in fact I have never read of an NDE experiencing the horror of hell
But you did in fact say "Is Watson's chess playing ability unbeatable", right? I mean if you're trying to be pedantic, good game, but that would certainly seem to be in some way related to "can watson play chess." Either way, I am still unsure how that response is to my quote about how many chess playing AI's there are. You know, doing things that people do: making strategic decisions in a game. It's not the be allend all, but chess simulators are one of the earliest examples of people starting out thinking "computers can't do X, only people can do X" only to find out that with enough work, computers can do X.
This is a distraction and a straw man disguised as a simple question. Of course the dictionary contains more words and definitions than I know, but I'm not saying books are or will be or can't be sentient or in the same level of sentience as a human. I asked you simply to define the 'level of sentience' in some way that is conducive to examination, because advancement in the nuances of AI areaccelerating all the time.
If a robot was programmed to run a nation, including making the decision on pressing the button, that still wouldn't make it sentient.
What's the difference between a highly advanced form of AI, and a Webster's dictionary?
But of course, doesn't imply that the shopping list is more intelligent than you.
What would make it sentient? And further, what would make it the same "level of sentience" as a human? That's what you said earlier. That's what I'm asking.
Is this an actual question? To start with, AI makes decisions. Dictionaries do not. One is a list, the other is essentially algorithmic. I have to imagine this wasrhetorical and not in any way meant to equivocate the two, but I wanted to clarify.
You mean like this? [LINK]What would make a robot sentient? An obvious one might be, can you hurt a robot's feelings?
Again a straw man: I never said a list is intelligent and intelligence isn't the issue, SENTIENCE is the issue. You are either obfuscating or just realize you don't have an answer. I never implied a book was sentient OR intelligent. I asked what makes something sentient. I mentioned the intelligence of technology in my initial response to you to actually point out that intelligence does not seem to be the only component of sentience. From that post, you leave this unanswered: "Define the sentient category in which a human is contained and a theoretically super-advanced AI could NOT be contained. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, I'd just like to hear you flesh this out more." Subsequently, "My question is more along the lines of "whatin your opinion will delineate human sentience from super-advanced AI." You responded with can watsonplay chess and a dictionary isn't intelligent, I am not sure how those are relevant."
What would make a robot sentient? An obvious one might be, can you hurt a robot's feelings?
No, that's not what I said. You misread my statement.
A robot will never be in the same sentient category as a human.
Where am I implying this? I'm saying pretty clearly that intelligence is NOT necessarily a product of sentience. All I've asked you to do is define sentience and explain why you're of the opinion that AI will never be sentient.Yes, you are making an issue of intelligence because that's what you're implying is a product of sentience.
Where am I implying this? I'm saying pretty clearly that intelligence is NOT necessarily a product of sentience. All I've asked you to do is define sentience and explain why you're of the opinion that AI will never be sentient.
I'm not sure though why you're asking me to define sentience?
Beyond simple and advanced technology, we wouldn't have a clue as to how to even go about attempting to create a sentient being.
It's just like trying to scientifically discover what happens after death.
There's a Black Mirror episode called "Be Right Back" that I think got me to consider this question.
We tend to project "sentience" or "consciousness" onto others as long as they seem "mostly human" even if it's a dog or a cat.
They certainly SEEM to be sentient (Qualitatively), we know they have a mammalian limbic system just like humans, and we have some evidence that human emotions are induced via the limbic system.This seems to imply that dogs or cats are not truly sentient, no? It's fair to say even if we are misreading or mistranslating a dog's emotions, dogs HAVE emotions. They can get what appears to us to be angry, for example, and happy, and scared.
Would we even want to develop an AI that couldn't control its emotional outbursts?
NDEs are mostly granted to people who are good enough to deserve a second chance at life.Your religion teaches that the vast majority of souls are bound for hell, it stands to reason then that the vast majority of NDE's would involve a trip to hell and not paradise.
Trouble is we've been using that excuse for a bloody long time! I think people were more optimistic about artificial consciousness in the 1950s and 60s than they are today."We haven't done it yet" is not a reason we will never do it.
sentience or consciousness involves feelings, and the ability to be self aware, and the ability to learn, and to do more than programmed to do. as i said, robots also dont goof off or enjoy recreation, or doing 'naughty' things, or be altruistic
robots also might learn, but there's no cognition involved,
i dont know, there are too many possible explanations.
all i can say is the bible has errors in it, so can't be relied on completely. it could also be that the people who have positive nde's were destined for heaven for some reason, and we dont see all the negative experiences. or maybe NDEs are not heaven but just glimpses of what's possible. i dont know, there are too many possible explanations.
Trouble is we've been using that excuse for a bloody long time! I think people were more optimistic about artificial consciousness in the 1950s and 60s than they are today.
