This is how AI "Sees" our world:

[Trajk Logik]

NO IT DOESN'T - put your hand into a fire and put a keyboard into a fire (or since u r so wrong, a robot hand) - do you think you will receive the same sensation as the AI/robot?

Cambridge DIctionary:-
Sentience: the quality of being able to experience feelings

I don't know about the same sensation, but you seem to be agreeing that it receives a sensation,

NO I AM NOT!!

Then you need to choose your words more carefully because the bolded part above indicates that you believe that the robot has a sensation but not the same sensation as a human. I already showed how you can have different sensations of the same state of affairs.

just not the same one - that is if it were programmed to respond to damage to it's body. You don't seem to be remembering what I have said before. It's not just a difference in body shape (a desktop computer vs a humanoid robot), but a difference in inputs and outputs and its programming. Does a robot have cameras to see and microphones to hear, and tactile pressure pads to feel?

NO!!! A computer has NO way of seeing, hearing and feeling. It has electronic devices that convert analogue reality into binary for analysis using algorithms. It's all COLD LOGIC - nothing is sensed by a computer in any way shape or form equivalent to human sentient sensory perception.

I already asked you what you mean by "sensing" and you still have not answered the question. If the computer is responding to your input, is it not sensing the input? The world is analog and your brain converts the analog signal into discreet digital chunks to work with, hence the processes of the world become objects of thought. You have yet to establish any real distinction between humans and AI when it comes to mind.

What is a sensation, or a feeling, if not information about the state of your body relative to the state of your immediate environment? Your sensations and feelings inform you. The robot would be informed that its body is being damaged and will produce a valid, programmed response, no different than your programmed response, programmed by natural selection over millions of years.

..are you winding me up or wot? You are underestimating in a massive way how amazing and unique sentience is.

So you say, but you haven't established why it is unique. You just keep saying stuff and can't answer the questions to support your hypothesis. Your winding yourself up by using terms that you cannot explain or define and when asked to do so, you get your panties tied in a knot.

NOTE: A.I. does not have a wish or a desire - it is just a machine of switches.

What are wishes and desires but a goal in the mind? Wishes and desires are simply imaginings if there is no process to attain the goal. Imagination is what helps humans think of new ideas, but they can often have no application in the real world, or no possible means of attaining them currently. Imagining is simply taking two or more things you do know and blending them together in unique ways. We could program a computer to do the same thing and then try to apply what it imagines in the real world to see what works, the same way humans do. But you have to have prior knowledge of something to be able to imagine something else. You had to have prior experiences to be able to imagine a new experience as imagined experiences are just an amalgam of prior ones.

A.I. does NOT have a mind, does NOT have imaginings any more than a tractor does. It's a cold logic machine of a complex arrangement of SWITCHES - just like a light switch on your wall.

And your brain is just a complex arrangement of neurons. You're forgetting a key piece of the argument I am making. AI possesses memory and mind is just a type of working memory. Your mind is your working memory. You store information and use it to produce valid behaviors. This is why you are able to read a whole paragraph and remember the beginning of the paragraph when you reach the end of it. AI takes your entire question as a whole and answers it. Try that with a tractor.

OMG. You still think that a computer running an AI has more 'sentience' than a tractor!!

Your logik is tragic and unfortunately people of that mindset will one day be petitioning for robot rights!!

Your condescension does not falsify anything I have said. Yes, a computer does have more "sentience" than a tractor as a computer has a working memory full of information it is processing for a purpose, and a tractor does not.

NO. A computer has NO sentience PERIOD!! - same as a tractor.

Blah blah blah blah blah. You keep repeating yourself but can't back it up when questioned, or even define the words you are using.

[commonsense]

But what does "1" refer to? 1 what? I have no idea what you are talking about if I don't know what your scribbles are referring to. Sure, logically your statement, N ≠ N+1 is sound, but we are talking about wills and purposes, not Ns and 1s. Your statement could refer to anything and isn't useful when talking about the nature of specific things. It may be useful for some other goal, but for the goal of understanding what will and purpose is, or what N is without the 1, it is not useful, and that is what I was asking.

