Except you are.

You've quite clearly claimed that sentience is not the result of complex neural/computational networks

where

i said we can't imitate it--and besides, that's still a negative statement either way

where

Here:

Quote

If you accept that our brains are nothing more than complex networks of information processing

i don't

i said we can't imitate it

As Pendulate and I have already said, imitation has nothing to do with it.

and besides, that's still a negative statement either way

Okay, computers have the capacity to be not not sentient. Am I off the hook because I worded it negatively? The fact that you're making a "negative" proposition doesn't make the proposition void of content, not does it stop you from being able to support it. The idea that "you can't prove a negative" is just folk logic.

I mean, if I were to say "our best hypotheses in economics support the benefits of free trade" and you were to claim that isn't the case; yeah, you're making a negative statement, but you're not off the hook for justifying why you claim it.

I mean, if I were to say "our best hypotheses in economics support the benefits of free trade" and you were to claim that isn't the case; yeah, you're making a negative statement, but you're not off the hook for justifying why you claim it.

i can justify it, sure, but if you're asking me to prove that we can't?
that's not gonna be logically possible

i can tell you that the reason why i don't think we'll ever make a sentient AI is because I think sentience is just too complex of a phenomenon to ever be perfectly imitated, but that's not gonna convince you of anything, is it

i'm just not a fan of justifications if they're just going to waste people's time

i wouldn't be able to show you how our sentience came to be, but it involved evolution for over four billion years

And there's absolutely no justification for assuming the same must be true of AGIs, especially considering the initial jumping-off point of our own technological development, which the AGI will have access to from the beginning, and the potentiality of recursive self-improvement.

making it so an AI can feel would be an imitation of our sentience

I doubt we will ever have the capacity to grant something the ability to feel anyway; if it arises, it will arise spontaneously.

saying "not not" is a double negative, which would make it a positive
you can't just play word games with logic

And neither can you. Saying "sentience is not the result of complex neural/computational networks" is logically equivalent to the positive claim that "sentience is composed of something other than just complex neural/computational networks".

You still have an onus on that claim.

Quote from: Pendulate on June 21, 2015, 04:30:37 PM

We have very little evidence as to how other animals feel and percieve things

I'm not entirely sure this is correct.

As a matter of subjectivity, I don't think we do. I mean, obviously we have reason to believe that animals with similar nervous systems to ours can feel in similar ways, but they are a small percentage of all animals, and I don't think we can ever truly know what it's like to be them.

Verb's comment on how sentience requires the capacity to suffer is incredibly broad-brushed considering he wants to say that animals = have it but computers = won't have it.

I doubt we will ever have the capacity to grant something the ability to feel anyway; if it arises, it will arise spontaneously.

so now you're making my argument now

why must i justify something that you already believe

And neither can you. Saying "sentience is not the result of complex neural/computational networks"

but i've never said that

just because sentience is the result of our specific neural network doesn't really mean anything

why must i justify something that you already believe

Because humans being unable to deliberately programme a machine with sentience =/= a machine being able to be sentient. Pendulate and I have stated several times that if sentience arises in machines, it will be spontaneous and not the result of some on-the-spot programming, yet you still appear to have an issue with this proposition.

just because sentience is the result of our specific neural network

That's not what I said; human sentience has no bearing on potential machine sentience other than that the two would presumably be connected by the simple fact that sentience is the result of complex neural networks.

If you do accept that this is the likely cause of sentience--as current neuroscientific research would suggest--then you also have to accept that a sufficiently complex machine could also develop sentience.

Because humans being unable to deliberately programme a machine with sentience =/= a machine being able to be sentient. Pendulate and I have stated several times that if sentience arises in machines, it will be spontaneous and not the result of some on-the-spot programming, yet you still appear to have an issue with this proposition.

well, again, that just seems like too ridiculous of a question to ask me

"do you think something could happen spontaneously?"

