Being for me is to be in this world to have existence in this physical world but all encompassing physical reality , space, time and thought with it. Like an intertwined whole with several distinguishable parts which cannot be separated — Abhiram

What does it look like? Have you seen it personally in real life or even in your dreams?

If there is a being — Abhiram

What could that being possibly be?

If there were no humans on the earth, then you will see no math on the earth or anywhere in the universe.

Yes, the Youtube videos were interesting in that the presenters were all heretic types contrasting from the traditional science perspective in their presentations. It is also interesting to hear that you had come across the book by Sheldrake in the 80s via the acquaintance of your father in the 80s.

All 3 of them seem to believe in the claims that the human mind can do more than what is expected in the daily life of the ordinary folks, and also what the brain can perform as the biological and neurological science descriptions and specification of the physical organ which is to operate in the realm of the physical cause and effect principles, and neurobiological knowledge.

Seth's story on the case that when some part of the brain had been removed by surgical operations due to the patient's illness, impairing visual perception of the patient in a drastic way, but the patient recovers the lost sight to some degree later in his life proves that mind is more than just the physical brain. This point had been further supported by another speaker in his presentation demonstrating the scientific experiments he conducted through the long periods of time in his career as a scientist.

Luhrman's stories about how people perceive their Gods as real by praying and speaking seem to suggest the human brain sees more than what is visible, and could it be one of the signs of hallucinating character of the mind in perception of the world?

Sheldrake's story on human minds noticing the glares of the other folks even when not seeing them directly is definitely a common experience by many ordinary people, and I am sure it is definitely one of the signs of the human consciousness that extends beyond the brain. But as you indicated it is difficult to prove with the scientific experiments and evidence. But it still is an interesting and compelling point for the big picture of the mind extending over the physical brain.

All these stories seem to prove that human mind is different from that of the machine intelligence and AI mind in that, the human minds extends beyond what is expected and specified in the sciences i.e. recovering the mental operations even when the part of the brain is removed by the surgical operation, seeing and perceiving abstract religious existence when they are invisible to the other most ordinary people, and noticing perceptual glares of others directed at them when not directly faced to the glares. These aspects of human mind operations would be something that are impossible for any machine or AI intelligence to perform or to be expected ever under all the similar circumstances.

AI can only perform and execute what had been programmed by humans. They are incapable of doing anything beyond that.

Yes. Further information can be very helpful. For example, the wider context is often crucial. In addition, information about the physiological state of the subject. — Ludwig V

Why do you need information about the physiological state of the subject? Unless you are a medical doctor or neurologist, it seems to be a remote area which wouldn't reveal a lot in terms of one's state of consciousness in analytic and metaphysical level.

That also shows up in the fact that, faced with the new AIs, we take into account the internal workings of the machinery. — Ludwig V

Again as above, in what sense account of the internal workings of the machinery tell us about the nature of the AI consciousness?

Scrutinizing the machines that we have is not going to get us very far, but it seems to me that we can get some clues from the half-way houses. — Ludwig V

You seem to have answered the questions above just right after your posts asking for the physical states and internal workings of the conscious beings. You seem to be in agreement that it is not necessary or relevant to analytical, metaphysical or epistemological level. Is it correct?

Anil Seth says he's 'entirely comfortable' with 'the mind extending beyond the brain', holding up his iPhone to make the point, one I agree with. Overall, I liked Seth's presentation, although I would question his claim that 'the mystery of life' has been 'solved' due to our better understanding of organic biochemistry. — Wayfarer

Agreed. Good point. The mystery of life still remains, so does mind as a property of life.

Re Sheldrake, I have 'The Science Delusion' and 'Presence of the Past'. I'm probably more open to Sheldrake than many but I'm afraid most of what he has to say won't change any minds, I suspect. I will review a bit more of the Q&A later. — Wayfarer

Fair enough. I found Sheldrake's points interesting too, although they lack evidence in the arguments.

What is the evidence of an "I" period? Let alone an I that is, and is a Being within the being. I only is in Language. My Body provides obvious evidence of its own Reality, without the need of a Fictional construction, a nevessary mechanism in Grammar and thus Mind. That,
i.e. the human animal, ought to have been the given; the pre-reflective, a priori, noumenal, etc. Truth. Not our ideas about it. If "I" isn't the so called being requiring evidence then why is it that "I" was the Subject of Descartes inquiry. And where did he locate the "I" ? In thinking. And what structures that thinking? Language including its laws and dynamics such as grammar/logic, meaning, difference, Dialectic, convention and belief. — ENOAH

Sure your body predates your thoughts and language, grammar, meanings and all the rest of it. But as your body grew up and matured, your thoughts, language, grammar, meanings, perceptions and emotions all grew and matured together with our body.  Your body didn't just put together with the various electrical modules and parts like the AI.  Or your body was not thrown into the world from the sky one Sunday afternoon from nowhere, I presume.

