4 ms·
The first sentence of that Wikipedia page clarifies that animals are sentient? "Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjectiv
by justsee 14y ago
The first sentence of that Wikipedia page clarifies that animals are sentient? "Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences."
The 'Consider the Lobster' article simply investigates the philosophical idea that the ability to suffer is the test for sentience and applies it to lobsters, noting how furiously they attempt to escape pain.
Sentience does not imply that living creatures must have the same biological structures to 'feel, perceive, or be conscious' so your point that they are absent brain structures we have seems irrelevant when considering the definition of the word.
- jlgreco 14y agoCould my roomba be said to have sentience if programmed to respond to undesirable stimuli in a sufficiently 'furious' manner?
- justsee 14y agoNo, because as an inanimate object it has no capacity for suffering or self-awareness.
- nitrogen 14y agoHow do you know it's an inanimate object, if it behaves indistinguishably from a boiling lobster?
- justsee 14y agoWell the simplest answer: because a roomba is not a living thing. Regardless of how sophisticated Roomba Mk #9999 is in aping the behaviour of living things, it itself is not living and so is not sentient: "Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences." I'm partial to Roger Penrose' position on AI, and his interpretation of Gödel's incompleteness theorem and its implications for Strong AI. It is impossible, and therefore futile, to create consciousness through construction of algorithms, no matter how complex, as the mind is non-algorithmic. I know there was recent HN exasperation on the apparent 'misapplication' of Gödel's theorem to the mind / matter problem, but I"d dispute the implication that it is misapplied through ignorance. It is simply educated disagreement between two opposing philosophical positions. Many of the issues around materialism / physicalism / computationalism and the mind / matter problem are covered here http://rational-buddhism.blogspot.com http://rational-buddhism.blogspot.com. Yes, it's from a Buddhist perspective, but you'll quickly find a lot of articles seem to cover the issues from a computer science perspective. If the start of that link requires too much setup for your liking, I'd recommend having a look at http://rational-buddhism.blogspot.com/2012/02/church-turing-deutsch-principle-and.html http://rational-buddhism.blogspot.com/2012/02/church-turing-... first.
- jlgreco 14y agoPenrose's position boils down to him being uncomfortable with the idea that Gödel's theorems might apply to himself. His books have received criticism from the majority of the academic community and his suggestion for where the non-algorithmic nature of the mind may come from has not seen empirical confirmation. Simply put, it is just wishful thinking. Regardless, Penrose himself dismisses the role of any supernatural factors; this leaves us open to the possibility that a non-algorithic but nevertheless synthetic intelligence could be created (and in theory wedged into my roomba). Orch-OR does not require 'meat'.
- jlgreco 14y agoThis strikes me as an emotional distinction then, not a rational one. You'll have to excuse me if I don't give it much attention.