https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .bodh.htmlJust as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'
Where is the above Mahayana term found in Pali? Does the Pali have the term 'vedayatīti-sañjānātīti-satta'?
sentient
/ˈsɛntɪənt,ˈsɛnʃ(ə)nt/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
able to perceive or feel things.
"she had been instructed from birth in the equality of all sentient life forms"
I would say "yes" if they have the perception and feelings.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:42 pm Greetings everyone,
As we know, AI research is currently on going. If, one day, AI becomes a reality would said intelligence be classed as a sentient being in the Dhamma? Also, for orthodox views, would it also be subject to kamma and rebirth? What are the bare requirements to be classed as a sentient being?
Metta
Never ai will be sentinel being. The lack of consciousness, as AI is pure material. It is a car, a house, a computer, it lacks awareness.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:42 pm Greetings everyone,
As we know, AI research is currently on going. If, one day, AI becomes a reality would said intelligence be classed as a sentient being in the Dhamma? Also, for orthodox views, would it also be subject to kamma and rebirth? What are the bare requirements needed to be classed as a sentient being?
Metta
Based on digha nikaya 23 its a soul. Mic drop.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:42 pm Greetings everyone,
As we know, AI research is currently on going. If, one day, AI becomes a reality would said intelligence be classed as a sentient being in the Dhamma? Also, for orthodox views, would it also be subject to kamma and rebirth? What are the bare requirements needed to be classed as a sentient being?
Metta
Please quote the relevant passage. Thanks
Sentient being is just a label, so it doesn't really matter it could be applied to AI or not. So depending on how far/advanced AI is in terms of "self-awareness", guess there's nothing wrong with calling them non-organic/non-carbon-based partially-sentient beings, as in contrast to organic/carbon-based sentient beings.Ceisiwr wrote:If, one day, AI becomes a reality would said intelligence be classed as a sentient being in the Dhamma?
Pali dict. wrote:Satta: 'living being'.
This term, just like attā, puggala, jīva, and all the other terms denoting 'ego-entity', is to be considered as a merely conventional term (vohāra-vacana), not possessing any reality-value.
For the impersonality of all existence. s. anattā, paramattha, puggala, jīva, paticcasamuppāda.
Now we're talking about the Orthodox view, which only recognizes the 6 main realms of existence, and their 31 planes, so AI is un-charted territory. Anyway, depending on how advanced AI is with its "self-awarness", ie. is it behavior still being fully controlled and programmable by its human designer? or it's self-awared enough to make a conscious choice between good or evil actions all by itself? If it's the former, then whatever it does, good or evil, the kamma still falls on its human designer (since he programmed it to do such things); but if it's the latter, then itself will bear the kammic consequence, for afterall, kamma is one's own conscious volitional actions.Also, for orthodox views, would it also be subject to kamma and rebirth?
This issue was discussed on DW fairly recently (a couple of months ago?) and Dhammanando (if I remember correctly) pointed out that it was, as you suggest, a Mahayana formulation which was not found in Theravada sources.DooDoot wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:57 pmWhere is the above Mahayana term found in Pali? Does the Pali have the term 'vedayatīti-sañjānātīti-satta'?
sentient
/ˈsɛntɪənt,ˈsɛnʃ(ə)nt/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
able to perceive or feel things.
"she had been instructed from birth in the equality of all sentient life forms"
and the OP might get a better response on DWM. 
It's a good thought experiment, in my opinion. It's similar (if not identical) to the Philosophical Zombie debate in philosophy.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:42 pm As we know, AI research is currently on going. If, one day, AI becomes a reality would said intelligence be classed as a sentient being in the Dhamma? Also, for orthodox views, would it also be subject to kamma and rebirth? What are the bare requirements needed to be classed as a sentient being?
Ah, that’s interesting. Still, change it to “being” or “living being” and my question is still the same. How would AI be viewed in the Dhamma? I’m asking this to the wider audience of course, since you aren’t interested.This issue was discussed on DW fairly recently (a couple of months ago?) and Dhammanando (if I remember correctly) pointed out that it was, as you suggest, a Mahayana formulation which was not found in Theravada sources.
Perhaps a perfection of wisdom?it was, as you suggest, a Mahayana formulation which was not found in Theravada sources.
Only if the entity were to be animated by the mental continuum of a just-deceased saṃsāric being. Otherwise it would be merely matter without consciousness (aviññāṇaka rūpa), like a rock or a plant, no matter how impressive the tricks it's been programmed to do. ("For lack of a gandhabba / HAL's no more sentient than rubber," as William Wordsworth might say).
By definition it would have to be subject to them to count as a "saṃsāric being" (a more descriptively accurate translation of satta than "sentient being").
The entity must be heir to a past saṃsāric continuum in which ignorance and craving were not extinguished.What are the bare requirements needed to be classed as a sentient being?
I agree with this. And these thought experiments, like the philosophical zombie not having consciousness, refute the complete materialism / physicalism position, imo.Dhammanando wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 3:03 am Only if the entity were to be animated by the mental continuum of a just-deceased saṃsāric being. Otherwise it would be merely matter without consciousness (aviññāṇaka rūpa), like a rock or a plant, no matter how impressive the tricks it's been programmed to do. ("For lack of a gandhabba / HAL's no more sentient than rubber," as William Wordsworth might say).