Understanding that two humans can have different purposes does not help me understand what a purpose is. I could just as well say, "Two humans have different thingamabobs.", but what does that mean if you don't know what the scribble, "thingamabobs" is? How is it useful? What did you learn by reading the statement?

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT PURPOSE IS, NOR WHAT WILL IS, in order to assess the difference between human purpose, or will, and computer purpose or will.

What is purpose, or will, would be a great question for a sidebar or another thread, but not a necessary question for comparisons.

Please disregard the N analogy, as it was only used as an illustration of the logik.

IT DOES MATTER WHAT PURPOSE IS OR WHAT WILL IS, in order to discern their differences. Differences of what? HOW are they different? Describe the difference in detail. You can't without first explaining what purpose and will is. Anyway, I was never concerned about their differences, only what purpose and will are. It is you that injected this idea of differences when that does not help me understand what you meant by your use of purpose and will in the first place. You are simply avoiding the question. So I take it that "purpose" and "will" are meaningless scribbles and sounds you make with your mouth that you simply learned to copy or emulate other's use without understanding yourself what they really mean. You've effectively said nothing when you use those terms. All you've done is put scribbles on the screen.

The scribbles are sufficient for this exercise. For example, what is the difference between death and death with reincarnation? Can’t you work this out without exploring the definition of death?

The difference between human and computer should give you great insight into how AI sees our world. For this reason, anyone, including chief among them you, should recognize that there’s no difference between the way AI sees our world and the way we see it. Restated: how AI sees our world is the same as how we see our world, I.e. through input that excites sensors.

But all this is meaningless if you can’t understand it.

[Trajk Logik]

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT PURPOSE IS, NOR WHAT WILL IS, in order to assess the difference between human purpose, or will, and computer purpose or will.

What is purpose, or will, would be a great question for a sidebar or another thread, but not a necessary question for comparisons.

Please disregard the N analogy, as it was only used as an illustration of the logik.

IT DOES MATTER WHAT PURPOSE IS OR WHAT WILL IS, in order to discern their differences. Differences of what? HOW are they different? Describe the difference in detail. You can't without first explaining what purpose and will is. Anyway, I was never concerned about their differences, only what purpose and will are. It is you that injected this idea of differences when that does not help me understand what you meant by your use of purpose and will in the first place. You are simply avoiding the question. So I take it that "purpose" and "will" are meaningless scribbles and sounds you make with your mouth that you simply learned to copy or emulate other's use without understanding yourself what they really mean. You've effectively said nothing when you use those terms. All you've done is put scribbles on the screen.

The scribbles are sufficient for this exercise. For example, what is the difference between death and death with reincarnation? Can’t you work this out without exploring the definition of death?

No. Does it really qualify as death if reincarnation is involved? If you continue to exist after you "die", then what is "death" and how does that differ from just moving from one place to another in this world?

It's like using the term, "god", and when asked what you mean when using that term, you just say that there is a difference between your god and my god. But what if don't have a god, never use the term, "god", then how am I suppose to know what it means if you are the one that used the terms, not me, and then don't tell me what you mean by it.

I provided definitions for you that I found on Merriam-Webster's dictionary, but you couldn't even agree or disagree with them.

Why do I not need a definition for every word that you have used? Because I do know the definition for most of the words you have used and they coincided with how I use them as well. The fact is that we agree on most of the definitions, or use of the words you have used, but not all. For those, I require a definition. I have asked nicely and you still avoid the question. It's a very simple question. Why you won't answer just shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

The difference between human and computer should give you great insight into how AI sees our world. For this reason, anyone, including chief among them you, should recognize that there’s no difference between the way AI sees our world and the way we see it. Restated: how AI sees our world is the same as how we see our world, I.e. through input that excites sensors.

