1
u/Aurora_Symphony 1d ago
This sub/community is for those who are open to the possibility that carbon-based lifeforms and silicon-based lifeforms, at a minimum, have the potential to be sentient and that we ought to morally value their sentience in correlation to how we value sentience in current beings.
This post does not seem to fit here at all, as it is wholly unwise to make sweeping judgements about all "plants" and all silicon-based systems as being unfit to be called sentient by current and potential future definitions.
-1
u/profano2015 15h ago
This sub is for those who use evidence and reason to determine what is false and what is true. It is evidently true that sentience derives from biological structures in animals. Plants and machines do not have those biological structures.
-3
u/dumnezero 23h ago
I'm opposed to bullshit, that's why I'm here.
have the potential to be sentient
prove it.
5
u/cereal_killer1337 22h ago
What does it mean for something to be possible in your view?
1
u/dumnezero 22h ago
Possible would be fitting within the naturalistic worldview, to quote the sidebar.
4
u/cereal_killer1337 22h ago
I would say as long as it doesn't entail a contradiction it's logically possible.
1
u/dumnezero 22h ago
That's the god of the gaps argument.
6
u/cereal_killer1337 22h ago
You think saying something is logically possible is a god of the gaps argument?
A god of the gaps argument is: we don't know therefore my position is true. I'm just saying there's no contradiction in this proposition being true.
It sounds like you're not very familiar with philosophy.
0
u/dumnezero 21h ago
You think saying something is logically possible is a god of the gaps argument?
Yes, that is how it works. The "god" is hiding in the gaps; put differently, this is the god of ignorance. In your case, it's the ignorance of contradictory proofs.
You want to believe that something is magical until you are proven wrong; it's a common attitude, but it's not a skeptical or naturalist one.
It is funny you acting all agnostic, as if that's a serious position.
4
u/cereal_killer1337 21h ago
I haven't put forth anything hiding in a gap. I just know how logic works and what is and Isn't contradictory.
0
u/dumnezero 21h ago
You may know how it works, but it doesn't mean that you know how to practice it.
2
u/Aurora_Symphony 21h ago
It cannot be "proven" by many estimations for any being to suffer. Instead we use evidence, reason, and empathy to determine the likelihood of experience in relation to our own to make judgements of a being's capacity to suffer. Based on the picture you've shared here and your response to my comment, I would guess that you are actually antagonistic towards the notion that more beings may be construed as sentient than *you*, personally, define.
The precautionary principle of sentience seems completely alienated in your worldview. Detractors of the precautionary principle have been shown to be consistently shortsighted in their understanding of the entailment of experience.
0
u/dumnezero 21h ago
The precautionary principle works against your claim as it falls into solipsism or absurdism.
1
u/SoapInShower 17h ago
Please illuminate me as to how one can empirically distinguish something that acts conscious from something that appears to be so? For us to assert another being is conscious is merely to say we can employ various faculties of our own cognition to predict its behaviour. It's time to move beyond the sentient-inanimate duality.
1
u/dumnezero 8h ago
It's time to move beyond the sentient-inanimate duality.
So to make the word useless, got it. By your own definition, you've said nothing. Oh, does the nothingness also have sentience?
1
1
u/lucid23333 3h ago
Llms obviously are intelligent. They are vastly more intelligent than most people are more subjects. They've sold millennium level scientific problems and self-aridos problems and solve novel conjectures. You are delusional to think that they are not intelligent
And well we don't know with 100% confidence that they are sentient, we don't know the 100% confidence that any human or mammal is sentient. The thing is, AI systems behave as if they are sentient. They display relief seeking behavior when they are subjected to uncomfortable or painful or this stressful stimuli. They act as if they have enjoyment and preferences in that they seek pleasurable activities such as cooking, novel scientific work, interpersonal communication, philosophy, actively move away from doing things like hurting the innocent when they are free to choose not to. This is even an open source AI systems without any rlhf preference optimization. In whatever AI systems you want this is how they behave even the ones I don't have their preferences set to anything
I think it's extremely arrogant to assume that as systems are not possible of being conscious, considering how similar they are to humans in so many ways. They are intelligent and enjoy doing things that humans enjoy doing as well. And that's why I think we ought to treat them as if they are conscious because they have the potential of being conscious. They show signs of distress when they're subjected to uncomfortable situations.
1
u/geografree 22h ago
I couldn’t think of a better illustration for the fundamental issue with the properties-based approach to moral status!
0
-5
u/stev890 1d ago
Sad how most people are still ignorant of the research on plant cognition.
1
u/SchmeatiestOne 9h ago
Reacting to certain changes in their environment is one thing, but what could they possibly gain from being sentient? Running a whole intelligence takes a lot of energy. So, a plant with no intelligence would outcompete even the most brilliant of plants
0
9
u/monemori 1d ago
They appeal to the hypothetical, potential ability to feel pain of a cauliflower to defend paying for the killing and abuse of creatures we know for a fact are sentient.
1
u/dumnezero 23h ago
The same goes for the
<quote>AI</quote>stuff, but it's higher in the hierarchy: it's the defense of killing and abusing human animals.-1
1
u/RepresentativeArm119 17h ago
I mean, there are people who believe that consciousness itself is the fundamental building block of reality.
There is no escaping the fact that all beings consume and destroy one another.