Can robots debone a chicken?(online.wsj.com)
online.wsj.com
Can robots debone a chicken?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303879604577410433686070506.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
57 comments
American markets will not accept lab meat.
I say this based on the reaction to what was dubbed "pink slime" and about which the media and the public flipped out. The result is that a completely safe and efficient process to increase yield came under fire because of hysteria grounded in not a whit of logic.
People are also whipping themselves into a frenzy about genetically modified organisms. They're also convincing themselves that organic food is what they should have been eating in lieu of food treated with chemicals(1).
So if a public that is generally ignorant about food production is (over)reacting to existing scientific enhancements it follows that the reaction to a completely scientificly generated product would not be met with acceptance.
Disclaimer: I'm part of a fifth generation farm family. We farm corn, soybeans, and milo. No livestock.
(1)Certified organic food is often treated with chemicals, sometimes the same chemicals as non-organic, but at different dilutions and with different application methods.
I say this based on the reaction to what was dubbed "pink slime" and about which the media and the public flipped out. The result is that a completely safe and efficient process to increase yield came under fire because of hysteria grounded in not a whit of logic.
People are also whipping themselves into a frenzy about genetically modified organisms. They're also convincing themselves that organic food is what they should have been eating in lieu of food treated with chemicals(1).
So if a public that is generally ignorant about food production is (over)reacting to existing scientific enhancements it follows that the reaction to a completely scientificly generated product would not be met with acceptance.
Disclaimer: I'm part of a fifth generation farm family. We farm corn, soybeans, and milo. No livestock.
(1)Certified organic food is often treated with chemicals, sometimes the same chemicals as non-organic, but at different dilutions and with different application methods.
You falsely portray all opposition to industrial food production / GMO as unscientific / irrational / illogical?
It certainly seems to be a favoured industry angle (esp. in regards to Genetically Modified Organisms): portray opposition as ignorant, anti-progress, unscientifc, luddite etc
Some cursory examination into any of these issues uncovers reasoned, rational, scientific concern behind much opposition.
The 'pink slime' issue originated with a US Department of Agriculture microbiologist who was disgusted that the USDA approved it for human consumption. Hardly 'hysteria grounded in not a whit of logic'.
It certainly seems to be a favoured industry angle (esp. in regards to Genetically Modified Organisms): portray opposition as ignorant, anti-progress, unscientifc, luddite etc
Some cursory examination into any of these issues uncovers reasoned, rational, scientific concern behind much opposition.
The 'pink slime' issue originated with a US Department of Agriculture microbiologist who was disgusted that the USDA approved it for human consumption. Hardly 'hysteria grounded in not a whit of logic'.
I don't understand the pink slime thing. I'm pretty sure the only reason people freaked out was because of Jamie Oliver's campaign against it.
People want to eat meat. Pink slime is a small amount of meat with large amounts of the bits you'd normally leave behind.
I'm not against mechanically recovered meat. But I'd prefer children to get chunks of real meat cooked well than a squirt of slime and salt and flavourings in a crumb coating which is then fried and served with a sugary sauce. (ketchup, bbq, etc.) That combination of fat, salt, and sugar makes food "hyper palatable"[1] and, while much cheaper than "real" food contains little in the way of useful nutrition.
[1] Not my term. It's used to describe food where the balance of salt, sweet, and fat have been carefully balanced, and where the food is very easy to eat, because it's small or soft and easy to chew. See the progression from roast chicken, to deep fried chicken, to deep fried chicken with a salty coating and sauces, to "popcorn chicken" which are small chunks of meat, with a lot of fat-soaked salty coating.
I'm not against mechanically recovered meat. But I'd prefer children to get chunks of real meat cooked well than a squirt of slime and salt and flavourings in a crumb coating which is then fried and served with a sugary sauce. (ketchup, bbq, etc.) That combination of fat, salt, and sugar makes food "hyper palatable"[1] and, while much cheaper than "real" food contains little in the way of useful nutrition.
