If a robot was programmed to act like a self aware being, would you call it a self aware being or just appears to be?

So, I've watched Alex Garland's "Ex Machina" movie from a few months ago in a Philosophy Class (Very good movie, by the way). This was a question that the professor asked the class to answer because of the movie's themes and I think this would be an interesting topic to talk about in this site.

So...

If a robot was programmed to act like a self aware being, would you call it a self aware being or just appears to be?

Stuff like these almost always need to start with the definition of the terms.

Specifically for this topic: what is the detailed definition of a "living being"?

IMO, living being needs to be able to think and react to the environment with sufficient complexity. Sufficiently complex actions in my definition would be to have a different specific action for each different stimuli. E.g.: if a fly encounters some sweet liquid, it will attempt to suck it up. If the fly encounters nothing wet and smells nothing revolting, it will just buzz around. All of these with its evasive reaction always ready.... Unless its body had been deprived of sleep which it would move slower.

All these actions are done through its very primitive so-called brain, meaning this creature is making decisions whether by instinct or not.

@namtab_god: Looking back at it, the topic wasn't more about living, more about self awareness. The movie discusses the topic in a way like this:

Would this robot be actually aware of the consequences of it's actions or just appears to know the consequences of it's actions and will act correspondingly? Does this robot actually want to look pretty for others or was it just programmed to make it appear that it wants to look pretty for others? Is this robot capable of manipulating others on it's own free will or because it's creator programmed it to do so?

I suppose it really just depends on how well it can keep up the act. I mean... I don't think there is any way to truly prove self-awareness in humans, let alone machines.

Sure, everyone thinks they are self-aware, but what if acting like you are self-aware and thinking you are self-aware is just part of your biological programming?

If it just programmed to act like it's self-aware, then I am not going to treat it as if it actually is, because it isn't.

Self-awareness is the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals.

Programmed or not, based on the definition given, I'd say it's self-aware. Who knows whether or not humans are "programmed" to be self-aware? Either way, it wouldn't make it less true that we are.

I couldn’t think of a machine as anything but a machine.

The idea of self-awareness crossed my thoughts too when I typed out my previous post.

However, I hesitate to include self-awareness as a requirement to be a "living thing". Many tiny bugs aren't self-aware and mostly act on instinct.

Now that you have changed the OP title, the whole topic had a fundamental change!

IMO, the key definition now is more questionable on the word "act" rather than on "self-awareness", since the "self-awareness" term is rather specific and clear.

How does one "act" self-aware? We haven't actually imagined a real life example of something that can consistently "act" self-aware. And what is "act"? Visually observable actions? Or does it include "mentally observable" thoughts? ("mentally observable" meaning the likes of computer brain scientists can read mental input from this artificial being and determine it to be self-aware)

The sentience of another being in unknowable.

For all you know, you could be a brain in a vat and everything you see (including me) is just a program in your brain.

Cogito ergo sum.

I would call it by whatever name it has. Also human looking robots are creepy (in fact, humans think things that look near human are creepy). Keep them looking mechanical, tyvm.

Why dont you just ask the robot?

Star Trek TNG had a whole episode about this.

Is this a reference to Transcendence? Because if so ?

You'd call it by it's name, like Siri or Alexa. It would technically be it's own hybrid category, depending on the level of sentience.

If it's just acting like it is, then no.