So what you're saying is that you need a mind to be intelligent? What exactly is a mind? You say you have one, but what is it, and what magic does organic matter have that inorganic matter does not to associate minds with the former but not the latter?

Is it your mind that allows you to come up with responses to me, or your intelligence, or both? — Harry Hindu

These are extremely weighty questions that have been asked for a very long time, with no good answers given (I lean towards idealism, by the way). This is why I think Ai is going to have profound impacts on society. We're not at all ready to determine whether these machines have minds, yet we are intimately familiar with our own minds and how we use them to make decisions.

Do you think that's all an illusion? — RogueAI

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_illusion

If neuroscientists can connect a computer to a brain in such a way as to allow a patient to move a mouse cursor by thinking about it in their mind, it would seem to me that they have an understanding (at least a basic understanding) of both. — Harry Hindu

A basic understanding yes. Some structural understanding probably. But notice that these things tell us little. For instance, an anesthesiologist can make someone lose consciousness, but it is not known how this is done. Some liquid enters the bloodstream does something to the brain and we lose consciousness. It's functional in the sense you are using it, and it says something but it's not well understood.

What are the primary and secondary functions of a brain? What are the primary and secondary functions of a computer? Are there any functions they share? If we were to design a humanoid robot where its computer brain was designed to perform the same primary and secondary functions as the brain, would it be intelligent, or have a mind? If not, then you must be saying that there is something in the way organic matter, as opposed to inorganic matter is constructed, (or more specifically something special about carbon atoms) that allows intelligence and mind. — Harry Hindu

Again with function. Why not just say capacity? Function implies it does one main thing, but it does many things. We'd consider the capacity to be conscious to be primary, but that's from our own (human) perspective, not a naturalistic perspective, which I think ought to treat all things equally.

A computer does what the coding is designed for it to do. But here we do become bewitched by terminology. You can say that a computer "processes" information, or "reads" code or "performs calculations". That's what we attribute to it as doing.

With people, the difference is that we are the ones categorizing (and understanding) everything, so we have a quite natural bent to interpret things in ways we understand. As for organic matter, it's a difference, billions of years of evolution and a complexity that is mind-boggling. It goes way beyond crunching numbers and data. The capacity to recreate a human brain in non-organic stuff, may be possible, but the engineering feats required to do so are just astronomical.

I just want to make sure that you're not exhibiting a bias in that only human beings are intelligent without explaining why. What makes a human intelligent if not their brains? Can a human be intelligent without a brain?

If you want to say that intelligence is a relationship between a body that behaves in particular ways and brain, then that would be fair. What if we designed a humanoid robot with a computer brain that acted in human ways? You might say that ChatGPT is not intelligent because it does not have a body, but what about an android?

The point of my questions here is I'm trying to get at if intelligence is the product of some function (information processing), or some material (carbon atoms), or both? — Harry Hindu

Brains make people intelligent... I mean yeah that's one way to phrase it. But so does education, culture, learning, etc. Yes, that gets "processed" in the brain, but we cannot reduce it to the brain yet, in principle it has to be there, but in practice, I think we are just massively far from realizing how the brain works with these things.

Also, a kind of trivial example: a person may have a brain and be completely "stupid". They could be in a coma or brain dead. There's something kind of off in saying this person is stupid, because his brain is not working. There's something to work out in this.

Take ChatGPT, how does it work? It goes through a massive data base of probabilistic words to give the most likely outcome of the following word. But look at what we are doing now. You don't read (nor do I read you) by remembering every word you say. It would be a massive headache. We get meanings or gists and respond off of that. That's the opposite of what ChatGPT does.

Yeah, I think other animals are intelligent. No doubt, but in so far as I am saying that about them, it's related to the usage of them having capabilities that allow them to survive in the wild. That's kind of the standard as far as I know. But there are other aspects we may want to include in intelligence when it comes to animals.

Sure. A valid view is one that allows you to accomplish some goal. We change our views of humans depending on what it is we want to accomplish - genetic views, views of an individual organisms, a view as the species as a whole, cultural views, views of governance, etc. It's not that one view is wrong or right. It's more about which view is more relevant to what it is you are trying to accomplish. — Harry Hindu

Your post with the genetics point of view on humans

just a baby-making (gene dispersal) engine — Harry Hindu

sounded too restricted and even negative, which didn't help adding more useful information on understanding or describing humans.

The question now is, what point of view do we start with to adequately define intelligence, one of a particular organism (each organism is more or less intelligent depending upon the complexity of its behaviors), species (only humans are intelligent), or universal (any thing can be intelligent if it performs the same type function)? — Harry Hindu

I am not sure, if intelligence is a correct word to describe the AI agents. Intelligence is an abstract concept with no clear boundary in its application, which has been in use to describe the biologically living animals with brains.

Could usefulness or practicality or efficiency better terms for describing the AI agents, unless you would come up with some sort of reasonable definition of intelligence? What do you think?

One aspect of the difference between artificial intelligence and a human being is that it is unlikely that they will ever be constructed with a sense of personal identity. They may be given a name and a sense of being some kind of entity. However, identity is also about the narrative stories which we construct about one's life. It would be quite something if artificial intelligence could ever be developed in such a way as it would mean that consciousness as we know it had been created beyond the human mind. — Jack Cummins

Sure. All computers and mobile phones on earth have been allocated with the unique ID either via IP address or MAC address, hence they could be identified and located. But the ID is not self identity.
It is doubtful if these devices including AI agents would know who they are.

Identity has subjective and objective aspects in its nature. Machines have objective IDs, so they can be identified by other machines or humans. But they don't seem to have the subjective aspect of ID.

Idea of self is more than just names, address and DOB etc. It is also the psychological and historical reflections and mental states.

The way in which mobile phones and devices can be identified makes them a reflection of the self of users as opposed to an independent self. I have a precarious love/hate relationship with my phone and lost it once and cracked its screen a month ago. Sometimes, it feels as if it has a force of it's own which makes me wonder about panpsychism and consciousness. However, it is likely that what happens in my relationship with involves projection. At the time when my phone cracked I was feeling chaotic and saw its break as symbolic of my broken self.

Saying that, I think that the solid structure of self is just as questionable as mind. I draw upon the Buddhist idea of 'no self'. That is the self, even though it is has ego identity, is not a permanent structure, despite narrative continuity. But the nature of identity is dependent on a sense of 'I', which may be traced back to Descartes. There is the idea of I as self-reference, which artificial intelligence may be able to achieve, but probably not as the seat of consciousness, once referred to as 'soul'.

Saying that, I think that the solid structure of self is just as questionable as mind. I draw upon the Buddhist idea of 'no self'. That is the self, even though it is has ego identity, is not a permanent structure, despite narrative continuity. But the nature of identity is dependent on a sense of 'I', which may be traced back to Descartes. There is the idea of I as self-reference, which artificial intelligence may be able to achieve, but probably not as the seat of consciousness, once referred to as 'soul'. — Jack Cummins

I can sympathise your experience of various ups and downs events with your mobile phone. And suppose the idea of self is a massive and illusive topic of philosophy, psychology and religion on its own.
I am not sure if, self-reference could be regarded as part of the idea of self. You seem to sound not quite concrete about the suggestion.

My thought on the idea of self was to include the psychological states including emotions, sensations and feelings as well as reasoning backed by historical memories since the birth of an individual all bundled into a perception of reflective "I". Hence machines cannot have it.

A basic understanding yes. Some structural understanding probably. But notice that these things tell us little. For instance, an anesthesiologist can make someone lose consciousness, but it is not known how this is done. Some liquid enters the bloodstream does something to the brain and we lose consciousness. It's functional in the sense you are using it, and it says something but it's not well understood. — Manuel

It is known how it is done, or else they wouldn't be able to consistently put people under anesthesia for surgery and they wake up with no issues. The problem you are referring to is the mind-body problem which is really a problem of dualism. If you think that the mind and body are separate things then you do have hard problem to solve. If you think that they are one and the same, just from different views, then you are less likely to fall victim to the hard problem.

Again with function. Why not just say capacity? Function implies it does one main thing, but it does many things. We'd consider the capacity to be conscious to be primary, but that's from our own (human) perspective, not a naturalistic perspective, which I think ought to treat all things equally. — Manuel

Again, it depends on your view. Function does not imply that it does one thing. A function can include many tasks. What if I said that the brain's function is to adapt one's behaviors to new situations? That function would include many tasks. Both terms are used to refer to behavioral expectations.

What I want to know is intelligence only a mental function, or a bodily/behavioral function, a capacity of the mind, or a capacity of the body? When you are observing someone's behavior, is the behavior intelligence, or is it symbolic of intelligence (what is going on in the mind)?

Many people in this thread are saying that you can observe someone's behavior but their behavior can fool us into believing they are intelligent, implying that behavior is not intelligence, but symbolic of intelligence. So it seems to me that intelligence is a process of the mind, not the body. Which is it?

A computer does what the coding is designed for it to do. But here we do become bewitched by terminology. You can say that a computer "processes" information, or "reads" code or "performs calculations". That's what we attribute to it as doing. — Manuel

It's not just me that is saying. Computer scientists are saying it. There must be some kind of functionality or capacity that we both share for them to be able to talk this way and it make sense to people like you and I. Humans have been programmed by natural selection and the cultural environment one is born into. You can design a program to be open-ended, to take in new information in real-time and produce a response. As a human you do not have an infinite capacity to respond to stimuli. You can only engage in behaviors that you have tried before in similar situations and then learn from that. It is not difficult to image a computer-robot that can be programmed to do the same thing.

