At what point do robots become self-aware?

[Hobbes' Choice]

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).

Here's the phrase;"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."

For this to be meaningful would have to suggest that the "wiring or processing" of the brain was NOT also part of the biology of the brain.
The fact is that the brain is a biological entity and the wiring of the brain IS biological. The processing of the brain IS biological.
If consciousness is due to("attributable to") wiring that is part of its biology whether you like it or not.
The wiring and processing of the brain IS biological.
Hence the false dichotomy.

[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).

Here's the phrase;"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."

For this to be meaningful would have to suggest that the "wiring or processing" of the brain was NOT also part of the biology of the brain.
The fact is that the brain is a biological entity and the wiring of the brain IS biological. The processing of the brain IS biological.
If consciousness is due to("attributable to") wiring that is part of its biology whether you like it or not.
The wiring and processing of the brain IS biological.
Hence the false dichotomy.

You're right. What I meant to say is that attofishpi is suggesting that non-biological entities aren't capable of consciousness; further, that the brain's consciousness isn't attributable to its wiring or the result of its processing.

[Hobbes' Choice]

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).

Here's the phrase;"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."

For this to be meaningful would have to suggest that the "wiring or processing" of the brain was NOT also part of the biology of the brain.
The fact is that the brain is a biological entity and the wiring of the brain IS biological. The processing of the brain IS biological.
If consciousness is due to("attributable to") wiring that is part of its biology whether you like it or not.
The wiring and processing of the brain IS biological.
Hence the false dichotomy.

You're right. What I meant to say is that attofishpi is suggesting that non-biological entities aren't capable of consciousness; further, that the brain's consciousness isn't attributable to its wiring or the result of its processing.

He is palpably wrong. Not only has he no evidence whatever for this, the evidence would be of a kind that could only refute this claim.
On the other hands there is so much evidence that the brain and its processing is in fact the reason for consciousness it would be hard to dismiss.

[RG1]

What is it that one means when claiming to be “self-aware”?

Is it simply the awareness (sensing, detection, and recognition) of self? If so, then what is this “self”? Is this “self” that physical body that can be seen (detected and recognized) in a mirror? So how is this any different than being aware of any other-self, such as my wife for example? I’m aware of her-self, and I’m aware of my-self. So what is the difference, what is the big deal? I’m aware in both cases. What is unique about being aware of 'my-self' versus being aware of 'another-self'?

When one claims to be “self-aware”, is he trying to claim or imply something 'more’ than the awareness of this thing called self?

I think yes, I think most of us that use this word “self-aware” are trying to imply an ability to sense/detect/recognize a "me" or a “mind” within the physical body, when in fact, all we can actually sense/detect/recognize is the physical structure/body/self itself.

We are subsequently 'misled' into believing/supposing that this "self-awareness" is the recognition of a “me” (an entity within our physical body).

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.

…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!"

These ink blot tests have also been performed on toddlers (1-3 year olds) to determine at what point they become “self-aware” (or in the particular experiment I refer to - the point in life when one acquires “consciousness”, the ability to know/recognize oneself, to know there is a “me” inside).

These tests are all faulty, as they make the (false) assumption that the ‘recognition of the physical self’ equivocates to the recognition of a “me”, a mind, or a special “self” within. These chimps, pigeons, and toddlers recognize the physical entities reflecting in the mirror. These tests are more of intelligence testing, than of testing for “self-awareness”.

The word "self-awareness" has no special meaning extending beyond the awareness of the physical self, and therefore its usage only misleads those into believing they have a mind!

[alpha]

rg1, it seems to me, that for anyone to recognize that there even is a physical self, is in itself being aware that there is a me that isn't you, him, her, or anyone else, which should suffice.

[Scott Mayers]

clueless (and others),

"My cats evidently don't recognize themselves. Is this proof of lack of sufficient intelligence?" [clueless response earlier]

I had a deaf cat and she learned to interpret mirrors because of this deficit. She recognized herself in the mirror and used it to interpret where I was in relation to her when I played with her. This, at least for me, disproves the idea that a mirror could be used to interpret whether some animal is somehow more or less 'aware' of itself. I also learned to interpret her expressions which I never would have before. I even taught her to communicate using symbolic gestures. I think that a deaf cat (or other limited sensed animal) would be an ideal way to measure these things as they help remove other external influences required to do a better experiment. Animals that don't appear to recognize their image is immature and likely false. They simply just have no patience to care to interpret what a mirror IS. If they HAD to interpret what they see as not some other animal, they too would learn what a mirror is and then be able to interpret the image as a reflection of themselves. This supposed experiment to interpret whether other animals are somehow conscious is severely more anti-intellectually derived and biased to favor what we, as humans, impose what is significant to the definition of consciousness.