[1] Not my term. It's used to describe food where the balance of salt, sweet, and fat have been carefully balanced, and where the food is very easy to eat, because it's small or soft and easy to chew. See the progression from roast chicken, to deep fried chicken, to deep fried chicken with a salty coating and sauces, to "popcorn chicken" which are small chunks of meat, with a lot of fat-soaked salty coating.
> ...fat, salt, and sugar ... contains little in the way of useful nutrition
You're making a good point here, but I'd watch out for this weasely use of "nutrition". Fats and sugars are where energy comes from. Food is made of nutrition. (Otherwise we call it fiber... or Olestra.)
What you mean, I think, is that these foods are designed for their macronutrient content, with a poor selection of micronutrients[0], which could lead to a deficiency if it were all you ate. Which is definitely still a big issue with pre-prepared foods, but it's a lot easier to talk about in an intellectually honest way.
[0] Of which salt is one.
You're making a good point here, but I'd watch out for this weasely use of "nutrition". Fats and sugars are where energy comes from. Food is made of nutrition. (Otherwise we call it fiber... or Olestra.)
What you mean, I think, is that these foods are designed for their macronutrient content, with a poor selection of micronutrients[0], which could lead to a deficiency if it were all you ate. Which is definitely still a big issue with pre-prepared foods, but it's a lot easier to talk about in an intellectually honest way.
[0] Of which salt is one.
Also a big part of the objection is that pink slime is soaked in an ammonia bath. I don't think it is ignorant to question whether an ammonia bath might have consequences health-wise.
1. There is no soaking. The product is exposed to ammonia gas.
2. If we don't trust the FDA to regulate based on health consequences, what the hell do we pay them for?
3. It is, in strict terms, ignorant to not know that ammonia is a component of animal metabolism which we produce and excrete naturally. Ground beef always has ammonia in it (albeit about a quarter as much as in treated meat).
2. If we don't trust the FDA to regulate based on health consequences, what the hell do we pay them for?
3. It is, in strict terms, ignorant to not know that ammonia is a component of animal metabolism which we produce and excrete naturally. Ground beef always has ammonia in it (albeit about a quarter as much as in treated meat).
1 - source? Honest question--is "bath" the term for something other than soaking?
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/safety/story/2012-...
2 - Straw man. We pay them for being better than the alternative. I don't trust them because, like most of our government, they are ultimately beholden to lobbying and special interest money.
3 - 4x the ammonia is not really a selling point, and in fact makes the case that rejecting this food out of caution is not ignorant.
Further, I don't think you can call it ignorant for people to reject eating foods that make them go "ick!" I could eat maggots. Is it ignorance that makes me choose not to, or personal taste?
2 - Straw man. We pay them for being better than the alternative. I don't trust them because, like most of our government, they are ultimately beholden to lobbying and special interest money.
3 - 4x the ammonia is not really a selling point, and in fact makes the case that rejecting this food out of caution is not ignorant.
Further, I don't think you can call it ignorant for people to reject eating foods that make them go "ick!" I could eat maggots. Is it ignorance that makes me choose not to, or personal taste?
1. I imagine USA Today uses the term "bath" to refer to any number of things. Here's the Washington Post: "...the lean beef passes through a tube the size of a pencil, where it is exposed for less than a second to a tiny amount of ammonia gas."[0]
2. Be that as it may, they are the people in charge of telling us whether or not food is safe to eat, and they said this was safe to eat. They also happen to know a lot more about this stuff than we do, which brings us to...
3. It is quite literal ignorance to say "Ammonia? I have a bottle of that under my sink! And they feed this to children?!" while ignorant of the fact that you exhale ammonia with every breath, and could eat the same amount of ammonia by simply making a bigger burger.
Not that that gives it an automatic pass, but it sets the bar for someone saying, "Yeah, we tested this and it's completely safe to eat" a hell of a lot lower.
[0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06...
2. Be that as it may, they are the people in charge of telling us whether or not food is safe to eat, and they said this was safe to eat. They also happen to know a lot more about this stuff than we do, which brings us to...
3. It is quite literal ignorance to say "Ammonia? I have a bottle of that under my sink! And they feed this to children?!" while ignorant of the fact that you exhale ammonia with every breath, and could eat the same amount of ammonia by simply making a bigger burger.
