Punchinello writes...

Mr. Weisman,

I'm sorry I did not acknowledge your response before now. I only realized that you had addressed my post on sentience a moment ago.

I did not really think that you condoned the obliteration of a family of polar bears (anthropomorphic or otherwise). I was raising the issue because I think I am observing a trend wherein people are only assigning value to a life based upon an inference of anthropomorphism. That is to say, some people are investing their ethical concern in something based upon how much it resembles a human being; and this is hardly an objective premise to begin with. Semblance to human beings, mental or otherwise, can not constitute a requirement for being worthy of consideration or protection. However I do believe that it is reasonable to assign values based upon certain criteria from within our own perspectives (it's the only thing we can assign values from) as long as we make a concerted effort to avoid an obviously centrist sentiment like using ourselves as a template for what is worth consideration.

If someone were to ask me what criteria I thought were appropriate, I would probably return to what has already been implied. Intelligence. Emotional intuition. Volition. And a whole host of perceptual characteristics. Those things from which emerge a picture of mental life. Perhaps an ability to suffer and to anticipate conditions which cause or alleviate suffering, and to desire to distance ones self from a cause of it. However, if we are going to determine the presence of those capacities with nothing but purely verifiable data, then we fall in league with the evolutionary psychologists foundation of mental within the biological. And the biological machinery necessary to mediate these abilities is certainly not the exclusive domain of Homo Sapiens. (I _do_ subscribe to the evolutionary psychologist foundation by the way. I like to have data I can verify beyond "it is true because it is so.")

For a lot of people though, these emergent mental properties are always considered as something transcendent of biology, immeasurable, even inviolate, because I have observed others react with hostility to the reduction of mental qualities to biology. On numerous occasions. Thinking that way leads to all kinds of misunderstandings, however. Another contributor to this board, Entity, had taken the position that humans and gorillas were intelligent but dogs were not. I found this extremely interesting because even outside the realm of biological architectures in the brain I could use as a foundation for taking the evolutionary psychologist position, it needs to be acknowledged that even within social psychology dogs are attributed a measurable intelligence. It's not extraordinary. My dog has an IQ of 12 or so for instance. And of course these kinds of figures are disputable, because it really requires the participation of the test subject past his simple presence to get accurate results. I would submit that the whole concept of IQ as it is accepted within the social sciences borders on being fraudulent anyway. The point is that the ascription of non-intelligence that was made about the dog was arbitrary. It was not informed by the physical _or_ social sciences. It was just an assumption. And that kind of casual valuization can be dangerous when it functions as the basis for how much respect we offer another. This is not a slight against this Entity. I'm just using this as an example to outline the stated purpose of my original post. If people are going to hold these positions they maintain, then they need to ask themselves why they have that particular belief. If they have this mental dialogue with themselves and they cannot answer that first question, then it is time to evaluate how much their beliefs represent reality.

____________________________________________________________________________
I'm probably as guilty as anyone of overusing, or rather overbilling the issue of "sentience". I think the concept has its uses. But it's probably used as a crutch too often.
____________________________________________________________________________

I would agree. I think of it as a crutch of language. Some people subscribe to an ideology that is a holdover from religious impulses. It maintains that the mantle of "human" is sacred and unapproachable. They need to define what the quality of "human" is that makes it thus, without any background knowledge of cognitive science so that it fits their sensibilities. They can adopt the hazily defined expression, "sentience", imported from popular culture, via star trek, to articulate their position. For some others, the mental capacities of non human animals may be very well understood. They may acknowledge capacities for reflection and emotion, but they still need a convenient means of distinguishing various abilities. So an imprecise language becomes common.

matt writes...

in the gargoyles universe, why did the chicken cross the road?

i'm not telling a joke, i'm looking for an answer. i swear theres a good one here somewhere... and this will keep me busy til the next contest!

Lacey writes...

Which character do you feel is most like you, or closely resembles you physically and/or mentally?

Yttrium writes...

You mentioned you were in a play called THE WARRIOR'S HUSBAND and played Theseus. Could you tell us what it was about?

---Ytt

matt writes...

in The Mirror when the are in that plaza and battling Demona as humans, why is there a shop selling medieval weopons? Demona breaks a store window and all of a sudden the clan starts grabbing swords, sheilds, maces, spears, axes... why are those in NYC?

matt writes...

Legion questions:

1. when Recap downloaded the computer virus through the taser line from Coldstone, why didn't the virus destroy recaps programming?

