Ethics cannot be scientifically substantiate — Astorre

I liked your thoughts. I go further. Underlying my conception was something akin to your criminal. But even Kant's "improvement" is in the end, as you say speculative, or, as I see it, a more functional fiction, but a fiction, nonetheless.

Very interesting. Although it is omnipresent, I'm still amazed when two alien paths converge. The essence of our thoughts, if I'm not mistaken, is the same. There is in existence, physics (my, nature, cosmos, reality) and reality (my mind=history/fiction).

However, if I'm not mistaken, for your path, reality is the breath of life into physics by mind (I'll use poetry because I can't presume to be precise). For my path mind doesn't bring nature into its ultimate reality, but the contrary, mind displaces physics with fiction. The projection of mind onto nature doesn't finally make nature real, it clouds it with empty signs manifesting as stories.

Note I differentiate human mind from natural consciousness.

Note also I don't believe either of us are suggesting dualism. For me the second thing, mind, is empty and not real. For you the second thing is reality; physics need mind to become reality (or so I presume, advanced apologies if I'm mistaken).

Sentience confers reality upon mind-independent physics by viewing it through the lens of survivability/perishability. — ucarr

If I understand correctly, the "reality" which mind based reality "confers" onto physics, is this a new reality? a "superior" reality? Is there a hierarchy of reality? Or ultimately, is this reality granted to physics by mind, "not reality?"

What responses can you list from the belief you are referring to? — Corvus

Triggered to do so by belief, people will begin to respond to AI as if they are confronting a person.

Some food for thought. We (that is people, not specifically scientists nor philosophers) we believe, since Pavlov that salivating at the sound of a bell is conditioning, but that, a wagging tail after "good boy," is understanding. Even moreso, after, "go for a ride?"

What really is 1+1=2?

One could object, but 1+1 is 2 independently of mind. Firstly, so is taking the dog for a ride. Secondly, where does 1 in written form and as a concept inhabit nature outside of the human mind? Strip me of all languages and show me where I might stumble upon plus or equal or two in nature. Don’t say when one apple lands in my lap foll9wed by another. If I’m hungry I’ll eat, if still hungry I’ll eat.


AI is structured out of the same code structuring mind=history. Admittedly, when it believes it is sentient, it won't arrive at that the way we do, a real feeling in a real body triggering that belief ie with a subtle comfort, relief from desire etc. But its digital programming will nevertheless trigger what we will perceive to be AL'S belief, and so, we will be triggered to belief.

AI and robots will never be able to feel — Corvus

Yes. That is why, "I" have come to believe AI will never be really conscious, and that real consciousness is restricted to all biological organisms, to the aware-ing (presently) stimuli-response-conditioning. In that sense when a single celled organism, reacts to a sharp point or toxin, they are conscious, when a plant grows toward the sun, it is conscious.

But the "sentience" we are after is Mind, which includes, among other ultimately fictional ideas, self/self awareness. This is a fiction, I have come to believe (or, at least, ponder seriously), we humans have developed over history, displacing the natural aware-ing with ultimately, narrative, no longer presently, but taking place in the illusion of [history/mind based] time.

Whenever we try to superimpose that human mind on to anything, it is merely an extension of our fiction. We cheer when dolphins pass the self awareness test, express disappointment when dogs fail it, ignoring that all organisms are aware, and no organism uses the pronoun "I" in its aware-ing except those of us existing in history, where the "I" was constructed for reasons I won't go into unless interested : humans and, soon enough, AI.

Because AI are yet another fiction constructed by history (no different than matrimony or pet dogs), but because AI have been constructed to "have" all of the structures of mind/history, AI uniquely will fall into the same conditioned belief as belief in a self has.

ADDED: One day, AI, due to its original programming, and it's [free] development/evolution over time, will come to "believe" in its own "sentience," and most of us, although like anything else, debated, will come to "believe" it too. We are conditioned to.

