At what point do robots become self-aware?

[Philosophy Explorer]

[quote=Hobbe'sChoice]

Why not stop bitching and address the thread?[/quote]

Well Golllllllly. Look who's talking. The other half of tweedle-dee, tweedle-dum, the all time master of bitching.
You couldn't hold a straight conversation on anything loser.

PhilX[/quote]

Thus far you have contributed ZERO to your own fucking thread as per usual.[/quote]

Too bad for you loser.

PhilX

[Scott Mayers]

I began answering but found it is too deep to simply answer without everyone understanding computer architecture, programming, and cellular biology including neurology.

For a very simplistic answer, robots require drive programs that define emotions (and moral values as a component 'emotions') and an ability to reflect on inputs and outputs through feedback by sensors and motors (via peripheries). It also needs many multiple processors that act in parallel than we presently have to represent cells. An eight-cell processor in some of our modern systems is still too little. We'd need thousands. This is because while we might replicate this through our limited cells by adding very fast programs, consciousness is a product of distinct logical events in kind acting simultaneously in real different locations in space.

It's odd that you immediately anthromporphise the idea of "self awareness'. As there is no necessary connection between "moral values", and "emotions", with self awareness I think you have got off on the wrong foot. I do not see speed as a necessary factor either.

The first place to start might be to ask if we have any reason to think that other humans or animals are self aware. Then see if what we think we mean by self aware makes any sense at all, before we disclude computers and robots.

Some people assert that the Universe is self aware. In this case computers would also have to have that quality. Personally this question reveals the paucity of that assertion as utterly ridiculous.

On the other extreme, whilst I can accept that I am self aware, what is the evidential basis for me thinking that PhilX is self aware??

I did mention that I was only giving a simplified answer as this requires too much depth without some good understanding of many areas. I don't 'anthropomorphize' consciousness. I assumed though that the question that is being asked related to a creating a robot that at least has the same degree of 'self awareness'. There are projects that are already demonstrating the beginnings of robots using these ideas.

I relate morals to emotions and even to any conscious 'feelings' like pains and pleasures in that they are all initiated to seek out the environment to assign values to variable possibilities to determine how one feels. A person CAN develop an initial value that reverses how we 'feel' about certain sensations. During specific windows of time, these initial 'hardwired' programs need to determine how one should interpret reality based on what is given. We learn things like pains, pleasures, varied other emotions, moral drives, and most of our regular sensory interpretations in the brain by associating these to environmental inputs in significant periods. [see http://www.brainfacts.org/brain-basics/ ... al-periods as an into to critical periods ('windows of assignment' as I'm referring to it]

[Hobbes' Choice]

I began answering but found it is too deep to simply answer without everyone understanding computer architecture, programming, and cellular biology including neurology.

For a very simplistic answer, robots require drive programs that define emotions (and moral values as a component 'emotions') and an ability to reflect on inputs and outputs through feedback by sensors and motors (via peripheries). It also needs many multiple processors that act in parallel than we presently have to represent cells. An eight-cell processor in some of our modern systems is still too little. We'd need thousands. This is because while we might replicate this through our limited cells by adding very fast programs, consciousness is a product of distinct logical events in kind acting simultaneously in real different locations in space.

It's odd that you immediately anthromporphise the idea of "self awareness'. As there is no necessary connection between "moral values", and "emotions", with self awareness I think you have got off on the wrong foot. I do not see speed as a necessary factor either.

The first place to start might be to ask if we have any reason to think that other humans or animals are self aware. Then see if what we think we mean by self aware makes any sense at all, before we disclude computers and robots.

Some people assert that the Universe is self aware. In this case computers would also have to have that quality. Personally this question reveals the paucity of that assertion as utterly ridiculous.

On the other extreme, whilst I can accept that I am self aware, what is the evidential basis for me thinking that PhilX is self aware??

I did mention that I was only giving a simplified answer as this requires too much depth without some good understanding of many areas. I don't 'anthropomorphize' consciousness. I assumed though that the question that is being asked related to a creating a robot that at least has the same degree of 'self awareness'. There are projects that are already demonstrating the beginnings of robots using these ideas.

I relate morals to emotions and even to any conscious 'feelings' like pains and pleasures in that they are all initiated to seek out the environment to assign values to variable possibilities to determine how one feels. A person CAN develop an initial value that reverses how we 'feel' about certain sensations. During specific windows of time, these initial 'hardwired' programs need to determine how one should interpret reality based on what is given. We learn things like pains, pleasures, varied other emotions, moral drives, and most of our regular sensory interpretations in the brain by associating these to environmental inputs in significant periods. [see http://www.brainfacts.org/brain-basics/ ... al-periods as an into to critical periods ('windows of assignment' as I'm referring to it]

Indeed so much is obvious, but since we do not consider a degree of awareness related to the degree of emotionality, I do not think that a machine would have to exhibit any emotion to be considered 'aware'.
So, for example a cold hearted killer would not thought to be less aware than an emotionally excessive person. Shall we compare an emotionally dead hunter being aware of his pray, against a distraught child who is so consumed by self-pity that he is unaware of people trying to help him
It is then sufficient to say that in a discussion on awareness, emotions are nothing more than a distraction. As for moral values - you can just dump that where you found it. Totally irrelevant. The thing you linked: not helpful.

