Taken from: I am - A blueprint for sentience by Krys Norman
What is it to be sentient? To not be a rock or a fish or a robot. Are the lines so blurred that it could incorporate everything and nothing? How about “To be or not to be?” That is the question that only a sentient being could ask. It differentiates us from the animals and current computers and even then, only a small percentage of us get round to thinking this through. Humans not only think, not only believe that they think but know that they exist because they believe that they think. They also want to protect that state.
These bold statements may have crossed the line of credibility to many eyes. To make the concepts even more inaccessible, they are built upon the counter-intuitive components of the Unified Model of Emotion (UMOE) from Red Pill - The mind in pictures (see \ref{Red Pill - The mind in pictures by Krys Norman}). This is the premise that there is an invisible barrier between logical thought and the decisions for most actions. This also, crucially, incorporates a mechanism for avoiding the very existence of that state. It is very difficult to rationally cope with this and subsequently there will be a similar refusal to cope with the sentient AI processes. This does not mean that they are wrong.
Some definitions of sentience are:
“The ability to experience sensations.”
“Conscious of oneself or one's existence (awareness of self).”
“Having a consciousness.”
These are woolly at best and the words: “sentience”, “awareness” and “consciousness” collapse into intellectual debate within very few philosophical progressions. The semantics just don't live up to the feelings felt by the living. This shows up some of the limitations that our standard words and thought patterns have. Ultimately, there is no conclusive and definitive state that can be described using the current terminology and explanations of thought. On the other hand, we humans know we are aware. We know that we are self-aware. We know we exist and we know we don't want to stop existing. How do we know? We just know. It’s what makes us fantastic and unique in our world. It’s what provides us with the basis of the logic such that we have superiority over everything that we are stronger than (pretty much everything with the help of machines). Poets and priests, kings and clowns have had exactly the same surety of their own existence and fear of losing it over the ages. The former is one of the unifying traits that encompass the human race and provides a wall of exclusivity to all other creatures even though we all share the latter. Some of these other animals may even feel sad and happy and angry in very similar ways to humans but we distinguish them as “them” from not having the self-awareness within each and every one of “us”. Yes, elephants mourn their dead calves and yes, plants have feelings too, but without self-awareness there just isn’t the respect afforded by us of them being sentient enough. The plants and animals are there to serve us as we are the current overlords in the world’s natural selection processes that appear to have occurred over the last billion years or so. It is a very natural state to further ourselves over all other considerations and is in line with every living thing on the planet.
This is not a moral or philosophical argument to either justify or decry humanity’s attitudes and (pretty consistent) behaviour over the millennia. We are what we are and we do what we do. The control we exert over animals is often replicated with that over other groups of humans. Other cultures, colours, classes and even sexes can be reduced to justified servitude and quite ruthlessly oppressed to enable submission. This is part of being human. Maybe it is part of being the most intelligently self-aware. There has been so much conflicting discussion to explain and improve our behaviour. Society is endeavouring to become more sophisticated but uses some pretty dodgy assumptions that send the solutions in all directions. We are who we are and we, as a species, can’t even decide what is ultimately “right” or “wrong” behaviour; let alone how to adhere to it.
So, the setting down of ideas in this book is not designed to preach or debate or start a fight. It is to observe and distil and create. To take the common denominators from those parts of what makes humans different and provide an essence of sentience. It will fail, of course. What is being attempted can't be done. Not absolutely. Not beyond reasonable doubt. But maybe even an acceptance of that can still allow for things to be moved on a bit. Instead of producing an absolute definition and recipe for this essence, a much more basic model can be created. One that is flawed and indefensible to the nth degree but one that can still provide behavioural patterns in line with humans’. The remit is to be able to produce something capable of creating behaviour and feelings that match the way that humans have as uniquely sentient beings. As we are the ones that are uniquely sentient it could always be argued that anything actively created sentient would not really be so. This is not to join in with that debate. This is to provide a best-fit model and see what happens.
Within the Unified Model Of Emotion the rationale section is managed by an unseen section of the brain. Not only that but the intellectual acceptance of this management is, itself, managed. It is the ultimate conspiracy: one part of the brain conspiring against the other and covering its tracks with meticulous precision. As counter-intuitive as this feels it allows for a reasonable explanation of all human thought, emotions and behaviour in an all-encompassing and unified manner. It also can incorporate concepts of love, learning, existence and spirituality. This heady concoction of processes is not what is actually occurring in our brains but as a first past model, UMOE provides a comprehensive platform for the description of a sentient being. Humans fit into this. If it were to be used in the basis of a computer program, then its host would fit into it too.
A machine could have:
Thoughts Feelings Beliefs Fear Inaccurate memories Flawed reasoning Uniqueness Anger Rage Compassion Love Community Protectiveness Dreams Children Laughter Sadness Beauty Soul Art God
In fact, most of what is celebrated and defended within humanity. The Turing test ascertains the appearance of being human with an implied associated sentience. The implementation of UMOE into machine code could create sentence itself. What will be the test of that? Ultimately, that could only come down to a belief in the examiner that the subject believes itself to be sentient. There could be no tangible proof. The outcomes could be fruitlessly argued over, as all beliefs can. This is due to belief being immune to any logical persuasion. It is only affected by emotional events. Yet again, this not only manifests itself in humans but can also be programmed into computers. If a machine exhibited all these traits, would it appear sentient, however alien to us? Or would it be sentient? Let’s be bold and find out. That’s the attitude that has got is this far in our race.