At what point do robots become self-aware?

[clueless]

You would have to consult Skinner regarding how he supports his claim of self-awareness in pigeons.

There are evidently many aspects of self-awareness of which is an awareness of how one looks (appearance). I assume this is the aspect of self-awareness that is alluded to in the chimpanzee example. Can one gain awareness of one's own existence as an individual by looking in a mirror? I see; therefore, I am? What is it that the chimp realizes by looking in the mirror that the pigeon doesn't? Both would receive a false impression.

Mirrors are tricky.

I think you might have to do more than look in a mirror.

In the case of a chimp or an elephant, and object, such as an ink blot is placed on a part of the face that the animal is not aware of. On looking in the mirror, the animal sees the object and responds by understanding that the object is on them ( - not on that OTHER chimp that keeps looking at me, and mimicking everything I do).

I think Skinner utilized a similar setup with his pigeons.

So, without the magical, influential ink blot, the male chimp would never have advanced beyond thinking (perceiving) that he was being mimicked?

I can imagine him looking behind the mirror for the mimic and, perhaps, scratching his head.

There is a lot for this chimp to understand before he comes to this realization. I'm guessing he'll touch the mirror, expecting to feel the mimic; wherever he touches, the mimic touches back...with the same finger/s. What prompts him to explore the ink blot on "himself", and how does exploring the ink blot assist him in his deduction? Must he not have some prior sense of "self" in order to conclude, "Holy Toledo! That's me!"

It seems to me that what the chimp has discovered (has come to realize) is that the fellow he initially thought was mimicking him was, in fact, an image of himself in a mirror. He has also gained some knowledge and understanding of mirrors. Eventually he will no doubt notice that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. Will he ever come to know that he hasn't seen himself as others see him?

Does this experiment prove that the chimp is self-aware? Would a similar experiment substituting the robot for the chimp prove that the robot is self-aware? Will a ghost ever form in a man-made machine?

One of my cats is brighter than the others. Today she studied "herself" in a bathroom mirror for several seconds when I held her up in front of it and gently moved her up and down and from side to side. Previously she has always averted her gaze, refusing to make eye contact. I think she's beginning to realize "That's me!"

[Hobbes' Choice]

You would have to consult Skinner regarding how he supports his claim of self-awareness in pigeons.

There are evidently many aspects of self-awareness of which is an awareness of how one looks (appearance). I assume this is the aspect of self-awareness that is alluded to in the chimpanzee example. Can one gain awareness of one's own existence as an individual by looking in a mirror? I see; therefore, I am? What is it that the chimp realizes by looking in the mirror that the pigeon doesn't? Both would receive a false impression.

Mirrors are tricky.

I think you might have to do more than look in a mirror.

In the case of a chimp or an elephant, and object, such as an ink blot is placed on a part of the face that the animal is not aware of. On looking in the mirror, the animal sees the object and responds by understanding that the object is on them ( - not on that OTHER chimp that keeps looking at me, and mimicking everything I do).

I think Skinner utilized a similar setup with his pigeons.

So, without the magical, influential ink blot, the male chimp would never have advanced beyond thinking (perceiving) that he was being mimicked?

No, the chimps is either self aware or not. The ink blot is only evidence of it.

I can imagine him looking behind the mirror for the mimic and, perhaps, scratching his head.

There is a lot for this chimp to understand before he comes to this realization. I'm guessing he'll touch the mirror, expecting to feel the mimic; wherever he touches, the mimic touches back...with the same finger/s. What prompts him to explore the ink blot on "himself", and how does exploring the ink blot assist him in his deduction? Must he not have some prior sense of "self" in order to conclude, "Holy Toledo! That's me!"

You are missing the point - the chimp is self aware. Seeing himself in the mirror - he soon figures out he can see him self, maybe immediately. The mirror experiment is designed for the psychologist to figure all that out.

It seems to me that what the chimp has discovered (has come to realize) is that the fellow he initially thought was mimicking him was, in fact, an image of himself in a mirror. He has also gained some knowledge and understanding of mirrors. Eventually he will no doubt notice that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. Will he ever come to know that he hasn't seen himself as others see him?

There never was a mimick, the implication is that - were he not self aware he would act AS IF, the reflection was another chimp. They also tend to look behind the mirror to check -like a child might.

Does this experiment prove that the chimp is self-aware? Would a similar experiment substituting the robot for the chimp prove that the robot is self-aware? Will a ghost ever form in a man-made machine?

A programmer can make a robot do anything. The case is not parallel.

One of my cats is brighter than the others. Today she studied "herself" in a bathroom mirror for several seconds when I held her up in front of it and gently moved her up and down and from side to side. Previously she has always averted her gaze, refusing to make eye contact. I think she's beginning to realize "That's me!"

Maybe.

[clueless]

Reply to Hobbes' Choice: The chimp knew immediately that he was viewing his image in the mirror. At no time did he act as if the image (what he saw in the mirror) was another chimp imitating him. And he didn't look behind the mirror. An ink blot had been applied to his face unbeknownst to him. When he saw the ink blot on the face in the mirror, he immediately touched his own face in that spot. He didn't touch the mirror in an exploratory fashion.

Correct?

Isn't the brain a computer of sorts? If not, what?

[alpha]

Isn't the brain a computer of sorts? If not, what?

it is a computer of sorts.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Reply to Hobbes' Choice: The chimp knew immediately that he was viewing his image in the mirror. At no time did he act as if the image (what he saw in the mirror) was another chimp imitating him. And he didn't look behind the mirror. An ink blot had been applied to his face unbeknownst to him. When he saw the ink blot on the face in the mirror, he immediately touched his own face in that spot. He didn't touch the mirror in an exploratory fashion.

Correct?

Isn't the brain a computer of sorts? If not, what?