On a base level, an amoeba can be "aware" of a source of food, but the detection of chemicals in the water to which they can move to "eat" that food. On a higher level (or so we think) we can be aware of the smell of a good steak and seek it out for consumption.
Is there more to it than that? If so what? If you will not allow 'awareness" for an amoeba, then at what point does multicellular evolution come up with 'awareness"?

Computers are capable of detecting movement and sounding an alarm. Sensory input - internal algorithm - external output. They are capable of detecting a key press, and responding by putting a letter on a screen. Is this any different from an amoeba detecting and then eating food?

[Scott Mayers]

Indeed so much is obvious, but since we do not consider a degree of awareness related to the degree of emotionality, I do not think that a machine would have to exhibit any emotion to be considered 'aware'.
So, for example a cold hearted killer would not thought to be less aware than an emotionally excessive person. Shall we compare an emotionally dead hunter being aware of his pray, against a distraught child who is so consumed by self-pity that he is unaware of people trying to help him
It is then sufficient to say that in a discussion on awareness, emotions are nothing more than a distraction. As for moral values - you can just dump that where you found it. Totally irrelevant. The thing you linked: not helpful.

On a base level, an amoeba can be "aware" of a source of food, but the detection of chemicals in the water to which they can move to "eat" that food. On a higher level (or so we think) we can be aware of the smell of a good steak and seek it out for consumption.
Is there more to it than that? If so what? If you will not allow 'awareness" for an amoeba, then at what point does multicellular evolution come up with 'awareness"?

Computers are capable of detecting movement and sounding an alarm. Sensory input - internal algorithm - external output. They are capable of detecting a key press, and responding by putting a letter on a screen. Is this any different from an amoeba detecting and then eating food?

I was responding to my interpretation of the OP that "self-aware" was being used more broadly. I see that you're using the term with something more specific in mind. I'm not sure how being aware doesn't imply consciousness and to its 'goals' or functions which are driven by things that require assigning values. That is why I brought it up.

A motivational/value type system is needed in a robot to command it to seek and judge in a similar way that most animals require for consciousness. I'm equating consciousness with "awareness" here as the link provided by the OP regarded trying to determine whether robots could think as humans do. If you define "awareness" as merely a disconcerted activity without value related concepts, than all computers already can do this through their sensory peripherals. The apparent intent from that article was to ask whether robotics can demonstrate sincere self-reflection based on feedback from their environment similar to what we think we do (or are capable of doing).

[clueless]

How does one ascertain self_awareness or even awareness for that matter?

[clueless]

In other words, how can one be certain that an organism or box full of electronics is aware?

[clueless]

Is awareness of self and other a state of mind or a state of brain? Does self-awareness require experience? Do we ever set foot outside our brains? Does the brain construct reality? Where does the world (the visual representation) go when you close your eyes? Why do we treat as "out there" (on the other side of the skin..thank you, B.F. Skinner) what's actually "in here"?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why are you so obsessed with robots? Are they sexually attractive to you? That's pretty sad.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Why are you so obsessed with robots? Are they sexually attractive to you? That's pretty sad.

Are you human? A human would understand. Why don't you?

Care to answer the thread's title? Or is it too hard for you?

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why are you so obsessed with robots? Are they sexually attractive to you? That's pretty sad.

Are you human? A human would understand. Why don't you?

Care to answer the thread's title? Or is it too hard for you?

PhilX

Yes I'm a human, which is why I am attracted to other humans, rather than robots.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Why are you so obsessed with robots? Are they sexually attractive to you? That's pretty sad.

Are you human? A human would understand. Why don't you?

Care to answer the thread's title? Or is it too hard for you?

PhilX

Yes I'm a human, which is why I am attracted to other humans, rather than robots.

Still avoiding the question and proving you're obsessed with me. Also you're acting as a prude.

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Still avoiding the question and proving you're obsessed with me. Also you're acting as a prude.

PhilX

Freak.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Still avoiding the question and proving you're obsessed with me. Also you're acting as a prude.

PhilX

Freak.

You just sunk down to a new level, loser. And you're still a prude.

PhilX

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Still avoiding the question and proving you're obsessed with me. Also you're acting as a prude.

PhilX

Freak.

You just sunk down to a new level, loser. And you're still a prude.

PhilX

Weirdo.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Weirdo.

Stop looking in the mirror when you say that, prudeface.

PhilX