... and it's called paranoid personality disorder. Aside from that, it's up to the people at large and individually to determine what they will put up with.
You're not clarifying, you're confounding. Earlier, when talking about the origin of organic life, you said this:
"...it almost seems that an oxygen atmosphere is optional,..." [Emphasis mine]
And then later when you are claiming to clarify, you say:
"Er, the role of oxygen in the establishment of organic life was well outside the scope of my analogy,... I think you'd be hard-pressed to claim that all oxygen is detrimenal to the formation of life"
I was originally talking about atmospheric oxygen, just like you were.
I can't call you on your chemistry credentials, but maybe you should have taken more English, rhetoric, or logic?
I'm gonna have to disagree with your comment. Oxygen is not 'optional',as you say, rather it's detrimental to the formation of life. Some have speculated that DNA-based life could not arise in an aerobic environment. It's just too desctructive.
"Secondly, after having gone through all that trouble you have a big chance of them simply burning up on athmospheric entry."
But they wouldn't be rocketing down like a heavy meteor or spaceship. It would be more like slowly saturating the atmosphere of the planet. In fact, if they are formed in the planetary cloud, any rock or gas planet that forms would already be saturated with these chemicals.
Well I came across a child of God, he was walking along the road
and I asked him tell where are you going, this he told me:
Well, I'm going down to Yasgur's farm, going to join in a rock and roll band.
Got to get back to the land, set my soul free. We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon,
and we got to get ourselves back to the garden.
I just thought of something while looking at the graphic -- what if RNA and DNA originally assemble in the pre-planetary cloud and hang around, falling into condensing planets and so forth?
I think the current popular theory, IIRC, is that RNA molecules somehow stack up in a tidal pool, where they are gently rocked back and forth. Some correct me please.
So how hard would it be to get DNA to link up in microgravity? Sure, there's more radiation around to blast things apart, but that might be a good thing -- you could get molecules you might not get otherwise without the blowing apart. Also, in microgravity, molecules can float around in 3 dimensions.
"Actually I'm pretty sure that ain't true. People very very rarely bother going deeper than two levels deep: What I know, and what you know that I know. (For example: I've seen you, but you're not aware that I saw you)"
I'm not talking about rareness, I'm talking about capability. What you're forgetting is that people also go into breadth -- What I know, what he knows, what she knows, what you know, what she knows that you and I know -- a recursive networked topology of knowledge. And Pinker points out that human *can* parse deeply recursive sentences, as long as they follow the grammatical rules:
"Only with recursion can we produce such sentences, and we can employ it to create much more complicated ones as well: While I read the book that I borrowed from my friend last week, my cat dozed in a sunny spot on the floor, oblivious to the noise of the construction crew working on a new house across the street." Pinker, _The Lanauge Instinct_
Let's break it down and count it:
I read the book
that I borrowed
from my friend
last week
my cat dozed
in a sunny spot
on the floor
oblivious to the noise
of the contruction crew
working on a new house
across the street.
There you have it! One sentence, made up of three sentences, one nesting 2 deep, the other nesting 3 deep! Ta-da!
Here's another example, pulled from this website: The cat with the hat from the shop on the corner by the bank near the car. That's five levels!
Have you ever taken a languistics class?
"But if there exists, and in your opinion, can exist no test that answer the question: "is object X self-aware","
What?
" then it follows that it's meaningless to talk about anything or anyone (other than possibly yourself inside your own mind) being self-aware. So, by that token, this robot, and any future one will not be self-aware, since no self-aware objects can be shown to exist. You've just defined "self-aware" out of science and into metaphysics."
Are you saying that I'm claiming there is no method to see if another creature is self-aware? Because I'm not, and I never have. All I said that in my proposed two-part robot, *it* cannot detect other self-awareness. All the robot can do is create a hall-of-mirrors effect. As human beings, if we accept my hall-of-mirrors definition of self-awareness, and we are satisfied that hall-of-mirrors effect is happening inside this two-part robot, then we have to conclude that the robot is experiencing self-awareness, at least according to our definition. As far as how human beings detect it in one another, or how you could design a robot that detects self-awareness in others, I'm not sure at this point. But I think it's possible.