"uhhhh... maybe!"

like, i can't definitively answer "yes" or "no" to that question without logically contradicting the very nature of spontaneity.
making it a pointless question.

like, i can't definitively answer "yes" or "no" to that question without logically contradicting the very nature of spontaneity.
making it a pointless question.

You're using the wrong definition of spontaneous, which is my fault really for not clarifying.

Definition:

BIOLOGY
(of movement or activity in an organism) instinctive or involuntary.

What I mean is that the initial development of sentience in the machine will be an involuntary process. Let's do away with the word spontaneous and phrase it like this: upon reaching a certain degree of neural complexity, the machine will develop sentience as a result. However, the establishment of this complexity will not be as a result of deliberate, on-the-spot human programming.

What I mean is that the initial development of sentience in the machine will be an involuntary process. Let's do away with the word spontaneous and phrase it like this: upon reaching a certain degree of neural complexity, the machine will develop sentience as a result. However, the establishment of this complexity will not be as a result of deliberate, on-the-spot human programming.

that might be an even worse wording

but whatever, you meant that it would be a fluke--we would be experimenting on AI, and then as it turned out, we accidentally made a sentience, yes? and we probably wouldn't notice until much later, yes?

again, discussing whether this could ever happen, to me, is the same thing as discussing spontaneity in the other sense

it's as pointless as quibbling over whether there's a god

You mean other than the statistical improbability of being hit by a meteor.

right--just like the statistical improbability of us producing a sentient AI, deliberately or otherwise

not that there's any statistics on that--the point being, i think our brain chemistry is too complex to be replicated
deliberately or otherwise

that's my argument

i think our brain chemistry is too complex to be replicated

But this is my issue.

You haven't justified I) why you're using our own connections as the metric for neural complexity or II) why you think it's too complex either way.

If it was just a passing "Oh, I don't really think it'll happen" then fine. I, myself, would say it almost definitely won't happen within this century, and there's a good chance our own sense of self-preservation would lead to some kind of transhumanism before we give a sentient AI free reign.

But both of those are a far-cry from flat-out asserting "AIs will never be sentient".

If it was just a passing "Oh, I don't really think it'll happen"

oh please
you're honestly taking issue with how i'm saying it?

"i don't think it'll happen" is really what my assertion boils down to--that's all i've been saying this entire thread
i obviously can't be certain about anything, but i make statements of certainty all the time, usually for effect

what's odd is that you're only taking issue with it now on this particular subject

I've mulled over in my head for a while the ramifications of creating a sentient AI from the machine's perspective, and I think that the results could be kinda cruel to the creation.

What will a machine do when given emotions, thoughts, and wants? A robotic mind I doubt will function as blissful as a toddler upon, basically being given a soul. It will want to be logical, but emotions tend to negate logic most likely causing internal errors and in extreme situations rampancy.

Giving a machine sentience the best course of action that I've thought of is to guide it along like a child, starting from a downgraded form and work with the AI for years and upgrade its capacity for raw knowledge and computation as time goes along to get it adapted to "life"
Shaping it in our image (Oh look, playing god) could take a couple turns, hopefully it won't develop a superiority complex, or megalomania. Perhaps it can get comfortable living like an average person with extraordinary benefits.

But it is what happens inside the AI's brain, it will feel like we do. It's hard to say how something more or less inanimate reacts to being suddenly "alive"

The machine will learn what is is to suffer, what it is to be happy, angry, and sad. Early prototypes will most likely overload from all the stimulation of being given sentience. I know there is a early AI the Japanese are putting in Asimo robots that can recognize shapes and words. Merely a start, it's too early to fully understand from a factual point, at least for me.

There's some loose ramblings from me, robotics and AI are very intriguing to me, and while I don't have all the knowledge to bring to the table I like to think ahead to what things could be.

No.

They should be treated equally but given how we treat the next closest thing to a sentient species on this planet I'm not holding out much hope for meatbags to be respectful to AI.

They shouldn't be slaves but no doubt they will.

Agreed.