There is bad science and then there is good science that is marketed by others to fulfill non-science needs…. [read ‘pop’ science].
That is the case here. This is really good stuff… but these robots were programmed very specifically which resulted in their behavior being interpreted in a way that mirrored the researchers belief systems.
It really is a short process:
1) Take away the science parts
2.) Think in terms of internal “purposeful behavior” instead of determinism,
3.) Then gloss over specific algorithms programmed
4.) Use inner-causes like ‘intention’
5.) Finally, ‘report’ the research using ‘trigger’ points of the ‘net…
= ) you get a news blip that sells magazines at the airport.
This is a really good paper and needs to be read several times to absorb not only the vocabulary used but the methodologies employed.
If it were easy, it would be on the Fox Nightly Newts.
Some philosophers and zoologists would argue that if an organism can be shown to deceive another organism of like kind and type [species] than those creatures must have consciousness. (Cheney and Seyfarth, 1990).
So the robots are here and they are being interpolated as purposively deceiving one of their own. Thus, these robots have consciousness.
There is probably some gray area in these reports that knowledgeable people need to discern based on experimental methods, vocabulary definitions, and data.
All hail philosophers in waiting and zoologists in the field!