> "someone2" btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9ab22a94-a599-4d3a-9484-c37d6a84d870@w74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 Apr, 22:04, "Don H" bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> "someone2" btinternet.com> wrote in message

>

>>news:865e5bc6-4911-4331-bd7f-d8b2c016e4b5@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On 24 Apr, 20:01, "Don H" bigpond.com> wrote:

>

>>> Video, ergo "ego" sum. (I see, therefore "I" am.)
>>> Australia, having developed a bionic ear, is now attempting a bionic

> eye.

>>> This might link in with giving computers eyes.
>>> At present, computers have no way of knowing they are entities distinct
>>> from their environment.
>>> Some robots might be given eyes or other sensory devices, such that a
>>> mobile robot can avoid obstacles.
>>> But with miniaturisation of computer "brains" comes the possibility of
>>> androids, fully-equipped with sensory organs, and thus ability to become
>>> self-aware. "I. robot"....
>>> Indeed, a Deterministic view of our Material Universe, can, conversely,
>>> picture us Humans as essentially robotic - all our thoughts and actions

>> are

>>> "programmed" from past causal events. That I am typing this post on an

> NG

>>> today, is entirely due to causal factors. But that I am aware I am doing

>> so

>>> is due to a sensory distinction between "myself" and my computer, etc.
>>> When I die, my communal cell-structure will disintegrate, and "I" shall
>>> cease to function and thus exist. "Nothing of my ego will remain"

>> (Bertrand

>>> Russell). You can have a brain without a mind (human "vegetable"), but

> not

>>> a mind without a brain - religious "spiritualism" notwithstanding.
>>> An Android is a possibility, and that it will be self-aware is quite
>>> likely. But sensory organs are necessary.

>

>> When you say self aware, are you suggesting that the robot might have
>> a first person perspective similar to something like that shown in the
>> terminator movie, that there would be a "what it is like" to be the
>> robot?

>

>> # Yes, a good example. The Terminator is aware of its own existence, and
>> can seek out clothes, weapons, etc, to fulfil its purpose. It is robotic
>> (slave-like) in that its sole aim in "life" is to destroy Sarah Connor,
>> having been programmed for this purpose. Like a suicide-bomber (or the
>> average soldier) it will sacrifice its own life to fulfil its aim.
>> I claim that such an animated computer needs to be able to distinguish
>> "itself" from its surroundings, by sensory input, to have any idea of

> "ego".

>> With us humans, this first comes when a new-born child begins to see Mum,
>> and Dad, as separate entities from itself, hovering over the cot. In all
>> respects a kid merely yells to get what it wants, without knowing what it
>> wants, or why it wants it Mum and Dad are "service robots" who must figure
>> out what the kid needs. I baby is the supreme egotist - it has to be, for
>> survival.

>
> I don't understand how you suggest it could have a perspective like
> that. Consider the robot with its robot eye looking at a tree. You
> seem to be suggesting that it could have a first person perspective as
> in the Terminator Movie, where there is a tree.
>
> The problem becomes apparent when we investigate what is being
> suggested. Now suppose the binary input going from the robot eye to
> the robot brain was I, and an output from the robot brain related to
> it, was O (perhaps going to some speaker system, causing "I see a
> tree" to be said).
>
> Now if the robot brain were placed inside a vat, with a million mile
> thick lead walls, and it were fed input I, and it gave output O, the
> suggestion would be that it would still experience the first person
> perspective, as depicted in the Terminator movie, of the tree.
>
> Though what if the input source were infact not a robot eye looking at
> a tree, but a drum machine, and the output destination were not a
> speaker system, but a controller of fairy lights. Just to be clear, we
> are still talking about input I, and output O. In this scenario, what
> the processing represents, is what fairy lights were to go on, given
> the sound input. Thus you can see, that the function the processing is
> actually serving (what the processing represents) would depend on the
> context, and that as there is no information passed which could give
> the context, and no way to know the context through 1 million mile
> thick lead walls, and no placing the likelyhood of the processing
> being for one context/function over another based on purpose. So how
> could it be suggested that the robot had a first person perspective,
> such as in the Terminator movie, seeing a tree, without the suggestion
> of purpose (of it representing a tree more than it represents which
> fairy lights should go on dependent on sound, or another billion
> possible representations dependent on what the input sources, or
> output destinations were), linking the processing to the
> representation of a tree.
>
> Do you understand the point I am making?
>
> #  I think so.  Our concept of "I" relates to our realisation that each of
> us is a separate entity from others and from our environment - and this is
> gained from sensory input.
>    This may be a necessary, but not sufficient condition, and more may be
> needed.  However, an Android can be constructed from an examination of
> Humans, and, unless you consider we Humans are somehow unique, then our Ego
> can be replicated in a an Android.  But first we need to know how an Ego is
> constructed.  It is essentially mental; a focal point in our psyche, maybe
> like the active part of CPU of a computer, at any given moment.
>    The modern computer is a mere machine, and has no senses.  Give it
> senses, and see what happens.
>    Also, a computer may know "words" as binary combinations, but has no
> knowledge of words as names of external things.  Again, senses are needed
> before "dog" can be programmed as a generic term of experience of many dogs
> (as visual objects).  Yes, a long way to go before we get to Android stage.
>