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

[Leslie Filip]

Glenn,

Thank you for a very enjoyable read. I'm glad there are others out  
there who share many of these beliefs.

I would also like to thank you for your email to me from 29 March. I  
am implementing many of your ideas as the project continues. I will  
reply in detail later as my paying jobs settle down a little.

Les


On 22 Apr 2007, at 6:18 PM, Glenn wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Robotgroup mailing list
> Robotgroup at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/robotgroup