The Second Apocalypse
Miscellaneous Chatter => Philosophy & Science => Topic started by: sciborg2 on November 23, 2013, 07:37:20 pm
-
Peter Singer and David Brin to speak at animal personhood conference
http://io9.com/peter-singer-and-david-brin-to-speak-at-animal-personh-1469864188
The IEET's Rights of the Nonhuman Persons program — a program that I founded and currently chair — seeks to do much more. We'd like to see not just dolphins, but whales, elephants, and all great apes given the same consideration — and not just in principle; the only way to truly protect highly sapient animals from such things as undue confinement and experimentation is to grant them the status that they truly deserve, which is that of the person.
But we're not only interested in animal welfare — we're also looking ahead to the future when artificial intelligence and robots will need to be granted personhood status as well lest they be abused, exploited, and left unaccountable.
-
For animals, no, atleast not until we actually grant the status of a person to all actual people. We don't currently. It's like trying to attach a failing mechanism onto even more workload that it fails to do the work on.
As for AI, I call it different, as they are our children.
And like a child who puts their parents into a home eventually, you want to treat them good so they treat you good, eventually.
-
Bodiless AI will never deserve rights in my book.
Androids are up in the air.
-
Bodyless? Sooo, what are they made out of then?
Androids are up in the air.
Look out!! Get to cover! Androids in the air! They keep shouting in caps about what were seein' and stuff! *just jokin'*
-
For animals, no, atleast not until we actually grant the status of a person to all actual people
Huge +1.
-
I dislike both Singer and Brin, although this article was a pleasant surprise. For the first and probably only time ever, I agree with them.
For animals, no, atleast not until we actually grant the status of a person to all actual people. We don't currently.
And we never will. Humans are pack animals, and in-group/out-group thinking is a part of who we are. "All humans are equal" (let alone animals) will only be a reality if we lose our humanity
(I wouldn't have anything against that, to be honest. Human exceptionalism is stupid and illogical, when it doesn't have a religious foundation. From a scientific viewpoint, exactly what makes us special snowflakes?)
-
(From a scientific viewpoint, exactly what makes us special snowflakes?)
Apologies for popping in, out of context.
We can affect change, Auriga. That's my answer. (Though, I understand what you mean about human exceptionalism and I think we should do what we can to cleanse our attitudes of that one).
-
I dislike both Singer and Brin, although this article was a pleasant surprise. For the first and probably only time ever, I agree with them.
For animals, no, atleast not until we actually grant the status of a person to all actual people. We don't currently.
And we never will. Humans are pack animals, and in-group/out-group thinking is a part of who we are. "All humans are equal" (let alone animals) will only be a reality if we lose our humanity
Pff, I lose part of my humanity when I didn't kill that guy that one time for crossing me. All those times, actually.
What makes us such special snowflakes we aughtn't lose any tiny bit of the such special beasts we are?
-
I'm pretty sure I posted a link to the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness around here, which elucidates a number of animals that might be considered persons based on certain neurological criteria.
But...
Personhood Beyond the Human (http://nonhumanrights.net/)
EDIT:
It was in Animal Language (http://second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=383.0):
Dogs Are People, Too. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/dogs-are-people-too.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&single=1)
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf - 'Cause it doesn't seem to have been here before.
-
Do zombies have rights? (http://www.consciousentities.com/?p=1566)
Would lack of qualia mean you also lacked human rights and could be treated like an animal, or worse? It seems to me that while lack of qualia might affect your standing as a moral object (because it would bear on whether you could suffer, for example), it wouldn’t stop you being a full-fledged moral subject (you would still have agency). I think I would consequently draw a distinction between the legal and the moral answer. Legally, I can’t see any reason why the absence of qualia would make any difference. Legal personhood, rights and duties are all about actions and behaviour, which takes us squarely into the realm of the Easy Problem. Our zombie friend is just like us in these respects; there’s no reason why he can’t enter into contracts, suffer punishments, or take on responsibilities. The law is a public matter; it is forensic – it deals with the things dealt with in the public forum; and it follows that it has nothing to say about the incorrigibly private matter of qualia.
Of course the doctor’s machine changes all that and makes qualia potentially a public matter (which is one reason why we might think the machine is inherently absurd, since public qualia are almost a contradiction in terms). It could be that the doctor is appealing to some new, recently-agreed legislation which explicitly takes account of his equipment and its powers. If so, such legislation would presumably have to have been based on moral arguments, so whichever way we look at it, it is to the moral discussion that we must turn.
-
Pretty impressive Crow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVaITA7eBZE
-
That was amazing! Crow power
-
That was amazing! Crow power
"“He’s not Cishaurim.” The thing had spoken this softly, as though to preserve tiny eardrums.
A cat-curious turn of the head. “Indeed,” the Synthese said after a moment. “Then what is he?”
“Dunyain.”
Tiny grimace. Small, glistening teeth, like grains of rice, flashed between its lips. “All games end with me, Gaortha. All games.”
Sarcellus became very still. “I play no game. This man is Dunyain. That’s what the Scylvendi calls him. She said there’s no doubt.”
“But there’s no order called ‘Dunyain’ in Atrithau.”
“No. But then we know that he’s not a Prince of Atrithau.”
The Old Name paused, as though to cycle large Crow thoughts through a small Inchoroi intellect."
It now all makes sense lol
-
Anyone heard of the "hundreth monkey" myth?
These skeptics think that is bullshit:http://www.skepdic.com/monkey.html
There seems to be lack of evidence here for sure, so Sheldrake if you are reading this, what is up with those morphic fields man?