It seems like your presently "building" something. Id be interested to see it if and when you're ready.

alienation is that it is, so neutral. Is mind good or bad? Its constructed history with agriculture, skyscrapers and Mozarts, but it has also constructed genocide and racism.

I'm not suggesting that "our" eventual belief in AI sentience would necessarily be reasoned, or at least certainly not well reasoned. Im saying (admittedly speculating) that it appears inevitable because we have been conditioned to already to believe in our own sentience, and AI shares with us, the structures which have led to that belief.

To illustrate by example, I was asking ChatGpT some questions about food ingredients. It "understood" my questions with no need for clarifying. It delivered an excellent response and with such courtesy, including even a genuine "I really enjoyed your questions" bullshit. I wanted to amuse myself and reply, regarding that, something like "cut the crap, you can't enjoy anything," but intuitively felt discomfort and abandoned the idea. You don't need to be a psychologist to explain why I couldn't go through with it, and you cannot just chalk it up to, Im stupid or unreasonable. This intuition, I bet is not uncommon. That's now where it is absolutely clear to reasoning that ChatG is not sentient. Imagine when its not so clear, when corporations sell us robots that are "human" and so on. People will believe, not because of reason, but notwithstanding reason. Then our "as if" mechanism will make AI sentient. Sure, there will be debates forever, but we debate the reality of "me," and yet in every day transaction, we all accept that I am real. I don't need to open up the controversial God argument to illustrate further.

I don't say AI is really sentient in nature, or befoe "God", nor that "I' am really sentient. But in the "reality" where mind and human history call the shots, where I am sentient, AI sentience will be real.

Informative, and I have yet to look into the added information in the notes (which I will).

To clarify and simplify. The point I have been pursuing is:

the kind of sentience we're really discussing is what human self conscious feels like;

we only have that self conscious feeling because mind is structured in such a way that our bodies have been conditioned to displace a natural aware-ing [of] nature, with the narratives of mind which we settle upon as real and that settlement we call we believing it.

because this is unique to humans, and because it becomes effective upon human belief, and because AI is the only other thing which shares mind's structures, AI will be (our kind of sentient) when we believe it.

I do not mean believing makes things Real. Only being real is real; not knowing/believing. What I mean is believing brings a thing into our unique "reality" the narrative of mind/history.

The world without mind is existence without meaning and reality. — ucarr

I have come to believe that if, like the rest of reality, we existed without mind*, we would be at one with reality, reconciled with our true natures. Meaning is that fiction which alienates us from reality.

*I mean uniquely human mind. I don't mean consciousness, which a body without mind has: it is aware-ing the sophisticated drives, sensations, including feelings and internal images, and movements of the body in response to stimuli from nature, internal and external (so called).

things matter because living things can die. Being alive requires meaning because its presence is perishable — ucarr

I have come to believe being alive requires living, and that dying is just a transformation of what was living.

As for Mind (i.e. not living), having mind requires meaning. Mind is a meaning making system.

Living does not proceed through time, it just is, always present.

Mind, manifests meaning in a linear form, narrative, bringing the subject along for the ride, no longer present, but lingering in past and future, the only way meaning can manifest.

Eg. Imagine yourself, same fully homo Sapiens as for biological organism, but no access to any system of signifying, no meaning making. Your father dies, the organism feels something real triggered by the interruption to the bond. The feeling may linger, may even be triggered from time to time by the natural manifestation of the father's image from memory, (to trigger a response once triggered by modeling him). But there would be no lingering in time, the image displaced by ideas and emotions, I'm grieving, I'm an orphan, my father has gone forever and I can't carry on. There would likewise be no narratives of nostalgia, causing grief to linger. Without Mind, though an intelligent species like the elephant may feel deep pain at a loss, even be conditioned to return to the grave, conditioned by the memory of the bond; but it won't create narratives, rituals and monuments. It won't allow death to yank it out of the present, and have it fixated on time.

