Sentience

An Eternal Now SG

Not sure what is that, but if there is any form of 'artificial intelligence' controlling that thing contains programmed rules and information processing instead of self-referential consciousness, it cannot be sentience.

Of course bionics is possible since it is basically just a replacement of body parts however it is not an 'artificial intelligence'.

sinweiy SG

Sentience appears when something is able to think and make decisions for itself logically.

suddenly realised all is empty talking. even the word "Sentience" is not Buddha's refering to "Zhong4 Sheng1"

by that, Buddha said, all "beings" exists due to certain Conditions.

why one think and make decisions? because there's certain conditions that set up the thinking. it doesn't stand alone. there's no real "sentience". all's conditioning. we are also robotic too. savvy? Wink

/\

sinweiy SG

Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Metaphysics don't equal to physics. Metaphysics deal with non-reality while physics deal with reality. Sentience appears when something is able to think and make decisions for itself logically. Got the idea through your gateless gate yet?

to fix on an idea(dogma) is not the way of the gateless gate. savvy?

fa wu ting fa. (Dharma don't fix the Dharma)

/\

sinweiy SG

Here is an excerpt from gentle Bridges, a conversation with Western scientists and the Dalai Lama. In discussion with Varela in the chapter on consciousness, page 152, His Holiness says:
...."I can't totally rule out the possibility that, if all the external conditions and the karmic action were there, a steam of consciousness might actually enter into a computer."

This does not mean that the consciouness is man made, rather the conditions for the arising of a consciusness could be man made.

/\

An Eternal Now SG

Yes sentient beings are conditioned arising (12 interdependent links), but the difference between us and robots are that we have consciousness. We are not programmed and automated functioning.

Herzog_Zwei SG

Are you sure of your above statment? If the machine takes care of your willingly and of its accords, can you claim that it's sentient?

Herzog_Zwei SG

But it is provable, then is it a dogma or truth?

Herzog_Zwei SG

When we have computers which have self-evolving programs, do you consider them sentient?

An Eternal Now SG

It is still mechanic and as I said many times, "AI simply refers to fixed meta-rules that are not self-referential for a computer or program to work. Awareness is not like this however, awareness is perfectly self-referential without referring to anything else."

Go play The Sims or any kind of computer simulation games that can simulate individual personalities, behaviors, characters, and emotions.

Don't tell me you'll be such an idiot to consider the game characters as 'sentient beings'. Silly.

Whatever behaviors a program can perform is merely an appearance, and like I said, consciousness has nothing to do with appearance. Consciousness is consciousness, and no matter how a robot may appear to sentient, or a computer game character appears sentient, it is nevertheless unconscious unless you are so deluded to confuse game characters with real beings.

sinweiy SG

Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
But it is provable, then is it a dogma or truth?

be it dogma or truth...doesn't matter here...as Dharma is neither dogma nor conventional truth though.
one can't even "think" of Dharma let alone explain it. it's that profound, noe?.
that which word can explain is not the real Dharma, but just conventional dharma.

/\

An Eternal Now SG

No. If you do, you're deluded.

"Willingness" and intentions has nothing to do with computers.

There is only codes and execution of codes, even if it is a generated individuated behavior based on a particular situation, it is also run based on the execution of the programming codes, and no consciousness can ever be involved.

Herzog_Zwei SG

Mod going out of topic...If something cannot be experience, then it is not Dharma.

Herzog_Zwei SG

By giving a computer an continually evolving program with unlimited resources, it can decide on its own decision whether to executer certain actions.
AEN, you are like a cup which is full and cannot contain any more information. Time for you to be open-minded.

sinweiy SG

Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Mod going out of topic...If something cannot be experience, then it is not Dharma.

it's "conventional" dharma.

ok, back to topic.

/\

justdoit77 SG

No matter how advanced human technology becomes, we won't be able to create a sentient being.

Even a super computer that has artificial intelligence built in and can defeat the world's top chess player is not considered a life, not to mention sentient being.
A computer though more complicated but in nature is the same as a series of electric pulses, and each combination has different meaning.
For example 110 means happy, 111 means angry, but it doesn't mean the computer is happy because it is us the humans interpret the 110 as happy.
We can even make a computer talk, but it is just like playing certain audio file when a set of pulses reach the CPU, just like an amplifier.
As long as there is no conscious occupying and controlling the object, it is not sentient being.

We can create baby, but that is not considered creating a sentient being, rather it is creating a physical object that enable a sentient being to occupy it till the body comes to an end.

An Eternal Now SG

Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:

By giving a computer an continually evolving program with unlimited resources, it can decide on its own decision whether to executer certain actions.

Computer characters in games and simulation and so on can also decide and make their own decisions.

No matter how sophisticated and complicated it is or how 'self evolving' or how 'caring' it appears to be -- it cannot change the fact that it is based on programming codes, that without the codes it cannot function, and like I said many many times, "AI simply refers to fixed meta-rules that are not self-referential for a computer or program to work. Awareness is not like this however, awareness is perfectly self-referential without referring to anything else."

No amount of programming can ever produce a bit of consciousness because consciousness has nothing to do with appearance and likeness with humans. We can reproduce the likeness and appearance but never the consciousness through artificial design.

AEN, you are like a cup which is full and cannot contain any more information. Time for you to be open-minded.

Open mindedness is not the same as irrational or delusional.

Herzog_Zwei SG

Computer characters are pre-programmed to execute certain decisions.

But I am saying is programming a computer to reprogramme itself on its own. Are you sure that instinct is not akin to a computer programme? With self- evolving and unlimited resources, a computer will learn to grow on its own. With this new awareness, comes self conciousness.

Herzog_Zwei SG

Note that you are using binary codes to represent something that is very difficult to represent even in binary, however at the higher ends, we can use algorithmns to represent even the most complex sequences. If the object becomes self-aware as well as aware of its surroundings and reacts to it, would you consider it sentient?

An Eternal Now SG

And that ability to program no itself IS also based on programming codes -- and therefore like I said, "AI simply refers to fixed meta-rules that are not self-referential for a computer or program to work. Awareness is not like this however, awareness is perfectly self-referential without referring to anything else."

No amount of programming can ever produce a bit of consciousness because consciousness has nothing to do with appearance and likeness with humans. We can reproduce the likeness and appearance but never the consciousness through artificial design.

justdoit77 SG

Actually not just difficult, but is unable for a binary code 110 given in the above example to express the feeling of happy.
It can only create an output that we think the computer is happy.
For example:
1) Emit series of lighting on the screen showing a smiling face
or
2) Play an mp3 file of someone laughing
But that is not the same as happy. If 1 lit dot on screen doesn't equate to happy, why then series of lit dot equate to happy?
For sentient being like us, when we feel happy, we can feel that.
But for a robot, when they talk, they don't even know they are talking other than playing different combination of mp3 upon sensing different set of sound.

The robot can have a small device in their body to do some maintenance work, for example when run low in battery, automatic open up the solar energy system to recharge.
It can also self-evolve for example, when the humidity increase, turn on the other 2 backup dehumidifier in the body 24 hours a day.
But all the above is in nature the same as having a sensor to capture the input that trigger another portion to act on it.
It is more complicated then 110, maybe 110010101000, but the complexity and the quantity of the device doesn't help to make it a sentient being.

Just my opinion.

« Previous Page Next Page »