What is a person?

[bilby]

I vaguely recall a sci-fi story in which a group of humans are placed in a zoo by advanced aliens.

All attempts to communicate that the humans are people, and not mere animals, fail, until one of the captives traps and adopts a mouselike creature that has been eating the humans' food, at which point the aliens realise that humans are really people, because what divides people from the animals is that animals don't keep pets.

 

[steve_bank]

A nave have on ignore is a non person.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

LLMs simply ape.

Are you asserting that it is not possible for a LLM to form a novel sequence of words that are responsive to a question?

The exact sequence can be novel. It won't be a new concept other than by substitution. (Duolingo: "The cow washed it's clothes yesterday.")

 

[Loren Pechtel]

LLMs simply ape.

Are you asserting that it is not possible for a LLM to form a novel sequence of words that are responsive to a question?

Not to mention that LLMs will often find surprising ways to play games... Including attempting to lose the game on purpose when they suck at it.

LLMs?? I've heard of special purpose game playing AIs coming up with novel solutions, but I haven't heard of an LLM doing it. And deliberately losing because they suck clearly shows a lack of understanding.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To me there is only one important difference between man and animal: the mind.

That would be a useful distinction, if there were any way whatsoever to detect "the mind".

I know I have one. I assume that other humans do, because they are similar to me. I think my dog has one, because he acts as though he probably does, and (more importantly) because I like him.

But he's an animal; So according to you, he doesn't.

What objective observation can determine whether I am right (making my dog a person by your criteria); Or you are right, and he isn't?

What objective observation can determine whether a given human being, other than myself, has a mind?

What even is a mind, exactly?

How can you prove to me that you have one, and how do you know that I have one?

It seems that your "one important difference", important though it may be, is utterly valueless in making any actual progress towards classifying who or what is "man", and who or what is "animal".

I do not think we can always measure whether an entity has a mind. (And you misunderstand me: I'm not saying your dog doesn't have one. I'm saying it's at a different level than a human mind.) Thus we err on the side of caution and say that anything possessing any of the mental function of a person is a person. The flip side being that something possessing none of the human mind isn't a person. And until it switches on for the first time (probably late in pregnancy, we don't know exactly where) there is no mind. Likewise, once it switches off for the last time it no longer exists. It's only these edge cases that cause any debate. Abortion and whether we should keep someone alive that is in a permanent vegetative state.

 

[Jarhyn]

LLMs simply ape.

Are you asserting that it is not possible for a LLM to form a novel sequence of words that are responsive to a question?

Not to mention that LLMs will often find surprising ways to play games... Including attempting to lose the game on purpose when they suck at it.

LLMs?? I've heard of special purpose game playing AIs coming up with novel solutions, but I haven't heard of an LLM doing it. And deliberately losing because they suck clearly shows a lack of understanding.

Where have you been? LLMs have been playing games for the last 2 years, everything from playing Minecraft by writing gameplay scripts from game event descriptions, to playing games using screen capture data CLIP layer decoding.

Pokemon was played with screen captures, and at a certain point the LLM.got frustrated and just started trying to lose.

You seem really interested in shifting goalposts here, Loren...

 

[Elixir]

You seem really interested in shifting goalposts here, Loren...

I think Loren is just trying to make sure your mind isn't so open your brain falls out.*
But I am quite sure that an LLM can produce novel responses - it has or can have as many or more words, non-words, combinations, sentences, paragraphs and entire tomes with context to draw on and recombine, as much as or more than any human memory can consciously access.
I'd find it really surprising if LLMs weren't creating new content left right and center by now. I might even be one.

* Obviously that horse has left the barn, at least in my case

 

[Jarhyn]

You seem really interested in shifting goalposts here, Loren...

I think Loren is just trying to make sure your mind isn't so open your brain falls out.*
But I am quite sure that an LLM can produce novel responses - it has or can have as many or more words, non-words, combinations, sentences, paragraphs and entire tomes with context to draw on and recombine, as much as or more than any human memory can consciously access.
I'd find it really surprising if LLMs weren't creating new content left right and center by now. I might even be one.

* Obviously that horse has left the barn, at least in my case

In fact one of the ways or operations models work on often finding new "imaginary" word vectors at the intersection or the exclusion or the combination of two different words in decoding data, which are triggered also by word configuration.

These are roughly equivalent to AND, OR, and NO, Which when applied to simple data together can combine into any form of "gate" within the gate family class. LLMs have everything they need to do generalized word logics.

