Timeline for Does sapience require sentience?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 15, 2021 at 1:11 | comment | added | SF. | "not having the choice to gather sensory data and affect the world around itself to communicate with others" - I'd argue the opposite. With sufficiently broad learning spectrum, it would interact with the world in a way that furthers its given goal; ask questions, if someone is reluctant to share the information, possibly create an equivalent of friendship with that person to obtain it (...or other, less savory incentives). Act upon the world, be it through business, technology or social interactions - effectively creating a rich illusion of sentience, as required to fulfill the task. | |
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Nov 21, 2014 at 9:38 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/535729016293298176 | ||
| Nov 3, 2014 at 15:02 | comment | added | user9166 | That kind of implies that the severely 'negative' schizophrenics go back and forth between having and not having experience, because they go back and forth between the avolitional, anaffective state (or even catatonia) and lucidity. It is like saying you are dead when asleep. | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 10:34 | vote | accept | SF. | ||
| Oct 31, 2014 at 16:12 | answer | added | user9166 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 3, 2014 at 17:46 | comment | added | Noein | Too long... Chat? | |
| Jun 3, 2014 at 17:36 | comment | added | Noein | It would be sapient, yes, but we wouldn't know. While its responses to our forced input would show evidence of sapience, not having the choice to gather sensory data and affect the world around itself to communicate with others would make it difficult for us to call it sapient as we define the term. But from the inside, it would be. Like a person put under particularly potent sensory deprivation. (TBC) | |
| Jun 3, 2014 at 17:31 | comment | added | SF. | ...say, requiring to choose an activity following some metric during periods of activity (initiative), augment its own choices with feelings (analysis chooses a feeling matching given situation, and that in order affects behavior), or treat that 'self' entity in a special way, or just continuously improve own learning capacity and seek 'interesting' facts (including new metrics of what comprises 'interesting'). Still, deprived of these prerogatives, it's not self-aware, and acts only as a passive filter for outside data, no purposeful self-improvement. | |
| Jun 3, 2014 at 17:21 | comment | added | SF. | @Noein: They are binding as in the AI has no option but to obey them - for lack of desires or other goals. But the AI is using own, gathered so far knowledge to choose the way of executing them, and obtain additional knowledge required for the purpose of completing them; still, it lacks any specific perception of 'self'. Also, we're talking of one specifically deprived of sentience: a 'downgrade' from one that was sentient, with features that comprise sentience removed while its ability to conduct logical inherence retained. It could be easily upgraded back using these very commands... | |
| Jun 3, 2014 at 17:03 | comment | added | Noein | And I would count the little openings whence the intermittent 'commands' come, when they do, as periods of sentience. If the commands are binding then the sapient intelligence we're discussing is no better than a machine for it. If they aren't, then they count as an external sensory experience. | |
| Jun 3, 2014 at 16:59 | comment | added | Noein | If it were possible, you'd be veering towards a rationalist take on ideal forms. I'll put it this way: If the intelligence has the capacity and capability to process 'ideas' and deal with them in less-than-mechanical ways, where does it get its 'freedom'? The ideas it started with, the basic 'thinking-stuff' it's using to think about other things? If it were never sentient to begin with, it could never, I think, have the the potential to be sapient. Certainly not in a way meaningful to us in a universe that's primarily (but not entirely) external. From its POV, though... | |
| Jun 3, 2014 at 9:16 | answer | added | Aditya Kashi | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 3, 2014 at 8:43 | history | asked | SF. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |