The pet and animal community.
What's wrong here?
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.
>it's just anything that can sense and interact with it's environment
A roomba can detect objects but it can't sense them. Senses are exclusive to living beings
Out of curiosity, what is the instrument that detects objects called? "Sensor" perhaps?
Roombas have isolated routines. With life, the various functions form a composite experience due to the ways a brain is inferior to a computer.
>ROOMBAS ARENT SENTIENT BECAUSE... JUST BECAUSE, OK?? MY DEFINITION OF SENTIENCE ONLY APPLIES TO WHAT I SAY IT DOES, BIGOT!
Yes, it is.
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.
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.
most animals are sentient
its sapient youre looking for, which is almost impossible to measure
I'm pretty sure anyone with an IQ of less than 90 isn't entirely self aware.
No, sentience can not be proven not even if it talks
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?
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.
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?
Look up the word sapient
What's wrong here?
Probably making a joke over how many people get sentient/sapient wrong
To be fair the dog doing that proves it's both sentient and sapient
The dog in this case is a cartoon.
So ultimatly it proves nothing, since the scenario has no basis in reality whatsoever.
rejecting a the conclusion in a purely hypotethical scenario because it's hypotethical doesn't make you appear as smart as you think
There is no point in making up this hypothetical scenario in the first place because there's no symbolism or real world equivalent.
>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.
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
Brainlets can't wrap their head around the idea that they could be their own Chinese Room. Which means they likely are one.
You're definitely an NPC.
Everyone but you is a brainlett, right?
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.
There is no reason that humanity as a whole should succeed. We only need to get better at controlling the laborer underclass.
>at controlling the laborer underclass.
i.e. controlling AGI
dogs do not talk
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save name for the next time I post.
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.