yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (12/12/88)
In article <42831@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes: >Richard A. O'Keefe says: > > > "An awareness of self" might be important to an intelligent organism, > > but it might be a *consequence* of intelligence rather than a > > *precondition* for it. > >The ability to repose a self model is a consequence of the ability >to repose models. Model-based reasoning is one facet of intelligence, >and a useful one for a sentient being who wishes to survive in a >dangerous world. One of the interesting issues in defining a >self model is the location of the boundary between the self and >non-self portions of the model. There is some evidence that humans >don't agree on the location of such boundaries. > >--Barry Kort Actually, it seems to me that basic self-awareness is a result of motor control, sensation, and motion. Motor Control: You can direct your legs to move with a thought. You can't direct a rock to move with a thought (unless you believe in ESP :-). Sensation: If you touch your arm, you feel tactile response from both your hand and your arm. If you touch the wall, you feel tactile response only from your hand. Motion: When you change your position, the rest of your body moves with you, but the rest of the world does not. These factors combine to differentiate yourself from the rest of the world. Thus, I would argue that most animals and some robots posses a limited form of self-awareness. Of course, there are some gray areas. For example: you don't have nerves in your hair and you can't cause them to move (without shaking your head), but they are permanently attached to the rest of your body so most people would consider their hair a part of their body (on the other hand, most people would answer "No!" to a question like "Would you cut off a part of your body for the sake of fashion?" :-). Conversely to an experienced driver, the control of the car comes automatically ("I want to turn right." --> The car turns right) without conscious thought about the intervening actions, and of course, the car moves with the person. It's not surprising that so many people grow very attached to their cars, considering their cars can be viewed as an extension of their bodies. _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) (12/13/88)
In article <1988Dec11.145444.12760@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >Motor Control: You can direct your legs to move with a thought. You >can't direct a rock to move with a thought (unless you believe in ESP >:-). No, I don't think so. You can experience a desire for your leg to move in a certain way, and you can experience your leg moving - but of course these are both passive. Dan Hankins