[attofishpi]

You're right. What I meant to say is that attofishpi is suggesting that non-biological entities aren't capable of consciousness; further, that the brain's consciousness isn't attributable to its wiring or the result of its processing.

Dont misquote me:- (red). "..further, that the brain's consciousness isn't attributable to its wiring or the result of its processing."

Pure idiocy to think such a thing and i never stated anything to that affect.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You're right. What I meant to say is that attofishpi is suggesting that non-biological entities aren't capable of consciousness; further, that the brain's consciousness isn't attributable to its wiring or the result of its processing.

Dont misquote me:- (red). "..further, that the brain's consciousness isn't attributable to its wiring or the result of its processing."

Pure idiocy to think such a thing and i never stated anything to that affect.

TRUE.
Clueless is clueless, what you said was "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."

[RG1]

rg1, it seems to me, that for anyone to recognize that there even is a physical self, is in itself being aware that there is a me that isn't you, him, her, or anyone else, which should suffice.

Alpha, I agree that it seems that “self-awareness” implies something ‘more’ than that of which we are ‘actually’ aware of (i.e. the physical self). It also seemingly implies the existence of a ‘mind’ (the mental self; mind). BUT, take a closer look and you will see the hidden ‘equivocation fallacy’ in play here (i.e. the dual meaning of “self”; assigning one meaning of “self” to prove the other).

I’m sure you will agree that the conclusion here does not logically follow: “I experience apples, therefore oranges exist!”, …and likewise, nor does it logically follow that: “I experience the self (the physical body), therefore the self (the mind) exists!”.

Remember: The existence of a “mind” is not required to 'experience’. The “body” can experience just fine by itself.

[clueless]

You're right. What I meant to say is that attofishpi is suggesting that non-biological entities aren't capable of consciousness; further, that the brain's consciousness isn't attributable to its wiring or the result of its processing.

Dont misquote me:- (red). "..further, that the brain's consciousness isn't attributable to its wiring or the result of its processing."

Pure idiocy to think such a thing and i never stated anything to that affect.

I didn't misquote you; I evidently misunderstood you. I used the word "suggesting".

To be clear, do you opine that the brain's consciousness IS attributable to its wiring and the result of its processing?

Is it your opinion that non-biological entities aren't now, nor ever will be, capable of consciousness?

Are you suggesting (if not declaring) that the brain's consciousness is attributable to its synapses?

Are synapses the brain's logic gates?

[clueless]

What is it that one means when claiming to be “self-aware”?

Is it simply the awareness (sensing, detection, and recognition) of self? If so, then what is this “self”? Is this “self” that physical body that can be seen (detected and recognized) in a mirror? So how is this any different than being aware of any other-self, such as my wife for example? I’m aware of her-self, and I’m aware of my-self. So what is the difference, what is the big deal? I’m aware in both cases. What is unique about being aware of 'my-self' versus being aware of 'another-self'?

When one claims to be “self-aware”, is he trying to claim or imply something 'more’ than the awareness of this thing called self?

I think yes, I think most of us that use this word “self-aware” are trying to imply an ability to sense/detect/recognize a "me" or a “mind” within the physical body, when in fact, all we can actually sense/detect/recognize is the physical structure/body/self itself.

We are subsequently 'misled' into believing/supposing that this "self-awareness" is the recognition of a “me” (an entity within our physical body).

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.

…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!"

These ink blot tests have also been performed on toddlers (1-3 year olds) to determine at what point they become “self-aware” (or in the particular experiment I refer to - the point in life when one acquires “consciousness”, the ability to know/recognize oneself, to know there is a “me” inside).

These tests are all faulty, as they make the (false) assumption that the ‘recognition of the physical self’ equivocates to the recognition of a “me”, a mind, or a special “self” within. These chimps, pigeons, and toddlers recognize the physical entities reflecting in the mirror. These tests are more of intelligence testing, than of testing for “self-awareness”.