-
I've read so many versions of this over the years, Royce. There seems to be some confused mixing between cultural transmission, increasingly complex but still mundane, collective consciousness studies, and what's often referred to in a wider set of literature as "peak experiences," among other things (though, of course, these and whole sets of conceptions intertwine as they affect change).
I don't think there is a consolidate consensus, mostly because their hasn't been the extensive research done. All in all, I'm not sure what to say on the subject. Ken Wilbur has some thoughts concerning development of consciousness and its broader social expression (though I do wonder about his spiritual extensions).
-
I'm not sure I understand the full extent of the crow example - it seemed his tasks were in a different configuration that usual.
The full depth of the task involves how much he learnt each part piecemeal and how much they were spoon fed to him.
I have seen a video of a parrot that seemed to be able to make some free association (rather than repeating from wrote learning) of previously learnt rules, so I'm not shooting it down.
It's just the extent of the matter is ambiguous to me.
-
I'm not sure I understand the full extent of the crow example - it seemed his tasks were in a different configuration that usual.
The full depth of the task involves how much he learnt each part piecemeal and how much they were spoon fed to him.e.
This. That was the main point of the research as far as I recall - the task difficulty is inherently harder and represents/demonstrates a more complex learning than we previously assumed possible of crows.
-
For animals, no, atleast not until we actually grant the status of a person to all actual people. We don't currently. It's like trying to attach a failing mechanism onto even more workload that it fails to do the work on.
Care to elaborate? Just because some people do not get everything they'd be intitled to does not mean we do not grant them the status. It's a problem of control and of being able to claim your rights. That's different.
As for AI, I call it different, as they are our children.
And like a child who puts their parents into a home eventually, you want to treat them good so they treat you good, eventually.
Interesting ... i still have a hard time of thinking of a computer as a child of mine (or whoever built it).
So i guess in my view, i think animals should come before anything electronical.
Another problem i see is that deciding which animals should be granted the status is not without problems. Why? We do not have means to perceive what each animal is capable of feeling and thinking. So how is it we get to decide which animals get the status and which do not. I think it is presumptuous if we do.
-
I've read so many versions of this over the years, Royce. There seems to be some confused mixing between cultural transmission, increasingly complex but still mundane, collective consciousness studies, and what's often referred to in a wider set of literature as "peak experiences," among other things (though, of course, these and whole sets of conceptions intertwine as they affect change).
Yes, and I think we have a long way to go in actual understanding of (other) animals intelligence and behavior. So much oddity and weird connections out there.
Another problem i see is that deciding which animals should be granted the status is not without problems. Why? We do not have means to perceive what each animal is capable of feeling and thinking. So how is it we get to decide which animals get the status and which do not. I think it is presumptuous if we do.
I agree. The whole premiss is pretty arrogant but very human:) "We are on top of the pyramid, let us look down and decide......." We are the strangest of all animals.
-
I am not even sure that "personhood" even works on other animals than humans. If I remember correctly, persona means mask, or acting in a sense. Your "personality" is an act you play out every day, which differs from situation to situation. Other animals do not act in the sense that we do, unless we teach/force them. Maybe I do not understand this correctly, but it seems rather absurd to me.
-
Are animals eligible for conscription?
-
Are animals eligible for conscription?
Yes. You would have to be a certain type of ape though. The kind that take orders and shoot on sight :)
-
For animals, no, atleast not until we actually grant the status of a person to all actual people. We don't currently. It's like trying to attach a failing mechanism onto even more workload that it fails to do the work on.
Care to elaborate? Just because some people do not get everything they'd be intitled to does not mean we do not grant them the status.
Why doesn't it mean you don't grant them the status?
Does it mean you don't want to grant them the status - no, I wouldn't say that. You want to.
Does it mean you DO grant them the status?
When you say you've granted someone the status of not starving and...they starve, why do you say that doesn't mean you haven't granted them the status?
I'm almost wondering if you're going to say that it's just the moral imperative to grant them the status - forfilling the status is just a secondary thing.
Fuck morals, in that case.
As for AI, I call it different, as they are our children.
And like a child who puts their parents into a home eventually, you want to treat them good so they treat you good, eventually.
Interesting ... i still have a hard time of thinking of a computer as a child of mine (or whoever built it).
Then ensure you don't build any. Anti-AI-natalism all the way.
But dear god man, what do you think will happen if you go and support a build and such a thing can out think you, yet you raise it like less than an animal? Do you think it's going to see you as more than an animal, let alone a man, in such a case?
So i guess in my view, i think animals should come before anything electronical.
So sayeth the impulses of your brain.
-
Are animals eligible for conscription?
Various animals have been used in war, yes. On pretty much a conscription basis.
-
Why doesn't it mean you don't grant them the status?
Does it mean you don't want to grant them the status - no, I wouldn't say that. You want to.
Does it mean you DO grant them the status?
When you say you've granted someone the status of not starving and...they starve, why do you say that doesn't mean you haven't granted them the status?
I'm almost wondering if you're going to say that it's just the moral imperative to grant them the status - forfilling the status is just a secondary thing.
Fuck morals, in that case.
You know, instead of shooting out all those questions you could have answered my question. So how about you elaborate on your opening post?
Oh and if you want to quote me, please quote all of the statment and don't rip them out of context. The last part of my sentence was the most important one.
Then ensure you don't build any. Anti-AI-natalism all the way.
But dear god man, what do you think will happen if you go and support a build and such a thing can out think you, yet you raise it like less than an animal? Do you think it's going to see you as more than an animal, let alone a man, in such a case?
I do not intend to build one, don't worry. But as to your second paragraph...who knows? I mean even if you treat it like a child (or less than an animal) there are no guarantees it will treat you the same way. So i guess the danger of this AI thinking that i am less than an animal myself are there anyway. Especially if the AI only has our capabilities of thinking and deduction and none of our feelings and morals.
