What questions would you have an incredibly advanced and powerful being ask the party to determine if they were sentient or not?
>>44722850
Someone approaches you and tells you your waifu a shit. What do you do?
>>44722850
If the party is sentinent?
Wut?
What is love?
>>44722850
Ask them to demonstrate what a right angle is.
What is truth?
>>44722912
It speaks to them in binary.
>>44722878
Presumably some ancient being that was shitting around in some dungeon that the party stumbles upon. Oldie has never seen humanoids before and is trying to figure out what the fuck he's dealing with.
>>44722912
It is three left angles, obviously.
>>44722890
Baby don't hurt me
>>44722912
You lost me.
>>44722850
Maybe some kind of Gom Jabbar style test. See if they can resist a reflexive primal emotion with reason. It doesn't have to be pain: could be hunger, fear or even lust.
>>44722850
The entity from beyond the stars glides down from the pillar of light and touches down gently before you.
He speaks with a booming voice that shakes you to your very core.
Entity: Describe what Marsellus Wallace looks like!
Party: What?
Entity: Doe she look like a bitch?!
>>44722850"ayy lmao"
>>44722934
Rape them all.
Their reactions will tell all.
If it's capable of asking questions in a way that can be understood why can't he just talk to the party? Have a conversation.
>>44722950
kek
>>44722996
Why would he have a conversation with something that might not be sentient. Would you converse with a squirrel?
>>44722850
"Why's the pool closed?"
What does Marcellus Wallace look like. Follow up questions, does he look like a bitch, and if answered no, then why you trying to fuck him like one?
>>44723013
If I had a suspicion that it was a sapient genius squirrel, hell yeah I would. I'd talk the shit out of that squirrel. And clearly this thing at least suspects sentience in the party or he wouldn't be asking in the first place.
>>44723050
Maybe he's lonely, and doesn't think that the party is sentient, and is pleasantly surprised to find that they are.
>>44723031
Because Benoit is going to kill his wife and son
>>44722850
Ass or Tits
"Are you capable of perceiving me?" If they react at all, they're sentient.
Sapience, now that's a bit of a tricker one.
You are walking through the city when you come across a child begging for food. You have food in your possession. The child is unable to take the food from you, and you are not compelled to act in any way. You might give the food to the child, walk away, or perform any other action as you choose.
What considerations would you make before acting?
>>44723158
Abs.No homo.
>>44722985
This.
Sentient creatures will object to having their various orfices invaded. Or they will enjoy it.
Either way shows some degree of sentience.
A TV doesn't care if you rape it ( trust me).
What is your place in the world?
<place not meaning physical location is an abstract concept
<world can indicate the creatures understanding of an area greater than what they have personally experienced
<any philosophical language can indicate that this species has spent a considerable amount of time not digging in the dirt or chasing other beasts and instead thinking
>>44723184
>A TV doesn't care if you rape it ( trust me).
But a dog does. (Trust me)
So, back to square 1.
>>44723264
Dogs are sentient, so the test succeeded in that example.
>>44723286
Dogs are alive, but they aren't sentient. Sentience implies you have Reason and Logic.
>>44723325
You're thinking of sapience.
>>44723325
Dogs have reason and logic.
More than some humans I've met.
Visit the mlp or furry boards for proof.
>>44723013
>Why would he have a conversation with something that might not be sentient.
Look at your own question. It "might not" be sentient which implies that you have reason to believe it might be.
>Would you converse with a squirrel?
No, because I have no doubt of their lack of ability to have a conversation.
The implication is that we have a powerful being who isn't sure that the PCs aren't something like Mynah birds.
>>44723184
Look, somebody actually, knows the definition of sentience.
Sentience is not rigorously defined by the cognitive science of which I'm aware, but the general usage is that it's "awareness" of the world around them; perhaps the ability to model the world around them and place themselves as a model in it, rather than robotically responding to stimuli.
Sapience is the quality of being "intelligent" in the sense that humans are and other animals mostly aren't. Of course, it might just be a matter of degree rather than specific qualities. Plenty of animals use tools and even use something like language. Meta-cognition is used as the bench mark by some.
>>44722850
"A creature grows afraid when it sees the reflection of a predator on a pond's surface.
What scared the creature?
Further question: "Why did you answer the previous question?"
>>44723544
Nigga got scared cause he knew some swole nigga bout to roll up on him.
The fuck, man you ackst me a question, course I fuckin answered it, my momma didn' raise me to be rude. Niggas up here be trippin, shit.
>>44722850
It could have a test similar to this.
A surface is displayed with four colors on it. Four different tones are played, each tone corresponds to a color which brightens as the tone is played.
This is repeated once.
The third time, the colors are split into sets of bars, l, ll, lll, llll.
This is repeated once.
At this point, the display is reset to the colors and the tone is played again but the colors do not light, it is up to the organism to in some way indicate which color corresponds to the tone.
This is repeated once.
Then the colors are replaced by the set of bars, and again the tone is played twice.
If the organism can match up the tones, colors, and bars then it is highly probable that it is sentient because it can recognize patterns, form associations, solve incomplete patterns, and understand the basic concept of numbers.
>>44722850
DO YOU SUCK DICKS?
>>44723766
A machine can be programmed to match colors and toned anon.
That proves nothing.
>>44722850
Through the power of the human hivemind, someone already made an infographic about this topic.
>>44722869
Show them an assortment of pictures and ask them to pick out the ones of street signs
>>44722850
Probably something similar to a turring test?
Make them play through talos principle
>>44723938
>>44723948
Thier puzzles don't need sentience to solve, you do know they had a bot work on the debugging and puzzle solving right?
scripted pseudo-intelectualization of retarded teir sophistry is not sentience determining either
>>44723184
Um...so far this actually seems like the best answer.
>>44723588
A machine would probably answer that the reflection scared the creature, not the predator.
>>44724020
You don't need sentience to object to having orifices invaded you twit
>>44723184
If it simply doesn't care, how can it be rape?
Rape implies you are doing it against its will, which a TV lacks.
What kind of television are you watching that lets your TV feel?
Honestly the only reason a sentience/sapience test would be difficult is if your higher being is of an incredibly different structure. You or I could easily, easily devise tests for creatures that are made of flesh and move around and interact with things mostly like us.
But what if your higher being communicates through pheromones? Or they're a crystalline being that only perceives the world by bouncing tones vibrated out of its body, and thinks you're all stupid animals because you can't respond to his tones in pitch perfect clarity.
If it's basically just a million year old super wizard elf or some shit he either quickly figures out your party is sapient or he's a pretentious jackass who believes in the idea of philosophical zombies
>>44724034
Oh? Does your car complain when you gas it up?
Insert the nozzle in a dog and fill it with gas.
See the difference?
>>44724034
You mean sapience. You don't need sapience to object.
If it doesn't have sentience it might as well be a rock. A jellyfish has no sentience, but a dog does
>>44724071
Seeing as I had a dog that died because it drank some gasoline we siphoned from our busted up truck
I don't think my dog would have complained.
>>44722850
What doth life?
>>44724090
>>44724086
It drank it.
That's different than inserting a nozzle.
( sorry for your dog m8)
>>44724049
Or shit, if the species is technologically advanced enough for rapid interstellar travel, then its highly probable that their technology is basically space magic as far as humans are concerned, and they would probably be able to determine our sentience through means we either can't use ourselves or don't even understand.
Or hell, they might be of such near-transcendent intelligence that to them we aren't really any more sentient than an ant or lower animal would seem to us. To them we might seem like automata following a slightly more complex program than every other automata around us.
>>44722850
I don't know, but I would definitely ask it if it could prove it was sentient back.
>>44724110
Don't feel bad, it was a stupid fucking dog.
It totally would have let you stuff a gas pump down its throat.
But nothing will let you stuff something up its ass without first consulting it, that's just a knee-jerk reaction to getting butt touches.
I know what everyone's getting at, but context always helps.
>>44724090
sauce?
>>44724111
And therein lies the rub. We've got animals who are smarter than Goddamn ants; crows are fucking brilliant compared to other animals, and clearly have some sort of system of communication because if you piss off one, he can spread the word about which human is a huge jackhole. But you know. There's people who'll go "Yeah and? That's just a more complex trick" and then above humanity you'll have beings advanced enough to go
"Just because it has written language doesn't mean it's sapient like you or I. Thats just a dumb stumbling of evolution. Scrawling with a stick. Oh, how many dumb animals have discovered nuclear fusion? Pfffff. Come back when they can communicate verbally on multiple dimensions."
>>44722850
Throw something at them. Obviously deliberately.
If they're sentient, they'll react to it. If they're sapient, they'll complain.
>>44724161
http://falsepositivecomic.com/
great surreal and cosmic horror interconnected short stories
>>44724164
>Come back when they can communicate verbally on multiple dimensions."
But we can, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimensional communication is within our grasp.
Technically
>>44723325
>sentience
>sapience
You might need to check a dictionary pal.
>>44724161
it's some web comic.
forgot the one. It's a series of shorts though. I can dig up maybe.
>>44724139
But autonomic reaction doesn't at all prove sentience. Lower animals all function that way, like machines they have programmed responses to specific stimulus and unerringly carry out that reaction. Flies and other insects flying into lights are a good example of this, they don't do it because they like light or want to be near it, but because they are programmed to orient themselves towards the light.
To prove something is sentient, you've got to prove it can do more than just follow preprogramed instincts. Pattern recognition and long term memory for example, or the ability to solve puzzles that demand some level of planning.
>>44724192
>2nd
OK, this is easy, it's writing.
>3rd
Light or sound? How technical are you being when you say "dimensional?"
>1st
Poking people with a stick? Electricity? a series of dots/lines?
>>44724226
And then you get into bullshit neuroethics arguments about how, if you think about it, our personalities, minds, etc, are just more complex preprogrammed instructions conflicting and interacting.
You can always have a more advanced being argue "they're just following instructions, they're really just a fleshy machine"
>>44724226
>solve puzzles that demand some level of planning.
>>44724255
Then you ask "Well, aren't you?" and when they say no just repeat what they said.
It may not prove anything, but it'll piss em off.
>>44722850
Ask them "who's on first?"
>>44722850
Meh
I preferred the original thread.
Enough of this bs.
Are we raping these fuckers or not?
>>44724554
It would be more likely that they will be raping us.
>>44723158
What's the answer?
How do you say 'We come in peace' when the very words are an act of war?
>>44724863
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKHUgJ5suIA
>>44723818
I would also have said that.
>>44722850
None.
It would simply mindrape you and figure it out itself.
>>44724908
"Our kind are not here for violent purposes."
>>44725823
"I should clarify,
they don't HAVE to be violent"
>>44724908
I was waiting for a reference to this.
>>44724908
"I bring whores and alcohol and wish to sample your own!"
>>44725942
>Oh My
Welcome brother!
Come in and know me better!
Unity Through Dick
>>44726068
And that children is how humanity made first.
God this isn't an appropriate story.
>>44725930
It was a pretty fucking amazing book, surprised more of /tg/ hasn't read it.
>>44723013
Well, I guess the humans the thing meets wil be clothed/armored, with different clothes/armor, that's a start.
If I ever saw a group of squirrels wearing clothes and using tools, I would consider tryibg to talk to them, or at least try to interact, since they'd seem smart enough to be sentient.
>>44723013
Look up Koko the gorilla
Humans continually deny that she is capable of communication and she knows ~1000 signs in ASL, has opinions, and can attempt deception, like blaming her kitten for breaking some ceramic fixture
Some humans still claim shes just "acting" and not sentient
>>44726497
The Chinese Room thought experiment basically postulates an AI that can comminucate at least on the human level and then asserts that it is not sentient.
>>44727625
Which I think is wrong, for the record.
>>44727625
The same thing could be applied to humans. In the case of the Chinese room, the human brain is the entire room itself, with human being one of its components. The components of the brain communicate with each other and then send out a response via electrical signals to another part of the body.
However the single part of the brain is not sentient, the entire thing is.
By comparing it to a machine, the language processing is not the part that is sentient, it's the machine itself. The entire room.
>>44727761
>By comparing it to a machine, the language processing is not the part that is sentient, it's the machine itself. The entire room.
Searle's argument is famously about the differences between the way a computer program and a brain utilise symbols, so I'm confused how this follows.
>>44727625
>comminucate at least on the human level
This is a very bad way of putting it. What is 'communicating on a human level'? While the chinese room may be adept at replying to, say, requests to choose a takeaway, questions that ask the chinese room about its future or about specific individuals not contained in its libraries will yield nonsense results.
>>44727793
Searle's argument claimed that a machine cannot be sentient because the human does not understand the characters themselves, he only matches it.
However, this is exactly what the human brain does. It matches characters to words, which is then matched to memories, then it calculates a response.
In this case, the character recognition part of the brain is the human in the locked room. That part is not the part that is sentient, but the entire room is.
The machine is exactly the same. The human in the locked room is only a part of the machine, it is not the machine itself. It is incorrect to state that just because the language processing cannot "understand" what it is reading, that the entire thing is not sentient. Otherwise you could make the same argument that humans are not sentient, we are just a collection of neurons firing at each other.
>>44727857
>However, this is exactly what the human brain does. It matches characters to words, which is then matched to memories, then it calculates a response.
Check back on Searle's second axiom. He explains it better than I could. I've attached it his explanation here because I'm used to seeing people arguing against versions of the argument poorly distilled from the introduction of the wikipedia article.
>>44722850
>ask
So it doesn't know who or even what the party are, but it can clearly communicate questions to them? Whut?
>>44723158
Not even a question.
>>44722850
How many lights?
>>44727857
>>44727625
Yes, the Chinese room idea. Because a room big enough to contain everything is clearly less intelligent than someone that understands Chinese.
This would be a lot easier to discuss if you all could keep sapience and sentience straight. I'm going to assume OP means sapience, but under the wording of his problem literally any question that they'd react to is a test of sentience.
Anyway, the easiest way to do it? Ask them to solve a simple puzzle which should have an easy solution, but make a very clear error in it that makes it unsolvable. If they provide the "solution" or indicate it's unsolvable, they haven't proven themselves sapient, although they haven't proven themselves nonsapient either. Further tests are required. However, if notice the error and try to bring it to your attention, or take steps to correct it to render the puzzle solvable, then they have.
>>44722850
What...is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
>>44722850
Who is your waifu?
>>44728048
What do you mean? European or African swallow?
>>44727968
That statement is 100% factual. A room with a long list of instructions in it isn't intelligent.
A variation:
A Chinese person is outside of the door, and puts a question under the door. The non-Chinese speaker takes the question, and asks a Chinese person in the room how to respond.The non-Chinese speaker then gives the response to the person outside the door. Can the person outside the door conclude that the non-Chinese speaker in the room speaks Chinese?
How about this: A Chinese person gives a question under the door in Chinese. The non-Chinese speaker gives the response to a second Chinese person who is in the room with them. The second Chinese person writes down the correct response in a book, and gives it to the non-Chinese speaker who uses the book to give the person outside the door the correct response. Can the Chinese speaker conclude that the non-Chinese speaker inside the door actually speaks Chinese?
Now the last part: The Chinese person inside the room writes a book with all possible questions and responses and gives it to the non-Chinese speaker and then leaves. A different Chinese speaker gives the non-Chinese speaker a question, and the non-Chinese speaker uses the book to give a response. This is identical to the original Chinese room. Can the Chinese speaker conclude that the non-Chinese speaker in the room speaks Chinese?
No. But the entire system that the Chinese person is interacting with does speak Chinese. There is some knowledge of Chinese in that room. Whether that is in the first example where the knowledge is stored in the second Chinese speaker's brain and given directly, the second example where the knowledge is in the second Chinese speaker's brain and transferred into a book as needed, or the third example where all of the knowledge is transferred into the book beforehand. Something in that room knows Chinese.
If we are replacing Chinese with intelligence, then whoever is outside the door might not be able to conclude that the person/machine inside the room is intelligent, but the entire system certainly is.
>>44722850
Sentience is an illusion, of course you're not sentient and neither are we.
>>44728104
FUCK.
to determine if theyre just sentient?
have them explain a simple mathematical property like Pythagorean theorem, thats how youre supposed to communicate your intelligence to aliens
>>44728137
What makes a brain not a long list of instructions?
>>44728243
NO FUCK YOU
DON'T DO THIS AGAIN TO ME
SHE WAS REAL, FUCK YOU
>>44728277
It is also a mechanism which responds to instructions, as well as capable of rewriting instructions. A book is static and lacks agency.
>>44727899
His definition of software is the most retarded thing I've ever heard.
>The next axium is just a remainder of...
OOP completely negates this, you can attach 'mental contents' (attributes) to any object.
