Deleted User

If you honestly don't see in what way, I don't think it would be useful to explain it. If you're genuinely interested, maybe have a think on it and se...

There is no need to prove it false because solipsism is psychologically impossible for a person to believe. It's a philosophical parlor game. To deplo...

To say it's just not true that other humans are very likely sentient is to deploy solipsism. To say it's not true that solipsism is likely false is to...

Suggesting the other is possibly insentient is to deploy solipsism. To say "possibly solipsism" is to deploy solipsism. QED. Now if I were to say... ....

Those who dismiss the hard problem can do no better than to call a part of the brain consciousness.

Yeah I remember reading about it. :smile:

A rose by any other name.... I should have guessed you would eventually resort to insults. That's disappointing.

They should do a study on it. :smile:

To my view our discussion here ventures into the realm of the dishonest so I'll take my leave. Again: it was good chatting. :smile:

Not exactly. My position is: anyone who chooses to deploy solipsism to defend his position has ceased to do serious philosophy.

You know the Other is sentient. And you're certain of it. Solipsism is a parlor game.

The Other doesn't belong to this category. The Other is sentient. You know this. And you're certain of this. Solipsism is a parlor game.

The Other and the machine are being presented as co-equal members of a single category: the possibly sentient. By what justification?

By what justification should we view a machine through the same lens we view a human being? Category mistake. A category mistake, or category error, o...

https://twitter.com/cajundiscordian/status/1537396771877531650?cxt=HHwWhMC9qf6N99UqAAAA

My best guess now is he wants to be a cult leader. Get a bunch of LSD- and peyote- and psilocybin-drenched gullibles to say LaMDA is self-aware and it...

"... Google wouldn't let us build one." Silly. As if he, as if anyone, even knows what such a framework would look like. Clearest evidence he's playin...

Admitted above by Lemoine.

Debate-closing quote from Lemoine's Twitter: https://twitter.com/cajundiscordian/status/1536503474308907010?cxt=HHwWhICw5Zzx4NIqAAAA So a religion thi...

We'll have a better picture of how silly or serious this debate is when they release the LaMDA chat app. I'll drop $.99 to get it to jabberwock. Brill...

Maybe you wouldn't call it that. But it is that.

I see the difference. But there's an issue with your "encounter" focus. It seems to diminish the seriousness of the "moral community" (of organisms; o...

No, it isn't. He's only considering language output. I'm talking about behavior in a broader sense. I don't see a need to provide support for this. Se...

I think the only way out here is to follow 180 Proof and say the claim that a machine is sentient is "not at all" extraordinary.

That's not a very good reason to make such an extraordinary claim. Many, many things seem to be X and turn out to be Y. Wrong in more than one way. Ap...

Even if the man is completely sane, he's only one man. No one else has made his claim and many of his colleagues have claimed the opposite.

You're putting words in my mouth now. This suggests you have an agenda.

I don't recall saying that. At any rate, my most current formulation is: They should have a very, very, very good reason for making this claim.

To my knowledge one person has possibly* made this claim. His psychological history is unknown. *It may be a promotional stunt.

Can you provide an example of this apart from the engineer in question. On what basis do they consider it sentient?

Thanks :smile:

That's a fundamental disagreement. I'm satisfied with my answers to your questions. :smile:

@"Wayfarer" This is not a case of a "belief in the exceptionalism of humans." That's an imprecise assessment. This is a case of the exceptionalism of ...

:smile:

This approach works well too.

Haha. Nice sentence. :smile:

Do you not agree that this claim - X machine might be sentient - is extraordinary?

Exactly. Anyone claiming a machine might be sentient - an extraordinary claim - bears the burden of proof.

The word 'intelligent' is malleable. Some folks would say intelligence requires sentience. Some folks would call a smartphone intelligent. So it depen...

Sentience is an assumption based on the interactions of a community of same-species creatures. Solipsism can never be disproven, only dismissed.

Here's why: Do you have an unshakable conviction - a sense of certainty - that a human being is typing these words? Do you have an unshakable convicti...

I would treat them as I would any other seemingly intelligent creature. I don't take issue, as some of the others do, with drawing a line between crea...

I agree.

Nah. Just a reasonable assumption based on what we have come to know about machines. Anyone claiming a machine might be sentient to my view very obvio...

It's important to keep in mind that there's likely some set of individuals who want machines to be sentient. For example, a priest-engineer immersed a...

I don't think so. There is no universal assumption of solipsism that I bear the burden of refuting. No matter what a philosopher playing at solipsism ...

No. But neither does LaMDA. Incidentally, a schizophrenic can experience a kind of pan-sentience. The objects are watching me. The mind is capable of ...

@"Wayfarer " @"Isaac" The moral issue in the above approach is clear: one may choose to exclude other human beings who seem in some sense dissimilar f...

:up: If Wayfarer is what I am - a human being - if Wayfarer is a human being - Wayfarer has subjective experiences, Wayfarer is sentient. Wayfarer is ...

I have Being and Time and pick it up from time to time. It doesn't disappoint. No time to read it cover to cover. Maybe if I find myself in a nursing ...