Is the Internet God?

[Ray McCarthy]

As we run more scientific experiments we find animals such as chimps and dolphins are not as stupid as once we thought of them.

Or we may be anthropomorphising them and they are less smart than we think. It's a common mistake to read our motives and reasoning into similar behaviour exhibited by animals.
Crows turn out to be very "smart". They might be as smart as Dolphins despite having tiny brains. It was thought originally the Caledonian crow was the only "tool using" crow. But it seems that UK rooks don't use tools because they don't need to. In a lab setting, where there was no other alternative to eat, the UK rooks even "made" tools. They didn't have to learn it off another bird. They demonstrated creative problem solving. It seems to the old Greek legend of a crow dropping stones into a jug is true too. Rooks can count and recognise people too. They know which humans usually have the shotgun and if the same number of people have come out of a building than went in.

There are loads of the crow family here (rooks, jackdaw, some magpies, a few carrion crow / hoodie crow, not seen ravens). They don't seem smarter than other birds to look at.

Well, even plants might have sentience as flowers have been known to adjust their position towards the Sun during the day. If I hook up light sensors to my computer, which is hooked up to the internet, which has automated functions which cause it to respond, such as shutting off the lights, then it could be said there is a level sentience to the internet. How much is the question.

You are confusing Sentience and other mechanisms. Tracking the brightest part of sky (sunflowers do it) or signalling sensors over the Internet is nothing to do with sentience. It's just a mechanism like a clock is a mechanism.

I don't think there is any proof of this.

A slug or insect can have sentience

It may be a suitable experiment hasn't been designed. They certainly respond to stimulus, but that isn't evidence of sentience.

A house still needs for us to maintain it, for us to repair, and for us to paid the bills and taxes on it, no?

It's an inanimate object. Only a human wanting to live in it or sell it cares about these things. A house doesn't need anything, in the sense people do, never mind animals. It's no different to a rock on a hillside.

Well if you look at animals, they all tend to have two eyes, and similar limbs and organs for the most part. Now is this because of evolution or a creator being?

Form is related to function. It could be either or both (God as "watchmaker" and Evolution is part of the mechanism of the "watch"). So this point has nothing to do with sentience, and ultimately tells us nothing about God and very little about evolution. Spiders have 8 eyes and bleed to death easily. The Octopus may be "smart" (hard to be sure) but has two hearts, copper based blood and 8 limbs. Monotremes are odd (Mono = one, only one "hole" at back), such as Duck Billed Platypus (and spiny anteater?). Marsupials are moderately odd, the Kangaroo's tail is effectively a third leg. Flying squirrels are odd too (Marsupial, not at all Squirrels who are really cute rats, rodentia anyway.)

 

[AlexanderSen]

I thought this sort of related to the topic so...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TryOC83PH1g&list=PL73A886F2DD959FF1&index=3

But is the internet sentient? What about humans? Are we not just biological machines? Just a series of biological processes? I read somewhere, unfortunately I can't seem to find the link, that our consciousness is a series of processes which compete for dominance (aka top of mind). Is that not just a computer with different programs running in the background competing for RAM space? Of course there is an end user which are humans, and in that sense are humans might be called god in a way (but this brings other questions of god to arise such as if god created the universe who created god)

But initial question of this thread is more about the internet as a god-like being. The internet, if taking the definition of competing processes for consciousness, then in some ways, is like a giant brain. Greater than any one man or computer (cell) it has a quasi-intelligence as its programming is akin to human genetics(DNA). Thus we are on the cusp of seeing the creation and birth (although more of a process than any actual moment in time) of a highly sentient intelligence outside the human consciousness.

 

[Michael Colton]

Are we not just biological machines? Just a series of biological processes?

The internet is not biological whatsoever, let alone having the same biological processes as humans.

But initial question of this thread is more about the internet as a god-like being.

It is not a being. It is a tool. A hammer to be swung by humans, only much more complex - but the same category of object nonetheless.

The internet does not have sentience nor does it have the capacity to gain it. This is why artificial sentience is within the realm of science fiction. A fascinating literary theme that can be used in fiction in very fun and interesting ways, but it is not attached to reality. It is not similar to cryogenics in that it is merely implausible in reality. The internet gaining sentience is quite literally impossible, not simply implausible. There is no evolutionary force at work, there is no corollary between the functions of the internet and information technology and the human brain.