So i guess in my view, i think animals should come before anything electronical.
So sayeth the impulses of your brain.
And how is that different from what your brain sayeth? I'm not sure if you are trying to employ a rhetoric here or if you are sitting on your high horse. So i guess i will give you the benefit of the doubt. But be that as it may....your post did not at all promote a discussion here...so i hope you'll be more constructive the next time. I gave my opinion in a thread...convince me why it is wrong or elaborate on yours. Just snipping at mine is not only uncool, it is not helpful at all.
If i got you totally wrong, i apologize, but at the moment, i do not see how this was constructive.
-
I mean even if you treat it like a child (or less than an animal) there are no guarantees it will treat you the same way. So i guess the danger of this AI thinking that i am less than an animal myself are there anyway.
One of the greatest dangers is assuming that non-human intelligence should be recognizable like human intelligence...
-
Why doesn't it mean you don't grant them the status?
Does it mean you don't want to grant them the status - no, I wouldn't say that. You want to.
Does it mean you DO grant them the status?
When you say you've granted someone the status of not starving and...they starve, why do you say that doesn't mean you haven't granted them the status?
I'm almost wondering if you're going to say that it's just the moral imperative to grant them the status - forfilling the status is just a secondary thing.
Fuck morals, in that case.
You know, instead of shooting out all those questions you could have answered my question.
It wasn't a question on any particular matter - you said 'care to elaborate?' Either A: If I didn't do so before, why would I do it now? Because I like the sound of my own voice? or B: If you're having trouble understanding what I've said, I have no idea what you're not understanding when you just say 'care to elaborate', so I asked questions. Which you could have answered yourself and then told me I could have answered your question, but you didn't.
This seems to be rapidly heading into 'shut them down by any means possible' territory rather than 'shut them down by locating flaws in their reasoning'
Oh and if you want to quote me, please quote all of the statment and don't rip them out of context. The last part of my sentence was the most important one.
The way I read that part, it was 'Hey, they have rights - it's just up to them to provide them for themselves and yeah they don't have the control for that'.
My reading of it was so antithical to what you were saying I ommited it in order to give you a clean slate to describe what you're talking about. I ommited the part that seemed to utterly shoot you down, to give you a second chance because I humoured the idea that my negative reading could be wrong and you might have a better interpretation to give. From my position I was helping you out by cutting it out.
Then ensure you don't build any. Anti-AI-natalism all the way.
But dear god man, what do you think will happen if you go and support a build and such a thing can out think you, yet you raise it like less than an animal? Do you think it's going to see you as more than an animal, let alone a man, in such a case?
I do not intend to build one, don't worry. But as to your second paragraph...who knows? I mean even if you treat it like a child (or less than an animal) there are no guarantees it will treat you the same way. So i guess the danger of this AI thinking that i am less than an animal myself are there anyway.
Beat the slave because hey, even if you didn't beat them, they might still go on to hate you anyway?
There's this thing with humans - it's almost a sunk cost thing, where once they've done something shit, its in for a penny then you're in for a pound. Akka sums it up nicely when he kills that group of soldiers who might have given them away in TJE, when he says 'I'm damned anyway'.
So i guess in my view, i think animals should come before anything electronical.
So sayeth the impulses of your brain.
And how is that different from what your brain sayeth? I'm not sure if you are trying to employ a rhetoric here or if you are sitting on your high horse. So i guess i will give you the benefit of the doubt. But be that as it may....your post did not at all promote a discussion here...so i hope you'll be more constructive the next time. I gave my opinion in a thread...convince me why it is wrong or elaborate on yours. Just snipping at mine is not only uncool, it is not helpful at all.
If i got you totally wrong, i apologize, but at the moment, i do not see how this was constructive.
You already associate 'impulse' in this context with 'electrical impulse'. You already know electrical impulses happen in your brain. Your electronical brain.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I take this missing what is a clear association to mean that I am not being read charitably.
I considered spelling it out and saying 'electrical impulses', but I considered you a fine enough sparing opponent to not need things simplified for you like that. That you were quite capable of drawing the connection yourself. And I still think you are. I think what you are missing is charity in your reading.
-
I mean even if you treat it like a child (or less than an animal) there are no guarantees it will treat you the same way. So i guess the danger of this AI thinking that i am less than an animal myself are there anyway.
One of the greatest dangers is assuming that non-human intelligence should be recognizable like human intelligence...
I think, like we ripped off the shape of birds wings to make planes, well rip off the human model of thinking for AI.
The thing is the human model, rather like how DNA keeps all sorts of capabilities hidden in it, the human mind keeps lots of...lets call them 'lessons' from history. These are unlikely to be added to an AI (mostly because we are largely unaware of all the lessons burnt into us) and so the AI starts with a relatively clean slate. Which can go well - but if it's built on the human model, it can go incredibly wrong.
-
Callan, i guess we both read some things wrong. I certainly know that you misinterpreted some of what i wanted to say. I guess it is possible that this is due to english not being my mothertongue. I certainly wasn't trying to read you uncharitably, but your answers seemed kind of evading. Anyway. I'm not sure how to proceed as i don't know if indeed i do read your posts too harshly. Because to be honest, your last post seemed very "holier than thou" on a first read through. But then again, i could misrepresent you. Before this gets into a vicious cicle, i guess i bow out.
As a last line - what i wanted you to elaborate about was the following
not until we actually grant the status of a person to all actual people.
To whom do we not grant the status of a person? What people do we exclude, in your opinion?
Oh and just FYI - and this is not intended as an attack on you, just to explain why i might read you uncharitably - saying stuff like "dnd forum is the kiddie table" and such like makes you come across as a tad arrogant. That's why i thought you'd need to come down of your high horse.
