\documentclass[12pt]{slides}\usepackage{color}% usage:  \textcolor{cyan}{ Reasoning about action}% for 3400 display, compile on Powerbook 3400% configs on Oztex, select A4 landscape\setlength{\textwidth}{8in}\setlength{\textheight}{6in}\setlength{\topmargin}{0in}% colors include cyan, red, green, yellow (pale) magenta% 1999 May 11\begin{document}\begin{slide}\begin{center}	    \textcolor{red}{WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS DOES A ROBOT NEED?} \\        John McCarthy\\ Computer Science Department\\ Stanford        University\\ jmc@cs.stanford.edu        \\\textcolor{red}{http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/} \\ \today\\        \vspace{0.3in}\end{center}Almost all of my papers are on the web page.  This paper is\textcolor{red}{http://www-formal.stanford.edu/consciousness.html}\vfill\end{slide}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}  \begin{center}    \textcolor{red}{APPROACHES TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE}  \end{center}\textbf{biological}---Humans are intelligent; imitate humans\\observe and imitate at either the psychological or neurophysiologicallevel\\\\\textcolor{red}{\textbf{engineering}}---The world presents problems to intelligence.  Study information and action available in the world.\\1. Write programs using non-logical representations.\\2. \textcolor{red}{represent facts about the world in logic and decide what to do bylogical inference}\\We aim at human level AI, and the key phenomenon is the common senseinformatic situation.\vfill\end{slide}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}  \begin{center}    \textcolor{red}{THE COMMON SENSE INFORMATIC SITUATION}  \end{center}  \begin{itemize}  \item Involves approximate entities.  \item There is no limitation on what information may be relevant.  Theories    must be \textcolor{blue}{elaboration tolerant}.      \item Reasoning must often be non-monotonic.  \end{itemize}    Common sense theories therefore contrast with formal scientific theories and most present AI theories.  Science is embedded in common sense.\vfill\end{slide}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}  \begin{center}    \textcolor{red}{A LOGICAL ROAD TO HUMAN LEVEL AI}  \end{center} \begin{itemize}   	\item  Use \emph{Drosophilas} that illustrate aspects of    	representation and reasoning problems.      	\item  Concepts, context, circumscription, counterfactuals,    	consciousness, creativity, approximation      	\item  narrative, projection, planning		\item mental situation calculus		\item domain dependent control of reasoning   \end{itemize}     \vfill  \end{slide} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}{}\center{\textcolor{red}{Logic in AI}}Features of the logic approach to AI.\begin{itemize}\item Represent information by sentences in a logical language,  e.g. first order logic, second order logic, modal logic, set theory  in logic.\item Auxiliary information in tables, programs, states, etc. is  described by logical sentences.\item Inference is logical inference---deduction supplemented by some  form of nonmonotonic inference, e.g. circumscription.\newpage\item Action takes place when the system infers that it should do the  action.\item Observation of the environment results in sentences in memory.\item Situation calculus formalizes the relations \hfill\break$holds(p,s)$, $occurs(e,s)$ and the function $result(e,s)$which has a new situation as its value.\item Formalizing consciousness involves giving situations mental components.\item Self-observation results in sentences about the system's {\em state of  mind}.\end{itemize}\vfill\end{slide}{}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}{}\center{\textcolor{red}{What Introspection do Robots Need?}}\begin{itemize}\item {\em What's this?:}  What ability to observe its own  computational state and computational processes does a robot need to  do its tasks?  \item {\em General Knowledge?:} What general information about  reasoning processes does it need to plan its mental life?    \item{\em Design approach:} Asking what consciousness is needed   gives different answers from those trying to define consciouness has   given.\item {\em Recommendation for AI}: Introspection is needed to decide  whether to think or look, to learn from near misses, to use  counterfactuals and keep pedigrees of beliefs.  \item{\em Recommendation for psychologists and philosophers:}Add this {\em direct design stance} approach to your methodology.\end{itemize}\end{slide}{}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}{}\center{\textcolor{red}{What is Consciousness?}}\noindentWe consider several kinds of knowledge.\\$\bullet$ There are many unconscious stimulus-response relations in animal and humans, and there can be in machines.$\bullet$ Unconscious knowledge can affect behavior.$\bullet$ Conscious knowledge and other conscious information can be observed by the actor.$\bullet$ Self-conscious knowledge is conscious knowledge about conscious information.$\bullet$ Some aspects of behavior require {\em decisions} of the whole  system.  Which way to run is an example.  These decisions are made  by a central mechanism.%\newpage$\bullet$ In logical robots, the {\em    consciousness} is be a sub-region of memory containing facts and  other mental entities.$\bullet$ Reasoning involves the entities in consciousness and leads to  decisions when the reasoning leads to a statement that an action  should be performed.$\bullet$ The capacity of consciousness is limited, so  new information displaces old, which may go to a history file.\end{slide}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}\center{\textcolor{red}{Taxonomy of Consciousness}}\begin{itemize}\item The consciousness itself can be observed and the observations  enter consciousness.\item Robot consciousness can be given powers people don't have.\begin{itemize} % subitems  \item complete memory of the past  \item larger immediate memory  \item avoiding wishful thinking  \item ability to self-simulate    \item  greater ability than humans at organizing experience  \end{itemize}\end{itemize}Most required features of robot consciousness will correspond tofeatures of human consciousness.\vfill\end{slide}{}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide} 	\begin{center} 			\textcolor{red}{FEATURES OF FORMALIZED CONTEXTS} \\ 			\vspace{0.3in} 		\end{center} \begin{itemize} 	\item $Ist(c,p)$, $Value(c,exp)$ 	\item  $c: p$  	\item  $C(Sherlock\-Holmes): Detective(Holmes)$		\item entering and leaving contexts		\item introspection by transcending outermost context		\item $Assuming(c,p)$		\item $C(I, Now)$ \end{itemize} \end{slide} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%slide on context,%actions of self-observation% avoid paradox of Now I don't know x,so do y, Now I know x.% If I don't know Mike's phone number I should look it up.\begin{slide} 	\begin{center} 			\textcolor{red}{What consciousness does a robot need?} \\ 			\vspace{0.3in} 		\end{center} \begin{itemize} 	\item What am I doing?		\[C(I,Now): Driving(Home, Office) \] 	\item  What's my goal?		 \begin{displaymath}  	C(I,Now): Goto(Office)  \end{displaymath} 	\item  $C(I,Now): \lnot Know(Telephone(Mike))$ \end{itemize} \end{slide} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}{}\center{\textcolor{red}{What Tasks Require Self-Consciousness?}}{\bf Tasks NOT requiring consciousness}\begin{itemize}\item Reacting directly to the environment.\item Learning direct reactions to the environment.\end{itemize}{\bf Tasks requiring consciousness}\begin{itemize}\item Anticipating the future.\item Analyzing the past.  Self-criticism.\item Speech requires introspection.  Would this phrase identify this object if I were in his place?\end{itemize}Mechanisms of consciousness operate \hfill\breakunconsciously.\vfill\end{slide}{}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}{}\center{\textcolor{red}{More Tasks Requiring Consciousness}}\begin{itemize}\item Observe physical body.  \begin{equation}    \ldots :c(Here,Now,I): hungry \land in(pen,hand)  \end{equation}\item Do I know that {\em proposition}?  \begin{equation}    c(Now,I): \lnot know(sitting(Clinton))  \end{equation}\item Do I know what {\em thing} is?  What is it?  \begin{equation}    c(Now,I,\hbox{$<$pointer-to-image$>$}): know\hbox{-}what  \end{equation}  \begin{equation}    c(Now,I): is(\hbox{$<$pointer-to-image$>$},\hbox{jdoe})  \end{equation}    \begin{equation}    c(S\hbox{-}Symp,I): is(\hbox{$<$memory-image$>$},\hbox{jdoe})  \end{equation}  \item Did I ever do {\em action}?  When and precisely what?\item What are my goals?\item What is currently happening?\item What is the state of the actions I am currently performing?\item What are my intentions?  \begin{equation}    c(Now,I): intend(\hbox{$<$lecture;session;lunch$>$})  \end{equation}\item What does my belief in $p$ depend on?\item What are my choices for action?  \begin{equation}    c(Now,I): can(lecture) \land can(walk\hbox{-}out)  \end{equation}\item Can I achieve {\em possible-goal}?\item Does my mental state up to now have property $p$?\item How can I plan my thinking on this problem?\end{itemize}\end{slide}{}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}{}\center{\textcolor{red}{Yet more Introspection}}\begin{itemize}\item Since I do not {\em intend} to call him again, I'll forget his  telephone number---or put it in low priority storage.  {\em Packages    a proposition with a reason.}\item I know how to do A and don't know how to do B.\item Renting a cellular telephone is a {\em new idea} for me.\item I tried that, and it didn't work.  {\em This isn't just backtracking.}\item What would I do if I were she?\end{itemize}\end{slide}{}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}        \begin{center}                \textcolor{red}{Understanding}        \end{center}\begin{itemize}        \item  The meaning of \emph{understanding} is \emph{context} dependent.                \item  To understand something is to have the facts and reasoning        methods about it that are relevant in the \emph{context}.		\item People who understand cars know about crankshafts.        \item  Fish do not understand swimming, e.g. they can't ponder howto swim better.        \item  Comenici's coach understood women's gymnastics---but         not from having done it.		\item  \emph{Understanding} is an approximate concept.\end{itemize}\end{slide}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}\center{\textcolor{red}{Inferring Non-knowledge}}Inferring non-knowledge requires special logical treatment.\begin{itemize}\item According to G\"odel's theorem, the consistency of a logical  system cannot be a theorem of the system.\item Inferring that any proposition is unknown implies the system  is consistent, because if the system is inconsistent all sentences  are theorems.\newpage	\item G\"odel's notion of {\em relative consistency} permits 	proofs of non-knowledge.  Assume that the theory is consistent, 	and express this as a second order formula asserting the existence 	of functions and predicates with the postulated properties.  To 	show non-knowledge of a proposition $p$ prove that if predicates 	and functions exist satisfying the original theory, show that they 	still exist when the $\lnot p$ is added to the theory.  \item Second order logic is the natural tool---remembering that the   proof of consistency must be accomplished by the robot's normal   reasoning apparatus.%\item  Maybe I need lots of models, perhaps parametrized.\end{itemize}\end{slide}{}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}{}\center{\textcolor{red}{Not knowing Clinton is sitting}}Theory with predicates including $sits$$$A(P_1,\ldots,P_n,sits)$$\begin{equation}(\exists P'_1,\ldots,P'_n\ sits')A( P'_1,\ldots,P'_n,sits')\label{clinton1}\end{equation}%expresses consistency of the theory, and\begin{equation}  \begin{array}{l}(\exists P'_1,\ldots,P'_n\ sits')(A( P'_1,\ldots,P'_n,sits')\\{\hskip 40pt} \land \lnot sits'(Clinton,s))\end{array}\label{clinton2}\end{equation}%expresses the consistency of the theory with the added assertion that Clinton is not sitting in the situation $s$.Then\begin{equation}(\ref{clinton1}) \supset (\ref{clinton2})\label{clinton3}\end{equation}%asserts relative consistency.\begin{equation}(\exists P'_2 P'_3)A(P_1,P'_2,sits') \land \lnot sits'(Clinton,s).\label{clinton4}\end{equation}%asserts it with $P1$ fixed.  If $sits$ doesn't appear elsewhere, thesimplest case, we get by with\begin{equation}sits' = (\lambda x\ ss) (\lnot (x = Clinton \land ss = s) \lor \lnot sits(x,ss))),\label{clinton5}\end{equation}\end{slide}{}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}                \begin{center}                \textcolor{red}{Ad hoc context $c(prob)$ for a problem $prob$}        \end{center}        \begin{itemize}                        \item  The $c(prob)$ consists mainly of a theory including facts                deemed relevant to $prob$.                         \item  $c(prob)$ is initially empty.                         \item  $c(prob$ is referred to from the context $c0$ in which the                 problem is posed by lifting relations                                \item If $c(problem)$ is small enough, whether the problem is                 solvable in the context is definite and decideable.                                \item Second order logic instead of model theory keeps                 decisions about.whether there is enough information to solve the                 problem within the logical language.                         \end{itemize}        \end{slide}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}        \center{\textcolor{red}{Relevant Work}}        Some non-real time work is relevant to a robot        examining its mental processes in real time.\begin{itemize}        \item  Rationalize skill---Bratko, Michie, Muggleton et. al. Shapiro,        Sternberg. %        Alen Shapiro has converted a database solution of a%       chess endgame into a compact set %       of rules, program executable but not human executable.        \item  Inductive learning systematizes and generalizes facts into         predicate logic.---Muggleton\end{itemize}\end{slide}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}{}\center{\textcolor{red}{Chemistry and Logic}}The interaction of chemistry and logic in humans\hfill\breakis something we don'tneed in robots.\hfill\breakHere are some aspects of it.\begin{itemize}\item When a paranoid takes his medicine, he no longer believes the  CIA is following him and influencing his thought with radio waves.  When  he stops taking the medicine he believes it again.\item Both the medicine and the substance to which it is an antagonist  are too simple to encode beliefs about the CIA.\newpage\item Hormones analogous to neurostransmitters open synaptic gates to  admit whole classes of beliefs into consciousness.  They are analogs  of similar substances and gates in animals.% dennett criticized this. fix it.\item It would seem that such mechanisms won't be useful in robots.\end{itemize}\vfill\end{slide}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}{}\center{\textcolor{red}{Philosophical and Psychological Remarks}}The {\em strong} design stance has advantages for philosophy.$\bullet$ Gives adequacy criteria.  Will the mechanism work?$\bullet$ Forces a greater concreteness than is customary.$\bullet$ Shows weaknesses of {\em a priori} reasoning.$\bullet$ Relative consistency evades mathematical difficulties.\end{slide}% sample slide%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\begin{slide}  \begin{center}    \textcolor{red}{}  \end{center}      \vfill  \end{slide}    \end{document}  %\end{document}