The word "self-awareness" has no special meaning extending beyond the awareness of the physical self, and therefore its usage only misleads those into believing they have a mind!

Very good!

One definition of the word "recognize" is: to be cognizant of (to percieve clearly; to realize). Another definition is: to perceive to be something or someone previously known.

If the chimp/pigeon/toddler recognizes the image in the mirror as being a likeness of himself, by which definition does he do so, or does it matter as regards what he's experiencing and understanding? If, when he sees his mirror image for the first time, or the umpteenth time, he figures out (comes to realize) that when he looks in a mirror (or other reflective surface), the image he sees is of "himself" (what he looks like), he has recognized it by the first definition. If, after having realized what he looks like in a mirror, he subsequently sees an image in a mirror that he recognizes as being an image of himself, he has recognized it by the second definition.

Coming to realize for the first time that what one is seeing when one "looks in a mirror" is an image of oneself (what one looks like) is no small feat, but is it any more than that? Is it indicative of the awareness of an "inner self"? Isn't it indicative of considerable something - intelligence?

However, if I'm able to say to "myself", either silently or out loud, "That's what I look like" (that's what my face looks like), do I mean I am a face? What do I mean by "I"? Who's talking? How can I say with confidence "I think", "I speak", "I see", "I hear", "I feel a spider crawling up my arm", if I don't exist?

Hey, you! This particular person, whom you hear and are viewing, feels a spider crawling up its arm. ??? Who said that??? Does the "you" in this example perceive me as a physical being only which makes intelligible sounds, or something more? Is the "inner self" inferred? Is the inner self aware of the inner self without any assistance from OTHERS?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Please let us preserve the distinction between self awareness and consciousness, and that consciousness is a prerequisite for self-awareness.

[Scott Mayers]

Please let us preserve the distinction between self awareness and consciousness, and that consciousness is a prerequisite for self-awareness.

How could this actually be interpreted distinctly? I'm not questioning THAT some think there is a distinction. Rather, I question the actual reasoning to assert 'self-awareness' as something distinct from consciousness.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Please let us preserve the distinction between self awareness and consciousness, and that consciousness is a prerequisite for self-awareness.

How could this actually be interpreted distinctly? I'm not questioning THAT some think there is a distinction. Rather, I question the actual reasoning to assert 'self-awareness' as something distinct from consciousness.

The point is that we seemed to have already defined self-awareness as the sort of objective awareness whereby you can recognise yourself in a reflection. This goes further, I think, than what might standardly be accepted.

[clueless]

clueless (and others),

"My cats evidently don't recognize themselves. Is this proof of lack of sufficient intelligence?" [clueless response earlier]

I had a deaf cat and she learned to interpret mirrors because of this deficit. She recognized herself in the mirror and used it to interpret where I was in relation to her when I played with her. This, at least for me, disproves the idea that a mirror could be used to interpret whether some animal is somehow more or less 'aware' of itself. I also learned to interpret her expressions which I never would have before. I even taught her to communicate using symbolic gestures. I think that a deaf cat (or other limited sensed animal) would be an ideal way to measure these things as they help remove other external influences required to do a better experiment. Animals that don't appear to recognize their image is immature and likely false. They simply just have no patience to care to interpret what a mirror IS. If they HAD to interpret what they see as not some other animal, they too would learn what a mirror is and then be able to interpret the image as a reflection of themselves. This supposed experiment to interpret whether other animals are somehow conscious is severely more anti-intellectually derived and biased to favor what we, as humans, impose what is significant to the definition of consciousness.

Interesting!

Would you mind elaborating on the kind of play which required that the cat use a mirror to keep track of you. I should think, having no vision deficit, it could see where you were in relation to it without need of a mirror?

How is animals appearing not to recognize their image in a mirror immature and likely false?

I should think that curiosity, in the case of cats-who are renowned for it-would be sufficient motivation to determine who that is in the mirror. I think they see a stranger that they want nothing to do with They study my image in the mirror while I'm holding them and look at me directly from time to time, as if wondering how I can be in two places at once, in the manner of an electron. They prefer not to look at themselves, and prefer not to touch the mirror. When they were babies, they "enjoyed" seeing those kittens in the little handheld mirror placed on the table, and vied for ringside seats; even tried to look under the mirror, and, in the process, succeeded in knocking it off the table.

It's great that you were able to teach your cat sign language.