Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Does Thought Require Sensory Grounding? From Pure Thinkers to Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2408.09605 v1 pith:RI3NDGIN submitted 2024-08-18 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords capacityarguegroundinglanguagemodelssensesensorythinkers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Does the capacity to think require the capacity to sense? A lively debate on this topic runs throughout the history of philosophy and now animates discussions of artificial intelligence. I argue that in principle, there can be pure thinkers: thinkers that lack the capacity to sense altogether. I also argue for significant limitations in just what sort of thought is possible in the absence of the capacity to sense. Regarding AI, I do not argue directly that large language models can think or understand, but I rebut one important argument (the argument from sensory grounding) that they cannot. I also use recent results regarding language models to address the question of whether or how sensory grounding enhances cognitive capacities.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Boundless Socratic Learning with Language Games

    cs.AI 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A position paper claiming recursive self-improvement in a closed language-only system can reach arbitrary capability, and proposing language games as the mechanism.

Pith tools