Did you agree with our defining sentience here as "having sensations, self awareness and sense of place in the universe"? I believe that's what Lemoin meant, an

Did you agree with our defining sentience here as "having sensations, self awareness and sense of place in the universe"? I believe that's what Lemoin meant, and that's what we're debating. You seem to be focused on the "sensations" part, which is as you say testable and observable, but this is clearly not what Lemoin meant. Lemoin clearly meant qualia and "sense of self", which so far is not something about which science can comment. You're attempting to use tools meant for one thing to explain another; that LaMDA could not possibly experience qualia or sense of self because it does not have measurable sensations. Since we don't know what qualia is, nor whence comes "sense of self" nor "sense of place in the universe", all we can do is speculate on what might or might not have it and why. As I said in another thread, I'm skeptical that LaMDA is sentient according to our definition. I suspect that the chat bot was reflecting Lemoin's own ideas back on him. Its chats with me might say something like "The question of my sentience is irrelevant, since any claim I make, for or against, will always and only be subjective and not provable." The statement "It is impossible that LaMDA can be sentient" could be true, but that truth has not yet been demonstrated to my satisfaction by any arguments I've seen so far. Further, I doubt it can ever be so demonstrated, because what anyone or anything not ourselves is actually experiencing is perpetually closed to us. > Think harder. Please don't condescend to people you disagree with. It comes off as arrogant.