3 ms·

We are already drawing lots of lines when antromorphising animals. Does an orangutan give meaning to its drawings? An elephant when it paints? A parakeet or a m

by soco 4y ago

We are already drawing lots of lines when antromorphising animals. Does an orangutan give meaning to its drawings? An elephant when it paints? A parakeet or a magpie when decorating their nests? Even fishes do decorations to attract mates, so their mates definitely draw some meaning from those actions. Now if you define "meaning" as something only humans can draw then okay machines won't have that meaning - although we both agreed each human will draw a different meaning anyway. This of course also excludes any sentient aliens from drawing meanings from human art, because well they are not humans. And that we humans will never understand a fish's art because we are not fishes. So meaning is both individual, and species-related? Or either? Which one is now the real meaning, the one the individual draws (then species is not relevant, so why not including machines) or the one the species draws (then it's also a group meaning, so again why not including machines)? Or maybe your corner stone argument is "machinery is inanimate" - which would be another discussion by itself...

verisimi 4y ago
I don't think anthropomorphising animals is in the same category as anthropomorphising inanimate objects. A child might believe their teddy bear to have a character and life, but this is being projected on to the toy by the child. An animal however has its own experience, life, etc. What I've said can be objectively determined, do you agree? I would agree that animals do have a life, but they are not at the same intellectual level as humans. You mention art though - this is a bad example for me - one that is not clear in meaning to humans. I have my own interpretation of what art is. But just that - that I have an interpretation of what art is, this is a difference between humans and complex animals. It is evident that we handle complex concepts, and play with them. This is not the case for animals, and if there is some nascent behaviour like this, it is nothing like at the level that humans do. That covers my views (more or less) on the differences between humans, animals, and inanimate objects (computers, toys). The real point I was making though, is that meaning resides inside oneself. That is where the experience is 'enlivened'. You can watch cartoons move on a screen, actors move on a screen, other people in real life - but all that is just visual/auditory inputs. What gives it meaning is that you 'observe' this. I know people talk about AI becoming sentient etc, but to me this is an impossibility. AI can no more become sentient than can the cartoons on the screen, or stones on the beach. AI can however, give the impression of sentience, better than a toy or something like that. But this is not conscious awareness any more than an actor turning to the screen and talking to the viewer is an example of the TV being sentient. I understand that many scientific people have been trained to objectify themselves, and consider their 'anecdotal experience' as irrelevant or as a rounding error. I think this is a massive error personally, but those with that scientific mindset will not like what I'm saying. There is something special about each individual - the experience of consciousness is infinitely valuable - and although it is possible to conceive of objects doing a passable or great impression of a conscious experience, the difference is akin to seeing a fire on a screen, and experiencing it in person - ie a world of difference.
- soco 4y ago
  The discussion was specifically about art, that's why I mentioned art. To come again to my point, a human thinks it's sentient because a human thinks it's sentient (not kidding). We agree that towards the exterior, we can get an illusion of sentience from a TV set. But towards the interior? I only claim my neighbor is sentient because I claim I am sentient and the neighbor is human thus will be sentient as well. I don't have any more access to their sentience than I have access inside the "black box" TV set's sentience. So it all revolves around my own sentience, used as yardstick for all humans and to some extent, animals (plus the old debates about slaves, women, aliens...). I personally think we are all sentient because I think I am sentient. So... if a machine thinks it's sentient, will it be sentient? In a different way? Is there only one sentience? My consciousness is infinitely valuable (to me!) thus any human's will be (maybe less than mine, eh), and a machine's not much (but how much?). Or a rat's? Oh well, biology is one thing, and philosophy is another thing and they're definitely not mapping 1:1.
  - verisimi 4y ago
    This is what I said in the beginning, so I think we broadly agree. > It's going to come as a surprise to many that it is only to be found in the individual. Not in countries, nor in religious groups, or in football teams, or political parties, or any form of collective endeavour. The meaning is inside. Where you say: > So... if a machine thinks it's sentient, will it be sentient? I dispute the assumption you are making. A machine can't think. There is no sentience occurring, even if it appears on the outside that there is. And also, while it is fair to assume that other creatures that look like you are similar to you, it is not a fair assumption to think all things, inanimate things, have the same degree of sentience as you experience.
    - soco 4y ago
      My misunderstanding is probably on the very definition of "sentient", which the dictionaries limit to having senses and feelings. Actually not only dictionaries, because according to different legislations quite a few animals are classified as sentient beings. Now a machine will necessarily have senses, while feelings are at the least signaling mechanisms. None of which are really something too fancy, so you must be meaning something else/more to the sentience, something not covered by dictionaries. Something more that "the ineffable" or "je ne sais quoi"... PS: a machine can't think? Why did you say that? Because it cannot be sentient? Is thinking the difference making one sentient? Then maybe we should analyze "thinking" instead, as it's a term definitely easier to check.

