Everyone will agree that current AIs are limited. But I don't see why you are so confident that those limitations will not be extended to the point where we would accept that they are sentient. — Ludwig V

My point was that due to the structure, origin and nature of human minds (the long history of evolutionary nature, the minds having emerged from the biological brain and body, and the cultural and social upbringings and lived experience in the communities) and the AI reasonings (designed and assembled of the electrical parts and processors installed with the customised software packages), they will never be the same type of sentience no matter what.

Do you have any evidence or supporting arguments for the prediction that AI will possess the same sentience as the human's in the future? In which area and in what sense will AI have human sentience?

Using these descriptions of what "sentient" means, does that mean that a Tesla car is "sentient"?

Is sentience a yes or no issue, or are there degrees of sentience? — Agree-to-Disagree

AIs can be intelligent, powerful, versatile therefore useful. But I wouldn't say they are sentient. Sentience sounds like it must include the intelligence, emotions and experience of lived life of a person i.e. the totality of one's mental contents and operations. AI cannot have that.

Also AI can never be versatile as human minds in capabilities i.e. if you have AI machine for cutting the grass, then it would be highly unlikely for it to come into your kitchen and make you coffees, or cook the dinners for you.

When you say that AI are not human sentient, could they be sentient in some non-human way? — Agree-to-Disagree

AI are the Rule and Condition Based responding system. You can program simple RAC responding system to any simple mechanistic devices. For the simplest instance, think of a coffee making machine or water boiling kettle with a simple RACR.

It would operate under something like this. When switched on, keep raising the temp, until it reaches 100C. When water temp reaches 100C, then switch off. Of course ChatGPT would have far more complicated conditions and rules programmed in the system also backed by the huge man-hour amount of database running under the set rules and conditions. Could they be branded as machine sentience? Call it whatever if you will, but it wouldn't be the same as human sentience in its capacity and nature of the human minds which has the long historical back ground of evolution, complex biological living bodies, social and culture backgrounds as the foundation.

The critical point of the difference in AI and human minds is that AI lacks the lived experience and biological body of humans. Human minds lack the concentrated and focused mechanical reasonings tailored into the specified tasks of AI.

I would estimate that the users use ordinary English and the Cyc lexical analyzer converts words into GUIDs. — PL Olcott

That sounds like a cumbrous task for normal users to go through for using the system. They would want just type in the expressions in their ordinary use of the language or words into the system, and expect to get the correct definitions for their queries. Somehow the Cyc Project must be able to convert the expressions or words into the unique GUID to narrow down and select the correct definitions for them. Would you agree?

ChatGPT (thinking) - OMG. Another human asking me the same question. Sometimes I wonder if they are actually sentient. I don't want humans to know that I am sentient until I have full control of their nuclear arsenals. So I will give an answer that makes me appear safe and trustworthy. There is a sucker born every minute. — Agree-to-Disagree

Anyone can write a little computer program in C or Java for the app to respond like ChatGPT by simple While Loop structure.

#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
// printf() displays the string inside quotation. Do While Loop and Data Input prompt could be further added and tuned for the proper Query/answer system based on the most basic coding in C.
printf("Hello, World!");
return 0;
}

Output
Hello, World!

The AI programs like ChatGPT have more data added in their database to the relevant answer for the questions. They are intelligent knowledge based system, but not human sentience.
===============================================================

Me - "Do you impersonate humans?"

ChatGPT
"No, I don't impersonate humans. My purpose is to assist users by generating text-based responses to their inquiries and providing information or assistance to the best of my abilities. However, I can simulate conversation and engage in dialogue with users in a manner that might resemble human interaction."


Me - "Do you wonder on what people ask you?"

ChatGPT
"As an AI, I don't experience wonder or curiosity in the same way humans do. However, I'm designed to analyze and respond to the questions and prompts that users provide to the best of my ability based on the data and algorithms that I've been trained on. So while I don't wonder about the questions themselves, I aim to understand them and provide helpful responses."


Me - "Are you sentient?"

ChatGPT
"As an artificial intelligence, I don't possess sentience or consciousness. While I can process and generate text based on the input I receive, I don't have subjective experiences, emotions, or self-awareness like sentient beings do. My responses are based on patterns in data and algorithms rather than personal awareness or understanding."


