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.

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. :)