> "Cognition" has a meaning. It's not vague. In psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind, cognition refers to mental processes in organisms with nervous systems.
Except if you actually look up the definitions, they don't mention "organisms with nervous systems" at all. Curious.
Fair pushback - you're right that strict dictionary definitions are broader. I probably should've been more precise there. My point is more about how the term is used in the actual fields studying it (cogsci, neuroscience, etc.), where it does carry those biological/embodied connotations, even if Webster's doesn't explicitly say so. But you're right to call out the sloppiness.
We have actual tests for cognition - actual instruments that measure cognition. Why not use those as the basis for performing an experiment? If an LLM passes, it exhibits[has] cognition. It's not that hard of an experiment to run.
It’s laughable to think that anyone in psychology has a “technical” definition of anything really. It is entirely possible that our brain works in a very, very similar way. We really have no idea. Focus focusing on the difference between meat and silicon is fruitless. The analogies between how a human learn, learns, and how an AI learns, are too significant to ignore.
Human humans have some instinctive desire to think themselves elevated. I am convinced that my internal thoughts are just a phenomenon, and the notion of “I choose to think a given thought. “ is preposterous in an of itself. Where exactly is this lofty perch from which I am controlling i?
Except if you actually look up the definitions, they don't mention "organisms with nervous systems" at all. Curious.