Not that that gives it an automatic pass, but it sets the bar for someone saying, "Yeah, we tested this and it's completely safe to eat" a hell of a lot lower.
[0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06...
The unwitting coiner of the term was a US Department of Agriculture microbiologist who was disgusted the USDA approved the product for human consumption, stating: "Nobody did anything (about pink slime). USDA dropped the ball again. The meat industry soft sold it,"[1]
I don't doubt a sizable chunk of public opinion originated 'from the gut' but characterising all concern over the product as illogical / irrational is completely disingenuous.
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/25/us-food-slime-scie...
I don't doubt a sizable chunk of public opinion originated 'from the gut' but characterising all concern over the product as illogical / irrational is completely disingenuous.
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/25/us-food-slime-scie...
Even assuming that allowing the unlabeled sale of ground beef containing some quantity of LFTB was an inside deal, ammonium hydroxide in general is classified as GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe)[0]. In the opinion of the FDA, it's as safe to put on food as anything else.
> characterising all concern over the product as illogical / irrational is completely disingenuous.
Frankly... no, I don't think it is. In absence of any documented health issues, in absence of any reason to suspect danger, what is the logical, rational reason for concern?
You may not like it[1], and if enough people don't like the idea that may be cause to stop selling it, but calling it unsafe is definitely both ignorant and irrational.
[0] http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnDetailNavigatio...
[1] Which is also pretty irrational, because it's pretty much the same thing as ground beef, just slightly more so... but no accounting for taste.
> characterising all concern over the product as illogical / irrational is completely disingenuous.
Frankly... no, I don't think it is. In absence of any documented health issues, in absence of any reason to suspect danger, what is the logical, rational reason for concern?
You may not like it[1], and if enough people don't like the idea that may be cause to stop selling it, but calling it unsafe is definitely both ignorant and irrational.
[0] http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnDetailNavigatio...
[1] Which is also pretty irrational, because it's pretty much the same thing as ground beef, just slightly more so... but no accounting for taste.
Well if that's your position there's not much chance of reasoned debate really.
I simply highlighted that concern over the product originated from a USDA microbiologist. That fact refutes your characterisation of all opposition as entirely 'hysterical'.
At no point have I said ammonium hydroxide is unsafe, or that the product is unsafe. I simply pointed out that a qualified scientist raised concerns very early on with the product being approved for human consumption.
I simply highlighted that concern over the product originated from a USDA microbiologist. That fact refutes your characterisation of all opposition as entirely 'hysterical'.
At no point have I said ammonium hydroxide is unsafe, or that the product is unsafe. I simply pointed out that a qualified scientist raised concerns very early on with the product being approved for human consumption.
> a qualified scientist raised concerns very early on with the product being approved for human consumption.
He did not. I don't think you read that article very closely.
"It looks like pink slime. That is what I said." Asked if he and his family still eat hamburgers, Zirnstein sighed. "The labels aren't clear, so we don't eat it. That's the thing," he said. "It isn't freaking labeled."
He never said it wasn't fit for human consumption, because it was and is. He just thought it was gross. His issue, which is a reasonable criticism, is that the product was being sold as plain ground beef despite having undergone additional processing.
I'm sorry if my tone is very absolute, but that's because this is a very clear-cut, black and white issue. Ammonium hydroxide is a GRAS chemical which is harmless to put on meat and renders it safe for consumption. You may want to not eat overly-processed beef, and you may rightly argue you have a right to know, but any health or safety concerns are absolutely specious.
He did not. I don't think you read that article very closely.
"It looks like pink slime. That is what I said." Asked if he and his family still eat hamburgers, Zirnstein sighed. "The labels aren't clear, so we don't eat it. That's the thing," he said. "It isn't freaking labeled."
He never said it wasn't fit for human consumption, because it was and is. He just thought it was gross. His issue, which is a reasonable criticism, is that the product was being sold as plain ground beef despite having undergone additional processing.
I'm sorry if my tone is very absolute, but that's because this is a very clear-cut, black and white issue. Ammonium hydroxide is a GRAS chemical which is harmless to put on meat and renders it safe for consumption. You may want to not eat overly-processed beef, and you may rightly argue you have a right to know, but any health or safety concerns are absolutely specious.