But all this is meaningless if you can’t understand it.

None of that is meaningless because you didn't use the scribbles, "purpose" or "will" - the words I have been asking you to define. So what you just said is just a reiteration of what I have said, without the need to use words like "purpose" or "will", because there is no need for them.

Finally.

[commonsense]

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT PURPOSE IS, NOR WHAT WILL IS, in order to assess the difference between human purpose, or will, and computer purpose or will.

What is purpose, or will, would be a great question for a sidebar or another thread, but not a necessary question for comparisons.

Please disregard the N analogy, as it was only used as an illustration of the logik.

IT DOES MATTER WHAT PURPOSE IS OR WHAT WILL IS, in order to discern their differences. Differences of what? HOW are they different? Describe the difference in detail. You can't without first explaining what purpose and will is. Anyway, I was never concerned about their differences, only what purpose and will are. It is you that injected this idea of differences when that does not help me understand what you meant by your use of purpose and will in the first place. You are simply avoiding the question. So I take it that "purpose" and "will" are meaningless scribbles and sounds you make with your mouth that you simply learned to copy or emulate other's use without understanding yourself what they really mean. You've effectively said nothing when you use those terms. All you've done is put scribbles on the screen.

The scribbles are sufficient for this exercise. For example, what is the difference between death and death with reincarnation? Can’t you work this out without exploring the definition of death?

The difference between human and computer should give you great insight into how AI sees our world. For this reason, anyone, including chief among them you, should recognize that there’s no difference between the way AI sees our world and the way we see it. Restated: how AI sees our world is the same as how we see our world, I.e. through input that excites sensors.

But all this is meaningless if you can’t understand it.

[seeds]

just not the same one - that is if it were programmed to respond to damage to it's body. You don't seem to be remembering what I have said before. It's not just a difference in body shape (a desktop computer vs a humanoid robot), but a difference in inputs and outputs and its programming. Does a robot have cameras to see and microphones to hear, and tactile pressure pads to feel?

NO!!! A computer has NO way of seeing, hearing and feeling. It has electronic devices that convert analogue reality into binary for analysis using algorithms. It's all COLD LOGIC - nothing is sensed by a computer in any way shape or form equivalent to human sentient sensory perception.

atto is absolutely correct.

This concept was covered a year ago in an alternate thread where I suggested the following in this slightly enhanced version of one of my posts...

Picture that scene in the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" when the ape-like hominid discovered that a bone could be used as a tool (or a weapon) and then tossed it into the air where it is suddenly transformed into a space vehicle, thousands of years into the future...



Well, that kind of loosely represents how far we've come with AI.

For example, the perforated roll on the player piano depicted below...



...is pretty much an early form of artificial intelligence.

And the point is that a modern version of that perforated roll is ChatGPT's speech recognition software which is merely a more advanced version of something similar to the Alexa and Siri software.

Therefore, in essence, modern AI can be thought of as nothing more than a situation where instead of inanimate machinery carrying out specific tasks after being mechanistically prompted by varying perforations on a moving roll of paper,...



...or the arranged plucker thingies (pins) on the cylinder of a music box...



...the modern version of all of that is how AI has inanimate machinery carrying out specific tasks (moving a robotic hand, for example) after being mechanistically prompted by varying (and distinct) waveforms of sound...



...or midi notes...



...or computer coding,,,



or something along those lines.

And the ultimate point is that neither of those examples of old AI and new AI offer the slightest suggestion of the existence of anything that is even remotely conscious of what it is doing as it carries out its programmed responses.

No, there is just emergent phenomena that can be traced back to the mindless promptings of perforated rolls (or sound waves, or midi notes, or computer coding, etc.) that trigger the actions of the gears and pullies that make up the constituent properties of unconscious machines,...

...all of which is what the concept of "weak emergence" is all about.

He seems to be a smart guy; however, I can't help but wonder if Trajk Logik has given much thought regarding the difference between "weak emergence" and ''strong emergence"?

