That is my point, we take the opposite for granted. Philosophical questioning results in the idea of solipsism.

The certainty of other minds is visceral. — Banno

This, I believe, is what I've been trying to get it -- though I think that the visceral experience of others is such that the language of "certainty" is already too obscure from the situation. I think it's a pre-cognitive feeling (though, certainly, still rational)

Philosophical questioning results in the idea of solipsism. — hypericin

For some, no doubt. However, most philosophical positions are inconsistent with solipsism.

There's more than just this one. But this one will do for a start. — Banno

So then, to you, what distinguishes good philosophy from bad/illegitimate/silly philosophical playing, among which is included the idea of solipsism?

The Turing test has to somehow clear the solipsism hurdle!

I mean to say that solipsism is a result of philosophical reflection, on which I think we all agree.

See here.

If it were "intersubjective agreement" that were needed, you would be asking others if you feel shame in walking naked through the mall. But that's not what happens. — Banno

Of course you don't need to ask; it is an inter-subjectively established collective representation that walking naked through the mall is shameful.

Ludwig Wittgenstein: We use words correctly despite not knowing their definitions.

This may be a first for TPF - your admonition has me rethinking my position.

I believe where there is an active healthy human brain there is a human mind, and where there is human mind there is an active healthy human brain. One is not emergent from the other - they are equivalent.

I have always considered myself a physicalist (and continue to). And I reject solipsism.

But how do we prove solipsism false? No set of behaviors are sufficient, and we can't share subjective experience. So what to do?

Walking through the mall naked may prove my shame, but so does changing in front of my cats.

For some, no doubt. However, most philosophical positions are inconsistent with solipsism. — 180 Proof

It seems to me that all philosophical positions are inconsistent with solipsism, since they all require language, which is born and evolved inter-subjectively.

@Banno@hypericin@180 Proof@Janus

Language is social (re Wittgenstein). Solipsism? :chin:

Solipsism is usually deployed as a reductio of a position. Here that's explicitly how solipsism entered the conversation -- as an accusation of philosophical parlor tricks, or insincerity.

I don't have doubt of other's minds. I just don't prove the assertion.

What, after all, is proof? Proof requires there to be rules of inference that are shared between participants in a conversation, and is usually -- though not always -- is related to knowledge in some way (hence the use of words like "conviction" or "certain" -- words I'd say are associated with knowledge, and judgment)

And such displays, when it comes to the minds of others, are simply stupid. It's like proving you have a hand to prove there's an external world.

What on earth are you doing, at all?

The parlor game is set up by the person claiming knowledge, proof, certitude, and all the rest. That's language on holiday -- acting as if there is anything to prove at all, when there are no established bounds between us for proof or knowing.

I don't doubt your mind, I just don't think there's a fact to the matter, and that -- due to the non-cognitive nature of moral judgment -- it's better to recognize there's a kind of of line being drawn, a line where the speaker is comfortable with what happens.

But that's no proof of anything, and it's silly to ask for proof.

Lemoine viscerally feels that LaMDA is sentient. So, is the matter then settled? Hardly. Viscerally feeling something to be so generally doesn't carry much weight in a philosophical debate.

Solipsism. rather than being a nonsensical parlor game, frames this entire discussion. If we can't even prove the sentience of other people, how then to evaluate the apparent sentience of a clever program? Solipsism, not as serious belief, but as boundary of what can be known with certainty, teaches us that from the outset we can forget about proofs.

:lol:

If we can't even prove the sentience of other people, how then to evaluate the apparent sentience of a clever program? — hypericin

:D There you got it! Though I'd just commit to the antecedent.

And, if we accept this apparent inability to prove such things, then on what basis are we to make a decision?

I have suggested that we do so on the basis of who we might become, if we continue to use the same sort of reasoning in the future. Whereas I don't believe LaMDA is a part of our moral community, I have many reasons for my choice in that... and fundamentally I have to admit that I don't really operate at the level of proof when thinking ethically.

I know about this story. Only that I read that the engineer was fired, not just going "on leave", as the title of the video says.
Anyway, I don't know what is your purpose of referring to this video, so I can only comment on whether Google's decision was right or wrong.

I think it was the right thing to do. Saying that a chatbot has gone sentient, thinking and reasoning like a human, etc. is a huge blooper. (I am working in the AI field.) It exposes the whole company. So, besides showing ignorance and the engineer could be fired only on that point, it was the best way for a company of high technology standards and prestige to express its position on the subject.

I don't have doubt of other's minds. I just don't prove the assertion. — Moliere

Without other minds there can be no doubt, no proof, no assertion in the first place

That makes sense to me.

Is that a proof?

Something I want to highlight -- deciding on the basis of who we might become includes the other scenario that hasn't been touched on too much. Because, at this point, I don't believe there are A.I's worth including in our moral community -- but I know A.I.'s are already influencing our social landscape through data management.

This part is important, too. If we become enslaved to computers, I don't much care that they're sentient at all -- I wish to be free.

This may be a first for TPF - your admonition has me rethinking my position. — Real Gone Cat

It happens sometimes.

But how do we prove solipsism false? — Real Gone Cat

It's a pity that the thinking here focused on shame - I would of course feel nothing other than pride at the opportunity to display my god-like physique in public.

The point of the example is not the emotional response, but the certainty with which it is held. It's not a conviction based on ratiocination. The certainty of the Other is not derived and subject to doubt, as supposes; any doubt will last only so long as he is writing a reply to me, evaporating as soon as he looks up and notices those around him. The notion that we have some obligation to prove the sentience of others shows a deep misunderstanding of the nature of proof.

Solipsism is a philosophical conceit.

It seems to me that all philosophical positions are inconsistent with solipsism, since they all require language, which is born and evolved inter-subjectively. — Janus

:up:

Walking through the mall naked may prove my shame, but so does changing in front of my cats. — Real Gone Cat

;Are you serious; you get embarrassed appearing naked in front of your cats?

Sounds like trying to argue with a Christian theologian:

"It's not a conviction based on ratiocination. The certainty of God is not derived and subject to doubt... Atheism is a philosophical conceit."

Ok then.

Your very act of posting here demonstrates your conviction of the existence of others. Your reply to this post shows you are no solipsist.

Cheers. The discussion of solipsism is peripheral to the topic here. The relevance is that the decision to accord sentience cannot be the result of merely considering technical issues, a consequence of the consideration of some algorithm. It is a similarly gut response to the rejection of solipsism.

But a more interesting issue is the granting of status.ethical status. To quot emyself,
status.ethical

My cat is sentient, but not a person. Seems to me that not all sentient creatures count as persons. But it also appears that having a claim on our moral obligations is not dependent on being a person. At the least, we are obligated to our pets, and arguably, also to our dinner. — Banno

What obligations, if any, have we towards LaMDA ?

Your very act of posting here demonstrates your conviction of the existence of others — Banno

I just find interaction with this group of zombies amusing.

Seriously, I never claimed to be a solipsist. Merely that solipsism is always a possibility, however unlikely.

...solipsism is always a possibility... — hypericin

I don't agree. "I alone exist" immediately falls into performative contradiction. "I" only exists in contrast to what is not "I".

not "I" — Banno

The insensate world, including all the zombies.

Ever read '-All You Zombies-' by any chance? A bit tangental, but I always wondered what the main character meant by that. I think he was talking about everyone else.

Then at the least there are we zombies, and you are not all that exists. Your posts only exist in response to mine. Hence your posts are not all that exists. Each reply you make serves to further the point.