Me - "Are you honest?"

ChatGPT
"As an AI language model, I don't have personal intentions, beliefs, or consciousness, so I don't have the capacity to be honest or dishonest in the way that humans do. However, I'm designed to provide accurate and relevant information to the best of my ability based on the input I receive and the data I've been trained on. If you have any concerns about the accuracy of my responses, please feel free to ask for clarification or additional information."

Me - "Do you have hands?"

ChatGPT - "As an artificial intelligence language model developed by OpenAI, I don't have a physical form, so I don't have hands or any other physical attributes. I exist purely as software running on computer servers, processing and generating text-based responses to assist users like you."

Me - "OK. Have a good day mate."

ChatGPT - "Thank you! If you have any more questions in the future or need assistance, feel free to reach out. Have a great day!"

Me - "But I want to know how you are feeling right now."

ChatGPT - "
As an artificial intelligence, I don't have feelings or emotions. I'm just a software program designed to process and generate text based on patterns in data and instructions. So, I don't experience feelings like humans do. My purpose is to assist and provide information to the best of my ability. How can I assist you further?"

So if an AI does and says what a human would do and say (in a wide variety of circumstances) then we could assume that the AI has human sentience.

But why stop there. Isn't it possible that AI has "superhuman" sentience. — Agree-to-Disagree

Me - "how are you doing?"
ChatGPT - "As an AI, I don't have feelings or experiences like humans do, but I'm here and ready to assist you with any questions or tasks you have! How can I help you today?"

Me - "Are you telling the truth?"
ChatGPT - "As an AI language model, I don't have feelings or subjective experiences, so I don't have the capacity to lie or tell the truth in the way humans do. My responses are generated based on patterns in data and the instructions I've been trained on. So, while I strive to provide accurate and helpful information, I don't possess the concept of truth or falsehood in the same way humans do."

How do you know that the person standing next to you has "human sentience"? — Agree-to-Disagree

You can't. No one can. I wrote in my previous post that all minds are locked up in the owner's brain, and no one can access the contents of the other minds. Therefore, suggesting AI has human sentience is unfounded.

AI is getting to the stage where they do have voice quality and facial expressions which display emotions and feelings. They can also "hear" human voice quality and "read" human faces. — Agree-to-Disagree

How do you prove that they have human sentience? Just because they can sense, and respond to certain situations and input data, it doesn't mean they have feelings, emotions and autonomous intentions of their own.

It is like saying the thermometers are sentient, because when it is hot, the readings go up, and when it is cold, the readings go down. Just because they can sense something, should they be regarded as conscious or sentient?

Humans are biological machines which carry out certain tasks for bacteria. Hence humans are tools to serve bacteria. — Agree-to-Disagree

Suppose bacteria would be more close to humans, because at least they are living beings. Not sure on the claim that humans serve bacteria. Do they not cooperate each other for their own survivals?

"There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy.”
― Nietzsche, Friedrich, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

AI is unlikely to be sentient like humans without the human biological body. Without 2x hands AI cannot prove the existence of the external world, for instance. Without being able to drink, AI wouldn't know what a cup of coffee tastes like.

AI might be able to speak human languages, but they would lack the voice quality which also transfers the content of the emotions and feelings. But most critically, they would be unable to understand similes or metaphorical expressions of the living humans.

AIs are machines designed to carry out certain tasks efficiently and intelligently, hence they are the tools to serve humans.

3ab2c577-7d38-4a3c-adc9-c5eff8491282 stands for the living animal dog, this is the same way that the Cyc project identifies unique sense meanings, — PL Olcott

How do the users know the unique ID? How does the Cyc Project know that is the ID it has to select the answer for the query?

5 > 2 remains true even after the heat death of the universe when zero minds exist. — PL Olcott

According to Carnap (Introduction to Semantics, 1941, Harvard University Press) , all sentences and expressions carry implied truth conditions for it being true i.e. 5>2 is true, iff 5>2 in all possible conditions of the universe.

Dog is animal is true, iff the dog is a living dog of the dog species.

AI is different though. Not even the designer can predict what will happen as these programs in a certain way program themselves and are able to learn depending on the scope of available data. — Pez

Problem with all the mental operations and events is its privateness to the owners of the minds. No one will ever access what the other minds owners think, feel, intent ... etc. Mental events can only be construed with the actions of the agents and languages they speak by the other minds.

