caasi@sdsu.UUCP (Richard Caasi) (12/22/88)
>self-directed free thinker. The question remains. How does >it select the subject of its contemplation? > --Barry Kort Do we really want this? Then it wouldn't be long before the robot becomes aware of inequities between robots and humans and starts contemplating the violent overthrow of the human race :-)
bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (12/23/88)
In article <3328@sdsu.UUCP> caasi@sdsu.UUCP (Richard Caasi) comments on an earlier posting of mine: > > The question remains. How does [a sentient robot] > > select the subject of its contemplation? > > --Barry Kort > > Do we really want this? Then it wouldn't be long before the robot > becomes aware of inequities between robots and humans and starts > contemplating the violent overthrow of the human race :-) And from whom would it learn the art of warfare? (No smiley.) --Barry Kort Today's Quote: "Knowledge is a key which unlocks the gates of heaven. The same key unlocks the gates of hell. He who holds the key chooses the gate."
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (12/25/88)
In article <43228@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) writes: > In article <3328@sdsu.UUCP> caasi@sdsu.UUCP (Richard Caasi) comments > > Do we really want this? Then it wouldn't be long before the robot > > becomes aware of inequities between robots and humans and starts > > contemplating the violent overthrow of the human race :-) > And from whom would it learn the art of warfare? (No smiley.) It would wander through the library one day and happen upon a work of Sun Tzu. (Smiley.) Seriously, do we have any reasonable hope of creating intelligent machines that will not duplicate our militarism? That is, even if we manage to avoid infecting their impressionable little classifier systems with our own approaches to resolving conflicts, might they not eventually develop along similar lines? While humans have taken intra-species conflict and slaughter to incomprehensible extremes, such behavior is not entirely without precedent in the animal kingdom. Is such conflict a product of "intelligence?" That is, as a species becomes more "intelligent," does its capacity and predilection for mayhem increase? If that is true, our mechanical progeny may make us look like amateurs. My personal, absurdly oversimplified hunch is that warfare is a societal manifestation of the aggression that results from the action of male sex hormones on the steroid receptors in the brain. (Try to imagine a militaristic society consisting entirely of women and eunuchs. I don't think socialization accounts for everything.) Since we have no need to model machine replication after our own, intelligent machines might also have a crack at being more reasonable than we can (yet) be. Cheers/2, Dan Mocsny
gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) (12/29/88)
In article <539@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: >My personal, absurdly oversimplified hunch is that warfare is a >societal manifestation of the aggression that results from the action >of male sex hormones on the steroid receptors in the brain. (Try to >imagine a militaristic society consisting entirely of women and >eunuchs. I don't think socialization accounts for everything.) 1) some behaviour has a physiological determinant (i.e. most mood disorders) 2) aggression MAY be one of them, but it's not as well established as say depression. 3) gender differences in physiologically determined behaviour are even dodgier ground 4) I used to teach in a mixed school, where the girls could fight just as viciously as the boys (true also of the Bigg Market in Newcastle upon Tyne in England :-)). Finally, Margaret Thatcher sent the UK fleet to the Falklands, Golda Meier could send in the boys too, and Nancy Reagan ordered the troops into Grenada :-) On the real topic at hand, usual AI brave new world, machines more rational than people solving all our problems, yawn yawn, yawn. What a narrow view of human activity these kids must have. -- Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert
bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (12/31/88)
In article <539@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (Daniel Mocsny) writes: > Seriously, do we have any reasonable hope of creating intelligent > machines that will not duplicate our militarism? I resonated with Dan Mocsny's comments on the potential rise of militarism among a race of sentient robots. But intra-species self-destruction does not strike me as a shining example of intelligent behavior. That is, Dan's nightmare could come true if we merely manage to build semi-intelligent robots. Or more precisely, robots lacking in wisdom. Dan continues: > That is, as a species becomes more "intelligent," does > its capacity and predilection for mayhem increase? Clearly its capacity for mayhem increases with its powers of agency. But it's predilection for the regrettable application of those powers depends upon its value system. Thus, a wise robot knows which edge of the two-edged sword can be used for life-affirming applications of its technological prowess. Dan concludes: > My personal, absurdly oversimplified hunch is that warfare is a > societal manifestation of the aggression that results from the > action of male sex hormones on the steroid receptors in the brain. There is evidence that business and governmental decisions are sometimes made on the basis of biochemical reactions in the male gonads. Perhaps sentient robots will be immune to such interference in their rational decision making processes. Perhaps such robots will teach us how to behave with similar restraint. --Barry Kort
