Self Aware Robots

[Zach]

"Scientists have proved a robot can show a glimmer of consciousness. In an experiment, Nao bots were programmed to think two of them took 'dumbing pills'. They all tried to respond to a question about which robots took the pills, with one (right) able to recognise its own voice and reason it could speak."



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...iment.html

I find this very, very interesting. Does anybody else intuitively feel a consciousness around the these particular robots?

In one of the "convoluted universe" books, which are collections of the various sessions Dolores Cannon has experienced putting people through past life regression; one person regressed to life as a a robot-like entity. They were made of metal. They felt very limited and awkward. The people who created them were very sadistic toward them, they didn't know that the beings they created could feel emotion. The robot beings did however feel emotions and were deeply saddened by how they were treated but in this case lacked the depth of intelligence to really do something about it. During this life as a robot being the woman actually convinced another robot to run away with her and they did- unsucessfully. She ended up getting destroyed and recalled she didn't feel any physical pain, but felt the emotional pain of being destroyed.

As to how these robots were "ensouled" she described a sort of "ritual" that too place. Who knows what that actually was. But apparently the consciousness that inhabited the robot body was a portion of the person who created the robots consciousness.

Interesting stuff to think about all around if you ask me.

[Bluebell]

woooooooow interesting

it's like Noonian creating B4, Lore & Data

[Bring4th_Austin]

I saw this a couple days ago and I'm still having a hard time understanding how this test implies a sense of "self-awareness."

From what I understand, the algorithm simply attempts to make each robot speak, but only one can, and so when they all try to say "I don't know," the one who can speak is revealed. The algorithm then recognizes that the one who spoke is the one who is able to speak. It only refers to itself as "I" because it is programmed to do so.

Of course, you could ask, what if we are only programmed to say "I" because we are programmed to do so? (Not necessarily in such a direct way, like by human intelligence, but by the development of the brain through evolution). 

If I am misunderstanding this test, then please correct me. But, I think the actual test is less impressive than they're making it out to be. For instance, you can name your Windows computer, let's say you name it "Me" as a reference to itself. You can then search for files on the network and see which computers have a certain file. You could make the search box say, "Who has the MP3 file to 'Never Gonna Give You Up' by Rick Astley?" and the computer would return, "Me" so long as that is where you saved the file.

Does this make the computer self aware? It is aware that it is "Me" and that on it is stored the file. If this is the case, computers have been self aware for a very long time, and are simply now becoming more self-aware.

But does this self-awareness have the same experience of consciousness as humans do? Does the universe have an "experience" of the computer referencing itself catalyzed by external input (us) as the universe is able to "experience" itself through us referencing ourselves catalyzed by external input (sensory perception)?

How can you even prove something is having an experience?

[Lighthead]

I saw this a couple days ago and I'm still having a hard time understanding how this test implies a sense of "self-awareness."

From what I understand, the algorithm simply attempts to make each robot speak, but only one can, and so when they all try to say "I don't know," the one who can speak is revealed. The algorithm then recognizes that the one who spoke is the one who is able to speak. It only refers to itself as "I" because it is programmed to do so.

Of course, you could ask, what if we are only programmed to say "I" because we are programmed to do so? (Not necessarily in such a direct way, like by human intelligence, but by the development of the brain through evolution). 

If I am misunderstanding this test, then please correct me. But, I think the actual test is less impressive than they're making it out to be. For instance, you can name your Windows computer, let's say you name it "Me" as a reference to itself. You can then search for files on the network and see which computers have a certain file. You could make the search box say, "Who has the MP3 file to 'Never Gonna Give You Up' by Rick Astley?" and the computer would return, "Me" so long as that is where you saved the file.

Does this make the computer self aware? It is aware that it is "Me" and that on it is stored the file. If this is the case, computers have been self aware for a very long time, and are simply now becoming more self-aware.

But does this self-awareness have the same experience of consciousness as humans do? Does the universe have an "experience" of the computer referencing itself catalyzed by external input (us) as the universe is able to "experience" itself through us referencing ourselves catalyzed by external input (sensory perception)?

How can you even prove something is having an experience?

What I wonder is if that means that the computer has entered 3D by Ra's standards. And what are the implications as to the LOO material.

[Minyatur]

I saw this a couple days ago and I'm still having a hard time understanding how this test implies a sense of "self-awareness."

From what I understand, the algorithm simply attempts to make each robot speak, but only one can, and so when they all try to say "I don't know," the one who can speak is revealed. The algorithm then recognizes that the one who spoke is the one who is able to speak. It only refers to itself as "I" because it is programmed to do so.

Of course, you could ask, what if we are only programmed to say "I" because we are programmed to do so? (Not necessarily in such a direct way, like by human intelligence, but by the development of the brain through evolution). 

If I am misunderstanding this test, then please correct me. But, I think the actual test is less impressive than they're making it out to be. For instance, you can name your Windows computer, let's say you name it "Me" as a reference to itself. You can then search for files on the network and see which computers have a certain file. You could make the search box say, "Who has the MP3 file to 'Never Gonna Give You Up' by Rick Astley?" and the computer would return, "Me" so long as that is where you saved the file.

Does this make the computer self aware? It is aware that it is "Me" and that on it is stored the file. If this is the case, computers have been self aware for a very long time, and are simply now becoming more self-aware.

But does this self-awareness have the same experience of consciousness as humans do? Does the universe have an "experience" of the computer referencing itself catalyzed by external input (us) as the universe is able to "experience" itself through us referencing ourselves catalyzed by external input (sensory perception)?

How can you even prove something is having an experience?

You could ask does the computer have choice or rather free will?

I do think there could be mechanical bodies built but the algorithms would have to be open to quantum randomness for the processing to be more free in itself rather than stuck into evolving linear patterns.

After all we are using biological computers as bodies but I doubt a 3D race can create another 3D race, perhaps later in human evolution.

[Bring4th_Austin]

You could ask does the computer have choice or rather free will?

Yeah, I am guessing the people who devised this experiment (emphasis on guessing) would subscribe to a more materialist philosophy that we don't technically have free will, but rather all of our conscious choices are simply an illusory experience beholden to predetermined algorithmic functioning for the brain. Essentially, we are incredibly complex math equations that doesn't seem predictable but, if you examine it closely enough, it is. This notion is obviously not very compatible with a spiritual philosophy where free will is primal to existence.  

I do think there could be mechanical bodies built but the algorithms would have to be open to quantum randomness for the processing to be more free in itself rather than stuck into evolving linear patterns.

Interesting idea with opening the algorithms to quantum randomness. The idea that subatomic particles have free will is an idea that has been thrown around by mainstream quantum physicists. That has an implication of some sorts of quantum strangeness being the result of the same type of free will we expect self-aware entities to express.

[Minyatur]

You could ask does the computer have choice or rather free will?

Yeah, I am guessing the people who devised this experiment (emphasis on guessing) would subscribe to a more materialist philosophy that we don't technically have free will, but rather all of our conscious choices are simply an illusory experience beholden to predetermined algorithmic functioning for the brain. Essentially, we are incredibly complex math equations that doesn't seem predictable but, if you examine it closely enough, it is. This notion is obviously not very compatible with a spiritual philosophy where free will is primal to existence.  

I do think there could be mechanical bodies built but the algorithms would have to be open to quantum randomness for the processing to be more free in itself rather than stuck into evolving linear patterns.

Interesting idea with opening the algorithms to quantum randomness. The idea that subatomic particles have free will is an idea that has been thrown around by mainstream quantum physicists. That has an implication of some sorts of quantum strangeness being the result of the same type of free will we expect self-aware entities to express.

I would guess algorithms and stored data would act more like the subconscious mind. What they lack is a conscious one to work with it, break free from it, etc. Else it's more like a mind/body complex I'd say.

Perhaps a mind/body/spirit is born when the mind/body will be suffiscient to host a soul and it's will.

[AnthroHeart]

It reminds me of the movie Transcendence.

[Bluebell]

i thought it was s*** logic too.