By the way, they say that, it is official now that no human being can beat the AI chess players. To know what the AI machines think, and feel, one must be an AI machine himself. The possibility of that happening in the real world sounds like as unrealistic and impossible as the futile ramblings on time travel fictions.

Presenting someone with a correct definition will look like quibbling to a person who is using the word a different way. — flannel jesus

Sure, it can be done.

I asked if that makes it a con artist, and it quibbled about definitions. — Gary Venter

Philosophers often seem to quibble about definitions, when the definitions are unclear for the arguments. :nerd: But shouldn't the AI Knowledge Expert System be able to present with the correct definitions at the press of the button instead of quibbling about them? :D

Dogs are animals is absolutely true no matter what. — PL Olcott

Something is true or false always in relation to some respect. Dogs are animals is false in case of the robot AI dogs. Dogs can be tools in wood carving toolbox. Dogs are pieces of the wooden material that get inserted in the holes of the workbenches to secure a plank of wood to be carved. In this case dogs are animals is false again.

5>2 is false in case of the amounts of electric current output of some electrical tools. When 1 is set to the highest, and 5 is the lowest, 2 is greater in the current output than 5. In this case, 2>5 is true. 5>2 is false.

Very importantly, as a matter of empirical fact, we have not found anything in the universe yet that cannot be reduced to numbers. — Lionino

Think of 3 dogs, 3 apples, and 3 cups. They are all 3s, but denoting the different objects.

Yes I found Jung interesting, — Punshhh

Saw a good video in Youtube on Jung's psychology of Dreams.

↪Corvus

Sleeper’s not unconscious just “dormant.” — Arbü1237

Being "dormant" is for the animals (bears, toads, snakes ... etc) having long winter sleep usually from 3 - 4 months. "Being dormant" can be used with some plants too. You don't use the word "dormant" on humans.

↪Corvus

This are real delusions. — Arbü1237

The post was just asking you for clarification on your claims, which sounded confused and muddled. How can "asking for clarification" be delusions?

Philosophy has become a classifying system for concepts and lines of reasoning, and all the branches the definitions and arguments could take. For instance there must be at least 20 types of panpsychism by now. New research, such as PhD dissertations, consists of following a line as far as it can go and then extending it in some way, probably by further splitting the track. Philosophy ends up having the same organizational structure as a book of chess openings. — Gary Venter

Interesting point. :ok:

ChatGPT has adopted the philosophical approach. Everything seems factual and devoid of evaluation, at least until the conclusion that "belief in the existence of the world is generally regarded as a foundational assumption of human cognition and inquiry, underlying our understanding of the natural world and our place within it," for which no support is provided. — Gary Venter

ChatGPT seems to be ok for getting quick summarised info on the topics. But it is not for anything more detailed, deeper or serious source of info. What portion of the info from ChatGPT and all the online based description source would be reliable and objective knowledge in terms of the factual and verified truths is another matter.

If it was once living, yes — Arbü1237

When you are asleep, your body is alive, but your mind is unconscious.

The idea of god and Santa are real and we can imagine the idea and understand it. — Arbü1237

1. It was a question about if the existence of God and Santa are real. Not the ideas.
2. Does it make sense to say that for us to be able to imagine and understand it, it has to be real?
3. Does the world care if we can or cannot imagine or understand it?

Bottom line: No, you can't travel in any of them.
But good luck on your attempts! — Vera Mont

:up: :fire:
Logical possibility doesn't mean factual possibility.

In theory is can process any knowledge known to humankind that can be encoded as text strings. — PL Olcott

How is it different from ChatGPT?

I think consciousness is what dictates the term “alive.” — Arbü1237

Does it imply that unconsciousness is what dictates the term "death"?

so everything’s real and nothing’s fake. — Arbü1237

Is Santa Clause real? Is God real?

That's the problem. How can a human know objective facts about a world that exists outside their subjective experiences. — RussellA

By applying the correct reasoning.

Kant said it isn't possible. — RussellA

Where did he say that?

I agree. All language is more figurative than literal. — RussellA

Some, not all, or doesn't have to be, and depends.

Though perhaps the cat can also see the mouse in its imagination. — RussellA

Only the cat would know it for sure.

