Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-139
Posts: 1,807
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: March 11, 2008, 06:31:34 PM » |
|
This thread should be renamed the Bicentennial Man thread. That was the entire premise of the movie. A robot gains awareness and goes on a quest to become human. By then end he has Flesh, stomach, blood, central nervous system, etc. He even grows "old" and dies. The crux of this argument is not around can a robot become a human, but more along the lines of can a robot have a soul.
What exactly is a soul? Some say the root of conscience. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +212/-207
Posts: 4,065
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2008, 07:46:22 AM » |
|
I kinda was under the impression that if something is not human... than it's not human.
If it's a robot, it's a robot. If robots at some point in the future attain sentience, they're still robots, even IF they have biological DNA. I don't think it's discriminitory to consider them inhuman as long as they're not abused in this future.
I mean, an asian guy is asian cause he's asian. An asian guy can't be white... even if paints his face.
I'm not a big fan of Wittgenstein, but his overly simplified theory that "the world is everything and that is the case" kind of applies here.
A robot is a robot. A human is a human.
End.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2008, 09:45:18 AM » |
|
I kinda was under the impression that if something is not human... than it's not human.
If it's a robot, it's a robot. If robots at some point in the future attain sentience, they're still robots, even IF they have biological DNA. I don't think it's discriminitory to consider them inhuman as long as they're not abused in this future.
I mean, an asian guy is asian cause he's asian. An asian guy can't be white... even if paints his face.
I'm not a big fan of Wittgenstein, but his overly simplified theory that "the world is everything and that is the case" kind of applies here.
A robot is a robot. A human is a human.
End.
Don't think there's much to add to this... You can slide of into a discussion about essences, or categorisation, but really A has said it all. What I think is still at issue though is the question of Mind in all this. IamMe actually started off with a reference to the Turing Test - in the 1950s I guess human consciousness/awareness/sentience was all that could be envisaged (without getting dead-end mystical). After a thorough dowsing in behaviourism (the test is VERY behaviourist!) and the massive development of AI, cognitive science and neuroscience, we can CONCEIVE of atrificial intelligence (both words to be defined) but still have the problem as to whether it is POSSIBLE for mind be instantiated in artificial devices - which I suspect is the question that the original post was really aiming at. I think it is possible, because I think that mind is ultimately the expression of natural properties. These and how they emerged are extremely complex and as yet not understood to any great degree, but anyone flicking through an old psychology text from say 30 years ago and one from now cannot but be aware of the massive steps forward our analysis has taken. This applies in areas ranging from the functions of various parts of the perceptual sub-systems, the detailed influences of the various neurotransmitters, an established schema of personalty types, function mapping to various areas...etc Sure its like old maps where great areas are left blank, and dimensions may be wrong, and we probably even have the equivalent of 'here be dragons', but the maps are at least not of a flat earth, and the dragons are more like cameleopards... unless you hold to the theories that give them wings and haloes. (However, we know full well that the absence of detail in whatever part of the naturalistic picture is taken as proof that these 'dragons' do still exist - we just can't ever see them). IF study of the mind is naturalised, then it is possible to replicate it. That still doesn't solve the technological question, whether it is practical to do so. Given the IF, we are in no position to tackle that questio yet... but bearing in mind (oops) the role that AI takes in the study of consciousness I would guess there is a good chance. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2008, 12:08:39 PM » |
|
This thread should be renamed the Bicentennial Man thread. That was the entire premise of the movie. A robot gains awareness and goes on a quest to become human. By then end he has Flesh, stomach, blood, central nervous system, etc. He even grows "old" and dies. The crux of this argument is not around can a robot become a human, but more along the lines of can a robot have a soul.
