[MD] Intellectual and Social

[John Carl]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> [Krimel]
> Actually the Turing test addresses the issue of how we would know that
> someone or something has consciousness.



Ah well, that clears it all up.  Consciousness rather than self awareness.

You wanna pick the difference between those two apart for me Krimel?




> It was proposed as a way of
> determining whether machine or an artificial intelligence is conscious.
> This
> does not work for animals or very young children because they cannot speak
> and the test involves asking questions and evaluating the verbal responses.
>

Right.  I wasn't proposing it as a test of self-awareness, I was using it
analogicially to make a point.



>
> And actually it is machines that are getting more humanlike.



If humans are becoming more machine-like, then it follows that machines are
becoming human.  That's because "human" is a programmably malleable goal to
shoot for.




> In fact if one
> were so inclined I think a good case could be made for talking about a
> cybernetic level which is the combination of human and machine
> intelligence.
> You know the sort of thing I mean, online forums, Amazon, Google...
>
>
Wikipedia becomes part of our memory banks, just like trees are part of our
breathing apparatus.



> [John]
> I fail to see how one can have any emotion without a sense of self.  I
> mean,
> what would that even look like?  And if a creature lost all caring about
> themselves, they would come to seem like an inanimate object, a cog, a
> non-entity.
>
> [Krimel]
> If a lizard jumped off of a hot stove would that indicate self awareness to
> you? How does one feel pain or hunger without a sense of self?
>
>


If I can galvanize a dead frog into action with electricity, does that imply
self-awareness?    I think not.  I determine self-awareness by the look of
chagrin in the eyes of the struggling beast after the torture is done.

Which lizards don't have.

I freely admit that I have no scientific proof for making this distinction.
I make the distinction for reasons of simplicity and preference.  It's
hypothetical.  And unless I get some rational argument against my
hypothesis, I go with it.

Provisionally, knowing that if history is any judge, I"ll modify my view in
the future.


John