>>44728378
To be fair, Object orientated programming only became popular in the 90s, Searle's problem was introduced in the 80's.
>>44728373
You're right... The Chinese room also needs to include instructions on how to amend the Chinese room's instructions. THEN it'll be sentient.
>>44724237
>a series of dots/lines?
Have you never heard of Morse code.
>>44724237
Sign language counts for 3rd.
If you wrote down every single interaction within a fictional human brain, down to the fundamental matter, to the point of being a full simulation of the brain written down on paper, would that brain be conscious?
This is an actual thing in my setting, so I'm wondering if it'd be a representation of the thing or if it could be argued to be a thing of its own.
>>44728425
No, it needs a device which can read, write, and execute instructions to be considered intelligent.
Which, if we define "The room" to mean the system within the room rather than referring to merely the physical walls which describe an area, it is; a n intelligent human is part of the system, therefore the system is intelligent.
>>44728534
But PCs can do all three of those things.
Show them an assortment ofpresidential candidates.
If they chooseTrumpthey're obviously not sentient.
>>44723912
maximumoverkek.
>>44728476
Of course not. It's ink on paper. A blob of ink in the shape of the word "neuron" is not going to interact with other blobs of ink the way a neuron would interact with other neurons.
Function is a fundamental aspect of an object. A representation which does not reflect function is incomplete, while a perfect representation is simply the object itself.
>>44728587
Come on man, don't bring that stuff here. You'll just /pol/tards, flinging shit, and ruining a fun thread.
>>44728534
Except it's not really instructions that REQUIRE a human. If we've already declared the instructions are this complex we could just as easily have a robot complete them.
>>44728534
A system where a human follows the rules to win tic tac toe is not intelligent just because it contains a human.
>>44722850
Sentient? I'd show them a fucking mirror
>>44728476
You're getting close enough to the middle ground where you start having to face the uncomfortable fact that the existence of discrete categories is a lie we tell ourselves.
>>44724002
You seems mad. Do you want a hug?
>>44728259
Big words from the organism which defines sentience as the quality it possesses. Whatever sentience is, we got it, dumbass.
>>44728554
Now we've reached the hazy grey area of "how much intelligence does it take to be Intelligent."
Prevailing reasoning holds that a computer is not intelligent because it cannot truly modify instructions; rather, it can only be instructed to modify it's instructions in the manner in which it is instructed. The machine is a slave to input and cannot generate output in a vacuum. A human mind, meanwhile, does not need to receive instructions in order to modify instructions, nor does it strictly require that it be instructed in the manner of how to modifythem in order to do so; a coin-counting machine told "Set.Var1=Var1+Var2" where Var1 is the total number of coins will fail if Var1 was not declared with a value prior to operation and return an inaccurate value if it is not reset between tasks, while a human counting coins would establish on it's own that the total should be zero at the start of the task. This degree of abstraction is absent from current computers, and they are therefore not considered intelligent.
On the other hand, one may argue that he human mind does in fact require and receive such instructions, and simply receives them from the pre-made lists stored within itself. Thus, a human is not truly more intelligent than a computer, merely more comprehensive. The topic is still debated.
>>44723158
"Is this testing whether I'm sentient or a lesbian?"
>>44728733
No we don't.
>>44728662
And if they feel shame at their own appearance, they are sentient.
>>44728636
And if there's a robot in there, even if it and the human perform identically, the room is not intelligent.
The real question becomes "Why are humans intelligent?"
>>44728769
Its a word we invented, to describe a concept we invented, to define something we observe about ourselves. You might as well say we don't have height. Such as height is, we have it. Sentience is the same., Such as it is, it is something we have. That is all it is. If we didn't have it, it wouldn't be.
>>44722944
Right angle(90deg) + demonstrate =
Bowing before him.
>>44728774
thanks moses
>>44724102
Hail Santa xD
>>44728792
But that's silly.
>>44728816
Much of philosophy sounds pretty silly. Half the work in teaching it is just getting people into a thought process where the question means something.
>>44722850
I'm dissapointed /tg/, not a single:
Who are you?
Not even a:
What do you want?
>>44728839
>dog barks wuff wuff
oh i see that's who you are
>>44728615
I meant more like a series of notes determining that quark #sr346d/cd.ew/2993 was moving at a velocity of X to Y co-ordinates in space and time, but okay. Am I right in assuming the deal is that because that which is written on the paper cannot react to anything by itself, but must instead be manually written down as doing so, it is not conscious?