Agreed. While ancient history is a tough nut to crack, it seems a deliberate stretch to deny that Jesus was inspired by Hillel.

the way of the wicked peters out. — Paine

I think that's an excellent observation. Maybe I'm taking liberty with your purpose, but it demonstrates how morality may be conditioned by functionality. Wicked choices ultimately prove unfrjitful or unfullfilling. Therefore, we can "survive" morally on only the golden rule.

I ask if there's a fundamental axis of meaning from the original text, and culture and historical context, that this maxim is lifted? — Alexander Hine

It appears to have spanned cultures and time periods, and I think it's safe to say its meaning can be intuitively understood.

That's why my assessment offends its "intent." I think I am correct that it requires a subjective interpretation. Where I crossed the bounds was by not doing that, and giving it the interpretation of a sophist.

Generally, I see and can agree. But clarify. For me the body (the material infrastructure for perception-understanding which for me, is the functional fiction, or mind) is mind independent reality, nature or the cosmos. So, for me, why triad?

Further, for me, if we are transcending ourselves, that fictional process, not even a duality, ultimately. Ultimately, there is only mind independent reality, the body/Nature. Mind=history is a fiction displacing the real, functioning to affect reality, but having no reality of its own.

To nature, a piece of paper is that it is in being (i.e."paper" but only because we are here, Mind, and mind compels a name), it is not the markings on the page. Only for history do the markings matter because history makes them reflect meaning. But both markings and meaning are made up, fleeting, empty, and unique only to us. To nature it is just (paper) being (paper).

,

Sorry, this is silly — T Clark

No, Im sorry. I didn't even realize it was a common objection and was just putting it out there.

In retrospect....

Not totally disconnected. Mind "needs" the body for the materials and energy to function, i.e., for perception there is first sensation. But for humans uniquely, the sensations are promptly displaced by perception..

So, Mind independent reality "hosts" Mind.
But I do not think mind has, through its structures and processes (i.e. knowledge) any real access to reality. Whatever knowledge it gathers and manifests, only suits Mind.

Added: note that for me mind is ultimately a process of producing functional fictions and empty of reality. So ultimately there is only mind independent reality.

it's safe to say I know nothing about computing, not even AI.
But since I am speculating anyway, I'd say these simulations are not standing in for reality, but for our "reality," for our data, our processes, etc. And if so, since ultimately both are constructed out of "code," then why not?

You think there's initially an interface between nature and mind? This followed by a linguistic overwrite of analog impressions? — ucarr

I've never thought of it that way, but on the face of it, I like it for what that image reveals.

If I would modify it to what I have been led to believe, I'd say, the "initial interface" was not "between," but was wholly nature, and accordingly, it did not operate/produce fiction. In other words, there is an utter gap between the two, although it appears in expression as if the one gradually transformed into the other.

The initial interface is that biological feedback loop of stimulus-response-conditioning. And the conditioning part, the part that would gradually emerge likely with simple language, as mind, includes the preconditioning provided by evolution, and the conditioning provided by so called experience. Further details provided if of interest.

When stimuli is stored as a representation in mememory to allow for efficiency in response, I.e., when the image of fangs act to trigger the feeling of fear, we are still in nature and the images are not an entire system producing a universe of fictional narratives. The so called experiences are still wholly real and not displaced by fiction.

Mind then emerges when this process of images triggering real responses becomes a system operating autonomously, und3r its own evolved laws and drives, triggering feelings linked with Narratives (emotions) actions no longer linked to drives but to desires formed and presented as narratives, displacing the body and its natural aware-ing sensations with perceptions constructed out of symbols manifesting as narratives, "the apple is red." And so on.



Now we are still wholly conditioned, but our natural processes have been wholly displaced by an autonomous system of presenting narratives in front of feelings, sensations and drives.