With people, the difference is that we are the ones categorizing (and understanding) everything, so we have a quite natural bent to interpret things in ways we understand. As for organic matter, it's a difference, billions of years of evolution and a complexity that is mind-boggling. It goes way beyond crunching numbers and data. The capacity to recreate a human brain in non-organic stuff, may be possible, but the engineering feats required to do so are just astronomical. — Manuel

It has nothing to do with organic vs. inorganic. It has to do with the complexity of the structure - the relation between its parts, not the substance of the structure. One could say that the structure is just another relation between smaller parts - an interaction of smaller parts, or a process.

Brains make people intelligent... I mean yeah that's one way to phrase it. But so does education, culture, learning, etc. Yes, that gets "processed" in the brain, but we cannot reduce it to the brain yet, in principle it has to be there, but in practice, I think we are just massively far from realizing how the brain works with these things. — Manuel

No. Learning is an intelligent process. Learning does not make one intelligent. It is a signifier of intelligence.

Also, a kind of trivial example: a person may have a brain and be completely "stupid". They could be in a coma or brain dead. There's something kind of off in saying this person is stupid, because his brain is not working. There's something to work out in this. — Manuel

Sure, the difference between a normal person and a person in a coma is in their brains.

Take ChatGPT, how does it work? It goes through a massive data base of probabilistic words to give the most likely outcome of the following word. But look at what we are doing now. You don't read (nor do I read you) by remembering every word you say. It would be a massive headache. We get meanings or gists and respond off of that. That's the opposite of what ChatGPT does. — Manuel

Sounds like what humans do when communicating. You learned rules for using the scribbles, which letter follows the other to spell a word correctly, and how to put words in order following the rules of grammar. It took you several years of immersing yourself in the use of your native language to be able to understand the rules. The difference is that a computer can learn much faster than you. Does that mean it is more intelligent than you?

Yeah, I think other animals are intelligent. No doubt, but in so far as I am saying that about them, it's related to the usage of them having capabilities that allow them to survive in the wild. That's kind of the standard as far as I know. But there are other aspects we may want to include in intelligence when it comes to animals. — Manuel

Then, for you, there is a distinction between organic and inorganic matter in that one can be intelligent and the other can't. What reason do you have to believe that? Seriously, dig deep down into your mind and try to get at the reasoning for these claims you are making. The only question remaining here is what is so special about organic matter? If you can't say, then maybe intelligence is not grounded in substance, but in process.

Your post with the genetics point of view on humans
just a baby-making (gene dispersal) engine
— Harry Hindu
sounded too restricted and even negative, which didn't help adding more useful information on understanding or describing humans. — Corvus

Neither did your comment about AIs being overrated search engines. You cannot have a philosophical discussion with a search engine. The only other object I can have a philosophical discussion with is another human being. Does that not say something?

I am not sure, if intelligence is a correct word to describe the AI agents. Intelligence is an abstract concept with no clear boundary in its application, which has been in use to describe the biologically living animals with brains.

Could usefulness or practicality or efficiency better terms for describing the AI agents, unless you would come up with some sort of reasonable definition of intelligence? What do you think? — Corvus

Yet we use the term, "intelligent" every day. If intelligence really were abstract, our conversations would cease once the word, "intelligence" is used, as we would all be confused by its use. The boundaries are only vague in a philosophical discussion about intelligence. All I'm trying to do is get at the core meaning of intelligence, not its boundaries. It seems that most people here want to cling to their notions that humans, or organic matter, is somehow special without providing any good reasons for thinking that.

Also, creating a body passable as a human would have to involve sentience which is complicated.It may be possible to create partial sentience by means of organic parts but this may end up as a weak human being, like in cloning. The other possibility which is more likely is digital implants to make human beings as part bots, which may be the scary idea, with the science fiction notion of zombies. — Jack Cummins

Why? What makes organic matter sentient? What is so special about organic matter that allows sentience but inorganic matter not?

These are extremely weighty questions that have been asked for a very long time, with no good answers given (I lean towards idealism, by the way). This is why I think Ai is going to have profound impacts on society. We're not at all ready to determine whether these machines have minds, yet we are intimately familiar with our own minds and how we use them to make decisions. — RogueAI

Not really. It's just that humans have viewed themselves as special creations for most of our existence, or that creation itself is centered around us, so it is difficult in giving up these notions that we are somehow special and that intelligence cannot be attributed to things that are not human, or even organic.

Not really. It's just that humans have viewed themselves as special creations for most of our existence, or that creation itself is centered around us, so it is difficult in giving up these notions that we are somehow special and that intelligence cannot be attributed to things that are not human, or even organic. — Harry Hindu

Well, we know personally that we are special because we know we have minds. We then assume other humans and high-order animals have them too. But machines, that's a totally different beast.

Any computer is at heart a collection of electronic switch-flipping, correct? How is turning switches on and off any kind of intelligence?

Well, we know personally that we are special because we know we have minds. We then assume other humans and high-order animals have them too. But machines, that's a totally different beast. — RogueAI

But why? That's the question I'm asking. What makes machines different? What is a machine? Are their not biological machines?

Humans are not special because we know we have minds. Every thing has something everything else does not have, or which makes it a member of one group and not another. That is nothing special. You seem to be saying its special because you have it. This type of thinking as a culture and in politics is the underlying cause of much of the violence in human history.

Any computer is at heart a collection of electronic switch-flipping, correct? How is turning switches on and off any kind of intelligence? — RogueAI

It's the cumulative effect of that electronic switching that is intelligence, not at the level of the electronics themselves - just as a neuron's electrical and chemical switching is not intelligence, but its combined effect with other neurons and the muscles in your body that is intelligence and just as a carbon atom is not organic but forms organic molecules in its relation with other molecules.

Neither did your comment about AIs being overrated search engines. — Harry Hindu

If you looked into the coding of AI, they are just a database of what the AI designers have typed in to hard drives in order to respond to the users' input with some customization. AI is glorified search engine.

You cannot have a philosophical discussion with a search engine. The only other object I can have a philosophical discussion with is another human being. Does that not say something? — Harry Hindu

Exactly. But AI is designed to hallucinate the users as if they are having the real life conversations or discussions with them.

It says that we could still investigate and discuss what makes AI to get the users to project human minds onto them. It is still an interesting topic I guess.

All I'm trying to do is get at the core meaning of intelligence, not its boundaries. — Harry Hindu

Yes, still waiting for your definition of intelligence. If you don't know what intelligence is, then how could you have asked if AI is intelligent? Without clear definition of intelligence, whatever answer would be meaningless.

The boundary of concept is critical for analysis of their the logic of implications and legitimacy of applications.

It is known how it is done, or else they wouldn't be able to consistently put people under anesthesia for surgery and they wake up with no issues. The problem you are referring to is the mind-body problem which is really a problem of dualism. If you think that the mind and body are separate things then you do have hard problem to solve. If you think that they are one and the same, just from different views, then you are less likely to fall victim to the hard problem. — Harry Hindu

That's what many anesthesiologists say. Yes they can put people to sleep, clearly, but the mechanism by which this works is not well understood. They can do something without understanding very well how the body reacts the way it does. No, I'm not a dualist. I'm a "realistic naturalist" in Galen Strawson's terms.

. Function does not imply that it does one thing. A function can include many tasks. What if I said that the brain's function is to adapt one's behaviors to new situations? That function would include many tasks. Both terms are used to refer to behavioral expectations. — Harry Hindu

So what's the benefit of using "function" instead of process or what a thing does? Saying it's one of the processes of the brain does not carry the suggestion that it does a few main things, and then some secondary things which are less important somehow. Sure, no term is perfect, but we can then start believing that function is something nature does and attribute it to things that fit these criteria, including computers.

Many people in this thread are saying that you can observe someone's behavior but their behavior can fool us into believing they are intelligent, implying that behavior is not intelligence, but symbolic of intelligence. So it seems to me that intelligence is a process of the mind, not the body. Which is it? — Harry Hindu

I agree. I personally think that it is more beneficial to think in terms of "this person" has a mind like mine, than a brain like mine. We deal with people on a daily level in mental terms, not neurophysiological terms. We could do the latter if one wanted, but it would be very cumbersome and we'd have to coin many technical terms.

It is not difficult to image a computer-robot that can be programmed to do the same thing. — Harry Hindu

Imagine yes. To actually do? I think we're far off. The most we are doing with LLM's is getting a program to produce sentences that sound realistic. Or mesh images together.

But a parrot can string together sentences and we wouldn't say the parrot is behaving like a person.

Sounds like what humans do when communicating. You learned rules for using the scribbles, which letter follows the other to spell a word correctly, and how to put words in order following the rules of grammar. It took you several years of immersing yourself in the use of your native language to be able to understand the rules. The difference is that a computer can learn much faster than you. Does that mean it is more intelligent than you? — Harry Hindu

Here I just think this is the wrong view of language. It's the difference between a roughly empiricist approach to language "learning" and a rationalist one. We can say, for the sake of convenience, that babies "learn" languages, but they don't in fact learn it. It grows from the inside, not unlike a child going through puberty "learns" to become a teenager. But let's put that aside.

Ok, suppose I grant for the sake of argument, that computers "learn" faster than we can. Why can't we say the same things about mirrors? Or that cars run faster than we do? Or that we fly more than penguins? If you grant this, then the issue is terminological.

