Jed sez, >>> Sentience, I think, is somewhat easier to define. >>> It means having sense perceptions, but I meant it >>> in the narrower sense of being self-aware; knowing >>> the fact that you are an object in the real world, >>> and one object among many. > >> Goodness gracious me! "Easier to define"? For thousands >> of years scholars, philosophers and religious figures have >> tried to tackle that quandary with questionable degrees >> of success. > > Hey, I said "in the narrower sense." Not the grand philosophical > sense you address: the computer nerd version that can be > quantified and expressed in a single screen-full of code. > Computer jargon is full of formerly grand words derived from > exhaled disciplines of math and science. In the context of > "computer science" (an oxymoron) these concepts are reduced > to mere mechanical conditions. > I agree, while you focused on a narrower definition I chose to explore the subject from a larger philosophical perspective. Is there a problem with how we have both chosen to address the subject from a different POV?
You DID bring this fascinating OT subject up for discussion, did you not? You were inviting discussion were you not - or were you simply pontificating? Well... I know I'm guilty of committing the sin of pontification. Hey! That should have been a no-brainer! ;-) > As some cynic put it years ago, artificial intelligence is the > product of artificial intelligentsia. Silly me. I've read this phrase several times and I'm still not sure what it purports to signify. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
