cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu (cameron shelley) (10/12/90)
Many postings suggest that "intelligence", "self-awareness",
"consciousness", and so forth are equivalent or at least strongly
related. What is it that necessarily makes them so? Does
intelligence automatically imply the ability to perform introspection,
by which act applied to itself constitutes self-awareness?
ie. self-awareness = intelligence(introspection)?
In other words, intelligence is a relation which can (among other
things) map introspection to self-awareness (a holistic sense). This
may characterize subjectivity, but isn't objectivity also an important
part of "intelligence"? Maybe:
consciousness = intelligence(extraspection)?
Sorry about "extraspection", but I think you get the idea. :> To
interpret: consciousness is a sense of place in "the world" arrived
at by applying intelligence to observation? Note that the above
"equations" allow for degrees of self-awareness and consciousness
dependant on degree of intelligence and raw observational faculty.
This also would remove intelligence from being a "thing" describable
by say, a feature vector, to a set of translations from feature vectors
to states like self-awareness etc. No necessary restriction on the
determinism of the translations is implied. Also, this is not dualist
since the mechanism of the *spections is not eliminated.
I do not propose to push this "algebra" too far, I just brought it
up to suggest that the notion of intelligence as used so far may not
be as complete as it should be.
--
Cameron Shelley | "Saw, n. A trite popular saying, or proverb.
cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu| So called because it makes its way into a
Davis Centre Rm 2136 | wooden head."
Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390 | Ambrose Biercesarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/13/90)
In article <1990Oct11.195803.18308@watdragon.waterloo.edu> cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu (cameron shelley) writes: > > Many postings suggest that "intelligence", "self-awareness", >"consciousness", &c. are equivalent or at least strongly >related. What is it that necessarily makes them so? I would say nothing. I always try to treat them as seperate entities. If I ever fail to do so, please point it out to me. [In some cases, where I am responding to someone else, it may not be clear that I am making a distinction, but I hope I still am] > Does >intelligence automatically imply the ability to perform introspection, >by which act applied to itself constitutes self-awareness? Probably not. I consider 'intelligence' to be the capability to reason on the basis of limited data. I do not see that this necessarily ensures self-awareness. I would say that without self-monitoring transducers providing input about self there is no basis for self-awareness. [That is a physical basis is needed for self-awareness] However I would say that consciousness cannot exist without self-awareness. Whether self-awareness can exist without consciousness is difficult. [Actually, as I think about it, I realize I have not always distinguished between these last two]. Could it be that self-awareness plus intelligence generates consciousness?? [That is self-awareness based on internal monitoring plus reasoning & modelling generate the sense of self as part of an outside world that we call consciousness. Tentative Definitions: Intelligence: the capacity to use models and patterns to reason about and make decisions with incomplete or distorted data. Self-awareness: the capability to apply mental processes to oneself. Consciousness: the existance of intellectual self-models as part of an intelligent reasoning process. -- --------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (Stanley Friesen)
cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) (10/14/90)
In article <26@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: > >However I would say that consciousness cannot exist without self-awareness. >Whether self-awareness can exist without consciousness is difficult. >[Actually, as I think about it, I realize I have not always distinguished >between these last two]. > The original latin meaning of 'conscious' was something like "a shared knowlegde" or interestingly, "a feeling of guilt or responsibility". In other words, it described how one's knowlegde related one to others and vice versa. While the romans don't have to have the last 'word' on this (har har), I do like the outward direction of its sense and would generalize it to mean knowlegde of one's relation to the world. Then, I could characterize self-awareness as a similar knowledge that one is different from those others, and that the differences can be identified. >Could it be that self-awareness plus intelligence generates consciousness?? I don't see how, in the senses given above, one could really exist without the other. They are complimentary but simultaneous, like mass and velocity. Incidently, I don't see a reason for assuming that they are absolute, ie. that something is 'conscious' or 'self-aware' or not. There is nothing I can see that would exclude degrees of them. >Tentative Definitions: > >Intelligence: the capacity to use models and patterns to reason about and > make decisions with incomplete or distorted data. > How about the ability to completely ignore data, or to act unreasonably? Several postings have pointed to the predictable stimulus-response behaviour of 'lower' species as proving them to be less intelligent, and I quite agree. Doesn't the ability to be 'irrational' only arise with intelligence? -- Cameron Shelley | "Saw, n. A trite popular saying, or proverb. cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu| So called because it makes its way into a Davis Centre Rm 2136 | wooden head." Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390 | Ambrose Bierce
rjf@canon.co.uk (Robin Faichney) (10/15/90)
In article <26@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >[..] >Consciousness: the existance of intellectual self-models as part of > an intelligent reasoning process. What is wrong with the ordinary concept of consciousness? I've always taken it to be roughly synonymous with awareness or being awake, in the narrow sense, and with sentience, in the broad sense (the latter being roughly the capacity for the former). Seems I'm not alone, either -- from the Concise Oxford Dictionary: conscious a. & n. 1. Aware, knowing, (of fact, of external circumstances, that, or abs.); with mental faculties awake.. consciousness n. State of being conscious.. Now I wouldn't suggest that a dictionary is the ultimate authority, but in this case I'd say that this is, indeed, common usage -- and I've yet to hear it proposed that a different, technical usage either does or should prevail among AI people, philosophers or psychologists. Of course you, like Alice's caterpillar (?), can use a word in any way you want, but you should be warned that communications difficulties may result.. ;-)
sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/20/90)
