LaMDA Sentient?

Page 2 - For the science geek in everyone, Live Science breaks down the stories behind the most interesting news and photos on the Internet.
Mar 4, 2020
636
85
1,980
QM always ends up going back to philosophy, because the whole theory is based on nonsense. Nonsense is the stimulus for philosophy. There is no such thing as a math protocol for thinking, that's nonsense too. BUT A.I. must use one. Now, not only are they trying to explain physicality with math, now they have the arrogance to equate thinking itself with math. This will fail too. Math is a false man made god. An idol. It will tell you whatever you want to hear. Many trust and worship it. These will remain ignorant.

The model I use gives a physical narrative for the fuzz. And the fuzz goes away. While expressing the periodic table. With just two particles.

I have never seen a physical concept that works so well, to explain all motion and physical properties. And motion and the properties of it....is...physicality.

Study QM and space-time for a few years and then decide for yourself. I made my decision decades ago.
 
May 8, 2022
173
3
105
Study QM and space-time for a few years and then decide for yourself. I made my decision decades ago.
Then why do you not share this? It is easy to critique . but what do you replace it with?

There are two definitions of the word "belief".
One is founded on faith, the other on axioms or proofs.

What is the difference between an axiom and faith since ...
https://www.quora.com › What-is-the-difference-between-...

Apr 13, 2017
Faith is the opposite. Faith is belief (about some claim) without evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence. It is not a reliable building block to anything .
Belief
A belief is an attitude that something is the case, or that some proposition about the universe is true.[1] In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to attitudes about the world which can be either true or false.[2]
To believe something is to take it to be true; for instance, to believe that snow is white is comparable to accepting the truth of the proposition "snow is white". However, holding a belief does not require active introspection.
For example, few carefully consider whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow, simply assuming that it will. Moreover, beliefs need not be occurrent (e.g. a person actively thinking "snow is white"), but can instead be dispositional (e.g. a person who if asked about the color of snow would assert "snow is white").[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

The term "physics" is meaningless without the underlying laws and mechanics that govern the physical relational interactions.

I believe that universal physics are governed by "generic" mathematical relational values and functions.
Human mathematics are the symbolic representations of these axiomatic truths.
Nothing metaphysical about that. Theoretical maths may be metaphysical until it is proven that they actually work under certain circumstances.

Note; NO one claims human maths are perfect , but in a dynamic environment they don't need to be. The exponential function works at all level of steady growth. That's a universally applicable mathematical function .

Strange you should bite the hand that feeds you. Did you not switch to applied mathematics, proving that mathematics are applicable in making things work? What better proofs do you require. Everytime you make something work to specifications, you are proving the maths involved are correct, no? Is the universe exempt from making things work in accordance to generic specifications (universal constants) ?

Is there magic involved? If not what then do we know is a functional model? There is only mathematics. All physics are guided by mathematical relational values and processes are based on a few fundamental principles. Those principles are mathematical (logical) in essence. Everything has a logical-mathematical aspect. All dynamic actions confirm the mathematical regularities by direct observation as well as by falsification.
There is no comparison to a magical "motivated agency".
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2020
636
85
1,980
We are on different pages. I am trying to study and define a physical dynamic. I think electro-mechanical principles can explain it. I have the narrative for this dynamic from 100 years ago. It's a little thing. The real questions of human existence have nothing to do with physicality, although many frame it that way. If a bunch of scientists told us tomorrow, that they now know for sure what present physicality really was, and explained it to all......what do you think would change? I study minutia. It will not solve any human problems or answer the important questions. Like.......why?

You are trying to organize human reason and thought, and set a protocol for it.

That's why I stay away from living processes. I can't explain life and how thinking works, so I don't recommend the way people do it. I believe thought and intellect is driven from self interest. Others think differently. I don't think man can analyze or quantify himself.
 
Mar 4, 2020
636
85
1,980
Share what? Aren't you aware of the model I am referring to? Wow, did not realize that. We are on different pages. You haven't heard my tale?
 
May 8, 2022
173
3
105
Share what? Aren't you aware of the model I am referring to? Wow, did not realize that. We are on different pages. You haven't heard my tale?
I may be on a different page , but I can assure you it is not an anthropomorphic model. I am considering the mathematical model as an implacable logic-based universal guiding principle.
No intent, no motive, just a regular deterministic physical process. No magic.
In mathematics, computer science and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state.

Value in --> (mathematical/physical) Function --> Value out

Can you clarify how that does not satisfy your model?
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2020
636
85
1,980
Nature does not use input...function...output. That is a human concept and strategy. This strategy and reasoning is why we are so confused. Trying to corral nature with human concepts. Nature uses force, and the balance of a reacting force. There is no thinking or information used, nature is on automatic.

