X-Message-Number: 8040
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 19:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Olaf Henny <>
Subject: Re:Self-Awareness

"...human stupidity is formidable but not invincible..."
Robert Ettinger
(I love the positive attitude in this one :))

Message #8026 From: John Roscoe <>
Subject: In response to Olaf Henny



 >  Olaf, keep your ant away from its colony for a while and see how long
>it lasts. You will find that without help the poor little begger won't
>be able to keep itself alive for very long at all. And why? Because it's
>not intellectually complete without it's little buddies. I think you

Sorry too late, I flushed it down the sink ;-(

>I agree with Olaf, rabbits are self aware. So are ants that
>scurry away from danger. So are curling irons that shut themselves off
>if they get too hot. As well as automotive suspension systems that
>adjust to changing road conditions, etc, etc.

I am flattered, that you agree with me on the self-awareness of the 
rabbit, and wished, that I could reciprocate as to your curling iron,
but that shut-off has been engineered into it by man. There is 
nothing *self*-induced about it.

Message #8033 From: John K Clark <>
Subject: Consciousness
       > >When a bobcat chases a rabbit, I assure you, that the rabbit is

       > >conscious  
       >    
>You can assure me all you want, you can't KNOW that the rabbit is conscious, 
>you just assume he is because he behaves that way. I assume the same thing 
>by the way.  
        
Carrying that line of reasoning one step further I might also argue, that I 
do not *know* that the above was said by someone who purports to be 
John K. Clark made the above statement, I just assume, that it arrived on my 

e-mail, because I think I am reading it there, but it may be all my imagination.

So what am I answering it for?  ;-)

       > >The other day I spotted an ant perambulating across my living room

       > >floor. When my hand moved closer to pick it up, it started to
behave         
       > >much like the rabbit with the bobcat on its tail.

>That looks like pretty simple behavior to me, easy to duplicate and not very  
>impressive.     

It would be extremely impressive in a computer, if it was not specifically 
programmed behavior.  Programming by others does NOT indicate
*self*-awareness.       

        >Although some robots have been equipped with visual perception, I


        >doubt, that any of them will ever cringe, if you wave a sledge
                >hammer in front of them. 


>Why do you doubt that? A program to spot the visual pattern of a hammer does 
>not seem like an insurmountable obstacle to me, and a cringe response would 
>be easy.  

A programmed response is a long way from a self-conceived protective 
reaction.     

       > >if my definition of (self-) consciousness comes anywhere close to

       > >reality, it is not contained in digital data processing (and I

       > >suspect), no matter how  sophisticated and complex.

>Then religious people are right, we have a soul Cryonics will not work and is 
>not even necessary.

Ohboyohboy, cryonics is simply a life extending procedure, similar to-, 
but more extensive than CPR.  It neither proves, nor disproves the
existence of a soul, or the validity of religion for that matter.

       > >If truly intelligent computers would ever develop consciousness,

       > >*then* we would have the mother of all wars on our hands.
>
>They might not be that hostile, I can't think of anything we have that they  
>would want and I don't think they'd get much satisfaction in ruling us, 

2 Points:  
-  If self-awareness, why not Pride?
-  They might want our share of energy, such as we will understand it 
   at the time.

>after all, do you have a burning desire to be King of the earthworms?

I would think, that the conflict would start long before they are *that*
superior to us.
                                           

Message #8034 From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Self Awareness

>Our artificial 
>devices were made by us over a much shorter time, and we didn't
>use the same criteria as nature, e.g. we haven't particularly selected
>for devices with a "mind of their own" or something like consciousness,
>and especially, the sophisticated response to danger that is seen 
>even in insects. 

It would also require the capability to self-program, not just time.

>So to my mind, there is still plenty of room for consciousness to 
>develop or be developed in our digital devices--and I would still 
>attribute a dim consciousness to some of what we have already 
>developed.

Maybe I lack your perception, but we are talking about self-
consciouness/self-awareness, which requires at least a minimal 
amount of constructive thinking, i.e. reaction to threat or lure. 
Self preservation is probably the most basic and primitive 
manifestation.  I have to this date not detected the slightest 
hint of that in any artificial data processing device.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8040