A Curious Statistical Anomaly

It’s a Saturday after a WSFA Meeting at a pet filled home and a long night of trying to breathe. This made me laugh. I hope it perks up your day.

Many years ago, when I was a young’un, the list of criteria for being sentient was quite short and only humans qualified. Over the years, the criteria for sentience has subtly and quietly changed as more and more animals were found to qualify. For example, some animals were found to use tools, so tool using was dropped from the list.

Star Trek: The New Generation did an episode where Data was to be returned for disassembly by an AI researcher. Picard defended Data in court to prove his sentience and rescind the order. The full text of the scene is available online.

PICARD: What is required for sentience?
MADDOX: Intelligence, self awareness, consciousness.

Picard manages to create enough of a case and create enough doubt that the judge had to find for Data. It seems to me there was a similar episode during the original Star Trek series but I’m not sure. (If anyone knows for sure let me know which episode and basic case.)

From Ask The Van: in response to question on AI sentience:

When it comes to animals, there are a number of things which scientists try to measure – here are a few examples:

(1) The ability to observe and respond to one’s environment. This requires sensory perceptions and the ability to react to those perceptions. This is a pretty basic property of life, although the extent to which various creatures can do it varies widely. Most (all?) AIs already possess this ability.

(2) Intelligence. *”The ability to learn and understand, the ability to cope with a new situation” Many animals, including primates, pigs, and dolphins, have been shown to have very high intelligence. Some AI’s have also been shown to possess a high level of intelligence.

(3) Sentience / Consciousness. To be *”able to feel and think”. This is a tricky one. There is some very strong evidence out there indicating that certain species of animals are capable of both emotion and rational thought, but the argument hasn’t yet reached final resolution.

(4) Self-awareness. In the animal debate (and also the AI debate, I suspect), this is a big deal. Does the animal have awareness of itself? There are a zillion different experiments out there to test this, and they all seem to rely on a different idea of what proves self-awareness. For example, some definitions require that an animal understand how its own movements affect the image in a mirror. Some depend on an animal’s ability to lie. Some even rely on the fact that carnivorous animals don’t try to eat their own flesh. In the end, this is still a very nebulous issue, and the answers aren’t clear.

As you see from the above response, animals have been found to achieve many of these criteria. I’ve never managed to get over my feeling that we, humans, are so full of ourselves and our place at the center of the universe that we’ve ignored the possibility that we may share this world with a number of other intelligent/sentient species. In doing some research for this article, I ran across the following quote from Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) from Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.

“Other animals, which, on account of their interests having been neglected by the insensibility of the ancient jurists, stand degraded into the class of things. … The day has been, I grieve it to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated … upon the same footing as … animals are still. The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?…the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?… The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes…”
Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832)
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789)

The quote was used in an article on Ethics and discussed our anthropocentric view of sentience.

I believe that I’d got way beyond this author’s views. I believe we are still very anthropocentric. In fact, as strict as we tune the criteria for sentience to always keep mankind on the top of the stack as the only sentient species on Earth — we have many people, humans, who don’t feel that other humans, because of skin color, sexual preference, perceived intelligence or whatever, are really sentient or, in fact, human. Whenever humans from whatever government start a war the first thing that is done is the dehumanizing of the enemy. Evidently it is much easier to kill if you don’t believe the enemy is actually “one of us”.

So, the other day when I came across this article on PhysOrg.com, “Scientists say dolphins should be treated as non-human persons” (January 6, 2010 by Lin Edwards), my first reaction was, “it’s about time.” The article abstract states:

Scientists studying dolphin behavior have suggested they could be the most intelligent creatures on Earth after humans, saying the size of their brains in relation to body size is larger than that of our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, and their behaviors suggest complex intelligence. One scientist said they should therefore be treated as “non-human persons” and granted rights as individuals.