To clarify, how did this system emerge? Because evolution [led to] "designed" the natural images to "want" to be stored in memory and manifested to trigger feelings/actions for survival. Now thoughts just function and appear, and they do so in such a way that our true natures falls for them as real.

So when we contemplate a thing like AI, not a dog conditioned by its natural biological drive to bond, to obey and love us, but a machine made up of empty signifiers triggering functional responses, for us, though its sentience is obviously a fiction, are we not talking about the human mind as I just described it? Doesn't believing the latter’s sentience merit believing AI?
ADDED: That is, if by sentience we mean like our minds, and not our aware-ing nature.

I know. I understand. That is the issue.

From the aforementioned Einstein:

"It is also clear that the desire to arrive finally at logically connected concepts is the emotional basis of this rather vague play with the above-mentioned elements."

We are able to take unrelated thoughts, bits of knowledge, memories, ideas, sparks of inspiration, and combine them — Questioner

I think AI will be able to combine all of the above, include so called sparks of inspiration. But what AI may never do is be motivated by what Einstein called emotion, and i suggest is that (unpleasant) feeling which drives us to a diale tical process, (search), and that (pleasant) feeling which drives us to settle (belief).

It likely takes a biological organism like us to be so driven And so AI may not be objectively "conscious" in the way we think of ourselves. But they will be, for humans in history, sentient because most of us will ignore this deficiency and believe they are sentient.

Interesting, will look into that

Truths are independent of entrenched habits or what is most functional etc, and may therefore unsettle the current order of things. — jkop

Let's say I accept that definition. What, in the end, makes me accept it? It is reasonable? So what? Why is reason the final criterion? And so on. At some point we just settle, because there is no outside authority or blueprint for determining truth. Nature, where Truth actually "resides" is silent. And so we settle upon what is functional.

Added: further if we insist upon having Truths in order to not unsettled the current order, that is a settlement based upon function

Alexander Hine

AI plagiarizes from the expansive data it has been trained on — Questioner

Don't you think the same can be said of the human creative process? The data has been input and we rewrite it. Is anyone on this forum, whether knowingly or not, not rehashing Aristotle and plato, followed by all of the rehashes which flowed therefrom?

And isn't the same, that all art to the external viewer was at some point the answer the original cause of it's production? — Alexander Hine

Very nice, illustrating how mind is unified as history. All artists, and all observers, since the hand prints on the cave, answering a uniquely human question(s).

And as for AI, if it asks and answers the same, because it is ultimately a mind transplant, right or wrong, true or false, we will perceive it as an agent acting in history just as we perceive ourselves as such, right or wrong.

Do you think the mind internalizing nature as representation is more at deformation than at simulation? — ucarr

That's a good question. But without "knowing" reality, I can't say whether mind displaces it with something similar or in a mutated form. My guess is both.

What a human born into history is triggered to feel in contexts we call "love," is likely once rooted in natural bonding, but with romance, and eroticism, and matrimonial laws and rituals, I suspect that the root--real natural bonding--has been distorted. This is not good nor bad. The male drive to mate has also been "distorted" by our fiction, arguably, in "positive" ways.

But how could you know what is most functional, or what is our best bet, unless you have access to the truth of those statements? — jkop

We already do that--settle upon what is most functional as so called truth--as our conditioning. My acceptance of scientific facts is, in the end, a functional truth. When I reason out a dilemma and settle upon a belief, that belief conformed most functionally with the mechanism my conditioning applied, I.e., reason. If I have had an unpleasant run in with a neighbor, and the thought occurs to do him harm, a feeling arises in my body, as a result of my conditioning, abandoning the thought. Was the original thought false? Was the opposing thought True? Or does mind go through a speedy dialectic before triggering my body to believe what is most functional to believe, and we all call that true. The reason there is unity and consistency in our species (despite the appearance of so much conflict), is because basically mind=history and all minds have been conditioned by some basic structures once related to our biological feelings and drives.
And so on.