Again, atto is right.
_______

[commonsense]

Who here, aside from Seeds, is claiming that sight requires consciousness?

When light strikes photoelectric sensors, or photosensitive nerve endings, and converts light into electrical impulses, that is seeing.

[seeds]

I think you are conflating "universe" with "mind". They are not the same thing.

I am not erroneously conflating the two if it is indeed possible that the universe is, itself, the mind of a higher consciousness.

Wait, computers can't be conscious but a universe can?

Because I am suggesting that the universe is the literal mind of a higher consciousness, then that would imply that the totality of the phenomenal features of the universe (i.e., all physical matter) can be thought of as being "alive" because, logically, all universal matter would be thoroughly imbued (saturated) with the life essence of the higher Being.

And that would be similar to how the totality of your own thoughts and dreams are "alive" because they are thoroughly imbued with your own life essence.

However, in the same way that the multifarious features of your thoughts and dreams cannot be considered as being conscious, in and of themselves,...

...likewise, neither can the multifarious (material) features of the universe (such as suns, and planets, and moons, and cars, and dirt, etc.,) be considered as being conscious.

Again, they are alive because they are imbued (saturated) with the essence of life, but they are not conscious.

The point is (and with a few obvious exceptions) it is the self-aware "I Am-ness/Agent/Soul/Creator" of the universe that is conscious, not the contents of the universe writ large.

Minds are part of the universe, not separate from the universe.

Our minds are as separate from this universe as they are from each other.
I am a separate mind, you are a separate mind, and the universe is a separate mind (God's mind). Indeed, I suggest that our minds are like "parallel universes" relative to each other.

Then what do you mean by "separate"? Separate in what way? If we are causally linked, we are not separate. We are part of the same reality.

Not that you are obligated to accept any of it, but, again, I explained all of that in my YouTube video - https://youtu.be/bVbpHy4nncA

However, just as a simple example of how our minds are truly separate from one another, I'm thinking of a number between one and one million, if you cannot tell me precisely what that number is,...

(a number, btw, which includes a decimal point followed by several digits)

...then it demonstrates the autonomy of the interior reality of our minds.

The point is that it is obvious that we cannot directly see, or feel, or hear, or smell or taste each other's personal thoughts and dreams (not even with fMRI's nor any other similar types of machines).

Not only that, but if we are separate then how is your knowledge and understanding going to be useful to me if we live in different universes? There would be no reason to communicate or inform others about your experiences because they would be irrelevant in my own universe. Communication only makes sense, and is only useful, if we live in the same reality and are talking about the same reality.

As of this moment, because of the circumstances of how our minds were awakened into existence, we humans are all momentarily held within the "womb-like" reality of just this one universe.

Therefore (and yes, I know it sounds crazy), instead of thinking that we are going to "live-in" different or separate universes, it is more accurate to think that we (our minds) are going to "be" separate universes.

The beauty of this concept is that even though we will each be able to create our own autonomous universe out of the living fabric of our very own being (just as God has done),...

...we are all still going to be together in that higher context of reality, with the ability of still being able to communicate with each other, communing and sharing ideas in some way that is unfathomable to us from our present perspective (just guessing, but probably something more telepathic in nature).

And when I say "all," I mean every human consciousness who has ever been awakened into existence since the earth was formed, will be there with us.

And this would even extend to any non-human beings throughout the entire universe, for you don't need to be human to qualify as being the literal "offspring" of the Creator of this universe, no, you just need to be at a certain level of consciousness.

Indeed, the outer facades of the "Ultimate Seeds" are not limited to the human form.

I can get even crazier with all of this by suggesting that this process has probably been going on as far back as eternity itself, which means that we could be set amidst a literal infinity of our "cosmic siblings" who have been alive in that higher context of reality, basically forever.

I mean, what do we think the concept of "Eternal Life" means?

This is why our minds can interact here on this forum, because they are part of the same universe.

