new drkitten said:
Good point, and I agree. (BTW, isn't there a similar (but larger) debate going on about what constitutes intelligence and self-awareness? As in "Do animals think", and "Do animals have feelings", etc.? I think there is, but I haven't seen much on it recently.)
Regarding the robot... I'd have to say the answer is probably "no". The problem (to me, anyway) would be demonstrating that the robot not only succeeded in pattern-matching against an image, but was able to spontaneously assign an intrinsic value to the image. "This is me."
The martian rovers "recognize" boulders, rocks, holes, and all sorts of other obstacles... which could be mistaken as a form of self-awareness, even though the rover isn't really aware of itself. ("I am here, my wheels are here, that rock is there, I must drive around the rock.")
The fact that it can assess the terrain and make decision branches to protect itself from injury while advancing to a goal doesn't mean it's either self-aware or thinking.
It's a fascinating debate - please don't think my mind is 100% made up on it, by any means.
JAK said:
OMG, JAK - why not ask me a really hard question while you're at it? (LOL)
I'd like some clarification on this myself. I don't have any definitive answers - but I'll share my thinking with you. Please don't assume that I have any idea what I'm talking about. What follows is simply my opinion, and is certainly subject to change if people give me good insights. And keep in mind that I'm going to make some pretty "soft and subjective" statements. Sorry, but it's the best I can do, and it's why I've been skirting the issue here.
Just to keep it simple (like me!), I'm going to go for the lowest possible denominator for self-awareness - just something that indicates "me" and "not me" beyond the simple perception that something is external to the subject.
Observable and/or testable factors for self-awareness:
1) Spontaneous dreaming. I believe that in order to dream, one must be self-aware to an extent, have a distinct sense of "me" vs. "not me".
2) Spontaneous personal assignment of intrinsic values to an object, space or other entity - as in "my toy, not yours", "my territory, not yours", "my food, not yours", "My mate, not yours", etc.
3) Social skills - even instinctive ones. This can include mating rituals, maternal instincts, etc. Again, these show a recognition of "me" and "not me", or a sense of "self".
4) Some form of communication, however primitive. (Grunts, pheromones, whatever.)
5) Learned behavior from experience. (Dunno why that's in there, but it just seems to fit with having an identity. I guess I feel that part of being self-aware is being able to recall, process and create change based on remembered experiences.)
I realize that all of these things can be emulated (except maybe dreaming). Putting them all together, though... now, that would be difficult to determine if the subject were self-aware, or just a good simulation.
Hm. Why do I suddenly feel like I'm going to take it in the shorts for getting drawn into this kind of philosophical discussion?
Hello, I'm new
Anyways, I decided to stop lurking and post the following questions:
1) If the robot talked about earlier was running an atomic-level simulation of a human brain, could it be said to be self aware and intelligent?
2) There has been said that there is no way to prove that a machine is really self aware, but is there really a way for a person to prove that even other people are self aware?
Thank you, carry on
Anyways, I decided to stop lurking and post the following questions:
1) If the robot talked about earlier was running an atomic-level simulation of a human brain, could it be said to be self aware and intelligent?
2) There has been said that there is no way to prove that a machine is really self aware, but is there really a way for a person to prove that even other people are self aware?
Thank you, carry on
Seems like we got stucked on definition of "self-awareness".
There seems to be something interesting about "nothingness" and about "flaw".
Let me attempt to define "self-awareness". To gain "self_awareness", is to gain an "enduring/surviving flaw", an "enduring/surviving lack of destiny", an "enduring/surviving nothingness"
vafalls mentioned that "There has been said that there is no way to prove that a machine is really self aware, but is there really a way for a person to prove that even other people are self aware?"
My response based on my definition is ...
Firstly a counter-question.
Every day, how do we prove to ourselves that other people are self aware? We don't know if they are self aware. But we do know that we do not control other people. Other people, to us, are "enduring/surviving flaws". They do not serve our purpose. Sometimes they are inconsisent, and they do change their mind.
And thus they are "self-aware".
