ZzzleepingBear

It may be the exact point from your persepective. But you have to understand that we don't need to have a scientific answer of proof about what sentience is according to science. When we already know that computers and the data that is stored in googles servers are not to be misstaken for having the slightest of feeling. No nerve endings is to be found in googles servers or quantum computers, so sentience can be ruled out from the equation. It's that simple really. This is true. And science may never be able to answear this, since sentience is not to be messured. But sentience is not a typicall measurable thing to begin with, It merely serves as an acknowledgment of a feeling being. Non living matter as different metals and silicone components, plastics etc, are not to be misstaken as sentience. These non living materials doesn't just magically come alive one day because alot of data has been used to mimic common use of language, or even advanced use for that matter. It is cool that AI can mimic, but you need to be grounded in more fundamental understandings than letting yourself be persuaded and decived by certain rhetoric that it use.

I would agree if the question was to fully explain what sentience is or how it came about. But the on going debate is not to be confused with exactly what sentience is or why. The question is, is AI sentient or not. So the fact that we use the word sentience at all, implies that there is atleast some merit to what the word means based on it's current definitions. And a computer made of man made components doesn't fit the description of a feeling being as far as I'm aware. Just as boats have been named and can move, but does that make them sentient aswell?

Thanks, that was certainly an interesting read. His post cofirmed to me even more so, that no AI is sentient. It also become apparent that he has grown a attachment bond to this AI, but that doesn't help his case of suspecting this AI to be sentient. He also mentioned that Google don't see any merit or intereset to invest into the suspicion of wheter this AI may be sentient or not. That we so far also know to be his personal suspicious belief, and not even a team of researchers interest.

This chiropractor is amazing in explaining how stress in muscles and joints goes togheter.

Yeah, but that is typically around more sensitive topics or certain belief structures. I'd say that our conversation so far, is as universal as it get's, so we may only disagree or make jokes around technical definitions. So I wouldn't worry that much of this as being particularly sensetive in a cultural sense. But I get your point.

Me neither, I consider sentience as a acknowledgment of a feeling being as the word suggest. Ok if you say so. Jokes usually don't require an explanation. But it is also possible that I just don't share your sense of humor.

Alright I get what you are saying now. You simply don't acknowledge sentience as a valid definition of feeling being. I suggest that you don't use the word sentient if you don't agree with the definition. Or simply use other words that are more accurate to what you try to express. This is a clear contradiction of how to use language. I hope you see that.

You keep mentioning object. If you believe that object and being are both considered to be sentient, then you have simply misunderstood the implicit meaning that sentience are meant to point towards. The reflection you mention are true, but it's true because scentience is the acknowledgment of another feeling being. Something that can't be found in a AI program. Even google would oppose this sentience claim of their own or any AI program. It's not a coincidence that the former google engineer had to go, by making such a misleading claims on behalf of the AI project.

You are conflating object and being with this kind of reasoning. But from reading previous responses from you in this thread, you also seem to have your own definition of sentience. So I would not criticise your personal belief in this regard.

By actions. Sentience wouldn't have any merit or be understood as a word without the acknowledgment in how we differentiate between objects and beings. If sentience was anyting you imagined it to be, you might find yourself in a rescue mission to save rocks from drowning in the sea if you are conflating all limits that words impose. It's just not useful to say that sentience is what ever you can imagine it to be if you are explicitly talking about what sentience means. Regarding psychadelics. Psychadelics can help to conflate all believed differences such as "object" and "being" to get the needed overview of the world as relative and illusory state that it may be. But even alcohol could be said to be the elixir and deepest source of confidence. And to get confident, you just need to drink the right amount of alcohol to understand confidence. I'm not suggesting that sobriety is the only way of life, it's just that you need to be aware of what certain understanding may be rooted in. So to not assume and conflate certain experiences with understanding.

Yes yes I got this. My last post was a bit sloppy in describing this. If you and I are unaware of a being right now. Then why would we make an assumtion of a being that we have no clue of? I think you need to flesh out your hypothetical ideas a bit more inorder to be able to make some distinctions. Otherwise, it's closer to become paranoid than anything else. There is a relative uncertainess to any claim. But if you take such a example and examine it in the right context. I have multiple ways to make most sense and decisions out of that. Depending on your level of intensity with how you say it, I could make a fair assumption that you are joking with me, or it may be real if I sense a deep fear from you telling me that there is a tiger behind me. The setting is also part of the context, so if we are in a smal room and you tell me this with fear. I might suspect that you are tripping balls, or acting really good. So no we can't be 100% sure of anything, but we can define and make distinctions that make a difference in what can be understood in a relative way for mutual understanding.