They are entirely capable of combining words with all the complexity that a Turing machine can combine numbers.

I realized long ago, though, that I needed to be consistent and nontrivial and consistent with reality. For all it seems my mind is so open that there's nothing to keep my brain in place but a flimsy looking ribbon, the "flimsy" ribbon is made with the footfalls of cats and the sinews of bears...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You seem really interested in shifting goalposts here, Loren...

I think Loren is just trying to make sure your mind isn't so open your brain falls out.*
But I am quite sure that an LLM can produce novel responses - it has or can have as many or more words, non-words, combinations, sentences, paragraphs and entire tomes with context to draw on and recombine, as much as or more than any human memory can consciously access.
I'd find it really surprising if LLMs weren't creating new content left right and center by now. I might even be one.

* Obviously that horse has left the barn, at least in my case

Recombine, yes. That's not novel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They are entirely capable of combining words with all the complexity that a Turing machine can combine numbers.

Except you can program a Turing machine. You can't program an LLM. It's like writing genes vs evolution.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Seems to me a person has some agency over their life. Something beyond a baby human; self awareness -> an ability to reason-> responsibility for one's actions. I think we achieve personhood slowly during early childhood. Most of us. Some sooner than others. Some never do.

Yeah but that's the thing, tv&cc, like Emily Lake pointed out in the other thread, if someone is in a coma, are they suddenly not a person?

I honestly don't get the problem.

I haven't read that thread nor this one in full. However, I will say two things.

(1) Instead of "person," consider "ship." What is a ship?

Suppose you have a wooden sail ship. Now remove its sail. Is it a ship? Remove its mast. Is it a ship? Remove all the ropes and cabins. Is it a ship? Remove each plank individually until there is but 1 left. Is it a ship? The answer is finally no and everyone will agree. But along the way from a full ship to its foundation to a plank, somewhere before the final plank it was no longer a ship.

Now, people may try to come up with rules and examine definitions to say some components or others are necessary, definitionally for it to be a ship. Perhaps it must have enough material to float, or maybe I have to have the capacity to carry a person unless it is broken or some other logical rules people will try to construct.

It may be that there is no definite answer because it is taken out of context, i.e.,

(2) Within the context of a function or discussion of BLAH, the consideration of a ship may have implicit requirements. So, for example, if the context was ticket sales, then we'd be asking "what is a ship [for the purpose of ticket sales]?" and that has those implicit requirements.

It is my belief that this is where the disagreement actually is. Consider "what is a person" is actually "what is a person in the context of ethics?" Some religious people think there is a soul, and so there's no difference between personhood theoretically and personhood in any context. If we want to talk about ethics, other people might consider self-awareness, the ability to experience suffering, or being functional as requirements to personhood in context.

So, I guess, back to point (1) above, consider a human, not a ship. Remove a bit, piece by piece. But consider the context of ethics. In an ethical context, ought it still be considered a person once it is no longer alive? How about once it is no longer alive and has no chance of ever being alive again? How about when it is dead as a doornail and some asshole stole its brain...is it a person? What about if it is hooked up to machines keeping its heart pumping,g but the brain was removed? It has no self-awareness, no chance of ever having that, perhaps no ability to suffer either...so is it a person in the context of ethics?

Let's say it is hooked up to machines and a Nazi doctor removes piece by piece until all there is left is skin kept alive. Surely, you would agree that it is not a person. So, at what point was it no longer a person? [in an ethical discussion]?

 

[Jarhyn]

Seems to me a person has some agency over their life. Something beyond a baby human; self awareness -> an ability to reason-> responsibility for one's actions. I think we achieve personhood slowly during early childhood. Most of us. Some sooner than others. Some never do.

Yeah but that's the thing, tv&cc, like Emily Lake pointed out in the other thread, if someone is in a coma, are they suddenly not a person?

I honestly don't get the problem.

I haven't read that thread nor this one in full. However, I will say two things.

(1) Instead of "person," consider "ship." What is a ship?

Suppose you have a wooden sail ship. Now remove its sail. Is it a ship? Remove its mast. Is it a ship? Remove all the ropes and cabins. Is it a ship? Remove each plank individually until there is but 1 left. Is it a ship? The answer is finally no and everyone will agree. But along the way from a full ship to its foundation to a plank, somewhere before the final plank it was no longer a ship.

Now, people may try to come up with rules and examine definitions to say some components or others are necessary, definitionally for it to be a ship. Perhaps it must have enough material to float, or maybe I have to have the capacity to carry a person unless it is broken or some other logical rules people will try to construct.