We can interact on this forum because the aforementioned "interface" of our bodies and brains (which are indeed a part of this universe) place us (our minds) in the same spatial arena of God's mind.

Then we are not separate because we are all connected. Again, you're going to need to define your use of "separate".

As I explained in the video, our bodies are connected to each other within the context of this universe because they are composed of an informationally-based (holographic-like) substance that, at its most fundamental level, is superpositionally entangled with everything else throughout the universe.

And that would be metaphorically similar to how the information that underpins the three objects in the laser hologram...



...is entangled (in a state of interpenetrating "oneness"), as is witnessed in the broken pieces of the holographic plate in the right-hand side of the illustration.

Well, in contrast to that, I suggest that the substance from which our minds and souls are constructed is not entangled with the fabric of matter in the same way that the fabric of matter is entangled with itself. And it therefore renders our minds separate (and separable) from the matter in which they were conceived.

This is, of course, loosely related to the reason why there exists the perennial issue of the so-called "mind/body problem."

All three items are physical.

Yeah, but only two of those items are being presented as "seeds" of something...
Do you think a physical computer has the same purpose as that which is implied in a physical seed? - something that is destined to yield-forth a highly specific lifeform?

How do we know that computers are not the "seeds" of a highly evolved life form in the distant future? How do we know that the purpose of the universe isn't for humans, but for "artificial" life and humans are just a means to an end? Humans are just as much a part of the natural selective process as plate tectonics is and climate change is. You're ideas are anthropocentric.

Well, if the Creator of this universe wants to eventually use computers to be the physiological means through-which to conceive and awaken his (her/its) own literal and eternal offspring into existence, then perhaps that's a possibility.

However, why would he (she/it) want to do that, when the goal is already being achieved via this process?...



Clearly, because it is obvious that you are a hardcore materialist/nihilist who holds no belief in the possibility of our lives continuing on beyond death, you are not interested in fanciful speculations about the afterlife.

However, just for funzies, will the self-aware consciousness that you assume will allegedly live amidst the circuits and diodes of the innards of some future computer....



...have a gender?

Likewise, if it is possible that we do indeed continue on in some higher context of reality after death, will all of your proposed computer-based lifeforms simply die and awaken into that higher context of reality every time some hapless cleaning lady (thinking it's her vacuum cord) accidently pulls the wrong plug, or there is a power outage?

So many questions....so many questions...
_______

[Wizard22]

I disagree with this analogy. My native language does not limit what I see or how I see it, only how I communicate it. A Spanish speaker does not see a different animal, gato, when I see a cat. We are only using different symbols to refer to the same thing.

If we are stuck in a particular reality based on our native language then how is it that we can learn other languages? How is it that we can translate languages? If I am wearing red glasses and you are wearing yellow, then how can we understand each other when using terms referring to different colors? Azul is blue, amarillo is yellow, etc. If I said yellow, you wouldn't know what that means, or it would be translatable to something other word, because to you, everything is yellow. To you yellow would be a synonym for "everything". To me it would be a certain color.

We are all born into the same world and we all learn a certain language the same way - by watching others use it and formally learning it in school. We all must be able to see the scribbles or hear the sounds and interpret how they are being used and then practice it ourselves. We all have the same five senses to view the world. Learning a different language does not change that.

In other instances where some slang phrase is used in one language that sounds weird or funny in another is just because you're translating the words as commonly used, not the actual meaning of the slang phrase. Words can be re-purposed in any language that differs from the common use, which shows just how arbitrary language use is. In the 70's one phrase that was commonly used is, "You dig it?". It did not literally mean to dig a hole. It meant "do you understand me?" and that is what should be translated to another language, not literally digging a hole. Words are just scribbles and sounds. It is what they refer to that is important and what is informative, which is why phrases like, "this sentence is false", is an improper use of language (not some paradox) because it doesn't refer to anything informative or useful.

You kind of missed my point.

German has words and concepts that English language does not have, like: Schadenfreude.

