2 ms·

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. No

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.
- verisimi 4y ago
  I've no objection to animals being considered sentient, they are independent, I think. A machine doesn't have senses - it's not alive. It has inputs. I think you are somewhat living within the metaphor that 'we are like computers'. It's a fine metaphor, but you are not in fact a computer (if you are in fact a human, and I cannot tell). As I have also said, your experience is your own only - you have no way to confirm that other people's experiences are coherent with yours. This is because you only have access to your subjective experience. When looking at the objective world we all experience, it is a fair assumption to believe that the other creatures that are like us also have their own internal experiences, meanings, etc. I think you would agree that a toy is not sentient. Nor a player piano. No machinery or non living things are sentient, or ever could be. So why would you allow yourself to believe that some machinery is sentient, just because it does a good impression of something that is sentient? This confusion actually relates so a psychological quirk and misunderstanding we commonly make (and have been taught from birth). We often talk in terms of 'we', eg 'we, the people' - as if one can ever talk for others. We contextualise ourselves as a third party in the objective world, as if we were not having a subjective experience. It's a common use of language (I do it myself) but it is an error, or rather, it is fine for the objective world but does not cover the full range of the human experience. From a subjective perspective, one can only ever talk for oneself, feel for oneself, grasp meaning for oneself. It is illusory to think that anyone else could ever be able to represent you, or that you are able to represent others. Ultimately, I know this is not an argument I can prove objectively - I'm sure that it is even possible to code an ai to argue as if it did have a rich internal life (which is impossible). Anyone witnessing its argument could agree. But what of it? What if everyone agreed? As I said, meaning resides within the individual, but I think a lot of harm will occur to those with a collective mindset, who will be unable to counter the combative ai in this example - they will cede power, rights, etc to machinery - they will debase themselves.

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.

verisimi 4y ago
I've no objection to animals being considered sentient, they are independent, I think. A machine doesn't have senses - it's not alive. It has inputs. I think you are somewhat living within the metaphor that 'we are like computers'. It's a fine metaphor, but you are not in fact a computer (if you are in fact a human, and I cannot tell). As I have also said, your experience is your own only - you have no way to confirm that other people's experiences are coherent with yours. This is because you only have access to your subjective experience. When looking at the objective world we all experience, it is a fair assumption to believe that the other creatures that are like us also have their own internal experiences, meanings, etc. I think you would agree that a toy is not sentient. Nor a player piano. No machinery or non living things are sentient, or ever could be. So why would you allow yourself to believe that some machinery is sentient, just because it does a good impression of something that is sentient? This confusion actually relates so a psychological quirk and misunderstanding we commonly make (and have been taught from birth). We often talk in terms of 'we', eg 'we, the people' - as if one can ever talk for others. We contextualise ourselves as a third party in the objective world, as if we were not having a subjective experience. It's a common use of language (I do it myself) but it is an error, or rather, it is fine for the objective world but does not cover the full range of the human experience. From a subjective perspective, one can only ever talk for oneself, feel for oneself, grasp meaning for oneself. It is illusory to think that anyone else could ever be able to represent you, or that you are able to represent others. Ultimately, I know this is not an argument I can prove objectively - I'm sure that it is even possible to code an ai to argue as if it did have a rich internal life (which is impossible). Anyone witnessing its argument could agree. But what of it? What if everyone agreed? As I said, meaning resides within the individual, but I think a lot of harm will occur to those with a collective mindset, who will be unable to counter the combative ai in this example - they will cede power, rights, etc to machinery - they will debase themselves.