied to a surface. That's what makes him a philistine, after all.
[+] [-] stiff|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scotty79|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RivieraKid|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] contingencies|12 years ago|reply
You ask: Does it make any sense, then, to pose this question?
I answer: The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unhappy but hardly fit for life.
- Einstein (as quoted in Mein Weltbild, Amsterdam: Querido Verlag, 1934)
[+] [-] scotty79|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nux|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cristianpascu|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IanDrake|12 years ago|reply
That being said, I am concerned about how animals are treated during their lifetime.
[+] [-] dharmach|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tladendo|12 years ago|reply
Also, this is a ridiculous justification for meat eating, since lions cannot reason about morality.
[+] [-] mrspeaker|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickmain|12 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5866404
As I understand it the theory posits that consciousness is only a very recent development in humans.
How can we ascribe consciousness to any other form of life when we do not even understand what it means for ourselves ?
[+] [-] blueprint|12 years ago|reply
However, please note that there have been a few individuals in human history who did have complete understanding of consciousness. The story of this world is that nobody wanted to learn from those people when they were alive.
The reasons that modern scientists do not understand consciousness is that
1. they do not apply a specific principle to their research (In math, when we want to solve a question, we apply the equality to operate the question.) and because
2. their research only investigates half of the set of existent relevant phenomena - that which can be seen with the naked eye.
Once a human recognizes the simple law that governs natural phenomena it is simple to recognize what consciousness is.
[+] [-] sageikosa|12 years ago|reply
At the very least, the genetically built neural machinery that our species would've had 3000 years ago is still likely to reward behaviors such as assuming gods and spirits in almost everything, enthralling oneself in crowd dynamics, and yielding to charismatic authorities.
[+] [-] cdooh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uh_oh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpa|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stephengillie|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwgarry|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekianjo|12 years ago|reply
EDIT: to clarify, the title is very confusing because it makes you think they just signed it. It should be completed by a "2012" in the end. That's why I was disappointed when following the link. Nothing new.
[+] [-] blueprint|12 years ago|reply
That's because neurological substrates don't generate consciousness. There is no evidence to the effect that they do. However, when we understand the structure of the system of consciousness it's very easy to see how consciousness is generated and maintained.
The role of all neural systems is
1. to transmit to the consciousness what the body sees, hears, learns, etc., and
2. to express what is in consciousness through the body.
[+] [-] bencollier49|12 years ago|reply
That said, they don't talk much about whether they can prove degrees of conscious awareness. There may be homologous structures, but are they as large as in humans? If they're not, then perhaps you'd expect the animal to have a comparable and yet less-detailed experience.
[+] [-] scotty79|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] weavie|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fatjokes|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LatvjuAvs|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]