Greek has words and concepts that English language does not have, like: Philia, Agape, Eros, and more.



But here's my point: start with NO language at all. How would you cognize, recognize, or understand... Stars in the night sky? Or the moon? Or the dirt beneath your feet? Or "You"? You may or may not "Understand" all such things, without a formal, complex, highly-intelligent language. But there's no reference between your Subjective understanding, and the Objective phenomena. There is no correlation between your "thought" and the thing-itself. Language allows us, humanity, to artistically express these connections, with our languages.

Some languages are better than others at conveying things like... emotions, thoughts, relationships, God, colors, Astronomy, etc.

Just as in AI and software-coding, some computer languages are better than others at Coding specific functions, programs, instructions, etc.

[Wizard22]

It seems, from the recent responses here, AI cannot have a 'self-identity' because AI cannot have a Biological body nor can have a Brain-neural "Sentience" or "Sense of Self".

I'm going to move this to the other thread:
(viewtopic.php?t=41788)

[Trajk Logik]

I disagree with this analogy. My native language does not limit what I see or how I see it, only how I communicate it. A Spanish speaker does not see a different animal, gato, when I see a cat. We are only using different symbols to refer to the same thing.

If we are stuck in a particular reality based on our native language then how is it that we can learn other languages? How is it that we can translate languages? If I am wearing red glasses and you are wearing yellow, then how can we understand each other when using terms referring to different colors? Azul is blue, amarillo is yellow, etc. If I said yellow, you wouldn't know what that means, or it would be translatable to something other word, because to you, everything is yellow. To you yellow would be a synonym for "everything". To me it would be a certain color.

We are all born into the same world and we all learn a certain language the same way - by watching others use it and formally learning it in school. We all must be able to see the scribbles or hear the sounds and interpret how they are being used and then practice it ourselves. We all have the same five senses to view the world. Learning a different language does not change that.

In other instances where some slang phrase is used in one language that sounds weird or funny in another is just because you're translating the words as commonly used, not the actual meaning of the slang phrase. Words can be re-purposed in any language that differs from the common use, which shows just how arbitrary language use is. In the 70's one phrase that was commonly used is, "You dig it?". It did not literally mean to dig a hole. It meant "do you understand me?" and that is what should be translated to another language, not literally digging a hole. Words are just scribbles and sounds. It is what they refer to that is important and what is informative, which is why phrases like, "this sentence is false", is an improper use of language (not some paradox) because it doesn't refer to anything informative or useful.

You kind of missed my point.

German has words and concepts that English language does not have, like: Schadenfreude.

Greek has words and concepts that English language does not have, like: Philia, Agape, Eros, and more.



But here's my point: start with NO language at all. How would you cognize, recognize, or understand... Stars in the night sky? Or the moon? Or the dirt beneath your feet? Or "You"? You may or may not "Understand" all such things, without a formal, complex, highly-intelligent language. But there's no reference between your Subjective understanding, and the Objective phenomena. There is no correlation between your "thought" and the thing-itself. Language allows us, humanity, to artistically express these connections, with our languages.

Some languages are better than others at conveying things like... emotions, thoughts, relationships, God, colors, Astronomy, etc.

Just as in AI and software-coding, some computer languages are better than others at Coding specific functions, programs, instructions, etc.

No, I got your point. It seems you did not get mine.

We can create new words in any language to represent some new state of affairs, discoveries, etc. The words, "computer", "quasars" and "quarks" have not always been around and we created them to refer to newly observed phenomenon and inventions. If we meet a new cultural that engages in some unique practice or behavior, or some new concept that they believe in, then you just make up a word to refer to those things.

You were using the analogy of glasses to show how language limits our views, not to show which language is "better at" conveying things. Using your colored glasses analogy you made it sound like we see different worlds having a different language, but you are now moving the goal-posts to say that its just that some languages are more efficient at conveying certain ideas, not that knowing a different language prevents me from understanding and perceiving a concept represented in a different language.

