[Robotgroup] Can Animals and Robots Be Self-Aware?

[Glenn]

I came across this article as well. 

It is an impediment to understanding to presuppose human thought processes
are somehow special and that they must be distinctly different from those of
other animals.

With absence of proof of such a fundamental difference, we cannot say with
any certainty that a mind of similar in capability to that of modern humans,
cannot be be constructed in an "artificial" way, for a robot.

It is easy to see that most humans seem capable of more complex thought than
other animals but this may be more a mater of degree, than a fundamental 
difference.
We are still unclear on much, possibly most, of how human minds work. Much
has been observed and assigned Latin and Greek names so the issues and
mechanisms can be discussed, but don't confuse giving a name to something,
with actually understanding it.

I have been fascinated with these topics for a long time, and I find it 
telling,
that the definition of intelligence remains so slippery.

One of the big names in AI is Marvin Minsky.  He once said something like
"I am no more interested in pondering if machines can "think", than if
submarines can "swim".  To many, if a complex goal oriented task is not
completed, exactly as a human would, it is not "intelligent", but merely
an elaborate mechanism.  This is naive at best.  Not all humans solve
similar problems in the same way.  If someone
or something can complete a particular task successfully and regularly,
you have a working system and have a basis for declaring victory.
If the system can exhibit a bit of versatility in general problem solving,
you really have something.

Rats are very smart and well adapted creatures.  (They can go longer without
water than a camel, for example.)  Proportionally we have larger brains
and that is probably significant, as nature tends to optimize designs.  One
researcher noted that quite some time ago in the development of human 
brains,
there was an approximately 30% increase in brain mass, most seeming to be in
the frontal lobes.  He observed that before the 30% increase, these 
creatures
were already at the top of the food chain, easily and regularly 
outwitting other
animals.  They avoided the larger predators, and developed ways to use other
animals as food.  Then why the push for larger brain capacity?  What could
it be used for?

He suggested that once creatures were smarter than other species of animals,
the larger brains were used for competition within their own species.  A 
nice
way of saying that we use an enormous amount of our higher brain functions
to screw with each other.  It is a difficult theory to prove absolutely, 
but I
am convinced that he is essentially correct.  One only has to observe the
every day activities of humans.  If you still don't see it, observe what 
lawyers,
and car salesmen do, as they exhibit a more pure form of the behavior.

Learning from the past and planning for the future are key feature
of the advanced mind.  To some extent we do learn from the past and do
not repeat the same errors, but any survey of the history of humans, will
clearly show that we constantly make the same fundamental errors of our
ancestors, with similar results.  Our learning from the past is 
amazingly limited,
despite the invention of language, books, and other forms of information
manipulation.  The point here is that modern humans do learn all that much
from the past or use that knowledge for future planning.  We
regularly fall far short of using all the information available to our 
advantage,
and regularly make the same gross errors our ancestors did.
We may be ahead of the rats in planning, but only to some extent.  There is
probably a larger difference between how well we COULD plan ahead, than
how far we are actually ahead of the rats. 

We seem to be largely limited to using knowledge personally experienced,
and make, for the most part, limited use information past down to us
by our ancestors.  Give it some thought ,and see if you still feel like 
a genius.

There is an important distinction between a brain and a mind.  A brain is
the physical host for a mind.  If the materials used to construct the brain
are different, say silicon, instead of meat, this does not preclude that
brain from hosting a sophisticated mind.  Once the brain can support a
certain number of states and parallel processes, it is capable of 
interesting
behavior, and what might be called intelligence.  The hardware is 
interesting,
the hard part is the software.

I highly recommend the writings of Joseph Campbell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell

He spent his life studying the religions and philosophies of our world.
He observed, over and over, again, that the same basic values and 
motivations
are common to the vast majority of religions, and philosophies.  He
was able to cut through the cultural and language differences, to see 
that in the
most valued ideas and values upon which to base a human life, are common.

The most treasured stories and writings of all cultures, seek to convey the
best advice possible - to pass on to the children so they will have a better
more fulfilling life and not have to suffer, needlessly, from performing
known harmful experiments.

If you wish to understand the most sophisticated  "software" of the 
human mind,
you would do well to read Campbell's writings.  Most robots today, are only
imitating the primitive building blocks a mind capable of pondering the 
"meaning
of life".

With modern scanning devices it is now possible to do primitive observations
of animal brains at work.  A number of interesting things have been learned
about what portions of the brain seem to be related to certain 
activities.  This
is  start, but it must be realized that these methods are extremely 
crude, and
generally only indicate what portion of the brain is active, and provide 
limited
real information as to HOW it is working.

(Some) humans can build and fly aircraft.  Bees and wasps fly, navigate, 
find
food (fuel), can reproduce themselves, and can land upside down on their 
nest.
A wasp and a jet aircraft do not "fly" the same way, yet they are both 
said to
"fly".

We would do well to make good use of computers.  They are advancing more
quickly than human brains.  One can hope that we will have the wisdom to
use this power to our long term benefit.  The military uses the most 
sophisticated computers,
as a "bigger club", or "sharper knife" as we peruse the same paths as 
our ancestors,
and most likely, with similar results, only magnified.

Isaac Asimov once said, "I do not fear computers, I fear the lack of them."
He realized, decades ago, that our world could not exist, as it does, 
without
computers.  He wrote about 500 books, and when once asked, what he would
do if he found he only had 6 months to live, he quickly replied, "Type 
faster!"
He loved to write, he spent the majority of his life doing what he loved.

When asked "what is you advice for life", Joseph Campbell, replied,
"Follow your bliss."   A simple yet profound answer.  Isaac Asimov followed
his bliss.  That is an important factor in how he was able to write so 
many books.
We should all be so lucky, in one, being clear on what our bliss is, and 
two,
making every effort to follow it.

Part of the bliss in my life  is the journey of trying to understand how 
minds, and the
mechanism the control, work.  That is one of the key reasons, why I do what
I can to remain active with The Robot Group.

We are what we are.  We don't even understand what that really means.  
To assume
we are fundamentally superior to other beings, is the product of  a brutish,
insecure mind.  We may not be as far ahead of the rats as we might like 
to think.

-Glenn



Vern Graner wrote:
> Def Egge wrote:
>   
>> Science: Can Animals and Robots Be Self-Aware?
>> By Sharon Begley, Newsweek
>> URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18108859/site/newsweek/
>>     
>
> Mike,
>
> I just got a chance to read this. Fasinating look at biological thought
> process, but how do "robots" or AI fit into this? The article just seems
> to say "a circuit could do this process as well and not be "thinking"..?
>
> Vern
>
>