nroberts

if I were to put forth the hypothesis that sentience is a function of awareness?

To further describe...

That the more information about the surrounding cosmos an information processing unit is, the more aware it is of the world, the more sentient it is.

Thus, a coin counter isn't really sentient at all. It is "aware" only of a few different types of coin, the knowledge needed to judge which is which, and the coins fed into it. This doesn't account for a whole lot. So it's not really like anything to be a coin counter but it is ever so slightly sentient.

A mouse is only moderately sentient. It is aware of it's immediate surroundings on a purely point of fact basis. What it sees, smells, and hears are processed by its brain barely enough to consider if it can be eaten, drank, fucked, or is dangerous. It might have some amount of depth perception and be aware of spaces. It's ability to respond to its surroundings appears to be: go look for food, eat, drink, fuck, sleep, shit, piss, or "Holy FUCK I'm going to get eaten!!!" There is an element of curiosity but only enough to file it into one of the pre-existing categories: eat it, drink it, fuck it, or run from it. This is miles above the sentience of a coin counter but still not very much. It is like something to be a mouse but it's like something very simple.

Now consider the human mind. The modern human is at least capable of being aware of their entire world. No other animal is thus capable. Furthermore, a modern human is capable of being aware of many things beyond its world. Even more importantly, a human mind is capable of being aware of itself. We also are curious and our curiosity seems to be guided in much the same reasoning as that of a mouse but we have a large complex of storage bins in which to file the things we identify. We even ask the question, "Can I fuck it," about almost everything. This awareness gives us the mind that identifies itself as "I".

Note also the less developed minds among us. They are quite seeming, at least on the outside, to lack a great deal of the sentience the rest of us have. They are less aware and have a much weaker "I". In many cases they utterly fail to be able to identify any other soul as being "like I" and wouldn't understand it if they could.

Why would I even contemplate this? Because it is clear that there is something about human beings that differentiates us from other animals. We are somehow more here. If you don't like that analogy then consider that we are obviously more here than computer programs. But, when push comes to shove and you really look at the facts objectively there is nothing different about "I" vs. some super complex computer program. What makes "I" different than a chess AI? All the feelings and thoughts I have boil down to algorithms. There are several different kind: pattern matching algorithms to help me see, hear, and identify things in the world around me (this is probably the most active processor in the human brain); empathy algorithms that allow me to self-identify with events I see occur to other agents in the world around me; algorithms that keep this body working without "I's" involvement; fear functions; anger functions stemming from my reptilian brain...etc...etc...every thought and feeling that I has can be dissected into a series of algorithmic steps, even sometimes including, "refer to random bit processor because a decision just has to be made now."

But that dissection says nothing about who "I" is or what it is like to be an "I". The sole real difference I can find among any of it is that my awareness of the world around me FAR surpasses even the most sophisticated computer program. I'm not impressed that there can be a meaningful difference between silicon and biomatter that makes biomatter able to contain a soul but silicon not. What differentiates me from a chess AI? I know more about the world that playing chess. That's the difference that I can find.

So, if a computer program can be made that is able to perceive the world around it, match that to data stored in its "brain" or add to that data, and process that data in a meaningful way then I think it can be said that it IS aware of that world and thus IS AN "I" if even rudimentary. Furthermore that the sophistication of this "I" is in direct proportion of it's ability to be aware of its universe. Given the right algorithms one could build an artificial dog and it would be correct to call it "alive".