1. computers
2. humans
3. being x I described above.
Let's put these on a line that represents the spectrum of self-awareness from completely oblivious (like a stone) and completely aware (like being x).
Would we be closer to the computer or being x? — TheMadFool
What makes you think a computer could ever be aware? Only software can do that. — tom
Software must need hardware right? Anyway I'm questioning the basic premise that humans are self-aware. I think that's not true, at least not to the extent of being x I described in my OP. — TheMadFool
What distinugishes a human from a computer? — TheMadFool
Computers are logic machines — TheMadFool
Software and hardware are not the same thing. Your brain is hardware, your mind is software. — tom
So we aren't full aware. So what? — Bitter Crank
??? On the face of it, this is self-contradictory. Random is patternless, meaning it can never be precisely the same twice as an intended end. — gloaming
What about self-monitoring programs? Ones that can modify behavior or output when certain conditions are met -- e.g a robot that self corrects its walking trajectory when it is not going in proper direction? I think that involves some amount of self awareness — aporiap
And if and when they do succeed in programming awareness of awareness, will we then distinguish the human from computer by talking about being aware of being aware that we are aware? If second order awareness such as self awareness is being aware of awareness, then wouldn't third order awareness simply be awareness of self awareness? — Arne
To be human (or self aware) is not biological, in fact, you don't even have to be biological to be a human. You just have to be very good at seeming like a human. Consciousness is an illusion, but a very very good one. This is why most people would consider Superman a human, even though he is in fact extraterrestrial. — TogetherTurtle
Self awareness is hard to define. It is easiest to describe it as "what we have and the beasts do not" so yes, by definition, we have self awareness. — TogetherTurtle
Seriously, I share your interest in the subject matter. But I maintain the deeper issue is why some seem so insistent upon reserving to or creating for human (and only human?) some sort of unique normative ontological priority. This apparent need to preserve, reserve, and/or create a significant normative specialness for human is quite fascinating. — Arne
All I'm saying is that consciousness or self-awareness isn't a deserving attribute of humans. We're NOT completely self-aware. — TheMadFool
You make a distinction between aware and self-aware.It's not an assumption, it is a consequence of known physics. Stones are not and cannot be self aware, or even aware. — tom
The deeper issue is to behave as if our "uniqueness" justified a normative superiority vis-à-vis other species. — Arne
We somehow want to claim that the universe is a better place for all because humans and only humans can do X — Arne
Do you not see the pattern here as well the desperation to perceive an indifferent universe as somehow better off because of our presence? What in the world is that all about? — Arne
What distinugishes a human from a computer? — TheMadFool
Would we be closer to the computer or being x? — TheMadFool
I am certain I clearly said I had no issue with whether we are unique. We are, after all, the only species that has ever intentionally killed others over a disagreement regarding the transubstantiation of a piece of bread. I suspect it does not get more unique than that. My point was and still is that uniqueness is not a synonym for superiority; — Arne
It rests upon the unstated presumption that you have something beasts do not. If all H's (Humans) have A's and only A's and all B's (Beasts) have A's and only A's, then the statement that SA = that which H's have but B's do not produces a null set. — Arne
And even if you could establish some sort of qualitative and/or quantitative difference between the awareness Humans have and the awareness Beasts have, that difference would not necessarily be a difference in a degree of awareness regarding awareness, i.e., self-awareness. — Arne
It's always rather odd to me people want to focus on computer models (computer as model) as representing intelligence or awareness instead of, say, the integrated processes (mind) of an old growth forest. — Anthony
So, are we more like computers or are we very near to, in terms of awareness, to an entity that is completely self-aware? — TheMadFool
We are not like computers, at all. — Bitter Crank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.