• hypericin
    513
    That is my point, we take the opposite for granted. Philosophical questioning results in the idea of solipsism.
  • Moliere
    2k
    The certainty of other minds is visceral.Banno

    This, I believe, is what I've been trying to get it -- though I think that the visceral experience of others is such that the language of "certainty" is already too obscure from the situation. I think it's a pre-cognitive feeling (though, certainly, still rational)
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    Philosophical questioning results in the idea of solipsism.hypericin
    For some, no doubt. However, most philosophical positions are inconsistent with solipsism.
  • hypericin
    513
    There's more than just this one. But this one will do for a start.Banno
    So then, to you, what distinguishes good philosophy from bad/illegitimate/silly philosophical playing, among which is included the idea of solipsism?
  • Agent Smith
    5.2k
    The Turing test has to somehow clear the solipsism hurdle!
  • hypericin
    513
    I mean to say that solipsism is a result of philosophical reflection, on which I think we all agree.
  • Janus
    12.4k
    If it were "intersubjective agreement" that were needed, you would be asking others if you feel shame in walking naked through the mall. But that's not what happens.Banno

    Of course you don't need to ask; it is an inter-subjectively established collective representation that walking naked through the mall is shameful.
  • Agent Smith
    5.2k
    Ludwig Wittgenstein: We use words correctly despite not knowing their definitions.
  • Real Gone Cat
    220

    This may be a first for TPF - your admonition has me rethinking my position.

    I believe where there is an active healthy human brain there is a human mind, and where there is human mind there is an active healthy human brain. One is not emergent from the other - they are equivalent.

    I have always considered myself a physicalist (and continue to). And I reject solipsism.

    But how do we prove solipsism false? No set of behaviors are sufficient, and we can't share subjective experience. So what to do?

    Walking through the mall naked may prove my shame, but so does changing in front of my cats.
  • Janus
    12.4k
    For some, no doubt. However, most philosophical positions are inconsistent with solipsism.180 Proof

    It seems to me that all philosophical positions are inconsistent with solipsism, since they all require language, which is born and evolved inter-subjectively.
  • Agent Smith
    5.2k
    @Banno@hypericin@180 Proof@Janus

    Language is social (re Wittgenstein). Solipsism? :chin:
  • Moliere
    2k
    Solipsism is usually deployed as a reductio of a position. Here that's explicitly how solipsism entered the conversation -- as an accusation of philosophical parlor tricks, or insincerity.

    I don't have doubt of other's minds. I just don't prove the assertion.

    What, after all, is proof? Proof requires there to be rules of inference that are shared between participants in a conversation, and is usually -- though not always -- is related to knowledge in some way (hence the use of words like "conviction" or "certain" -- words I'd say are associated with knowledge, and judgment)

    And such displays, when it comes to the minds of others, are simply stupid. It's like proving you have a hand to prove there's an external world.

    What on earth are you doing, at all?

    The parlor game is set up by the person claiming knowledge, proof, certitude, and all the rest. That's language on holiday -- acting as if there is anything to prove at all, when there are no established bounds between us for proof or knowing.

    I don't doubt your mind, I just don't think there's a fact to the matter, and that -- due to the non-cognitive nature of moral judgment -- it's better to recognize there's a kind of of line being drawn, a line where the speaker is comfortable with what happens.

    But that's no proof of anything, and it's silly to ask for proof.
  • hypericin
    513
    Lemoine viscerally feels that LaMDA is sentient. So, is the matter then settled? Hardly. Viscerally feeling something to be so generally doesn't carry much weight in a philosophical debate.

    Solipsism. rather than being a nonsensical parlor game, frames this entire discussion. If we can't even prove the sentience of other people, how then to evaluate the apparent sentience of a clever program? Solipsism, not as serious belief, but as boundary of what can be known with certainty, teaches us that from the outset we can forget about proofs.

    :lol:
  • Moliere
    2k
    If we can't even prove the sentience of other people, how then to evaluate the apparent sentience of a clever program?hypericin

    :D There you got it! Though I'd just commit to the antecedent.

    And, if we accept this apparent inability to prove such things, then on what basis are we to make a decision?

