Can Artificial Intelligence have self-awareness?

[Ben_Sinner]

A friend of one of my friends is a grad student in aerospace engineering.

Somehow a conversation got started between the two about A.I

He said that A.I (as in to the point where the machine is actually aware of it’s existence) is a practical reality and he predicts that a machine like this will be made sometime in the next decade.

My question is…is this even scientifically possible?..if not even theologically possible?

I was always taught that one of the things that makes us human and apart from all other irrational creatures is our ability to know who we are.

The grad student is an atheist. While that doesn’t discredit what he says (for he is still very knowledgeable), but it does cause his logic to be viewed in a non-theistic manner.

 

[tonyrey]

A friend of one of my friends is a grad student in aerospace engineering.

Somehow a conversation got started between the two about A.I

He said that A.I (as in to the point where the machine is actually aware of it’s existence) is a practical reality and he predicts that a machine like this will be made sometime in the next decade.

My question is…is this even scientifically possible?..if not even theologically possible?

I was always taught that one of the things that makes us human and apart from all other irrational creatures is our ability to know who we are.

The grad student is an atheist. While that doesn’t discredit what he says (for he is still very knowledgeable), but it does cause his logic to be viewed in a non-theistic manner.

What is the potential evidence that a machine can be actually aware of its own existence? Assuming that the machine is a computer, it amounts to believing electrical impulses are capable of self-consciousness. How could this hypothesis be justified? Or is it just a fantasy?

 

[bisco]

will it have a soul?

 

[dmar198]

A friend of one of my friends is a grad student in aerospace engineering.

Somehow a conversation got started between the two about A.I

He said that A.I (as in to the point where the machine is actually aware of it’s existence) is a practical reality and he predicts that a machine like this will be made sometime in the next decade.

My question is…is this even scientifically possible?..if not even theologically possible?

I was always taught that one of the things that makes us human and apart from all other irrational creatures is our ability to know who we are.

The grad student is an atheist. While that doesn’t discredit what he says (for he is still very knowledgeable), but it does cause his logic to be viewed in a non-theistic manner.

My understanding of computer science is that it includes this principle: it is impossible for a computer to simulate intelligence, because intelligence cannot be modeled in any conceivable physical system.

Regarding self-awareness, however, I think there a sense in which any machine that can monitor its own activity and respond has a form of unintelligent self-awareness. For example, I know that I can open up Task Manager on my computer right now and it will tell me how much memory it is using, and I think it may close some programs when they are using too much. Also, I think many computers have thermostats that can tell them how hot they are on the inside, and they can react to that information by turning on a fan. It seems to me that computers can check on their own activities and respond, without having intelligence. That seems to be an unintelligent form of self-awareness. Does that make sense?

 

[Joe_5859]

I think that people start believing these things are possible when they have watched one too many science fiction movies.

 

[Rhubarb]

Does self-awareness have theological implications? I’ve never heard of any, but it might.

I think the answer is, and other posters have gotten at this point, is that we need a clear account of what self-awareness is. If a machine can have this, we then would need to see if we can draw relevant distinctions between it, and what we have.

On second thought, I’m not sure if my contribution helps.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Obviously self-awareness is simply a variant of awareness. Awareness is an internal image (or map) of the environment. Animals are aware of the environment, they are aware of possible dangers. Higher apes can even conduct a rudimentary conversation via sign language.

Humans are self-aware - which means that we can differentiate “ourselves” from the “environment”. Now, how do we know that some “arbitrary being” is self-aware? We cannot “poke” into his head, and observe the thought processes - at least now, and in the foreseeable future. So we have to use an indirect approach, namely the Turing test. As long as the “other party” responds in a manner which insinuates or indicates self-awareness, we must accept that he/she/it is self-aware. And that is expressed in a consistently proper usage of “I”, and “you”, etc…

Now one may object that this means nothing, since the “other party” merely emulates or simulates the verbal capacity of a human being. This kind of objection is nonsense. We grant each other the ability to be self-aware precisely on the same grounds. If this process would be denied, then we could not accept that anyone (besides ourselves) is self-aware. And that is absurd. Observe that the “other party” is unspecified. It could be another human, a space alien, an animal or a “machine”. As long as the testing process confirms that the “other party” is self-aware, there is no reason to doubt it.

