The Chinese Room argument .....

To determine if a person (child in this case) is self-aware, or self-conscious, would be an almost impossible task.

I think this way because, even though many persons can be self-aware, not everyone would be on the same level. I think what we can do is average this, but even this would present a big percent of error.

I think that we must classify awareness and consciousness into sub-levels, and then try the tests you were suggesting and expect better, more precise results.

Originally posted by dannyUchiha
To determine if a person (child in this case) is self-aware, or self-conscious, would be an almost impossible task.

I think this way because, even though many persons can be self-aware, not everyone would be on the same level. I think what we can do is average this, but even this would present a big percent of error.

I think that we must classify ...[text shortened]... sub-levels, and then try the tests you were suggesting and expect better, more precise results.

This has been done at length. For example, the Piers-Harris Children's Self-concept Scale or the Harter-Pike one.

Douglas Hofstadter explains consciousness along similar lines, in that consciousness is something that develops over time. It's a great help in answering the question "why am I in this body, and not in that one?".

The interesting thing is that if consciousness can spring forth from certain system (the brain being the only one we know of, at present), then what is to stop a human-built computer from becoming conscious at some point? I think the only answer is "elbow grease". 😉

Originally posted by dannyUchiha
I think you can prove the awareness of the 2 year old. You just need to observe his actions and reasons behind it. Our actions as human beings are driven by either reason (which would be the manipulation of signs and responding in a logical sense) or by intuition.

Now, if we were to act only by reason and not have any feelings attached to our actions ...[text shortened]... ld child, and notice the emotions behind his actions, this should be proof of his own awareness.

dannyUchiha: "I think you can prove the awareness of the 2 year old. You just need to observe his actions and reasons behind it."

I'm sure that a child is aware of its existance. We can do experiments that show this. But how do we know that an autistic child has self-awereness?

dannyUchiha: "The fact the we make errors (unlike computers)..."

Computers cannot do mistakes, they do what it is programmed to do, that is ordinary computers (the Neuman type). But computer with a neural architecture can in fact do mistakes, and therefore might have 'intuition'. But how would we know that it has self-awereness?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
dannyUchiha: "I think you can prove the awareness of the 2 year old. You just need to observe his actions and reasons behind it."

I'm sure that a child is aware of its existance. We can do experiments that show this. But how do we know that an autistic child has self-awereness?

dannyUchiha: "The fact the we make errors (unlike computers)..."

Comp ...[text shortened]... , and therefore might have 'intuition'. But how would we know that it has self-awereness?

It's not that simple to prove that anyone else has consciousness. Descartes gave us a solid footing for demonstrating our own consciousness, but even a reasonable amount of skepticism will allow the possibility that the agent being questioned is just acting convincingly as if they had consciousness while being devoid of it. I personally don't believe this to be the case with two year olds (I think they are consciousness), but proving it beyond the shadow of a doubt is another matter altogether. I don't think a simple questionnaire will suffice here.

What precisely would you ask a coma patient, and what sort of response would you expect?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
..... or "Do computers have minds" ?


"Chinese room thought experiment.

Searle requests that his reader imagine that, many years from now, people have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, using a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Supp **************************************

What do you think ? Do computers have minds ?

The "Chinese rooom thought experiment" as depicted in wiki makes little sense to me. The point isn't whether or not one speaks any given language. The point is whether or not there is sufficient depth and sophistication in the thought process to formulate human-like responses. I'm thinking there's likely something missing from the depiction in wiki.

Originally posted by PBE6
It's not that simple to prove that anyone else has consciousness. Descartes gave us a solid footing for demonstrating our own consciousness, but even a reasonable amount of skepticism will allow the possibility that the agent being questioned is just acting convincingly as if they had consciousness while being devoid of it. I personally don't believe t ...[text shortened]... .

What precisely would you ask a coma patient, and what sort of response would you expect?

May I make a comment here that has nothing to do with the thread. Both my daughter and one of my sisters has been near death at one time in their life. To the doctors and nurses working over them they appeared to be totally oblivious to what was going on. But they heard every word that was spoken and felt pain as much as if they had been "awake". They just were unable to respond in any fashion. This has been something that the medical world has now taken note of. So they encourage family members to talk to the one in a coma. This is important to the one unable to speak or indicate that their brain is conscious and hearing what is said to them. This is probably true of those who do actually die.