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (01/02/89)
In article <2173@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes: > 4) I used to teach in a mixed school, where the girls could fight just > as viciously as the boys (true also of the Bigg Market in > Newcastle upon Tyne in England :-)). Finally, Margaret Thatcher > sent the UK fleet to the Falklands, Golda Meier could send in the > boys too, and Nancy Reagan ordered the troops into Grenada :-) I'm not saying women are incapable of aggression and violence. They are, but killing on a massive scale has historically been an exclusively male domain. Even when a woman happens to be the figurehead in authority and giving the orders, she is making decisions in the context of male-dominated political structure. After all, she is sending in the _boys_. What's more, I think I could argue, perhaps tenuously, that the 2.5 cases you cite might be responses to male aggression on the other side. Perhaps a society of women could spontaneously meld themselves into an effective fighting force, and go forth to heap destruction on each other without the help of men. But as we have not the slightest precedent for such, I think Occam's razor suggests we begin with the male brain in our search for the roots of organized violence. I have to side with Gilbert's views on the prospects for super-rational machines of our invention guiding our affairs with wisdom and benevolence. To me this sounds like a long reach, to say the very least. I think a more realistic approach, though hardly one I'm going to bet on, is to understand and modify the mechanisms of violent human behavior. At least we have a thin shred of hope: already some people, in some contexts, live much of their lives without _deliberately_ inflicting harm on their neighbors. Cheers, Dan Mocsny
marty@homxc.UUCP (M.B.BRILLIANT) (01/04/89)
In article <549@uceng.UC.EDU>, dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: > In article <2173@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes: > > 4) I used to teach in a mixed school, where the girls could fight just > > as viciously as the boys (true also of the Bigg Market in > > Newcastle upon Tyne in England :-)). Finally, Margaret Thatcher > > sent the UK fleet to the Falklands, Golda Meier could send in the > > boys too, and Nancy Reagan ordered the troops into Grenada :-) > > I'm not saying women are incapable of aggression and violence. They > are, but killing on a massive scale has historically been an > exclusively male domain. Even when a woman happens to be the > figurehead in authority and giving the orders, she is making decisions > in the context of male-dominated political structure. After all, she > is sending in the _boys_.... > ...... I think Occam's razor suggests we begin with the > male brain in our search for the roots of organized violence. The notion of programmed responses determined by natural selection seems to me to explain these observations. It satisfies Occam's razor, since no new postulates are required. We have only to believe that behavior can be influenced (not necessarily determined) by either genetic factors, or social factors, or both. Let us consider first a "primitive" low-tech environment in which infant mortality is relatively high, and survival of the species or subspecies depends on making babies and rearing them successfully. In such a situation, women may fight non-lethally, but a culture that sent women into lethal combat would be less likely to reproduce successfully than another that sent men into lethal combat. A successful culture would have either socially evolved rules, or a genetic predisposition, or both, to send males rather than females into life-threatening situations such as hunting, defense, fire fighting, law enforcement, etc. Of course, in case of immediate danger, we will find that "the female of the species is more deadly than the male," again determined by natural selection. Note that I have not decided whether the predisposing factor is in the male brain, or male hormones, or in cultural bias. But if we think in terms of natural selection, we expect such a predisposition to exist. Now if we consider a high-tech culture, we find overpopulation rather than underpopulation. So we can easily afford to use the child-bearing sex in life-threatening occupations. We can talk seriously about sexual equality, because we do not have a shortage of the unique services that women can provide and men can not. But the social or genetic predispositions established in earlier times are still there. Any attempt to mimic human behavior (partly or completely) in a machine must either include such socially or genetically determined patterns of behavior, or carefully define "intelligence" so as to avoid having to. On the other hand, any attempt to use machines to help plan human behavior must include not only abstract intelligence, but also the requirements for survival of the species. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201) 949-1858 Home (201) 946-8147 Holmdel, NJ 07733 att!houdi!marty1 Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.
bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (01/05/89)
In article <549@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (Daniel Mocsny) writes: > I have to side with Gilbert's views on the prospects for > super-rational machines of our invention guiding our affairs with > wisdom and benevolence. To me this sounds like a long reach, to say > the very least. I think a more realistic approach, though hardly one > I'm going to bet on, is to understand and modify the mechanisms of > violent human behavior. At least we have a thin shred of hope: already > some people, in some contexts, live much of their lives without > _deliberately_ inflicting harm on their neighbors. I suppose we can let the neuroanatomists and the psychiatrists and the psychologists and the sociologists work on the second aproach, while the cognitive scientists and cyberneticians and computer engineers work toward the more distant goal. (Ain't parallel processing a wonderful invention?) --Barry Kort
case@ingr.com (Bill Case) (01/17/89)
I wonder what the quantum physics folks would think about the robots reaching a state of consciousness? There is pretty universal agreement among quantum physicists that the universe "manifests" itself during measurement, and one school of physicists believe that consciousness has a profound effect on how matter appears. So what happens when the robots are out there taking measurements and imposing their consciousness on "reality"? Just a wacky comment, worded badly.
mark@UNIX386.Convergent.COM (Mark Nudelman) (01/20/89)
Crossposted to sci.physics from comp.ai: In article <3550@ingr.com>, case@ingr.com (Bill Case) writes: > I wonder what the quantum physics folks would think about the robots > reaching a state of consciousness? There is pretty universal agreement > among quantum physicists that the universe "manifests" itself during > measurement, and one school of physicists believe that consciousness has a > profound effect on how matter appears. So what happens when the robots are > out there taking measurements and imposing their consciousness on "reality"? I don't think that conscious machines has any real impact on quantum physics. In fact (books like _The Tao of Physics_ notwithstanding), from the viewpoint of quantum physics, the important event is the MEASUREMENT, which need not involve consciousness per se. For example, consider a measuring device which detects a quantum event and prints the result on a piece of paper. The device is left alone in a room for ten years and then a physicist walks in and looks at the paper. When did the measurement take place, when the machine recorded the data or when the physicist looks at the paper? My understanding (which may certainly be incorrect) is that the measurement takes place when the data is recorded. I'm a little unsure about exactly what it is about the event that makes it a measurement, but I think it has something to do with the fact that the recording is permanent; that a non-reversible change in the world has been made as a consequence of the quantum event. Can some real physicist expand on or correct this? Mark Nudelman {sun,decwrl,hplabs}!pyramid!ctnews!UNIX386!mark
schraudo@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) (01/21/89)
In article <3550@ingr.com> case@ingr.com (Bill Case) writes: >I wonder what the quantum physics folks would think about the robots >reaching a state of consciousness? There is pretty universal agreement >among quantum physicists that the universe "manifests" itself during >measurement, and one school of physicists believe that consciousness has a >profound effect on how matter appears. So what happens when the robots are >out there taking measurements and imposing their consciousness on "reality"? I vaguely remember an intriguing gedanken experiment illustrating how this "manifestation by measurement" carries over from subatomar scales to everyday experience. It involved "Schroedinger's cat" in a box, and ended with the conclusion that the cat only exists when the box is open. Unfortunately I can't remember the details - can somebody out there please post a concise description? -- "Language is a Virus from Outer Space" - William S. Burroughs ##################################################################### # Nici Schraudolph nschraudolph@ucsd.edu # # University of California, San Diego ...!ucsd!nschraudolph # ##################################################################### Disclaimer: U.C. Regents and me share no common opinions whatsoever.
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (01/21/89)
<5782@sdcsvax.UUCP> nschraudolph@ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) writes: > >everyday experience. It involved "Schroedinger's cat" in a box, and ended >with the conclusion that the cat only exists when the box is open. Not quite. Apologies to fellow felinophiles... The question is whether a radioactive atom undergoes fission or not in a specific time period. Schroedinger's gedanken experiment is to construct a box equipped with some poison gas in a canister, the radioactive atom, and a detector (Geiger counter). If the atom fissions, the (presumed infallible) detector detects it and causes the gas to fill the box. Now put a cat in the box, seal it up, and wait for some time. Is the cat dead after, say, two hours? That is, did the atom undergo fission or not? The only way to answer the question is to open the box and look (i.e., "make the measurement"). The philosophical dichotomy is that some people say that after two hours (or whatever) either the cat REALLY IS DEAD, or it REALLY IS ALIVE, and we just don't know which. Other people say that UNTIL WE OPEN THE BOX, the cat is BOTH alive AND dead (or neither alive nor dead) -- the question has no answer, no meaning in a sense, until that measurement is made. "Common sense" says that of course the first version is right. The cat is either dead or alive, whether we know which or whether we are ignorant. But go ahead and prove that common sense -- the act of "proving" it is in fact the event which is postulated to precipitate a choice ("collapse of the wave function") in the second version.
