If brains aren't conscious, then what is consciousness?Clearly consciousness extends beyond the brain due to the simple fact that brains aren’t conscious. — NOS4A2
What do you mean by the being? Is AI a being? Is the world a being? Is God a being?As a description of conscious beings, consciousness and the being are in fact one-and-the-same. — NOS4A2
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.Sensory-motor embodied enactivist approaches to perception and consciousness are based on Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception. Evan Thompson explains: — Joshs
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.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
What would be your explanations or arguments on the gaps and the model and modeled?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
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.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
That sounds like a comment from a mind reading fortune tellers. You need concrete evidences for making such judgements about others.For example, you might tell me that you know that p. And I can tell whether you are lying. — 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.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
I am not sure if it can be concluded for certainty. These are the things that cannot be easily proved.but when the parrot says "Good morning" it is imitating human speech and not really talking. — Ludwig V
Again it depends. It is not that simple.I don't say it follows that I know what sentience is. Do you? — 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 :)Yes. Do you disagree? — 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.What is your ground for moving from "it hasn't happened" to "it will never happen"? — 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?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
Exactly.If I can't tell that other people are sentient, then I don't know what it is to be sentient. — Ludwig V
We don't know that for sure, unless we become one of them in real.Different types of sentience are, obviously, sentience. — Ludwig V
Simulation = Imitation?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
What is the ground for your saying that there was no ground?I meant to say that it might - or rather, that there was no ground for ruling it out. — 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.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
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.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
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.When you say that AI are not human sentient, could they be sentient in some non-human way? — Agree-to-Disagree
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?I would estimate that the users use ordinary English and the Cyc lexical analyzer converts words into GUIDs. — PL Olcott
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
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
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.How do you know that the person standing next to you has "human sentience"? — 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.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
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?Humans are biological machines which carry out certain tasks for bacteria. Hence humans are tools to serve bacteria. — Agree-to-Disagree
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?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
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.5 > 2 remains true even after the heat death of the universe when zero minds exist. — PL Olcott
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.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
Sure, it can be done.Presenting someone with a correct definition will look like quibbling to a person who is using the word a different way. — flannel jesus
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? :DI asked if that makes it a con artist, and it quibbled about definitions. — Gary Venter
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.Dogs are animals is absolutely true no matter what. — PL Olcott
Think of 3 dogs, 3 apples, and 3 cups. They are all 3s, but denoting the different objects.Very importantly, as a matter of empirical fact, we have not found anything in the universe yet that cannot be reduced to numbers. — Lionino
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
Sleeper’s not unconscious just “dormant.” — Arbü1237
The post was just asking you for clarification on your claims, which sounded confused and muddled. How can "asking for clarification" be delusions?↪Corvus
This are real delusions. — Arbü1237
Interesting point. :ok: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
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.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
When you are asleep, your body is alive, but your mind is unconscious.If it was once living, yes — Arbü1237
1. It was a question about if the existence of God and Santa are real. Not the ideas.The idea of god and Santa are real and we can imagine the idea and understand it. — Arbü1237
:up: :fire:Bottom line: No, you can't travel in any of them.
But good luck on your attempts! — Vera Mont
How is it different from ChatGPT?In theory is can process any knowledge known to humankind that can be encoded as text strings. — PL Olcott
Does it imply that unconsciousness is what dictates the term "death"?I think consciousness is what dictates the term “alive.” — Arbü1237
Is Santa Clause real? Is God real?so everything’s real and nothing’s fake. — Arbü1237
By applying the correct reasoning.That's the problem. How can a human know objective facts about a world that exists outside their subjective experiences. — RussellA
Where did he say that?Kant said it isn't possible. — RussellA
Some, not all, or doesn't have to be, and depends.I agree. All language is more figurative than literal. — RussellA
Only the cat would know it for sure.Though perhaps the cat can also see the mouse in its imagination. — RussellA
Inadequate reasonings try to keep on going around the circles eternally, but the correct reasoning calls it a game. :DI knew you were engaging in some sort of language games.
— Corvus
Isn't everyone. — RussellA
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.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
A factual statement about the contents of your sense organs and thoughts, not the facts of the objectivity of the world.This sounds like you are being pedantically sceptic here.
— Corvus
Perhaps, but still making a factual statement. — 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.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
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. :)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