"Many of humankinds biggest scientific blunders have been down to human arrogance - we are at the CENTRE of the universe, aren't we?:P"
Sensewise, each human is at the geometric center of their senses. Also, no matter where you are in the universe, it looks like the universe is expanding outward from where you are. So in two senses, we really are at the center of the universe. Hey, at least it's a mistake supported by evidence.
"In this area definitions are fairly useless. You'll end up having to define all the words you use in your definition and to define the words you end up having to use to define those... " No, you won't. You just have to define things that aren't agreed upon, or ambiguous, or not well-thought-out. The dicitionary is mostly complete, we don't have to re-create it for every scientific question.
My problem is everytime there is a head-line "We have a self-aware robot!" it's usually a really chincy definition of self-awareness. Let's set the standard before-hand, not afterwards.
"Your never-ending-chain is nothing more than a trivial game with language, exploiting the fact that humans are notoriously bad at de-nesting deeply recurcive expressions. Most people have a problem instantly parsing sentences like: "Do you know that I know that he knows that we know that Alice is actually a boy ?"
It's not a language game. It's a logical game.
People have problems parsing that sentence because it's a poorly contructed English sentence (for instance, you threw in "Do you know..." at the beginning as a red herring. As soon as the speaker completes the sentence, the listener knows what the speaker has said. It's redundant.) People they have no problems keeping track of who knows what in everyday life, even several levels deep.
Remember, language facility != mind.
The hall-of-mirrors isn't just deep, it's *infinite*. This hall-of-mirrors phenomenon only occurs when the self-perceives the self, which is why I'm proposing it as the definition of self-awareness.
If humans have a system to detect this kind of infinite loop, that's all they need. You don't actually need to go through every recursion. So imagine a two processes: The perceptor process turns on itsself and gets in an infinite loop of perception. The monitor process sees that the perceptor process is in a loop.
Those two together are self-aware. Note that the above desription will *only* happen when the system is perceiving itself.
"I think that's basically due to our limited stack-size:-))."
I've had this argument before on slashdot, but I don't think it's relevant in this discussion. I don't believe that the mind is a turing machine.
"Your hall of mirrors definition also fails the operative test: using this definition, how do you recognize self-awareness in others ?"
I'm just talking about self-awareness, not awareness of self-aware others. I don't think being aware of self-aware others is a necessary part of being self-aware. Whose operative test is this anyway?
Yes, a desire is what starts you down the path. But it's not what sees you through to the finish.
Your desire to become 'enlightened' is what gets you to start meditating in the morning, paying attention to your breathing, becoming aware of the habits of your mind. Once you start getting in the habit of being aware, the awareness is what begins to destroy the ego. Habitual awareness breaks down the ego and kills desire. The initial desire starts the practicing of awareness, which leads to habitual awareness.
What the Buddha Taught by Rahula is an excellent book. Rahula is a Buddhist monk, but this book is often used as a college-level introduction to Buddhism. And that's just a straight link, not a merchant program referral.
"I think of the infinite recursion like a tv camera hooked up to a monitor and then pointed at the monitor so you get a picture of the picture of the picture... It is a pretty little model but we don't learn very much from it."
I guess we have a small disagreement here. I think it's the first step in the right direction. It doesn't tell you *everything*, but it's not a red herring that throws you off the trail. It is a metaphor for exactly the phenomena that we think might be self-awareness.
"Another model I have of self-awareness is a detailed, animated map of a city, like something out of a Harry Potter movie that is so detailed it even shows the person holding the map and the very map itself."
How do you know that that little guy holding the map is you? Couldn't the 'you' tag just be arbitrary? You could be anybody on that map. Or anything on that map. Or not even on the map! I guess you would say that the little map corresponds *exactly* to the big map, so you have to assume that the big map and the little map are linked or mirroring each other. But in order to say "OK, there is a guy holding the little map, so *I* must be a guy holding the big map" -- but at that point you are already assuming that you are an "I", that you exist. In other words, you are already self-aware *to some extent* if you think that you exist.
"One question is: can something like this map exist? The answer is yes. Self aware consciousness is one example. Godel gave a mathematical example.
"
Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you on whether consciouness is like this, for reasons listed above.