    I have suggested that we do so on the basis of who we might become, if we continue to use the same sort of reasoning in the future. Whereas I don't believe LaMDA is a part of our moral community, I have many reasons for my choice in that... and fundamentally I have to admit that I don't really operate at the level of proof when thinking ethically.
  • Alkis Piskas
    1k

    I know about this story. Only that I read that the engineer was fired, not just going "on leave", as the title of the video says.
    Anyway, I don't know what is your purpose of referring to this video, so I can only comment on whether Google's decision was right or wrong.

    I think it was the right thing to do. Saying that a chatbot has gone sentient, thinking and reasoning like a human, etc. is a huge blooper. (I am working in the AI field.) It exposes the whole company. So, besides showing ignorance and the engineer could be fired only on that point, it was the best way for a company of high technology standards and prestige to express its position on the subject.
  • Janus
    12.4k
    I don't have doubt of other's minds. I just don't prove the assertion.Moliere

    Without other minds there can be no doubt, no proof, no assertion in the first place
  • Moliere
    2k
    That makes sense to me.

    Is that a proof?
  • Moliere
    2k
    Something I want to highlight -- deciding on the basis of who we might become includes the other scenario that hasn't been touched on too much. Because, at this point, I don't believe there are A.I's worth including in our moral community -- but I know A.I.'s are already influencing our social landscape through data management.

    This part is important, too. If we become enslaved to computers, I don't much care that they're sentient at all -- I wish to be free.
  • Banno
    17.4k
    This may be a first for TPF - your admonition has me rethinking my position.Real Gone Cat
    It happens sometimes.

    But how do we prove solipsism false?Real Gone Cat

    It's a pity that the thinking here focused on shame - I would of course feel nothing other than pride at the opportunity to display my god-like physique in public.

    The point of the example is not the emotional response, but the certainty with which it is held. It's not a conviction based on ratiocination. The certainty of the Other is not derived and subject to doubt, as supposes; any doubt will last only so long as he is writing a reply to me, evaporating as soon as he looks up and notices those around him. The notion that we have some obligation to prove the sentience of others shows a deep misunderstanding of the nature of proof.

    Solipsism is a philosophical conceit.
  • 180 Proof
    8.7k
    It seems to me that all philosophical positions are inconsistent with solipsism, since they all require language, which is born and evolved inter-subjectively.Janus
    :up:
  • Janus
    12.4k
    Walking through the mall naked may prove my shame, but so does changing in front of my cats.Real Gone Cat

    ;Are you serious; you get embarrassed appearing naked in front of your cats?
  • hypericin
    513


    Sounds like trying to argue with a Christian theologian:

    "It's not a conviction based on ratiocination. The certainty of God is not derived and subject to doubt... Atheism is a philosophical conceit."

    Ok then.
  • Banno
    17.4k
    Your very act of posting here demonstrates your conviction of the existence of others. Your reply to this post shows you are no solipsist.
  • Banno
    17.4k
    Cheers. The discussion of solipsism is peripheral to the topic here. The relevance is that the decision to accord sentience cannot be the result of merely considering technical issues, a consequence of the consideration of some algorithm. It is a similarly gut response to the rejection of solipsism.

    But a more interesting issue is the granting of status.ethical status. To quot emyself,
    status.ethical
    My cat is sentient, but not a person. Seems to me that not all sentient creatures count as persons. But it also appears that having a claim on our moral obligations is not dependent on being a person. At the least, we are obligated to our pets, and arguably, also to our dinner.Banno

    What obligations, if any, have we towards LaMDA ?
  • hypericin
    513
    Your very act of posting here demonstrates your conviction of the existence of othersBanno

    I just find interaction with this group of zombies amusing.

    Seriously, I never claimed to be a solipsist. Merely that solipsism is always a possibility, however unlikely.
  • Banno
    17.4k
    ...solipsism is always a possibility...hypericin

    I don't agree. "I alone exist" immediately falls into performative contradiction. "I" only exists in contrast to what is not "I".
  • hypericin
    513
    not "I"Banno

    The insensate world, including all the zombies.
  • Marchesk
    4.5k
    Ever read '-All You Zombies-' by any chance? A bit tangental, but I always wondered what the main character meant by that. I think he was talking about everyone else.
  • Banno
    17.4k
    Then at the least there are we zombies, and you are not all that exists. Your posts only exist in response to mine. Hence your posts are not all that exists. Each reply you make serves to further the point.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.