Sentience
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
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?
Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche -[A] LetÂ’s sort this out once and for all! When we talk about kham, at the moment we are talking about this special kind of kham, the rig kham, the Buddha-nature kind of element. But usually kham is used to refer to the elements more generally, the 18 dhatus. There are the six outer kham: form, sound, smell, taste, feeling, and phenomena. These are the outer elements, and they are explained in detail if we study the abhidharma. Then there are six inner elements: the eye, ear, nose etc., and in between there are the six types of consciousness (namshey ): the eye consciousness, ear consciousness etc. The point here is that scientists are usually talking about the outer dhatus and even among these, they donÂ’t usually talk about the dhatu of Dharma, as then they would be talking about mind. But now we are talking about abhidharma, and all phenomena that we can perceive exist within these 18 dhatus or kham. Some phenomena have only one or two of these 18 elements. Some, like us, have all of them. For instance, a stone might only have the form element. But even just the form element is also divided into the five elements: earth, water, fire, air, and space. So Buddhists also believe that a stone has many of these elements, for example the fire element, the moisture element to hold it together, gravity and so on. That is all acceptable. And each of these dhatus has some kind of movement, some kind of function. TheyÂ’re not permanent and unchanging. For example, when the sun rises, the lotus opens. I donÂ’t know the detailed explanation, but there must be some kind of communication between the fire element, the moisture element and so on. But this kind of movement does not mean that this phenomenon has all the 18 dhatus.
Scientists have discovered many things like DNA, and these are all totally
acceptable to Buddhists. But there is something that scientists haven’t found yet, which Vasubandhu and all the early Buddhist metaphysicists have found. There are other types of phenomena that don’t have most of the 18 dhatus, just one or two. But instead of only having inanimate elements, they only have animate elements, such as consciousness. This corresponds to certain god realms, where they don’t have form, colour, moisture or any of that. Similarly, bardo beings don’t necessarily have all 18 dhatus. They may only have one or two, but these are typically the more ‘animate’ ones, the inner or ‘in-between’ dhatus. So if we compare a phenomenon that has only one kham or dhatu, and a phenomenon that has all the 18 kham, they are different. They function differently. [b]We have all 18 dhatus and the Buddha-nature, but to be referred to as ‘animate’, a being only has to have the 12 ayatanas – the 12 inner and in-between dhatus or kham.
LetÂ’s say that a stone has the form element. As I said, form includes earth,
water, fire and all that. Now if one of these sub-elements is reduced, such as the water element, then perhaps the stone will disintegrate. But this doesn’t mean that the stone has mind dhatu, the consciousness dhatu. This is what the Buddhists would say. There is scientific support for this view too. For example, the difference between chimpanzees and humans in terms of our DNA is very small – we are 99% exactly the same. But look at how big the difference is between us, even with just these few molecules of DNA! Phenomena are incredible! They are really beyond our comprehension. For example, cats have only two vowels but they can still have a conversation with each other!
/\[/b] -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
You are incorrigibly dogmatic.
Metaphysics don't equal to physics. Metaphysics deal with non-reality while physics deal with reality.
met·a·phys·ics (mět'ə-fĭz'ĭks) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.Sentience appears when something is able to think and make decisions for itself logically.
Yes of course. So? What's your point?
Don't tell me a computer can 'think' for himself. That is laughable and idiotic. A computer merely processes information, input and output. -
So what if I am dogmatic?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Yes of course. So? What's your point?
Don't tell me a computer can 'think' for himself. That is laughable and idiotic. A computer merely processes information, input and output.
My point is that please do not confuse people with metaphysics when they are looking for scientific answers.
If I want to program a supercomputer with a self-evolving algorithm, then it is sentient akin to a human child. But the limit of this sentience is the processing power and memory of this supercomputer. -
[QUOTE=andrewpkyap;4859403]
I would say that consciousness is an emergent property and that description would be most apt.
An emergent property does not exist by itself and in itself.
It is tied to the underlying structure.
You take away the structure, the emergent disappears.
[/QUOTE][quote] -
That is still more processing. 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."Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:So what if I am dogmatic? My point is that please do not confuse people with metaphysics when they are looking for scientific answers.
If I want to program a supercomputer with a self-evolving algorithm, then it is sentient akin to a human child. But the limit of this sentience is the processing power and memory of this supercomputer.