Nature can balance equal forces, but nature can also balance unequal forces. Science also preaches symmetry as a corner stone of physicality, but nature is just the opposite......nature is a balance of asymmetries. Our modern science truly is blind.

Nature has no life. Life is super nature, it only occurs here. It has power over the natural and can configure mass into un-natural structures and functions. These structures become animate. And it has choice. Choice is super nature. Nature Has No Choice.

I only study nature and keep life far away from it.

Pardon me, I was assuming you knew what I was referring to in regards to this thread, about physicality.

In all likelihood I have just confused you. I apologized and will stop talking about something that you are not aware of. Sorry about that.
 
May 8, 2022
173
3
105
Nature has no life. Life is super nature, it only occurs here. It has power over the natural and can configure mass into un-natural structures and functions. These structures become animate. And it has choice. Choice is super nature. Nature Has No Choice.
I could just as easy say that if the earth is an ordinary planet with ordinary chemical distribution and an ordinary ecology, life should be abundant in the universe.
I suggest an audience with Robert Hazen. He explains that life is not a super-natural phenomenon, but a better than average probability, given half a chance.

If earth is a non-remarkable planet it is not just the number of living organisms that it spawned , but the incredible variety of life that convinces me life is just another extension of dynamic processes. It is NOT a result of a supernaturrally . Explain how crystals (pure chemistry) manage to grow!

IMO, there is no choice by a supernatural agency, that is an Abrahamic mindset. Life in this universe is a probability on all earth-like planets by the law of necessity and sufficiency.
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2020
636
85
1,980
You can easily say that, but not prove it. Your only evidence is non-belief in life's uniqueness.

But we only detect life here....and it is a large galaxy. If life were common and natural, we would surely see it. It's very tenacious. Strong willed and stubborn. Life is the only singularity that we have ever observed or detected.

That's neither probable or natural.
 
May 8, 2022
173
3
105
You can easily say that, but not prove it. Your only evidence is non-belief in life's uniqueness.
The evidence is the only "ordinary" planet we know of (earth) manged to spawn life in spite of some very large extinction events.

Life is not fragile, there are organisms living in hot sulphur lakes, in polar ice fields, 2 miles deep in the ground, and miles deep in the ocean. The earth is not a cinderella planet, it has been through some extraordinary natural disasters, yet life persisted and flourished, even in the most inhospitable places.
But we only detect life here....and it is a large galaxy. If life were common and natural, we would surely see it. It's very tenacious. Strong-willed and stubborn. Life is the only singularity that we have ever observed or detected.
Wait, life may well have originated in several places and at different times.. Where in the universe have we been other than the moon? Apparently, Mars may have yielded some signs of organic processes.
That's neither probable or natural.
Of course it is.
The assumption of some magical supernatural agency offers the least plausible explanation of all the natural evolutionary chemical processes that are observable o earth. From the scientific evidence, "abiogenesis" is a perfectly logical proposition.

Try 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical reactions in the relatively short existence of earth. Kinda difficult to duplicate in a lab!

According to Hazen, it is only a matter of time before we will be able to unlock the key to create self duplicating polymers in a laboratory, or find life on other planets, once we have the technology to study biological signatures over cosmic distances.

The beauty is that we have all sorts of different examples of evolved organisms, from the half-living viruses to bacteria, to nine-brained octopuses that have blue blood, three hearts, and are able to regenerate lost limbs.
1655436599663.png
And you believe humans are remarkable?
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2020
636
85
1,980
What you say has been said thousands of times, for many years. Almost all scientists agree with you. Physical evidence is subjective. Both in affirming and denying. Like the example we just talked about. I see evidence, you don't. If you think believing in some kind of unique life force is a denial of reality, so be it, many agree. If you think math and probability is a denial of reality, so be it, some agree.

Enjoy your evidence or your probability. I feel secure in mine.
 
May 8, 2022
173
3
105
If you think believing in some kind of unique life force is a denial of reality, so be it, many agree.
Tegmark observes that, if there was an unknown life force that was interfering with regular physics, that interference would show up in the data and could be described. There is no such evidence.
.And that means there is no extraneous interference. That argument makes sense to me.
If you think math and probability is a denial of reality, so be it, some agree.
No, I believe math and probability is confirmed by reality.

Again, Tegmark posits that if everything we know of the universe and its universal constants is mathematical in essence and can be explained with mathematics, that means mathematics must be that mysterious "guiding principle" that has been there all along but has been ignored in favor of some "unknowable" supernatural life force.
Enjoy your evidence or your probability. I feel secure in mine
This quest is shared by all from different perspectives. I respect yours and the jury is still out. I am loath to disparage all popular belief systems that have merit aside from scientific application.