When Descartes found his "I", he wasn't particularly looking for his "I" in the pile of worldly objects around him.  It was his "I" which he could find as the only assuring object which warranted certainty of existence.   

But you are correct in saying that "I" is not the body.  It is a linguistic concept, which was deducted from the thought.  But perhaps Descartes was looking for logical certainty on which he could embark on further reasoning into the world, mind and God.  It is good that at least Descartes found his "I" even if in the language via deduction and doubts.

Hume had no chance.  He couldn't see his own "I" no matter where he looked, there was no matching impressions or ideas of "Self".  Hume was looking for his "I" in perceptual observation, which forced him to conclude that there is no such a thing as "I".

Therefore it makes sense the concept of "I" is a contingent term in a perceptual and logical sense even if no one doubts he or she is his and her "I".  The "I" is not exactly a verified concept as such.

But what I think on the point is that, your language, thoughts, sensations, emotions, meanings are part of your mind.  They are the evidence of the existence and operations of your mind and consciousness.  Without those actions and expressions, we cannot verify the existence of mind at all.  But where does one's mind reside apart from one's living body?  Shouldn't we then conclude that your language and thoughts and meanings are a true reflection of your body? When you say "I am", you know exactly who the "I" is, and you cannot make mistake telling the "I" for anyone else, but you. Wouldn't you agree?

Apology once again for the clearly simplistic reply to your complex points on a complex matter which should take up more mental preparation/organization and space than can justify in this communal context. — ENOAH

Well the above discussion was an interesting point, and I am grateful for your interesting points and post. We all have limited time even in our daily routines and life, hence we tend to be in a position where we cannot spend more time to think and elaborate more detail for the topics which deserve the time and detail of the arguments and explanations. But how fortunate for us even to be able to have the brief moments to be able to read and think on these compelling points in philosophy, and exchange our opinions and keep on learning. :)

For one its binary programming. It has different limitations and freedoms from neurological thinking. You can scale an AI to use far more energy than one human brain, as well as transfer information from one hardware station to another. — Philosophim

So how do you know AI which has binary codes in its core thinks? Is it not the case of AI operates according to the instruction of the binary code what to execute next after checking the conditions?
What is the ground for the claim that AI also thinks as human mind does?

Right, that's its own sound and feel. Is your brain the same as your friend's brain? No. You're each different people playing your own version of music or 'mind'. — Philosophim

I am not sure if brain states of different individuals can be checked and verified as either exactly the same, or slightly different or totally different. In what sense would a brain different from the other brain?
Some mental events and operations of different people can be similar, but again could it be exactly the same? How can you claim that? Under what sense and point are they same or different?

And I am not sure if it is a coherent analogy to say that mind is something that can be played on musical instruments. Mind observes the external worlds, reflects and thinks, imagines, decides, desires, knows that, and knows how ... etc etc.

Mind is far more complicated entity which cannot be simply played in an instrument. The musician's mind knows how to play musical instruments, but mind cannot be played by an instrument either logically or literally or in reality.

You may be confusing 'sight' by the way. Sight is always a construction of the brain. Did you know that when light enters your eyes the image is upside down? The brain corrects all of that. Again, do not study philosophy to learn about the mind. Study modern day neuroscience. Anyone who doesn't is going to be ignorant. — Philosophim

Neuroscience is definitely a good tool to describe mind in certain perspectives i.e. biological and neurological point of view, and telling how some visual perception works in biological and physical way. But it is not the whole story. There are parts of mind, to which neurology is not able to give coherent explanation. For example, what is concept? How does brain generate concepts? What are the nature of ideas people have in their minds in neurological terms? Why some people prefer ice cream to tomatoes?

Seth in the youtube video presentation in the OP is a neurologist, and that is what he was saying. There are many things in mental events and operations that biology and neurology cannot explain. Mind could be a property of living life, which has been matured since birth of one's life on this earth biologically, neurologically and mentally, which also has the root of hundreds thousands years of human evolution.