>>44728848
Basically. The being who records the interaction is the one who acts. The paper is just paper, and does what paper does, which is mostly sit there, molder, break up in water, and burn well.
>>44728792
No that's an easy one, natural selection.
>>44728878
But without the paper you still can't speak chinese.
>>44722941
Don't hurt me... no more.
>>44722850
SHOW ME WHAT YOU GOT!
>>44723158
Trick question.
It's hips.
>>44728439
It's 2 dimensional.
>>44728425
Wouldn't it be, at least , not following a pre-programmed rules for it, instead of doing the task it was made for if it was doing something else?
Using a human in this, or AI - make them follow a task that leads to a eternal imprisonment - they would have to forsee that with limited clues, act against their instinct, and act 'outside the box'.
It would be way more interesting if the PCs were also testing that being for sapience.
>>44723013
You wouldn't? Dude its a talking animal. All my life I've wanted to have a conversation with a squirrel, a dog, cat, birds, snakes, seals, trees, etc.
>>44728848
That's Laplace demon. Except you can't determine position and energy with perfect, or even good enough accuracy for such particles.
Motherfucking heinsenberg principle of uncertainty.
>>44728839
You what?
>>44729005
The amendment is because while I'm not sure i can speak for intelligence itself, at the very least intelligently speaking a language requires memory, so yes at the very least your preprogrammed instructions are not PERMANENT instructions, but frankly the origin of a thing is irrelevant to the nature of the thing all else being equal.
And well, ambition is not some core function to sapience. Why on earth SHOULD it desire to act outside the box?
>>44728906
Maybe, but while the man in the room might speak English or French without the paper's aid, the paper alone will never speak anything
>>44729098
The only way to preserve themselves would be to act 'outside' the puzzle. If they stay within the bounds of pre-set instructions/puzzle they will face eternal imprisonment.
>>44728839
Why are you here?
>>44723168
ON a scale from 1 to 10, how baked am I right now?
Am I in denial about being a dirty slut, and does that fact turn me on even more?
>>44729173
Except there's no particular reason to include self-preservation either. Self-preservation is a function of natural selection and not even a particularly reliable one.
>>44723912
Underrated post.
>>44726497
They still saying that after he message about the paris climate summit?
>>44729530
explain how those are connected?
>>44726497
If Koko is that smart, have they gotten her(?) to solve puzzles and play games yet?
>>44729191
>inb4: Wis 19 monk begins a multiple hour speech presenting his theory on the origin and purpose of the universeand that was the only time the monk got some spotlight
>>44722850
Present them with a finely detailed depiction of futanari (or perhaps even materialize one, if that's within the being's power). Clearly explain what it is. The ask if a man having sexual intercourse with it would be gay or not.
>>44727955
Is this a trick question? The answer is 1280x720 right? since black pixels are still emitting dull light?
The word you guys are looking for is sapient, not sentient.
And seriously, it got vaguely referenced earlier, but read Blightsight. Excellent sci fi novel, and deals with this exact topic in some pretty profound ways.
Does a thing have to be concious or self-aware to be considered intelligent?
Or just be able to solve complex problems?
Is there a solid definition of conciousness yet?
>>44723912
Shit I'd never think of doing that
>>44728763
>while a human counting coins would establish on it's own that the total should be zero at the start of the task
But the humans are taught the concept of "zero" or "void" through experience and mathematics, or am I overthinking this? I mean, our brains are not born with the concept of zero, we learn it and then it would be capable of abstracting the zero coins state.
>>44722850
Why do kids love the taste of cinnamon toast crunch?
>>44729917
I believe we can figure the concept of zero ("none of") on our own, what we need to be taught is how to properly record it in a way that's understandable to the others.
>>44729947
Yeah, but that's still learning something we don't know that without it we couldn't perform the task just like the computer. So the difference is not whether we have that knowledge or not, but if we have the capacity to make something out of a new scenario (in that case, of a void set).
>>44723810
DEEPLY AND LOVINGLY SIR!
>>44729947
Easy, you just do some fucking math with it and they'll figure it out. It's just the Additive Identity
You can use objects to teach the symbols for integers, then use integers to teach addition, and then you can show what 0 is. And then you can try and explain multipliction. 0's multiplicity function shows itself.