But I am scientifically conservative and think along the lines of Occam's philosophy. It seems to have worked well for all universal functions.

In context of LaMDA , I am reminded that what may appear static and solid is in reality extremely dynamic and all apparent characteristics are a result of atomic and molecular patterns arranged in various configurations and densities.
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2020
636
85
1,980
"Tegmark observes that, if there was an unknown life force that was interfering with regular physics, that interference would show up in the data and could be described. There is no such evidence.
.And that means there is no extraneous interference. That argument makes sense to me."

Really? Everyone else gets to pick and choose, why can't I? What about dark matter and dark energy? It seems one can find what they want to find. What about the extreme velocities between galaxies? Or superposition of mass into a black hole. You will never find a black hole. They are impossible. The particles of the standard model are just dissolving charge fragments and nothing more. Physical scale does not change physical laws and principles. And nature is NOT symmetrical.

ALL EVIDENCE IS CHOSEN. Evidence is choice.

This is why I stay away from the living. But no one argues with a see-saw. It doesn't need superior intellect or a new type of principles to understand. All the people you have studied believed that light is a wave. I think I can prove it is not a wave. And most importantly, does not need time to change, to explain it's motion. It can be explained like a see saw.......a simple explanation. No Magic. The universe does not change to satisfy light.......light has to satisfy the universe. And our universe is simple. Because it is dead. It has no choice.
 
May 8, 2022
173
3
105
"Tegmark observes that, if there was an unknown life force that was interfering with regular physics, that interference would show up in the data and could be described. There is no such evidence.
.And that means there is no extraneous interference. That argument makes sense to me."
That doesn't address Tegmark's statement. He posits that we be able to map the physical processes in the brain (not the universe) and if there is a foreign influence that somehow interferes with normally known physics, that difference would be observable and be measurable how it is different.

Consciousness does not seems to need any extraordinary ingredients other than what is already contained in the brain.

And nature is NOT symmetrical.
I agree, that's what keeps it dynamical.
And our universe is simple. Because it is dead. It has no choice.
I disagree. The universe is not alive but it is dynamical and seems to tend to symmetry.

Symmetry Breaking
In physics, symmetry breaking is a phenomenon in which (infinitesimally) small fluctuations acting on a system crossing a critical point decide the system's fate, by determining which branch of a bifurcation is taken. To an outside observer unaware of the fluctuations (or "noise"), the choice will appear arbitrary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking#

This may be of interest re LaMDA
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApUl4_QgaeU
 
Mar 4, 2020
636
85
1,980
"He posits that we be able to map the physical processes in the brain (not the universe) and if there is a foreign influence that somehow interferes with normally known physics, that difference would be observable and be measurable how it is different.

Consciousness does not seems to need any extraordinary ingredients other than what is already contained in the brain."

We don't have the knowledge to discern dead matter, why would one think we have the knowledge to discern living matter? Those quotes are ridiculous. At most, it's fund raising rhetoric.

And pragmatically, it's like trying to relate the mass of an atom to the waveform of the atom. The mass of the atom is not in the waveform.

This happens when the precision of our tools surpasses the accuracy of our reasoning.
 
Last edited:
May 8, 2022
173
3
105
w4u said:
"He posits that we be able to map the physical processes in the brain (not the universe) and if there is a foreign influence that somehow interferes with normally known physics, that difference would be observable and be measurable how it is different.
Consciousness does not seems to need any extraordinary ingredients other than what is already contained in the brain."
We don't have the knowledge to discern dead matter, why would one think we have the knowledge to discern living matter? Those quotes are ridiculous. At most, it's fund raising rhetoric.
Sorry but that is not a reasonable argument.

We do know the difference between living organisms and dead organisms,
The term "living" organisms pertains to ability in maintaining homeostasis. The term "dead" organism pertains to lack of ability to maintain homeostasis and undergoing decay as a result. I think that the medical world knows the difference.
And pragmatically, it's like trying to relate the mass of an atom to the waveform of the atom. The mass of the atom is not in the waveform.
But atoms are not alive as such but do carry information in the waveform, no? Therefore an AI eeds not be organically alive , yet posses a form of consciousness. That is the domain where we lack knowledge.
This happens when the precision of our tools surpasses the accuracy of our reasoning.
Yes, and that is why we are building AI to assist us in going where man has not yet gone before and maybe do calculations that man cannot perform.

It is axiomatic that consciousness exists and that it is a product of the brain.
It just at nano-scale levels in the brain we have never been able to go.

But our observational technology combined with AI calculating speeds may help us explore that domain.
 