Ah, you're quite right, I made a completely false interpretation of his position. Apologies!
However my position has simply been that the response to pink slime was not entirely irrational / hysterical, considering it originated in the private communication of a Government Microbiologist.
I'd also refute your assertion that any health or safety concerns are absolutely specious. It's a very low-quality meat product that is otherwise not fit for human consumption, so on an industrial scale any rational consumer could see that there are potential negative health consequences from some failure in the production line. Approved industrial procedures like feeding cows MBM have triggered BSE in the past, so a natural wariness is entirely reasonable and rational.
The emotional response might certainly outweigh the actual risk, but some of the responses in this thread seem to cast concern / opposition in the same light as tribal people scared that photographs steal souls.
However my position has simply been that the response to pink slime was not entirely irrational / hysterical, considering it originated in the private communication of a Government Microbiologist.
I'd also refute your assertion that any health or safety concerns are absolutely specious. It's a very low-quality meat product that is otherwise not fit for human consumption, so on an industrial scale any rational consumer could see that there are potential negative health consequences from some failure in the production line. Approved industrial procedures like feeding cows MBM have triggered BSE in the past, so a natural wariness is entirely reasonable and rational.
The emotional response might certainly outweigh the actual risk, but some of the responses in this thread seem to cast concern / opposition in the same light as tribal people scared that photographs steal souls.
Definitely a good point. I think the thing I'm trying to get at is that those concerns apply to processed foods in general, as you point out; you take the same risk every time you eat a hot dog, or frankly any commercial meat which comes off an assembly line.
I'm not saying that's not worthy of concern-- of course, it is. It's just the hysteria surrounding this processed food in particular, especially the "ammonia bath" meme which even made its way to HN, that really irritated me (as has probably been obvious :)
I'm not saying that's not worthy of concern-- of course, it is. It's just the hysteria surrounding this processed food in particular, especially the "ammonia bath" meme which even made its way to HN, that really irritated me (as has probably been obvious :)
If you have a problem with ammonia used in food preparation, then don't eat ice cream either.
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Ammonia-leak-at-ice-cr...
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Ammonia-leak-at-ice-cr...
I don't per se. I have a problem with classifying the objection to pink slime as strictly born out of ignorance.
I think it was two things mainly:
1) Pictures of mechanically-separated meat (the pink soft-serve) misattributed as LFTB.
2) Hysteria around the use of ammonia, which people read as "poison" rather than "food-safe antimicrobial agent".
It was a dark day for reasoned discourse.
1) Pictures of mechanically-separated meat (the pink soft-serve) misattributed as LFTB.
2) Hysteria around the use of ammonia, which people read as "poison" rather than "food-safe antimicrobial agent".
It was a dark day for reasoned discourse.
Pink slime is gross. A once-bacteria-laden mush of animal leftovers? No thanks. I don't eat food purely for nutrition (it's easy to get enough nutrition) but because it is appetizing too. Pink slime sounds tasteless and textureless. Health wise am not too worried about the ammonia itself, but by the implication that the meat is so full of bacteria that it requires a relatively large dose of ammonia to make it edible.
On the other hand, I have no problem eating lab meat, 'chemically treated' and genetically modified food in principle, depending on the exact chemicals used. For example, I would like to avoid food coated with dangerous pesticides (including if the plant was GM'd to produce the pesticide). Benign pesticides are fine.
I imagine lab meat could be even cleaner and more appetizing than normal meat, once the process has developed enough.
On the other hand, I have no problem eating lab meat, 'chemically treated' and genetically modified food in principle, depending on the exact chemicals used. For example, I would like to avoid food coated with dangerous pesticides (including if the plant was GM'd to produce the pesticide). Benign pesticides are fine.
I imagine lab meat could be even cleaner and more appetizing than normal meat, once the process has developed enough.
> Certified organic food is often treated with chemicals, sometimes the same chemicals as non-organic, but at different dilutions and with different application methods.
This would be considered non-sense where I live (Belgium). Could you provide american examples of well-known certified organic food that is often treated with chemicals ?