2. when Coldstone first arrives at the Clocktower with Goliath and Lex, Bronx is growling at him. why? Iago has yet to take control of Coldstone. does Bronx just hate the cybernetics of Coldstone or does he sense the evil one or something?

matt writes...

Broadway bring back Maggie's Genutech bracelet after they first encounter her and Elisa says its a tracking device. doesn't that mean that Genutech knows where they went with it? is this how Xanatos found their new home? why wasn't the clan worried about bringing a tracking device into their home? seems kinda foolish to me, esspecially in light of what would happen with a tracking device in Hunters Moon!

matt writes...

in Metamorphosis Elisa and Matt show up at Genutech to investigate a kidnapping. whose kidnapping are they investigateing? i wouldn't think it was Maggie cuz i don't know who would report her as missing, and why would they think to look for anyone at Genutech anyway?

matt writes...

why did you decide to redo the look of the Mutates after Metamorphosis? esspecially Talon, his hair got smoother and darker, he lost his tail, and all the Mutates gained retinas in their eyes, not just white like Bronx's. and yes, he did have a tail!

2. in the garg universe do you have an explanation for the change in appearence? like perhaps they were still mutating? i don't know how that explains gaining a tail then losing it...

Punchinello writes...

I just reviewed what I have written here. It's so formal it's almost offensive. I'm sorry. I don't think one can talk about issues like this without sounding (obtuse? Stuffy? Something like that.) And not a word about Gargoyles.

Let me leave the realm of animal intelligence's for a minute and consider the intelligence of some of the more fantastical characters in your story. The fae. When I think about this kind of (ethereal?) character, these are the kinds of associations that I make.

-The thought of angels moves faster than human thought. (I don't recall where that comes from)

-A four dimensional object or being will cast a three dimensional shadow. (That's an observation Buckminster Fuller made.)

-A being that cannot die will have no concept of death, and certainly will not attach values, positive or negative, to the ending of a life. (This is a condensed and bastardized summary of some of the speculation of extraterrestrial intelligence's that participants of the SETI program publicized.)

I hope some of the above makes sense. My thinking is this. That the content of fae thought/mentality may be fundamentally different from homo sapiens thinking. Not just an accelerated or enhanced analogue of human thought, but structurally different. Our mental world is the emergent condition of innumerable biological systems interacting with one another. I have no reason to conclude that the fae's intelligence emerges from anything reductionist in nature. It is a condition that exists without origin in biology (potentially). Everything that we think of as intelligence rests on an evolutionary foundation of connections to allow us to successfully distinguish between things we can eat and things that will eat us. It would be absurd to think that the fae (who I don't think were subject to natural selection through predation) would have an intelligence structured upon the same principles. Simple alternative concepts like "either or" may not have the same meaning to them. This could go far towards explaining why they are so damned irritating.

My second thought on the matter, in reference to the three dimensional shadow concept, is that the visual representation we get of the fae in the story may be a poor representation of the reality. I use the concept of a hypothetical four dimensional being to illustrate. A two dimensional being could be aware of my presence if I allowed it to, although it would be a simple matter to remove myself from it's perception with a minor movement. However it's awareness could not give it a complete representation of what I am. It could only understand me as a fragment that can be translated into something comprehensible within the context of it's world. I can easily attribute an extra dimensional quality to beings like Oberon and Puck who seem o appear and disappear at will. We might not be able to understand completely, what they are. Only that the portion of them that is represented in three dimensions resembles a group of tall, angular, oddly complexioned people in period costume.

My third observation of the fae, and in particular of Oberon who has demonstrated a dispassionate distance to killing his rivals in certain instances, is that he may have no concept of murder because he may have no concept of death. (Yes I know that he reacted to the iron bell in such a way that would indicate it was harmful to him. Even lethal.) However, even if he were to express a concept of death we would not be able to be certain that his concept was anything like our concept. Does death mean an end for him? If it does not, then the gravity we attach to it may be lost on him and the other fae.

I think my point is that while it would certainly not be appropriate to think of a creature like this in human terms, i'm not even certain you can extrapolate "human" from him. There could be creatures, so far removed from human experience that it would be impossible. Of course, the associations that I make with the fae are not going to be the same ones that you make. Your concept of them may fall within human experience. You have other creatures though. Your space spawn. They would certainly have been subject to mental dispositions grounded in a different biology. We're conditioned with the genetic remainders of our hunter gatherer ancestors. They would be conditioned with something else. I dont know what. Something spawny probably.