And now i am done. If i in any way offended you, i apologize.
@ Madness - I agree with your statment. Obviously.
-
To whom do we not grant the status of a person? What people do we exclude, in your opinion?
Nothing comes to mind?
Kids dying of hunger in ethopia and other countries? Asia's sex slaves (and sex slaves in various other countries, including our own), the homeless who don't want to be homeless. Wage slaves.
The list goes on - I'm sure I'll forget some because I forget to assign them human status myself.
Wasn't it predictable I'd say something like that?
Hoping you wont ask why I think we don't include them as as human, even as you wouldn't let your siblings starve to death or be raped for profit (ie, the way you treat your siblings as human).
saying stuff like "dnd forum is the kiddie table" and such like makes you come across as a tad arrogant.
It was 'kiddie pool'
That you don't consider that the level of critical thinking there could indeed, by various emperic metrics, be a kind of kiddie pool...doesn't that make you sound just as arrogant as you don't consider you could be wrong on the matter and actually I'm just saying what is true?
I'm betting the critical thinking level of those forums would be fairly low. But I could be wrong. I didn't say I spoke about what I bet on - but who speaks with anything more than what they just bet upon?
-
Thought I'd drop this here:
Asian elephants reassure others in distress (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-02/ehs-aer021214.php)
Also to check some balances:
B: If you're having trouble understanding what I've said, I have no idea what you're not understanding when you just say 'care to elaborate', so I asked questions. Which you could have answered yourself and then told me I could have answered your question, but you didn't.
Kellais might have specified which part he wanted clarified. But it seemed fairly obvious he couldn't answer your questions contextually without clarification...
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I take this missing what is a clear association to mean that I am not being read charitably.
Do you think this is reasonable standard to hold other people to?
To whom do we not grant the status of a person? What people do we exclude, in your opinion?
Nothing comes to mind?
Why would he ask your opinion, if he could read the contents of your mind?
Hoping you wont ask why I think we don't include them as as human, even as you wouldn't let your siblings starve to death or be raped for profit (ie, the way you treat your siblings as human).
This isn't shutting down conversation?
-
Mike, are you moderating or not? I had a boss at work who would argue, but he'd keep his position as boss as leverage in the arguement, which is really intellectually dishonest. I've been on an RPG forum for some time where the mod would be ambiguous about whether he was moderating or just engaging as another poster (and this guy was a teacher at a university). He seemed to clear that up a little about which hat he was wearing at any particular time, after I pointed it out, though.
You're not checking some balances if you're arguing with me because you're not in a higher position, just my peer. What if I say I am going to check some of your balances - does that sound legitimate?
And even with moderating, I request that no one starts telling anyone else 'what they are' just because they own a forum on the internet. That's like if you own a scrap of paper and someone else wants to draw on it, that gives you the right to call them a bad person - that RPG forum mod would slip into granting himself such a right. It's just a scrap of paper on the internet. Just nipping that one in the bud if it were to happen - hopefully just a strawman concern on my part and likely not applicable at all.
So: If it's poster to poster, as fellow poster I think you're trying to take a position above me - maybe I'm wrong on that, but I'm not keen on engaging with you until you drop the checking some balances stuff, Mike. I'm pretty sure you'd feel the same way if someone said they were going to check your balances (could be wrong?).
-
Totally OT, but still - On most fora i know it is a sensible rule to use another color for the text if the text is meant as moderation. Maybe that'd be worth a try?
As to the content of Madness' post - maybe he is just showing you, that my posts could have been read differently...or that you are not as clear as you think you are. But i am sure Madness will clarify for you sooner or later.
-
Mike, are you moderating or not?
...
You're not checking some balances if you're arguing with me because you're not in a higher position, just my peer. What if I say I am going to check some of your balances - does that sound legitimate?
Callan, I don't think I've exercised "mod powers" or "worn a mod-hat" a day in my life here, except to move posts [admin features handle mods like the Quorum or adding new forums]. It's difficult to imagine what line would have to be crossed for that to happen. We've had versions of this conversation before. I've never done anything to censor anyone.
So: If it's poster to poster, as fellow poster I think you're trying to take a position above me - maybe I'm wrong on that, but I'm not keen on engaging with you until you drop the checking some balances stuff, Mike. I'm pretty sure you'd feel the same way if someone said they were going to check your balances (could be wrong?).
I don't know how I would feel? I might look to my previous words, like I do now, or the ones in particular that someone pointed out and see how they might be taken from another's perspective, or specifically, in the fashion that someone is pointing out. Then if I still really don't think I have "offended someone," or "acted like a mod," I would say so.
For clarity, I think the communicative balance between you and Kellais is skewed somehow and I'm a poster observing that. There's no hammer dropping. Mod-hat Madness doesn't care.
-
I don't know how I would feel? I might look to my previous words...
What would you do? It's a question of who you are, not who you might be.
Anyway, poster to poster
Kellais might have specified which part he wanted clarified. But it seemed fairly obvious he couldn't answer your questions contextually without clarification...
Do you agree he initially asked the first question? And actually I couldn't answer his 'can you elaborate' question without knowing how he didn't already understand it (it reads fine to me). So why is the 'couldn't answer the question without context' problem my problem, Mike?
Do you think this is reasonable standard to hold other people to?
In as much as I'd be fine with me being held to it, yes. I wont make any claims about it being a reasonable standard due to any supernatural reasons.
Why would he ask your opinion, if he could read the contents of your mind?
That's just uncharitable on your part, Mike. You've cut off the rest of the post where I answer after having asked a question.