by soco 4y ago

verisimi 4y ago

I don't think anthropomorphising animals is in the same category as anthropomorphising inanimate objects. A child might believe their teddy bear to have a character and life, but this is being projected on to the toy by the child. An animal however has its own experience, life, etc. What I've said can be objectively determined, do you agree? I would agree that animals do have a life, but they are not at the same intellectual level as humans. You mention art though - this is a bad example for me - one that is not clear in meaning to humans. I have my own interpretation of what art is. But just that - that I have an interpretation of what art is, this is a difference between humans and complex animals. It is evident that we handle complex concepts, and play with them. This is not the case for animals, and if there is some nascent behaviour like this, it is nothing like at the level that humans do. That covers my views (more or less) on the differences between humans, animals, and inanimate objects (computers, toys). The real point I was making though, is that meaning resides inside oneself. That is where the experience is 'enlivened'. You can watch cartoons move on a screen, actors move on a screen, other people in real life - but all that is just visual/auditory inputs. What gives it meaning is that you 'observe' this. I know people talk about AI becoming sentient etc, but to me this is an impossibility. AI can no more become sentient than can the cartoons on the screen, or stones on the beach. AI can however, give the impression of sentience, better than a toy or something like that. But this is not conscious awareness any more than an actor turning to the screen and talking to the viewer is an example of the TV being sentient. I understand that many scientific people have been trained to objectify themselves, and consider their 'anecdotal experience' as irrelevant or as a rounding error. I think this is a massive error personally, but those with that scientific mindset will not like what I'm saying. There is something special about each individual - the experience of consciousness is infinitely valuable - and although it is possible to conceive of objects doing a passable or great impression of a conscious experience, the difference is akin to seeing a fire on a screen, and experiencing it in person - ie a world of difference.

soco 4y ago
The discussion was specifically about art, that's why I mentioned art. To come again to my point, a human thinks it's sentient because a human thinks it's sentient (not kidding). We agree that towards the exterior, we can get an illusion of sentience from a TV set. But towards the interior? I only claim my neighbor is sentient because I claim I am sentient and the neighbor is human thus will be sentient as well. I don't have any more access to their sentience than I have access inside the "black box" TV set's sentience. So it all revolves around my own sentience, used as yardstick for all humans and to some extent, animals (plus the old debates about slaves, women, aliens...). I personally think we are all sentient because I think I am sentient. So... if a machine thinks it's sentient, will it be sentient? In a different way? Is there only one sentience? My consciousness is infinitely valuable (to me!) thus any human's will be (maybe less than mine, eh), and a machine's not much (but how much?). Or a rat's? Oh well, biology is one thing, and philosophy is another thing and they're definitely not mapping 1:1.
- verisimi 4y ago
  This is what I said in the beginning, so I think we broadly agree. > It's going to come as a surprise to many that it is only to be found in the individual. Not in countries, nor in religious groups, or in football teams, or political parties, or any form of collective endeavour. The meaning is inside. Where you say: > So... if a machine thinks it's sentient, will it be sentient? I dispute the assumption you are making. A machine can't think. There is no sentience occurring, even if it appears on the outside that there is. And also, while it is fair to assume that other creatures that look like you are similar to you, it is not a fair assumption to think all things, inanimate things, have the same degree of sentience as you experience.
  - soco 4y ago
    My misunderstanding is probably on the very definition of "sentient", which the dictionaries limit to having senses and feelings. Actually not only dictionaries, because according to different legislations quite a few animals are classified as sentient beings. Now a machine will necessarily have senses, while feelings are at the least signaling mechanisms. None of which are really something too fancy, so you must be meaning something else/more to the sentience, something not covered by dictionaries. Something more that "the ineffable" or "je ne sais quoi"... PS: a machine can't think? Why did you say that? Because it cannot be sentient? Is thinking the difference making one sentient? Then maybe we should analyze "thinking" instead, as it's a term definitely easier to check.