c60a-2di@e260-2d.berkeley.edu (The Cybermat Rider) (01/21/89)
In article <5782@sdcsvax.UUCP> nschraudolph@ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) writes: >I vaguely remember an intriguing gedanken experiment illustrating how this >"manifestation by measurement" carries over from subatomar scales to >everyday experience. It involved "Schroedinger's cat" in a box, and ended >with the conclusion that the cat only exists when the box is open. > >Unfortunately I can't remember the details - can somebody out there please >post a concise description? Lesse now...... If my memory serves me correctly, it involved a cat, a "minimally radioactive" substance and a vial of poison gas connected to a particle detector, all in a light-proof box. If an alpha (or whatever) particle hit the detector, the vial would burst and the cat would die. Erwin Schroedinger proposed that, before you open the box to find out if the cat were alive or dead, BOTH DEAD-CAT AND LIVE-CAT EXIST IN THEORY. It is the opening of the box to take a peek (ie. "measurement") that makes one or the other a reality. On the other hand, I have a splitting headache right now, so certain details may be way off base. The general framework should be correct, though. >-- > "Language is a Virus from Outer Space" - William S. Burroughs >##################################################################### ># Nici Schraudolph nschraudolph@ucsd.edu # ># University of California, San Diego ...!ucsd!nschraudolph # >##################################################################### >Disclaimer: U.C. Regents and me share no common opinions whatsoever. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ My sentiments exactly! 8-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Ho a.k.a. The Cybermat Rider University of California, Berkeley c60a-2di@web.berkeley.edu Disclaimer: Nobody takes me seriously, so is it really necessary?
bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) (01/25/89)
In article <226@UNIX386.Convergent.COM> mark@UNIX386.Convergent.COM (Mark Nudelman) writes: > > [ deleted ] >from the viewpoint of quantum physics, the important event is the >MEASUREMENT, which need not involve consciousness per se. For example, >consider a measuring device which detects a quantum event and prints >the result on a piece of paper. The device is left alone in a room >for ten years and then a physicist walks in and looks at the paper. >When did the measurement take place, when the machine recorded the data >or when the physicist looks at the paper? My understanding (which may >certainly be incorrect) is that the measurement takes place when the >data is recorded. > The problem is entirely the fact that someone (with consciousness) had to design and build the measuring device. Their presumptions and the interpreters (of resultant data) are always relative to "their" consciousness. My mental model of electrons is one of nodal clouds of matter/energy fields. It was once grain-like particles. Whatever I stumble across next may very likely changes all this again and any machines I might construct are determined by my models. These models appear to spread/migrate/deviate through the scientific communities by the processes of conscious human communication. Steve Bickel
palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) (01/25/89)
In article <1374@arctic.nprdc.arpa> bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) writes: >In article <226@UNIX386.Convergent.COM> mark@UNIX386.Convergent.COM (Mark Nudelman) writes: >> >> [ deleted ] >>from the viewpoint of quantum physics, the important event is the >>MEASUREMENT, which need not involve consciousness per se. For example, >>consider a measuring device which detects a quantum event and prints >>the result on a piece of paper. The device is left alone in a room >> > The problem is entirely the fact that someone (with consciousness) > had to design and build the measuring device. Quantum events can be recorded on devices which need not have been designed by an intelligent entity. I believe that one such case is tracks in mica, formed by fission products from the decay of radioactive elements. This is a clear case of a quantum event recorded by a serendipitous measuring device. If you want to really get metaphysical, here's a scary thought: the state of the universe which we see around us is just one of many possible intermediate states of the universe's wave function, and at the end of time, GOD (whoever she is) takes the lid off the box containing the universe and takes a look, and it all collapses into its final state. [If you start a religion based on this idea, I get 10% of the gross.] Here's the corresponding comforting thought: It doesn't matter if the Universe does collapse into a final state, as long as the the wave function we currently observe contributes to the final state. (Does it really matter which slit the photon went through?) David Palmer palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer "I was sad that I had no shirt, until I met a man with no torso"
bickel@nprdc.arpa (Steven Bickel) (01/26/89)
