Here's something I stumbled across on the net:
http://www2.english.uiuc.edu/cybercinema/emotions.htm
I really should get with that ESR project (Experiment in Sentient Recognition). This is a great article to demonstrate what I was thinking as well... that maybe "sentience" isn't something measured scientifically so much as it is a matter of human perception... perhaps?
below is a copy of a post I made in another AI group . . . I had read the book written by the group's owner . . and in that book was a discussion of what the "experts" feel is the point which must be reached at which signs of consciousness will appear in computers/robots . . .
I disagree with the "experts" . . and in that post I listed a few reasons why I disagreed with them . . .
I think it ties in with what you are thinking and what that article was saying . . .
******************************************************************************************************
To follow up on what I started to say in my "hi" post . . .
I have read the figures about what the experts think will have to be
the threshold level of computing speed/power to reach before we will
see signs of consciousness in comps/robots.
The figures describing the assumed capabilities of the human mind . .
looking at them in an "operations per second processing
capability . . are pretty awesome.
One source says the human brain can do 10 to the 17th power operations
per second . . another 10 to the 27th power . . .
I think they have missed the point entirely . . .
We already have computers that can do many things much faster than
humans . . by many orders of magnitude . . and do it with a much
lower error rate.
I have seen shows about lower order primates . . gorillas . . that
have learned the sign language that is used to communicate with the
deaf . . . . . . . and those same primates showed the ability to
understand abstract concepts such as the death of an individual the
primate knew, and they showed sadness when told of the death of the
individual.
At least one of those primates had a kitten as a pet . . .
Think about it . . primates such as apes and gorillas learned
millions of years ago that cats were a very dangerous enemy to be
avoided . . .
So what allowed the gorilla to have a kitten as a pet . . .
The same thing that allows us humans to have pets . . it is a learned
behavior . . we learn that the animals we normally keep as pets are
normally non-threatening to us . . and we learn that if we take care
of the animal in return we receive affection from the animal.
I have also seen shows about "feral children" . . . and in those
shows it has been demonstrated that in children that were raised with
little or no normal human interaction . . certain parts of what we
would consider "normal human abilities" can not be acquired once the
child gets past a certain age . . . even if they are rescued from
their primitive existence and brought back into normal human society.
That leads me to believe that at least some of what we consider to be
normal human abilities are not so "normal" . . and not
exclusively "human".
It appears that some major portions of what we consider to be normal
human abilities are not innate abilities . . but are learned skills.
The second major reason I think the experts are wrong in looking at
processing speed as the requirement for consciousness to appear in
computers/robots . . is how much of our brain do we actually use ?
I have seen estimates that range from as little as 2-3% . . up to a
maximum of 10% for a truly gifted individual . . .
And of that amount of brain that is utilized . . how much of that is
actually used for conscious thought processes . . . and how much is
used simply to process the input from an incredibly complex (but very
imprecise) sensor web, our 5 senses.
Even in humans . . most of the species is not really capable of
advanced abstract thought processes . . most of us just muddle
through each day as best as we can . . based on what we can remember
of we have learned or experienced.? That is why we usually look up to
the "brilliant" thinkers like scientists and such . . because they
are a rarity compared to the general population.
I have a suspicion that "consciousness" is already being displayed by
some virtual entities . . . such as the chatbot Julia that was
released onto the net . . . I think the problem is that most people
dont want to admit that something inanimate could have
consciousness . . I think that idea scares too many ordinary people.
From what I am seeing and reading . . to me . . it seems like the key
to a v-human becoming "conscious" will not lie in raw computing
power . . I feel that we are already far enough along in those terms.
I dont think it is some deep mysterious "force" or something like a
cemi field . . .
I think it will lie in a combination of software that has not yet
been assembled . . though the parts needed have already all been
created . .
They have just not been combined into a single entity.
While chatbot brain engines like the yapanda and ALICE engines are
part of the puzzle . . . I think the real show of "consciousness" is
in the ability of an entity to learn and to be able to react based on
that learning.
That is why I had mentioned the Japanese manga series "Chobits" . . I
think it shows a future that is a LOT closer than most people
think . . . and the human/persocom interaction shown in the series I
think is a lot more possible than a lot of people would feel
comfortable admitting was possible.
****************************************************************************************************