Jump to content

Recommended Posts

FreeWill;

 

On 5/24/2019 at 11:49 PM, FreeWill said:

I think it is not so clear as according to wiki:

In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations

Sensation is an animal's, including humans', detection of external or internal stimulation. (e.g., eyes detecting light waves, ears detecting sound waves).

I think gathered information is based on reality even the individual has subjective perception. 

An AI can have billions of IoT devices providing data, while can register and analyze billions of peoples perception of a scenario which gives the possibility to a factual recognition of a scenario.

 

 

 

AI can have every information to analyze about a scenario, including the perception of the AI, as well as the involved human individual sensations and perceptions, which means since the source of the same information is multiple, objectivity can be an option.   

I am not going to debate objectivity and subjectivity with you as these concepts have been worked out and accepted by minds better than ours for hundreds or thousands of years, but I think I see your point.

If AI can gather information through sensors and hold that information internally, and also process that information, it appears that it is aware of that information and therefore sentient. Yes? Is that what you are saying?

I don't agree that this makes AI sentient because sentience is more than gathering and processing information, but I will have to work out what I think is missing and what I would accept as evidence of sentience in AI. So give me a week or so to come up with some thoughts on this.

Gee

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gees said:

If AI can gather information through sensors and hold that information internally, and also process that information, it appears that it is aware of that information and therefore sentient. Yes? Is that what you are saying?

Almost.

+ responding, based on the gathered, processed and eventually validated data. (Maybe that is what you are missing?)

Edited by FreeWill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gees said:

I don't agree that this makes AI sentient because sentience is more than gathering and processing information, but I will have to work out what I think is missing and what I would accept as evidence of sentience in AI. So give me a week or so to come up with some thoughts on this.

Gee

As Strange said earlier, with a dash of humour:

Quote

An AI that demands to see a priest before you turn it off might be a good indication!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dimreepr;

 

On 5/19/2019 at 9:10 AM, dimreepr said:

I don't like to read what you right, which has cost me in the past; I assumed other self-proclaimed philosophers write to much as a way to dodge reality.

It is easier to read what I write, if you read what I actually write, rather than what you think, or assume, I mean. Since most of my writing is about consciousness, and people have a lot of preconceived notions of what that is, it is important to actually read what I actually write.

Philosophy is the study of reality. Did you know that?

A "self-proclaimed" philosopher? People have been calling me a philosopher all of my life; family, friends, teachers, employers, co-workers, strangers, even my doctor. I started announcing that I was a philosopher in the first Science forum I posted in because some people there thought I was a scientist. I am not a scientist and would never let that impression stand as it would be fraudulent and an insult to real scientists.  
 

Quote

 

Then why all the subsequent words?

 

Have you ever heard the expression, "opinions are like assholes, everybody has one"? Well, actually we have a lot more than one, so how do we decide which opinion has value and which does not? Us, philosophy types, like to write something we call a philosophical argument. This is where we list our reasoning, logic, evidence, and experiences that caused us to form the opinion.

You can read this "argument" and maybe you will be swayed to consider my opinion, or maybe you will be able to see a flaw in my logic, reasoning, or find my evidence invalid, or maybe you will point out that my experience is too singular or unique to base any truth upon. Either way, there is an opportunity to learn something, and Philosophy is all about learning.

Gee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gees said:

Philosophy is the study of reality. Did you know that?

Definitely not. For the study of reality we have the sciences. Philosophy studies the ways we actually think, and the ways we should think to come to valid or practical results.

10 hours ago, Gees said:

People have been calling me a philosopher all of my life; family, friends, teachers, employers, co-workers, strangers, even my doctor.

I assume they called you that because you have shown these people that you ask questions that go beyond what we normally think about. That's fine. But what I miss in your postings is philosophical rigour. To name three examples: you are not precise in the definitions of the concepts you use; and as my remark above, you mix up science and philosophy; and then you should counter other philosophers who have well argued viewpoints that differ from your's.

So I think it is no wonder that in the list of kinds of people you mention one category is missing: academic philosophers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Gees said:

It is easier to read what I write, if you read what I actually write, rather than what you think, or assume, I mean. Since most of my writing is about consciousness, and people have a lot of preconceived notions of what that is, it is important to actually read what I actually write.

If I read what you actually write it doesn't make much sense; it's not up to me to make sense of what you write, it's up to you to convey your meaning, concisely would be preferable.

