Would a mind without bias fear death?

[Cognisant]

Our neural nets respond to inputs in a biased way, some inputs reinforce behaviour, others discourage it, so the fear of death makes sense in regard to the input of pain, most ways of dying are painful and the thought of dying without pain isn't so frightening by comparison. But what if there's no pain input, if the person in question had no capacity for pain, clearly the prospect of a violent death wouldn't be quite as frightening to such a being, it might even casually dismember itself, but would it?

I'm trying to figure out what a mind with absolutely no "input bias" would do, if anything, obviously there's problems with getting it to learn initial behaviours if it has no input bias, but let's go past that and assume it has all the knowledge you have, just no desire to use it. So it's a living doll of sorts, let's say it's in a room and that room's on fire, it knows if it doesn't move it'll die, it has a conceptual understanding of death, that if it doesn't move it's existence and it's capacity for experience will be lost, so do you think it would it would move?

We have an existential dread that goes far beyond any mere fear of pain, so do you think merely having the conceptual understanding of death would be enough to generate a survival drive in a mind without bias but with the capacity to experience?

 

[Coolydudey]

What if our living doll just wants to experience some more? If on the other hand, you decide that it can't have any desires of this sort, then you could probably put it down to a 50/50 chance (since it has nothing to make it choose either way).

 

[Minuend]

I don't think that's enough information to give an answer.

 

[Proletar]

So it's a living doll of sorts, let's say it's in a room and that room's on fire, it knows if it doesn't move it'll die, it has a conceptual understanding of death, that if it doesn't move it's existence and it's capacity for experience will be lost, so do you think it would it would move?

That's easy. No, it wouldn't move. It's got no incentive, just like loads of melancolically depressed people. Those people are (more or less, but let's say 100% for the sake of the dialectics) free from all positive symptoms regarding brain-chemistry, which means neither happy feelings or bad feelings. They would smell the smoke and sense the heat, but they wont lift a muscle sitting on their bean-bags.

On a more positive note though, if you would bury the doll alive with a single bullet in a revolver, she wouldn't kill herself but instead slowly suffocate.

 

[ideae]

A mind without bias would be a mind of no subjectivity or subjective experience, a blank slate. Hence, no.

 

[Da Blob]

Our neural nets respond to inputs in a biased way, some inputs reinforce behaviour, others discourage it, so the fear of death makes sense in regard to the input of pain, most ways of dying are painful and the thought of dying without pain isn't so frightening by comparison. But what if there's no pain input, if the person in question had no capacity for pain, clearly the prospect of a violent death wouldn't be quite as frightening to such a being, it might even casually dismember itself, but would it?

I'm trying to figure out what a mind with absolutely no "input bias" would do, if anything, obviously there's problems with getting it to learn initial behaviours if it has no input bias, but let's go past that and assume it has all the knowledge you have, just no desire to use it. So it's a living doll of sorts, let's say it's in a room and that room's on fire, it knows if it doesn't move it'll die, it has a conceptual understanding of death, that if it doesn't move it's existence and it's capacity for experience will be lost, so do you think it would it would move?

We have an existential dread that goes far beyond any mere fear of pain, so do you think merely having the conceptual understanding of death would be enough to generate a survival drive in a mind without bias but with the capacity to experience?

No. There really is no conceptual understanding of the subjective experience of death that can be valid. We can only view death as an object, a far off (hopefully) destination on the horizon.

Hmmm (?) Actually it is the horizon....

 

[EmergingAlbert]

I don't think the absence of pain would be enough to eliminate the fear of death. I think the fear of death has much more to do with the fear of the unknown as well as the fear of eternal unconsciousness (assuming you don't believe in an afterlife) or of hell (assuming you do) than the fear of pain. Most people fear death much more than they fear other forms of pain.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Would a mind without bias even count as a mind?

 

[Duxwing]

The unbiased mind would not fear death, for it would process all stimuli and outcomes as if they were equally important; hence, it would process its impending death just as the ideal nihilist would, as nothing more than the passing of a flicker on the fire.

Intuitively, and perhaps mistakenly, I hypothesize that conscious agents require mechanistic bias in order to function. For perhaps there is indeed such a thing as too much freedom, and that it is instead how we dispense of it that makes each of us unique. In essence, that the only difference between an anchor and a manacle lies in whether we'd like to release the chain.

-Duxwing

 

[Philovitist]

If you don't care, you don't care. You won't respond to stimuli.

It's pretty straightforward.

 

[Words]

Would a mind without bias even count as a mind?

Good question. The idea is so far from our concept of mind that it challenges the definition. It would be some sort of rare, easily perishable mind. Like a rare unstable element.

---

If its still human aside from not experiencing pain, meaning it has all of genetic components that make a human body except for pain, then it would still avoid death for other reasons, temperament included. Pain is such a small bias, I think. Compared to ideals and other attachments. Or maybe that's just a matter of more pain.

