3 ms·

> To-date, it appears that sentience arises naturally as a byproduct of increasing the number of neurons in a network. Humans are sentient; flies and mosquitoes

> To-date, it appears that sentience arises naturally as a byproduct of increasing the number of neurons in a network. Humans are sentient; flies and mosquitoes are not. The author is arguing for the possibility that a computer program might be sentient. But he's also stating that certain animals are absolutely not sentient. This seems odd.

vemv 4y ago
It's not odd at all. Where your argumentation falls down is when you say "certain animals" as if all animals were alike, and he just picked two at random. He picked two small species with brains that are orders of magnitude smaller than a dolphin's or a human's. It should be no surprise that intelligence/awareness is a gradient from "zero" to "full", from bacteria to humans, correlating strongly to brain size / number of neurons.
- tejohnso 4y ago
  > as if all animals were alike Not as if all animals are alike. As if any animal that is actually alive, with a brain sufficient to fly, reproduce, eat, digest, observe, react, etc is much more likely to be sentient than a computer program. > It should be no surprise that intelligence/awareness is a gradient from "zero" to "full", from bacteria to humans, correlating strongly to brain size / number of neurons That's no surprise. So where, from "zero" to "full" does a computer program with zero neurons fall? And why would one argue for it being possibly sentient if one thinks that some actual animals with greater than zero neurons are not sentient?
  - vemv 4y ago
    > As if any animal that is actually alive, with a brain sufficient to fly, reproduce, eat, digest, observe, react, etc is much more likely to be sentient than a computer program. Again it's a gradient, it's not a binary "sentient / not sentient" thing. More interestingly, the abilities to "fly, reproduce, eat, digest, observe, react", especially in insects, can be seen as automaton-like activities. Insects are simply doing what they are programmed (by evolution) to do. They absolutely cannot think "outside of the box" and creatively solve a situation, realise that they're stuck in a loop, etc. These examples are precisely expored in some of Hofstadter's works (I'm a Strange Loop in particular, IIRC) which are commonly appreciated on this forum. > So where, from "zero" to "full" does a computer program with zero neurons fall? And why would one argue for it being possibly sentient if one thinks that some actual animals with greater than zero neurons are not sentient? You are equating "neurons" to "intelligence" here. Neurons can be seen as the low-level hardware that runs things. Where intelligence arises is at a much higher level - it's software. As we know it today, it runs on neurons (the more the better), but it's not written in stone that it has to be that way - perhaps a successful AI can bypass the neurons business altogether and implement a program that juggles concepts on a different "hardware".

vemv 4y ago

It's not odd at all. Where your argumentation falls down is when you say "certain animals" as if all animals were alike, and he just picked two at random. He picked two small species with brains that are orders of magnitude smaller than a dolphin's or a human's. It should be no surprise that intelligence/awareness is a gradient from "zero" to "full", from bacteria to humans, correlating strongly to brain size / number of neurons.

tejohnso 4y ago
> as if all animals were alike Not as if all animals are alike. As if any animal that is actually alive, with a brain sufficient to fly, reproduce, eat, digest, observe, react, etc is much more likely to be sentient than a computer program. > It should be no surprise that intelligence/awareness is a gradient from "zero" to "full", from bacteria to humans, correlating strongly to brain size / number of neurons That's no surprise. So where, from "zero" to "full" does a computer program with zero neurons fall? And why would one argue for it being possibly sentient if one thinks that some actual animals with greater than zero neurons are not sentient?
- vemv 4y ago
  > As if any animal that is actually alive, with a brain sufficient to fly, reproduce, eat, digest, observe, react, etc is much more likely to be sentient than a computer program. Again it's a gradient, it's not a binary "sentient / not sentient" thing. More interestingly, the abilities to "fly, reproduce, eat, digest, observe, react", especially in insects, can be seen as automaton-like activities. Insects are simply doing what they are programmed (by evolution) to do. They absolutely cannot think "outside of the box" and creatively solve a situation, realise that they're stuck in a loop, etc. These examples are precisely expored in some of Hofstadter's works (I'm a Strange Loop in particular, IIRC) which are commonly appreciated on this forum. > So where, from "zero" to "full" does a computer program with zero neurons fall? And why would one argue for it being possibly sentient if one thinks that some actual animals with greater than zero neurons are not sentient? You are equating "neurons" to "intelligence" here. Neurons can be seen as the low-level hardware that runs things. Where intelligence arises is at a much higher level - it's software. As we know it today, it runs on neurons (the more the better), but it's not written in stone that it has to be that way - perhaps a successful AI can bypass the neurons business altogether and implement a program that juggles concepts on a different "hardware".