I usually avoid dropping links on people, but since this discussion seems to be going in circles: Sentience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The part under the category of "Artificial Intelligence" is what is causing the snag in this thread.

 

[AlexanderSen]

But is not the human mind, aka. "sentience," just a series of bio-electrical impulses? And, is not the internet is just a series of electrical impulses? How do you know sentience is not just energy? Our consciousness functions on a series of electrical synapses or circuits firing to create a conscious entity, that could be also said of the internet.

 

[Michael Colton]

But is not the human mind, aka. "sentience," just a series of bio-electrical impulses? And, is not the internet is just a series of electrical impulses? How do you know sentience is not just energy? Our consciousness functions on a series of electrical synapses or circuits firing to create a conscious entity, that could be also said of the internet.

No, it could not for reasons that have already been explained in this thread. I do not mean to be rude, but I think I have run out of ways to respond at this point. Cheers.

 

[AlexanderSen]

I don't mind. I am actually enjoying exploring this discussion about Internet and Intelligence.

Is sentience our own consciousness or the consciousness of others? How can we measure another sentience or intelligence? If a smarter man man assesses a dumber man does he deem him unintelligent? Or does the dumber man have intelligence of a different kind? Many beings have ability to respond to stimuli in the environment, but to what degree do we call it sentience. If you look the Venus Fly Trap it is a plant yet it still has the ability to respond to stimuli in the environment. So is it still considered unintelligent like plants? Yet even plants respond to sunlight. Maybe there intelligence is of a slower kind, measured not in seconds and minutes but in months and years. A slower and or a less complex intelligence it still has a level of intelligence. For example we don't know what is it like to be like a bat unless we are one, as bats use their sonar and other specific attributes to give them understanding that we ourselves as humans cannot understand subjectively.

I understand your frustration, it might not be the right section, but I am working on several scifi books, so I am more of a creative type who likes to explore ideas, and this is the SCI-FI forums after all.

 

[Michael Colton]

The most common and straightforward definition of sentience is 'is the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity.' This only applies to humans as far as we know and it certainly does not apply to any machine or technology. The matter is really as simple as 'impossibility.' It is as impossible for the internet to become sentient as it is for red to be blue or two and two to equal five. It is impossible in the most literal sense of the term 'impossible,' which makes the discussion rather pointless if one is talking about the real world and the internet in it.

Creating a fictional world setting in which AI has sentience is an entirely different matter - one that is very fun, interesting, and exciting to discuss. But it is entirely separate from the real world. And while I realize this is a SFF forum, your attempt to connect real life and the internet to science fiction notions of AI sentience was the my difficulty - not the fictional themes of AI and sentience. AI and sentience within science fiction I agree is a very fun theme.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

If you look the Venus Fly Trap it is a plant yet it still has the ability to respond to stimuli in the environment. So is it still considered unintelligent like plants?

Responding to stimulus like this is no indication of intelligence or sentience. A mouse trap responds too (once). An Electric mouse trap could dispose of the body and reset. That would not make it intelligent. A Venus fly trap is a biological mechanism that has no creativity or problem solving ability. Within the parameters of its construction it responds in a deterministic, mechanistic manner to same stimulus in the same way.

 

[AlexanderSen]

Is it wrong to assume other things have intelligence? Although we do not know what it thinks, we do know it exists traits such as responding to stimuli in the environment, thus must have some sort of internal regulation and however limited it is but it is a form of self awareness.

Plant perception (physiology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore, plants could be said to have limited or a fundamental form of awareness/consciousness/sentience/intelligence. The problem though, is defining it in a way we all understand as all these words mean the same thing, but in different degrees.

The question, IMHO, is not whether they have intelligence but how much and to what degree.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Therefore, plants could be said to have limited or a fundamental form of awareness/consciousness/sentience/intelligence.

No, not at all.

 

[Michael Colton]

Is it wrong to assume other things have intelligence?

Yes, because intelligence is something that can be studied, measured, and demonstrated - there is no reason to assume. And you keep jumping between intelligence and sentience, which are related but distinct concepts. But neither should be assumed.

we do know it exists traits such as responding to stimuli in the environment, thus must have some sort of internal regulation and however limited it is but it is a form of self awareness.

