Robots

[waitasec]

Not according to some, but since I am of the opinion that you are correct. Allow me to clarify my question.

What do you call an omnipotent being that is not bound by logical rules?

Is that better?

is logic a tool for power...?

 

[Sir Doom]

Hmm....thank you?

Quite welcome. :bow:

Great. Think the same way about what you called a 'contradiction' in the other post and i have no contentions to make.

So I am ignoring nature, after all? Or is nature telling me to do two things and I'm picking which one I do? Or is nature ignoring itself?

This isn't a problem to my argument. Your commands are a result of your nature and nurture.

I disagree since I just showed how I am in control of them both, regardless of how things began. Nature may be responsible for WHAT I am, but it only plays a cursory role in WHAT I continue to be. Nurture may play a role in WHO I am, but it is at my mercy and has been thus for decades. The outside environment that I experience is filtered through, effected by, created, molded and shaped by me. This is an ongoing process that I take an active role in. ACTIVE ROLE.

I missed you here. How does 'what' remove choice?

I said robots don't have choice because they are made for specific tasks.
You said we were no different.
I said list our tasks.
You said you only meant it in a general sense as in we are part of a physical reality.
THUS, it stands to reason that the fact that we are in a physical reality is what is removing choice.
I suggested that you were saying only omnipotence would have choice, and you said that wasn't what you meant.
So now. What did you mean then?

Also, by choice, do you mean it like in libertarian free will?

After reading about it, sure. It's pretty close to what I mean by choice. I don't know why 'free will' is the designation we've switched to, as I really don't care how much freedom over my choices I have. It's enough to have any freedom over them at all to distinguish life from robots. The amoeba pseudopodding left instead of right to find food is good enough for me. Robots can't even do that without someone programming them AND building them specifically to do it.

Do you mean that whoever sets the criteria is the one making the choices?

Exactly. That's what setting criteria is.

You may think of it this way, which would just mean we also don't make choices because we couldn't possibly be on control of what our initial criteria were.

While that may be so that I can't help the fact that I'm a human being born on Earth, what I can do is decide what that means now and what I will do about it. Sure, I was born with the function of growing hair and skin and lots of other bits. One of these bits is a brain, though. A thinking center that allows me to make all sorts of decisions that are not even represented in physical reality in any way. How can this even come close to being a biological function? It just isn't. But you would add the caveat that nurture is responsible for these other things. And sure, the way I was raised, the interactions of my peer groups, the movies and TV I see have all modified my behavior to one extent or another. BUT the only underlying constant throughout all of that is my choice in the matter. I can ignore my mother's teaching, I can abandon my friends, I can change the channel. My part in the 'nurture' cannot be denied at all. I am the greatest part of that nurture. Not the TV show. Me. Not my mother. Me. Do you see?

I admit you are the combination of your nature and nurture. Therefore, the answer to your first question is: yes. Your nature and nurture is on control of your nature and nurture, at least partially. However, the answer to your second question is: no. It also works the other way around : 'Your nature and nurture is on control of your nature and nurture', as it is the same sentence.

See, that's the problem. The environmental influences that have shaped me throughout life are very rarely intentionally shaping me, where as the internal influence (non-biological) of my thinking and knowledge and experience, etc. is definitely intending to shape me. This makes it FAR more influential on who I am and who I've been and who I will become. Everything else is negligible compared to this internal influence of me.

 

[Sir Doom]

is logic a tool for power...?

Of course?

How does this answer the question?

 

[confused453]

just had a thought.

would a robot get scared watching a horror movie?
would a robot get sad watching a sad movie?
would a robot understand humor...sarcasm in a movie?

reason why i mention a movie is because as humans we allow ourselves to get lost in the made up story as our imagination takes us there...

how about reading a book? would a robot read a book and envision the scene that is on the page?

Maybe a concious robot won't be able to fully comprehend the human emotions (just to some extent), but it could understand a movie made by robots for robots, where the robot could relate to experiences such as upgrades, deactivation, termination, re-programming, malware, etc...

In a way, robots could have better connection to the world than we humans. A robot could interact with the world directly on atomic or subatomic level with the right sensors, or it could be able to see the whole electromagnetic spectrum. A robot can have a better ability to repair and upgrade itself, or survive anywhere in space.

 

[Sleeppy]

a cruel joke for those that are programmed to believe such an illusion, wouldn't you say?

Neither cruel nor joke. You're still missing information, and how it all meshes together.. so you have a warped understanding of what information you do have. That's the way I see it. If you feel the same way of me, that's fine, and I could understand why that would be.

 

[Koldo]

So I am ignoring nature, after all? Or is nature telling me to do two things and I'm picking which one I do? Or is nature ignoring itself?

A part of your nature is advising another part of your nature to avoid/stop doing 'X' as it is causing potential damage to your body, while this other part of your nature is made aware of this and taking into consideration multiple other factors and deciding to ignore, for now, what the aforementioned part has to say.

I disagree since I just showed how I am in control of them both, regardless of how things began. Nature may be responsible for WHAT I am, but it only plays a cursory role in WHAT I continue to be. Nurture may play a role in WHO I am, but it is at my mercy and has been thus for decades. The outside environment that I experience is filtered through, effected by, created, molded and shaped by me. This is an ongoing process that I take an active role in. ACTIVE ROLE.

Your role in this process is as active as that of a robot which has been set to learn and create new criteria based on some principles. For you to be able to change anything about yourself ( intentionally ), to be on active control, you have to make a choice. However, how would you do this without a set criterion?
Perhaps you would suggest you choose your own criteria. But this creates a problem, in that if you are using a criterion to choose another criterion you are either going to end up in an infinite sequence ( which is not reasonably possible ) because the question becomes from where did this new criterion you are introducing to explain the former one came from, or you are going to accept that every criterion you have was created upon initial criteria which you didn't choose.

I said robots don't have choice because they are made for specific tasks.
You said we were no different.
I said list our tasks.
You said you only meant it in a general sense as in we are part of a physical reality.
THUS, it stands to reason that the fact that we are in a physical reality is what is removing choice.
I suggested that you were saying only omnipotence would have choice, and you said that wasn't what you meant.
So now. What did you mean then?

I said i meant it only in a general sense because strictly, to say that we were created to perform tasks could perhaps imply purpose, and thus a sort of intelligent designer behind the scene, which is not what i am arguing for.
Then i went on to mention that rather we were built in a manner through which we are able to perform tasks. And that in the same sense we could build robots which are able to perform tasks like us ( unlike our current ones who are designed to perform highly specific tasks with a highly specific purpose in mind ).

Exactly. That's what setting criteria is.

While that may be so that I can't help the fact that I'm a human being born on Earth, what I can do is decide what that means now and what I will do about it. Sure, I was born with the function of growing hair and skin and lots of other bits. One of these bits is a brain, though. A thinking center that allows me to make all sorts of decisions that are not even represented in physical reality in any way. How can this even come close to being a biological function? It just isn't. But you would add the caveat that nurture is responsible for these other things. And sure, the way I was raised, the interactions of my peer groups, the movies and TV I see have all modified my behavior to one extent or another. BUT the only underlying constant throughout all of that is my choice in the matter. I can ignore my mother's teaching, I can abandon my friends, I can change the channel. My part in the 'nurture' cannot be denied at all. I am the greatest part of that nurture. Not the TV show. Me. Not my mother. Me. Do you see?

It is not so simple. Just because something isn't represented in a physical reality, it doesn't mean it is unrelated to a physical reality. Concepts such as beauty require a physical reality to even be meaningful. What we know so far is that your consciousness requires a brain to work, and that if we change your brain chemistry we can change your behaviour. There is no evidence, other than hearsay and anecdotes, that your consciousness can exist outside of a physical body. It is only a natural conclusion that your body ought to be where your consciousness emanates from and therefore the same goes for your will. Then it is no more than a biological function.

See, that's the problem. The environmental influences that have shaped me throughout life are very rarely intentionally shaping me, where as the internal influence (non-biological) of my thinking and knowledge and experience, etc. is definitely intending to shape me. This makes it FAR more influential on who I am and who I've been and who I will become. Everything else is negligible compared to this internal influence of me.

From where do you draw conclusions?
Triangles, trees, politics, language, history...
You are using your imagination to make assertions, and ponder about them. However, what you are also constantly in use of is a stream of ideas that are only made possible by your external influences.
Knowledge and experience is only made possible through this environmental influence.

 

[Sleeppy]

Well, that about sews up every hope of a meaningful debate. Either I'm god or an automaton and there are no other possibilities. What a magnanimous choice you've given me. NO PUN INTENDED.

Straw man. I never said anything like that.

That's how I understood it.

Because there is no such thing as failure to a machine.

Not sure what you mean.

Life as the result of artifice. I'm not sure what else it could possibly mean.

That's interesting. A living robot. Never really thought of what would qualify for life.

Straw man. I never even hinted that I could prevent starvation.

But you mentioned omnipotence and being your own god. And that you controlled your outputs.. Are you saying you only control some of them?

Straw man. I never suggested that my failure was not self-assigned.

(All of) your failure is self-assigned?

It is far fetched. And the fact that you don't understand why is a testament to your extremely limited grasp of technology. You can't draw distinction between two unknown quantities simply because they are both unknown. Study more about the topics you wish to discuss, or discuss less the topics you don't wish to study.