A question of not just what's in my mind, but what's in our minds - and whether we actually share the same thing on the matter.
This isn't shutting down conversation?
Yes, in the same way I might not even respond to a vox day post because I really don't feel charitable enough to allow his sort of....attitude...to be broadcast.
It's not conversation when the other person doesn't give a compassionate shit, it's just advertising. If you think asking for advertisements and listening real hard to them is going to move the advertiser, okay. But I don't share that belief.
-
Do you agree he initially asked the first question? And actually I couldn't answer his 'can you elaborate' question without knowing how he didn't already understand it (it reads fine to me). So why is the 'couldn't answer the question without context' problem my problem, Mike?
See, that's just it right there...you assume a lot. I wanted you to elaborate on your whole statement, Callan. That was why i did not specify any particular part. You had a very general statement in your post there an i wanted you to elaborate on it...go into more depth. It was not a problem of me not understanding you...it was me thinking you could have put more effort in laying out your point instead of those common placeholders. Anyway...a lot of water has passed under the bridge and i moved on.
Suffice it to say i do no longer think i read you uncharitably...i guess our styles of responding to other posters are just too different. And i kind of get the impression that you often look to the other for the faults of non-functioning conversation...maybe you should start being a bit more charitable yourself and look what YOU could do better to make it work.
Oh and i find it funny that now, all of a sudden, it's you who complain about not being well quoted when you shot me down when i made you aware of your method of partial-quoting.
-
I don't know how I would feel? I might look to my previous words...
What would you do? It's a question of who you are, not who you might be.
So: If it's poster to poster, as fellow poster I think you're trying to take a position above me - maybe I'm wrong on that, but I'm not keen on engaging with you until you drop the checking some balances stuff, Mike. I'm pretty sure you'd feel the same way if someone said they were going to check your balances (could be wrong?).
I don't know how I would feel? I might look to my previous words, like I do now, or the ones in particular that someone pointed out and see how they might be taken from another's perspective, or specifically, in the fashion that someone is pointing out. Then if I still really don't think I have "offended someone," or "acted like a mod," I would say so.
I phrased it that way so it would obvious that I expected you to do the same. I did do those things, even though I wrote "I might," because you told me (then asked me) what I would do in your position.
Anyway, poster to poster
Kellais might have specified which part he wanted clarified. But it seemed fairly obvious he couldn't answer your questions contextually without clarification...
Do you agree he initially asked the first question? And actually I couldn't answer his 'can you elaborate' question without knowing how he didn't already understand it (it reads fine to me). So why is the 'couldn't answer the question without context' problem my problem, Mike?
It's not just your problem. Both Kellais and you recognized that he might have been clearer. And when Kellais tried for clarity a second time you seem to have suggested that he was being uncharitable because he didn't phrase it properly in the first place...
It wasn't a question on any particular matter - you said 'care to elaborate?' Either A: If I didn't do so before, why would I do it now? Because I like the sound of my own voice? or B: If you're having trouble understanding what I've said, I have no idea what you're not understanding when you just say 'care to elaborate', so I asked questions. Which you could have answered yourself and then told me I could have answered your question, but you didn't.
And then, if you look back further back to your previous post before this:
For animals, no, atleast not until we actually grant the status of a person to all actual people. We don't currently. It's like trying to attach a failing mechanism onto even more workload that it fails to do the work on.
Care to elaborate? Just because some people do not get everything they'd be intitled to does not mean we do not grant them the status.
Why doesn't it mean you don't grant them the status?
Does it mean you don't want to grant them the status - no, I wouldn't say that. You want to.
Does it mean you DO grant them the status?
When you say you've granted someone the status of not starving and...they starve, why do you say that doesn't mean you haven't granted them the status?
I'm almost wondering if you're going to say that it's just the moral imperative to grant them the status - forfilling the status is just a secondary thing.
Fuck morals, in that case.
It seems fairly obvious to me that instead of asking all these questions, which almost certainly include the very phrasing or term Kellais was unclear about, you might have simply clarified your earlier statement and comprehension might have occurred...
[sarcasm]If you really have this amazing power to communicate everything you want to in perfect and clear encapsulated statements, I don't know... Preach because your unique recognition will astound us all.[/sarcasm]
Do you think this is reasonable standard to hold other people to?
In as much as I'd be fine with me being held to it, yes. I wont make any claims about it being a reasonable standard due to any supernatural reasons.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I take this missing what is a clear association to mean that I am not being read charitably.
Do you think this is reasonable standard to hold other people to?
Alright. You might well be the most uncharitable reader here by that metric.
Why would he ask your opinion, if he could read the contents of your mind?
That's just uncharitable on your part, Mike. You've cut off the rest of the post where I answer after having asked a question.
A question of not just what's in my mind, but what's in our minds - and whether we actually share the same thing on the matter.
To whom do we not grant the status of a person? What people do we exclude, in your opinion?
Nothing comes to mind?
Kids dying of hunger in ethopia and other countries? Asia's sex slaves (and sex slaves in various other countries, including our own), the homeless who don't want to be homeless. Wage slaves.
The list goes on - I'm sure I'll forget some because I forget to assign them human status myself.
To me, another random poster on this forum, starting off your "response" with "Nothing comes to mind?" has no communicative value other than to showcase that Kellais doesn't understand something that you think is obvious...
I don't understand why it was necessary to write that particular line.
This isn't shutting down conversation?
Yes, in the same way I might not even respond to a vox day post because I really don't feel charitable enough to allow his sort of....attitude...to be broadcast.
It's not conversation when the other person doesn't give a compassionate shit, it's just advertising. If you think asking for advertisements and listening real hard to them is going to move the advertiser, okay. But I don't share that belief.