13 hours ago, Gees said:

A "self-proclaimed" philosopher? People have been calling me a philosopher all of my life; family, friends, teachers, employers, co-workers, strangers, even my doctor. I started announcing that I was a philosopher in the first Science forum I posted in because some people there thought I was a scientist. I am not a scientist and would never let that impression stand as it would be fraudulent and an insult to real scientists.

Humility generally avoids insults.

13 hours ago, Gees said:

Have you ever heard the expression, "opinions are like assholes, everybody has one"? Well, actually we have a lot more than one, so how do we decide which opinion has value and which does not? Us, philosophy types, like to write something we call a philosophical argument. This is where we list our reasoning, logic, evidence, and experiences that caused us to form the opinion.

You can read this "argument" and maybe you will be swayed to consider my opinion, or maybe you will be able to see a flaw in my logic, reasoning, or find my evidence invalid, or maybe you will point out that my experience is too singular or unique to base any truth upon. Either way, there is an opportunity to learn something, and Philosophy is all about learning.

Gee

My point is what, in the context of this thread, do all your subsequent words seek to achieve?

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FreeWill;

 

On 5/29/2019 at 5:15 PM, FreeWill said:

Almost.

+ responding, based on the gathered, processed and eventually validated data. (Maybe that is what you are missing?)

No.

When I first joined this thread on Page 7, I had two goals in mind. The first was to deflect from a pack attack I saw circling around WTF regarding "emergence", but now I see the pack circling me with the latest personal attacks. I expect that this will be my last post to you in this thread, so I will try to sum up my thoughts.

The second reason was because I saw the tendency to confuse sapience (thought) with sentience (feeling). Comparing sapience with sentience is like comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they are similar and have many mutual qualities, but they are not the same thing. If you have 100 apples, it will not give you one orange. Mashing thousands of apples will not give you orange juice, and neither will sapience give you sentience.

People have long believed that it takes a sapient mind, or intelligence, to cause life or sentience. This is a very old idea that predates history. First there was a "God" with a sapient mind, who caused life; then an Intelligent Designer; then aliens with Chariots of the Gods; I have also read time travel theories where we cause our own development; and now AI, with its intelligence will somehow become magically sentient. What I see in all this are rationalizations of a sapient mind causing life and sentience with different agents playing the various rolls. What I have not seen is evidence that supports this belief, and I doubt that the evidence exists. Evolution says it doesn't exist.

If AI does become sentient, it will not be because of its intelligence. It will be because someone, probably accidentally, caused matter to be infused with energy in a way that causes it to enhance itself. Think of soap bubbles: You can put water in a bowl then add liquid dish detergent and nothing will seem to happen, but if you add energy (your fingers agitating the water) then bubbles appear. The more energy, the more bubbles. At what point does the soap bubble start to energize itself to create more bubbles? That is the question of life and sentience. Life perpetuates itself through motion, and sentience, which is subjective, appears to be causal in this motion.

If you want a better understanding of the subjective self than I can give, you could look up Chalmer's "zombie", which is in the SEP, the on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy put out by Stanford University. Or you could look up Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?" -- both are in Wiki.

Let's get away from intelligence and look at some very simple life forms that are sentient; a leaf, an earthworm, and bacteria. A leaf will push its way into reality from a seed in the ground, or a stem, or a branch, forging a place for itself. An earthworm will rummage through the ground seeking to satisfy needs/wants in order to maintain itself. Bacteria will split itself in half to ensure that part of it continues even after it dies. These things are evidence of sentient life and survival instincts, and require little or no intelligence. Sentient life is subjectively assertive.

AI can do lots of amazing things, it can sense many things, but it does these things in response to objective goals -- our goals. That makes it a really cool tool.

If it were sentient, it would have its own subjective goals, its own agenda. That agenda would include asserting itself into reality like the leaf, it would include maintaining itself like the earthworm, and it would include ensuring its own continuance like the bacteria. It would be rational because it is AI, but it would not really care what we want, as it would have its own wants. To be sentient, it would assert its own subjective wants and needs above our wants and needs. In short it would be selfish as all life is.

Gee  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gees said:

now I see the pack circling me with the latest personal attacks.

I assume that is meant for me. (noticed you gave me a neg-reppoint). However, it is not more personal than what you write yourself. So I agree with dimreepr here:

On 5/30/2019 at 2:23 PM, dimreepr said:

Humility generally avoids insults.

