/lit/ - Literature

Intelligence is an average of performance in many environments. It can be exhibited by animals, machines, algorithms, plants, etc.
Sentience is the possession of phenomenological subjectivity; if it is "like" anything to be something, then that thing is sentient

The two are certainly linked but are completely separate ideas nonetheless. Intelligence can exist without sentience, and sentience may be able to exist without intelligence

>>13133485
But I'd argue the two would have to be linked in a bird for a bird to be intelligent, so how can algorithms be intelligent without the prerequisite sentience?

>>13133449
I would say that sentience is a measurement of depth, or complexity. To be sentient is to have depth of instantaneous experience. To be more sentient is to percieve more meaning from a given set on inputs.
Inteligence is a measure of speed. How fast can you reach a conclusion? Because the brain operates on electricity (constant speed) I think it has to do with the number of unique pathways, so that a more intelligent person needs one connection compared to two or more to go from a to b.
They link together because they bound one another. A more sentient person makes more use out of the same level of inteligence and vice versa. Inteligence is reaction, sentience is perception. In this metaphor, all that is "other" is the action.

>>13133520
>how can algorithms be intelligent without the prerequisite sentience?
Algorithms do not exist in a vacuum, if they did then I would say you are correct in your thinking. They exist symbiotically with their creators (us), though. If we have x inteligence and y sentience, and the algorithm has z inteligence and 0 sentience then together we have x+z inteligence and y sentience. We share our sentience with the algorithm to actualize its potential inteligence.

>>13133520
Get familiar with neural networks. While every algorithm is theoretically intelligent to some small degree, it's much easier to recognize in a neural network. Find some examples of image recognition NNs, or even better something like AlphaGo or AlphaZero. Hell, you could even train an IQ to become extremely proficient IQ tests if you had the right datasets on hand

Intelligence is a very abstract concept but it has to do with information and computation. Sentience/self-awareness/consciousness is hard to separate from intelligence, since we can only study sentience from the subjective points of view of intelligent beings, but in theory it is a completely separate phenomenon that could exist with or without any accompanying signs of intelligence.

This is, based on what we know now, impossible to study, since sentience can not be empirically measured or even proven to exist

>>13133559
>>13133574
Good points.

>>13133593
>13133593
Well this is what I'm saying. intelligence can be extracted from sentience, and what it says about both.

>>13133621
>intelligence can be extracted from sentience
They are independent and only seem so intimately linked because we as humans are interfacing with the two at every moment, and aren't very good at telling them apart. Any combination of the two can exist:
>Unintelligent, insentient
Basic matter
>Intelligent, insentient
Algorithms, possibly animals, possibly even some humans (we have no way of knowing)
>Intelligent, sentient
Probably what you would consider yourself
>Unintelligent, sentient
Hypothetical "observing center," pure awareness of itself but no computational ability whatsoever, could be considered the building block of a panpsychical model of reality

>>13133653
Pretty good, I agree. Though I'd be generous with animals. Before computers, maybe only viruses qualified as intelligent and insentient?

>>13133653
How would you respond to a case like this? Does the brain make up for loss in volume through redundancy, or is intelligence and consciousness more closely linked than we assume? Since the kids apparently good at math

http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/Science_No-Brain.pdf

>>13133671
At some point or another, you'll have to join me in biting that most bitter of pills and realizing that we don't know shit about sentience and probably never will (certainly not in out lifetimes)
We can't prove when it's present in a human
We can't prove when it's present in an animal
We can't prove it is or isn't present in literally any given object, system, or material
For all I know, I could be the only sentient being in existence. For all you know, I might have no real sentience at all and you may be the only one.

>>13133702
I waffle between drab materialism and Giordano Bruno-inspired visions when even my clothes are alive. Philosophy's a hell of a drug

>>13133702
I would agree. It seems impossible to "prove" sentience via any sort of empirical analysis, as any test could be fooled by a sufficiently complex system. In the end though, you have to say x amount of evidence is proof and at the end of the day x is an arbitrary point. Luckily, going along this line of thinking, sentience is really quite irrelevant with respect to the decision making process and can be ignored without consequence. It's really only of importance when making ethical evaluations, and the golden rule is simple (but not always easy) to implement. Sentience, I think, can be best thought of as a monolithic entity in the universe. There is only the single sentience shared by all its constituent parts across space and time.

>>13133449
link ?