Schadenfreude = epicaricacy or sadism

Philia, Agape and Eros = love in its various forms

So you see the English language does have words for German and Greek words. As I already pointed out before, words from other languages can be translated, but not necessarily literally, one word to one word. Some words in other languages are represented by more than one word in another language, but that does not mean that our views are different, only that the languages we use to communicate are different. As I said, symbol use is arbitrary. The symbol you use does not make you see what it represents differently. We all live in the same world. We just use different, arbitrary symbols to represent our experiences of this world.

Here is a video about a deaf man that learned no language until he was an adult
https://vimeo.com/72072873
How was he able to survive that long without the ability to categorize his experiences of the world? How did he determine what was food and what wasn't, who was a stranger and who wasn't, how to get to certain locations in his environment, etc.? Animals don't need a language to distinguish between predators and mates, food and toys, or it's bark and another dog's bark (me vs another). Dogs don't jump at their own bark so they have some semblance of self-awareness.

If you needed words to categorize the world, then how did you even learn a language - to learn to categorize various sounds and scribbles as letters, words and sentences that have certain meanings? You must already be able to categorize your experiences of the world to learn a language in the first place.

Imagine an AI that knows all languages and could make up it's own terms for new inventions and discoveries. Would it still be limited in the way it perceives the world?

[Trajk Logik]

It seems, from the recent responses here, AI cannot have a 'self-identity' because AI cannot have a Biological body nor can have a Brain-neural "Sentience" or "Sense of Self".

I'm going to move this to the other thread:
(viewtopic.php?t=41788)

What does 'self-identity' entail? If AI can refer to itself in conversation, then does it not have some sense of 'self-identity'? Can't 'self-awareness' come in degrees, like a dimmer switch, rather than just either on or off?

[Wizard22]

No, I got your point. It seems you did not get mine.

We can create new words in any language to represent some new state of affairs, discoveries, etc. The words, "computer", "quasars" and "quarks" have not always been around and we created them to refer to newly observed phenomenon and inventions. If we meet a new cultural that engages in some unique practice or behavior, or some new concept that they believe in, then you just make up a word to refer to those things.

You were using the analogy of glasses to show how language limits our views, not to show which language is "better at" conveying things. Using your colored glasses analogy you made it sound like we see different worlds having a different language, but you are now moving the goal-posts to say that its just that some languages are more efficient at conveying certain ideas, not that knowing a different language prevents me from understanding and perceiving a concept represented in a different language.

Schadenfreude = epicaricacy or sadism

Philia, Agape and Eros = love in its various forms

So you see the English language does have words for German and Greek words. As I already pointed out before, words from other languages can be translated, but not necessarily literally, one word to one word. Some words in other languages are represented by more than one word in another language, but that does not mean that our views are different, only that the languages we use to communicate are different. As I said, symbol use is arbitrary. The symbol you use does not make you see what it represents differently. We all live in the same world. We just use different, arbitrary symbols to represent our experiences of this world.

Here is a video about a deaf man that learned no language until he was an adult
https://vimeo.com/72072873
How was he able to survive that long without the ability to categorize his experiences of the world? How did he determine what was food and what wasn't, who was a stranger and who wasn't, how to get to certain locations in his environment, etc.? Animals don't need a language to distinguish between predators and mates, food and toys, or it's bark and another dog's bark (me vs another). Dogs don't jump at their own bark so they have some semblance of self-awareness.

If you needed words to categorize the world, then how did you even learn a language - to learn to categorize various sounds and scribbles as letters, words and sentences that have certain meanings? You must already be able to categorize your experiences of the world to learn a language in the first place.

Imagine an AI that knows all languages and could make up it's own terms for new inventions and discoveries. Would it still be limited in the way it perceives the world?

I'll try to make my point again.

An individual's unique intellect or perspective is Unlimited. However he needs to communicate an idea to another person, who may have far greater or far less IQ than him. Those with far greater IQ, will be able to understand, accept, and recognize greater conceptions and thoughts in Quality and Quantity than others. So the basis for understanding is in the different intellectual quotients between individuals.

