What were you THINKING?

[msmith537]

@Eyebrows_0f_Doom

Which is why it’s totally OK to bash a human on the head, because you can do the same to a block of ice. It’s all atoms, there is no difference.

That’s absurd. What could ice possibly do to infuriate me? Not be cold enough?

Like why is it fine for me to jerk off into a tissue but if I buy a shit-ton of tissues to craft a life-size paper mâché likeness of Scarlet Johansson to make sex with I’m some kind of weirdo?

[Pleonast]

@Miller

@Pleonast

But if the argument for “it’s okay to love your dog, but not your AI” is because of the circumstances of their atomic configuration (it’s “alive” vs it’s “manufactured”), then it’s not convincing.

I genuinely cannot articulate how insane this is.

I guess I can’t figure out how to justify alive being more valuable than being manufactured without referring to an individual’s choice of value system.

[TroutMan]

@msmith537

Like why is it fine for me to jerk off into a tissue but if I buy a shit-ton of tissues to craft a life-size paper mâché likeness of Scarlet Johansson to make sex with I’m some kind of weirdo?

With posts like this, you don’t even have to make a paper mâché likeness of Scarlet Johansson for me to think you’re a weirdo. Seriously.

[Darren_Garrison]

@Eyebrows_0f_Doom

Which is why it’s totally OK to bash a human on the head, because you can do the same to a block of ice. It’s all atoms, there is no difference

[Atamasama]

I guess if you can’t differentiate between a living thing and AI, being a sociopath you might not have any genuine affection to give in the first place, so it’s something of a moot point.

(Thinking of Dr. Manhattan in particular.)

[Pleonast]

@Atamasama

I guess if you can’t differentiate between a living thing and AI, being a sociopath you might not have any genuine affection to give in the first place, so it’s something of a moot point.

Sure, but that’s not the problem here.

Many of us have an opinion that it’s okay to form an attachment with a dog. I concur. And many also feel it’s not okay to form an attachment with an AI. I concur again.

But these opinions I hold are based on my religious beliefs, which are a personal choice I’ve made about myself. Does anyone here base those opinions on some scientific truth? “Dogs are alive and AIs are manufactured” is true, but says nothing about the value of the attachments. The value of the attachments is entirely subjective, based on each individual’s choice of their own value system.

[Fuji]

Let me give it a try:

Alive is, of necessity, more valuable than being manufactured, since without the former, there cannot be the latter.

This justification makes no reference to any value system, only the contingencies imposed by observable reality.

[Pleonast]

@Fuji

without the former, there cannot be the latter

That is valuing existence as better than non-existence.

[Eyebrows_0f_Doom]

@Pleonast

But these opinions I hold are based on my religious beliefs, which are a personal choice I’ve made about myself. Does anyone here base those opinions on some scientific truth?

You seriously sound like a sociopath. It’s not “religious beliefs” that cause humans to hold living things above inanimate objects. So an atheist thinks there is no value difference between a dog and a shoe?

These are trivial concepts to most humans. The fact that you can’t distinguish between the two is concerning.

[Fuji]

No. It is saying one cannot exist without the other, it is dependent upon it for its very existence.

No moral or other value claims are being made that this state of affairs is good, bad, or other - just that it is.

[Atamasama]

@Pleonast

But these opinions I hold are based on my religious beliefs, which are a personal choice I’ve made about myself. Does anyone here base those opinions on some scientific truth?

I also have religious beliefs, but that doesn’t govern my opinions.

There is scientific truth about dogs having feelings, and that does inform my opinion, but it doesn’t fully determine it.

I think for me, a big part of it is the fact that AI is code. It can be copied and replicated exactly. Something organic can’t. It’s unique. Maybe if we ever get to the level of being able to do a brain scan of something organic and perfectly replicate it in every way, then you might lose that uniqueness. But for now, at least, that makes every living thing precious (I kind of hate that term but I can’t think of a better one), and therefore deserving of empathy.

It feels weird to be attached to something that can be so easily replicated. Even if you were able to clone a being, it’s still unique, just as twins are unique from each other despite their similarities. I think that has a huge influence on my opinion.

[Pleonast]

I can’t understand these together:

@Fuji

Alive is, of necessity, more valuable than being manufactured,

@Fuji

No moral or other value claims are being made that this state of affairs is good, bad, or other - just that it is.

[Pleonast]

@Atamasama

Even if you were able to clone a being, it’s still unique, just as twins are unique from each other despite their similarities. I think that has a huge influence on my opinion.