Saying the brain is a computer is like saying the heart is a water pump. We drag up metaphors and analogies to help us understand the world, but these tend to force us ultimately to misunderstand what we are describing.
A computer processor if like a brain
A brain is like a computer.
What is MOST important is what is the DIFFERENCE between brains and computers not what is similar.
A brain is continually 're-programming" itself, each step it take marks a change. It does lot more than calculate. It is not linear as a processor has to be.
A computer is limited by its programming, a brain is not.

[alpha]

A computer is limited by its programming, a brain is not.

actually, i'd say the brain is also limited by its programming, but unlike a computer, the brain's programming is always ongoing.

[Hobbes' Choice]

A computer is limited by its programming, a brain is not.

actually, i'd say the brain is also limited by its programming, but unlike a computer, the brain's programming is always ongoing.

A brain that is continually reprogramming is not limited by its programming.

[alpha]

A brain that is continually reprogramming is not limited by its programming.

i didn't say it was continually reprogramming itself, but rather, continually being programmed (by all variables).

[Hobbes' Choice]

A brain that is continually reprogramming is not limited by its programming.

i didn't say it was continually reprogramming itself, but rather, continually being programmed (by all variables).

What are you on about?

[alpha]

What are you on about?

it's like a computer (a conscious, aware computer, with feelings, neurotransmitters, etc.) that's continually being programmed (but not intentionally, and by itself).

[attofishpi]

Isn't the brain a computer of sorts? If not, what?

A computer does not have the ability to sense anything...believe it or listen. A computer is not and never will be conscious, at least in its present form until it becomes akin to biological.

If a robot puts out its hand next to yours and i raise a hammer ready to unleash all the force i can upon your appendages, which of you is likely to actually FEEL the pain?

You see? A computer does not FEEL pain, does not SENSE. It only measures...eg impending impact greater than 10, i better retract my hand. It is NOT conscious.

Comparing a brain to a computer is only comparable to the fact that there are inputs, processing, memory and the ability to output, both can do this. But they are aeons apart if attempting to compare computers (electronic logic gates) to the brain...synaptic biological consciousness.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Isn't the brain a computer of sorts? If not, what?

A computer does not have the ability to sense anything...believe it or listen.

The comparisons with computers is good for the very reason that it can sense things; keyboards, mice, SD cards, Internet connection

[clueless]

Isn't the brain a computer of sorts? If not, what?

A computer does not have the ability to sense anything...believe it or listen. A computer is not and never will be conscious, at least in its present form until it becomes akin to biological.

If a robot puts out its hand next to yours and i raise a hammer ready to unleash all the force i can upon your appendages, which of you is likely to actually FEEL the pain?

You see? A computer does not FEEL pain, does not SENSE. It only measures...eg impending impact greater than 10, i better retract my hand. It is NOT conscious.

Comparing a brain to a computer is only comparable to the fact that there are inputs, processing, memory and the ability to output, both can do this. But they are aeons apart if attempting to compare computers (electronic logic gates) to the brain...synaptic biological consciousness.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying the brain's consciousness is attributable to its biology and not to its wiring or "processing". That may very well be the case.

Can you imagine what it's like to be an atom, a molecule, a synaptic vesicle, a neuron? You (the physical "you" as opposed to the many other "you"s) are all of these and more. Are any of these building blocks conscious? Do any of these components feel pain, or experience joy? Perhaps you are a soul, and only souls can be aware. If so, the designers of sentient robots have their work cut out for them.

I once read a scholarly paper that identified pain as a spike interval coded message. I was immediately reminded of computers.

In a more philosophical vein, when one says the brain is conscious, does one mean that the brain as a whole is conscious, or some component thereof? It may very well be that only one or a few neurons are "conscious" at any given time. Research suggests that "relatively few neurons are involved in representing any given person, place, or concept."* If a "computer" is ever rendered conscious, will it be the computer as a whole that is conscious, or some component thereof? Where will the consciousness lie, if anywhere in particular - in a lonely logic gate, or among all the cells of a particular memory chip?

Conciousness is a general term which refers to the ability of an organism to experience its environment. Pain qualifies as something experienced. If our senses are all disabled, are we yet conscious? Are we aware of the lack of sensation? How do you account for our ability to notice the absence of light?

Isn't it interesting that "we" feel pain at the site of an injury (a pricked fingertip for example) and not in the brain...or do we? The brain is connected to the fingertip via sensory nerves. What is the role of the brain (component or components thereof) in determining the nature and intensity of the pain and its location? The fingertip is physically separate from the brain but represented in the brain by a neural counterpart (tissue). Our awareness is of the fingertip in the brain and the pain therein. There is no pain in the physical fingertip; only injury. Somehow the brain figures out (via processing the pain message?) which neural tissue to assign the pain to, thereby informing us of the injury.

It would seem, therefore, that I don't have a brain, but rather, I AM a brain.

Whether a "computer" could ever be designed to feel pain is anyone's guess. First, one must understand what pain is.



*NGM.COM FEBRUARY 2014 The New Science of the BRAIN

[Hobbes' Choice]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying the brain's consciousness is attributable to its biology and not to its wiring or "processing". That may very well be the case.

Surely you can see that you are following a completely false dichotomy here?

Whatever the brain is, including its wiring and processing is ipso facto it biology.

[clueless]

Reply to Hobbes' Choice: Ipso Facto? Is that roughly equivalent to "By That Very Fact"? According to my dictionary, a dichotomy is: a division into two esp. mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities such as the dichotomy between theory and practice; also the process or practice of making such a division. With this definition in mind, in what sense am I following a false dichotomy?

You say (write): "Whatever the brain is, including its wiring and processing is ipso facto it biology."

Please clarify (rephrase).