Then, for you, there is a distinction between organic and inorganic matter in that one can be intelligent and the other can't. What reason do you have to believe that? Seriously, dig deep down into your mind and try to get at the reasoning for these claims you are making. The only question remaining here is what is so special about organic matter? If you can't say, then maybe intelligence is not grounded in substance, but in process. — Harry Hindu

No. Not in principle in terms of results. The point is, that I believe we are astronomically far away from understanding the brain, much less the mind (and emergent property of brains). The brain is organic. Doesn't it make more sense to understand what intelligence and language is from studying human beings that from studying something we created? I mean, it would strange to say that we should study cellphones to learn about language, or a radio to learn about the ear.

It's the cumulative effect of that electronic switching that is intelligence — Harry Hindu

Let's explore this. Suppose there's a parallel world where computers work without software. Whenever a user wants the computer to do something, they turn the computer on, and all the electronic switches that make up the computer just randomly open and close in ways that produce the output the user wants. It just all happens by fantastic coincidence.

For example, in this parallel world, there are computers that have hardly any circuits that are capable of passing BAR exams, and solving complex math problems, and passing Turing Tests, and acting as therapists because they all just accidentally always give the right output. If the multiverse is sufficiently large and varied enough, this kind of world actually exists. So, are the computers in that world intelligent?

You query what makes organic sentient? Presumably, you, as a human being, are sentient. This means that you have the experience of an organic body, with features such as hunger, thirst and pain. Obviously, these are limitations, but they involve experience, in the form of embodiment. However, the experience of embodiment which leads to understanding of suffering and needs. As non sentient beings do not have needs, including the whole range from the physical, social and self actualization of Maslow's hierarchy of needs they lack any understanding of other minds.

I am unsure of what self reference entails because I am not convinced that it comes down to knowing one's name. Identity involves so much more of lived experience and goes beyond the persona itself. Some of it comes down to processing and in some ways a computer may be able to do that. I wonder if artificial intelligence would have dream sleep which is essential to subconscious processing, and what such dreams would entail. As the Philip K Dick novel title asks, ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?'

A sense of self and self awareness involves so much about the fantasy aspects of identity. We don't just assimilate facts about oneself but the meaning of facts. Self is not just about raw data but hopes, aspirations and intentions.

Modern cars are embodied AI. I said more here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/961175

Have you read what psychologists say about the self?
I have read Damasio's The Feeling of what Happens. I've also read Anil Seth's Being You, and I preferred the latter. Seth's decomposition of the self looks like this.

• Bodily self: the experience of being and having a body.
• Perspectival self: the experience of first-person perspective of the world.
• Volitional self: the experiences of intention and of agency.
• Narrative self: the experience of being a continuous and distinctive person.
• Social self: the experience of having a self refracted through the minds of others.

I am not entirely happy with Seth's account of the self (which is a chapter, not just 5 bullet points!) but I find it easier to understand Seth than Damasio.

(mostly copied from my comment https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/946445)

Having read the post which you linked me to, I am not sure that the car being programmed to self-care gives it embodiment. My phone beeps when it's battery is low but that doesn't mean that it has a mind or self in any meaningful way. A car doesn't have experiences in the sense of pleasure or suffering. It won't enjoy riding down the street or feel distress when low on fuel. It may become dysfunctional of course, such as by adverse temperature extremes.

A car which could reproduce would be something indeed. I wonder if it would have sex with other cars to do this and whether there would be male and female cars, even gay cars. If they had a sense of sexual attraction it may be the sign that they had achieved embodiment.

I haven't read the 2 books which you mention but do read on the topic of self in psychology. I am particularly interested in psychoanalysis and the ideas of Jung, which involves the idea of the subconscious and Jung's idea of the collective unconscious.

The concept of the collective unconscious is significan in relation to the self and artificial nature because it involves an intersubjective link with other minds. Jung has some ambiguity over whether this is a process in nature or something more. If it is seen as something more, or supernatural, it would be possible to see artificial intelligence as having a part in this, because a machine could have a spirit. Nevertheless, there may be some problem as seeing spirit as separate from nature. It would make computers seem like divine beings or gods.

Aside from this, one book which I read recently was Philip Ball's 'The Book of Minds: Understanding Ourselves and Other Beings, from Animals to Aliens (2022). In particular, it looks at how humans infer the existence of other minds. His central argument is that we need to move on from considering the human mind as a standard against all others should be judged. I am not sure that I agree entirely but I can see that we base so much on anthrocentric assumptions. The book is particularly useful as it looks at the literature, including the ideas of Damasio and Nagel's 'What it is Like to be a Bat'. Humans haven't the ability to know what it feels like to be other than human.

Humans haven't the ability to know what it feels like to be other than human. — Jack Cummins

OK. So how do you know that

A car doesn't have experiences in the sense of pleasure or suffering. — Jack Cummins

?

I don't think cars experience pleasure or suffering myself, but I don't know for sure. And I sometimes think my real attitude is "I bloody well hope they don't because I don't want to have to worry about them."

Let's explore this. Suppose there's a parallel world where computers work without software. Whenever a user wants the computer to do something, they turn the computer on, and all the electronic switches that make up the computer just randomly open and close in ways that produce the output the user wants. It just all happens by fantastic coincidence.

For example, in this parallel world, there are computers that have hardly any circuits that are capable of passing BAR exams, and solving complex math problems, and passing Turing Tests, and acting as therapists because they all just accidentally always give the right output. If the multiverse is sufficiently large and varied enough, this kind of world actually exists. So, are the computers in that world intelligent? — RogueAI

I can't imagine a computer without software. If it does not have software, it isn't a computer. I don't see how such a device could pass BAR exams or solve math problems. It needs software to do this - something to direct the switching into producing meaningful output.

Random switching isn't what I would attribute as intelligent. Intelligence is goal-directed and we can program a computer with goals.

I don't see how any of what you just said helps as it has nothing to do with anything I have said.

You query what makes organic sentient? Presumably, you, as a human being, are sentient. This means that you have the experience of an organic body, with features such as hunger, thirst and pain. Obviously, these are limitations, but they involve experience, in the form of embodiment. However, the experience of embodiment which leads to understanding of suffering and needs. As non sentient beings do not have needs, including the whole range from the physical, social and self actualization of Maslow's hierarchy of needs they lack any understanding of other minds. — Jack Cummins

None of this explains what makes organics sentient. Yes, I know I'm sentient, but why am I sentient? What is it about me that makes me sentient other than me, or some robot, just saying so?

If you looked into the coding of AI, they are just a database of what the AI designers have typed in to hard drives in order to respond to the users' input with some customization. AI is glorified search engine. — Corvus

And your responses to me and everyone you ever speak to is a product of your history of interacting with English speakers. Many people claim that we think in our native language (I don't necessarily think we do, but this is their claim). Is that any different than what AI does? One could say that the visuals of written words (scribbles) and the sounds of words (utterances) are etched in your brain. The words on this forum are typed and by reading them you might learn new ways of using words and adapt your responses in the future. Again, how is what you are saying AI does is any different from what you are doing right now reading this? Are you a glorified search engine? What is needed to make one more than a glorified search engine?

Exactly. But AI is designed to hallucinate the users as if they are having the real life conversations or discussions with them. — Corvus

It's not designed to hallucinate users. It is a tool designed to provide information using everyday language use instead of searching through irrelevant links that appear in your search, like ads.

Yes, still waiting for your definition of intelligence. If you don't know what intelligence is, then how could you have asked if AI is intelligent? Without clear definition of intelligence, whatever answer would be meaningless.

The boundary of concept is critical for analysis of their the logic of implications and legitimacy of applications. — Corvus

I did define intelligence earlier in the thread:

Let's start off with a definition of intelligence as: the process of achieving a goal in the face of obstacles. What about this definition works and what doesn't? — Harry Hindu

That's what many anesthesiologists say. Yes they can put people to sleep, clearly, but the mechanism by which this works is not well understood. They can do something without understanding very well how the body reacts the way it does. No, I'm not a dualist. I'm a "realistic naturalist" in Galen Strawson's terms. — Manuel

I think you are confusing how anesthesia works with how the brain and mind are related. Those are two separate issues. If you Google, "how does anesthesia work" you will find many articles that do not seem to exhibit any kind of doubt about how anesthesia works on the brain. How the brain relates to the mind is a separate and hard problem. How anesthesia works is not a hard problem. If it were we would be having a lot more issues with people going under.

So what's the benefit of using "function" instead of process or what a thing does? Saying it's one of the processes of the brain does not carry the suggestion that it does a few main things, and then some secondary things which are less important somehow. Sure, no term is perfect, but we can then start believing that function is something nature does and attribute it to things that fit these criteria, including computers. — Manuel

Are you saying that it is sensible to call, "intelligence" a thing, or an object, instead of what things do? When you point to intelligence, what are you pointing at - a thing or a behavior or act?

I agree. I personally think that it is more beneficial to think in terms of "this person" has a mind like mine, than a brain like mine. We deal with people on a daily level in mental terms, not neurophysiological terms. We could do the latter if one wanted, but it would be very cumbersome and we'd have to coin many technical terms. — Manuel

Sure, because we have direct access to our minds and only indirect access to our own brains (we can only view our own brains via a brain scan or MRI, or an arrangement of mirrors when having brain surgery).

Imagine yes. To actually do? I think we're far off. The most we are doing with LLM's is getting a program to produce sentences that sound realistic. Or mesh images together.

But a parrot can string together sentences and we wouldn't say the parrot is behaving like a person. — Manuel

Not behaving like a person, but behaving intelligently. Does every person behave intelligently? If not, then being a person does not make you necessarily intelligent. They are separate properties. What are the characteristics of an intelligent person, or thing?

All you have to do is research some of the recent news stories about the advances made in robotics to know that it is not that far off:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/01/03/1108937/fast-learning-robots-generative-ai-breakthrough-technologies-2025/

I don't see a difference between brain and mind. I think we both have similar brains and minds. My brain and mind are less similar to a dog or cat's brain and mind. Brains and minds are the same thing just from different views in a similar way that Earth is the same planet even though it looks flat from it's surface and spherical from space.

Here I just think this is the wrong view of language. It's the difference between a roughly empiricist approach to language "learning" and a rationalist one. We can say, for the sake of convenience, that babies "learn" languages, but they don't in fact learn it. It grows from the inside, not unlike a child going through puberty "learns" to become a teenager. But let's put that aside.

Ok, suppose I grant for the sake of argument, that computers "learn" faster than we can. Why can't we say the same things about mirrors? Or that cars run faster than we do? Or that we fly more than penguins? If you grant this, then the issue is terminological. — Manuel

Learning a language (or being intelligent in general) requires both an empirical and rational approach. You cannot have one without the other. You need to be able to see, hear, or touch (in the case of braille) to learn a language. You have to be able to observe it's use. You also need to be able to categorize your observations into a sensible view to be able to try an use it yourself and respond appropriately. The Empiricism vs Rationalism debate is a false dichotomy.

I don't know what you mean by "grows from the inside". What does a language you don't know look and sounds like? Scribbles and sounds, so it does not seem to me that language comes from the inside. You have to learn what those scribbles and sounds mean to be able to use them. What comes from the inside is the power to categorize your experiences of the world, which includes language, to respond to it in meaningful ways, either by scribbling something, saying something, or just doing something.

No. Not in principle in terms of results. The point is, that I believe we are astronomically far away from understanding the brain, much less the mind (and emergent property of brains). The brain is organic. Doesn't it make more sense to understand what intelligence and language is from studying human beings that from studying something we created? I mean, it would strange to say that we should study cellphones to learn about language, or a radio to learn about the ear. — Manuel

That doesn't sound strange at all. Is not part of studying humans studying what they created? Humans are calling it artificial intelligence. Are we to believe them when studying them? The other examples are nonsensical. Again, the inventor of the radio and mirror-makers are not claiming that their devices are intelligent.

None of what you have said explains what makes organic matter special in that it has intelligence and inorganic matter does not.

I am sure that there are objective means of demonstrating sentience. Cell division and growth are aspects of this. Objects don't grow of there own accord and don't have DNA. The energy field of sentient beings is also likely to be different, although artificial intelligence and computers do have energy fields as well.

The creation of a nervous system may be possible and even the development of artificial eyes. However, the actual development of sensory perception is likely to be a lot harder to achieve, as an aspect of qualia which may not be reduced to bodily processes completely.

When it comes down to knowing what it is like to be anything other than human, it comes down to imaginary speculations. As far as the car is concerned, many people almost treat them like people. This is based on fantasy and conceptions of imaginary minds.

I always imagined my teddy bears as having minds, because I grew up with a mother who acted in plays. She taught me to play and fantasise and see my toys as characters. On some occasions,I think that people misinterpreted my understanding thinking that I believed that my bears had minds and thoughts. These people may have thought that I was psychotic and when I tried to explain the imaginary minds I gave to bears were fantasy they often seemed confused and perplexed.

Human beings sometimes realising fantasy projection and imaginary minds. The concept of imaginary minds is so different from that of possible minds because the possible ones may exist or exist at some point. Creating a mind for a car or teddy bear is not possible unless they could be given a lifeforce independently of human projection.

Again, how is what you are saying AI does is any different from what you are doing right now reading this? Are you a glorified search engine? What is needed to make one more than a glorified search engine? — Harry Hindu

I wonder if AI can understand and respond in witty and appropriate way to the user inputs in some metaphor or joke forms. I doubt they can. They often used to respond with totally inappropriate way to even normal questions which didn't make sense.

We often say that the one of the sure sign of mastering a language is when one can fully utilize and understand the dialogues in jokes and metaphors.

It's not designed to hallucinate users. It is a tool designed to provide information using everyday language use instead of searching through irrelevant links that appear in your search, like ads. — Harry Hindu

It is perfectly fine when AI or ChatBot users take them as informational assistance searching for data they are looking for. But you notice some folks talk as if they have human minds just because they respond in ordinary conversational language which are pre-programmed by the AI developers and computer programmers.

I did define intelligence earlier in the thread:

Let's start off with a definition of intelligence as: the process of achieving a goal in the face of obstacles. What about this definition works and what doesn't? — Harry Hindu

I am not sure the definition is logically, semantically correct or fit for use. There are obscurities and absurdities in the definition. First of all, it talks about achieving a goal. How could machines try to achieve a goal, when they have no desire or will power in doing so?

The process of achieving a goal? Here again, what do you mean by process? Is intelligence always in the form of process? Does it have starting and ending? So what is the start of intelligence? What is the ending of intelligence?

I am unsure of what self reference entails because I am not convinced that it comes down to knowing one's name. Identity involves so much more of lived experience and goes beyond the persona itself. Some of it comes down to processing and in some ways a computer may be able to do that. I wonder if artificial intelligence would have dream sleep which is essential to subconscious processing, and what such dreams would entail. As the Philip K Dick novel title asks, ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' — Jack Cummins

I suppose AI could be programmed to project what the central processor is processing in the form of dreams, imaginations and remembrances, hopes and wishes into the monitors with special effect sound reproduction system. It could be actually quite interesting to see what type of data would be outputting into the screens and sound system from the AI processors.

However, the question still remains needing to clarify whether such dreams, imaginations, remembrances, hopes and wishes, or even depressions are genuine in nature. The word "artificial" in AI reminds us that they are ultimately the creation of human intelligence, not genuine intelligence.

A sense of self and self awareness involves so much about the fantasy aspects of identity. We don't just assimilate facts about oneself but the meaning of facts. Self is not just about raw data but hopes, aspirations and intentions. — Jack Cummins

println() "Hello world!!".
printlin() "Agreed"
printlin() "Have a good day"
printlin() "Logged out"

Artificial intelligence does have memory, so it is likely that this could be used as a basis for creativity. The central aspects of consciousness may be harder to create. I would imagine simulated dream states as showing up as fragmented images and words. It would be rather surreal.

I did see a session of AI seance advertised. It would probably involve attempts to conjure up disembodied spirits or appear to do so.

As far as AI goes, it would be good to question it about its self and identity. I was rather tempted to try this on a phone call which was artificial intelligence. As it was, it struggled with some of the questions which I was asking and 'the lady' kept saying, 'I did not quite catch that question.' It felt so obvious that the person was automated and had no reflective ability whatsoever. But, I did get the call back which she said I would get so it was efficient as often real people say that a call will come and it doesn't happen.

I think you are confusing how anesthesia works with how the brain and mind are related. Those are two separate issues. If you Google, "how does anesthesia work" you will find many articles that do not seem to exhibit any kind of doubt about how anesthesia works on the brain. How the brain relates to the mind is a separate and hard problem. How anesthesia works is not a hard problem. If it were we would be having a lot more issues with people going under. — Harry Hindu

Sure, I am agreeing that anesthesia works. We also know how to replace limbs, like arms, and get people having a hand "functioning" again, despite not having a clue how willed action works.

But you have perspective like these, which are not uncommon:

https://www.sciencealert.com/for-over-150-years-how-general-anaesthesia-works-has-eluded-scientists-we-re-finally-getting-close

Now we are closer to getting a better understanding of how it works. So, we've used for 150 years without knowing why is works as it does.

The point is that people do things without knowing how they are done. This includes acts of creativity, aspects of intelligence, willed action, etc.

Are you saying that it is sensible to call, "intelligence" a thing, or an object, instead of what things do? When you point to intelligence, what are you pointing at - a thing or a behavior or act? — Harry Hindu

If I am pointing at something, it could be an act, it could be an idea, it could be a calculation. I wouldn't say that a program is intelligent, nor a laptop. That's kind of like saying that when a computer loses power and shuts off, it is "tired". The people who designed the program and the laptop are.

Not behaving like a person, but behaving intelligently. Does every person behave intelligently? If not, then being a person does not make you necessarily intelligent. They are separate properties. What are the characteristics of an intelligent person, or thing? — Harry Hindu

Behavior is an external reaction of an internal process. A behavior itself is neither intelligent nor not intelligent, it depends on what happened that lead to that behavior.

What characteristics make a person intelligent? Many things: problem solving, inquisitiveness, creativity, etc. etc. There is also the quite real issue of different kinds of intelligence. I think that even having a sense of humor requires a certain amount of intelligence, a quick wit, for instance.

It's not trivial.

I don't see a difference between brain and mind. I think we both have similar brains and minds. My brain and mind are less similar to a dog or cat's brain and mind. Brains and minds are the same thing just from different views in a similar way that Earth is the same planet even though it looks flat from it's surface and spherical from space. — Harry Hindu

No difference? A brain in isolation does very little. A mind needs a person, unless one is a dualist.

That doesn't sound strange at all. Is not part of studying humans studying what they created? Humans are calling it artificial intelligence. Are we to believe them when studying them? The other examples are nonsensical. Again, the inventor of the radio and mirror-makers are not claiming that their devices are intelligent.

None of what you have said explains what makes organic matter special in that it has intelligence and inorganic matter does not. — Harry Hindu

But if they claimed it then it would be true? No. We program computers, not people. We can't program people, we don't know how to do so. Maybe in some far off future we could do so via genetics.

If someone is copying Hamlet word for word into another paper, does the copied Hamlet become a work of genius or is it just a copy? Hamlet shows brilliance, copying it does not.