4 ms·
People already know what it means all over HN. They have basically already said that lamda is not sentient. So no need to even define it when we already know wh
by deltaonezero 4y ago
People already know what it means all over HN. They have basically already said that lamda is not sentient. So no need to even define it when we already know what it is (and lamda is not it).
- snmx999 4y agoI am not arguing that lambda is sentient. I am saying that to even have that discussion a commond understanding of meaning of "sentient" has to be established. Otherwise you cannot even establish a consensus or say people agree on the matter. You say "So no need to even define it when we already know what it is". I don't think you know when you don't know what "it" is for other people.
- deltaonezero 4y agoI mean they know in the sense that they can point to any random object and say "that object is sentient" or "that object is not sentient." We cannot articulate the definition, but the fact that when we look at something we can tell you if it's sentient or not, implies that we know what sentience is.