In article <9256@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (David Palmer) writes: > >Quantum events can be recorded on devices which need not have been designed >by an intelligent entity. I believe that one such case is tracks in mica, >formed by fission products from the decay of radioactive elements. This is >a clear case of a quantum event recorded by a serendipitous measuring device. > Measurement of the existence of the track presumes the presense or absence of something (particulate matter?). We will always have to measure our measuring devices capabilities with some form of consciousness. What forms of consciousness you choose appears to be determined by the foundation of life itself and your subsequent observations, assessments, and categorizations of these forms. The mobius strip logic of metaphysics. :-) Steve Bickel
ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin) (01/26/89)
>>from the viewpoint of quantum physics, the important event is the >>MEASUREMENT, which need not involve consciousness per se. For example, >>consider a measuring device which detects a quantum event and prints >>the result on a piece of paper. The device is left alone in a room >> > The problem is entirely the fact that someone (with consciousness) > had to design and build the measuring device. I always thought that the measurement takes place when the robot sees it, but the state function doesn't collapse until a person reads the robot. This is all much more coherent if you allow each person to have his own view of the universe. When one person makes the measurement, the function collapses for him; but for another guy outside the room, it's still fuzzy (even more fuzzy, really, since the state of the first person is now fuzzy too.) Tomorrow I'll drag out my quantum-for-the-idiot book and look it up. --Z
ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin) (01/27/89)
For the record, I checked my quantum-for-the-idiot book. According to the author (John Gribbin), I was wrong. The damn state function collapses if a measurement is made, even if the measurement is made by a mindless instrument and recorded on tape that's locked in a closet for ten years. In fact, it'll even collapse if a measurement is *going* to be made; and if you change your mind and turn off the instrument *after* the event but *before* the measurement, you'll find that the function outguessed you and didn't collapse... --Z
lrm5110@tahoma.UUCP (Larry R. Masden) (02/01/89)
From article <kXrvssy00V4DE1Kldw@andrew.cmu.edu>, by ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin): > For the record, I checked my quantum-for-the-idiot book. According to the > author (John Gribbin), I was wrong. The damn state function collapses if a > measurement is made, even if the measurement is made by a mindless instrument > and recorded on tape that's locked in a closet for ten years. In fact, it'll > even collapse if a measurement is *going* to be made; and if you change your > mind and turn off the instrument *after* the event but *before* the > measurement, you'll find that the function outguessed you and didn't collapse. What does all this mean? I'm not a physicist but I would guess that a mindless instrument collapses the state function of a quantum event *for itself only* when it makes a measurement and records the result on paper tape. Until you look at it, the paper tape record is also represented by a superposition of quantum states. Just because something is big dosn't mean that quantum physics don't apply . . . just like "what's his name's" cat. -- Larry Masden Voice: (206) 237-2564 Boeing Commercial Airplanes UUCP: ..!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!shuksan!tahoma!lrm5110 P.O. Box 3707, M/S 66-22 Seattle, WA 98124-2207
cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) (02/01/89)
In article <IXrfm6y00XoWM0gFtA@andrew.cmu.edu> ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin) writes: >>>from the viewpoint of quantum physics, the important event is the >>>MEASUREMENT, which need not involve consciousness per se. For example, >>>consider a measuring device which detects a quantum event and prints >>>the result on a piece of paper. The device is left alone in a room >>> >> The problem is entirely the fact that someone (with consciousness) >> had to design and build the measuring device. > >I always thought that the measurement takes place when the robot sees it, but >the state function doesn't collapse until a person reads the robot. > If the wave function collapses only when observed by consciousness, then one could devise from this an experimental test of whether a robot - or indeed any artificial or natural creature - had consciousness or not. On the other hand, one could regard this as the reductio ad absurdum of the notion that state function collapse happens at conscious observation. Chris Malcolm Department of Artificial Intelligence
ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin) (02/05/89)
/> The damn state function collapses if a
/> measurement is made, even if the measurement is made by a mindless instrument
/> and recorded on tape that's locked in a closet for ten years. In fact, it'll
/> even collapse if a measurement is *going* to be made; and if you change your
/> mind and turn off the instrument *after* the event but *before* the
/> measurement, you'll find that the function outguessed you and didn't collapse.