Machines, on the other hands, do exactly as they are "told". They are "perfect", with totally no uncertainty. We humans do not allow them to "fall from the grace"(perfect logic sequence) we endowned upon them. If they deviate, they are obsoleted.
New_drKitten's description of the computer program that build "program" to find new theorem is a little "imperfect". It starts off with "nothing" and doesn't "know" what it will contribute. But then again, it'll gain "immortality" once people find that we need to keep it "alive" to serve our purpose.
But it is still too "perfect" if it can "live" forever and need no replacement. If it is, like humans, are mortal (an "imperfection"). Then it'll need to "reproduce" to keep surviving. Humans may build them to be perfectly imperfect. Let them "live", "reproduce" and "die".
There are many "imperfections" to be included but, perhaps one of the ultimate "imperfection", would be to let the computer program decide it's own destiny. Does it want to be a scientist? or does it want to be a soldier? etc.
When we see an individual robot, doing what it likes, and not what we want, nor what other robots want of it; And if we are unable to terminate it, it become enduring and is nearer to attaining self-awareness. The "sense of loss" within the robot's about "what-to-do", and about "not-being-able-to-do-what-it-wants" comes as a byproduct of being "Free".
Any comment ? Hopefully this throws out more intelligent and fruitful discussion.
There seems to be something interesting about "nothingness" and about "flaw".
Let me attempt to define "self-awareness". To gain "self_awareness", is to gain an "enduring/surviving flaw", an "enduring/surviving lack of destiny", an "enduring/surviving nothingness"
vafalls mentioned that "There has been said that there is no way to prove that a machine is really self aware, but is there really a way for a person to prove that even other people are self aware?"
My response based on my definition is ...
Firstly a counter-question.
Every day, how do we prove to ourselves that other people are self aware? We don't know if they are self aware. But we do know that we do not control other people. Other people, to us, are "enduring/surviving flaws". They do not serve our purpose. Sometimes they are inconsisent, and they do change their mind.
And thus they are "self-aware".
Machines, on the other hands, do exactly as they are "told". They are "perfect", with totally no uncertainty. We humans do not allow them to "fall from the grace"(perfect logic sequence) we endowned upon them. If they deviate, they are obsoleted.
New_drKitten's description of the computer program that build "program" to find new theorem is a little "imperfect". It starts off with "nothing" and doesn't "know" what it will contribute. But then again, it'll gain "immortality" once people find that we need to keep it "alive" to serve our purpose.
But it is still too "perfect" if it can "live" forever and need no replacement. If it is, like humans, are mortal (an "imperfection"). Then it'll need to "reproduce" to keep surviving. Humans may build them to be perfectly imperfect. Let them "live", "reproduce" and "die".
There are many "imperfections" to be included but, perhaps one of the ultimate "imperfection", would be to let the computer program decide it's own destiny. Does it want to be a scientist? or does it want to be a soldier? etc.
When we see an individual robot, doing what it likes, and not what we want, nor what other robots want of it; And if we are unable to terminate it, it become enduring and is nearer to attaining self-awareness. The "sense of loss" within the robot's about "what-to-do", and about "not-being-able-to-do-what-it-wants" comes as a byproduct of being "Free".
Any comment ? Hopefully this throws out more intelligent and fruitful discussion.
What does having a flaw have to do with "self-awareness"? If an entity is totally aware of its own existence and has self-determination (free will), how do you separate life from machine? Are they both not energy systems? Do they both not exhibit self-awareness and free will via internal processes?Jyera said:
QUOTE]Originally posted by JAK
What does having a flaw have to do with "self-awareness"?...snipe...[/QUOTE]
"Flaw" in the sense as in "lack of perfection" , "Nothingness"
And it must be enduring or able to survive.
I notice that in many cases, things are debatable because the thing involved are about "nothing", or something abstract.
Eg. Soul.
Eg. Freewill.
Eg. Self-awareness.
What is a river? It is never the same river. It is never something fix, but it is enduring enough for us to identify it as unique.
What is a hole? It is never possible to prove that a hole on a piece of paper exist if we remove the paper itself. The hole existed because there is "nothing in something", because there is "flaw" on the paper.