In article <1990Oct13.194921.7745@watdragon.waterloo.edu> cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) writes: > The original latin meaning of 'conscious' was something like "a shared >knowlegde" or interestingly, "a feeling of guilt or responsibility". In >other words, it described how one's knowlegde related one to others and >vice versa. >I do like the outward direction of its sense and would >generalize it to mean knowlegde of one's relation to the world. This is indeed a very interesting concept, and may deserve consideration. Unfortunately using the word conscious to refer to it is likely to cause confusion - the dictionary I consulted marked that definition as 'archaic' (and it was an old dictionary). I think communication would be better served by coming up with a new term for this worthy concept. >>Could it be that self-awareness plus intelligence generates consciousness?? > I don't see how, in the senses given above, one could really exist without >the other. They are complimentary but simultaneous, like mass and velocity. >Incidently, I don't see a reason for assuming that they are absolute, ie. >that something is 'conscious' or 'self-aware' or not. There is nothing >I can see that would exclude degrees of them. I suggested that causality based on my rather different definition of conscious. With you definition they are indeed independent, with mine they are probably not. Certainly I admit to degrees of most of these things. As a biologist I am probably more aware than most how much of what we humans do is foreshadowed in other animals. >>Tentative Definitions: >>Intelligence: the capacity to use models and patterns to reason about and >> make decisions with incomplete or distorted data. > How about the ability to completely ignore data, or to act unreasonably? >Several postings have pointed to the predictable stimulus-response >behaviour of 'lower' species as proving them to be less intelligent, and >I quite agree. Doesn't the ability to be 'irrational' only arise with >intelligence? I would say that unpredictability does *not* equate to irrationality. The unpredictability of intelligent being like us is at least in part due to the complexity of the internal models we maintain, and the delicate interaction between the models, the stimulus and the behavior. The predictability of 'lower' animals is proof of a lack of internal models, and thus is an indication of lack of intelligence. (Direct programmed response to a stimulus does not require an internal model - just a wire). When we humans truly act irrationally I would *not* say we are acting with intelligence. And less intelligent animals do act irrationally when placed in a situation for which they are ill suited. I suspec this is also the source of much of human irrationality. -- --------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (Stanley Friesen)
cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) (10/21/90)
In article <33@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >In article <1990Oct13.194921.7745@watdragon.waterloo.edu> cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) writes: >>I do like the outward direction of its sense ["conscious"] and would >>generalize it to mean knowlegde of one's relation to the world. > >This is indeed a very interesting concept, and may deserve consideration. >Unfortunately using the word conscious to refer to it is likely to cause >confusion - the dictionary I consulted marked that definition as 'archaic' >(and it was an old dictionary). I think communication would be better served >by coming up with a new term for this worthy concept. Thank you for the diplomacy! What is old could be new again! :> But seriously, I see your point. Well, when greek and latin fail - turn to GERMAN! How about "Gewissen"? Just another word to look up? > >>>Could it be that self-awareness plus intelligence generates consciousness?? > >> I don't see how, in the senses given above, one could really exist without >>the other. They are complimentary but simultaneous, like mass and velocity. >>Incidently, I don't see a reason for assuming that they are absolute, ie. >>that something is 'conscious' or 'self-aware' or not. There is nothing >>I can see that would exclude degrees of them. > >I suggested that causality based on my rather different definition of conscious >With you definition they are indeed independent, with mine they are probably >not. Ahh. Ok, I guess I did not understand the idea you were using. But otherwise it seems to me that the ideas 'self-awareness' and 'conscious' come very close (at least) to collapsing together. Do you mean self- awareness is a starting state, intelligence is a process (knowledge?) and consciousness is the result of applying the latter on the former? If so, what advantage is gained by this distinction, or whichever distinction you had in mind? > >Certainly I admit to degrees of most of these things. As a biologist I am >probably more aware than most how much of what we humans do is foreshadowed >in other animals. > >>>Tentative Definitions: >>>Intelligence: the capacity to use models and patterns to reason about and >>> make decisions with incomplete or distorted data. > >> How about the ability to completely ignore data, or to act unreasonably? >>Several postings have pointed to the predictable stimulus-response >>behaviour of 'lower' species as proving them to be less intelligent, and >>I quite agree. Doesn't the ability to be 'irrational' only arise with >>intelligence? > >I would say that unpredictability does *not* equate to irrationality. >The unpredictability of intelligent being like us is at least in part due >to the complexity of the internal models we maintain, and the delicate >interaction between the models, the stimulus and the behavior. > >The predictability of 'lower' animals is proof of a lack of internal models, >and thus is an indication of lack of intelligence. (Direct programmed response >to a stimulus does not require an internal model - just a wire). > You are right to point this out in the context I brought it up in. The point is well taken. Let me re-express what I was trying to say. In the first part of my earlier response, I tried to distinguish a subjective awareness (what I called "self-awareness") from an objective one (that I characterized as "conciousness") - essentially a field/ground distinction familiar from psychology or even formal logic (Goedel's theorem). Here, I am simply saying that I don't believe that 'intelligence' can be fully described in isolation either, that some *simultaneous* notion of 'unintelligence' is necessary. I used the terms "irrational" and (ill-advisedly) "unpredictable" as synonyms. So my comment on your 'model' model (:>) would be that it is good as far as it goes, but is not 'complete' in a formal sense. The corollary would be that intelligence can still exist in the absense of models, if the circumstance arises. Both conditions are, I am saying, necessary. I hesitate to add sufficient since I doubt this is the last word on the subject... >When we humans truly act irrationally I would *not* say we are acting with >intelligence. Given what I just said, obviously I do not agree that this is true in *all* cases. > And less intelligent animals do act irrationally when placed >in a situation for which they are ill suited. I suspec this is also the >source of much of human irrationality. No arguement there! -- Cameron Shelley | "Saw, n. A trite popular saying, or proverb. cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu| So called because it makes its way into a Davis Centre Rm 2136 | wooden head." Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390 | Ambrose Bierce