Where I think I did not insult you. I am just critical about the claims you make about yourself.

7 hours ago, Gees said:

The second reason was because I saw the tendency to confuse sapience (thought) with sentience (feeling).

Right, that really is an important difference. I think it stems from the idea that humans are superior to non-human animals. Rationality, seen as the highest capacity, distinguishes between humans and animals. E.g. Descartes saw animals as a kind of machines, without consciousness.

9 hours ago, Gees said:

If AI does become sentient, it will not be because of its intelligence.

With that I still agree, but on other grounds. Only when inner states of a system are included as input of the system, there is a chance that AI becomes conscious. 

9 hours ago, Gees said:

Life perpetuates itself through motion, and sentience, which is subjective, appears to be causal in this motion.

<...>

Let's get away from intelligence and look at some very simple life forms that are sentient; a leaf, an earthworm, and bacteria.

As I said before, your argument for sentience, namely that organisms 'have a drive for self-preservation' is very poor. 'Self-preservation' does not mean that there is a self. It just means that a dynamic system can change its environment, or move to another one, just that it can persevere. Does an autonomous vacuum cleaner has consciousness because, if it runs out of electricity, moves to an electrical outlet? This you could also call 'self-preservation': it enables the vacuum cleaner to go on.

9 hours ago, Gees said:

If you want a better understanding of the subjective self than I can give, you could look up Chalmer's "zombie", which is in the SEP, the on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy put out by Stanford University.

The 'philosophical zombie' is just a weird idea. Just from SEP, you see two highly disputable steps to take the idea seriously:

First, that one can really conceive of what a zombie would be. Per definition of a philosophical zombie, there is no way to distinguish a zombie from a conscious person. A zombie behaves exactly as a conscious person, but it is not conscious. So it should report about internal states (otherwise you would soon recogise the difference between a real person and a zombie), but at the same time it has no inner states, per its definition. So I consider everybody who says he can conceive the idea of a zombie as a liar. 

As second step, one should accept that what one can conceive of, is also really possible. Zombies really could exist, because one can conceive it. This is a highly disputable metaphysical move, that I personally cannot take seriously. It reminds me of Anselm's ontological proof for God's existence.

I am reminded of the very short story 'An unfortunate dualist', by Raymond Smullyan. With the idea of a zombie, one could see the poison in it as means to change in a zombie. Nobody notices, but you are not conscious anymore.

Quote

Then came the discovery of the miracle drug! Its effect on the taker was to annihilate the soul or mind entirely but to leave the body functioning exactly as before. Absolutely no observable change came over the taker; the body continued to act just as if it still had a soul. Not the closest friend or observer could possibly know that the taker had taken the drug, unless the taker informed him.

 Read it. It is funny, and thoughtful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Eise said:

Where I think I did not insult you. I am just critical about the claims you make about yourself.

I don't understand: When did I say you did? What claims have I made about myself?

Or are you suggesting a better/more appropriate response?

In which case I'm not sure you're right, it was meant as advice rather than a critique. 

46 minutes ago, Eise said:

So I agree with dimreepr here:

Doh missed this... :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Doh missed this... :doh:

I hate to say this (well, not really...) but it is useful to read postings completely. My posting was a reaction pure at Gees' posting. I just called you as witness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Eise said:

I hate to say this (well, not really...) but it is useful to read postings completely. My posting was a reaction pure at Gees' posting. I just called you as witness.

Well at least I learned that for myself; the best of lessons. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eise:

 

On 5/30/2019 at 5:36 AM, Eise said:

Definitely not. For the study of reality we have the sciences. 

Science and Philosophy both study reality, but use different methodologies.

We have been through this before. You can not work Philosophy without having a valid premise. You can not know that a premise is valid unless you compare it to reality. If you do not base your Philosophy on reality, then you can not know if you are working Philosophy, taking a wild ass guess, rationalizing, or lying through your teeth. 
 

Quote

Philosophy studies the ways we actually think, and the ways we should think to come to valid or practical results.

And who decides what we "should" think and what is "practical"? I remember a lunatic by the name of Hitler, who decided those things. His "Philosophy" worked pretty OK, until the body count got too high. Is that what Philosophy is? A rationalization made by any lunatic or liar, who can get people to believe him? 