I guess if you plan to create high level A.I., you'd need to create a "bias-system."

 

[Cognisant]

Great responses everyone, thank you.

So now I'm thinking the "doll" wouldn't move, though it may be capable of experience the experience of death would be no different to it than the experiance of just sitting there because it has no bias to contextualize it's experiences.

Okay so let's make this more complicated, what if the doll in question used to be a person with bias, it remembers pleasure and pain, it remembers fearing death and so understands contextually that it should avoid death, in other words if you suddenly stopped having emotions of any kind would your mind retain some kind of momentum?

I guess if you plan to create high level A.I., you'd need to create a "bias-system."

A mass parallel biased cross-referencing system, that's a neural net.
We already technically know how to make strong AI, the real trick is making it efficient.
And believe me, there are ways

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I don't fear death even with a pain input. I'm merely a passenger in life, which could end at any moment. Even without my belief in a higher power, I simply choose to live to experience more life.

Okay so let's make this more complicated, what if the doll in question used to be a person with bias, it remembers pleasure and pain, it remembers fearing death and so understands contextually that it should avoid death, in other words if you suddenly stopped having emotions of any kind would your mind retain some kind of momentum?

Doubtful. I say this not because my worldview is incompatible with your scenario; indeed it appears to be in sync, but because emotion led me to my worldview. That and I doubt whether one can remember pleasure or pain without emotion.

Perhaps humans are limited in their capacity to create AI because of their inherent human-ness? Are we capable of the emotionless perspective required?

We <-? Projecting? have an existential dread that goes far beyond any mere fear of pain

 

[Coolydudey]

It is my opinion on the other hand that most people have assumed that because the doll has nothing to make it get up, it will stay put. This applies in the opposite direction too though: it has nothing to make it stay put. Whether it moves or not might as well be attributed to a coin toss, since it has nothing to make it choose either way.

Even if it use to have emotions, now it will still have nothing to make it choose either way (you are assuming it unbiased), so I would stick with the same verdict.

 

[Cognisant]

I don't fear death even with a pain input. I'm merely a passenger in life, which could end at any moment. Even without my belief in a higher power, I simply choose to live to experience more life.

You're just complacent

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

You're just complacent

True. But I'm also very, very detached. Especially as of late.

 

[crippli]

A human is mostly animated. One does 99% or another random number, automatically. I can think and have an idea to stop breathing. But when I try to hold my breath, I just did, I am helpless to succeed.

I am trying without success to think out a way that I would be able to stop breathing through willpower alone. That means that I am nothing compared to the mechanisms of my body. A slave. Exactly what in my body that control my mind, I'm not sure. But it seems quite clear that little feeling of me is an illusion. I will do, often without question, what my body tell me to do.

I do not believe pain exist. The mind is a pleasure center. Pain is just reduced pleasure. This occurs with sensor triggers, and injection of substances into the pleasure center, to make this and that feeling. Then I will respond.

I am not sure the pleasure center(mind) is needed. It must be a regulator of some sort. It should be swappable if you can engineer something better.

 

[PhoenixRising]

I don't think a truly unbiased mind would fear death, or try to avoid it. That is probably a biased answer though, since I am capable of experiencing a truly unbiased state. The only state that I know that is truly unbiased is that of raw, pure consciousness. The mind is biased by nature.

Whether or not the doll would move wouldn't be based on fear, but on a will to exist, as others have stated. Fear of death is usually one of the common forms of human fear of the unknown. People don't know what will happen to them when they die, or they don't know if they will leave a legacy. Therefore they hold onto life in futility.

If the doll had no bias, no preconceived ideas, then the unknown wouldn't be scary. Even remembrance of previously held preconceived ideas shouldn't have an effect, because if the doll was a purely objective being, then it would see that fearing the unknown was a moot point.

However, the desire to exist also implies having preconceived ideas. If the doll had no expectations for what it may experience or discover if it continued living, then there would likely be no reasoning for it to escape death.

The only thing that could possibly cause the doll to escape is if it became biased in some way. Like, in its memories, it remembered that it always wanted to become a scientist. That would lead to the bias that it should survive in order to do something that it wanted to do. Desire is always biased.

 

[Milo]

I think it depends on the circumstance. If the unbiased person has friends and family that will miss him and suffer from his/her death, then he may use that as a reason to save him/herself. Afterall, it seems that if one has no relationships or even hope of future relationships, life is very depressing.
Even someone who has a pet to take care may consider its suffering in the saving of their own life.
Again, an answer of circumstance.

 

[scorpiomover]

A computer "knows" that when it reaches "shutdown", it is no longer running. It doesn't seem to mind being shut down.

