4 ms·
That wasn't the question - we don't know how to determine whether an AI or camera has it. But it's not nebulous - it's what you're experiencing right now. That'
by TaupeRanger 3y ago
That wasn't the question - we don't know how to determine whether an AI or camera has it. But it's not nebulous - it's what you're experiencing right now. That's simply what we mean by the word - that's it - no nebulosity to it. Figuring out whether a computer has it is a separate question, and difficult.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> it’s what you’re experiencing right now. No, its not. Its the quality of “experiencing”. Which is impossible to define in objective terms; it is the essence of subjectivity on which all other subjectivity rests. It’s not merely “we don’t know how to determine whether an AI or camera has it”, it is categorically impossible to determine if something has it. The popular narrative about which things in the natural world have it has evolved radically over time, but in no case has there been, or could there be, any empirical basis for this; its all just vibes.
- vidarh 3y agoIt became the question when you tried to define the original terms that way, because a definition that can not be used to discriminate what it defines from what ot does not define is inherently nebulous. And your definition is now circular and can not be used that way. Hence the claim that the original definitions were nebulous.