Your map metaphor isn't much different from my two-part Perception and Perception-of-perception robot. Seeing a map of the town would be perception, and the ability to see a guy in the town reading a map is perception-of-perception (seeing an act of seeing). But even if you notice that the big map and the little map are exact mirrors of each other, what does this have to do with the little guy holding the little map? Maybe the little guy is holding a magic map that mirrors the big map, but you holding the big map actually are a pterodactyl and not a guy at all? Or, why should we assume that there is a big a guy? What part of this system feels that there is an "I" and that little guy holding the little map is the same as "I"?
With my two-part system, it doesn't adress "I" or me or whatever. I simply argue that when a robot's perception system encounters this hall-of-mirrors, that event is self-awareness. It's the simplest, most basic self-awareness that exists. Human self-awareness has other features, such as recognizing your body, being at the geometric center of your senses, etc. But the most basic self-awareness is the hall of mirrors. When you the self perceives the self, it sees the hall-of-mirrors effect. The self does not see this when it percieves others. The hall-of-mirrors effect is the only distinguishing characteristic of self-awareness. All the rest is extras, or the accidentals of inhabiting a physical body, living in a DNA-generated form, etc.
Another question is: what are the limitations of such a map? Can all of the details of the entire map be embedded in the little image of the map?
This second question is very, very interesting. It arises in just the first iteration, we don't need the infinite recursion in order to get to a very interesting question and AFAIK, the study of the infinite recursion does not lead to interesting questions or answers.**
But we do need to take a good look at the little map to make sure that it really does have another, littler map inside of it. We do have to be *certain* of infinite recursion. Once we are certain, then we don't need to study it anymore. But we do need to be certain first.
"
Godel found, (with just one iteration) that there were some limits to what mathematical models that modeled themselves could say about themselves. Famously, he pr
"Is Enlightenment (as in Gautama Buddha) just a very high form of such awareness?"
I know you didn't post the question to me, but I will take a crack at it anyway;)
Yes and no. Strictly, enlightenment is the cessation of desires, which is the source of all our unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Start with the 4 Noble Truths:
Life is unsatisfying. [Oftentimes, the first noble truth is translated as 'Life is suffering'. But the Buddha taught that life is not *all* suffering -- there are good times and there are bad. But ultimately we have this nagging feeling that there should be something *more*, something *else* -- this is the dissatisfaction we have with existence. Not just unsatisfying like a small meal, but a deep dissatisfaction which causes us to seek an understanding of our situation]
The source of our dissatisfaction [or suffering] is our desires
It is possible to end our dissatisfaction [or suffering] by ending our desires
In order to end desire, follow the eightfold path.
So while awareness is not specifically covered in the four noble truths, you will find a lot of refernces to mindfulness in the various Buddhist schools. It's especially big in Tibetan Buddhism. The idea is that by practicing mindfulness, or awareness, of your body and mental states, you will slowly become aware of how desires generate, and be able to break the habit of generating new desires.
"That about sums up all of the definitions of self-awareness I've seen in this thread thus far."
Call me stupid, but I can't see any concept of self or the "I" in detecting an infinite loop.
That's why I proposed a two-part robot with 1. a perception system and 2. a perception-detection system. When the robot's own perception system falls on itself, the resulting infinite chain of perception-detection is an event which will only occur when it percieves itself.
Do you mean that such a robot requires an awareness of infinite loops? That certainly is a necessary part of my system, but not all of it. Do you mean that all definitions of self-awareness have this infinte loop awareness in common? Because right now I don't see any concept of the self in infinite loop awareness.
"One of the more trivial things you would learn is that once one is aware that one is aware, the infinite recursion comes along for free and is mostly a red herring."
I understand that the infinite recursion comes along for free, but can you elaborate as to why it is a red herring?
Do the fields of AI or evolutionary psychology have any definitions of "self-awareness" or "consciousness"?
I see a lot of stuff in the popular press about a robot or computer becoming aware, but everyone seems to totally ignore what exactly the definition is. How do we know that most people are aware? If I say that I know that I am aware, what exact claim am I making?