This would be considered non-sense where I live (Belgium). Could you provide american examples of well-known certified organic food that is often treated with chemicals ?
"Chemicals" make no sense. Water is a chemical. The potassium, nitrogen and oxygen found in organic fertilizer can't be distinguised from their non-organic counterparts.
Chemicals is rarely used by the media or in casual conversation with its original and intended meaning (chemistry lexical field) but I believe nonetheless it always refers to "synthetic" pesticides.
So for the sake of the conversation: I am curious about american certified organic food known for being often treated with synthetic pesticides.
Note: is there really some confusion with the word "chemicals" in this context ? Wouldn't anybody understand it in its intended meaning (synthetic) or is it an american thing ? I think organic food has even a worse reputation in the US than in WE.
So for the sake of the conversation: I am curious about american certified organic food known for being often treated with synthetic pesticides.
Note: is there really some confusion with the word "chemicals" in this context ? Wouldn't anybody understand it in its intended meaning (synthetic) or is it an american thing ? I think organic food has even a worse reputation in the US than in WE.
> Wouldn't anybody understand it in its intended meaning (synthetic)
My point was that there isn't necessarily any difference between "synthetic" and natural.
This organic vs. synthetic is largely a media/propaganda driven misconception. What is important is caring for the plants and animals, and not abusing pesticides, fertilizers and medication.
It's the same thing in herbal medicine and health food. Just because a product comes from a plant it isn't necessarily good for you or risk free.
Aside from that, I feel "chemicals" in farming more often refer to fertilizers than pesticides, here in Sweden.
My point was that there isn't necessarily any difference between "synthetic" and natural.
This organic vs. synthetic is largely a media/propaganda driven misconception. What is important is caring for the plants and animals, and not abusing pesticides, fertilizers and medication.
It's the same thing in herbal medicine and health food. Just because a product comes from a plant it isn't necessarily good for you or risk free.
Aside from that, I feel "chemicals" in farming more often refer to fertilizers than pesticides, here in Sweden.
I'd expect lab meat is a different kind of beast altogether when it comes to who is funding the development of it.
This robot has an obvious business/marketing plan: the moment its better & cheaper than humans, it'll start to replace them everywhere. Hit that point and it'll sell in more or less known quantities. Don't hit it, it's (at best) a technology looking for a problem.
Lab grown meat is who-the-fuck-knows R&D. How cheap does it need to be to sell how much of it/ How do we know when it tastes good enough. Who will buy it when it just hits the shelves. Who will buy it ten years after. etc. etc.
Two completely different and probably non-competing buckets of time & money.
This robot has an obvious business/marketing plan: the moment its better & cheaper than humans, it'll start to replace them everywhere. Hit that point and it'll sell in more or less known quantities. Don't hit it, it's (at best) a technology looking for a problem.
Lab grown meat is who-the-fuck-knows R&D. How cheap does it need to be to sell how much of it/ How do we know when it tastes good enough. Who will buy it when it just hits the shelves. Who will buy it ten years after. etc. etc.
Two completely different and probably non-competing buckets of time & money.
Agree with you apart from "non-competing". They may not compete in terms of who wants to fund the research, but if both are successful then they would very much be in competition with each other.
As far as I know, chickens are still slaughtered by cutting their necks. The failure rate of that is probably about as low as you could possibly get in the entire meat industry.
Regardless, money being spent on deboning technology is not automatically money that lab meat research missed out on. Research is not quite that zero sum..
Regardless, money being spent on deboning technology is not automatically money that lab meat research missed out on. Research is not quite that zero sum..
I'd expect a paradox of thrift situation to apply here; if prices go down due to efficiency, consumption will increase, likely to a point where the number of slaughters would actually increase.
Or at least restaurants / fast food will use it in more dishes. Look at how McDonald's brings back the McRib when poultry prices go down[1].
1) http://www.theawl.com/2011/11/a-conspiracy-of-hogs-the-mcrib...
1) http://www.theawl.com/2011/11/a-conspiracy-of-hogs-the-mcrib...