What exactly is a soul? Some say the root of conscience. So the brain then? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
Fredledingue
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +30/-31
Posts: 868
|
|
« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2008, 02:35:52 PM » |
|
A robot can't be human or have a soul. Only an android can.  Seriousely: What's the difference between a network of human neurones capable of emotional counciouseness and an electronic processor capable of exactely the same thing? Anwser: The latter doesn't belong to our specie. And as we instinctively put more value on the life of the members of our specie, it makes a difference. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Dr. Zoidberg is jewish (and an important AIPAC donator!)  |
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2008, 01:29:23 AM » |
|
A robot can't be human or have a soul. Only an android can. Seriousely: What's the difference between a network of human neurones capable of emotional counciouseness and an electronic processor capable of exactely the same thing? Anwser: The latter doesn't belong to our specie. And as we instinctively put more value on the life of the members of our specie, it makes a difference. Yea, fred, totalement d'accord. The interesting sideline is this fuzzy, warm vagueness about 'souls', etc. 'The root of our conscience...': I have heard this called full-stop-thinking. You analyze a line to the point where its going nowhere, explains nothing, adds no fiurther dimensions to the discussion, probably spins off into arcana that lead to more inapplicable derivative concepts... and call a full stop. Numerous examples - Big Bang, God, 'abiogenesis' (btw a word I have never heard or seen used except by cryptocreationists), souls, free will... The difference between the empiriacally respectable and the mystical being that we can investigate one type further and enhance knowledge, whereas the others are a true full stop. What constitutes 'our conscience'? What is it? Which 'explanation' do you prefer - one that says that the value systems we have are partly phylogenetic, partly ontogenetic and that that can account for all variations in rules, morals, conventions, attitudes; or one that says that an unknowable 'spirit' slips into our being (in some unknowable undetectable way, at some undefined moment) and affects our decision processes in some unknown, unknowable way, drawing on some set of values in some unknown unknowable realm.... It is worth adding that many of the upholders of the second 'explanation' will conciur without worry that we can explain the behaviour of other animals (some relatively sentient in the same ways as us) in terms of the first explanatory methods. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #21 on: March 16, 2008, 02:42:20 PM » |
|
'abiogenesis' (btw a word I have never heard or seen used except by cryptocreationists) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiogenesisApparently it is a real scientific term. (And nowhere near as mysterious as creationists would have you believe). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2008, 12:33:07 PM » |
|
'abiogenesis' (btw a word I have never heard or seen used except by cryptocreationists) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbiogenesisApparently it is a real scientific term. (And nowhere near as mysterious as creationists would have you believe). Thanks A. I just looked up the article - and the discussion of how it has to battle against the insertion of polemic, rhetoric and misinformation. I accept it is a scientific term (TH Huxley published 'Biogenesis and abiogenesis' in 1870) but due to its misuse by creationists it is now a tainted term that is becoming less scientific and more a term of rhetoric by the fundys. The word itself occurs in the wiki article just 9 times - 3 times in heading and intro. The article has in fact been merged with the 'origin of life' article ('origin' occurs 30 times). I also checked Google Scholar - referencing peer-reviewed journals. 'Origin of life' gets nearly a million hits, 'abiogenesis' gets about a thousand. Moving to the more general usage looking at Google across the board (i.e any blog, forum, nutcase site.... origin of life increases 8-fold to 8.5 million, but abiogenesis increases 200-fold to 227,000. I repeat, like 'vivisection', 'abiogenesis' carries a partisan (reducingly scientific) commitment. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-139
Posts: 1,807
|
|
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2008, 03:11:40 PM » |
|
I noticed some missing theories in the WiKi article......the "3 witches and boiling pot"......the "E.T. visit".....and the "KitchenSink" which throws them all together.....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2008, 03:29:01 PM » |
|
I noticed some missing theories in the WiKi article......the "3 witches and boiling pot"......the "E.T. visit".....and the "KitchenSink" which throws them all together.....
Yes they have had to edit carefully to stop incursions by creationists and other loonies. Still, as a fully fledged shaman, Patton, you should be able to expound theories of witchcraft. Given all we (humanity, not individuals) know of the workings of the universe, just run it past us again.... 'Let there be light' and all the explanation of that that so adequately supports all we have observed..... I concede that religions have a role in expressing easily the underlying biological and cultural imperatives that support our moral codes. Be nice to people and respect law.... Its an easy way teaching how to behave (and we can all see what happens when the feeble minded try to think things out for themselves - GWB for example). But trying to hang in on the physical world - do us a favour! Not even YOU pray to your god every time you administer anaesthetic - 'please lord make the rules of physics apply in this case'. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-139
Posts: 1,807
|
|
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2008, 03:40:27 PM » |
|
Cute.
I don't pray to God when I walk down stairs or eat a potatoe chip either......
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2008, 03:55:12 PM » |
|
Cute.
I don't pray to God when I walk down stairs or eat a potatoe chip either......
Wow. Isn't that tempting the lord? Demeaning him by expecting him not to exercise his own unfathomable power? I'd go careful if I were you..... a miracle can be pretty damaging if it comes at the wrong time for you. (btw, potato doesn't have an 'e' on the end - didn't some yankee politician screw that up some years ago? Yea, yea and I accept my typing cuold eb beter) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-139
Posts: 1,807
|
|
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2008, 04:34:45 PM » |
|
Wow. Isn't that tempting the lord? Demeaning him by expecting him not to exercise his own unfathomable power? Faith my friend......faith  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2008, 12:35:49 AM » |
|
Wow. Isn't that tempting the lord? Demeaning him by expecting him not to exercise his own unfathomable power? Faith my friend......faith Hmmmm, so faith is just taking it for granted that, although this whatever ACTIVELY watches, judges and controlls everything, he won't upset your own wee plans.... I particularly like the format of argument that postulates a non-existent then when it is questioned postulates another non-existent 'virtue' to affirm the first.... and next we'll have a third non-existent to support the second, I guess. Let's see, how about calling it 'free will'. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-139
Posts: 1,807
|
|
« Reply #29 on: March 19, 2008, 09:58:36 AM » |
|
Hmmmm, so faith is just taking it for granted that, although this whatever ACTIVELY watches, judges and controlls everything, he won't upset your own wee plans.... You hope your "own wee plans" are not "upset" either, do you not? Only difference is you cross your fingers or "hope" for the best...... I particularly like the format of argument that postulates a non-existent then when it is questioned postulates another non-existent 'virtue' to affirm the first.... and next we'll have a third non-existent to support the second, I guess. Let's see, how about calling it 'free will'. What's funny is you have this "non-existent virtue" when you board a plane and it gets very turbulant and the engines make a weird noise......you just attribute it to something else......again.....not much different..... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