Again, as another random poster on this forum - the bold in your quote describes yourself. I can't even believe that you would compare this situation conversing with Kellais to "conversing" with Vox...
-
Do you agree he initially asked the first question? And actually I couldn't answer his 'can you elaborate' question without knowing how he didn't already understand it (it reads fine to me). So why is the 'couldn't answer the question without context' problem my problem, Mike?
See, that's just it right there...you assume a lot. I wanted you to elaborate on your whole statement, Callan. That was why i did not specify any particular part. You had a very general statement in your post there an i wanted you to elaborate on it...go into more depth. It was not a problem of me not understanding you...it was me thinking you could have put more effort in laying out your point instead of those common placeholders.
Someone like Benjamin Cain seems to be able to generate long posts quite easily. Go into depth as you mean it, perhaps?
I am no Ben Cain - though I envy his capacity sometimes.
Suffice it to say i do no longer think i read you uncharitably...i guess our styles of responding to other posters are just too different. And i kind of get the impression that you often look to the other for the faults of non-functioning conversation...maybe you should start being a bit more charitable yourself and look what YOU could do better to make it work.
Tell me in what ways you humour you could potentially be at fault and I'll humour I could be at fault in such a way as you describe.
I will fall when you fall. I wll fall with you. I promise.
Until then we are both stubborn asses.
Oh and i find it funny that now, all of a sudden, it's you who complain about not being well quoted when you shot me down when i made you aware of your method of partial-quoting.
If the explanation I gave for not quoting something that seemed to damage your point more than helping it still seems to just shoot you down, then we really didn't talk, I agree.
-
I don't know how I would feel? I might look to my previous words...
What would you do? It's a question of who you are, not who you might be.
So: If it's poster to poster, as fellow poster I think you're trying to take a position above me - maybe I'm wrong on that, but I'm not keen on engaging with you until you drop the checking some balances stuff, Mike. I'm pretty sure you'd feel the same way if someone said they were going to check your balances (could be wrong?).
I don't know how I would feel? I might look to my previous words, like I do now, or the ones in particular that someone pointed out and see how they might be taken from another's perspective, or specifically, in the fashion that someone is pointing out. Then if I still really don't think I have "offended someone," or "acted like a mod," I would say so.
I phrased it that way so it would obvious that I expected you to do the same. I did do those things, even though I wrote "I might," because you told me (then asked me) what I would do in your position.
Maybe I phrased it poorly, but I said with you in the position of someone else saying to you they will check your balances. There's no need for 'might' there.
And in the end it seems if you don't think you've offended someone, then that's it. So what else are you expecting of me - if I don't think I've entered into any problems you've described, then that's it, just as much, surely? It seems a little being able to give oneself a free pass, but maybe I read some other interpretation of what you're saying, Mike?
Anyway, poster to poster
Kellais might have specified which part he wanted clarified. But it seemed fairly obvious he couldn't answer your questions contextually without clarification...
Do you agree he initially asked the first question? And actually I couldn't answer his 'can you elaborate' question without knowing how he didn't already understand it (it reads fine to me). So why is the 'couldn't answer the question without context' problem my problem, Mike?
It's not just your problem. Both Kellais and you recognized that he might have been clearer. And when Kellais tried for clarity a second time you seem to have suggested that he was being uncharitable because he didn't phrase it properly in the first place...
Assuming I'm understanding right, no, I didn't.
I mean, if you quote this your going to quote the section of me talking about impulses of the brain - and no one reading that as the electrical impulses of the brain.
Or is there another section you'd quote?
It wasn't a question on any particular matter - you said 'care to elaborate?' Either A: If I didn't do so before, why would I do it now? Because I like the sound of my own voice? or B: If you're having trouble understanding what I've said, I have no idea what you're not understanding when you just say 'care to elaborate', so I asked questions. Which you could have answered yourself and then told me I could have answered your question, but you didn't.
And then, if you look back further back to your previous post before this:
For animals, no, atleast not until we actually grant the status of a person to all actual people. We don't currently. It's like trying to attach a failing mechanism onto even more workload that it fails to do the work on.
Care to elaborate? Just because some people do not get everything they'd be intitled to does not mean we do not grant them the status.
Why doesn't it mean you don't grant them the status?
Does it mean you don't want to grant them the status - no, I wouldn't say that. You want to.
Does it mean you DO grant them the status?
When you say you've granted someone the status of not starving and...they starve, why do you say that doesn't mean you haven't granted them the status?
I'm almost wondering if you're going to say that it's just the moral imperative to grant them the status - forfilling the status is just a secondary thing.
Fuck morals, in that case.
It seems fairly obvious to me that instead of asking all these questions, which almost certainly include the very phrasing or term Kellais was unclear about, you might have simply clarified your earlier statement and comprehension might have occurred...
Looking past whether I had no idea how he wanted elaboration, is Kellais making a claim in what you quote or not?
If you don't see him as making a claim, I can see where you're coming from.
If you can see a claim being made, you're being hypocritical.
[sarcasm]If you really have this amazing power to communicate everything you want to in perfect and clear encapsulated statements, I don't know... Preach because your unique recognition will astound us all.[/sarcasm]
If you really think you all have this amazing power to ask the right bloody questions, preach because....etc etc.
You're coming from perfection. Of course I have no way of competing with that.
The only person you have on the plate of examination is me. Come join me. The water's lovely.
Do you think this is reasonable standard to hold other people to?
In as much as I'd be fine with me being held to it, yes. I wont make any claims about it being a reasonable standard due to any supernatural reasons.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I take this missing what is a clear association to mean that I am not being read charitably.
Do you think this is reasonable standard to hold other people to?
Alright. You might well be the most uncharitable reader here by that metric.