Last edited:
May 8, 2022
173
3
105
As with everything else, it simply comes down to what you are willing to believe.
I believe that in this case, it comes down to having confidence in the direction of developing technology.

Natural evolutionary processes produced sentience, there is no reason to doubt that sentience can be artificially duplicated.

The evolution of artificial information processing technologies is astounding and it is just in its infancy!
 
Jul 24, 2022
1
0
10
seosmmfarm.com
Has anybody seen these reports about LaMDA? An engineer has come forward and pronounce that LaMDA is sentient. LaMDA is an AI program from google. They have him on leave for breach of confidentiality. Google denies the claim.

Would they tell anybody or wait for another before reveling such an event?

Of course it depends on how they define sentience. It might be just apparent.
 
May 8, 2022
173
3
105
Of course it depends on how they define sentience. It might be just apparent.
What is sensitivity in a plant?
Like animals, plants sense changes in their surroundings and respond to them. Plants are able to detect and respond to light, gravity, changes in temperature, chemicals, and even touch. Unlike animals, plants do not have nerves or muscles, so they cannot move very fast.

observable in the Mimosa
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY_zR3oHHJY

and

Venus Fly Trap
Note that it takes 2 touches for the plant to respond, lest it is a random non-food particle ,
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7eQKSf0LmY

These plants respond to external pressure, yet they do not "think".
Are they predatory plants?
 
Mar 4, 2020
636
85
1,980
I don't think sentience is the same thing as sensitivity. All life can sense. Sentience is knowing that you can sense. Sentience is the degree of awareness. And gives more choice.

Living matter has choice. Knowing and realizing choice is sentience.
 
May 8, 2022
173
3
105
I don't think sentience is the same thing as sensitivity. All life can sense. Sentience is knowing that you can sense. Sentience is the degree of awareness. And gives more choice.
I'm not sure that the definition is that narrow.
Definition of sentience
1: a sentient quality or state
2: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentience#
and

Complex organization
Living things have a level of complexity and organization not found in lifeless objects. At its most fundamental level, a living thing is composed of one or more cells. These units, generally too small to be seen with the naked eye, are organized into tissues. A tissue is a series of cells that accomplish a shared function. Tissues, in turn, form organs, such as the stomach and kidney. A number of organs working together compose an organ system. An organism is a complex series of various organ systems
Responsiveness

All living things are able to respond to stimuli in the external environment. For example, living things respond to changes in light, heat, sound, and chemical and mechanical contact. To detect stimuli, organisms have means for receiving information, such as eyes, ears, and taste buds.
Organisms change their behavior in response to changes in the surrounding environment. For example, an organism may move in response to its environment. Responses such as this occur in definite patterns and make up the behavior of an organism. The behavior is active, not passive; an animal responding to a stimulus is different from a stone rolling down a hill. Living things display responsiveness; nonliving things do not.
Growth
Growth requires an organism to take in material from the environment and organize the material into its own structures. To accomplish growth, an organism expends some of the energy it acquires during metabolism. An organism has a pattern for accomplishing the building of growth structures.
more......
Living matter has choice. Knowing and realizing choice is sentience.
I understand what you mean, but is there a definition that addresses that one step below choice? I cannot find one.

Is sentient different from sensory?

Is heliotropism by choice? How about mechanosensing as experienced by single-celled organisms like the paramecium or the slime old that have no brain or choice but can solve complex environmental obstacles, or the Venus flytrap that does not respond to a single disturbance but triggers a response to multiple excitations of its microtubules. What do you call such unconscious abilities?

Comes to mind ;

Interoception.


.........
Much of the processing of these signals takes place below conscious awareness: you won’t be aware of the automatic feedback between brain and body that helps to keep your blood pressure level, for instance, or the signals that help to stabilise your blood sugar levels.
But many of these sensations – such as tension in your muscles, the clenching of your stomach, or the beating of your heart – should be available to the conscious mind, at least some of the time. And the ways you read and interpret those feelings will have important consequences for your wellbeing.

Anil Seth posits that as long as the internal system is in balance all control and biochemical regulation is totally subconscious and only when something goes wrong does the system send out alerm signals, such as pain, nausea, etc.
 
Last edited:
May 8, 2022
173
3
105
You and I have a completely different discernment of reality.
I try to approach the concept of reality as objective as possible , which often does get me in semantic trouble .
I see reality as patterned sets of values interacting via generic mathematical (algebraic) functions.
i.e. (value)Input --> (mathematical) Function --> (value) Output

I see spacetime itself as an unconsious quasi-intelligent dynamical geometry.

Can you clarify your statement in simple terms how that differs from my perspective?
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY