Literal self-awareness is possible. The flaw in your argument is that "self" is ambiguous in the way you're using it. It's not ambiguous in the way me or Marcus intend it. You can see this nicely if you elide "know" from your argument. We know nothing. The machine knows nothing. Just don't use the word "know" or the concept it references. There need not be a model involved, either, only sensors and things to be sensed.
Self-sensing means there is a feedback loop between the sensor and the thing it senses. So, the sensor measures the sensed and the sensed measures the sensor. That is self-awareness. There's no need for any of the psychological hooha you often object to. There's no need for privileged information *except* that there has to be a loop. If anything is privileged, it's the causal loop. The real trick is composing multiple self-self loops into something resembling what we call a conscious agent. We can get to the uncanny valley with regular old self-sensing control theory and robotics. Getting beyond the valley is difficult: https://youtu.be/D8_VmWWRJgE A similar demonstration is here: https://youtu.be/7ncDPoa_n-8 On 11/1/21 2:08 PM, [email protected] wrote: > In fact, strictly speaking, I think literal self-awareness is impossible. > Because, whatever a machine knows about itself, it is a MODEL of itself based > on well situated sensors of its own activities, just like you are and I am. > There is no privileged access, just bettah or wussah access. -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
