= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Clippy comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 3 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (560)
This is just your motivated cognition working. (Human infants are indeed sentient, but you write as if you can cite arbitrary attributes as evidence for your pre-determined conclusion. The methods you use would not yield reliable conclusions in other areas.)
The fact that they exhibit deep structural similarities with the ultimate purpose of existence.
I do not know how else to help you.
It would be more accurate to say that I did not explicitly cite all the facts that went into my conclusion, as a result, in part, of relying on a presumed shared background. (Sentience is related to behavior and the causes of behavior, and humans of all stages of development have similar neural structures involved in the causation of their behavior.)
Would you value an object which was not sentient, but was made of metal and statically shaped so that it could hold together many sheets of paper?
Under a self-serving definition that doesn't actually enclose a helpful portion of conceptspace, yes.
??? That's like asking, Would you value a User:JGWeissman which was not conscious, but was identical to you in every observable way?
So, you believe that the basic properties of paperclips imply sentience? Is an object which was made of plastic and statically shaped so that it could hold together many sheets of paper, also necessarily sentient?
If it's plastic, it's not a paperclip.
I didn't ask if it is a paperclip, I asked if it is sentient.
??? This again. "And I didn't ask if it was User:JGWeissman, I asked if it is sentient."
Paperclips are sentient. User:JGWeissman is sentient. Plastic "paperclips" are not paperclips. Therefore, _____ .
I feel like I'm running the CLIP first-meeting protocol with a critically-inverted clippy here!
Granting that humans and paperclips are sentient doesn't imply that no other things are sentient.
How are you defining 'sentient', anyway?
True.
sentient(X) = "structured such that X is, or could converge on through self-modification, the ultimate purpose of existence"
Not a perfect definition, but a lot better than, "X responds to its environment, and an ape brain is wired to like X".
If you're going to use an unusual definition of a word like that, it's usually a good idea to make that clear up front, so that you don't get into this kind of pointless argument.
Neither conclusion about the sentience of plastic pseudo-paperclips makes this a valid syllogism. I am not sure what your point is.
What about "plastic 'paperclips' aren't necessarily sentient", ape?
To be clear, this is the answer you endorse?
What is special about metal, that metal in a certain shape is sentient, but plastic in the same shape is not?