3 ms·

> 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

> 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

> 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".