Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!convex!darwin.sura.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!viper.cs.Virginia.EDU!ccb8m
From: ccb8m@viper.cs.Virginia.EDU (Charles C. Bundy)
Subject: Re: Self Awareness Experiment
Message-ID: <CnHw75.Gv@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
References: <25MAR94.03102200@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 20:42:40 GMT
Lines: 57

In article <25MAR94.03102200@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu> boone@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu writes:
>
>A biologist friend of mine believes chimpanzee self awareness can
>be proven by the red ribbon experiment. Take an assortment of
>primates and on by one stick a red ribbon on their heads without
>them noticing it. Then let them view themselves in a mirror. Most
>will show no extra interest in their reflection.  A chimpanzee on
>the other hand will reach up and pluck the foreign object from
>his or her head using the mirror as a guide.
>
>My friend contends this proves the chimp is "self aware" and
>there for conscious. I argue that red ribbon experiment only
>demonstrates visual-spacial skills and a machine could be built
>which would pass the ribbon test. Such a machine would be far
>from conscious.
>
>It would have to
>     1. poses vision
>     2. be able to differentiate reflected and unreflected views
>     3. identify its own image
>     4. identify changes in its own image
>
>Or have I missed something? Would this be so terribly difficult
>or dose the red ribbon experiment really demonstrate self
>awareness?

Lets face it, no matter what definition of intelligence is espoused
today, it will change tomorrow, because a "machine" can do it. The 
mid-70's saw a wonderful explosion in chess playing systems, and game 
theory.

What had been considered impossible and the domain of "intelligent"
creatures" was playing a decent game of chess.  Now that $49.95
Rat Shack toys can beat the average chess player it is no longer
considered a test of "intelligence".

In the above example, I would determine that the machine possessed
self awareness.  Those four "simple" steps you list are not as
simple as one would think, IE how do you define "changes in its image".
That implies a great deal of self awarness, in that you can recognize
what is and what isn't "you" through a great many variations...

Anyway don't fall into the trap of "If a machine can do it, it ain't
intelligent".  What would you say if a machine cried when appropriate
and laughed at jokes (but not all of them :)).  These activities are
no longer human?

That path leads towards de-humanization...

Charles C. Bundy IV
ccb8m@virginia.edu
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Dan Boone                           Northern Arizona University
>BOONE@NAUVAX.UCC.NAU.EDU            Flagstaff AZ