Sentience is defined as "1. The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness."
You can never never ever produce consciousness from processing. See all the previous posts. -
hi AEN and fellow forummers,
This is an interesting topic,i am not out to discredit anything or anyone.personally i choose to have a open mind regarding the plausibility of artificial sentience.And actually it is very hard to explain things using metaphysics.No doubt humans have not managed to use science to explain everything (yet).Artificial sentience is actually still being debated widely,no one has so far could clearly affirm that it is not possible.Just like flying,no one thought it was possible until the 2 brothers did it.
Sinweiy,
sorry didn't answer your question about the amino acid thing..i am not sure about that.but heard its widely agreed. -
The very thing that those people who thought artificial intelligence is possible, miss the very fundamental understanding of what consciousness is.Originally posted by Yautja:hi AEN and fellow forummers,
This is an interesting topic,i am not out to discredit anything or anyone.personally i choose to have a open mind regarding the plausibility of artificial sentience.And actually it is very hard to explain things using metaphysics.No doubt humans have not managed to use science to explain everything (yet).Artificial sentience is actually still being debated widely,no one has so far could clearly affirm that it is not possible.Just like flying,no one thought it was possible until the 2 brothers did it.
Sinweiy,
sorry didn't answer your question about the amino acid thing..i am not sure about that.but heard its widely agreed.
They think they can build consciousness through compiling a sophisticated processing and "thinking" mechanism, not knowing that consciousness is fundamentally non-material, not only non-material but completely formless -- it is the fundamental reality more fundamental than space and time. Who you are is NOT the body, your consciousness is NOT generated by the brain. Your body doesn't feel!! Your body is an inanimate object, animated by Consciousness. Consciousness is that which feels the pain, the sensations, not the body! Can you see what I mean?
You can never ever hope to build consciousness, much less an artificial intelligence that can somehow 'produce' consciousness. Consciousness can only stream through the body, and it can never be artificial. Body can be created -- you can create bodies through sexual means, or through clonings, and who knows what. But consciousness is a whole different element altogether. -
http://www.imprint.co.uk/Wilber.htm
...The Right Hand reductionists (subtle reductionists) attempt to reduce intentional spaces to extensional spaces and then `locate' consciousness in a hierarchical network of physically extended emergents (atoms to molecules to cells to nervous system to brain), and that will never, never work. It gives us, more or less, only half the story (the Right Hand half).
David Chalmers (1995) recently caused a sensation by having his essay `The Puzzle of Conscious Experience' published by Scientific American, bastion of physicalist science. Chalmers' stunning conclusion was that subjective consciousness continues to defy all objectivist explanations. `Toward this end, I propose that conscious experience be considered a fundamental feature, irreducible to anything more basic. The idea may seem strange at first, but consistency seems to demand it' (p. 83). It never ceases to amaze how Anglo-Saxon philosophers greet the reinvention of the wheel with such fuss.
But Chalmers makes a series of excellent points. The first is the irreducibility of consciousness, which has to be `added' to the physical world in order to give a complete account of the universe. `Thus, a complete theory will have two components: physical laws, telling us about the behavior of physical systems from the infinitesimal to the cosmological, and what we might call psychophysical laws, telling us how some of those systems are associated with conscious experience. These two components will constitute a true theory of everything' (p. 83).
This simple attempt to reintroduce both Left and Right Hand domains to the Kosmos has been considered quite bold, a testament to the power of reductionism against which so obvious a statement seems radical. Chalmers moves toward a formulation: `Perhaps information has two basic aspects: a physical one and an experiential one. . . . Wherever we find conscious experience, it exists as one aspect of an information state, the other aspect of which is embedded in a physical process in the brain' (p. 85). That is, each state has an interior/intentional and exterior/physical aspect. My view, of course, is that all holons have not just those two, but rather four, fundamental and irreducible aspects, so that every `information state' actually and simultaneously has an intentional, behavioural, cultural, and social aspect; and moreover, each of those aspects has at least ten basic levels -- much closer to a theory of everything, if such even makes any sense.
