On Monday, 8 July 2013 at 21:46:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Just because we have difficulty defining something is not a
reason to dismiss it as irrelevant or non-existent.
Sure, but there is an important difference between "dismissing"
and "dismissing as a relevant scientific term to discuss".
Speaking about possible self-awareness of computers is perfectly
fine for a forum discussion but not acceptable for a scientific
one. One needs a common well-defined terms to make progress.
I'm sure you're self-aware, as I'm sure Siri and Watson are not.
I'll take it as a compliment :) But that is exactly what I am
talking about - question if you consider someone self-aware is
extremely interesting from the psychological point of view
(probably even social psychology). For AI research important
question is what properties do self-aware being has.
Those are related but different.
In a former case exact meaning of self-awareness is not important
as you primarily study a person who makes a statement, not
statement itself. In other words, it is not important what one
means by "self-aware" but what thinking processes result in such
tag.
The latter relies on research done in previous step to define
properties of "self-aware" state that target AI needs to meet to
be recognized as such by a wide variety of people. And, of
course, as this relies on a common consensus, such concept is
naturally very volatile. That is the main idea behind Turing test
as far as I understand it.
... nor does it mean that personhood is not a very useful and
meaningful construct.
Even worse, now you use "personhood" as a replacement for
self-awareness! :) It is a very dangerous mistake to use common
words when speaking about consciousness and thinking - too much
self-reflection involved.