>>44728774
>Gentlemen, we've made a breakthrough! We showed the alien a mirror, and it made a series of noises we believe translate to "Ugh god, I look so fat, why did I choose to wear THIS jumper, it's such an awful colour."
>>44723912
well played
>>44727939
Sauce?
>>44722850
>What questions would you have an incredibly advanced and powerful being ask the party to determine if they were sentient or not?
honestly, it would likely be a simple pattern-recognition test.
because the trick here is that you are only testing for sentience, not their level of advancement. So it needs to be a test that would stump a beast; but a sentient being, even one living in the stone-age, could easily solve.
hence pattern-recognition test might be a viable option since it would require that the subject of the test to be capable of abstract thought in order to recognize a pattern.
ITT people mixing up sentience with sapience
Your dog is sentient, not sapient.
>>44728998
It's literally a series of dots and lines.
>>44723168
Do I care about the child? Would giving the child food benefit me in any way? If yes, I give the child food. If no, then I don't.
>>44731087
Read the thread you fucking retard. It's already been brought up.
>>44731249
And yet, they keep doing it.
>>44723168
literally any coherent answer would indicate sentience
can you perceive time?
Here's the test folks.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/are-you-a-replicant/
Let's see if you dream of electronic sheep.
>>44723938
Is there a source/more of these?
>>44723912
Click settings, go to the captcha section, enable Legacy captcha.
Faster, easier, and without helping google with their selfdriving cars.
>>44729848
Source?
>>44729917
My point was that you don't need to remind the human to start from zero at the beginning of each task. A machine lacking that instruction will count 10,000 coins on Monday, then start counting from 10,001 on Tuesday.
>>44730803
Kore Wa zombie desu ka
![3YpxVgDL_81-4TGi74Q884XXXL4j3HpexhjNOf_P3YmryPKwJ94QGRtDb3Sbc6KY[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/93qGMdf.jpg "3YpxVgDL_81-4TGi74Q884XXXL4j3HpexhjNOf_P3YmryPKwJ94QGRtDb3Sbc6KY[1].jpg")
>>44729848
If there is I haven't heard of it. Read/Listen to Destination Void, they explore some of what the author thought would be necessary for a consciousness. I'd say one thing a consciousness definitely needs is some kind of language which can describe abstract concepts, it also needs to perceive the passage of time, it needs to feel both pain or pleasure or some pair of sensations analogous to those, it needs to be able to analyze and recognize its own thought processes (introspection).
>>44733470
>Not wanting to help shape the mind of our future robot overlords
>>44734892
>it needs to be able to analyze and recognize its own thought processes (introspection)
So humans aren't conscious? We can't really tell what goes on in our own minds at any meaningful level. We just produce rationalizations where necessary.
>>44724908
I knew it would come to this.
>>44726338
>It was a pretty fucking amazing book
It's ok. It's just that Watts found ONE idea that makes him feel all tingly and just can't have enough of it. While you have had enough of it by the middle of Blindsight. And then the fucker releases more of the same in Echopraxia.
Also - explaining all of his character as in-Universe autists of various flavors doesn't excuse all of his characters from being complete autists.
> surprised more of /tg/ hasn't read it
On the chan I hail from, it's overforced to the point of cancer.
Also pls no more Chinese Room. The problem itself is quite pointless.
>>44740657
I heard his next book wasn't as good as the first one.
And I do think the characters being so fucked up was pretty well explained. I mean, shit, the MCs entire job was to translate the crazy shit all of the scientists say into something that normal people could understand.
>>44722850
"Sentient" literally just means "can experience things, aware" but everyone knows what you meant so I won't split hairs.
Anyway, I don't think I'd really need them to ask any. Just by observing the party using swords to kill things, they've already demonstrated an understanding of basic tool use, and they are clearly wearing artificial coverings and using implements requiring quite a high degree of tool use and craftsmanship.
The question isn't "Are they intelligent," but "How intelligent are they, and are they likely to be good company?"
>>44740782
>I heard his next book wasn't as good as the first one.
Yup.
>And I do think the characters being so fucked up was pretty well explained
It was. Doesn't make them any less tiresome though.