Maybe? I'm not sure I understand your use of metrics here?
Do you humour that you might, unexpectedly for you, end up as the most uncharitable? Or is it always the other guy?
It seems a little bit human default to just declare the conclusion (that I'm the most uncharitable) and...nothing else. Are you sure you aren't just doing the human default? Make your conclusion, figure the evidence for it afterward? What was the measure before this moment?
Why would he ask your opinion, if he could read the contents of your mind?
That's just uncharitable on your part, Mike. You've cut off the rest of the post where I answer after having asked a question.
A question of not just what's in my mind, but what's in our minds - and whether we actually share the same thing on the matter.
To whom do we not grant the status of a person? What people do we exclude, in your opinion?
Nothing comes to mind?
Kids dying of hunger in ethopia and other countries? Asia's sex slaves (and sex slaves in various other countries, including our own), the homeless who don't want to be homeless. Wage slaves.
The list goes on - I'm sure I'll forget some because I forget to assign them human status myself.
To me, another random poster on this forum, starting off your "response" with "Nothing comes to mind?" has no communicative value other than to showcase that Kellais doesn't understand something that you think is obvious...
I don't understand why it was necessary to write that particular line.
To showcase something didn't come to his mind.
Granted, me treating sex slaves as something that should be noticed might be hubris.
But let's say its worth noticing as an example of human rights not being granted - how would you put it when the other person misses this example entirely? You wouldn't say 'nothing comes to mind?' - okay, what would you say?
Or would you avoid rocking the boat (in this, IMO, mild way)?
You can question the estimated mildness of it, but if you'd just hunker down and keep the boat steady - I can't say I'm the same.
This isn't shutting down conversation?
Yes, in the same way I might not even respond to a vox day post because I really don't feel charitable enough to allow his sort of....attitude...to be broadcast.
It's not conversation when the other person doesn't give a compassionate shit, it's just advertising. If you think asking for advertisements and listening real hard to them is going to move the advertiser, okay. But I don't share that belief.
Again, as another random poster on this forum - the bold in your quote describes yourself. I can't even believe that you would compare this situation conversing with Kellais to "conversing" with Vox...
You're as certain as you describe me as being certain, Mike.
If you can only be right, then what can I say - your yardstick surely is the longest.
-
Maybe I phrased it poorly, but I said with you in the position of someone else saying to you they will check your balances. There's no need for 'might' there.
I listen, Callan, always. I'm too much of an intellectual remora too discount anyone's words. Who knows who might teach me something, even if they themselves are ignorant of their wisdom.
However, it is interesting for me to note, ironically, that few have ever mentioned to me that there was a communicative inbalance between myself and others.
You however....
And in the end it seems if you don't think you've offended someone, then that's it. So what else are you expecting of me - if I don't think I've entered into any problems you've described, then that's it, just as much, surely? It seems a little being able to give oneself a free pass, but maybe I read some other interpretation of what you're saying, Mike?
Have I offended you, Callan? Because no one has mentioned to me that I have offended them. If they did, I would (and do, those rare times it comes up) think about those person's words intently before throwing a wall of text (or words) back at them because I care enough about communicating with people to not want to commit the same offense twice...
Assuming I'm understanding right, no, I didn't.
I mean, if you quote this your going to quote the section of me talking about impulses of the brain - and no one reading that as the electrical impulses of the brain.
Or is there another section you'd quote?
Is this a cop-out? "My brain did it, therefore, I don't need to consider trying to adjust or change myself."
Looking past whether I had no idea how he wanted elaboration, is Kellais making a claim in what you quote or not?
If you don't see him as making a claim, I can see where you're coming from.
If you can see a claim being made, you're being hypocritical.
...
Considering I have absolutely nothing invested in this conversation except communicating with you, what does your logic decision here have to do with anything?
If you really think you all have this amazing power to ask the right bloody questions, preach because....etc etc.
You're coming from perfection. Of course I have no way of competing with that.
The only person you have on the plate of examination is me. Come join me. The water's lovely.
Callan, it's quite clear to me that I spend far much more time analyzing myself than I think that you do analyzing yourself.
Maybe? I'm not sure I understand your use of metrics here?
Do you humour that you might, unexpectedly for you, end up as the most uncharitable? Or is it always the other guy?
It seems a little bit human default to just declare the conclusion (that I'm the most uncharitable) and...nothing else. Are you sure you aren't just doing the human default? Make your conclusion, figure the evidence for it afterward? What was the measure before this moment?
...
Considering again, I have nothing invested in the content of this thread and am only interested in communication, between you and I, between you and Kellais, between you and anybody, your responses are almost comically ignorant. It is saddening.
To showcase something didn't come to his mind.
Granted, me treating sex slaves as something that should be noticed might be hubris.
But let's say its worth noticing as an example of human rights not being granted - how would you put it when the other person misses this example entirely? You wouldn't say 'nothing comes to mind?' - okay, what would you say?
Or would you avoid rocking the boat (in this, IMO, mild way)?
You can question the estimated mildness of it, but if you'd just hunker down and keep the boat steady - I can't say I'm the same.
...
What do you mean? This is indecipherable to me.
You're as certain as you describe me as being certain, Mike.
If you can only be right, then what can I say - your yardstick surely is the longest.
Again, and this is pretty much paraphrasing when I stopped trying to engage you last time: Mod-hat Madness is never going to step in on you or your posts. Even if the community advocates those options, I'd probably end up defending you.
But at some point, if you choose to insist on communicating as you do and never adjust yourself when interacting with others (which I do all time, by the way, as I imagine it would be fairly difficult to partake in SA and not realize that others are much more wise and knowledgeable than myself and learn from those individuals), then you'll slowly find that people will simply choose not to communicate with you.