I had a philosophy professor in college, Tom Kasulis, who studied Eastern and Western philosophy. He had a breakthrough moment when he went to study in a Zen Monastery. In order to enter, he had to do a 'pre-interview' with the abbot, a Zen Master. The master asked him, "What is Zen"? Kasulis mumbled somthing about it being a practice, not a belief. The Abott responded, "Zen is -- knowing one's self. It is the same undertaking that Western Philophers undertook."
Kasulis taught my class about Hindu philosophy of the self or soul and the supersoul ( Atman and Brahman ). I thought some of it might be a useful high-level definition of self-awareness in AI. It goes something like this:
Q. Are you aware?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that you are aware?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that you are aware that you are aware?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that you are aware that you are aware...?
So, you see it leads to a never ending chain of awareness. In Hindu philosophy, the ultimate awareness, the 'unseen see-er', the entire infinite chain of awareness, is the Atman, or the supersoul that transcends the individual.
In the AI realm, we could build a machine that had two components: a perception system (vision, sound, whatever) and a detection-of-perception system ( a 'true' output if it percieves a system that can percieve ). Once the perception system falls on the system itself, it will detect a perception system. It will 'know' that it 'knows'. Then, it will detect another perception system in the original act of perception. Then, it will detect that act of perception, and in turn that act of perception... ad infinitum
The self's perception of the self has this hall-of-mirrors quality that does not occur when the self perceives others of the same kind.
You can take it one step futher and detect other self-aware systems if you can somehow detect this self-detection in other systems. However, I haven't figured out a logical argument for how to do this.
I humbly submit my hall-of-mirrors definition of self-awareness. What does the Slashdot non-liberal arts majors make of it?
With all this talk from various Baby Bells about how they will provide different levels of service for traffic originating from someone other than their customers, we might actually *want* a little regulation in the future.
Before the FCC was co-opted by the Religious Right AKA the American Taliban, they actually did things like shut down pirate radio stations and make sure that the phone company actually provided the service they were legally obligated to provide.
Obviously, I don't want the FCC keeping my internet porn from me, but if some routers in the middle are slowing my downloads because I'm not their direct customer, government regulation might be a solution.
Slashdot Mirror
... and it's called paranoid personality disorder. Aside from that, it's up to the people at large and individually to determine what they will put up with.
ARgh! You got me at my own game. You won this round, but you haven't won the war! I'll get you yet!
You're not clarifying, you're confounding. Earlier, when talking about the origin of organic life, you said this:
..." [Emphasis mine]
"...it almost seems that an oxygen atmosphere is optional,
And then later when you are claiming to clarify, you say:
"Er, the role of oxygen in the establishment of organic life was well outside the scope of my analogy,...
I think you'd be hard-pressed to claim that all oxygen is detrimenal to the formation of life"
I was originally talking about atmospheric oxygen, just like you were.
I can't call you on your chemistry credentials, but maybe you should have taken more English, rhetoric, or logic?
I'm gonna have to disagree with your comment. Oxygen is not 'optional' ,as you say, rather it's detrimental to the formation of life. Some have speculated that DNA-based life could not arise in an aerobic environment. It's just too desctructive.
"Secondly, after having gone through all that trouble you have a big chance of them simply burning up on athmospheric entry."
But they wouldn't be rocketing down like a heavy meteor or spaceship. It would be more like slowly saturating the atmosphere of the planet. In fact, if they are formed in the planetary cloud, any rock or gas planet that forms would already be saturated with these chemicals.
"it almost seems that an oxygen atmosphere is optional,"
In fact, Earth's atmostphere originally had no oxygen, until the first anaerobic microbes began producting oxygen as a by-product of their metabolism.
Yes, kind sir, I forgot my closing sarcasm tag. Thank you, thank you.
Woodstock - CSNY
I just thought of something while looking at the graphic -- what if RNA and DNA originally assemble in the pre-planetary cloud and hang around, falling into condensing planets and so forth?
I think the current popular theory, IIRC, is that RNA molecules somehow stack up in a tidal pool, where they are gently rocked back and forth. Some correct me please.
So how hard would it be to get DNA to link up in microgravity? Sure, there's more radiation around to blast things apart, but that might be a good thing -- you could get molecules you might not get otherwise without the blowing apart. Also, in microgravity, molecules can float around in 3 dimensions.