> the MCs entire job was
SIRI IS THE ONE BIGGEST FUCKING AUTIST OF THEM ALL. I'm not talking about Theseus crew being weird AF, I'm talking about all (trans)human interaction being written as if by someone who has very little experience with human interaction, with weird or normal humans alike.
>>44740915
I guess I felt like that was intentional though. I mean, The entire book starts itself by explaining that Siri is pretty fucked up in the head, and his ability to interact with others is incredibly fucked up. Sort of the irony of the fact that the man who's job it was to explain the reasoning of the crazies was even more mentally and socially fucked up.
>>44741203
>Sort of the irony
More of a plot hole. Considering [SPOILER] [SPOILER] - there was no point in having him in the crew. Or having a crew at all.
>I guess I felt like that was intentional though
to me it felt like author purposefully making sure that his plot doesn't allow any sane characters so that he doesn't have to write any.
Overall the book felt like if someone took the alien chapters of Gods Themselves (completely undiluted by any human presence) and tried to make an autism-friendly version of Solaris with that modern-hard-scifi flavor. Kinda interesting, but not that memorable. Utterly killed in some circles by it's meme status.
>mfw this entire thread
Let me preface this by saying I have autism and marginal conscious awareness of myself. I paintstakingly figure out what I am feeling by monitoring my body, which doesn't always work--I am still struggling to gauge exactly how hungry I am at any given moment for example. Over the course of a couple decades I believe I developed a decent grasp of severe emotional states my body is exhibiting and how to control them. I struggle to explain this because it seems like English just naturally applies more agency to my actions then I am capable of feeling. For a very long time I struggled with what consciousness was, if people were in fact conscious, and if the constrained mental landscape I had qualified for that. My quality of life jumped when I just stopped giving a fuck and began to fashion a semi-normal life out of what I had.
I said all that because it no longer matters to me if what I'm talking to something "conscious" and really the whole thing just seems overblown now. I talk to my bird all the time, and he understands certain keywords now--"cheerio" and "sleep" are two he definitely grasps. I don't care what sort of internal life he has, he acts content albeit often bored and that is sufficient. I don't care if that one jerkoff at work is conscious.
If it acts like there is an internal thought process then I treat it right, getting your panties in a bunch over it's self-referential skills is retarded.
>>44741772
Mr. Watts please log in before posting.
>>44723963
>>44723938
>>44734554
Oh fuck my sides, I can't live without them and they've left me
send help
>>44732843
The Film Blade Runner
>>44742251
Ignore this I'm stupid, just realized they're parodies.
>>44740167
No one said the conclusions we draw have to be correct, just that we are capable of making them.
Also we are perfectly capable of recognizing the emotions and reasoning that led us to a certain decision. We might not be able to do it for every action but most people would have no trouble recognizing that, for example, being called a pussy faggot makes them angry and that's why they punched that Billy in the face.
>>44728243
Actually based on the writing of the Non-speaker, the Chinese speaker could easily tell if the person could actually speak it or not.
>>44723766
it sounds like a simon game machine to me
>>44740167
I never said I thought that it had to be perfectly accurate, just that it has to occur at all. I would say that to be conscious you must also at some level recognize that you are conscious, there has to be some basic concept of self and feelings, in short introspection. The mind must recognize its own existence.
>>44728243
god this is retarded. just replace "book" with "the person's memory" and he is speaking Chinese.
>>44733470
Legacy captchas instead help Google's book digitalization efforts.
>>44747128
Just replace "glasses" with "the person's eyeballs" and I should be allowed to drive without my glasses, goddammit.
I still haven't seen a convincing way for this superbeing to communicate with us, and not simultaneously realise we're sentient.
You fuckers are going to keep arguing about this Chinese room shit until you agree to disagree on whether or not there is such a thing as free will, or whether we simply slavishly follow our programming under the illusion of free will.
>>44747280
>I still haven't seen a convincing way for this superbeing to communicate with us, and not simultaneously realise we're sentient
The way it was in Blindsight and Solaris, when the being in question is rather questionably fits into our ideas of sentience.
>>44728839
Morden pls go.
>>44722850
You can't. You can meaningfully distinguish between being being sapient and perfect simulation of being so. You can't prove that you aren't just a really well made bot.
>>44722850
You have 3 seconds to talk without memes.
>>44723912
>not gift boxes
>>44747521
Muh solipnigga