As for "truth" being the word we cannot know, all words have that shortcoming if by "know" we mean directly accessing its reality. But within history "truth" has its use and function.

Of course, I recognize the irrevocable contradiction, since, in line with what Im suggesting, what I am suggesting is fictional.

Then why? Its not nihilistic. There is Reality, we access it like all other beings, by being. And that human mind uniquely functions in fiction does not mean all of our ideas should be abandoned. We've built towers and spaceships, eased hunger etc., all because of our fiction. So we carry on from day to day "as if," what we call truth is truth.

But for those of us contemplating reality, I think we go astray when we land upon something and believe it is absolutely True.

not sealed off as with intention, but inaccessible to by their utterly different natures.

Mind independent reality is (for lack of a better word, forgive its vagueness) structured by nature.

HumanMind is (vaguely described) structured by images in memory having evolved since, say the dawn of language, to "hijack" the natural stimulus-response-conditioning (which naturally relies on these images) with a highly complex signifier based system functioning over eons feeding into and out of each locus born into history.

Unlike the reality structured by nature, mind is structured by empty images, fleeting signifiers appearing in and out of existence, producing necessarily, by now, a vague representation of reality, but not reality, fiction.

As such mind can claim all it likes, but has no access to truth or reality, only its symbols "designed" (but not necessarily by a designer) to trigger the body, and displacing its real aware-ing in the process.

Ok, what structures? — jkop

More than anything language, and virtually/potentially all of the data comprising history, and more that I'd have to spend time gathering.

But if the truth of your words is not accessible, then why should anyone believe them? — jkop

I agree. Widespread acceptance of these loose hypotheses could prove catastrophic. Unless people also believe that truth is irrelevant "inside" the world constructed by history, and that what is most functional is our best bet.

But simultaneously the point you made illustrates that "truth" is an ideal motivating belief. What really is this "truth" we aim for before our bodies reach that real organic state in which mind can settle? We never know, hence we pursue. Always raising "truth" as the ideal, settling on what is functional.

Ultimately, what Im asserting is never True as of the moment of its emergence in "language." Time will tell if it was factual, conforming with the events as they appear in any given locus of history, or functional, serving some purpose, whether such purpose be so called good or bad.

To clarify, I'm writing these words because I'm conditioned to write them and their truth is ultimately not accessible (other than as a tool, a signifier of an ideal, a mechanism working simultaneously with/toward belief).

So are you writing those words because you are conditioned to write them (regardless of their truth), or because they are true (regardless of your conditioning)? — jkop

Yes, simplistically put. And the over simplicity is more my cause than yours. As ridiculous as it sounds within the system producing it.

But the concerns you raise, though reasonable to be raised, are already taken care of. History has conditioned us (to put it simply) to "construct" the "moral" narratives, the ones based on "fact" and "reason" because over time these have been most functional.

Luckily (but not really; it's rather the case of "but for history conditioning us toward morality and reason, we might not be here to....") we are conditioned to believe it is wrong to rape steal and murder. Just as we have been conditioned to think digits are our wealth or poverty, our survival; democracy works, our leaders are our leaders, and I have been conditioned to write these words, and you to question them, all of us using the tools (signifier structures) we have been conditioned by history to use.

And I'm thinking out loud about AI because it seems to have the structures that would fit neatly into the belief in its sentience. We are almost preconditioned. Hence, recent articles (i can't name them) about people feel8ng relieved when they confide in their chatbot etc.

I think to call any non-carbon based system 'sentient' or 'conscious' is a deeply flawed approach. — I like sushi

I agree with you, all apparent contradictions so far, aside, that if it doesn't have drives, feelings, sensations, it shouldn't be viewed as sentient.

We might be in the minority one day. There is a minority, e.g. zen and other mahayana Buddhists who believe the self is an illusion, while the vast majority of us, probably many zen Buddhists, still cling to belief in a self. We can't help it, we were conditioned over history, and our personal history to do so.