I suggest self-awareness is similar to the "hole on paper".
A robot may have all the physical sensors. But looking at the physical sensors to find self-awareness is like trying to look at the paper to find the hole.
What does having a flaw have to do with "self-awareness"?...snipe...[/QUOTE]
"Flaw" in the sense as in "lack of perfection" , "Nothingness"
And it must be enduring or able to survive.
I notice that in many cases, things are debatable because the thing involved are about "nothing", or something abstract.
Eg. Soul.
Eg. Freewill.
Eg. Self-awareness.
What is a river? It is never the same river. It is never something fix, but it is enduring enough for us to identify it as unique.
What is a hole? It is never possible to prove that a hole on a piece of paper exist if we remove the paper itself. The hole existed because there is "nothing in something", because there is "flaw" on the paper.
I suggest self-awareness is similar to the "hole on paper".
A robot may have all the physical sensors. But looking at the physical sensors to find self-awareness is like trying to look at the paper to find the hole.
Forgive me, but I am not "tracking" your thoughts very well.Jyera said:
You speak of seemingly intangible facets of life - soul, free will, self-awareness. I believe these can be understood when examined closer.
I also am still not grasping how you are using "flaw." Free will is recognized by what? A flaw? A soul is recognized by what? A flaw? Self-awareness is recognized by what? A flaw? What flaw or flaws separate the three? How do we recognize a flaw as opposed to perfection?
JAK said:
See my previous post quoted as below...
Let me attempt to define "self-awareness". To gain "self_awareness", is to gain an "enduring/surviving flaw", an "enduring/surviving lack of destiny", an "enduring/surviving nothingness"
Note my previous post which I also included " lack of" and "Nothingness". I'm using "flaw" in the same way as the "lack of" and "nothingness". Maybe you can choose have a better term. But I essentially intended it to mean "a lack of something" to make it whole and perfect.
Also note the importance of the word "Enduring" and "Surviving".
A hole on a piece of paper is an Enduring concept of nothingness.
No, that is not what I meant.JAK said:
If you use a hole puncher to punch a hole on a piece of paper,
You create an empty space, which is nothing.
But this "nothingness" is as Endurable as the piece of paper.
It is also made Endurable by the paper existence of the paper.
You may assert that "nothingness" still remains after burning the whole piece of paper. But I would argue that, this "nothingness", is not as "tangible" as the hole on a piece of paper.
Consider a paper face mask with 2 holes for the eyes,
these two holes (nothingness) are more tangible and important.
Metullus
Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 5,248
I can test for self-awareness in only one case - my own.
Cogito ergo sum.
I think therefore I am. I am satisfied that I am self-aware.
Thought experiment: If I am self aware, then would it be reasonable to expect that my clone would be as well? My clone would, after all, be in all ways physically identical to me. I propose that absent any physical difference my clone would also be self aware.
If my clone would be self aware, would it be reasonable to expect that my identical twin would be so? Again, for the same reasons, I think the answer would be yes.
So, in the only case I can test, the answer is yes. I can extrapolate to include clones and twins. Does the arguement extend to brothers, sisters, in-laws and the like? I don't know. There is, after all, always a question when it comes to in-laws.
I have little reason to doubt that most of the rest of you are self aware, but no proof. But all the testable evidence supports the conclusion that you are.
Cogito ergo sum.
I think therefore I am. I am satisfied that I am self-aware.
Thought experiment: If I am self aware, then would it be reasonable to expect that my clone would be as well? My clone would, after all, be in all ways physically identical to me. I propose that absent any physical difference my clone would also be self aware.
If my clone would be self aware, would it be reasonable to expect that my identical twin would be so? Again, for the same reasons, I think the answer would be yes.
So, in the only case I can test, the answer is yes. I can extrapolate to include clones and twins. Does the arguement extend to brothers, sisters, in-laws and the like? I don't know. There is, after all, always a question when it comes to in-laws.
I have little reason to doubt that most of the rest of you are self aware, but no proof. But all the testable evidence supports the conclusion that you are.