Should You Leave Grandma With The Robot?

[Leigha]

I don't think robots will ever have self awareness. It's programmed by humans, so if anything, if there will be anything remotely resembling consciousness in AI, then it would also have to be programmed.

You are assuming that awareness and the human brain are beyond our capability and exist in some mysterious immaterial realm. This is not true as one can create self-awareness by logically duplicating the human brain.

Are you speaking of human cloning? That's not the same thing as robots/AI having self awareness, which I still don't believe is possible for AI. There is no 'self' with a machine. Since self awareness comes from within, a machine doesn't have a sense of internal awareness. It only is able to process what it's been programmed to process.

He might be referring to a technological simulation of the human brain. (Too Hard for Science? Simulating the Human Brain). I feel that routines revolving around the idea of a "self" itself can be potentially programmed or learned, but the so-called "subjective properties" are a trickier issue.  

Since experience (the phenomenal manifestations of consciousness) can't even be outwardly or measurably detected in the organ, the former makes no causal contribution in biological explanations for our awareness behavior. There are personal reports of "sensations showing themselves" as the qualitative version of images, sounds, odors, etc... But any investigation into what is causing those verbal claims will only discover ordinary neural and electrochemical mechanisms producing such ideas or beliefs rather than qualia or whatever.

It's not just that experience is without any explanation in terms of deeper incremental development, but what lacks influence on the body doesn't require an explanation to begin with (i.e., no need to explain ghosts if no ghosts are to be found). Experience is a brute add-on to biology and physics, and what is merely summoned or conjured by activity of whatever sort (brute emergence) leaves the door open to just about anything (including dualism). That's why some camps go the extreme of denying that we experience anything: "There is nothing really there in our thoughts and sensations -- all is absence -- even though there are these evolved brain strategies that force us to assert to each other that something is present".

If it only requires mechanisms acting out the concept of "manifestation" to seemingly conjure such in correlation to the thoughts and sensory processes of a simulated brain, then the underlying microscopic electronic circuitry might likewise brutely yield the same reports if performing those identical functions. The possibility can't be excluded yet, anyway, thanks to the lack of elemental precursors for experience. Or lack of "incremental development" as an explanation (ordinary emergence). There's usually a reliable animosity toward panprotopsychism in physicalist / materialist perspectives (Galen Strawson and Gregg Rosenberg excluded).

- - -

But, we do experience sensations, and outward occurrences. Your reply and the general topic itself begs the question - why do so many people (not you, but people in general) want AI to be a simulation of human life? In some ways, it cheapens human life to be nothing more than a series of programmed responses, that can be duplicated in a robot. I think we are more than that. 

[RainbowUnicorn]

I don't think robots will ever have self awareness. It's programmed by humans, so if anything, if there will be anything remotely resembling consciousness in AI, then it would also have to be programmed.

Any AI just resting on the shelf without humanoid embodiment definitely isn't developing much in that direction. Exception would be if the "memories" and acquired learning of an environment-interactive robot are downloaded into it. But the evolution is still arguably limited if no experiences are arising in association with the sensory processing of technological beings. Eventually we'll discover just how much an artificial philosophical zombie can convincingly mimic non-zombie behavior and verbal reports.

Welcome back, Leigha.

- - -

from some considerable thought & discussion my general conclusion is the randomness of the human mind is unable to be relicated.
this "randomness, in its pure essence is a driving factor behind creativity.
the process of invention as a function of random creativity is a purely human traite that can not be dulicated by a mechanical function.
note recent discussions on "is there such a thing as an infinite number" and "is random number generation really random"

---

I don't think robots will ever have self awareness. It's programmed by humans, so if anything, if there will be anything remotely resembling consciousness in AI, then it would also have to be programmed.

You are assuming that awareness and the human brain are beyond our capability and exist in some mysterious immaterial realm. This is not true as one can create self-awareness by logically duplicating the human brain.

Are you speaking of human cloning? That's not the same thing as robots/AI having self awareness, which I still don't believe is possible for AI. There is no 'self' with a machine. Since self awareness comes from within, a machine doesn't have a sense of internal awareness. It only is able to process what it's been programmed to process.

excellent point.
can a robot ponder self actualisation ?
can a robot muse over the idea of trying to percieve a divine purpose for its self that does not propel it as a mere function of cause & effect ? (aka what is life about?=life is about using blocks to make buildings, err-go computer must make buildings with blocks to define its reality... where as a human can percieve the reality of the notion but not be bound by the physical reality of needing to actually perform the function, and the idea of something intangible can be correlative to a factualised belief which in turn is also non physical.

a computer/robot probably can not quantify a non physical reality as being an intrinsict driver or cause and effect paradigm of influence.

---

I don't think robots will ever have self awareness. It's programmed by humans, so if anything, if there will be anything remotely resembling consciousness in AI, then it would also have to be programmed.

You are assuming that awareness and the human brain are beyond our capability and exist in some mysterious immaterial realm. This is not true as one can create self-awareness by logically duplicating the human brain.

Are you speaking of human cloning? That's not the same thing as robots/AI having self awareness, which I still don't believe is possible for AI. There is no 'self' with a machine. Since self awareness comes from within, a machine doesn't have a sense of internal awareness. It only is able to process what it's been programmed to process.

He might be referring to a technological simulation of the human brain. (Too Hard for Science? Simulating the Human Brain). I feel that routines revolving around the idea of a "self" itself can be potentially programmed or learned, but the so-called "subjective properties" are a trickier issue.  

Since experience (the phenomenal manifestations of consciousness) can't even be outwardly or measurably detected in the organ, the former makes no causal contribution in biological explanations for our awareness behavior. There are personal reports of "sensations showing themselves" as the qualitative version of images, sounds, odors, etc... But any investigation into what is causing those verbal claims will only discover ordinary neural and electrochemical mechanisms producing such ideas or beliefs rather than qualia or whatever.

It's not just that experience is without any explanation in terms of deeper incremental development, but what lacks influence on the body doesn't require an explanation to begin with (i.e., no need to explain ghosts if no ghosts are to be found). Experience is a brute add-on to biology and physics, and what is merely summoned or conjured by activity of whatever sort (brute emergence) leaves the door open to just about anything (including dualism). That's why some camps go the extreme of denying that we experience anything: "There is nothing really there in our thoughts and sensations -- all is absence -- even though there are these evolved brain strategies that force us to assert to each other that something is present".

If it only requires mechanisms acting out the concept of "manifestation" to seemingly conjure such in correlation to the thoughts and sensory processes of a simulated brain, then the underlying microscopic electronic circuitry might likewise brutely yield the same reports if performing those identical functions. The possibility can't be excluded yet, anyway, thanks to the lack of elemental precursors for experience. Or lack of "incremental development" as an explanation (ordinary emergence). There's usually a reliable animosity toward panprotopsychism in physicalist / materialist perspectives (Galen Strawson and Gregg Rosenberg excluded).

- - -

But, we do experience sensations, and outward occurrences. Your reply and the general topic itself begs the question - why do so many people (not you, but people in general) want AI to be a simulation of human life? In some ways, it cheapens human life to be nothing more than a series of programmed responses, that can be duplicated in a robot. I think we are more than that. 

Excellent question
here is a similar question

"why do people who advertise & sell themselves as patriots, outsource their company jobs from their home country to a different country & directly undermine the economy & society by doing so while claiming to be a patriot?"

..."cheapening human life", ... cheapening human life in their own country while claiming to be a patriot...