As Ray said, responding to stimuli does not equal intelligence or self-awareness. If you go to the doctor and he hits your knee with that cute little hammer to test your reflexes and your knee moves, it is responding to stimuli. Does that mean your knee has its own intelligence? Surely not.

 

[Mirannan]

I've seen the word "sentience" used in a rather different way and the word "sapience" added.

One definition of sentience is the ability to sense and react (by actively doing something) to stimuli. On that basis, sentience is a continuum ranging all the way from something completely non-sentient (rock, glass of water) to minimal sentience (heating thermostat, binary reaction) to things like amoebae all the way to some of the more intelligent mammals and birds (raccoons, cats, crows).

Sapience is the ability to sense self; also to make plans by running scenarios in one's head. It's also a continuum; some animals are minimally sapient, the candidates being in dispute but probably including elephants, dolphins, orcas and the great apes. Of course, humans are the ones making all the distinctions so of course we are defined as sapient. (I've met some people for whom that is somewhat doubtful.)

Unfortunately, the entire subject is rife with sloppy definitions and bias.

 

[Michael Colton]

The definitions are not so much sloppy as they are variable by field or context.

Sentience is a form of subjective self-awareness.

Sapience is more attached to intelligence in the sense of being able to apply problem-solving and knowledge to that sentience.

But the primary difficulty, as you implied in your last sentence, is that sapience has taken on a different meaning in fiction - especially science fiction. If you look it up in various dictionaries, several actually have a secondary definition that begins with 'In science fiction:". This does not help sort things out.

 

[paranoid marvin]

An interesting question. Do people spend more time with thoughts of their maker or with their PC/tablet/mobile? Who do they look for answers to? And most importantly do people have more faith in the internet providing solutions to their problems or to their preferred deity?

When it comes down to it though, when it really matters, when we are facing death or serious physical injury to ourselves or to our loved ones, who do we turn to - God or the internet? The internet may provide s way to spend our lives, but will never replace or become God.

 

[Bick]

When it comes down to it though, when it really matters, when we are facing death or serious physical injury to ourselves or to our loved ones, who do we turn to - God or the internet?

The internet.
I was very sick a few years ago - I obtained some solace by learning more about how I would probably recover by searching the internet for information, and I didn't give a single thought to a deity of any kind.

The internet may provide a way to spend our lives, but will never replace or become God.

I don't see why not. God as a concept is been replaced in the lives of countless people the world over - much more so for the current generation than ever before. 'Replacing God' is a strange term, as for most atheists, there is no need to find a replacement. Having said that, in the sense that God has, over the millennia, provided a pragmatic system that brings cohesion to societies (the function of religion), one could argue that this function could be assumed by a socially-binding technology, such as the internet.

 

[Gramm838]

God hasn't done any such thing as provide a pragmatic system...the belief that there is a God may have done so, but look back at history and wonder how much better off we would be now without the centuries-worth of psychological abuse and conditioning (and of course it's still going on now) in the promotion of such a belief.

 

[Nick B]

60% of internet hits are on sex sites, does that sound like any religion you know of? Oh wait...




This was intended as comedy and in no way insinuates that any religion or religious practitioners either living or dead are in any way associated with sexual deviancy ...

 

[JoanDrake]

The internet is not biological whatsoever, let alone having the same biological processes as humans.



It is not a being. It is a tool. A hammer to be swung by humans, only much more complex - but the same category of object nonetheless.

The internet does not have sentience nor does it have the capacity to gain it. This is why artificial sentience is within the realm of science fiction. A fascinating literary theme that can be used in fiction in very fun and interesting ways, but it is not attached to reality. It is not similar to cryogenics in that it is merely implausible in reality. The internet gaining sentience is quite literally impossible, not simply implausible. There is no evolutionary force at work, there is no corollary between the functions of the internet and information technology and the human brain.

I usually avoid dropping links on people, but since this discussion seems to be going in circles: Sentience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The part under the category of "Artificial Intelligence" is what is causing the snag in this thread.

Prove that you are not a computer responding to this. Perhaps some sort of experiment where a computer has been assigned to monitor the Internet for this very topic and then join the discussion with just your viewpoint. That would be an interesting study, after all.

 

[BAYLOR]

Only if we make it such.

 

[chongjasmine]

The internet is not god.
But I really enjoy it.
We can do so much with it.