"Pre-programmed" knowledge
Pages: 12
I'm not talking about a genetic clone, I'm talking about the kind of clone that is required for pseudo-teleportation. That is, an exact duplication of me when I was scanned, with the atoms manually re-assembled.
So yeah... sci-fi fantasy. =P
But yeah in that case, the clone would share the same memories (I'd assume). Though whether or not it shared the same experiences would be debatable. You could very well argue that the clone and you are the same person, kind of like taking a cutting from a tree and planting it elsewhere.
At any rate, for the sake of getting to the point -- let's say you're right and the clone shares the memories and not the experiences. So that would mean my definition of 'memory' is wrong. So what do you propose is a better definition?
EDIT:
So, I looked up "memory", and I looked up "learn", and they both hinge on "knowledge", so I looked that up as well. And "instinct" for contrast:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/knowledge
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct
Knowledge definition #3 seems the most interesting:
Which implies that knowledge does not require education or experience, it merely requires awareness.
However the example sentence they use is poor... as the knowledge that the story was true must have been something they were told.
Conversely, instinct's definition is much more clear:
From this, I think it's safe to draw a conclusion here:
- Knowledge is learned.
- Instinct is built-in.
With those definitions -- from the standpoint of a "word purist" -- then I'd agree with your friend. You could not have pre-programmed knowledge because that would, by definition, make it instinct and not knowledge.
But I agree with you in that most people don't draw such divisive lines when they use the word 'knowledge'.
But yeah in that case, the clone would share the same memories (I'd assume). Though whether or not it shared the same experiences would be debatable. You could very well argue that the clone and you are the same person, kind of like taking a cutting from a tree and planting it elsewhere.
At any rate, for the sake of getting to the point -- let's say you're right and the clone shares the memories and not the experiences. So that would mean my definition of 'memory' is wrong. So what do you propose is a better definition?
EDIT:
So, I looked up "memory", and I looked up "learn", and they both hinge on "knowledge", so I looked that up as well. And "instinct" for contrast:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/knowledge
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct
Knowledge definition #3 seems the most interesting:
| a state of being aware <my knowledge that I was watching a true story made the film more compelling> |
Which implies that knowledge does not require education or experience, it merely requires awareness.
However the example sentence they use is poor... as the knowledge that the story was true must have been something they were told.
Conversely, instinct's definition is much more clear:
: a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned : a natural desire or tendency that makes you want to act in a particular way : something you know without learning it or thinking about it : a natural ability |
From this, I think it's safe to draw a conclusion here:
- Knowledge is learned.
- Instinct is built-in.
With those definitions -- from the standpoint of a "word purist" -- then I'd agree with your friend. You could not have pre-programmed knowledge because that would, by definition, make it instinct and not knowledge.
But I agree with you in that most people don't draw such divisive lines when they use the word 'knowledge'.
Last edited on
Again, my clone does not learn - he is assembled. Are you saying that my memories are my clone's instincts?
Last edited on
Practically, no. I agree with you that it would be preprogrammed knowledge.
My point is that we're splitting hairs on the semantics of things. Since your friend is a word purist, it's very likely that you two are in agreement with the principles you are discussing... you just disagree on the terminology.
Your friend very well could think preprogrammed knowledge is impossible if he strictly believes that knowledge must be learned. When you look at it that way, then whatever the clone knows by definition can't be knowledge because knowledge must be learned, and the clone didn't learn it.
And while I personally feel that is an extremely narrow view, I suspect it is what your friend was thinking.
So yeah. Overall I agree with you. I'm just trying to shine some light on the opposing viewpoint.
My point is that we're splitting hairs on the semantics of things. Since your friend is a word purist, it's very likely that you two are in agreement with the principles you are discussing... you just disagree on the terminology.
Your friend very well could think preprogrammed knowledge is impossible if he strictly believes that knowledge must be learned. When you look at it that way, then whatever the clone knows by definition can't be knowledge because knowledge must be learned, and the clone didn't learn it.
