4 ms·
Please calm down. I am in your side wrt sentience here but you are just ranting. They’ve presented a compelling argument: if we don’t have anything other than b
by xmonkee 4y ago
Please calm down. I am in your side wrt sentience here but you are just ranting. They’ve presented a compelling argument: if we don’t have anything other than behavior to go by to gauge sentience then there is no meaningful way to say we have it and bots dont as of now. You can disagree with the premise or provide a counter argument.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago> if we don’t have anything other than behavior to go by to gauge sentience then there is no meaningful way to say we have it and bots dont as of now No. this is the same stupid claim. If you can't define X, you cannot conclude that A may be a part of X. You've already established that X is meaningless. It is meaningless to state anything about X. When you assert that A may be a part of X, you're playing both sides and implying that the original higher level interpretation of what X is is valid again. I am indeed ranting. Because it's a fallacious argument that appears in pretty much every philosphical argument as an appeal to non cognizance when its really an issue with language.
- xmonkee 4y agoHe IS defining sentience, just in behavioral terms.
- spywaregorilla 4y agoHe is not. He's claiming there is a definition, and we don't have it, ergo, we cannot assume that X could fall on either side of the definition. But the fallacy is in assuming that the concept has an objective definition. Assuredly, it does not. And so nothing can intrinsically fall on either side of something that does not exist. Concepts do not have intrinsic legitimacy. Concepts are things we invent via language. Don't be lazy. State your assumptions for the context in question. Discuss around those assumptions. Don't assert that your framework for discussing the concept is "the Truth".