 

[Proletar]

Okay so let's make this more complicated, what if the doll in question used to be a person with bias, it remembers pleasure and pain, it remembers fearing death and so understands contextually that it should avoid death, in other words if you suddenly stopped having emotions of any kind would your mind retain some kind of momentum?

Well... No. Still no.


"Damn it, John! You used to be such a caring husband, and now you just sit there on your chair doing nothing! You haven't eaten for days and you smell horrible! Think of our Jonah! Think of Jessie! You need to be a father!". You recognise this sort of speech from random movies, don't you?

As you can debunk from it, it's all about triggering memories and such, in order to in turn trigger some emotions from this shell of a man - it's not primarely to make him understand per se. The conceptual understanding means nothing without some kind of attachment.


"Thoughts are but the shadows of our feelings "

 

[Sorlaize]

I'm trying to figure out what a mind with absolutely no "input bias" would do, if anything, obviously there's problems with getting it to learn initial behaviours if it has no input bias, but let's go past that and assume it has all the knowledge you have, just no desire to use it. So it's a living doll of sorts, let's say it's in a room and that room's on fire, it knows if it doesn't move it'll die, it has a conceptual understanding of death, that if it doesn't move it's existence and it's capacity for experience will be lost, so do you think it would it would move?

In our traditional understanding of what minds are, a mind *is* a bias. An individualist construct, that must will itself to survive. That is the only type of conscious being we understand. It of course doesn't have to be that way, though..

A mind with no inclination to survive, or a mind that is "all-knowing" and is able to overcome the individual-desire constructs that stop us all from suiciding: yes, I think such a being would confront the pointlessness of life and die. What is the point of living? That's both a very broad and soul-crushing question. If you are the only human being in the world and there was no way to bring other humans into the world, for example, you'd be lonely.. because life wouldn't be worth it anymore. Achievements wouldn't be valuable.

Fear? I think if you can get past the human biases inherent to the human mind's regular functioning, you can get past fear with logic very quickly, but it's difficult [for us] to hold and keep those views, when our minds are constantly working against us to reaffirm these things like primitive superstitions and fears that other humans will betray us. Those aspects of our psychology creep into things like the monetary system and corruption in the modern world, for example.. these can be seen as fundamental winds that shape the human world, beyond the power of our modern communication..

The point of getting knowledge, to us, is to use it within our society. Part of getting all the knowledge is having the delusional belief that we can even make a change in the world- or it might be, that it's something we enjoy (to learn). But when you know a lot at an early age [thinking in the context of an AI], you might get depressed early on and choose not to learn, because of the state of the world.. there was this really young genius once who was disgusted at what society does; things like sex; the way we are so dishonest with one another. So.. the timing of gaining information, is pretty important. That factors into the meaning of life. If you can believe the world is beautiful despite being in a bad situation, then that can help you hold out until either the world is really better, or you get better tools for mentally dealing with it..

It's interesting, because the nature of the human being is to feel, whereas, in reality, well.. there is no place for comfort; it has only truth. So, what would an all-knowing AI do? Well, that could be anything. How is it programmed? What's on its mind regularly? Is it able to even suicide? What does it experience, and how is that experience limited? [in the human mind, we are tied to good experiences and brain chemicals.. we can't escape their benefit, and so, ALL PEOPLE ARE INHERENTLY BIASED TOWARDS THEIR OWN PERSONAL GAIN. We aren't able to escape our own bodies and what our brains are addicted to. We aren't able to forget a great experience. Our brains become addicted to things like fast food.]

some other points to think about (random):

We are short-sighted beings. Our world economy serves to make us work in specialized jobs, while it seems straightforward there are better solutions for modern life if you improve the living conditions for everyone across the globe by sharing technology and know-how
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7PZVYG57UQ

Everyone respects the skilled artist. [Even the richest and most powerful people in the world]

We don't trust each other. Would you feed a man on the street? Even if he didn't need money but was hungry and you had some food with you. If not, why not? Why not trust someone to use something well?

 

[Da Blob]

I think there is a bit of a misconception concerning life and death, that somehow they are mutually exclusive, like the poles of a magnetic field.

However, if one choses to measure human life in terms/units of mind, then the issue becomes of determining to what degree one is 'dead' at any given moment.

There is a stage in an normal sleep cycle, where brain waves indicate a near-death vegetative state - how alive is the mind at that moment?

The life of the mind is a subject that is unaccessible to the hard sciences, belonging more to the philosophy of the phenomena of consciousness. It seems logical to speak of life in relationship to awareness.

Indeed, Christ labeled those who choose to be unaware of God as Walking Dead and I rather agree with Him. Not to derail the thread, but is it not obvious that those whose mental lives/minds are open to the greater possibilities of this universe enjoy a greater quality of life?

It seems to me that one of the boundaries that need to be considered when speaking of life and death is the boundary of that considered possible.