-
Considering again, I have nothing invested in the content of this thread and am only interested in communication, between you and I, between you and Kellais, between you and anybody, your responses are almost comically ignorant. It is saddening.
There's an irony in slipping ad homenim into your communication about the quality of communication, Mike.
I asked my woman to check my quote over - she summerised it that I refered to bad things in the world, raised them in a gentle way and in her own words if you can't say it in a gentle way, how can you say it at all?
then you'll slowly find that people will simply choose not to communicate with you.
Ie, to not listen.
It's not really an issue if the main point wasn't listened to to begin with anyway.
And no one seems to be talking about the main point, just jnan.
Yes, you're listeners, but the protocols for communication weren't met, so you (soon) wont listen. I hear that.
-
You and I are talking jnan. You and Kellais were talking about granting people rights before you started commenting on Kellais' jnan.
I'm still listening? I just don't know what you are trying to say?
-
You and I are talking jnan.
No, I'm not. I'm talking about a cause - jnan is just a means to an end of pushing for that cause. You're talking about jnan exclusively. That's why we are talking past each other.
You and Kellais were talking about granting people rights before you started commenting on Kellais' jnan.
Again no on the same issue. I do not care about his uncharitable (IMO) reading for it's own sake, I care because it means my cause is being ignored because of it. I highlight it to show he should think again (which benefits me because maybe he'll start getting my cause if he does). Speaking on this might just make someone think about my cause - I am not posting with the pure intent of talking about how to talk. I'm still pushing for my cause even in this post! Sans a cause all this stuff is just wreckage to me and I wouldn't care. I'm posting now just in case there's still even a slim chance to push this cause! Sex slaves - sweat shops - wage slaves!
I had not thought of any notion of charitable reading simply for it's own sake (and then that you'd assume that was what I was refering to)? To me it's always in the employ of a cause...do you sometimes treat charitable reading as being done just for it's own sake? If so, okay, that blindsided me, I'll totally admit. Because it does not make sense to me.
-
Something like 7 participants on the first page, 4ish on the second, and down to 3 on the third (or I guess 4 if you count me, but that ruins the trend).
then you'll slowly find that people will simply choose not to communicate with you.
Ie, to not listen.
How long can you point to all of your peers and say "You are all wrong and I'm the only one that's right", before you check yourself? Probably forever is my guess. I'll not try to dissuade you, though I will say that its fun to watch. Please carry on.
btw I like the intimate first name basis you have with Madness ;). Careful though, your nameless 'woman' and the other forumers might get jealous.
Bravo to those who try so hard to breach the stubborn barrier here. Unfortunately, in this case, it appears to me that communication has shut down communication. Have all the irony.
-
I do not care about his uncharitable (IMO) reading for it's own sake, I care because it means my cause is being ignored because of it. I highlight it to show he should think again (which benefits me because maybe he'll start getting my cause if he does). Speaking on this might just make someone think about my cause - I am not posting with the pure intent of talking about how to talk. I'm still pushing for my cause even in this post! Sans a cause all this stuff is just wreckage to me and I wouldn't care. I'm posting now just in case there's still even a slim chance to push this cause! Sex slaves - sweat shops - wage slaves!
I had not thought of any notion of charitable reading simply for it's own sake (and then that you'd assume that was what I was refering to)? To me it's always in the employ of a cause...do you sometimes treat charitable reading as being done just for it's own sake? If so, okay, that blindsided me, I'll totally admit. Because it does not make sense to me.
I'm sorry but OMG! I don't know where to start.
It is safe to say that you read me uncharitably, Callan. What you are saying about me and my posts while discussing with Madness is nothing short of offending. After following your convo with Madness, i will not take real offense though because it seems clear that well...you just don't get the problem. In case of my post in response to yours, it is quite possible that i did not phrase my reply very well and therefore you did not get my meaning through my fault. That i admit. Because, as said in my second post (i think), english is not my mother tongue.
If i ask a question, Callan, i want to hear what the other one thinks and says about the topic. So to infer that, just because i ask, nothing came to my mind is again a really big assumption on your part. I know what comes to MY mind, but i want to "see" what is in yours. And if you are talking human rights, why not say that much and not obscure your post via naming things in your own way.
I really think you are very good at obscuring your own meanings and messages. Because your explanations to Madness what your intended purposes were make everything much clearer but that is not really helpful for your original posts.
To conclude, i think what Wilshire said in his post is something you should think about. And maybe then we can go back to the actual topic.
-
Wilshire, easy test : The sky is blue.
It's not rhetorical. Agree with me or not?
Or are you at the point where you couldn't agree on something basic with me anyway? I'm 'that' tribe? Hit me up with something similar - 'water is wet?' or something so I can demonstrate I can agree on with something with you. That I am quite capable of cooperating with you on something, despite all the absolutely certain things you said. Then we'll have shown each other some co-operation is actually mutual between us.
True, when people act as if they are prepared to engage conversation but turn out to not even be prepared to agree on small fry things, I wont be 'checking' myself (this will blow some steam out of some ears - what does 'check' even mean? No, c'mon, in emperic terms? Or is it supernatural and beyond being put into such terms and I should just know that? "Shit man, he just doesn't get it!!1!" - I can hear it already, because getting 'it' is more important than discussing what 'it' actually is, somehow). But that's not going to apply, right, because were gunna find some small fry things from each other we can agree on?
Kellais,
nothing came to my mind is again a really big assumption on your part.
What was my assumption, as you'd describe it?
Edit: Wait, did you just read it as not really asking? One of those things people do on the internet sometimes where they pretend to ask something but are really just saying it's the case? Just be clear, I was asking.