Originally posted by ale1552
May I make a comment here that has nothing to do with the thread. Both my daughter and one of my sisters has been near death at one time in their life. To the doctors and nurses working over them they appeared to be totally oblivious to what was going on. But they heard every word that was spoken and felt pain as much as if they had been "awake". They just ...[text shortened]... onscious and hearing what is said to them. This is probably true of those who do actually die.

So, if there is no way to show awareness, yet being aware, then how tough isn't it to for an animal, or ultimately a computer program, to show its awareness.

I say awareness, and self-awareness, is an elusive phenomenon.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
This lack of understanding, according to Searle, proves that computers do not understand Chinese either, because they are in the same position as he — nothing but rote manipulators of symbols: they do not have conscious mental states like an "understanding" of what they are saying, so they cannot fairly and properly be said to have minds."

Searle is quite obviously wrong. In both experiments the test was weather or not the black box machine demonstrated an understanding of Chinese. In both cases the answer is positive. The fact that one component of black box 2. (the human) does not understand Chinese is quite irrelevant. In combination with his dictionary and other tools he does understand Chinese.
I think Searles mistake is in believing that mental states have a magical properties, but his argument does not demonstrate nor justify such a position. He is merely trying to hide the claim under layers of story.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So, if there is no way to show awareness, yet being aware, then how tough isn't it to for an animal, or ultimately a computer program, to show its awareness.

I say awareness, and self-awareness, is an elusive phenomenon.

That's because you are an obscurantist that actively denies the teachings of non-hard sciences. Like psychology, in this case.

Originally posted by FabianFnas

I'm sure that a child is aware of its existance. We can do experiments that show this. But how do we know that an autistic child has self-awereness?

I wasn't talking about exceptional cases. The child in this case is an average one. An autistic child is a totally different case in which you need to prove their awareness by some other method.

I think the child is aware, but not able to respond appropiately. If we assume this, we can do the same observations we did with an average child. but knowing that the autistic child might respond differently. Any kind of responce might prove to be a sign of self-awareness.

I've talked with autistic children, and in my opinion, they just see the world differently than we do.

Originally posted by dannyUchiha
I wasn't talking about exceptional cases. The child in this case is an average one. An autistic child is a totally different case in which you need to prove their awareness by some other method.

I think the child is aware, but not able to respond appropiately. If we assume this, we can do the same observations we did with an average child. but knowing ...[text shortened]... ked with autistic children, and in my opinion, they just see the world differently than we do.

But this doesn't solve the problem.

We know that normal children is self-aware, because we've been ones ourselves, and as I recall, I was aware of my existance. So to find out that a normal kid has self-awareness is not hard, becasue we know it from before-hand.

But finding out if not-so-normal children has self-awereness, animals, and a computer program, has it, then we have to think deeper.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But finding out if not-so-normal children has self-awereness, animals, and a computer program, has it, then we have to think deeper.

Many people have done the thinking before you, X-man. Rest your pretty vapid brain of yours.

One example among hundreds.
http://www.besjournal.com/n3236760/n3239148/n3239152/n3245095/n3247987/appendix/_12_03-116.pdf

Originally posted by Palynka
Many people have done the thinking before you, X-man. Rest your pretty vapid brain of yours.

One example among hundreds.
http://www.besjournal.com/n3236760/n3239148/n3239152/n3245095/n3247987/appendix/_12_03-116.pdf

Beside your rudeness, dear Palynka, thank you for the link. Yes, there are several of them.

But it doesn't cover the problem how to know if a computer program can be said to have self-consiouness if advanced enough, and further, how to examin the program to find out its awareness.

And it doesn't cover how animals can be said to have self-consioness, ind if so, how to find out. Some says that animals are driven by insticts and Pavlovian behaviour, but I'm not so sure of that.

What are your thoughts, Palynka? If you would be friendly enough?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Beside your rudeness, dear Palynka, thank you for the link. Yes, there are several of them.

But it doesn't cover the problem how to know if a computer program can be said to have self-consiouness if advanced enough, and further, how to examin the program to find out its awareness.

And it doesn't cover how animals can be said to have self-consioness, ...[text shortened]... I'm not so sure of that.

What are your thoughts, Palynka? If you would be friendly enough?

Perhaps you'd like to blame my rudeness on my nationality? It's not like you haven't done worse before.

There are also several tests regarding animal's self-awareness. A quick web-search would confirm it, if you take 2 minutes to inform yourself.

Obviously, the inability to communicate properly is limiting, so self-consciousness is particularly hard to test. I'm not aware on any attempts regarding testing the self-consciousness of animals.

I don't see why that should be an issue with AI, because the ability to communicate is a pre-requisite of AI tests, such as the Turing one for example.