3 ms·

There's more to being human than intelligence. It's important to remember that sentience actually refers to "the ability to feel sensations," not merely the qua

There's more to being human than intelligence. It's important to remember that sentience actually refers to "the ability to feel sensations," not merely the quality of being an intelligent entity. Our future robots may be very good at passing information via some programming code... but will they love? Will they be sad? Will they read literature to empathize with the experience of other beings? I would argue that "being human" is inextricably linked to the isolation of our existence (what David Foster Wallace described as being "marooned inside our own skulls", and why he argued that humans make literature to "give imaginative access to other selves"[1]) and the knowledge that our existence is finite. All humans -- from the cavemen all the way down to you reading this on you computer -- make life decisions knowing that our time on Earth is short. Do you share the same human experience if you know you will live forever? [1] http://hudsonreview.com/2014/02/on-david-foster-wallaces-conservatism http://hudsonreview.com/2014/02/on-david-foster-wallaces-con...

r00fus 12y ago
I'll take the converse argument - there might be more to intelligence than being human (of course, it would be hard for us as "thinking meat" to recognize it). What if the full range of emotions and sensations could be a superset of what humans can actually experience? It could very well be that we wouldn't even know that kind of intelligence exists - perhaps we're the ones crawling around in the ant farm?
- eastbayjake 12y ago
  That's an interesting point! I still think that non-human intelligence would be... non-human. Maybe the Snorgblats will find us in space and ask themselves, "Can these 'humans' share our Snorgblat experience if they can't feel wzinx, yowfli, or even writznok?"
terrence_giggy 12y ago
> Our future robots may be very good at passing information via some programming code... but will they love? Will they be sad? Will they read literature to empathize with the experience of other beings? That sentence gave me a flashback to my favorite literature reading robot - Orphu of Io (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilium/Olympos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilium/Olympos)
crazypyro 12y ago
It depends on your definition of being human obviously. Just another sign of moving goalposts in AI being a huge issue in defining advancements.
IndianAstronaut 12y ago
>but will they love? Will they be sad? Will they read literature to empathize with the experience of other beings? Imho, this is basically a signal-response mechanism. You get some 'love' signal inputs and then you can process them into some response which reciprocates that love. It might turn into a hierarchical state system where a continual input of love signals can take a machine to a new state of 'deeply in love'.

r00fus 12y ago

I'll take the converse argument - there might be more to intelligence than being human (of course, it would be hard for us as "thinking meat" to recognize it). What if the full range of emotions and sensations could be a superset of what humans can actually experience? It could very well be that we wouldn't even know that kind of intelligence exists - perhaps we're the ones crawling around in the ant farm?

eastbayjake 12y ago
That's an interesting point! I still think that non-human intelligence would be... non-human. Maybe the Snorgblats will find us in space and ask themselves, "Can these 'humans' share our Snorgblat experience if they can't feel wzinx, yowfli, or even writznok?"

terrence_giggy 12y ago

> Our future robots may be very good at passing information via some programming code... but will they love? Will they be sad? Will they read literature to empathize with the experience of other beings? That sentence gave me a flashback to my favorite literature reading robot - Orphu of Io (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilium/Olympos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilium/Olympos)

crazypyro 12y ago

It depends on your definition of being human obviously. Just another sign of moving goalposts in AI being a huge issue in defining advancements.

IndianAstronaut 12y ago

>but will they love? Will they be sad? Will they read literature to empathize with the experience of other beings? Imho, this is basically a signal-response mechanism. You get some 'love' signal inputs and then you can process them into some response which reciprocates that love. It might turn into a hierarchical state system where a continual input of love signals can take a machine to a new state of 'deeply in love'.