"Though it was a little shakier than this observation, we've discussed the possibility of life elsewhere in the galaxy before."
Oh, so you've bourght us another dupe, huh? Well, thanks, Slashdot mods, thanks! FOR NOTHING!
I'm not talking about rareness, I'm talking about capability. What you're forgetting is that people also go into breadth -- What I know, what he knows, what she knows, what you know, what she knows that you and I know -- a recursive networked topology of knowledge. And Pinker points out that human *can* parse deeply recursive sentences, as long as they follow the grammatical rules:
"Only with recursion can we produce such sentences, and we can employ it to create much more complicated ones as well: While I read the book that I borrowed from my friend last week, my cat dozed in a sunny spot on the floor, oblivious to the noise of the construction crew working on a new house across the street."
Pinker, _The Lanauge Instinct_
Let's break it down and count it:
I read the book
- that I borrowed
- from my friend
- last week
my cat dozed- in a sunny spot
- on the floor
oblivious to the noiseThere you have it! One sentence, made up of three sentences, one nesting 2 deep, the other nesting 3 deep! Ta-da!
Here's another example, pulled from this website: The cat with the hat from the shop on the corner by the bank near the car. That's five levels!
Have you ever taken a languistics class?
"But if there exists, and in your opinion, can exist no test that answer the question: "is object X self-aware","
What?
" then it follows that it's meaningless to talk about anything or anyone (other than possibly yourself inside your own mind) being self-aware. So, by that token, this robot, and any future one will not be self-aware, since no self-aware objects can be shown to exist. You've just defined "self-aware" out of science and into metaphysics."
Are you saying that I'm claiming there is no method to see if another creature is self-aware? Because I'm not, and I never have. All I said that in my proposed two-part robot, *it* cannot detect other self-awareness. All the robot can do is create a hall-of-mirrors effect. As human beings, if we accept my hall-of-mirrors definition of self-awareness, and we are satisfied that hall-of-mirrors effect is happening inside this two-part robot, then we have to conclude that the robot is experiencing self-awareness, at least according to our definition. As far as how human beings detect it in one another, or how you could design a robot that detects self-awareness in others, I'm not sure at this point. But I think it's possible.
"Many of humankinds biggest scientific blunders have been down to human arrogance - we are at the CENTRE of the universe, aren't we? :P"
Sensewise, each human is at the geometric center of their senses. Also, no matter where you are in the universe, it looks like the universe is expanding outward from where you are. So in two senses, we really are at the center of the universe. Hey, at least it's a mistake supported by evidence.
"In this area definitions are fairly useless. You'll end up having to define all the words you use in your definition and to define the words you end up having to use to define those... " No, you won't. You just have to define things that aren't agreed upon, or ambiguous, or not well-thought-out. The dicitionary is mostly complete, we don't have to re-create it for every scientific question.
My problem is everytime there is a head-line "We have a self-aware robot!" it's usually a really chincy definition of self-awareness. Let's set the standard before-hand, not afterwards.
"Your never-ending-chain is nothing more than a trivial game with language, exploiting the fact that humans are notoriously bad at de-nesting deeply recurcive expressions. Most people have a problem instantly parsing sentences like: "Do you know that I know that he knows that we know that Alice is actually a boy ?"
:-))."
It's not a language game. It's a logical game.
People have problems parsing that sentence because it's a poorly contructed English sentence (for instance, you threw in "Do you know..." at the beginning as a red herring. As soon as the speaker completes the sentence, the listener knows what the speaker has said. It's redundant.) People they have no problems keeping track of who knows what in everyday life, even several levels deep. Remember, language facility != mind.
The hall-of-mirrors isn't just deep, it's *infinite*. This hall-of-mirrors phenomenon only occurs when the self-perceives the self, which is why I'm proposing it as the definition of self-awareness.
If humans have a system to detect this kind of infinite loop, that's all they need. You don't actually need to go through every recursion. So imagine a two processes: The perceptor process turns on itsself and gets in an infinite loop of perception. The monitor process sees that the perceptor process is in a loop.
