3 ms·

It's practically a trope in cognitive science and artificial intelligence that there's an implicit assumption we have that it's only intelligence/self-awareness

It's practically a trope in cognitive science and artificial intelligence that there's an implicit assumption we have that it's only intelligence/self-awareness/consciousness if only a human can do it. So we devise these tests, later find out an animal/program can do it, and then decide "oh, that's not really intelligence/self-awareness/consciousness anyway."

hoorayimhelping 10y ago
The article made it seem like the mirror test was controversial as a measure of intelligence or self-awareness from the start. I seem to remember learning that in a psychology class.
sametmax 10y ago
It assumes that the notion of self is a complicated thing. My theory has always be the opposite. I think the notion of self is the most simple, most basic thing of all, like the smallest dot possible in a gigantic space. Anything, no matter how primitive, can have it. I don't think it requires thoughts or analysis. "I am" is very simple, it's us that try to make it complicated, wrapping it into more complex concepts like "what", "when", "where", "who", "purpose" or "quality". In that sense it's not a surprise that even small creatures can realize "this is me". It's a leap from "I am", but not a huge one. And more related to the ability of sense organs than the size of the brain.
- red75prime 10y ago
  I will be surprised if rocks don't have this kind of "smallest dot". They have no self, but the content of their awareness is also empty, so it perfectly matches them. I think that idea of "self" is meaningless if there's no machinery capable of explicitly representing parts of its own state and operations. There's no single "smallest dot", but sequence of coevolving systems and representations of the system in itself.
  - sametmax 10y ago
    You are making it complicated again. The system and representation of the system is a wrapper. It's a construction of a mind wanting to make sense of things, categorize and organize. "I am" is much more basic than that. It's the the concept of being and be aware of it. It does not include description, representation, comparison or context. There is even the possibility that "I am" can exist without a mind. We can't prove it though, since proving requires a mind.
7373737373 10y ago
Yes. A sufficiently intelligent system will at some point model itself, learning that there are boundaries of cause and effect that are more directly under its control. Only then can there be a distinction between input and output from the intrinsic perspective.

hoorayimhelping 10y ago

The article made it seem like the mirror test was controversial as a measure of intelligence or self-awareness from the start. I seem to remember learning that in a psychology class.

sametmax 10y ago

It assumes that the notion of self is a complicated thing. My theory has always be the opposite. I think the notion of self is the most simple, most basic thing of all, like the smallest dot possible in a gigantic space. Anything, no matter how primitive, can have it. I don't think it requires thoughts or analysis. "I am" is very simple, it's us that try to make it complicated, wrapping it into more complex concepts like "what", "when", "where", "who", "purpose" or "quality". In that sense it's not a surprise that even small creatures can realize "this is me". It's a leap from "I am", but not a huge one. And more related to the ability of sense organs than the size of the brain.

red75prime 10y ago
I will be surprised if rocks don't have this kind of "smallest dot". They have no self, but the content of their awareness is also empty, so it perfectly matches them. I think that idea of "self" is meaningless if there's no machinery capable of explicitly representing parts of its own state and operations. There's no single "smallest dot", but sequence of coevolving systems and representations of the system in itself.
- sametmax 10y ago
  You are making it complicated again. The system and representation of the system is a wrapper. It's a construction of a mind wanting to make sense of things, categorize and organize. "I am" is much more basic than that. It's the the concept of being and be aware of it. It does not include description, representation, comparison or context. There is even the possibility that "I am" can exist without a mind. We can't prove it though, since proving requires a mind.

7373737373 10y ago

Yes. A sufficiently intelligent system will at some point model itself, learning that there are boundaries of cause and effect that are more directly under its control. Only then can there be a distinction between input and output from the intrinsic perspective.