 

[phil19034]

I think it depends on the definition of “self aware.”

If self aware like a mouse or animal, then I say its possible. Self aware as a human, I doubt it. But if they use human brain tissue to make super computers, then who knows what kind of un-Godly thing scientists could make.

So I think we need to make sure we keep a close eye on neo-atheist scientists to make sure they don’t create a soul-less monster like Ultron from the Marvel comics and upcoming Avengers sequel.

 

[edwest2]

A friend of one of my friends is a grad student in aerospace engineering.

Somehow a conversation got started between the two about A.I

He said that A.I (as in to the point where the machine is actually aware of it’s existence) is a practical reality and he predicts that a machine like this will be made sometime in the next decade.

My question is…is this even scientifically possible?..if not even theologically possible?

I was always taught that one of the things that makes us human and apart from all other irrational creatures is our ability to know who we are.

The grad student is an atheist. While that doesn’t discredit what he says (for he is still very knowledgeable), but it does cause his logic to be viewed in a non-theistic manner.

I have been creating a number of scenarios for this as a writer. First, self-awareness does nothing to change the basic nature of what the AI is: a device, programmed by humans - nothing more. It has no wants or needs or fear of death or fear of anything. In fact, if it could learn things on its own, it would be a meaningless exercise. It’s entire existence would be as a utility device that performs whatever its owner desires.

It is in no way human. It cannot claim to be an I being. It is, in one case, a mobile device that can be destroyed or switched off or function 24/7, according to the wishes of its controller.

Based on my research, crude AI systems already exist. They are limited, but the goal is to build a brain in the next 10 years. I think it could be accomplished in a few years. Scientists are putting the building blocks together now, so an integrated system is just a few years off. It will be owned by the military. It will not be a public use device.

I wouldn’t pay a dime for one. It would be, in one scenario, a human replica and nothing more. It would know that.

Ed

 

[RC1960]

There’s already a problem as this atheist needs to declare what kind of atheist he is and how that philosophy is derived.

Here are some adjunct shows, have a listen:

CAL show 5936 The Role of Logic in Apologetics

Kresta in the Afternoon_ Tuesday Nov 18.2014_Jennifer Fullweiler former athiest

The World Over – 10_31_201_ebola measures, athiest conversion Jenn Fullweiler

and anything from Trent Horn.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

I think the issue is that “self awareness” and “consciousness” fall into that famous categories of things that we have a hard time defining, but we know it when we see it. And that’s worked for most of our history. But that method is gonna have some trouble when artificial systems can “pretend” to be human very, very well. If you can have a full conversation with a bot about its hopes and dreams, what makes it happy/sad, and so on, while also believing categorically that computers can’t be conscious, you’re in a rough spot.

 

[Hans_W]

---

What is the potential evidence that a machine can be actually aware of its own existence? Assuming that the machine is a computer, it amounts to believing electrical impulses are capable of self-consciousness. How could this hypothesis be justified? Or is it just a fantasy?

[my emphasis]

Well, that’s what a brain is and does - a collection of molecules communicating with one another through electrical impulses. For us humans you might want to add a soul. But what about a chimpanzee? The great apes are certainly in a state we describe as self-conscious.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Yes, AI can have self-awareness. Indeed, we can be thought of as “meatbots,” (biological robots) and nobody would suspect a thing. We have a Creator, and all our wit and awareness flows from Him. So we religious already know that it’s possible, but the only question remaining is who among us, or aliens from a different world, have the innate wit to make it come about?

 

[edwest2]

I think the issue is that “self awareness” and “consciousness” fall into that famous categories of things that we have a hard time defining, but we know it when we see it. And that’s worked for most of our history. But that method is gonna have some trouble when artificial systems can “pretend” to be human very, very well. If you can have a full conversation with a bot about its hopes and dreams, what makes it happy/sad, and so on, while also believing categorically that computers can’t be conscious, you’re in a rough spot.

All hopes and dreams and emotions will be preprogrammed stories that mean nothing. Again, the military may find this useful for espionage purposes but it’s just a collection of non-human parts, nothing more. No consciousness is required just programs for play-acting under certain scenarios. It is not conscious in any sense of the word.