Those two together are self-aware. Note that the above desription will *only* happen when the system is perceiving itself.
"I think that's basically due to our limited stack-size
I've had this argument before on slashdot, but I don't think it's relevant in this discussion. I don't believe that the mind is a turing machine.
"Your hall of mirrors definition also fails the operative test: using this definition, how do you recognize self-awareness in others ?"
I'm just talking about self-awareness, not awareness of self-aware others. I don't think being aware of self-aware others is a necessary part of being self-aware. Whose operative test is this anyway?
Yes, a desire is what starts you down the path. But it's not what sees you through to the finish.
Your desire to become 'enlightened' is what gets you to start meditating in the morning, paying attention to your breathing, becoming aware of the habits of your mind. Once you start getting in the habit of being aware, the awareness is what begins to destroy the ego. Habitual awareness breaks down the ego and kills desire. The initial desire starts the practicing of awareness, which leads to habitual awareness.
What the Buddha Taught by Rahula is an excellent book. Rahula is a Buddhist monk, but this book is often used as a college-level introduction to Buddhism. And that's just a straight link, not a merchant program referral.
"I think of the infinite recursion like a tv camera hooked up to a monitor and then pointed at the monitor so you get a picture of the picture of the picture ... It is a pretty little model but we don't learn very much from it."
I guess we have a small disagreement here. I think it's the first step in the right direction. It doesn't tell you *everything*, but it's not a red herring that throws you off the trail. It is a metaphor for exactly the phenomena that we think might be self-awareness.
"Another model I have of self-awareness is a detailed, animated map of a city, like something out of a Harry Potter movie that is so detailed it even shows the person holding the map and the very map itself."
How do you know that that little guy holding the map is you? Couldn't the 'you' tag just be arbitrary? You could be anybody on that map. Or anything on that map. Or not even on the map! I guess you would say that the little map corresponds *exactly* to the big map, so you have to assume that the big map and the little map are linked or mirroring each other. But in order to say "OK, there is a guy holding the little map, so *I* must be a guy holding the big map" -- but at that point you are already assuming that you are an "I", that you exist. In other words, you are already self-aware *to some extent* if you think that you exist.
"One question is: can something like this map exist? The answer is yes. Self aware consciousness is one example. Godel gave a mathematical example. "
Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you on whether consciouness is like this, for reasons listed above.
Your map metaphor isn't much different from my two-part Perception and Perception-of-perception robot. Seeing a map of the town would be perception, and the ability to see a guy in the town reading a map is perception-of-perception (seeing an act of seeing). But even if you notice that the big map and the little map are exact mirrors of each other, what does this have to do with the little guy holding the little map? Maybe the little guy is holding a magic map that mirrors the big map, but you holding the big map actually are a pterodactyl and not a guy at all? Or, why should we assume that there is a big a guy? What part of this system feels that there is an "I" and that little guy holding the little map is the same as "I"?
With my two-part system, it doesn't adress "I" or me or whatever. I simply argue that when a robot's perception system encounters this hall-of-mirrors, that event is self-awareness. It's the simplest, most basic self-awareness that exists. Human self-awareness has other features, such as recognizing your body, being at the geometric center of your senses, etc. But the most basic self-awareness is the hall of mirrors. When you the self perceives the self, it sees the hall-of-mirrors effect. The self does not see this when it percieves others. The hall-of-mirrors effect is the only distinguishing characteristic of self-awareness. All the rest is extras, or the accidentals of inhabiting a physical body, living in a DNA-generated form, etc.
Another question is: what are the limitations of such a map? Can all of the details of the entire map be embedded in the little image of the map?
This second question is very, very interesting. It arises in just the first iteration, we don't need the infinite recursion in order to get to a very interesting question and AFAIK, the study of the infinite recursion does not lead to interesting questions or answers.**
But we do need to take a good look at the little map to make sure that it really does have another, littler map inside of it. We do have to be *certain* of infinite recursion. Once we are certain, then we don't need to study it anymore. But we do need to be certain first.