It can’t be vastly different, because individuals are not solipsisms. Embodied and phenomenological interpretations consider the embeddedness of the embodied subject in a world of linguistic cultural practices to be of fundamental importance to the understanding of behavior. — Joshs

Some folks are solipsistic, and some are die-hard realists. Everyone is different. Some are left and some are right. Some are neutral. Some like poetry, some like mathematics, and some science, and some like them all.

Having the same language and culture doesn't warrant the individuals have the same mind frame.
But more importantly, it doesn't explain what mind is, and how it sometimes operates in certain ways under the circumstances.

When asked, "ice-cream?" Some say "vanilla please", some say "chocolate", and some say "I hate ice cream, give me a beer."

When asked "hobbies?" Some say, football, some say running, some say reading, some say cooking ... They are all different from person to person. You may find some folks share the same ideas, feelings and preferences on certain things and situations, but you will never find 100% identical individuals in the whole world. So what does it prove about the under the same cultural and linguistic world and embodiment of bodies to minds?

It describes how some people behave in some situations, but it seems to be saying not much on what mind is, and why it operates the way it does.

Sense always co-implies body, and subjectivity belongs to intersubjectivity. Being in the world for Merleau-Ponty is occupying a position within a shared gestalt (the same world for everyone). I am primordially situated in an intersubjective world. — Joshs

Of course everyone is in their own body, and they think they are, or get told they are in an intersubjective world. But again everyone is different in the way they think, feel and behave in some sense.

It is not like the machines, which operate in the same way and manner, in the sense that if you have a computer with the same spec. of the processors, the same size of RAM and Hard Disks and the same application software running. If you had millions of identical computers running all over the world, then no matter what countries, what cities and in what location they were running, they would run exactly the same speed, same screens, and the same performance.

If a theory is only true in some cases, but not others, then is it an objective theory?

The concept of being the intersubjective world could be a myth as well. Because you will find a vast amount of folks living in the modern world complaining about being cut off from society, alienated and not able to communicate with anyone.

You read about the teenagers in Japan, who get bullied in schools and workplaces, and they often lock themselves up in their room just spending the whole life playing computer games. Here again, we see the variety of different lifestyles depending on the social and individual situations. Not everyone in the world seems to feel or believe that they are primordially in an intersubjective world interacting with the other people and the environment they are in.

It explains them differently than a psychoanalytic model of the unconscious.

“From the point of view of a phenomenology of the lived body, the unconscious is not an intrapsychic reality residing in the depths "below consciousness". Rather, it surrounds and permeates conscious life, just as in picture puzzles the figure hidden in the background surrounds the foreground, and just as the lived body conceals itself while functioning. Unconscious fixations are like certain restrictions in a person's space of potentialities produced by an implicit but ever-present past which declines to take part in the continuing progress of life. (Thomas Fuchs) — Joshs

This is an interesting account on unconscious, which can be a topic of its own. Although it sounds like a contradictory at prima facie encounter. It sounds a categorical mistake to presume that unconscious can surround and permeates conscious life as if unconscious is some sort of physical blanket or cape which drapes around the conscious life. But it could have further elaboration and arguments with the real life cases which demonstrates that unconscious is not the hidden psychic reality deep in the mind.

I've tried to clarify exactly where are disagreements lie, and what we seem to agree about. One source of trouble is that you seem to hold what I think of as the traditional view of other minds. — Ludwig V

I was just pointing out logical gaps in your arguments. Not prejudging your points at all. :)

I couldn't identify it. If you could point me in the right direction, I would be grateful. — Ludwig V

With the logical discourse, we are hoping to reach some conclusions or agreements on the topic. I don't presume anyone's point is wrong or right. All points are more plausible or less plausible.

On the other hand, you seem to allow some level of knowledge of other minds when you say "Mental events can only be construed with the actions of the agents and languages they speak by the other minds". It is striking that you use the word "construe" which suggests to me a process of interpretation rather that inference from evidence to conclusion. — Ludwig V

Yes, I meant "construe" to mean interpretation for other people's minds. I feel it is the right way of description, because there are many cases that we cannot have clear and obvious unequivocal signs and evidences in real life human to human communications. Only clear signs and evidence for your perception on other minds are language and actions, but due to the complexity of human mind, the true intentions, desires and motives of humans can be hidden deep inside their subconscious or unconscious rendering into the state of mysteries even to the owner of the mind.

To reiterate the main point, we can only interpret the contents of other minds with the overt expressions such as language and actions they exhibit in the communication. Inference can be made in more involving situations, if we are in a position to investigate further into the situations. In this case, you would be looking for more evidences and even psychological analysis in certain cases.

