I'm pretty sure if you understood what I was saying, you would see there's no contradiction. So if you are under the impression there's a contradiction, you're missing something.You seem to be contradicting yourself. — Daemon
The other day you had a robot understanding things, now you say a computer doesn't know what a banana is. — Daemon
Your CAT tool doesn't interact with bananas.the CAT tool still wouldn't know what a banana is. — InPitzotl
What is this "do" you're talking about? I program computers, I go to the store and buy bananas, I generate a particular body temperature, I radiate in the infrared, I tug the planet Jupiter using a tiny force, I shake when I have too much coffee, I shake when I dance... are you talking about all of this, or just some of it?I've been saying from the start that computers don't do things (like calculate, translate), we use them to do those things. — Daemon
Both Siri and the kind stranger (seem to have) understood my question. A mini Turing Test. — TheMadFool
Me (to a stranger): Sir, can you give me the directions to the nearest hotel?
Stranger (to me): Yeah, sure. Take this road and turn left at the second junction. There's a hotel there, a good one. — TheMadFool
Your CAT tool doesn't interact with bananas. — InPitzotl
What is this "do" you're talking about? I program computers, I go to the store and buy bananas, I generate a particular body temperature, I radiate in the infrared, I tug the planet Jupiter using a tiny force, I shake when I have too much coffee, I shake when I dance... are you talking about all of this, or just some of it? — InPitzotl
But neither does a robot. — Daemon
Just to remind you what you said exactly one post prior. Of course the robot interacts with bananas. It went to the store and got bananas.You seem to be contradicting yourself. — Daemon
...this is what you quoted. This was what the question actually was. But you didn't answer it. You were too busy "not counting" the robot:What is this "do" you're talking about? I program computers, I go to the store and buy bananas, I generate a particular body temperature, I radiate in the infrared, I tug the planet Jupiter using a tiny force, I shake when I have too much coffee, I shake when I dance... are you talking about all of this, or just some of it? — InPitzotl
I'm conscious. I experience... but I do not agentively do any of those underlined things.They aren't agents because they aren't conscious, in other words they don't have experience. — Daemon
Ah, how human-centric... if a tiger runs amok in the supermarket and tears someone's head off, we won't send the tiger to jail. Don't confuse agency with personhood.When your robot runs amok in the supermarket and tears somebody's head off, it won't be the robot that goes to jail. — Daemon
If I let the tiger into the shop, I'm morally culpable for doing so, not the tiger. Nevertheless, the tiger isn't acting involuntarily. Don't confuse agency with moral culpability.If some code you write causes damage, it won't be any good saying "it wasn't me, it was this computer I programmed" — Daemon
I think you're dragging a lot of baggage into this that doesn't belong.I think you know this, really. — Daemon
So answer it.That isn't a difficult question. — Daemon
...doesn't answer this question.Only conscious entities can be agentive, but not everything conscious entities do is agentive. — Daemon
What you really mean isn't that the robot didn't interact with bananas, but that it "didn't count". — InPitzotl
I've no idea why you think it muddies the water... I think it's much clearer to explain why shaking after drinking coffee isn't agentive yet shaking while I dance is. Such an explanation gets closer to the core of what agency is. Here (shaking because I'm dancing vs shaking because I drank too much coffee) we have the same action, or at least the same descriptive for actions; but in one case it is agentive, and in the other case it is not.It might be better to take a clearer case, as you drinking the coffee is agentive, which muddies the water a little. — Daemon
Agentive action is better thought of IMO as goal directed than merely as "thought". In a typical case an agent's goal, or intention, is a world state that the agent strives to attain. When acting intentionally, the agent is enacting behaviors selected from schemas based on said agent's self models; as the act is carried out, the agent utilizes world models to monitor the action and tends to accommodate the behaviors in real time to changes in the world models, which implies that the agent is constantly updating the world models including when the agent is acting.Agency is the capacity of an actor to act. Agency is contrasted to objects reacting to natural forces involving only unthinking deterministic processes. — Daemon
In terms of explaining agentive acts, I don't think we care. I don't have to answer the question of what my cat is thinking when he's following me around the house. It suffices that his movements home in on where I'm going. That is agentive action. Now, I don't think all directed actions are agentive... a heat seeking missile isn't really trying to attain a goal in an agentive way... but the proper question to address is what constitutes a goal, not what my cat is thinking that leads him to follow me.But where do the goals come from, if not from "mere thought"? — Daemon
But where do the goals come from, if not from "mere thought"? — Daemon
In terms of explaining agentive acts, I don't think we care. I don't have to answer the question of what my cat is thinking when he's following me around the house. It suffices that his movements home in on where I'm going. That is agentive action. Now, I don't think all directed actions are agentive... a heat seeking missile isn't really trying to attain a goal in an agentive way. — InPitzotl
Why not?But a robot buying bananas is? — Daemon
I'm not sure what "want" means to the precision you're asking. The implication here is that every agentive action involves an agent that wants something. Give me some examples... my cat sits down and starts licking his paw. What does my cat want that drives him to lick his paw? It sounds a bit anthropomorphic to say he "wants to groom" or "wants to clean himself".The cat wants something. — Daemon