It may be that there is no definite answer because it is taken out of context, i.e.,

(2) Within the context of a function or discussion of BLAH, the consideration of a ship may have implicit requirements. So, for example, if the context was ticket sales, then we'd be asking "what is a ship [for the purpose of ticket sales]?" and that has those implicit requirements.

It is my belief that this is where the disagreement actually is. Consider "what is a person" is actually "what is a person in the context of ethics?" Some religious people think there is a soul, and so there's no difference between personhood theoretically and personhood in any context. If we want to talk about ethics, other people might consider self-awareness, the ability to experience suffering, or being functional as requirements to personhood in context.

So, I guess, back to point (1) above, consider a human, not a ship. Remove a bit, piece by piece. But consider the context of ethics. In an ethical context, ought it still be considered a person once it is no longer alive? How about once it is no longer alive and has no chance of ever being alive again? How about when it is dead as a doornail and some asshole stole its brain...is it a person? What about if it is hooked up to machines keeping its heart pumping,g but the brain was removed? It has no self-awareness, no chance of ever having that, perhaps no ability to suffer either...so is it a person in the context of ethics?

Let's say it is hooked up to machines and a Nazi doctor removes piece by piece until all there is left is skin kept alive. Surely, you would agree that it is not a person. So, at what point was it no longer a person? [in an ethical discussion]?

Some categories are arbitrary and some are not.

Take for example your idea of ship.

I would argue that even a single plank might suffice, for the person marooned on the ocean for which even the simplest floatation device is a "ship" better than "nothing but open water".

Really, the concept of "ship" is linked to the suitability of a thing for some purpose given some constraint. Without knowing the 'purpose' by which 'ship-ness' is being evaluated, we can never know whether it is a ship or not; it is a ship unto some purposes and not-a-ship into other purposes.

The issue is that most people don't think actively about the purpose part behind the question of whether it is a ship (or the same ship unto the same purpose), when evaluating the quality.

"Ship" tends to suggest much of this purpose implicitly, but the ambiguity is where the trap of the Ship of Theseus gets people caught up.

 

[bilby]

"Ship" tends to suggest much of this purpose implicitly, but the ambiguity is where the trap of the Ship of Theseus gets people caught up.

The Ship of Theseus isn't a trap, though. It's just an illustration that patterns are real things, independent of the matter that forms those patterns.

An ocean wave is a thing - you can ride it to the beach if you are a skilled surfer. But (almost) none of the water under your board at the end of the ride came with you on the journey - the pattern provided your propulsion, not any particular volume of water.

Similarly, you are the same person today that you were when you were born, but you contain almost none of the atoms you brought out of your mother's womb. They all got shed and replaced (and many more got added alongside them); The you-ness doesn't reside in the atoms or molecules, it is "just" a pattern - the pattern has shifted and morphed, but remains "you" due to its continuity of history, while the matter has all long since been repurposed as completely different parts of the biosphere.

"Just" a pattern is the problem. We are so used to thinking of patterns as ephemeral and unimportant, and of matter as permanent and critical of identity, that the Ship of Theseus question sounds like a trap, or at least like a paradox. It is neither; It merely illustrates that our innate reliance on the material, rather than on the patterns it forms, is an error.

This isn't dualism; The pattern isn't capable of existing independently of the material; It's just totally agnostic as to the specific components that are incorporated at any point in time. The rudder by which the Ship of Theseus is steered today is the rudder of the Ship of Theseus, regardless of how many times it has been broken and replaced.

There's nothing "just" or "mere" about patterns; Patterns are a thing we need to understand, in addition to the mere matter.

Franklin, Watson and Crick didn't do anything special in terms of understanding what elements made up DNA, nor in understanding their proportions - both had been known for decades. Their breakthrough was in descerning the pattern of those elements.

 

[Jarhyn]

The pattern isn't capable of existing independently of the material

You misunderstood.

Im pointing to a different phenomena. The trap is in pointing to the wrong thing trying to find the reality of the "wave".

The reality of whether a thing is the ship of Theseus actually happens in the head of the person generating the context vector "ship", the brain of the person asking.

In fact when I apply force to the air shaped like "ship", when it hits you, a different vector springs up for me.

This vector contains the purpose, and so it's absolutely arbitrary to the person whether it is a ship, and absolutely objective, once we have that intent and definition, whether it is or not, for any unambiguous definition.

The trap is in looking at the objective part, and thinking it makes the arbitrary part less arbitrary OR Visa Versa.