If Descarte's Real Self is an “I am,” a being within Being, unwittingly Fabricated and Fictional; and if—standing upon the shoulders of those, like Hegel, Husserl, and Heidegger, recognizing the Fiction of a being within yhe being, and resolving it with not a being within, — ENOAH

Why is it Fabricated and Fictional? What is the evidence for "I am" is a fiction? Are you not you are?

Perception, takes sensation and in imperceptible time displaces it with meaning. Not discovers Real meaning. Where does the meaning come from? We construct it out of available Signifiers stored in memory operating in accordance with an evolved set of Laws and Dynamics, following sometimes lightning speed dialectic, and settling at belief, also a mechanism of the Fictional structure seen by us as Truth. — ENOAH

If meanings are something that we construct ourselves from the signifiers stored in memory. and truths are a product of a belief and mechanism of the fictional structures, then how do we come to the common agreement on these values and properties. You say the memory operates in accordance with an evolved set of Laws and Dynamics, but that doesn't seem to be a warrant for the solid consistent foundation for any sort of rational and consistent universal principles, which tends to suggest the strong hint of possibility of the meanings and truths committed into unreliable relativity.

Here is an argument for why your brain does not ‘hallucinate’ your conscious reality.

…to perceive the world isn’t to hallucinate and get things right. To perceive is to explore the world with your sensing and moving body. — Joshs

The main problem with sensorimotor theory would be the fact that with the same input to the sense organs or sensibilities of different individuals, the behavioural and mental eventual output of the each individuals can be vastly different. And also the same behavioural output can be achieved by different sensorimotor inputs.

Another difficulty of the sensorimotor theory of mind would be, that there are many different factors which affects the state of mind. And it cannot explain most subconscious or unconscious mental events.

By the fact it is not the same material as a brain. — Philosophim

So, what different material is mind of AI? In what sense is mind of AI different from human mind?

You can play the same melody on different instruments, but it will have its own sound and feel. — Philosophim

I am not sure if this is a proper comparison. Mind has its own will, volition, intentions and desires as well as emotions, feelings, perceptions and reasonings. It is a totality of one's whole mental events and operations.

How do you play minds on different instrument? Is mind something that is clearly defined as a piece of music which has melodies and tunes? Does mind have the start and end like a piece of music?

We are more interested in finding out what is mind made of, if it is physical in its origin or something else in its origin? What is mind's scope and limitation? What is mind's capabilities? What can AI mind do where human minds cannot? and vice versa? Can mind see things beyond what is visible, hence extendable?

Based on overwhelmingly extant physical evidence, every mind(ing) is embodied in an ecologically situated, or conditioned, brain; other than subjective anecdotes (corroborated only in folk psychological / spiritual terms & customs), there is not any publicly demonstrable, contrary evidence of (e.g.) 'disembodied cognition' or 'nonphysical minds'. — 180 Proof

Your point sounds like mind is subjective in nature as well as objective in its capabilities, which I agree. But do you agree that mind can see things beyond what is visible?

Also, assuming 'mind-body duality' is incoherent for some reasons discussed in this old post ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/636391 — 180 Proof

This thread is not exactly about mind-body duality or dualism.

Is this the end of physicalism?
No. — 180 Proof

Why?

I fully believe that AI will have consciousness as well. Will it be the same as a human brain? Likely not. — Philosophim

How would AI consciousness be different from that of human consciousness?

Clearly consciousness extends beyond the brain due to the simple fact that brains aren’t conscious. — NOS4A2

If brains aren't conscious, then what is consciousness?

As a description of conscious beings, consciousness and the being are in fact one-and-the-same. — NOS4A2

What do you mean by the being? Is AI a being? Is the world a being? Is God a being?

Sensory-motor embodied enactivist approaches to perception and consciousness are based on Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception. Evan Thompson explains: — Joshs

Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception also seem to addressing the physical body as the foundation of consciousness, which Seth seems to be agreeing. But M-Ponty seems to be adding the sensory-motor mechanism in the perceptual system as the central elements and principles for the operation, which gives more detailed explanation on the origins and workings of consciousness. I am not much familiar with Merleau-Ponty's Philosophy of Perception at this point of time, but will be reading his works soon, and trying to find more about them.

I liked Anil Seth's presentation. Although, as you pointed out, he didn't give clear explanations on the gap and the model and modeled issues, but he has been making many compelling points in his presentation and talks, which were interesting. Here is another short video for his talk on "Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality."

