Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by forevergreenyon 1221 days ago
yes, I admit that I've been trying to think about social interactions through this lens too.

but there's a difference between any random group and a corporation. The idea being that writing so many things down, and maybe more importantly, putting money into the 'group' (and all the associated formalities) makes this transient person formed into something more permanent, something that can change out the people involved and make the corporation outlive its creators (which most corporations do normally).
1 comments
mypastself 1221 days ago
That definition could also apply to nations, religious groups, sports teams, and many other types of organization, completely redefining the term “person”. What would be the purpose?
link
ModernMech 1221 days ago
You're staring down a rabbit hole. If want answers to some of these questions, enjoy:

http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconsci...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Note: there are no real answers here, of course. I think the "purpose" though would be a less myopic view of what a person is. Notably, that there's no reason "person" and "homo sapien" should be synonymous. Once you admit that, then things start to get really fuzzy and we need a framework to get back to something that makes sense.

link
mypastself 1221 days ago
Until we gain a proper understanding and definition of consciousness, the matter is almost purely linguistic. Redefining the term “person” could happen if there’s a critical mass for it, but I think it’s unlikely because it would almost certainly serve to confuse, rather than inform, at least in everyday communication.

I haven’t looked deeply into the linked paper yet (although it does look interesting), but I’ve given the philosophical matter some amount of thought before.

I can only be (fairly) certain of the existence of my own consciousness. There’s no reason to think I’m special in regards to other people, so it’s safe to assume they have it as well. Animals seem to exhibit similar behaviors, and since we have a shared evolutionary background, I’d include many animal species, too.

Can’t say much for anything beyond that, regardless of how convincing, say, an AI’s words might sound. A photorealistic painting might also fool me, but I still wouldn’t attribute personhood to it afterwards.

The Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “The Measure of a Man” did slightly change my mind on this matter, though. If we ever construct an artificial intelligence sufficiently similar to a human, it might be wise to err on the side of caution with respect to ethical treatment.

link