But it can be. Why does a creator have to come first? If you can answer me with a formulation that doesn't involve pre existing biases that revolve around "oh uh, yeah this is intuitive brah, i just know it" feelings, then by all means, tell me why. If you cannot, admit so. I'm not looking for an actual answer at this point so much as whether the answer can even be stated, but if you dropped it on those grounds then I would considered it settled for now.
it doesn't. thus why I dropped it.
here are the facts. 1. the universe was made in such a way that, by whatever means, sentience was not only possible but also inevitable by the rules of causality. 2. had the universe been even a fraction off in how it was made, it wouldn't exist in the same way it does now. these facts, combined with both the apparent high energy nature of the universe in its beginning stages as well as a humans innate ability to recreate the universe inside of they're own heads in a literal projection through ones third eye, points towards a creator. but it doesn't confirm it, thus why I dropped it. but I would like to add that, there's more evidence pointing towards a sentient creator then points to there not being one.
But you'll just be telling me how sentience can come about in more ways than acertainmixtureofchemicalssequencingoffofeachotherinsuchawaythatlifelessmat-
I don't disagree with this. It doesn't. It's a name for an abstract concept/property we assign to things that seem to match the definition. Mechanism be damned. You don't have to know or care what's happening underneath when defining/describing the external overall properties, unless that property explicitly calls for it. We're not talking deities yet.
sentience is not abstract, its fact. we consider it to be "abstract like" because we don't understand the mechanics of how it works fully, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens through a rational process dependant on certain, calculable variables.
Wait, I thought you were a hard determinist. I don't really want to go into the free will question here because that's a whole other issue.
I'm glad you brought that up because id like to make an amendment to my first statement. I meant to say "the apperant nature of sentience" rather then its outright nature. its indisputable fact that you act the way you do and make the choices you make because: you'r biological and chemical structure are set up the way they are, you've learned certain things in favor of other things as a result of both things you've learned before and your biological and chemical structure, causality has led you to the point you are now, and the people you've interacted with, all slaves to all the same variables, have touched your life in such a way that its left an imprint on the way you function.
at the end of the day choice is a lie. people chose nothing. causality/the laws of the nuniverse chose it all for them.
We are yet to give it the tools to interpret stimuli and express a response in a manner indistinguisable from emotion, to a degree of complexity comparable to human experience.
no emotion are your feelings. response has nothing to do with it, its all about how you feel in any given moment. your response to them comes secondary and is entirely dependent on your ability to rationalize.
taking this thought to a literal extreme, one could make the argument that feelings are literally what your sentient soul feels touching itself, chemicals and whatnot.
Emotion is a name we give to a very complex stimuli response. It's not an inherent end goal/purpose, if you support the emergent behaviour you outline in your argument for AI. Given different circumstances, humans might very well have no concept of emotion. Just so happens emotion as we know it is a pretty good survival tool, surprisingly enough
one. I never said they had a goal or purpose. two. what's your basis for the assumption that its a reaction to stimuli rather then a physical, describable phenomena?
Yes, in some sense, we can call computers, the invisible hand, the universe and other systems "alive", to a certain extent. I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't describe it as such, because you can get a good story out of it, but that reminds us that this is a storyteller's tool.
How meaningful is it in the end? In the invisible hand case, you have Smith illustrating a philosophical viewpoint on some surprising practicalities of self interest. Does classifying the invisible hand as a knowing entity add anything to this argument, barring that the point that in saying so, he in some sense deemed his conclusion a strange but true one? Much like how you assume life is in that sense. It's far too strange that circumstances are "perfect". So something else must have done it, right? Mind you, Smith's quote there seems more to plant a seed in the reader's mind.
ah so your not so much arguing against the premise itself so much as your arguing against the point of the premise?
the only point to existence as far as I can tell, is motion. moving forward and never back. its how everything works. an object stays in motion because its been endowed with this motion since the beginning. biology evolves because it is constantly moving forward with this motion. I could go on all day with this but I wont. so to answer your question, what's the point of labeling this? to keep with my nature, of course. progress.
In the living breathing universe interpretation, you might look at the self-actualising outcomes you outlined earlier.
Neither abstraction changes what actually happens at the lower level. Just what you're saying about what's happening above.
I mean that's besides the point and just builds on the mindset that defining such abstractions is pointless.
Step outside yourself for a moment. Can you come up with possible alternatives to both this and the bio-structure thing yourself? And really try to think of them, as a thought experiment.
no, because as we've gone over many times at this point, biological life is the result of carbon, the carbon structure, water, and energy. theres literally nothing else there for the sentience to come from, and so taking away structure as the cause, since water doesn't have any propertys of life in of itself, what were left with is energy.
1) There's tension between the defining traits of sentience (as you described them) and the conclusion that the universe itself is sentient. If you believe that biological creatures can move in ways independent of direct causality (which is a belief that needs an argument if anyone is to accept it), because they are sentient, then what about the rest of the universe? When do the non-biological parts of the universe demonstrate independence from direct causality?
again, id like to amend that statement and repeat the same answer I gave to otaku-n
"id like to make an amendment to my first statement. I meant to say "the apparent nature of sentience" rather then its outright nature. its indisputable fact that you act the way you do and make the choices you make because: you're biological and chemical structure are set up the way they are, you've learned certain things in favor of other things as a result of both things you've learned before and your biological and chemical structure, causality has led you to the point you are now, and the people you've interacted with, all slaves to all the same variables, have touched your life in such a way that its left an imprint on the way you function."
so to add to this: the universe moves in the way it does because its not as complex or tight nit system as a human is.
Your discussion of computers is interesting because you claim that a robot could design parts that allow it to interact with the world in a similar way. What relation do those parts have to the robot's potential actions, if not a casual one? Why are they needed at all? Note what you ask later: "what's the difference between a computer that's been programmed to do this as opposed to a biological creature that functions the exact same way?" Again, what relation does the robots programming have to the computer's behaviour, if not a causal one?
just that it changes the ways a robot can move and thus gives birth to new ways of moving in nearly incalculable ways. just as with biological life.
3) "and thus we come back full circle, if its not the biological structure that gives something sentience, then it MUST BE a fundamental force which grants these properties to an organism." Here, you're jumping to a conclusion. I don't hold that only biological structures result in sentience and I can easily see someone falling back on structural complexity and/or structural analogies with biological organisms as the source of sentience. So, given such a possibility, why must it be a fundamental force?
again I'm not so much jumping to conclusions as I'm expecting people to take my argument as a whole and not a part. again
a cell is the result of chemical carbon set up in such a way that it preforms a function, water, and energy. taking away carbon chemical structure/sequencing as the means for sentience to exist, since there's only water and energy left, energy must be what gives an object sentience as its the only sentient like thing left.