Sentience may not exist as you wake up from the dream of it. But the same could be said about waking up. What happens to waking up when you woke up? One could then say that there is no waking up. In the relative world of words, they seem to carry meaning. So from a definition standpoint, there are stil merit to the words if we care and choose to use them in a functional way.

While I respect that attempt. You stil make a logical leap of faith when you persist to mention the potential for another being that you in the same sentence mention as being totally unaware of existing. It's like refering to your favorite icecream flavour that you havn't tasted yet. It doesn't make any sense, but it can be said as if it means something. regarding Solipsism, it may have a certain merit to it's meaning. But my impression of peoples claimed solipsism in this forum so far, often come across as extreamly naive at best. It reminds me of people that say that they speak multiple languages because they learned a few words or sentences.

Personal

No problem, I can break it down a bit. In the later part of this sentence, you state: "that you are unaware of". But in the beginning of this premises, you make a assumtion of another being that you yourself stated that you would be unaware of. You are basically asking to "Be aware of what you are not aware of yet." So the whole question becomes nonsensical in how you frame it.

How would you make such a guess, if you where unaware of this other assumed being to begin with? And how is something important, if you are unaware of it's claimed importance.

Nice

How does one become a philosopher?

I think Donald Hoffman has a refreshing angle to what he try to convey. From what I have understood of his theory, is that reality is a non disruptive mind rendering process, rhater than a fixed reality that remains when we don't pay attention to it. This suggest that what we call reality is a relationship of participation between what we look at, and our mental and emotional engagement with what we see. Just as we can read fiction and play fictional characters for hours on end, and get lost in the imagnary world despite it's funamental illusory perceptivness. To dismiss everything he says just because he may identify as a scientist is imo to "throw out the baby with the bathwater." Donald Hoffmans theory is pretty much the same as Tom Cambells theory. Good stuff, just don't make a religion out of it I'd say.

Even the most basic survival is embracing the most efficent ways to live their lives as a collective once they are recognized. So in that sense it is all the same, the acknowledging of efficency. To try to kill more than they die in a video game, is part of seeking efficency in a playful manner. That's why there are certain trends in how you learn to play different online games, once a certain way of playing has been recognized as more efficent way to play by the larger group.

Because it said so ;-)

That's a good question. Can it ever be replaced with dead matter? These are the questions that I don't have any good answer for. It seems impossible from my pov. Another question to that, could be. Do we really need to replace living matter for dead matter?

Natural selection by entertainment value:-)

If we keep it in terms of sentience, the distinguishing factor would be that the living matter have nerves. While dead matter don't. That's the indication that we may show compassion to a living being. And treat dead matter merely according to it's usefulness, and not by it's non existing feelings.

+1 Awesome summary! You have to ask yourself then, what is this computer made of? If a AI display to you that it is in agonizing pain, you may ask the AI, where does it hurt? The AI might say, in my lower 56 Gig RAM.. And your response should then be, but that's just some non living material, how can it hurt? And the AI could tell you, becasue I say so, don't you have any compassion at all? You see, if we can't be sure wheter an AI is simulating or not. Then we might aswell endlessly ask ourselves wheter rocks and plastic are in pain when they break. We don't question wheter rocks and sticks are sentient, but once the right type of metals have been mined from the ground, and the chemical compounds has been figured out, computers and servers get's designed and put togheter to useful communication tools. All electrical circuits whithin any computer, is a passage of low volts of electricy to be able to pass by. Electrical circuits don't have nerves. It's just electricity passing trough a labyrinth of metals. And depending on how these electrical circuits is designed, you get a x amount of possible outcomes of how that electricity will be expressed. A electrical saw is les complicated than googles AI servers, but the difference is the amount of electrical circuits, and what they are designed to do. A electrical saw is not considered Sentien because it haven't been designed to tell you and convice you that it is. A electrical saw have just enough electrical circuits to make its blade move, but it's based on the same building principles that any computer uses. The electrical saw is just much simpler in it's design and most likely has less expensive material for it's required electrical circuits.