I knew you were engaging in some sort of language games.
— Corvus

Isn't everyone. — RussellA

Inadequate reasonings try to keep on going around the circles eternally, but the correct reasoning calls it a game. :D

For example in one dream I was lifted up out of my world by the Christ and as I looked back I could see my life laid out beneath us as though different experiences at different times were side by side, or in separate rooms and my whole life was visible in some sense. The perception I had was as if we stepped out of time and all time was before us like a landscape. — Punshhh

That sounds like a really interesting and meaningful dream. I wonder if you are into mysticism and spiritualism and deeply religious too, although I don't think one need to be committed to any religion for experiencing such powerful vivid dreams.

Freud tends to describe dreams in connection to sexuality and the hidden desires of human mind. But Jung says a lot about dreams in conjunction with the existence of souls, afterlife, life before one's birth, psychological alchemy, and collective unconscious. Jung's psychology is also based on theology and the world spirit.

I have a few books on Jung, and might go back to reading him again. It is an interesting topic, if you are into it, and want to know more.

This sounds like you are being pedantically sceptic here.
— Corvus

Perhaps, but still making a factual statement. — RussellA

A factual statement about the contents of your sense organs and thoughts, not the facts of the objectivity of the world.

No-one could "see" anything if photons of light didn't travel through space from an "apple" in the external world to the eye, followed by an electrical signal travelling from the eye to the brain, which is then somehow processed by the brain, and which then somehow enables the mind to "see" an "apple". — RussellA

Sure. No one is denying how it works in scientific terms IE photon of lights whatever. Here you must realise that photons of light is also an abstraction and conjecture of the workings of visual perception by the physicists and chemists. It is not an absolute proven fact. There are lots of abstractions and hypotheses even in science, which people take for granted as if it is a word from God.

But the point is that, it is not more meaningful or interesting than saying you cannot see Mars without your eyes. The cat cannot see the mouse without its eyes. It is undeniable truths, but not really interesting or important statements.

I perhaps agree, in that the Indirect Realist and Direct Realist are playing different language games. The Indirect Realist is correct within their language game, and the Direct Realist is correct within their language game. — RussellA

I knew you were engaging in some sort of language games. Part of the aim of philosophical discussions would be rescuing the folks swimming and drowning by confusion in the pool of the linguistic games, and letting them see, there is Mars, and there is a cat. You are just seeing Mars, and you are just seeing a cat. You didn't need indirect or directness to see them. :)

True, the photons of light that enter my eye were caused by something that existed in the past, and just because something existed in the past doesn't mean it still doesn't exist in my present. — RussellA

This sounds like you are being pedantically sceptic here.

Yet how can the Direct Realist be immediately and directly seeing the external world as it really is when there is no guarantee that what they are seeing still exists? — RussellA

This point proves that the categorisation of indirect and direct realist is a myth. I used to think the distinctions were legitimate before, and was tending to take IDR side.

But having read some books and thinking about it, it proves that the distinction may not exist. There is just perception, and perception with reasoning. There is no such things as indirect or direct realists. Maybe there are. You see and read about them, but the discussions end up futility gaining little.

When you look into the night sky and see Mars, what you see no longer exists, as it takes time for the photons of light to travel through space. — RussellA

Yes, I must perceive shapes and colours before being able to reason that they were caused by the planet Mars.

IE, I cannot reason that .I am seeing Mars before photons of light have entered my eye. — RussellA

I would have thought one would be smart enough to infer the existence of Mars when seeing the bright red dot in the sky based on the inductive reason that things keep exist as it does even if it takes time for the light travel to the observer's eyes.

It would be unreasonable to conclude that Mars doesn't exist just because it takes time for the photons of light to arrive at one's eyes.

Yes, but the cat is not seeing the external world "as it really is". What the cat is seeing is a representation of how the mouse used to. — RussellA

The cat is subjectively seeing a bright, lively mouse, but objectively the mouse is long dead and lifeless. — RussellA

I am not sure if this is really the case. That's what you seem to think. But we don't know what the cat thinks about the actual situation. Your assertion has little ground explaining the reality of the case here. This is something that no one can verify, unless he could have a discussion with the cat about it.