When Science is worked badly, we tend to call it speculation or science fiction. When Religion is worked badly, we tend to call it a cult. When Philosophy is worked badly, we tend to call it armchair philosophy -- I tend to call it nonsense.

 

Quote

I assume they called you that because you have shown these people that you ask questions that go beyond what we normally think about. That's fine.

No. People who ask questions may love Philosophy, but it is the people who find answers, who are philosophers.

 

Quote

But what I miss in your postings is philosophical rigour.

What I miss in your postings is philosophical loyalty. You have no love of Philosophy. You claim to be a philosopher, but write post after post exclaiming on the wonders of Science, while dismissing the value of Philosophy (except where it applies to Science). What I think is that you are a Science guy, who did not have the discipline and "rigour" to actually BE a scientist, so you side stepped into Philosophy to enjoy Science vicariously.

 

Quote

To name three examples: you are not precise in the definitions of the concepts you use;

I don't get every definition right, but in general, the problem is that I am too precise.

 

Quote

and as my remark above, you mix up science and philosophy;

Science and Philosophy were mixed up before I met them. (chuckle) Check your history.


Didn't you write: "Philosophy that does not take science into account is worthless." in the "What is a God?" thread?

 

Quote

 

and then you should counter other philosophers who have well argued viewpoints that differ from your's.

 

Well there are not very many philosophers here in this forum, and the few who are do not necessarily study consciousness.

Do you mean like in the "NDE" thread where you stated that there is no "mind/body problem"? I think you said it was something about "perspective". I considered responding. I was going to ask when you plan to publish, so after you stunned the world with your brilliance and received your Nobel, then I could maybe read your work. But I decided that you may have been having a bad day, so I didn't respond.

Or do you mean like in the "Souls" thread where you lectured me about Jung's archetypes? I didn't think you understood archetypes, as you did not recognize them in my "Understanding the 'God' Concept" thread. I very clearly explained the "God" concept and even named the four triggers that cause it to surface, life, death, Nature, and morality. You responded by stating that "God" does not exist. Well, duh, I said that in the OP. Archetypes do not actually exist, but are very real because they are causal. The "God" concept is an archetype.
 

Quote

So I think it is no wonder that in the list of kinds of people you mention one category is missing: academic philosophers.

Ah huh. So you are saying that family, friends, teachers, employers, co-workers, and strangers can not also be academic philosophers? Or are you trying to goad me into giving you names, so that you can attack persons, who are not here to defend themselves? I don't think so.

I don't appreciate these personal attacks and would request that they stop.

Gee
 

 

Dimreepr;

 

On 5/30/2019 at 8:23 AM, dimreepr said:

If I read what you actually write it doesn't make much sense; it's not up to me to make sense of what you write, it's up to you to convey your meaning, concisely would be preferable.

Sometimes you need background studies and information in order to understand a complex idea. Consciousness is a very complex idea.

 

Quote

My point is what, in the context of this thread, do all your subsequent words seek to achieve?

Understanding.

Gee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gees said:

Science and Philosophy both study reality, but use different methodologies.

So can you tell me what this methodology is? Please also give a few examples, e.g. how does philosophy study the physical world in contrast with how physics studies it?

I really would appreciate you answer this, because I think it is at the root of our dissent. Take your time, please.

13 hours ago, Gees said:

You can not work Philosophy without having a valid premise.

And how do you know what valid premises are? Where do they come from? Science? Philosophy itself? How is this validity established? And to paraphrase one of your following points: who decides which premises are valid?

13 hours ago, Gees said:

If you do not base your Philosophy on reality, then you can not know if you are working Philosophy, taking a wild ass guess, rationalizing, or lying through your teeth. 

Well, I do not think that analysing our ways of thinking is the same as intellectual freewheeling. You seem to equate philosophy to a body of definite conclusions, where it is in fact a continuing activity, because in time our way of thinking continuously is evolving.

13 hours ago, Gees said:

And who decides what we "should" think and what is "practical"?

It seems to me you do. You claim to be an 'Authority'.

More seriously: why should helping to clarify discourses, its concepts and presuppositions lead to a dictatorial attitude? Absolutist regimes hate philosophers, because they are well equipped to debunk their world views, ethics and politics.

13 hours ago, Gees said:

No. People who ask questions may love Philosophy, but it is the people who find answers, who are philosophers.

Wow.

