Hofstadter is great. In Star Wars: A New Hope, C3PO and R2D2 are purchased and tethered by the hero of the story. C3PO called him "Master Luke". We still root for him and empathize with him. It might be argued that Luke was a good guy in a bad culture. Slave owners in the US were not consciously evil; they were evil in ignorance. These are not the same kinds of evil. A few years ago, I took a course in Research Ethics. It was fascinating. It seems that ideally, we should feel solidarity with similarity of mind: Are chimpanzees and dolphins so intelligent that they shouldn't be experimented upon? But then, we also feel solidarity with progeny: Should we feel less solidarity with a human that is less intelligent than a chimpanzee, than we do with the more intelligent ape? Then there is solidarity of place: We decide it is better that many Iraqis die, rather than risk fewer American lives. In questions of climate change and economics, there is also solidarity with those in our time. Or mix them up: Someone doesn't buy leather goods, because they are made from animals, but buys cloth goods made by people in sweatshops. We should be so lucky that in 2493 it is in our hands to make such judgements.
I agree with the discussion about this as it is – but I went down a different path. As far as we know, apes and chimps and pigs and fish and humans were all "created" from "whatever". As in, at the beginning of time, we did not create the apes or chimps or pigs. Humans are separate from pigs who are separate from apes who are separate.... The evolution or creation can be debated, but I don't think anyone believes that humans created pigs. Would our attitude be different if we had been the creators? At what point, especially when it concerns super-intelligent life, does the relationship with that entity become more like that of a parent and child? Where we look at it as something we created and a piece of us? Does it ever? Does it start like that (ie: We love our adorable, freaky little Siri) but change as the intelligence becomes less terribly adorable and more terribly intelligent? Is that line crossed when the intelligence is more intelligent than us? Suddenly, we are threatened because we aren't the smartest thing in the room? We do not have this parent-child attitude towards other humans, perhaps because we are on parallel ground (I had no involvement in the creation of the human child that was just born in China, or down the street for that matter) or perhaps because there is too much history and division between cultures and locales and races and classes. But, if we were to have a super intelligent life form that humankind created, would we look at it as us vs them, like we look at those evil terrorists over there and they look at the evil Americans over here, or would we look at it with the love or admiration or whatever that we have for a child? Like, this is our collective baby that we created and brought into this world? Furthermore, would the American's super-intelligent life form be loved by Americans but despised by China? Or vise versa? Would the intelligences have their own race or class or cultural divisions with each other? I doubt we will ever refer to this life form as "us" or "we" because we are still separate entities. But I am not so quick to assume we will look at it in the same way we look at a chimp, or a pig, or a fish. But then, we also feel solidarity with progeny: Should we feel less solidarity with a human that is less intelligent than a chimpanzee, than we do with the more intelligent ape?
ould our attitude be different if we had been the creators? At what point, especially when it concerns super-intelligent life, does the relationship with that entity become more like that of a parent and child?
this is an interesting point to consider. There is some presidence, to an extent. We pretty much created the domestic canine. Dogs were forged to our liking over hundreds of years. We certainly feel a kinship with them as a species that is seemingly unique and definitely parental. But then, people like humanodon still eat them, despite us being their creators. Also, dogs don't look like us. Would we be less likely to eat dogs if they did? Would we be less likely to mistreat a robot if it looked more human? I think so.
Well, there exist/have existed cultures that practice cannibalism. Relationships are often rooted in biology and are also very much shaped by culture. What would a super-intelligent culture be like? More pragmatic? Less emotive? More brutal? Who knows . . .
Hm, this runs counter to my view of the future. I see the future as a radical differentiation of minds. From this perspective we should fall in love with difference/weirdness, etc. Yes :D I've never felt comfortable with this comparison. My mother works with mentally handicapped people and she once said something similar, essentially comparing the mentally challenged with the cognitive capacities of a chimpanzee. But this comparison does not make sense. A chimpanzee that is particularly intelligent doesn't become "more human" and a cognitively challenged human doesn't suddenly become "chimpanzee-like". We are completely different species with different genetic make-up, and with humans also inhabiting a symbolic order that is pretty much completely absent in the world of the chimpanzee. Ya, these are great examples of flaws in modern logic. Agreed, it's hard for me to imagine biocultural humans (as we have known them) existing that far into the future.It seems that ideally, we should feel solidarity with similarity of mind
Are chimpanzees and dolphins so intelligent that they shouldn't be experimented upon?
Should we feel less solidarity with a human that is less intelligent than a chimpanzee, than we do with the more intelligent ape?
Then there is solidarity of place: We decide it is better that many Iraqis die, rather than risk fewer American lives. In questions of climate change and economics, there is also solidarity with those in our time. Or mix them up: Someone doesn't buy leather goods, because they are made from animals, but buys cloth goods made by people in sweatshops.
We should be so lucky that in 2493 it is in our hands to make such judgements.
I agree that there is more too it. But, it is difficult to pin down. The factors that go into this kind of solidarity are a mix of intrinsic ones and those that we attribute. The comparison doesn't make perfect sense, but neither does any definition of human, or a rationale for putting non-humans on similar footing.I've never felt comfortable with this comparison. My mother works with mentally handicapped people and she once said something similar, essentially comparing the mentally challenged with the cognitive capacities of a chimpanzee. But this comparison does not make sense. A chimpanzee that is particularly intelligent doesn't become "more human" and a cognitively challenged human doesn't suddenly become "chimpanzee-like". We are completely different species with different genetic make-up, and with humans also inhabiting a symbolic order that is pretty much completely absent in the world of the chimpanzee.
IMO, I think it is precisely this that makes us human, this flexible/dynamic symbolism that allows us to have this conversation - to construct conceptual frameworks that can be debated and critiqued over time. Chimpanzees will only ever have a solidarity of mind with their kind, but humans can symbolise totally new solidarities, i.e. all apes deserve fundamental rights, all mammals, all organisms, etc. That is totally an evolving open-ended symbolic process, i.e. what is "similarity of mind" can always be re-articulated, depending on where we are intersubjectively as a species.The comparison doesn't make perfect sense, but neither does any definition of human, or a rationale for putting non-humans on similar footing.
Most would say yes. When I read this, I think, "Probably best not to examine too deeply the intelligence of pigs".Are chimpanzees and dolphins so intelligent that they shouldn't be experimented upon?
I'd have guessed that link would have led to one of these (I know them from OddWorld but didn't realise they were in the 'Dune' world) :