More than about time, but since people don’t consider all people as having rights as individuals, I doubt that this will get very far. But it is a step in the right direction. As we move out into space, we need to recognize that if we were to find intelligent, sentient life out there somewhere, it won’t necessarily look like us. If we can’t accept the possibility of intelligent/sentient life other then homo sapiens on this planet, I don’t hold out much hope for a first contact situation going very well if we should find life on other planets. The odds of this happening are increasing as current research shows that the possibility that we’ve found that life once existed on Mars is increasing as more research is done on available samples.

So, while I think it’s time that we re-examine our relationship with the species that we share our planet with, I doubt very much that humanity is willing to accept the possibility of animal sentience, let alone plant intelligence, when so many can’t accept that all humans are sentient.

Never the less, I’m leaving you with the introductory song to the motion picture, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”. Besides being a great riff on humanities blindness to other intelligences, it’s a wonderful piece. Enjoy.

Feedback on this article is welcome but unless it is more than — great article or nice blog — it won’t be approved in the comments.

Today was sort of a loss on getting the home/house/shopping stuff done because I had a Capclave Committee Meeting scheduled this afternoon.

Nearly the entire committee was in attendance and those who couldn’t make it sent their reports.  It looks like we’re on track for memberships compared to previous years at this time.  This year Capclave will be capping membership at 500.  So, if you’re dithering please sign up soon. Right now the membership cost is $45.  There will be another price increase on July 1st.  So, the longer you wait the more expensive it gets.

Capclave will be from October 22 to 24th, 2010 at the Rockville Hilton.  Guests of Honor are: Connie Willis, Ann VanderMeer, and Jeff VanderMeer.  Check out our website and the Capclave blog.

We’re putting together ideas for programming. We could use your input on what panels and workshops you’d like to see at the convention. Really, let us know. Email programming with your ideas and suggestions.

If you’d like to volunteer some of your time to help out at the convention, send me email and let me know what area you’d like to work in and how many hours you’d be willing to commit. We’ll be putting a volunteer form up on the Capclave site soon but you can let me know by emailing me earlier.

Now to knit some more on my sock. Have a good evening everyone.

Today, I went to pick up my prescriptions. I’m on some maintenance medications because asthma and other things. So, I get there and find out my insurance decided to not pay for one of the inhalers. The same inhaler medication I’ve been on for almost two years. The cost with the drug coverage — $165.00 per month.

Needless to say, I didn’t pick it up. If you’ve read my open letter to congress about medical coverage, you know that my out of pocket with the, in point of fact, very good medical health insurance that I have is around 10-14K per year as it is. I can’t deal with the insurance company anymore — I get ticked off and cry so Hyperion will give them a call tomorrow and try to find out what the deal is this time. Meanwhile, I’ll have to set up an appointment with the asthma/allergy doc and see if I can be moved to something the insurance company might just, maybe help pay for (normally, I paid a $50 copay for this inhaler).

Oh, the other surprise was that all the medications that were 3rd tier just went up to $60/month. Oh, joy. Guess, I’m a shoe in for the medical tax deduction now.

Is the insurance company making medical decisions by refusing to pay for their share of my Rx? According to them, “No!”. In a near quote what they told me the last time they did this is that they are not making medical decisions because they’re not stopping me from having the medication I need, I just have to pay full price. No one is stopping me from paying for it.

Well, I got news. That is making a medical decision. The insurance company is more concerned with their profit margin than in the people they cover. And THAT, is the reason that we need a public option. Health care should not be entrusted to a for-profit company.

The sad part for the people in this country is that Congress is more interested in getting big bucks for their campaign coffers than serving the people who elected them. The current health care bill is now a useless piece of legislation that is a great windfall for insurance companies at the expense of Americans who are without health insurance. As if stands now, the new health care bill gives corporations everything they’ve asked for and the American people nothing– no public option, no expansion of Medicare, and no coverage of pre-existing conditions. It also mandates that people buy insurance which will not cover their pre-existing conditions with a fine if they don’t get insurance. So, thank you Congress for requiring people buy insurance that won’t cover any of the medical problems that they have and then punish them if they don’t buy this useless insurance in order to afford what health care they can with what little money they have on the health problems they do have.