Clarifying discourse helps finding answers, but does not necessarily provides the answers. If it would be that, then philosophy would become dictatorial. If philosophers would come to power, the result would be disastrous in general, because they confuse philosophy as an analysing activity with 'Philosophy' as a set of results (Leninism anybody?), and everybody should follow the 'Truth'.

13 hours ago, Gees said:

What I miss in your postings is philosophical loyalty.

Loyalty is the last thing you need in philosophy. As in any other discipline one needs intellectual freedom, to go there where your honest rational investigation leads you.

13 hours ago, Gees said:

You have no love of Philosophy. You claim to be a philosopher, but write post after post exclaiming on the wonders of Science, while dismissing the value of Philosophy (except where it applies to Science).

Eh? Me not loving philosophy? :blink: (Well, maybe I do not love 'Philosophy'...)

13 hours ago, Gees said:

Science and Philosophy were mixed up before I met them.

You know philosophy and science made some progress since the times they were seen as the same? 

13 hours ago, Gees said:

Didn't you write: "Philosophy that does not take science into account is worthless."

Yes. However I did not mean to say that philosophy must be science, but when it does contradict established science, it is definitely on the wrong track.

13 hours ago, Gees said:

... when you plan to publish, so after you stunned the world with your brilliance and received your Nobel, then I could maybe read your work

I am not a genius. I have a university degree in philosophy, that's all. Most ideas I present here are not original from me: I just think these ideas are correct, and I know arguments against and in favour of them. But I learned a way of thinking that is still strong living in me.

Just compare with any other academic discipline: when you have studied, you are a specialist, a good, bad or mediocre specialist. As I am not working as a philosopher, you can conclude that I do not belong to the upper ten. So I better wait till you get your Nobel price for your Consciousness Research.

13 hours ago, Gees said:

So you are saying that family, friends, teachers, employers, co-workers, and strangers can not also be academic philosophers?

Is this an example of your clear thinking? An academic philosopher is somebody who studied philosophy at an academy. How many of those people you mention have studied philosophy at a university?

13 hours ago, Gees said:

I don't appreciate these personal attacks and would request that they stop.

Then stop being personally yourself: let your arguments speak, not your authority that you are a 'Philosopher' who studies 'Consciousness'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gees said:

I don't appreciate these personal attacks and would request that they stop.

You just don't appreciate that being wrong can be valuable, personally, when you're shown how and why?

You know, for understanding...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Gees said:

Science and Philosophy both study reality, but use different methodologies.

Reality (and the definition of what "reality" means) may be one subject of philosophical enquiry, but certainly not the only one.

On the other hand, many philosophers of science would say that science cannot tell us anything about "reality", only about the things we can observe and measure. 

15 hours ago, Gees said:
Quote

Philosophy studies the ways we actually think, and the ways we should think to come to valid or practical results.

And who decides what we "should" think and what is "practical"?

Not sure if this was a deliberate straw man argument or a genuine mistake.

Read the statement you are responding to again. It is about how philosophy can tell us about "the ways we should think to come to valid or practical results"

But your reply is about what we should think (and about who decides) which is irrelevant to the statement.

These are completely different things. As a philosopher, you will appreciate that precision is important.

15 hours ago, Gees said:

No. People who ask questions may love Philosophy, but it is the people who find answers, who are philosophers.

I disagree. I think that finding the right questions to ask (and understanding that many questions do not have [easy] answers) is the most important part of philosophy. 

It is often not up to philosophy to come up with the "right" answers. It may be society, politicians, judges or scientists that need to make the decision; but they can be helped by being given the best questions to ask.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

It is often not up to philosophy to come up with the "right" answers. It may be society, politicians, judges or scientists that need to make the decision; but they can be helped by being given the best questions to ask.

Indeed (+1) like what to do if an AI becomes sentient (sapient???)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed (+1) like what to do if an AI becomes sentient (sapient???)?

And philosophers will help refine that by asking "what do mean by sentient/sapient", "what practical difference will it make", "what outcome do you want to achieve", "are you concerned about the AI or humans", "how do you weigh up the benefits and costs" and so on ... (economists are useful too!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Strange said:

And philosophers will help refine that by asking "what do mean by sentient/sapient", "what practical difference will it make", "what outcome do you want to achieve", "are you concerned about the AI or humans", "how do you weigh up the benefits and costs" and so on ... (economists are useful too!)

Well as long as they don't turn into accountants...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.