OT - Sentience

[Arkcon]

Like it was said, sentience is a term from ancient Greek philosophy, meaning "having senses", like dogs and humans have, as opposed to plants and rocks. Many sci-fi authors like "sapient" for reasoning species, link humans and the alien races in their spacecraft. I know I like the term, but some people actually claim it's racist, having roots in the species name for humans -- homo sapiens. They prefer the term "sophont".

One of the classical tests for self-awareness is the mirror test. You mark an animal on it's face, and show it it's reflection. If it tries to use the mirror to study the mark, it's self aware. Dogs and birds often fail the mirror test, reacting with fear or tying to otherwise interact with the image. Chimps and dolphins respond to their refection. interestingly, children tend to fail the mirror test before they're 4 years old. And I doubt a computer will ever pass.

That's the whole thing about computer intelligence. Humans and other animals crave social interaction -- infants know, that if they manipulate their surroundings, they get what they need to be comfortable. How're going to program a computer, to improve it's programming, to avoid a power drain -- it has no belly, it's never hungry, or cold or afraid of being alone.

Dogs want security of the pack, they've started with the beginnings of intelligence and we can manipulate their behavior. Horses instinctively run from fire, except for horses that pulled fire wagons, they used their sense of smell to run towards fire. Again, pack mentality allowed us to "reprogram" them. There's no way to discipline a computer.

[Raapys]

But that's just the way computers are now, and even now all those things could be programmed into one; you could connect it to a temperature sensor and tell it that when it goes below 0 degrees celcius it should take measures to warm itself up; it would basically be like it could feel cold. At this stage computers are limited by their own programming, but in the future this might not always be so.

Like I said, our brain is little more than an advanced biological computer that is connected to some sensors, alot of small factories that keeps our machinery going, and a few tools that allows us to interact with our surroundings. It collects data from those sensors and stores it, and thus becomes *us*, the sum of our own memories and experiences.

From what I recall, they've found evidence indicating life on this planet may have been evolving for as long as 3.5 billion years. Computers have been under development for 80'ish years?

Somehow I think that should development on computers continue for another 3 billion years the result would be staggering.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

If all you think you are is the sum of your memories, then who's the 'you' that's remembering those memories?

Memories don't explain awareness.

[Raapys]

Does there really need to be a 'you', though? Suppose the brain's just 'designed' to automatically shuffle through memories, or rather experiences, all the time. Trying to not think about anything is impossible, right?

What's awareness but the brain getting continuous input from your enviroment via your senses, comparing it with previous experiences, and then deciding on the course of action that is likely to bring the best outcome possible?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

That's a formula of actions and reactions, nothing more. I can achieve the same sort of result with a bunch of gears in a box. (Well, I could if I understood mechanical things a *Lot* better)

Are you going to argue that a bunch of gears in a box are aware?

[Raapys]

I wouldn't in that case, because the gears in the box wouldn't be able to perceive. I would, however, argue that a computer could be considered at least partially aware( not self-aware though ), if connected to sensory devices. Say it was connected to a camera and when it detected anything in that camera it would set off an alarm. It perceives, and it reacts.

Humans aren't different, the way I see it, just that we don't just react to what we perceive but also to our thoughts. We're far more complex, currently, but the principle is the same.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Right, right...Because a more complex gear-box is capable of different things than a less-complex gear-box.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but this is a redux of an arguement I had before that went nowhere.