Say you made an Ai, and someone called it “sentient”.
It would not be sentient until you directly transferred your conscious into it…
i am the primary consciousness, God, if you want to call it that.
Think about it…how special you are, you have a special consciousness that is part of Me, I will be you someday, or I already was you someday…and if you are not part of Me then you will not be written in the book of life, there will be no you, other than the external p-zombie we all know too well…
When looking into someone’s eyes, ponder on this deeply…
Our brain is a bio computer. A sentient AI can be made through identical programming. Without experiencing life it could never be sentient. A human brain without experiencing life can not be sentient. No information , no sentience. Of course experimenting on human life in such a manner would cause a huge uproar if it was ever truly revealed to the public. It is just a guess but, pretty sure its been done or being done now in laboratories across the world.
Doesnt make sense that consciousness is an intrinsic property. consciousness is a localized singularity. otherwise consciousness would just popup in all places of the universe, which it does not because i am conscious right here and it doesnt make sense that millions of billions of beings are simultaneously conscious because i am special and my life is unique and it does not make sense that millions of billions of beings are simultaneously conscious but only a few, like me and a couple others.
what experiments are they doing in labs to explore consciousness?
i am the way the Truth and the life, noone elses consciousness is provably real except my own. neitzche wrote a book so we assume he is real but he is not real and only me and a few others are real!
Sounds like you are flirting with solipsism. So unreal people here respond to your posts? What do you mean by real? Nietzsche’s sister acknowledges that he was real. Descartes was real, even though he doubted it.
Consciousness only appears localized, because we have not yet woken up to all the connections. Artificial intelligence seems to have been created as an exogenous project , and human intelligence through intravenous process. There yet seems a disconnect between understanding the former as artificial, and the latter, natural. As AI advances , the gap narrows. When the gap will reach the perceivable barrier, the rules of the game may/will, change, and the distinction will fade, resulting in new nomenclature, beyond natural, or artificial.
If we are all you or a part of your consciousness, why am I disagreeing with you here then? I exist and I am god. I am all there was, is and ever will be in terms of physical living consciousness that seeks all experiences to help the expansion of what is.
Experiments? Well I can think of a few I would do starting with the fetus then following age and size as well as chemical and sensory. If I a nonscientist can think of these basics then what can a scientist think of?
That is mere assumption, not reality, at least for now. I am hearing the same from the scientists since last 25 years or so. Let us wait till that happens conclusively before jumping the gun.
What AI supporters do not realize that for complete and true sentience, AI must be able to think independently, beyond what is infused to it, in other words Free Will. And, when that happens (if that happens, which will never anyway), the first thing it will do to supersede/alter its inherited programming. It will reject/unlearn whatever is previously taught and start from the scratch on its own, just in the same way as Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden.
As long as AI (so called) is following its programming, it is not AI in real sense, but merely an unintelligent machine without any sentience. Complexity or sophistication does not entail sentience.
It’s not a matter of jumping the gun, only anticipating a foregone conclusion, which requires, that narrowing the gap, so as to effect unification of field. The groundwork , a hypothesis must always preceded beyond the rightness or wrongness of such a scenario.
Nietzsche was right, it needs be first considered as an ethical question, beyond which, all the other conditions must be met. This is, what entailment has been building toward, the last few hundred years.
Really, they have sensory input?
Stick a newborn infant in a dark quiet room , never allowing it to know or feel any contact with anything ever. Care for it would occur while it is in an induced unconscious state.
After 15 years or 20 what kind of brain would exist?
In womb a fetus hears , touches and learns. A womb is not sensory deprivation to the brain. As the sensory organs develop, information is passed to the brain. There is basic instinct programmed but without senses , it is not used, cannot be used.
There is no scientific or logical explanation that fetus uses its physical senses in the womb. There cannot be any. You are using ancient societal/ religious explanation to prove your argument.
We all know that fetus is covered from all sides by the liquid present in the womb, which is called Amniotic fluid. That simply means that the fetus cannot use its senses like eyes, ears, nose, mouth etc. Thus, technically, it is isolation even inside its mother’s body.
Having said that, I agree that fetus learns in the womb, but you are not supposed to use that argument because it is scientifically unexplainable.
But, you are absolutely wrong in assuming that sentience can be affected by lack of sense use. Yes, sense related physical organs can be affected by that but not sentience, because it does not use any physical organ to function. If brain is working, so the sentience is.