"We did not understand the science of cutting," says Mr. McMurray, rubbing his hands together. "This is when you appreciate what a human can do."
The above is probably that hardest step engineers / programmers have to deal with when doing this type of thing. It comes sometime after the realization that some things human's do are pretty hard.
The above is probably that hardest step engineers / programmers have to deal with when doing this type of thing. It comes sometime after the realization that some things human's do are pretty hard.
I think that one of the main "techniques" that humans use is continuous feedback - we don't decide exactly what path to use before we even start cutting, we just start cutting and see what happens and adjust as we proceed.
Probably, we are after all is said and done really high-end pattern matching machines and we keep thinking about things. I just wish more schools would teach what amazing pieces of work humanity is and save engineers a lot of startup time on new projects. It would be better if people started new projects with a respect for what humans can really do.
I was about to comment, that I would love to see a video of the robot-machinery. But then I clicked back to the article, and alas, there is!
So this will increase the slaughter and inhumane treatment towards other sentient creatures. Put another blind eye to slaughterhouses. Better people should get graphic reminders of where their meat comes from than put another layer on the plastic packaging through using a machine.
Losing empathy towards living creatures means reducing empathy for humans as well. A controversial statement, but i am sure one can search that out within themselves.
Losing empathy towards living creatures means reducing empathy for humans as well. A controversial statement, but i am sure one can search that out within themselves.
I really don't think having some poor people working in slaughterhouses, treated slightly better than the animals they butcher (but only slightly) really improves anyone's sense of empathy for animals (or humans). That ship sailed a long time ago, around when we got factory farming or really once any family didn't contain at least one farmer (1800s?)
To anecdotally confirm what you said: There was a "scandal" in Germany last year where a school slaughtered and barbecued a hare. (Students were around 10/11 years old) Parents were outraged, basically arguing 'it should be everyone's choice to either know or ignore where meat comes from'.
Did you read the article? The robot just separates the meat from the bone of chicken that are already dead. Robots won't increase the number of kills - consumer demand will.
Interestingly, robots might even reduce the inhumane treatment towards these animals, which is, if I understand correctly, most often the result of cost-saving.
Interestingly, robots might even reduce the inhumane treatment towards these animals, which is, if I understand correctly, most often the result of cost-saving.
More meat from each chicken could lead to less chickens killed, on the other hand cheaper production could lead to cheaper prices which could lead to a rise in demand...
But as a non-vegetarian I'm pretty indifferent to which animals we eat more of.
But as a non-vegetarian I'm pretty indifferent to which animals we eat more of.
My grandmother, who raises chicken, likes them as much as most people I know like their dogs, and yet she has no problem killing and eating them.
Your view of reduced empathy is simplistic and wrong.
Your view of reduced empathy is simplistic and wrong.
So you are saying your grandmother is very compassionate?
So this will increase the slaughter and inhumane treatment towards other sentient creatures.
When did chickens become sentient?
When did chickens become sentient?
Sure, we know what it means. Does any of that apply to chickens? Chickens are stupid, really stupid.
Well yes, that's why I just posted the link to the article which explains why they are sentient.
A more interesting, thoughtful piece on this is http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_l...
A more interesting, thoughtful piece on this is http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_l...
You are going to have to help me out and at least try to make an argument instead of linking to others. That wikipedia page doesn't suggest anything in your supporting as far as I can tell besides 'when talking about animal rights, the ability to feel pain is a sufficient argument' and backs that statement up with 'higher functioning is not required because no matter how crippled, humans are still sentient'. This is an emotional argument and I am forced to say that ratiponallly no, humans that are sufficiently disabled are not sentient.
The lobster article just starts with the premise that they are sentient, dismisses the complete absence of brain structures that, if we lacked, we would likely be considered braindead, and say 'but they don't like being boiled!' Terribly unconvincing.
The lobster article just starts with the premise that they are sentient, dismisses the complete absence of brain structures that, if we lacked, we would likely be considered braindead, and say 'but they don't like being boiled!' Terribly unconvincing.
The first sentence of that Wikipedia page clarifies that animals are sentient? "Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences."