I’m upset from my experience today. Yes, I am. But I’m even more upset knowing that other people are having an even rougher time that I do. I have health insurance and I still have problems getting medications and care. Nothing that Congress is doing is going to make it any easier for me and it certainly isn’t going help Americans who currently don’t have health insurance or who can barely afford the coverage that they have.

Sherlock Holmes is and was a fictional character created by Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle. According to wikipedia, Sherlock Holmes first appeared in print in 1887.

During the Christmas holidays, a new Sherlock Holmes film was released in theaters. Directed by Guy Ritchie, Sherlock Holmes was played by Robert Downey Jr., while Jude Law and Rachel McAdams played Dr. Watson and Irene Adler. Many fans of Sherlock Holmes were upset by the film because this is not the Holmes they were expecting. The plot is a bit wild but within the acceptable canon. Holmes however is more scruffy and common than most people expected.

Personally, I thought that he was closer to the Holmes I thought he was when I first read the books as a child. This Holmes could disguise himself as a laborer and get away with it. He could mingle on all class levels and blend in. That, however, doesn’t mean that he couldn’t dress up and appear in the highest levels of British society and also fit in smoothly since, as I mentioned, he could blend in on all levels. Holmes adapts and the only thing he can’t stand is boredom and ignorance. So, take a chance and see the movie, whether you like it or not will depend on your inner vision of Sherlock Holmes.

The second major complaint that I heard/read was that there was paranormal and magical aspects in a Sherlock Holmes film. Tsk. Tsk. In point of fact, Sherlock Holmes doesn’t believe in magic or the paranormal. He attacks the problem in his own way looking for clues and facts. While the movie appears to have real magic occurring, never once does Holmes say it is so. By the end of the movie you’ll know what Holmes does, and that changes how you view what you’ve already seen. Again, strictly canon in the Holmesian universe.

10 Facts about Sherlock Holmes on FactsMonk.

For my own Holmes adventure, Hyperion and I were traveling from hither and yon and managed, as we usually do, to get lost. However, we found Gillette Castle State Park. It’s in East Haddam, Connecticut and was the home of William Gillette who played Sherlock Holmes on Broadway and for years it was his image that was used as that of Holmes in magazines, books, and other print media. Gillette was a bit of an inventor and the castle has some interesting features. The one that’s relevant to this post is that he had a room set up to look like 221B Baker Street including the VR in the wall made by bullet holes. If you’re ever in the area in Connecticut, check it out. It’s high on a bluff overlooking the river. There’s a ferry that makes trips across the river and the view of the castle from the ferry is spectacular. (Unfortunately, I couldn’t find our photos of the visit so here’s one from the Gillette State Park site.)

I loved the books when I was in my early teens. I liked them even more when I was in my twenties and could appreciate the convoluted plots and Holmes’ dry wit. But I guess what I continue to like is the reliance on facts before hypothesis that Holmes insisted on. My favorite line is the one, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” This is even more astounding when you realize that Doyle fell for just about every scam that was about in his day — he was a stanch supporters of the girls who claimed to have fairies in the bottom of their garden, for example. But Doyle managed to have Holmes believe only in facts, science, and what he himself could deduce from clues.

In recent years, many authors have been writing stories using the Holmes character. I’ve reviewed several. Most remain true to the character as it was developed by Doyle. Even if they bring in paranormal appearing events, they manage to have Holmes stand true to his motto: “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

Celebrate the birthday of Sherlock Homes. Read a mystery.

Stick Man by Julia Donaldson. Illustrated by Axel Scheffler. Arthur A. Levine Books, AN Imprint of Scholastic Books. ISBN: 978-0-545-15761-2, hardcover. $16.99 US/$19.99 CAN.