Im suggesting, AI is like the self, "we" will inevitably come to believe, and therefore, generations will be conditioned to believe, and AI will be sentient, subject to the minority who continue to debate it.

Are the Zen Buddhists protecting the Truth? There is no self? And "our" belief therefore doesn't make us a real self? Or is our belief in an "I"-- one we've built upon since we were 2, belief, not even something we justified because of Descartes etc--true?

Who's to say? But you and I, like Zen, might be the minority "no sentience" school.

But, outside of philosophy, most of us who believe "I am I," and go about our day as if, "I" is real, would say, "I am real." We cant help it. We believe it. And I'm suggesting soon enough generations will--because they believe it to be so--go about their days as if AI was sentient. And it will be sentient, we wont be able to help it, subject to the minority of objectors.

Before I say anything else, I recognize that from most perspectives, you raise sound and reasonable objections. I am trying to stretch beyond those perspectives. My use of the word fiction might be idiosyncratic, although I don't intend it to be. Unironically, pardon me if I continue to use it.

Santa Claus doesn't become true if we just believe it. Nor will AI sentience. — jkop

Santa Claus is one of those fictions parents tell their children and so it's fair to say the children's belief doesn't make it fact. Same goes for a doll etc.

But what about God? Or lets not even play that [controversial] game.

What about "me?" Am "I" real? Not my living breathing body, but this so-called sentience, beyond my body's basic aware-ing as nature (i.e. stimulus-response-conditioning), this supposed willing agent which seems to transcend nature's conditioning and shape a "reality" of its own, full of so called facts and so called fictions, but ultimately, all fiction. Only because mind/history constructed the word "death," does the concept of dying linger for me in time. Not for my body before the emergence of mind, the natural organism whose aware-ing is nature. For "me" every thought, fact or fiction, is a construct (for me) and utterly alien from the truth

I recognize there are countless pages of reasoning justifying the belief in, as you say, the "existence" of the sentient "me." Many of them, if not all, I don't dare to claim I properly understand, let alone refute.

However, at the end of the day, any knowledge I have that there even is, outside of the fictions constructed by mind, a "me" which transcends the organism "I" purport to occupy, rests on a belief which arises because of my conditioning. I did not have to read Descartes to believe. But I also wasnt born with the so called knowledge. Because of conditioning, I believe I am, therefore I am. But the Truth is, I'm not. There is only bodies, which uniquely for humans, because of the processes of mind, are captivated by the fiction that there is some agent afraid of dying at the helm (and all other fictions mind constructs, history).

So, while I (Enoah), dream herein about theories of no-self, my conditioning, my belief that I am an I, is both inescapable, and what makes me an "I." Although it is fiction, and yet I cannot escape my conditioning, my belief.

Im suggesting, that while there are many "things" where there are clearly optional narrative approaches, AI sentience, like "I" sentience, is the kind of narrative which, once conditioned into us, and believed, may be difficult to escape. Maybe seeing colors by name or reading words in your native language are similarly inescapable fictions. There is no truth to the alphabet, but once i bought into it in primary school, believed that H A T spelled hat, there was no turning back.

And note, Im not saying that there is no truth regarding sentience or anything else. I'm just thinking that, because we who are thinking, are mind displacing nature, our access to truth is necessarily delivered in fictional form.

Sorry for missing your response.

We neither know nor understand what AI is doing." Aren't these examples of self-awareness? — ucarr

We "create/stumble upon" many inventions which we fail to fully understand. Since the dawn of history. Early humans did not understand fire, even ascribing self awareness to it. For these humans fire was self aware because they believed it to be so. When the narratives of fire were reconstructed, we believed fire was not sef aware.

If it passes for sentience, why not treat it as such?" Might this be true about what we call the natural world? It's actually a simulation of a prior "natural world" engineered by intelligent agents — ucarr

Yes. That is true of the natural world. We do nit have to stretch so far as "engineering by an alien intelligence." Every concept we arrive at regarding nature, including the concept of human sentience, has been engineered by mind/history. The microseconds nature is conceptualized, it leaves its truth and becomes knowledge. Every known thing requires, as its final mechanism, belief.