The robot had better be capable of "trying to shop and get bananas", or it's never going to pull it off.The robot is not capable of wanting. — Daemon
I'm not sure what "want" means to the precision you're asking. — InPitzotl
No, being agentively integrated is what makes me (and you) an individual. We might could say you're an individual because you are "of one mind".It's experience that makes you an individual. — Daemon
Not in the robot case. This is no mere metaphor; it is literally the case that the robot is trying to buy bananas.In ordinary everyday talk we all anthropomorphise. The thermostat is trying to maintain a temperature of 20 degrees. The hypothalamus tries to maintain a body temperature around 37 degrees. The modem is trying to connect to the internet. The robot is trying to buy bananas. But this is metaphorical language. — Daemon
And my contention has been throughout that you're just adding baggage on.My contention is that a computer or a robot cannot understand language, because understanding requires experience, which computers and robots lack. — Daemon
We might say you're an individual because you are "of one mind". — InPitzotl
The robot is trying to buy bananas. But this is metaphorical language. — Daemon
Not in the robot case. This is no mere metaphor; it is literally the case that the robot is trying to buy bananas. — InPitzotl
It's as if meaning isn't about meaning any more; it's about meaning with experiences. Meaning without experiences cannot be meaning, even though it's exactly like meaning with experiences save for the definitive having the experiences part. — InPitzotl
My use of mind here is metaphorical (a reference to the idiom "of one mind").That's broadly what I meant when I said that it's experience that makes you an individual, but you seem to think we disagree. — Daemon
I don't think this is quite our point of disagreement. You and I would agree that we are entities. You also experience your individuality. I'm the same in this regard; I experience my individuality as well. Where we differ is that you think your experience of individuality is what makes you an individual. I disagree. I am an individual for other reasons; I experience my individuality because I sense myself being one. I experience my individuality like I see an apple; the experience doesn't make the apple, it just makes me aware of the apple.Think about the world before life developed: there were no entities or individuals then. — Daemon
Yes; the thermostat is only metaphorically trying; the robot is literally trying.Suppose instead of buying bananas we asked the robot to control the temperature of your central heating: would you say the thermostat is only metaphorically trying to control the temperature, but the robot is literally trying? — Daemon
Sure.Could you say why, or why not? — Daemon
The word "atom" comes from the Latin atomus, which is an indivisible particle, which traces to the Greek atomos meaning indivisible. But we've split the thing. The word "oxygen" derives from the Greek "oxys", meaning sharp, and "genes", meaning formation; in reference to the acidic principle of oxygen (formation of sharpness aka acidity)... which has been abandoned.The word "meaning" comes from the same Indo-European root as the word "mind". Meaning takes place in minds. — Daemon
Meaning is about intentionality. In regard to external world states, intentionality can be thought of as deferring to the actual. This is related to the part of agentive action which not only develops the model of word states from observation, and uses that model to align actions to attain a goal according the predictions the model gives, but observes the results as the actions take place and defers to the observations in contrast to the model. In this sense the model isn't merely "about" itself, but "about" the observed thing. That is intentionality. Meaning takes place in agents. — InPitzotl
This feature makes agents tolerant against the unpredicted. The thermostat is missing this. — InPitzotl
I think you took something descriptive as definitive. What is happening here that isn't happening with the thermostat is deference to world states.I've looked at this many times, and thought about it, but I just can't see why you think it is significant. — Daemon
You're just ignoring me then, because I did indeed address this.But also there's a more fundamental point that I don't believe you have addressed, which is that a robot or a computer is only an "entity" or a "system" because we choose to regard it that way. — Daemon
I think you have some erroneous theories of being an entity. AHS can be induced by corpus callosotomy. In principle, given a corpus callosotomy, your entity can be sliced into two independent pieces. AHS demonstrates that the thing that makes you an entity isn't fundamental; it's emergent. AHS demonstrates that the thing that makes you an entity isn't experience; it's integration.The computer or robot is not intrinsically an entity, in the way you are. — Daemon
Not sure what you're trying to get at here. Are you saying that dogs aren't entities? There's nothing special about a dog-not-running for mayor; that could equally well be a fictional character or a living celebrity not intentionally in the running.I was thinking about this just now when I saw this story "In Idyllwild, California a dog ran for mayor and won and is now called Mayor Max II". — Daemon
So if experience is what makes us an entity, how could that possibly happen?Cutting the corpus callosum creates two entities. — Daemon
So if experience is what makes us an entity, how could that possibly happen? — InPitzotl
But also there's a more fundamental point that I don't believe you have addressed, which is that a robot or a computer is only an "entity" or a "system" because we choose to regard it that way. — Daemon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.