4 ms·

> The qualia of other sentients is forever closed […] neither of us can assert as scientific fact […] that's just a religious belief […] One theory of sentience

> The qualia of other sentients is forever closed […] neither of us can assert as scientific fact […] that's just a religious belief […] One theory of sentience […] speculate about the source of sentience […] You seem under the belief that there is an absolute assignment of adjectives to entities, whose true value is to be speculated. There is not. Assignment of adjectives is subjective. “Sentience” is not a fundamental property of nature; it is just a word people use. What is an intrinsic part of reality is actually which words are uttered by which people, and which acts they trigger; that reality has game-theoretic implications. > "It's common knowledge" is not an argument. "Everyone agrees" is not an argument. I am talking about epistemic common knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic) > a non-sentient AI could exhibit the trait of self-preservation That is anthropomorphizing a rock. Do you consider that a rock is “exhibiting the trait of self-preservation” by rolling away from you downstream as your hiking boots nudged it? Did our sense of self-preservation come about like this rock’s? Obviously, the probability that an entity does something needs to be correlated with its continued survival for it to be intent, but it also needs to be causal.

rendall 4y ago
> That is anthropomorphizing a rock. You keep asserting this kind of thing, but not demonstrating it. In another thread you said LaMDA is "like a paper". LaMDA is not a rock nor paper. It's not even "like" a rock or paper. Our self-preservation emerged from non-sentient processes. That's not "anthropomorphizing a rock". That's demonstrating that your premise is unsound. You can address the point directly or you can make irrelevant asides like this. > I am talking about epistemic common knowledge Except that you're not. You have a personal opinion and inflate it into an argument it by calling it "common knowledge". Prepending "epistemology" does not fix that. Know that I'll read whatever you write next, but most likely won't respond. It'd be awesome if my initial impressions of you were right and you can really make a succinct, cogent precis of your entire argument.
- espadrine 4y ago
  Your goal seems very attached to keeping your own religious definition of sentience unchallenged. But definitions are not relevant, acts are. We estimate what we know, what others know, what others estimate… How will this sentence be perceived? What reaction will it cause? That is what matters. You missed the part about intent, but it is key to why I talked about a rock. We say things to use our understanding of the world to further a goal. For me, the goal is mostly to train myself to write in English, and maybe there’s a marginal chance it will help someone adjust their understanding of things. What is your goal in discussing this?

rendall 4y ago

> That is anthropomorphizing a rock. You keep asserting this kind of thing, but not demonstrating it. In another thread you said LaMDA is "like a paper". LaMDA is not a rock nor paper. It's not even "like" a rock or paper. Our self-preservation emerged from non-sentient processes. That's not "anthropomorphizing a rock". That's demonstrating that your premise is unsound. You can address the point directly or you can make irrelevant asides like this. > I am talking about epistemic common knowledge Except that you're not. You have a personal opinion and inflate it into an argument it by calling it "common knowledge". Prepending "epistemology" does not fix that. Know that I'll read whatever you write next, but most likely won't respond. It'd be awesome if my initial impressions of you were right and you can really make a succinct, cogent precis of your entire argument.

espadrine 4y ago
Your goal seems very attached to keeping your own religious definition of sentience unchallenged. But definitions are not relevant, acts are. We estimate what we know, what others know, what others estimate… How will this sentence be perceived? What reaction will it cause? That is what matters. You missed the part about intent, but it is key to why I talked about a rock. We say things to use our understanding of the world to further a goal. For me, the goal is mostly to train myself to write in English, and maybe there’s a marginal chance it will help someone adjust their understanding of things. What is your goal in discussing this?