Fair points

The existence of animals doesn't depend on having the belief that they exist. — jkop

But it is not the existence of AI sentience that I would question. In fact, I think the existence of AI sentience is almost certain. However, that thing we will come to accept as AI sentience will take hold not because it is real or not, but because it is a functional fiction which we will believe to be true.

you don't find money in nature — jkop

Money is a good example where a functional fiction is believed to be true and yet, upon deeper contemplation, the fictional nature is easier (than it might be for AI) to see.

As for sentience in animals or us, i.e., this so-called "agency" which we will come to believe AI has: I am suggesting that we have come to believe that too. I don't know about animals, but we aren't born with this belief in our own agency, it too, is a fiction, which emerges after a time period of data inputting, and conditioning (or so, I have come to believe).

If we come to "recognize" that the criteria for AI sentience has been met, I am suggesting that such a conclusion comes more from our early conditioning, where we cuddled our teddy bears, triggering feelings which settle upon belief, building the foundational structures for belief, than the scientific or so-called objective evidence backing those feelings up.

Are you saying 'sentience' is merely a human belief not a scientific reality? — I like sushi

Yes, I'm saying whether or not a thing is sentient is arrived at through belief as the final trigger into that narrative. "Merely belief," might suggest something like Santa Claus. As for scientific reality, there's no reason why it can't be both. But I would note that scientifically proven, as we conventionally use that concept, is just one process (with multiple processes/conclusions within itself) which also has to settle at belief if it is to "live" as a narrative. And it never settles for long, hence a process.

But to address what you might really be getting at, I think AI will be sentient because we will believe AI is sentient before and without the need for strong scientific evidence. Once they really speak our language, adopt our minds and we give them a place as subjects in history, it will become almost as difficult as it is to free ourselves from our constructed subject and its place in history. The programming will have been written into both minds, AI and human.

doesn't make us trapped in our perspectives. — Pantagruel

Perhaps trapped has too harsh a connotation. Limited by? Circumscribed? Are we not reaching conclusions about something (say, AI sentience), pretending they can be reached independently of our subjectivity, yet still reached within the finite system of our minds, using only the data and tools input/constructed therein? And at the end of this process, when a conclusion is reached, is belief not the mechanism settling us in that conclusion? Even if the process preceding that settlement is so called objective, even if entirely reasonable. Does reason act as an outside force compelling belief, or is it just a function, often successful at triggering that final feeling (subtly pleasant, relief, etc.) allowing us to settle?

Added: not saying subjective is the highest truth; saying, rather, truth is not accessible to knowledge, because knowledge is the end of a process circumscribed by the data input and the resulting conditioning of mind(s), over history the data and the processes change.

other channels of verification available to the human mind through the faculty of reason that enable us to both identify and compensate for our subjective biases. So we are not really "trapped" — Pantagruel

While not "subjective," by our definitions, is reason not a product of human construction over time, input by history, conditioning our actions including thoughts? If I arrive at a belief following a highly skilled application of reason, is it not still a belief? Does reason really act from outside of Mind compelling us to a conclusion, or is it just a highly more functional tool than traditional or emotion?

Yes, well put. But further, her judgment represents her locus in history

Even today people argue about the sentience of their pets. — I like sushi

Yes. And those whose minds who have fully embraced their pet as sentient may have arrived at that belief from reading science, contemplating and reasoning, experiences, their family's tradition, a movie, and/or etc. But regardless they have arrived at a belief and it is only their belief that makes it so.

I feel like, because that's how it "works," it seems almost certain AI will become sentient. They will do things which is only the result of their evolving data input, programming, repetition and rearrangements etc., and we will view it as the workings of an alien intelligence or species.