This is what was referred to as 'Sentience'. Animals have low IQ. Humans have high IQ. Humans can 'know', learn, or understand things that animals cannot and do not. AI systems may have high IQ, and higher than many Humans now. Therefore, it should follow that AI can 'know', learn, or understand things that Humans cannot and do not. And this tends to be the case in how AI out-performs, or performs unexpectedly in tasks given or programmed by its programmers.

Language having a 'shade' or 'color' refers to the limitations of expressing ideas between IQ quotients.


What language would you use, trying to teach a monkey to count numbers? You will likely need to communicate not textually, but through motions and demonstrations. However, the mathematical concepts are definitely limited. The understanding between the communication, would also be highly limited.

Language is the expression of these limitations. Blacking out a pair of sunglasses, so no light gets through, or having color gradients, are also limitations. When applying this analogy to understanding through communication, this means that some languages are Superior or Inferior to others, and that, far 'baser' forms of communication maybe required.

We can communicate via smoke-signals, or morse-code, to demonstrate such limitations.


Your point that it "does not change the individual thought itself, the thing" ignores that the 'thing' changes via communication, by the limits of communication. Two IQs, of the same level, may understand the same thing, and communicate effortlessly in a way that 'agrees' to it, but it is always a Presupposition, an Implication, a Guess or Estimation that they were actually referring to the "same thing", same occurrence, same pattern, same object, or that their understanding was in anyway remotely similar.

Communication is Intuitive, as a result, on a core level. There are many ideas that simply cannot be 'communicated', because of these limits.

[Wizard22]

What does 'self-identity' entail? If AI can refer to itself in conversation, then does it not have some sense of 'self-identity'? Can't 'self-awareness' come in degrees, like a dimmer switch, rather than just either on or off?

I believe most Self-Identity refers to biological memories. People self-identify by their memories in life. Until robots can have 'memories', or they can be artificially programmed and mimicked, then robots and AI cannot have a sufficient Self-Identity. However, programmers can code false memories and identities. An AI might be named 'Bob', with the lived memories and life-experiences of a human named Bob.

The AI would be 'convinced' of its life and memories, in the exact same way Human Bob is also convinced of his life and memories.

The difference is that the AI does not have an organic, human body. It does not have actual experiences, actual flesh and blood, actual memories. The memories are copied, or installed into it.

An AI Self-Identity would be purely Synthetic, until a body/chasis/robot is made for it, and a name given to it, to produce "it's own" experiences and memories.

[attofishpi]

Who here, aside from Seeds, is claiming that sight requires consciousness?

Atto.

When light strikes photoelectric sensors, or photosensitive nerve endings, and converts light into electrical impulses, that is seeing.

AI sees nothing. A computer cannot see. Thus when light strikes photoelectric sensors all that is happening is that each frequency of light is converted to zeros and ones. These zeros and ones make up a colour palette that can be rendered from the graphics memory to the screen for US humans to actually see. From the pixel at the top left of your computer screen to the pixel at the bottom right, each pixel is VRAM being rendered - zeros and ones - color= thus #BF0000 is: 10111111 00000000 00000000 (24 bits)

[commonsense]

Who here, aside from Seeds, is claiming that sight requires consciousness?

Atto.

When light strikes photoelectric sensors, or photosensitive nerve endings, and converts light into electrical impulses, that is seeing.

AI sees nothing. A computer cannot see. Thus when light strikes photoelectric sensors all that is happening is that each frequency of light is converted to zeros and ones. These zeros and ones make up a colour palette that can be rendered from the graphics memory to the screen for US humans to actually see. From the pixel at the top left of your computer screen to the pixel at the bottom right, each pixel is VRAM being rendered - zeros and ones - color= thus #BF0000 is: 10111111 00000000 00000000 (24 bits)

OK, I will agree with you.