And while I personally feel that is an extremely narrow view, I suspect it is what your friend was thinking.
So yeah. Overall I agree with you. I'm just trying to shine some light on the opposing viewpoint.
No, we very clearly understood what we were saying, and we didn't agree. I don't think he'd even agree with the dictionary definitions you provided - he was a word purist for sure but not like you're thinking.
| No, we very clearly understood what we were saying, and we didn't agree. |
Ah well. Can't blame a guy for trying. =P
| I don't think he'd even agree with the dictionary definitions you provided - he was a word purist for sure but not like you're thinking. |
What kind of word purist doesn't agree with dictionary definitions? I copy/pasted those straight from Merriam-Webster.
There are studies that show that large parts of the nervous system (including the brain) is hardwired through DNA.
The big problem is the word "instinct". It implies that the behavior of an animal (excluding humans) is based on some level of decision or choice.
Like: it's instinctively doing the right thing. But it's not. An animal just does something. If it's good, it's good.
If not, that animal is probably "selected out".
That said, "instinct" is a bad word. It's better to use "behavior" because an animal just behaves without "knowing" why, without deciding or choosing.
So, there is no pre-programmed "knowledge", it's evolved behavior, and we call it instinct.
That doesn't mean animals don't gain knowledge over the course of their lives,
But they still don't make "decisions" based on that "knowledge".
Studies show that learning something just changes the specificity of a certain behavior. Again, excluding humans.
An example:
An untrained (wild) dog searches, hunts and kills another animal in order to get food.
That's it's natural behavior, hardwired by DNA through evolution.
A trained dog jumps through a hoop to get food from the trainer.
So the behavior changed from running around, hunting, killing to just jumping on cue.
The dog doesn't "know" what a hoop is or why jumping through it makes the trainer happy.
It just became its new specific behavior to get food. (I'm talking about the tidbits a trainer gives to condition the dog)
Please forgive my lazyness to add references. But I won't sit through hours of lectures again (on YouTube), just to get the references.
If somebody wants to watch for themselves, have a look at the YouTube channels: 'iBiology' and 'DNA Learning Center'
The big problem is the word "instinct". It implies that the behavior of an animal (excluding humans) is based on some level of decision or choice.
Like: it's instinctively doing the right thing. But it's not. An animal just does something. If it's good, it's good.
If not, that animal is probably "selected out".
That said, "instinct" is a bad word. It's better to use "behavior" because an animal just behaves without "knowing" why, without deciding or choosing.
So, there is no pre-programmed "knowledge", it's evolved behavior, and we call it instinct.
That doesn't mean animals don't gain knowledge over the course of their lives,
But they still don't make "decisions" based on that "knowledge".
Studies show that learning something just changes the specificity of a certain behavior. Again, excluding humans.
An example:
An untrained (wild) dog searches, hunts and kills another animal in order to get food.
That's it's natural behavior, hardwired by DNA through evolution.
A trained dog jumps through a hoop to get food from the trainer.
So the behavior changed from running around, hunting, killing to just jumping on cue.
The dog doesn't "know" what a hoop is or why jumping through it makes the trainer happy.
It just became its new specific behavior to get food. (I'm talking about the tidbits a trainer gives to condition the dog)
Please forgive my lazyness to add references. But I won't sit through hours of lectures again (on YouTube), just to get the references.
If somebody wants to watch for themselves, have a look at the YouTube channels: 'iBiology' and 'DNA Learning Center'
| The big problem is the word "instinct". It implies that the behavior of an animal (excluding humans) is based on some level of decision or choice. Like: it's instinctively doing the right thing. But it's not. An animal just does something. If it's good, it's good. If not, that animal is probably "selected out". |
I'm not sure I agree. "Instinctively", in every context I've ever heard it in implies lack of intentional thought -- not a decision or choice.
