Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DonT" data-source="post: 7154868" data-attributes="member: 6804178">On whether trees are intelligent, I think that we are simply using the word "intellient" in different senses, as I would apply "intelligent" only to something that was, if not self-conscious, at least conscious to some degree, able to have experiences of some kind, and I see no reason to think that trees have genuine experiences.Someone being a person wouldn't entail that we accept their moral judgements, but if we could establish communication with them, then it would at least make sense to consider their moral arguments.How do you know that I am not simply a good simulation of consciousness?  If by "know," you mean "be certain of," then you don't.  But you know almost nothing in that sense other than simple truths of mathematics, that it at least seems to you that you are reading these words, and the like.  If you mean "know" in the usual sense, then I would accept an argument from analogy.  You know that when you type words, that is a product of your consciousness, and in the absence of other strong candidates, I think that you have sufficiently strong reason to suppose that the same is true of other typists that you come across.  As chat bots become more sophisticated and more prevalent, this argument will become weaker. In the case of AIs, I think that we have a defeater for the argument from analogy in that we can in principle completely explain their behavior without assuming consciousness.I grant that my concept of personhood begins with humans. I don't see how it could be otherwise.  For me, the question begins with in virtue of what do humans have rights, and then turns to the question of what other beings share or might share those properties.I grant that it is possible that anything that I communicate with could be merely a simulation of conciousness.  The reason that I think that there is a difference in the case of the AI is that I think that I have a defeater for the argument from analogy, namely that its behavior can completely be explained by an algorithm.  If I became convinced that the AI were truly conscious, then the fact that it was artificial wouldn't prevent me from accepting that it was a person.A very simple computer program could tell me that it was a person.  That would mean nothing.  But even the most sophisticated AI would be "deciding" only analogically. It would actually just be following its algorithm.I grant that there is a tension in my views about consciousness and intelligence being the basis of personhood and mentally deficient members of species normal adult members of whom are persons still counting as persons, and I don't know how to resolve that tension. I also think that there are very extreme cases where personhood is lost, for example, someone whose brain has liquified.What do you think it is that makes slavery wrong in the case of humans?</blockquote>

Verification