Stick Man is a delightful story about a stick man who lives with his stick wife and children in a very nice tree house. He goes out to jog and spends nearly a year having one adventure after another trying to get back home to his wife and children. Stick man is mistaken as a throwing stick, a Pooh stick, nesting material, beach detritus, building material, and kindling among others. Each mistaken identity leaves him struggling to escape and find his way home.

The drawing are semi-realistic as you can tell from the cover image. The drawing adds visually to the journey, showing the changing seasons and the various plights in which Stick Man finds himself. The colors are bright and cheerful and the people and animals realistic.

The text is simple and mostly rhymes. It’s difficult to do a book in rhyme and Donaldson manages to do without being too cutsey or over-the-top. I’d imagine a young reader would get caught up in the tale and cheer on Stick Man to find his way home.

The book was published in September 2009. The ending is very Christmas oriented and leaves a nice feeling of completion to the story. I’d suggest that this would make a great book for children anytime of the year but the tie to Christmas at the end makes it an especially good Christmas book.

The only problem I had with the story is wondering about the message underlying the story. Stick Man goes off one morning and doesn’t come back for a year. He doesn’t, of course, call home and he just shows up expecting to be taken back into the bosom of his family as if nothing has changed at all. It worked for Job’s wayward son but I’m wondering about the subliminal impact the book would have on children whose fathers have abandoned the family. Would they see this story as a reason to believe that he’d return and everything would be as it was? I don’t know. It just occurred to me on a third reading that there was another way children might interpret the story so I thought I should put it out here for potential buyers of the book to be aware of the circumstances of the child to be gifted with the story. In some cases this might be just the underlying message you want to convey in other, well, maybe not.

I don’t like to use universal terms such as all women, or even most women. So, I’ll just say when I was growing up I had some problems with the fact that I wasn’t as “pretty” or “girly” as I was told I should be. At a fairly young age, I decided to just be me. It’s mostly worked, except for those days when the niggling doubts and insecurities raise their heads. But as I get older that doesn’t happen quite as often and I handle it better.

However, many young women and girls are still raised with certain expectations and I’m hoping this video will help you look at the word “pretty” in a new way. Hopefully, it will give you a new lease on life and since it’s the start of a new year maybe it’s a good time for Katie Makkai, a veteran poetry slammer, to give us a new definition of the word “pretty”, and to get you thinking about the really important things in life.

Think about and go out and be pretty amazing, pretty witty, pretty darn smart, and anything you want to be.

I saw this quote today:

“The reason people find it so hard to be happy is that they always see the past better than it was, the present worse than it is, and the future less resolved than it will be.” – Marcel Pagnol

Well, I got thinking that really this is very close to the saying: You’re as happy as you make up your mind to be. Which is a paraphrase of a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

Anyway, both of them got me thinking about how our attitudes effect us and those around us. Thinking about how,  when I have a bad night and don’t sleep and I start my day grumpy, it tends to stay that way. However, if I somehow see something or meet someone that makes me smile, the day makes a change from that point on. There was a meme going about a while ago that said that you should smile at someone and make them happy for the rest of the day. People complained that that was just to simplistic.

Thinking back on the holiday season, and often during it, I notice that people are nicer to each other during this time of the year. They smile more and are far more courteous that normally when they’re wrapped up in their lives and their problems. So, I’m thinking I’m going to try harder this year to be happy and make those around me happy too.

I challenge each of you to be nice to one person a day during this coming year. That means giving someone a genuine, “Hello”. Or, just letting someone cut in front of you on the road or in a store line — with a smile and “that’s okay”. Take the time to notice the world and the people around you and appreciate the sunshine, the rain, the wind (which right now is howling outside my window), and the sunsets.

To get you in the mood to try this “be happy” attitude, here’s Bobby McFerrin’s YouTube video, Don’t Worry, Be Happy. I can’t embed that one so go and watch it, but here’s Bob Marley, with the same song:

Try to start every day, happy to be.