But AI itself can never grasp the meaning of its utterances. It is like a parrot saying "Good morning" but never realizing what that means. — Pez

If you program a highly developed and intelligent AI devices with the listening input device installed and connected to the processor, and the sound recognition software with the interpreting algorithms, then the AI device would understand the language you speak to them. That doesn't mean that the AI is sentient of course. They would be just doing what they are designed and programmed to do according to the programmed and set processes.

For parrots understanding "Good morning", I am not sure because I have never kept any pets in my life. But I am sure if you keep speaking "Good morning" to a parrot, every morning when you see her, she will understand what you mean, and learn the utterance as well.

Dogs and cats definitely understand some simple human languages for fetching stuff, giving out their paws etc etc, when spoken to by their masters. But they can't utter the human words due to lack of the proper vocal cords with them for making sounds and uttering the recognisable human language & words.

It still leaves us with an inner vs outer gap of map vs territory, the model vs what is modeled. It is not interactional enough, too focused on correspondence and not enough on enaction, movement and embodiment. — Joshs

What would be your explanations or arguments on the gaps and the model and modeled?

I see. But then, there's the traditional point that induction doesn't rule out that it might be false, as in "the sun might not rise tomorrow morning". — Ludwig V

Magic and miracles work on far more probability than the sun might not rise tomorrow. If your claim was based on the induction that the sun might not rise tomorrow morning, then it proves that your claims were based on far less plausibility than miracles and magical workings.

It is unusual for anyone to opt for, and believe in the almost no probability case leaving out the clearly more probable case in inductive reasoning. Any particular reason for that?

For example, you might tell me that you know that p. And I can tell whether you are lying. — Ludwig V

That sounds like a comment from a mind reading fortune tellers. You need concrete evidences for making such judgements about others.

You over-simplify. A forged painting is nonetheless a painting; it just wasn't painted by Rembrandt. An imitation of a painting by Rembrandt is also a painting (a real painting). It just wasn't painted by Rembrandt. — Ludwig V

Your saying the AI operation is simulation was a real over-simplification. My analysis on that claim with the implications was realistic and objective.

but when the parrot says "Good morning" it is imitating human speech and not really talking. — Ludwig V

I am not sure if it can be concluded for certainty. These are the things that cannot be easily proved.

I don't say it follows that I know what sentience is. Do you? — Ludwig V

Again it depends. It is not that simple.

Yes. Do you disagree? — Ludwig V

Imitation means not real, which can imply being bogus, cheat, deceit and copycat. AI guys wouldn't be happy to be called as 'imitation', if they had feelings. Just saying :)
They seem to just want to be called as "the useful assistance" to human needs.

What is your ground for moving from "it hasn't happened" to "it will never happen"? — Ludwig V

It is called Inductive Reasoning, on which all scientific knowledge has been based. It is a type of reasoning opposed to the miracle and magical predictions.

I know that other people are sentient, so I assume that I can tell whether insects, bats, etc. are sentient and that rocks and rivers are not. Though I admit there may be cases when I can't tell. If I can't tell that other people are sentient, then I don't know what it is to be sentient. — Ludwig V

I don't know what you know. You don't know what I know. We think we know what the others know, but is it verified knowledge or just mere guess work?

If I can't tell that other people are sentient, then I don't know what it is to be sentient. — Ludwig V

Exactly.

ChatGPT seemed not too confident in understanding and responding to the metaphoric questions.

Me - "Do you smell a rat?"

Chatgpt
"As an AI language model, I don't have the ability to smell or perceive things in the physical world. My capabilities are limited to processing and generating text-based responses to the best of my ability based on the input provided to me. If you have any concerns or suspicions, please feel free to share them, and I'll do my best to assist you."

Different types of sentience are, obviously, sentience. — Ludwig V

We don't know that for sure, unless we become one of them in real.

I also would accept that anything that's running the kind of software we currently use seems to me incapable of producing spontaneous behaviour, so those machines could only count as simulations. — Ludwig V

Simulation = Imitation?

I meant to say that it might - or rather, that there was no ground for ruling it out. — Ludwig V

What is the ground for your saying that there was no ground?

"The existence of the earth is rather part of the whole picture which forms the starting point of belief for me." (Wittgenstein, On Certainty, Sec. 209)

"That world is there before all belief." (Heidegger, Prolegomenon, GA20, p.295)

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.