" Godel found, (with just one iteration) that there were some limits to what mathematical models that modeled themselves could say about themselves. Famously, he pr
I know you didn't post the question to me, but I will take a crack at it anyway
Yes and no. Strictly, enlightenment is the cessation of desires, which is the source of all our unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Start with the 4 Noble Truths:
So while awareness is not specifically covered in the four noble truths, you will find a lot of refernces to mindfulness in the various Buddhist schools. It's especially big in Tibetan Buddhism. The idea is that by practicing mindfulness, or awareness, of your body and mental states, you will slowly become aware of how desires generate, and be able to break the habit of generating new desires.
"That about sums up all of the definitions of self-awareness I've seen in this thread thus far."
Call me stupid, but I can't see any concept of self or the "I" in detecting an infinite loop.
That's why I proposed a two-part robot with 1. a perception system and 2. a perception-detection system. When the robot's own perception system falls on itself, the resulting infinite chain of perception-detection is an event which will only occur when it percieves itself.
Do you mean that such a robot requires an awareness of infinite loops? That certainly is a necessary part of my system, but not all of it. Do you mean that all definitions of self-awareness have this infinte loop awareness in common? Because right now I don't see any concept of the self in infinite loop awareness.
How is this self awareness, rather than awareness of infinite loops?
I will get into the book that you recommend.
"One of the more trivial things you would learn is that once one is aware that one is aware, the infinite recursion comes along for free and is mostly a red herring."
I understand that the infinite recursion comes along for free, but can you elaborate as to why it is a red herring?
Do the fields of AI or evolutionary psychology have any definitions of "self-awareness" or "consciousness"?
I see a lot of stuff in the popular press about a robot or computer becoming aware, but everyone seems to totally ignore what exactly the definition is. How do we know that most people are aware? If I say that I know that I am aware, what exact claim am I making?
I had a philosophy professor in college, Tom Kasulis, who studied Eastern and Western philosophy. He had a breakthrough moment when he went to study in a Zen Monastery. In order to enter, he had to do a 'pre-interview' with the abbot, a Zen Master. The master asked him, "What is Zen"? Kasulis mumbled somthing about it being a practice, not a belief. The Abott responded, "Zen is -- knowing one's self. It is the same undertaking that Western Philophers undertook."
Kasulis taught my class about Hindu philosophy of the self or soul and the supersoul ( Atman and Brahman ). I thought some of it might be a useful high-level definition of self-awareness in AI. It goes something like this:
Q. Are you aware?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that you are aware?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that you are aware that you are aware?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that you are aware that you are aware...?
So, you see it leads to a never ending chain of awareness. In Hindu philosophy, the ultimate awareness, the 'unseen see-er', the entire infinite chain of awareness, is the Atman, or the supersoul that transcends the individual.
In the AI realm, we could build a machine that had two components: a perception system (vision, sound, whatever) and a detection-of-perception system ( a 'true' output if it percieves a system that can percieve ). Once the perception system falls on the system itself, it will detect a perception system. It will 'know' that it 'knows'. Then, it will detect another perception system in the original act of perception. Then, it will detect that act of perception, and in turn that act of perception... ad infinitum
The self's perception of the self has this hall-of-mirrors quality that does not occur when the self perceives others of the same kind.
You can take it one step futher and detect other self-aware systems if you can somehow detect this self-detection in other systems. However, I haven't figured out a logical argument for how to do this.
I humbly submit my hall-of-mirrors definition of self-awareness. What does the Slashdot non-liberal arts majors make of it?
Give me two Bees for a nickel.
keraneuology Answers: "With special monitoring software that can determine the data type, even down to specific applications."
So now you have the FCC putting wiretaps... on every router?
Furhtermore, how do new VOIP apps, VOIP apps under development, or even new types of VOIP communication get the VOIP traffic pass?
How will the FCC distinguish VOIP and telephony packets over other packets?
With all this talk from various Baby Bells about how they will provide different levels of service for traffic originating from someone other than their customers, we might actually *want* a little regulation in the future.
Before the FCC was co-opted by the Religious Right AKA the American Taliban, they actually did things like shut down pirate radio stations and make sure that the phone company actually provided the service they were legally obligated to provide.
Obviously, I don't want the FCC keeping my internet porn from me, but if some routers in the middle are slowing my downloads because I'm not their direct customer, government regulation might be a solution.