Chalmers goes on to point out that all of the physicalist and reductionist approaches to consciousness (including Daniel Dennett's and Francis Crick's) only solve what Chalmers calls `the easy problems' (such as objective integration in brain processes) leaving the central mystery of consciousness untouched. He is quite right, of course. The funny thing is, all of the physicalist scientists who are sitting there and reading Chalmers' essay are already fully in touch with the mystery: they are already directly in touch with their lived experience, immediate awareness, and basic consciousness. But instead of directly investigating that stream (with, say, vipassana meditation [Varela et al., 1993]), they sit there, reading Chalmers' essay, and attempt to understand their own consciousness by objectifying it in terms of digital bits in neuronal networks, or connectionist pathways hierarchically summating in the joy of seeing a sunrise -- and when none of those really seem to explain anything, they scratch their heads and wonder why the mystery of consciousness just refuses to be solved... -
AEN is missing what sentience means. Time for him to watch Centennial Man or AI.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:The very thing that those people who thought artificial intelligence is possible, miss the very fundamental understanding of what consciousness is.
They think they can build consciousness through compiling a sophisticated processing and "thinking" mechanism, not knowing that consciousness is fundamentally non-material, not only non-material but completely formless -- it is the fundamental reality more fundamental than space and time. Who you are is NOT the body, your consciousness is NOT generated by the brain. Your body doesn't feel!! Your body is an inanimate object, animated by Consciousness. Consciousness is that which feels the pain, the sensations, not the body! Can you see what I mean?
You can never ever hope to build consciousness, much less an artificial intelligence that can somehow 'produce' consciousness. Consciousness can only stream through the body, and it can never be artificial. Body can be created -- you can create bodies through sexual means, or through clonings, and who knows what. But consciousness is a whole different element altogether. -
No need. By the way, the ability to express emotions has nothing to do with whether he is conscious either. It may just be sophistically designed to express emotion and that has nothing to do with consciousness.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:AEN is missing what sentience means. Time for him to watch Centennial Man or AI.
Characters in computer games and CG are also designed to express realistic emotions when being interacted with. -
Interesting but chim topic. Quite concerned about the development of A.I in the human world. Hope the moderator AEn' views becomes part of the future reality.
Can't possibly what would happen if we depend too much on androids, if and when they somehow become a reality in the future. -
Ability to love, to care and to think on one's own accords is not sentience, then I really quetion AEN's view on sentience.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No need. By the way, the ability to express emotions has nothing to do with whether he is conscious either. It may just be sophistically designed to express emotion and that has nothing to do with consciousness.
Characters in computer games and CG are also designed to express realistic emotions when being interacted with. -
Sentience has to do with consciousness, not appearance.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Ability to love, to care and to think on one's own accords is not sentience, then I really quetion AEN's view on sentience.
A machine can take care of you, but it cannot love (though it can appear to show love). -
It's ok to depend on machines and I believe they can help, as they have helped us for many years.Originally posted by Spnw07:Interesting but chim topic. Quite concerned about the development of A.I in the human world. Hope the moderator AEn' views becomes part of the future reality.
Can't possibly what would happen if we depend too much on androids, if and when they somehow become a reality in the future.
But it will never be possible to build consciousness out of programming and physical structures. Means, consciousness can never be artificial. -
i guess cyborg (cybernetic + organism or a bionic human) should be Sentience.
/\ -
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.Originally posted by sinweiy:i guess cyborg (cybernetic + organism or a bionic human) should be Sentience.
/\
Of course bionics is possible since it is basically just a replacement of body parts however it is not an 'artificial intelligence'. -
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?
/\ -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
to fix on an idea(dogma) is not the way of the gateless gate. savvy?
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?
fa wu ting fa. (Dharma don't fix the Dharma)
/\ -
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.
/\ -
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.Originally posted by sinweiy: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?
/\ -
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?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Sentience has to do with consciousness, not appearance.
A machine can take care of you, but it cannot love (though it can appear to show love). -
But it is provable, then is it a dogma or truth?Originally posted by sinweiy: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)
/\ -
When we have computers which have self-evolving programs, do you consider them sentient?Originally posted by An Eternal Now: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. -
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."Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:When we have computers which have self-evolving programs, do you consider them sentient?
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. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
be it dogma or truth...doesn't matter here...as Dharma is neither dogma nor conventional truth though.
But it is provable, then is it a dogma or truth?
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.
/\