Nothing I can do about this opinion. PolyHedral doesn't think it's far fetched either, though. But maybe he has an extremely limited grasp of technology as well?

So now you'd like to pretend that you understood this the entire time, even though you very clearly stated that "computers know more than that".

Well.. Because you might not know it, but you're inconsistent. Do we only know the electrochemical signals from neurons?

Good chance. Its unfortunate for your narrow position that you can't understand the undeniable influence of the human animal upon that chain.

It's unfortunate that you think that.

 

[Sir Doom]

A part of your nature is advising another part of your nature to avoid/stop doing 'X' as it is causing potential damage to your body, while this other part of your nature is made aware of this and taking into consideration multiple other factors and deciding to ignore, for now, what the aforementioned part has to say.

I see, so even though you have argued vehemently that I cannot possibly make these choices on my own, you assign the very same choice to some random unknowable force called "other part of your nature".

Your role in this process is as active as that of a robot which has been set to learn and create new criteria based on some principles.

Of course there are no robots that can do that.

For you to be able to change anything about yourself ( intentionally ), to be on active control, you have to make a choice. However, how would you do this without a set criterion?
Perhaps you would suggest you choose your own criteria. But this creates a problem, in that if you are using a criterion to choose another criterion you are either going to end up in an infinite sequence ( which is not reasonably possible ) because the question becomes from where did this new criterion you are introducing to explain the former one came from, or you are going to accept that every criterion you have was created upon initial criteria which you didn't choose.

I'm fully aware of the fact that I can't manipulate the laws of physics, and therefore any idea I have is still stuck within those if I ever hope to bring it from my imagination to reality. Thus, any idea I have is built on other ideas. Again, are you suggesting that I need omnipotent control of reality in order to possess choice?

I said i meant it only in a general sense because strictly, to say that we were created to perform tasks could perhaps imply purpose, and thus a sort of intelligent designer behind the scene, which is not what i am arguing for.

Naturally not. Instead we'll go for mysterious parts of nature that control tattoo-acquisition. Much more plausible than god...

Then i went on to mention that rather we were built in a manner through which we are able to perform tasks. And that in the same sense we could build robots which are able to perform tasks like us ( unlike our current ones who are designed to perform highly specific tasks with a highly specific purpose in mind ).

Again, as soon as these robots are built, we will achieve telekinetic powers and never need machines again. Isn't speculation fun?

It is not so simple. Just because something isn't represented in a physical reality, it doesn't mean it is unrelated to a physical reality. Concepts such as beauty require a physical reality to even be meaningful. What we know so far is that your consciousness requires a brain to work, and that if we change your brain chemistry we can change your behaviour. There is no evidence, other than hearsay and anecdotes, that your consciousness can exist outside of a physical body. It is only a natural conclusion that your body ought to be where your consciousness emanates from and therefore the same goes for your will. Then it is no more than a biological function.

Funny how a complete lack of evidence doesn't work here, but works just fine when we are talking about living machines and thinking robots which we will supposedly build in the future.

PS: I'm not suggesting anything like a soul, or a detached consciousness. I'm talking about ideas that do not exist in a physical reality. I have them all the time. So do you. There is no analogue to them. They are completely conceptual. You will name a few in a second...

From where do you draw conclusions?
Triangles, trees, politics, language, history...
You are using your imagination to make assertions, and ponder about them. However, what you are also constantly in use of is a stream of ideas that are only made possible by your external influences.
Knowledge and experience is only made possible through this environmental influence.

And I am the most significant piece of that environmental influence. Far more influential than any other factor ever encountered. The fact that I use and build on the ideas and factors that already exist and manage to combine and manipulate those concepts and ideas and inventions into a unique being that is unheard of anywhere else in reality is a testament to the fact that I am absolutely the most influential thing I've ever been influenced by.

 

[Koldo]

I see, so even though you have argued vehemently that I cannot possibly make these choices on my own, you assign the very same choice to some random unknowable force called "other part of your nature".

'Deciding what to do' doesn't require choices like in the libertarian free will.
At least not in the context in which i used these words.
Your mind is this 'other part of your nature'.

Of course there are no robots that can do that.

Certainly. It is beyond my point though.
Wouldn't you call robots able to do this 'robots' anymore?

I'm fully aware of the fact that I can't manipulate the laws of physics, and therefore any idea I have is still stuck within those if I ever hope to bring it from my imagination to reality. Thus, any idea I have is built on other ideas. Again, are you suggesting that I need omnipotent control of reality in order to possess choice?

Again, no.
I am not talking about laws of physics ( although they obviously have at very least an indirect relation to everything that happens in our world ).
I am talking about the blueprints of your consciousness, more specifically the part that defined how your choice-making ( i am not using the word 'choice' here like in libertarian free will ) would work.