Furthermore, I don't see why humans would be excluded from anything. Newborns are known to have certain instincts: they hold their breath when under water, they suckle, etc.
| That doesn't mean animals don't gain knowledge over the course of their lives, But they still don't make "decisions" based on that "knowledge". Studies show that learning something just changes the specificity of a certain behavior. Again, excluding humans. |
I don't buy this either. Any study that excludes humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is a sham. There is literally zero reason to think animals are incapable of making informed decisions the same way we do, and there is lots of evidence to suggest that is true for a lot of the more intelligent ones... like dolphins and elephants.
EDIT:
| The dog doesn't "know" what a hoop is or why jumping through it makes the trainer happy. It just became its new specific behavior to get food. (I'm talking about the tidbits a trainer gives to condition the dog) |
Case in point... the dog learned and now knows that performing tricks will reward him with food. That is not instinctive behavior... he's just exercising what he's learned.
Last edited on
There are very few animals aside from us humans that we consider to be self aware. One is one we are all familiar with, and the other is elephants. So, no, humans are not alone in terms of being self-aware.
| There are very few animals aside from us humans that we consider to be self aware |
Define "we".
I think most people sell animals short.
People who have had close relationships with their pets, and zookeepers who have extended relationships with the animals they care for will tell you that individual animals have very distinct personalities. A dog is not just a dog.
Admittedly, whether or not you relate individualism with being "self aware" is subjective. Still, it's certainly a clear indicator that they're more than just things that move around.
And at the end of the day -- nobody can really know what/how an animal thinks. But given what we know about how close [biologically] humanity is with the rest of the animal kingdom, the idea that our brains operate so drastically different from theirs doesn't hold up. There's no reason to think that they are incapable of similar thought processes.
Last edited on
If an animal sees itself in a mirror and thinks it's a different animal, and can never be taught to understand that it is a reflection of itself, I draw the line there.
That's the animal not understanding what reflection is, not whether its aware of its own existence.
And correct me if I am mistaken but how did we domesticate dogs and cats if what they inherit from their ancestors can't be changed without some human modification?
+1 @ Cody's reflection comment.
EDIT: Apart from that, there's no way of knowing what an animal is thinking when it looks in a mirror.
House cats are typically not considered to be the most intelligent of animals, but I've had some that look inquisitively at a mirror and bat at it to see how it would respond... but they only did that for a few minutes before disregarding the mirror and moving on. So either they figured it out, or they stopped caring.
And I've had other house cats that never gave a second glance at a mirror.
EDIT 2:
Furthermore, even if a cat were to arch its back and be aggressive towards itself in the mirror -- isn't that exactly what a mirror is for? Maybe they realize it's a reflection and are just checking themselves out to see how threatening they are.
EDIT: Apart from that, there's no way of knowing what an animal is thinking when it looks in a mirror.
House cats are typically not considered to be the most intelligent of animals, but I've had some that look inquisitively at a mirror and bat at it to see how it would respond... but they only did that for a few minutes before disregarding the mirror and moving on. So either they figured it out, or they stopped caring.
And I've had other house cats that never gave a second glance at a mirror.
EDIT 2:
Furthermore, even if a cat were to arch its back and be aggressive towards itself in the mirror -- isn't that exactly what a mirror is for? Maybe they realize it's a reflection and are just checking themselves out to see how threatening they are.
Last edited on
The elephant painting thing is a bad example, as that is accomplished through human manipulation:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/elephantpainting.asp
Some people consider it a form of cruelty.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/elephantpainting.asp
Some people consider it a form of cruelty.
| JLBorges wrote: |
|---|
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6100430.stm |
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| Furthermore, I don't see why humans would be excluded from anything. [...] I don't buy this either. Any study that excludes humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is a sham. |
Wait, wait. I didn't mean the study excluded humans. I was talking about "animals" and I wanted to make it clear that I only talk about non-homo-sapiens animals.
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.
Pages: 12