Strong Artificial Intelligence and the Soul

[George-ananda]

Storm,

Please give me your definition of 'Sapience'

 

[Storm]

I'll grant it's tricky to pin down, so I defer to the Wiki for a starting point:

"Sapience" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Sentience.

Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment, a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties. Robert Sternberg[30] has segregated the capacity for judgment from the general qualifiers for intelligence, which is closer to cognizant aptitude than to wisdom. Displaying sound judgment in a complex, dynamic environment is a hallmark of wisdom.

The word sapience is derived from the Latinsapientia, meaning "wisdom".[31] Related to this word is the Latin verbsapere, meaning "to taste, to be wise, to know"; the present participle of sapere forms part of Homo sapiens, the Latin binomial nomenclature created by Carolus Linnaeus to describe the humanspecies. Linnaeus had originally given humans the species name of diurnus, meaning man of the day. But he later decided that the dominating feature of humans was wisdom, hence application of the name sapiens. His chosen biological name was intended to emphasize man's uniqueness and separation from the rest of the animal kingdom.

In fantasy fiction and science fiction, sapience describes an essential human property that bestows "personhood" onto a non-human. It indicates that a computer, alien, mythical creature or other object will be treated as a completely human character, with similar rights, capabilities and desires as any human character. The words "sentience", "self-awareness" and "consciousness" are used in similar ways in science fiction.
​

When I was about 8, my dad explained it to me thus: "To be sentient is to be aware. To be sapient is to be aware that you are aware. An earthworm is sentient; you are sapient." We were reading The Fuzzy Papers at the time, which remains my favorite exploration of the topic.

In my own words, sapience is the capacity for independent thought.

 

[idav]

At the macro animal level, there is consciousness. And artificial intelligence lacks this consciousness. No man-made object can FEEL pain, that is the main point.

I remember you saying something about consciousness coming from the spirit realm (or something like that I'm not trying to quote you). What makes you assume that technology couldn't tap into the same things biological machines tap into?

 

[Storm]

Why is any one physical sensation a prerequisite to consciousness? For that matter, why any physical sensation at all?

 

[George-ananda]

Storm,

Thanks for the definition and the accompanying elaboration. It's not a word I've been comfortable with. So I may have mis-used or mis-understood it in my posts above.

However, I don't think that fact effects the main points I've made. I'm not sure what rules I've been accused of changing either.

If you want to question/challenge my position; start fresh now and fire away.

 

[Storm]

Storm,

Thanks for the definition and the accompanying elaboration. It's not a word I've been comfortable with. So I may have mis-used or mis-understood it in my posts above.

However, I don't think that fact effects the main points I've made. I'm not sure what rules I've been accused of changing either.

If you want to question/challenge my position; start fresh now and fire away.

Sorry, figure of speech. One I maybe shouldn't use given that I'm staff, now that I think of it. Sorry.

What I meant was that you seem to reject the notion that strong AI (meaning sapience in a machine) is even possible, but you joined the debate arguing against extending rights and ethical treatment to strong AI.

So, going by that position, either you're advocating for (in my view) bigotry against sapient beings, OR you just didn't understand the topic. I'm sorry to put it that way, but I don't see another resolution.

 

[George-ananda]

I remember you saying something about consciousness coming from the spirit realm (or something like that I'm not trying to quote you). What makes you assume that technology couldn't tap into the same things biological machines tap into?

Good question. Spirit incarnates into physical animals and gives them life. The design behind this process is complex but that is the miracle of life. There are other realms involved than just the physical one we always think about. We, for example, also have etheric, astral, mental components that makes us think and feel.

Man's technology only can make physical things. And they do what they do obeying mechanical and electrical laws. They have no astral component to make feeling even possible. And no higher super-physical realms to make thought even possible.

Now man making conscious things would require biological technology. I don't know if we could ever produce a conscious being. But, I'm saying artificial intelligence in the way the Op is thinking is not even in the ball-park of the technology required.

