Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!bellcore!clyde!watmath!watdcsu!smann From: smann@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Shannon Mann - I.S.er) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Intelligence / Consciousness Test for Machines (Neural-Nets)??? Summary: Intelligent machines... why not? Keywords: conscious, self-aware, intelligence Message-ID: <5140@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> Date: 12 Oct 88 00:17:53 GMT References: <1141@usfvax2.EDU> Reply-To: smann@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Shannon Mann - I.S.er) Distribution: na Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 72 In article <1141@usfvax2.EDU> mician@usfvax2.usf.edu.UUCP (Rudy Mician) writes: >When can a machine be considered a conscious entity? > >For instance, if a massive neural-net were to start from a stochastic state >and learn to interact with its environment in the same way that people do >(interact not think), how could one tell that such a machine thinks or exists >(in the same context as Descarte's "COGITO ERGO SUM"/"DUBITO ERGO SUM" >argument- that is, how could one tell whether or not an "I" exists for the >machine? Only the _machine_ can adequately answer the question. If the _machine_ asks 'What/Who Am I?', by the definition of self-awareness (any reasonable one I can think of) the machine is self-aware. If the _machine_ can sense and react to the environment, it is (on some primitive level) aware. Science has already provided us with machines that are far more _aware_ than the common amoeba. Until the science community refines its' ideas of what awareness, and self- awareness entails, the above question cannot be answered with any accuracy. Is it possible? Certainly! Consciousness occurs with in biological systems, so why not mechanical systems of sufficient complexity. If we consider the vastness of space and time, and that an event can occur once, it is reasonable to conclude that _self-awareness_ will occur out there again and that, more than likely, it will be in a different form than ours. Knowing this, is it so difficult to accept the possibility of creating the same? >Furthermore, would such a machine have to be "creative"? And if so, how would >we measure the machine's creativity? This question could/should be asked about humans. When is a human creative? When We invent something, is it not the re-application of some known idea? Or an accidental discovery? In my mind, creativity is the ability to syn- thesize _something_ from a group of _something_different_. My definition does not include the concept of self-direction, and so should be modified. Regardless, it does touch upon the basic idea that _to_create_ means to take _what_is_ and make _something_new_. By this definition, _life_ is creative :-) >I suspect that the Turing Test is no longer an adequate means of judging >whether or not a machine is intelligent. Here we go upon a different tack. Intelligence is quite different than self- awareness. I do not want to define intelligence as it is a term that is used and misused in so many ways that coherent dialog about the subject is highly suspect of worth. My definition certainly would not clear up any ambiguity, but would probably create a flame war of criticism. Self-awareness is exactly that, to be aware of one-self, separate from the environment you exist in. Intelligence... well, you go figure. However, there is a difference. >If anyone has any ideas, comments, or insights into the above questions or any >questions that might be raised by them, please don't hesitate to reply. Well, you asked.... I know about much of the research that has been done on the topic of self-learning systems. The idea is that, if a machine can learn like humans, then it must be like humans. However, humans do not learn in the simplified manner that these systems employ. Humans use a system where they learn how a particular system or process works, and then can re-apply that heuristic (am I using this term correctly?) under different circumstances. Has the heuristic approach be attempted in machine learning systems? I don't believe so, and would appreciate any response. >Rudy Mician mician@usfvax2.usf.edu >Usenet: ...!{ihnp4, cbatt}!codas!usfvax2!mician -=- -=- Shannon Mann -=- smann@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca -=- P.S. Please do not respond with any egocentric views about what it is to be human, etc. I see Humanity as different than the rest of the animal kingdom, but, in no way superior. Having the power to damage our planet the way we do does not mean we our superior. Possessing and using that power only shows our foolishness.