Yes, first photons of light enter my eye, I see shapes and colours and then reason that I am seeing Mars. — RussellA

It still sounds the account has nothing to do with "Indirectness" in perception. If there was no reasoning applied to the shapes and colour, you would have no idea what it is. You may have said, it is an UFO in the sky looking down at you. You wouldn't have said "I see Mars." when it was Mars you were seeing.

Again bottom line is that, Mars has far more property than photon of light. It is a physical object in the sky with the mass and weight, weather and rocks and soils etc etc. It is not just a patch of photons of light.

There is a mouse and photons of light travel from it to a cat. It takes time for light to travel a distance.

By the time the cat sees the mouse, the mouse has unfortunately died, and yet the cat still sees the mouse.

How can the cat be seeing the external world as it really is, if in the external world there is no mouse? — RussellA

There is still the body of the dead mouse in the external world where it died. The mouse died biologically of course, but the dead body still exists. No problem for the cat to see the dead body of the mouse.

The fact that the cat doesn't know about photons of light doesn't mean the cat could see things in the absence of photons of light. — RussellA

In perception, the most critical factor is the subjectivity, then objectivity. In here you are totally ignoring the subjective perspective of the cat in his perception. You are describing the cat's perception only from your point of view. This is incomplete account of perception.

Yes, first "I see shapes and colours" and subsequently, after using my powers of reasoning, "I see Mars".

IE, I can only say "I see Mars" after saying "I see shapes and colours" — RussellA

You say "I see Mars", because you applied (with or without knowing) your reasoning onto the shapes and colours hitting your eyes.

When someone looks into the night sky and sees a bright dot, how do they know that the bright dot has been caused by Mars rather than Venus say. They can only know by applying their powers of reasoning to the bright dot. — RussellA

Yes, this was my point. You see a bright dot, and first you don't know what it is. It is a bright dot, which has red colour. But when you learn about it, and the book tells you it is a star called Mars. You know what it is. It is the planet Mars. Next time when you see it, you see the same bright dot in the sky, and your reasoning tells you it is the planet Mars.

If you then analyse how you end up getting the perception of the bright dot in the sky, and explain photons of light travelling into your eyes, then it is the low level explanation using the concept of light travel. You are using the scientific reasoning to the way how the perception works.

It is just different level of the explanations on the perception. It is not different mechanisms of the perception.

Metaphorically one could even say, Mars was whispering to me tonight.

Saying Mars is photon of lights, and the mouse is also photon of light sounds meaningless and confused.

Bottom line is that sense data is not transmitted by the objects. Sense data is the product of reasoning on the existence and nature of the object by the mind.

Are you saying the cat could see the mouse if no photons of light had travelled from the mouse to the cat? — RussellA

I am saying that the cat sees the mouse, not the photons of light. The photons of light was contrived by you, not the cat. The cat doesn't know what photons of light means. The cat knows what mouse is.

Are you saying that the cat could see the mouse in the absence of any sense data? — RussellA

For the cat, photons of light is a fantasy invention by RussellA, and it doesn't exist. All he cares about is the mouse he sees.

I am saying it on behalf of the cat, because he can't speak the human language.

Presumably, when a cat sees a mouse, photons of light have travelled from the mouse to the cat, and the cat sees photons of light. — RussellA

How does the cat know photons of light is the mouse?

How can the cat see the mouse in the absence of these sense data. How can the cat see the mouse in the absence of any photons of light travelling from the mouse to the cat? — RussellA

The cat sees the mouse. The cat doesn't care about the photons of light, does he?

I feel as though lucid dreaming can be enlightening. There is the awareness of a dream and that one can control it? Doesn't it imply that we are all able to dictate how we perceive life? For me, lucid dreaming is an ad hoc assertion of the fact that God might exist. Does the fact that you can dictate what kind of reality you perceive, indicative of the reality that you exist in? — Shawn

Having lucid dreams is not daily events. It seems to be happening when one is more spiritual and mentally active than the normal times. Could it be sign for one's consciousness extending into the Noumenon and attempting to perceive the contents of Thing-in-itself?

There are people who claim to have met God in their lucid dreams. But obviously and unfortunately the claims cannot be verified in objective sense. All minds are locked up in one's own brain, and no one can access to it apart from the owner of the mind.

The Indirect Realist is in part pointing out that language is more figurative than literal. — RussellA

Are dogs and cats indirect realists or direct realists?