Naturally not. Instead we'll go for mysterious parts of nature that control tattoo-acquisition. Much more plausible than god...

Parts of your nature. Like your mind. Your mind is part of your nature.

Again, as soon as these robots are built, we will achieve telekinetic powers and never need machines again. Isn't speculation fun?

This is beyond my point.
I don't particularly care on what robots are capable of doing currently. If you want to compare what we are able to do with what robots are able to do currently, it is blatant obvious we are far different from them. This isn't even a subject for debate. I find it far more relevant and worthy of debate whether the difference lies in the design ( with humans being a more advanced form ) or in an intrisical distinction between us and robots.

Funny how a complete lack of evidence doesn't work here, but works just fine when we are talking about living machines and thinking robots which we will supposedly build in the future.

PS: I'm not suggesting anything like a soul, or a detached consciousness. I'm talking about ideas that do not exist in a physical reality. I have them all the time. So do you. There is no analogue to them. They are completely conceptual. You will name a few in a second...

It is not simply a lack of evidence in this case, it is also evidence on favour of the opposite and Occam's razor.

And I am the most significant piece of that environmental influence. Far more influential than any other factor ever encountered. The fact that I use and build on the ideas and factors that already exist and manage to combine and manipulate those concepts and ideas and inventions into a unique being that is unheard of anywhere else in reality is a testament to the fact that I am absolutely the most influential thing I've ever been influenced by.

Your nature is certainly very significant. I never said otherwise.
I am saying this because what you are describing to me in this post is nothing more than a part of your nature : "the one that uses and builds on the ideas and factors that already exist and manage to combine and manipulate those concepts and ideas and inventions into a unique being that is unheard of anywhere else in reality."

 

[waitasec]

Of course?

How does this answer the question?

What do you call an omnipotent being that is not bound by logical rules?

then you would call that being illogical, if logic is a tool of power

 

[waitasec]

Neither cruel nor joke. You're still missing information, and how it all meshes together..

how so?
are you suggesting that i am intentionally not wanting to understand..or that i was created to not understand?

so you have a warped understanding of what information you do have. That's the way I see it. If you feel the same way of me, that's fine, and I could understand why that would be.

so i have a warped understanding because i don't understand the way you understand...?
good to know.

no i don't see you as warped...but rather drawn to hubris....which is a rather interesting characteristic of a robot.

 

[waitasec]

Maybe a concious robot won't be able to fully comprehend the human emotions (just to some extent), but it could understand a movie made by robots for robots, where the robot could relate to experiences such as upgrades, deactivation, termination, re-programming, malware, etc...

i get that...however, the OP called people robots.

In a way, robots could have better connection to the world than we humans. A robot could interact with the world directly on atomic or subatomic level with the right sensors, or it could be able to see the whole electromagnetic spectrum. A robot can have a better ability to repair and upgrade itself, or survive anywhere in space.

emotions do get in the way...
however, emotions are the spices of life.

 

[Sleeppy]

how so?
are you suggesting that i am intentionally not wanting to understand..or that i was created to not understand?

That's too broad a question. It could be that your understanding comes later, for whatever reason.

so i have a warped understanding because i don't understand the way you understand...?
good to know.

I gave you what I believe the reason to be, above.. before the 'so.'

no i don't see you as warped...but rather drawn to hubris....which is a rather interesting characteristic of a robot.

I have confidence in this. This is one thing you know about me.. But because you do not know much more about me, you've warped that information, like how I'd mentioned before.

 

[waitasec]

That's too broad a question. It could be that your understanding comes later, for whatever reason.

or it just doesn't compute....and what reason do you suppose that would be...
programming or lack of ability?

I gave you what I believe the reason to be, above.. before the 'so.'

for YOU

I have confidence in this. This is one thing you know about me..

you may have confidence about this for YOURSELF but to apply it to everyone else is hubris.

 

[Sleeppy]

or it just doesn't compute....and what reason do you suppose that would be...
programming or lack of ability?

Well obviously it doesn't compute for you, now. I can see that.

for YOU

What?

you may have confidence about this for YOURSELF but to apply it to everyone else is hubris.

I disagree.

 

[waitasec]

Well obviously it doesn't compute for you, now. I can see that.

it didn't compute for my father in law either and he died from a brain tumor

 

[waitasec]

I disagree.

how so?

 

[waitasec]

What?

you said:

I gave you what I believe the reason to be

ultimately, the reason is for you...

 

[Sleeppy]

it didn't compute for my father in law either and he died from a brain tumor

And that's the case for many more than your father in law. But, you're two separate individuals who react to different things in different ways.

 

[waitasec]

And that's the case for many more than your father in law. But, you're two separate individuals who react to different things in different ways.

and that is robotic, how?