I'm not sure whether it matters to this discussion, but James Gibson (famous perceptual researcher) claimed there was no information about the world that was not information about the self (or in psych-parlance, that there was no easy distinction between exteroception and proprioception). Perception of "the orientation of a surface," for example, is always perception of "where I am," similarly perception of "me falling" is also the perception of "the ground moving towards my head."
Eric On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 05:06 PM, "Vladimyr Burachynsky" <[email protected]> wrote: > Jochen said" "information about the system itself" and >"information about >other things" is the point where self-awareness begins " > >Perhaps this thought is perhaps a little overly compacted. Information about >self does not require language, indeed awareness of the outside world does >not require language. If both are in place language does not arise >automatically. It does seem that a model of the world mapped out of >perceptions must exist and another symbolic map linking all images of >reality to meanings and to verbal symbols most also be in place. > >There is still a lot of wiggle room about when self awareness emerges. I >am going to assume no human being is born knowing the language of it's >parents. That requires that an individual interact to begin learning the >things in its environment and the symbolic sounds and meanings. So the most >complex brain on the planet spends some 2 or more decades learning languages >bit by bit. Perhaps self awareness is a continuum not an actual object. >Through language games the individual constantly redefines the state of self >awareness. > >That machine Mind we are hypothesizing apparently inherits the complete >library of outside things as well as the libraries of symbols and meanings >and does not require the prolonged tutoring of humans. This is actually a >very radical concept with some very peculiar consequences i.e. An entity >that requires no childhood or social connections yet is fully capable of >communicating with every other member immediately. I suspect that such >entities would not actually be social entities. They may be coldly >indifferent or exploitative of each other. Also these entities would not >have the ability to adapt should the environment change quickly. >If it is not already defined in all the relevant libraries , It seems to >have no means of extension according to the preliminary model we are playing >with. > >\That does not seem to be what any of us had in mind when the discussion >started. It seems that to be what we call self aware it must exist in a >society and be able to also distinguish its thoughts from those of others. >That difference in individuals must also be attached to some kind of >motivation such as curiosity in order for them to exchange information. That >requires the Natural learning method that was assumed no longer useful? > with a requirement for information exchange and some socialization from >childhood the entities enjoy learning or so it would appear. So why do >humans resist Learning after some period of time.? Was there a failure >introduced by accident? > > >VIB >Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky PhD > > >[email protected] > >120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. >Winnipeg,Manitoba, R2J3R2 >Canada > (204) 2548321 Land >(204) 8016064 Cell > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >Of Jochen Fromm >Sent: February-06-11 3:25 AM >To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A question for your Roboteers out there > >Hi Nick, > >I would say language is the key, it is useful if the robot understands >language. A robot usually cannot recognize or perceive itself, if it is not >able to understand language. > >In animals, information about the system itself is so important that it is >usually processed and controlled by an own system, the limbic system and the >autonomic nervous system, or in other words, largely by emotions. >So "information about the system itself" is processed by the limbic >system, >and "information about other things" by the cerebral cortex. > >If robots are able to understand things >through language, then the point where >they start to distinguish "information about the system itself" and >"information about other things" is the point where self-awareness >begins. >To know the self means to know where the self ends, and where the rest of >the world begins. > >-J. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Nicholas Thompson >To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 8:29 PM >Subject: [FRIAM] A question for your Roboteers out there > >At what point in the complexity of a robot (or any other control >system) >does it begin to seem useful to parse input into "information about the >system itself" and "information about other things"? > >Nick > > >============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > >============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
