Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can we know what animals are thinking?

medium.economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 234 posts

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#151

Post by CuriouslyC »

StavrosK wrote: post #3
_dps wrote: post #2

"No animals have all the attributes of human minds; but almost all the attributes of human minds are found in some animal or other" This was a fun read in general, but I think it's particularly interesting to consider some of its implications in the context of trends in AI (to be clear, the article has nothing to do with AI). I think the excerpt above is rapidly becoming true for current generation ML/AI systems (I'm…

The question, to me, is whether machines will ever have consciousness, or whether consciousness is just "what it feels like to have a cortex". We assume that machines will have consciousness some day, but what if we had a machine that could do many things as well as a human, but didn't consider itself "alive"?

The way you're using consciousness conflates the human mind (which I would argue fits your definition of "what it feels like to have a cortex") and the property of experiencing existence.

Animals might have a very different mind, but I'm quite certain they experience their existence.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#153

Post by CuriouslyC »

_dps wrote: post #4
StavrosK wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question, to me, is whether machines will ever have consciousness, or whether consciousness is just "what it feels like to have a cortex". We assume that machines will have consciousness some day, but what if we had a machine that could do many things as well as a human, but didn't consider itself "alive"?

Yes, this is closely connected to the question of qualia, and the concept of a "philosophical zombie" [0]. On the one hand, naive human intuition seems to suggest that the "movie playing in your head" would not emerge from any number of transistors and wires connected to each other. On the other hand, it's not clear how you can argue that what goes on in our own heads is physically any different. So that leads you ei…

Why does consciousness have to emerge? Why can't it be intrinsic?

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#155

Post by zpghjll »

dsacco wrote: post #148
arthurwinter wrote: post #99

I find it incredible that in 2017 people still debate if animals can think. You just need to interact with one or more dogs to understand that they think, and in most cases they think much better than humans. Lately seeing what humans did and still do to planet Earth, and what they do to each other based on completely made up topics like religion or plain material topics like skin color is making me wonder if humans…

> If humans pretend to be more intelligent than animals Sorry, what? Humans are only capable of conceiving of religion and destroying the planet because they are more intelligent than other animals. I'm not a religious person, but it's a bit offensive to imply humans that believe in religion are less intelligent than canines, don't you think? And animals don't destroy the planet because, for the most part, they're in…

Cruelty depends on knowing what is moral and choosing to do something immoral. In this case, humans are cruel for knowing animals are sentient yet still subjecting them to horrible conditions and painful lives just to satisfy our pallette. The lion is not cruel for eating the zebra because it is necessary for its survival.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#156

Post by zpghjll »

BartSaM wrote: post #140
arthurwinter wrote: post #99

I find it incredible that in 2017 people still debate if animals can think. You just need to interact with one or more dogs to understand that they think, and in most cases they think much better than humans. Lately seeing what humans did and still do to planet Earth, and what they do to each other based on completely made up topics like religion or plain material topics like skin color is making me wonder if humans…

While I agree with some parts, the overall message sounds like a pseudoscience. Only because you have negative feelings toward some people and some actions - you cannot compare this to the whole society. The problem is with the system that allows bad people to be in power. Not with the society in general. While the world is not in the best shape, it is not a disaster as well. Show me any other invasive species that w…

Such meat you mention toward the end makes up such a small fraction of a percent of all meat production that its almost not worth considering. Not to mention that such meat production is not scalable and would never be able to satisfy the current western pallette for meat.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#157

Post by zpghjll »

shanev wrote: post #122
arthurwinter wrote: post #99

I find it incredible that in 2017 people still debate if animals can think. You just need to interact with one or more dogs to understand that they think, and in most cases they think much better than humans. Lately seeing what humans did and still do to planet Earth, and what they do to each other based on completely made up topics like religion or plain material topics like skin color is making me wonder if humans…

I agree with your overall sentiment. But just because there aren't animals on your plate, doesn't mean they weren't killed in bringing food to your plate. For example, published studies show that at least 25 times more sentient animals are killed per kilogram of useable protein when producing industrial wheat and other grain [1]. Not eating animals isn't enough. You have to find ethically sourced food. So ironically,…

Why compare one macronutrient like protein? That seems like a way to spin the data to reach the authors prejudices. A better metric would be calories, because that's a better indicator of how much is needed to feed a person. Also it's a little unfair to equate a mouse killed in the field to a cow tortured since birth and then slaughtered and possibly skinned and gutted alive.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#158

Post by CuriouslyC »

Xcelerate wrote: post #38

As someone who isn't a vegetarian (and who feels guilty eating bacon if I start thinking about it too much), I can't help but to wonder if eating meat will be considered the "barbaric" practice of this generation for future generations. I'm sure previous generations didn't consider their barbaric practices to be such at the time.

If people of the future consider eating meat to be barbaric, I think it will more likely be a response to the fact that meat consumption is not scalable. Think of it like Aesop's fable about the fox and the (presumably sour) grapes.

In truth, if we offer animals a good life and harvest them in a compassionate manner, the ethical arguments against eating meat are weak.

People also underestimate the capacity for plants to feel. Plants in conventional monoculture farms are much more susceptible to pets and disease. Disease susceptibility is a fairly universal response to sustained stress in animals, so it seems reasonable to me that the conditions we are keeping plants in cause them distress as well. Just because plants "think" on long time-scales using gene regulation (plant biochemistry is incredibly complex) rather than short term activation of neurons doesn't mean their experience is any less salient.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#159

Post by strictnein »

zpghjll wrote: post #155
dsacco wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If humans pretend to be more intelligent than animals Sorry, what? Humans are only capable of conceiving of religion and destroying the planet because they are more intelligent than other animals. I'm not a religious person, but it's a bit offensive to imply humans that believe in religion are less intelligent than canines, don't you think? And animals don't destroy the planet because, for the most part, they're in…

Cruelty depends on knowing what is moral and choosing to do something immoral. In this case, humans are cruel for knowing animals are sentient yet still subjecting them to horrible conditions and painful lives just to satisfy our pallette. The lion is not cruel for eating the zebra because it is necessary for its survival.

The cattle on farms wouldn't be off roaming the countryside if we didn't eat them. They just simply wouldn't exist at all.

Re: Can we know what animals are thinking?

#160

Post by BartSaM »

zpghjll wrote: post #156
BartSaM wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with some parts, the overall message sounds like a pseudoscience. Only because you have negative feelings toward some people and some actions - you cannot compare this to the whole society. The problem is with the system that allows bad people to be in power. Not with the society in general. While the world is not in the best shape, it is not a disaster as well. Show me any other invasive species that w…

Such meat you mention toward the end makes up such a small fraction of a percent of all meat production that its almost not worth considering. Not to mention that such meat production is not scalable and would never be able to satisfy the current western pallette for meat.

While I partly agree I do not suppose all of sudden 50% of society will turn in to food like this.

This is a solution to all the people that have a problem with the evil food industry. There is enough for everyone. What I am saying, there are more than two options. Also, if more people would eat such a products and prices would rise a bit, I bet a lot of people would start using their unused farm land for such a purpose.

Also, I think it would lead to new "Amazon for farmer products" start-up arising.

Post reply on HN