The 'Consider the Lobster' article simply investigates the philosophical idea that the ability to suffer is the test for sentience and applies it to lobsters, noting how furiously they attempt to escape pain.
Sentience does not imply that living creatures must have the same biological structures to 'feel, perceive, or be conscious' so your point that they are absent brain structures we have seems irrelevant when considering the definition of the word.
The 'Consider the Lobster' article simply investigates the philosophical idea that the ability to suffer is the test for sentience and applies it to lobsters, noting how furiously they attempt to escape pain.
Sentience does not imply that living creatures must have the same biological structures to 'feel, perceive, or be conscious' so your point that they are absent brain structures we have seems irrelevant when considering the definition of the word.
Could my roomba be said to have sentience if programmed to respond to undesirable stimuli in a sufficiently 'furious' manner?
No, because as an inanimate object it has no capacity for suffering or self-awareness.
How do you know it's an inanimate object, if it behaves indistinguishably from a boiling lobster?
Well the simplest answer: because a roomba is not a living thing.
Regardless of how sophisticated Roomba Mk #9999 is in aping the behaviour of living things, it itself is not living and so is not sentient: "Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences."
I'm partial to Roger Penrose' position on AI, and his interpretation of Gödel's incompleteness theorem and its implications for Strong AI.
It is impossible, and therefore futile, to create consciousness through construction of algorithms, no matter how complex, as the mind is non-algorithmic.
I know there was recent HN exasperation on the apparent 'misapplication' of Gödel's theorem to the mind / matter problem, but I"d dispute the implication that it is misapplied through ignorance. It is simply educated disagreement between two opposing philosophical positions.
Many of the issues around materialism / physicalism / computationalism and the mind / matter problem are covered here http://rational-buddhism.blogspot.com. Yes, it's from a Buddhist perspective, but you'll quickly find a lot of articles seem to cover the issues from a computer science perspective.
If the start of that link requires too much setup for your liking, I'd recommend having a look at http://rational-buddhism.blogspot.com/2012/02/church-turing-... first.
Regardless of how sophisticated Roomba Mk #9999 is in aping the behaviour of living things, it itself is not living and so is not sentient: "Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences."
I'm partial to Roger Penrose' position on AI, and his interpretation of Gödel's incompleteness theorem and its implications for Strong AI.
It is impossible, and therefore futile, to create consciousness through construction of algorithms, no matter how complex, as the mind is non-algorithmic.
I know there was recent HN exasperation on the apparent 'misapplication' of Gödel's theorem to the mind / matter problem, but I"d dispute the implication that it is misapplied through ignorance. It is simply educated disagreement between two opposing philosophical positions.
Many of the issues around materialism / physicalism / computationalism and the mind / matter problem are covered here http://rational-buddhism.blogspot.com. Yes, it's from a Buddhist perspective, but you'll quickly find a lot of articles seem to cover the issues from a computer science perspective.
If the start of that link requires too much setup for your liking, I'd recommend having a look at http://rational-buddhism.blogspot.com/2012/02/church-turing-... first.
Penrose's position boils down to him being uncomfortable with the idea that Gödel's theorems might apply to himself. His books have received criticism from the majority of the academic community and his suggestion for where the non-algorithmic nature of the mind may come from has not seen empirical confirmation. Simply put, it is just wishful thinking.
Regardless, Penrose himself dismisses the role of any supernatural factors; this leaves us open to the possibility that a non-algorithic but nevertheless synthetic intelligence could be created (and in theory wedged into my roomba). Orch-OR does not require 'meat'.
Regardless, Penrose himself dismisses the role of any supernatural factors; this leaves us open to the possibility that a non-algorithic but nevertheless synthetic intelligence could be created (and in theory wedged into my roomba). Orch-OR does not require 'meat'.
This strikes me as an emotional distinction then, not a rational one. You'll have to excuse me if I don't give it much attention.
why debone . its tastier cocked with bones, and while eating you debone ...
It's useful when you're using chicken as an ingredient in prepared foods.
But it's sad to see the amount of sophistication in deboning when the actual slaughtering still seems to be a "mostly works" thing. I wish they'd invest the time and money in lab meat instead.