'Building sentient beings, rather than breeding sentient beings.' Why?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2014, 11:33 PM
Lightbulb 'Building sentient beings, rather than breeding sentient beings.' Why?
People have been building and working towards sentient machines for the last hundred years. They want to build a human like being.

Humans have been breeding animals, and evolving animals for thousands of years.

Why didn't humans, in any part of the world, breed animals for pure intelligence? Whether for a purpose or for just out right curiosity. Breed animals so that they're eerily in-tune with people, and could spell sentences out, and do most human activities. To breed out instincts that take over the animals body/psychology, which makes them dangerous and irrational.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 11:53 PM
RE: 'Building sentient beings, rather than breeding sentient beings.' Why?
(21-01-2014 11:33 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  Why didn't humans, in any part of the world, breed animals for pure intelligence?

We DO. It's called NEWFIES.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9LUSpOQ536HREy4z1-C0...ksNReebYdy]

Heh.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 11:54 PM
RE: 'Building sentient beings, rather than breeding sentient beings.' Why?
(21-01-2014 11:33 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  Why didn't humans, in any part of the world, breed animals for pure intelligence? Whether for a purpose or for just out right curiosity. Breed animals so that they're eerily in-tune with people, and could spell sentences out, and do most human activities. To breed out instincts that take over the animals body/psychology, which makes them dangerous and irrational.

Is that possible ? Are there not physiological limitations ? After all at most we've got thousands of years to work with. Developing our own brains took *millions*... Also... at what point, once your dog is smarter than you, does it become unethical to control his breeding ?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 04:20 AM
RE: 'Building sentient beings, rather than breeding sentient beings.' Why?
You have to remember that we are fortunate with hindsight on the past. Was not domestication of dogs basically what you describe? Or the beginning at least.

Domestication happened through splitting up the litters and only breeding the tamest pup. Quite quickly over a few generations the dogs born became much tamer.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 09:06 AM
RE: 'Building sentient beings, rather than breeding sentient beings.' Why?
(21-01-2014 11:33 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  People have been building and working towards sentient machines for the last hundred years. They want to build a human like being.

Humans have been breeding animals, and evolving animals for thousands of years.

Why didn't humans, in any part of the world, breed animals for pure intelligence? Whether for a purpose or for just out right curiosity. Breed animals so that they're eerily in-tune with people, and could spell sentences out, and do most human activities. To breed out instincts that take over the animals body/psychology, which makes them dangerous and irrational.

We did. They're called dogs. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 04:28 AM
RE: 'Building sentient beings, rather than breeding sentient beings.' Why?
Responses to limitations: Selective breeding works incredibly fast. Not just physical traits, but psychological. The Soviet experience with the Siberian fox comes to mind.

Responses to domestication: domestication, and creating beasts of burden are not the same things. Manipulating the bodies and minds for specific tasks is one thing, but greater intelligence is another. I'm not talking about making a dog more obedient, or warping it's body so it can chance things or fit in a hand bag. I'm talking about, say, a dog that can spell out (or sign in someway) inquiries about their surroundings, and future.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 05:29 AM
RE: 'Building sentient beings, rather than breeding sentient beings.' Why?
(21-01-2014 11:33 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  People have been building and working towards sentient machines for the last hundred years. They want to build a human like being.

Humans have been breeding animals, and evolving animals for thousands of years.

Why didn't humans, in any part of the world, breed animals for pure intelligence? Whether for a purpose or for just out right curiosity. Breed animals so that they're eerily in-tune with people, and could spell sentences out, and do most human activities. To breed out instincts that take over the animals body/psychology, which makes them dangerous and irrational.

The closest to that would be the German working lines of German Shepherds. It is difficult to get a dog approved to be bred - they have to undergo all kinds of tests including some that can take years of training to pass. The pedigrees have dozens of approved generations of dogs. They have to prove they have the brains, body and attitude it takes to be in perfect tune with a human handler and to perform tasks the human cannot .

While they are bred for intelligence among other traits, they are not supposed to be superior in intelligence as they are to serve humans. They are bred to compliment the capabilities of a human, not to compete with him/her.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 06:16 AM
RE: 'Building sentient beings, rather than breeding sentient beings.' Why?
(21-01-2014 11:33 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  ...
Why didn't humans, in any part of the world, breed animals for pure intelligence?
...

You've got it backwards...
[Image: mice-s1xicp.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
23-01-2014, 09:14 AM
RE: 'Building sentient beings, rather than breeding sentient beings.' Why?
(23-01-2014 04:28 AM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  Responses to limitations: Selective breeding works incredibly fast. Not just physical traits, but psychological. The Soviet experience with the Siberian fox comes to mind.

Responses to domestication: domestication, and creating beasts of burden are not the same things. Manipulating the bodies and minds for specific tasks is one thing, but greater intelligence is another. I'm not talking about making a dog more obedient, or warping it's body so it can chance things or fit in a hand bag. I'm talking about, say, a dog that can spell out (or sign in someway) inquiries about their surroundings, and future.

We did breed dogs for intelligence and empathy. Dogs respond to human gestures, words, and emotions. We made them this way.

Consider, if you will, border collies. Especially Chaser.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 09:51 AM
RE: 'Building sentient beings, rather than breeding sentient beings.' Why?
Agreed on the whole dog thing. This question seems to be moot.

But as far as hypothetically going further with it to say "human level" intelligence, I think one limiting factor is humans themselves. Once we are working with ever more intelligent animals, those animal’s rights get in the way of doing such an experiment you are referring to.

No one sees moral issues with the breeding of mice, or pigeons, (just as examples), but once those mice or pigeons became as, or more intelligent than dogs, elephants, dolphins, chimpanzees, young children, etc...then the ethics of "playing God" with a sentient being and creating a whole new animal unknown to the world, would come into play, I would think.

I think, before we even approached true "human level" intelligence, we would recognize the animal as being too conscious and self aware for us to experiment on it like it were a fruit fly or zebra fish.

So I only think we would be able to get so far into you experiment anyway, before we hit this limiting factor. Plus, if we truly were achieving the same thing with robots, I think we would it the same issue, but probably not as quickly, considering it’s easier to dismiss a computer as having real feelings and emotions, as compared to a dog. So we probably could get a lot further along with artificial intelligence, than with animals.

Just my two cents.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: