What's wrong here?

What's wrong here?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sentient has nothing to do with self awareness, it's just anything that can sense and interact with it's environment. Archean and bacteria are sentient.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it's just anything that can sense and interact with it's environment
      Behold, sentience!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A roomba can detect objects but it can't sense them. Senses are exclusive to living beings

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Out of curiosity, what is the instrument that detects objects called? "Sensor" perhaps?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Roombas have isolated routines. With life, the various functions form a composite experience due to the ways a brain is inferior to a computer.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >ROOMBAS ARENT SENTIENT BECAUSE... JUST BECAUSE, OK?? MY DEFINITION OF SENTIENCE ONLY APPLIES TO WHAT I SAY IT DOES, BIGOT!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, it is.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The OP pertains to the idea of self-awareness. Dogs are barely self aware, roombas are certainly not self aware they have no capacity for metacognition or reflection. Calling it sentient doesn't insult me in any way, there's very little separating us from chemical clocks and viruses which are hardly sophisticated physical systems.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        These things are internet connected tentacles which figuratively vacuum up data about you and send it back to the company for analysis and sale. The device itself isn't sentient, but the Roomba corporation is. It's a profit machine which feeds on consumer behavior. Corporations usually aren't controlled by any one thing, and they often act in an autonomous fashion without specific guidance from human operators. They are sentient organisms.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    most animals are sentient
    its sapient youre looking for, which is almost impossible to measure

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm pretty sure anyone with an IQ of less than 90 isn't entirely self aware.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, sentience can not be proven not even if it talks

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        can you rule out forms of sentience though?
        if someone can't pass Ishihara tests, shouldn't we doubt that they can see colors normally?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A lizard is sentient. You're talking about sapience, which isn't defined clearly. Obviously you can't test for something you don't have criteria for.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Check mate

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He thinks language is proof of self awareness, rather than behaviors for which the simplest explanation is awareness of the self (most easily developed as being aware of yourself as you would be aware of another member of your species).

    What this means is if a wolf has territory, they know they have territory in the same way they know another wolf has territory, they observe themselves as a wolf. But they don't have language so they can't communicate this. But if they did, that could just as easily be automaton tier behavior as it could be for a human. Can you really prove humans are conscious? Are you really even conscious or are you just a machine that appears to be conscious but is really just deterministically re-programming itself by interacting with itself like it would with another machine?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Look up the word sapient

      https://i.imgur.com/90X3tob.png

      What's wrong here?

      Probably making a joke over how many people get sentient/sapient wrong

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        To be fair the dog doing that proves it's both sentient and sapient

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The dog in this case is a cartoon.
          So ultimatly it proves nothing, since the scenario has no basis in reality whatsoever.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            rejecting a the conclusion in a purely hypotethical scenario because it's hypotethical doesn't make you appear as smart as you think

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              There is no point in making up this hypothetical scenario in the first place because there's no symbolism or real world equivalent.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >because there's no symbolism or real world equivalent.
                Yes there is. The point of OP's pic is to demonstrate a fallacy in philosophy of mind: just because something acts like a sentient entity, doesn't mean that it is actually sentient. Behavior != internal experience.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So just because humans act sentient…

                Honestly I see more soul in a dog than you. As long as that dog is a collie type ofc

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Brainlets can't wrap their head around the idea that they could be their own Chinese Room. Which means they likely are one.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        wat

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You're definitely an NPC.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Everyone but you is a brainlett, right?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, just 80% of the population. Actually intelligent people aren't that uncommon, 1 in 5 or so, but being outnumbered 4 to 1 and having a few percent of that 1 in 5 being low empathy and VERY good at manipulation ensures a hard cap on the success of humanity until we replace ourselves with machines entirely.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There is no reason that humanity as a whole should succeed. We only need to get better at controlling the laborer underclass.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >at controlling the laborer underclass.
              i.e. controlling AGI

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    dogs do not talk

Your email address will not be published.