 

[George-ananda]

Sorry, figure of speech. One I maybe shouldn't use given that I'm staff, now that I think of it. Sorry.

What I meant was that you seem to reject the notion that strong AI (meaning sapience in a machine) is even possible, but you joined the debate arguing against extending rights and ethical treatment to strong AI.

So, going by that position, either you're advocating for (in my view) bigotry against sapient beings, OR you just didn't understand the topic. I'm sorry to put it that way, but I don't see another resolution.

See my post #47 to Idav

 

[idav]

Good question. Spirit incarnates into physical animals and gives them life. The design behind this process is complex but that is the miracle of life. There are other realms involved than just the physical one we always think about. We, for example, also have etheric, astral, mental components that makes us think and feel.

Man's technology only can make physical things. And they do what they do obeying mechanical and electrical laws. They have no astral component to make feeling even possible. And no higher super-physical realms to make thought even possible.

Now man making conscious things would require biological technology. I don't know if we could ever produce a conscious being. But, I'm saying artificial intelligence in the way the Op is thinking is not even in the ball-park of the technology required.

I see. One of the things that keeps me wondering regarding these ideas is the fact that machines are made of the same natural materials as any rock, flower or any organism for that matter. Machines are natural.

 

[Storm]

Good question. Spirit incarnates into physical animals and gives them life. The design behind this process is complex but that is the miracle of life. There are other realms involved than just the physical one we always think about. We, for example, also have etheric, astral, mental components that makes us think and feel.

Man's technology only can make physical things. And they do what they do obeying mechanical and electrical laws. They have no astral component to make feeling even possible. And no higher super-physical realms to make thought even possible.

Now man making conscious things would require biological technology. I don't know if we could ever produce a conscious being. But, I'm saying artificial intelligence in the way the Op is thinking is not even in the ball-park of the technology required.

OK, so answer from the premise that we cracked organic tech and produced strong AI. Method wasn't specified, because it wasn't relevant.

 

[George-ananda]

I see. One of the things that keeps me wondering regarding these ideas is the fact that machines are made of the same natural materials as any rock, flower or any organism for that matter. Machines are natural.

Good question. The design has to be something natural that can support biological life. A spirit recognizes and attaches to an early developing fetus. It doesn't recognize and attach to computer processors on an assembly line in the Philipines. Nature has wisdom beyond us.

This is probably a poor explanation. There are great explanations if you are truely interested. I would suggest some of the Theosophy books that describe the physical and non-physical components of life.

 

[1137]

It's an inanimate object because it's not part of the plant or animal kingdoms.

Hell, my laptop graphics card is smarter than me in what it does. Making it more complicated changes nothing fundamentally. Even if you change the program to a 'mimic conscious entity' program, so what.

Actually computers are insanely stupid. All they know is on / off. If you think that surpasses your intelligence, should we really have to even listen to your ideas?

I say we avoid giving machines any emotions, even strong AI, that way we don't have to worry about their feelings. They should be like Spock or Data even.

I don't even know if it would be possible, but if so I agree with you. I think the very point of developing strong artificial intelligence should be to pass the human biases, emotions, etc. Strictly fact seeking, strictly logical, we could exponentially increase our understanding of the world greatly in a short amount of time.

The issue is, when some religious group freaks and tries to shut them down, they will logically fight back and goodbye human race.

Then I'd say the human programmer is really good. And continue my business.

What if I hit you? I do not know you are conscious, not for sure. Maybe nature has just programmed you, maybe you are high tech artificial intelligence, maybe I am a brain in a vat. If you attack a machine and it literally asks what it has done wrong or to stop, it would be inhumane to attack it. Even if it does not have emotion in the same respect we do, it obviously knows death = bad.

I think he's saying that only biological forms are even capable of true sapience.

All we have to do is fully understand the brain and recreate that in a machine. It's seems very possible to me.