I agree that uniqueness is valuable. But that is a value judgement.

[Fuji]

That’s a fair criticism. I was sloppy in my language there.

In the first quoted passage, I am using “valuable” as a stand-in for “scarcity” or “significance” in an economic and/or statistical sense. In the second passage, I am using “value” in a moral context.

[Johanna]

@solost

If you get a block away from home again and feel the need to go back and check a second time, and maybe a third time, that’s OCD”.

Perhaps that’s evolutionarily tied in with the Sphex wasp, which will repeat the burrow-inspecting ritual an unlimited number of times. Douglas Hofstadter coined the word sphexishness for something that executes the same program endlessly without taking account of changing conditions.

[wolfpup]

@Pleonast

@Atamasama

I don’t get the “dog-emotions” concept. You’re acting like a dog being sad or happy is different than a human being sad or happy. Why?

Because it’s a dog. I don’t deny dogs have feelings, but they are not human and their feelings are not human.

“Human” is just a particular species of mammal. Dogs and humans are on the same continuum, differing only in degree. AI is not on that continuum. AI is on the same continuum as a cordless drill, and deserving of just as much empathy and emotional connection.

[Atamasama]

@Pleonast

I agree that uniqueness is valuable. But that is a value judgement.

Let me put it a different way. Affection is a one-on-one thing. True affection doesn’t happen for a “class” of things. Like, I can love a person, I can’t feel a personal love for, say, everyone named Janet. If I knew every Janet individually and found ways to love them, then yes, but if there were a bunch of identical Janets, I couldn’t feel that same affection.

If something doesn’t have individuality, I can’t form affection. Affection is, by it’s nature, personal. You can’t be personal with something that isn’t individual.

It’s not a matter of giving value to something that’s an individual, it’s just the way affection works. Why it works that way, that might be worth exploring, but I can’t really explain it.

[msmith537]

@kenobi_65

A rage? No. Insulted, yeah. You pushed the line there (and I’m not the only one who thought so), and continue to be unapologetic about it.

Well it was not my intent to insult anyone. So perhaps my choice of words was poor in using hyperbole to make an overly sweeping statement.

I asked ChatGPT “is collecting things the sign of a disturbed mind” and here is what it responded (I assume there’s no SDMB policy against posting quotes from AI?):

" No — collecting things is not inherently a sign of a disturbed mind. In fact, collecting is extremely common and usually psychologically healthy. What matters is how and why someone collects.

Here’s the realistic breakdown:

Normal, healthy collecting

Most collectors fall into this category. Collecting can serve positive psychological functions:

• Identity & meaning — expressing interests (art, watches, games, memorabilia, books, etc.)
• Mastery & expertise — learning deeply about a niche
• Memory & nostalgia — connecting to experiences or eras
• Organization & control — creating order or narrative around objects
• Social connection — communities, trading, discussion

Many highly analytical or high-performing people collect things because they enjoy systems, curation, or optimization — which actually fits with traits like curiosity and pattern recognition.

When collecting can become unhealthy

Collecting crosses into potential concern when it becomes:

• Compulsive — strong anxiety if unable to acquire items
• Uncontrolled accumulation — clutter overwhelms living space
• Financially harmful — spending beyond means or hiding purchases
• Emotionally avoidant — using acquisition to cope with distress without addressing underlying issues
• Functionally impairing — affecting relationships, safety, or daily functioning

At the extreme end, this might resemble hoarding disorder, but that’s very different from structured collecting.

Key difference: collecting vs hoarding

Healthy collectors:

• curate selectively
• maintain organization
• feel pride in the collection
• can sell or part with items (even if reluctant)

Hoarding patterns:

• difficulty discarding anything
• items pile up without organization
• distress tied to discarding
• impaired living space

Interesting psychological note

Humans are natural “collectors.” Evolutionarily, gathering and categorizing resources had survival value. Modern collecting taps into similar reward systems (completion, rarity, discovery).

---

If you want, I can also tell you:

• The psychological profiles of different collector types (which is surprisingly fascinating), or
• The subtle signs that distinguish passionate collecting vs avoidance behavior — which is where the real nuance is."

So there you have it. I unfairly lumped all collectors into the “unhealthy” category.

[wolfpup]

@msmith537

So there you have it. I unfairly lumped all collectors into the “unhealthy” category.

Hark, is this an apology that I see before me?

[Miller]

@wolfpup

Hark, is this an apology that I see before me?

Its contrition towards my ire?