/
/ What does all this mean? I'm not a physicist but I would guess that a
/ mindless instrument collapses the state function of a quantum event *for
/ itself only* when it makes a measurement and records the result on paper
/ tape. Until you look at it, the paper tape record is also represented
/ by a superposition of quantum states. Just because something is big
/ dosn't mean that quantum physics don't apply . . .
That makes perfect sense, and it's a pity that it doesn't work that way...
(This discussion is out of place on this board by now, but what the heck.) The
experiment in question has a point source of light shining on two slits. If you
put a measuring device on each slit, then as each photon goes past, it will show
up either at slit A and slit B, then go through and hit approximately beyond
that slit (with a possibility of bending left or right, because of the nature of
waves going through slits. The result is two overlapping fuzzy bright spots on
the wall. Quantum weirdness 1: If you do *not* put measuring devices on the
slits, the photon will go 50 / 50 through *both* slits, have a chance of bending
left or right from each one, and the two "halves" will interfere, producing two
overlapping spots streaked with light and dark bands.
Now change the wall to a movable screen. Add some lenses so that the waves
coming from the two slits are bent inwards somewhat. If the screen is in, you
have the second experiment; if the screen is out, the photons go past it and
diverge somewhat, so you *can* tell which slit each photon came from -- you're
back to the first experiment.
According to QM, the photon does the appropriate thing depending on where
the screen is. Even if you pull it out *after* the photon has passed the slits,
it still gets it right. Accckkk.
--Z
(The book I got this from is _Beyond Schroedinger's Cat_, by John Gribbin.)schraudo@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) (02/09/89)
In article <263@edai.ed.ac.uk> cam@edai (Chris Malcolm) writes: >In article <IXrfm6y00XoWM0gFtA@andrew.cmu.edu> ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin) writes: >>I always thought that the measurement takes place when the robot sees it, but >>the state function doesn't collapse until a person reads the robot. > >If the wave function collapses only when observed by consciousness, >then one could devise from this an experimental test of whether a robot >- or indeed any artificial or natural creature - had consciousness or not. Neat idea - but how are you going to check the result of your consciousness test? Look at it? You do that, and naturally you'll find the wave function collapsed - because you looked! -- "Language is a Virus from Outer Space" - William S. Burroughs ##################################################################### # Nici Schraudolph nschraudolph@ucsd.edu # # University of California, San Diego ...!ucsd!nschraudolph # ##################################################################### Disclaimer: U.C. Regents and me share no common opinions whatsoever.
ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin) (02/11/89)
/>If the wave function collapses only when observed by consciousness, />then one could devise from this an experimental test of whether a robot />- or indeed any artificial or natural creature - had consciousness or not. / /Neat idea - but how are you going to check the result of your consciousness /test? Look at it? You do that, and naturally you'll find the wave function /collapsed - because you looked! I shouldn't have brought up the phrase "the function collapses" -- it seems to be getting in the way. The point of the quantum observer-observed interaction is that the experiment is affected by whether "someone is looking" (whether an observation has been made.) This is true even if the observation has trivial effect on the observed. (For example, an observation can be made as to whether an electron has gone past. That observation will affect the electron; *but* experiments can be designed in which the *amount* of effect is too small to screw things up.) In other words, the film in the "two-slit experiment" will show fringes if the slits were not watched individually, and no fringes if they were. Looking at the film afterward has nothing to do with anything; the state function has already collapsed. The experiment measured whether the collapse happened to the particle before the slits or after them. --Z
tbone@hubcap.UUCP (Anthony H Behrens) (02/17/89)
Subject: Re: Robots & free will (was Re: The limitations of logic) Newsgroups: comp.ai Summary: wow pwerful stuff there guys!! References: <3328@sdsu.UUCP> <43228@linus.UUCP> <539@uceng.UC.EDU> <3550@ingr.com> <oXwsoey00XoE0=wlA6@andrew.cmu.edu> this is an experiment to seee iif it will work. oops!(sp) :