Sentience

[Admiral Johnason]

Has the reason for sentience ever been explained or how it actually works?

[Wicked Pilot]

Has the reason for sentience ever been explained or how it actually works?

Um, I think therefore I am.

[Admiral Johnason]

Has the reason for sentience ever been explained or how it actually works?

Um, I think therefore I am.

I meant scientifically, but that was a good answer.

[Wicked Pilot]

I meant scientifically, but that was a good answer.

You will first need to explain to us exactly what you mean by sentience. That has to be done before science can be asked for answers.

[kojikun]

yes, WP is correct, you need to define what you mean be sentience.

[Admiral Johnason]

Self Awareness and Conscienceness, along with (relative) intelligence.

[kojikun]

biological processes. simple neurological circuits.

[Admiral Johnason]

biological processes. simple neurological circuits.

But how does this lead to Self Awareness and our ability to leap beyond logic?

[kojikun]

But how does this lead to Self Awareness and our ability to leap beyond logic?

Self awareness is merely knowledge of the fact that we're thinking. Its just output->input. And logic comes AFTER the ability to go beyond it. The more primitive an animal, the less logical and the more instinctual.

[Solamnus]

Has the reason for sentience ever been explained or how it actually works?

Um, I think therefore I am.

I was in an argument once on another BBS about science and posted the link to Micheals Grand Illusion article about science. The boy said that "I think therefore I am" is no longer valid and that Betrand Russle changed it to "There is thinking, therefore there are thoughts." <---I have never found this exact quote.

[Sektor31]

What about the will to live? Would having one (even if it is very damn small) make you self-aware?

[Hethrir]

Does this have to do with AI, because computers can NEVER be sentient - the Chinese room test proves it wrong. If we believe Turning, then perhaps.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Does this have to do with AI, because computers can NEVER be sentient - the Chinese room test proves it wrong. If we believe Turning, then perhaps.

I don't see how a neural net computer can't learn to become sentient like any organism, we only don't think of ourselves as computers because we're naturally occuring and you don't see people plug themselves in data ports.

[kojikun]

I don't see how a neural net computer can't learn to become sentient like any organism, we only don't think of ourselves as computers because we're naturally occuring and you don't see people plug themselves in data ports.

Thats the big misconception tho isn't it? That we are any different from the guy in the chinese room. We're not. The part of my brain thats responsible for language no more understands what its saying then the man in the room with the chinese characters understands. But the part of my that does understand is my mind as a whole, like the man in the room and the chinese guys outside the room. The entirety understands, not the individual parts.

But theres the other misconception: that humans somehow are different from computers, that our fantastical abilities are something more then just brut-force processing. They're not. Our brains are just a few trillion multi-signal relays each with thousands of connections. We're cellular computers. A single neuron in my brain is no more special then a circuit breaker, both operate on the same principles of receiving an input and relaying that input to something else. For a circuit breaker the input is electricity, and the relaying process is that when theres sufficient amount of electricity running through the breaker an electromagnet will pull on a switch and shut the circuit off. For a neuron the input is numerous different chemicals and the relaying process is a series of other chemicals as well as a system of transcellular ports that equalize a charge imbalance between the inside and outside of the cell around the port, upon doing which causes the next port down the line to do the same. The main difference in this is the scale. Computers, for instance, have relatively few switches, each with relatively few connections, but a brain has many many more switches each with thousands of connections. Thats the main difference: computers right now act like single-celled organisms with very many simple and non-intertwined processes. When we have thousands of very simple small computers (or even noncomputing circuits) working together, then we'll have AI. Remember, the difference between a neurotransmitter like serotonin or dopamine and a simulated neurotransmitter is not function, but form.

[Admiral Valdemar]

/\ What kojikun said in that big block of textual niceness.

[kojikun]

/\ What kojikun said in that big block of textual niceness.

Damn right.

Hethrir, I suggest you real Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil, or Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennet.

[Kuroneko]

I was in an argument once on another BBS about science and posted the link to Micheals Grand Illusion article about science. The boy said that "I think therefore I am" is no longer valid and that Betrand Russle changed it to "There is thinking, therefore there are thoughts." <---I have never found this exact quote.

But the statement does not assign any more predicates to the subject 'I'. Why would it be invalid? If thoughts require a mind, that would be the 'I'. If not, then then the thoughts would be "thinking" themselves. That is a very strange situation, but when one is in " Cartesian Doubt," one can't say that this is not the case. But then, the thoughts themselves would be the 'I'.