Chad Perrin: SOB

18 September 2009

Animal Metacognition

Filed under: Cognition,Liberty — apotheon @ 10:46

The Wall Street Journal featured the article, Among Dolphins, Tool-Using Handymen Are Women. Its subheadline reads:

In a Sign of Animal Ingenuity, the Marine Mammals — and One Cross-Dresser — Are Seen Making Hunting Implements

The facts presented in the article seemed to strongly imply that we should rethink the notion that dolphins are “mere” animals. They certainly seem to address the question of whether dolphins are capable of abstract reasoning, which is a characteristic of humans in the general case that helps to distinguish us from most of the rest of the animal kingdom at least. My criteria for whether we should treat some creature (humanoid or otherwise) as having ethical significance, of being considered to have rights per se, are somewhat different from the usual “Is it intelligent?” question that probably comes to most people’s minds, however.

I would limit such consideration to those beings capable not just of abstract reasoning, but of ethical reasoning. If they cannot reason about right and wrong, they have no more ethical significance than a pet. Surely, we should not be cruel to our pets, but that doesn’t mean that killing one is worthy of the appellation “murder”. A fair number of humans don’t even meet such criteria for ethical significance, though, as an accident of birth or later acquired defect, thus making mine an unpopular set of criteria.

A while back, I remember an occasion where a friend and I debated the matter of whether any animals might meet the criteria of ethical significance. Considering I have a stricter set of criteria for ethical significance than most, it might seem surprising that in this discussion I was the one suggesting that a nonhuman species has shown strong evidence of such ethical significance. In particular, I argued that while dogs (for instance) have only shown, first, signs of evolutionary development of pack behaviors, and second, that they are trainable, dolphins have exhibited behaviors that seem strongly indicative of making decisions on ethical grounds.

The friend — I’ll call him “Justin” for purposes of this discussion, since he isn’t online often enough for me to ask his permission to “out” him as the other party in the discussion — disagreed that any observed dolphin behavior really provided a convincing case for ethical reasoning. It was a long time ago, so I don’t really recall for sure, but I think Justin may have disagreed with me on the subject of what constitutes ethical significance, too; I think he found it strange that I’d exempt a sufficiently mentally limited (but still nominally functional) human from ethical significance.

The kinds of behaviors to which I referred in my arguments included acts of obvious, wanton cruelty, and apparent vindictiveness, neither of which really seemed to derive from any evolutionary benefit other than perhaps intelligence. That alone is not enough, however. Coupled with that was the fact that many cases of dolphins choosing to risk themselves to preserve the life of a human, particularly a child, have been documented. They have also been known to disagree on such matters, just as humans do on whether dolphins should be preserved from the dangers of tuna nets. Alas, I don’t have any links for such instances right now, in part because I haven’t found the earlier online discussions I’ve had on this subject.

All of this came to mind today when I stumbled across an article in Science Daily, Evidence Points To Conscious ‘Metacognition’ In Some Nonhuman Animals. The term “metacognition” refers to not just abstract reasoning, but reasoning so abstract that it encompasses reasoning about the act of reasoning. From the article:

[J. David] Smith recounts the original animal-metacognition experiment with Natua the dolphin. “When uncertain, the dolphin clearly hesitated and wavered between his two possible responses,” he says, “but when certain, he swam toward his chosen response so fast that his bow wave would soak the researchers’ electronic switches.

This description of a dolphin’s behavior shows some sign that it was considering the relevance and trustworthiness of its own thoughts in determining a correct answer. I recognize that behavior in myself from time to time, such as when I’m driving and pull up to a stoplight, considering whether I should get in the turn lane at this intersection or go straight and turn at the next intersection when my destination is further down a parallel street. As long as I don’t have another car behind me that I would hold up unnecessarily, I might let off the accelerator and coast forward, giving me more time to decide on a course of action, and find myself questioning my own reasoning.

Smith explains that metacognition is a sophisticated human capacity linked to hierarchical structure in the mind (because the metacognitive executive control processes oversee lower-level cognition), to self-awareness (because uncertainty and doubt feel so personal and subjective) and to declarative consciousness (because humans are conscious of their states of knowing and can declare them to others).

Doctor Smith understates the importance of this kind of research:

In fact, he concludes, “Metacognition rivals language and tool use in its potential to establish important continuities or discontinuities between human and animal minds.”

It is much more important than that, at least for me, because it draws much closer to definitively proving a case for calling the unnecessary killing of a dolphin “murder”, rather than simply an unjustified act of callousness.

In somewhat unrelated news, it seems that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor may be showing evidence of ethical reasoning, too! I find this even more surprising. I had initially thought her merely well-trained by societal pressures. Of course, it’s still possible this is just a particularly extreme form of far-leftist trained behavior, but it’s still encouraging.

(Thanks to medullaoblongata for pointing out the Sotomayor article, and to a long-ago Chipping the Web for the tool-using dolphins article.)

7 September 2009

OWL 0.7

Filed under: Humor,Liberty — apotheon @ 01:56

The Open Works License has been updated to version 0.7, basically because I realized I had (perhaps stupidly) included part of the disclaimer in the conditions. On the upside (for simplicity), this change means the license only has two conditions now rather than three. On the downside, this means the disclaimer is now two sentences, rather than one.

The words “modified or unmodified” have been added to both of the two conditions of the license as well.

References:

I’m considering adding Google AdSense ads to the OWL site. The fact I got a $1+ click on an advertisement on the site for a license I don’t even use any longer (the CCD CopyWrite license) is what got me thinking about this. Thoughts?

(For those readers who haven’t noticed, this is the license used for all original content here at SOB.)

26 August 2009

It’s not my fault your business model sucks.

Filed under: Liberty,Profession — apotheon @ 10:37

(The following was inspired by a question asked in response to The Mythology of Intellectual Property.)

There are innumerable ways to make money without copyright — and, in many cases, people are already doing so and may not even realize it.

For instance, for the most part signed bands use record sales solely to pay off debt incurred as part of their record deals for purposes of getting initial record publishing and distribution done; they get their actual living wages (on the rare occasion when they can make a living from music) by playing live gigs and selling merchandise. They may not actually realize it in many cases, but for most professional musicians the real financial benefit they get from record sales — the one part of the profession that requires copyright — is advertising. The record labels get profits directly from record sales, while the musicians just get well enough known to be able to make money at their live shows. News flash; it’s a lot cheaper to distribute yourself over the Internet, and let people burn your CDs if they want to, than to pay out the nose to have some suited schmucks at Sony/BMG make money off you and only advertise for you incidentally.

For other examples of how people can make money without jealously guarding their intellectual monopolies, look at Cory Doctorow (he keeps making his books and short stories available for free online); Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and Harvey Danger (made more net profits off records they basically gave away than on albums distributed through the usual channels); and Websites that use movies and other video productions to drive traffic to them so they can make money through secondary effects (such as on-site advertising, merchandising, and so on).

There are also services such as fundable that provide an easy framework for getting people to pledge money toward the eventual free release of something. You create something, ask for a particular target value in contributions and, once you get the money, release it to the world; voila, you’ve been paid. A number of writers have used this to finance authorship of books, and a number of musicians have done the same for production of album-length collections of music.

I make money by writing (both articles in English and software source code), in fact — far more than the piddly quantities I get from advertising on this obscure site — and I would love for copyright to go away. It’s not like I’m working in manufacturing and advocating for someone else’s industry to change all its rules. I’m talking about what I want to happen with the very fields of endeavor where I make money. This is why, every time I can reasonably do so, I attach a copyfree license to everything I create — usually the Open Works License.

The real answer to the question, though, is much simpler than all of the above:

It’s not my fault your business model sucks.

I’ve said it before (more than once in fact) and, given half a chance, I’ll say it again.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

All original content Copyright Chad Perrin: Distributed under the terms of the Open Works License