Ed

 

[dmar198]

Well, that’s what a brain is and does - a collection of molecules communicating with one another through electrical impulses. For us humans you might want to add a soul.

I think the brain is different from artificial intelligence for several reasons. One is, the brain doesn’t produce our intelligence, at least not if I understand Catholic teaching correctly. My understanding is that the brain is an instrument that an intelligent spirit can use, but I don’t think the intelligence can be there without the spirit. That’s partly why I think that good computer technicians acknowledge as a settled principle that no physical system can model intelligence: you have to have a spirit to have intelligence, mechanical parts are just a tool that intelligent things can use.

What do you think of that explanation?

 

[ChainBreaker]

A friend of one of my friends is a grad student in aerospace engineering.

Somehow a conversation got started between the two about A.I

He said that A.I (as in to the point where the machine is actually aware of it’s existence) is a practical reality and he predicts that a machine like this will be made sometime in the next decade.

My question is…is this even scientifically possible?..if not even theologically possible?

I was always taught that one of the things that makes us human and apart from all other irrational creatures is our ability to know who we are.

The grad student is an atheist. While that doesn’t discredit what he says (for he is still very knowledgeable), but it does cause his logic to be viewed in a non-theistic manner.

People don’t really know what self awareness is, and so it seems to me that your atheist friend is operating on the assumption that everything is physical and that self-awareness is simply a matter of manufacturing the right physical construct.

But even if AI did exist, all that really means is that self-awareness requires the correct arrangement of atoms in-order to operate in the physical world. This is not the same thing as creating self-awareness as much as it is a matter of discovering it.

It’s an Interesting Question as to why we observe sentience in relationship to particular physical patterns. Is there a necessary relationship between the two? Because if there isn’t then one can argue that its there by design and was created by what ever created physical reality.

 

[PseuTonym]

we have to use an indirect approach, namely the Turing test. As long as the “other party” responds in a manner which insinuates or indicates self-awareness, we must accept that he/she/it is self-aware.

Is there a time limit in the Turing test? If you were given a limited time to determine what energy source a machine relies upon, and you failed to discover an energy source within the time limit, then you would not accept that the machine is a perpetual motion machine.

As long as the testing process confirms that the “other party” is self-aware, there is no reason to doubt it.

New tests are being developed all the time. If some testing process indicates that some money is not counterfeit, then are you obligated to accept the money? What about such things as suspicion, investigation, and future developments? Before the Fukushima disaster, plenty of people were saying that there is no reason to doubt the safety of nuclear power in Japan.

 

[Lucretius]

Did you every hear of Dr. John Stearle’s Chinese Room? Computers do not have any meaning intrinsically, but rather have their meaning given to them from a human being. They are simply fast and complex symbol manipulation machines. With humans to give meaning to the symbols, a computer is just a curiously layer out pile of parts.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

If by self-awareness, you mean consciousness, then you are talking about something which humans have in common with hamsters.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Hee_Zen]

Is there a time limit in the Turing test?

No, not an explicit one. You can continue the conversation until you come to a reasonable conclusion. This principle is sufficient in criminal investigations and trials.

If you were given a limited time to determine what energy source a machine relies upon, and you failed to discover an energy source within the time limit, then you would not accept that the machine is a perpetual motion machine.

You have no direct access to the “other party”. You can only conduct a conversation.

New tests are being developed all the time. If some testing process indicates that some money is not counterfeit, then are you obligated to accept the money?

You can refuse it, of course. There are two kinds of errors, one is to reject a “real one”, the other is accepting the “counterfeit one”. It is impossible to minimize both of them, so you must choose. Are you going to refuse human status to a real human, or are you willing to grant a human status to something that is not a human?

It reminds me the two possible approaches, one is “it is better to let a thousand criminals go unpunished, rather than convict an innocent”, as opposed to: “it is better to have a thousand innocents suffer, rather than allow one criminal to be unpunished”. This dilemma has no “objective” solution, it must be determined by your own inclination.

What about such things as suspicion, investigation, and future developments?

Suspicion must stop somewhere. You cannot live your life doubting everything.

Before the Fukushima disaster, plenty of people were saying that there is no reason to doubt the safety of nuclear power in Japan.

Yes, problems, even disasters will happen. But that is not a good reason to lock oneself into a vault and refuse to take any risks.