Robots

[PolyHedral]

this is the best i can explain why i do not agree, at the moment...

every atm macine will spit out what one requests from them

every calculator will equate 2+2=4

however a calculator or an atm machine did not come up with a method...
methods are contingent on improvising, improvising is contingent on imagination, imagination is contingent on sentience

Improvisation is, itself, a method. It is merely a way to find a solution to a specific problem.

 

[Sleeppy]

the reasoning is this
humans basically have more of the same thing (more options giving the illusion of free will) and you are able obtain a "better understanding" of this now that you are a christian...
tell us sleepy..what did you mean by that..?
what does "better" mean...and of course your understanding is better than us simpletons who just don't get it...or programmed not to

Where's the reasoning for believing I don't know what I'm talking about?

Also, just because Christianity helped me to better understand something doesn't necessarily mean that it's the only way for everyone to better understand it.. And neither did I say that; stop playing games with yourself.

not at all.

Ok. Let's see.

of course, true believers are exceptional people as they were programmed to be

Were they? What makes an exceptional person?

lets put like this...

a person =/= a tree

Right.

A person =/= a tree
As.. A calculator =/= a computer

So, people and trees are still analogous to robots.

 

[waitasec]

Improvisation is, itself, a method. It is merely a way to find a solution to a specific problem.

sure ok...
a method that is contingent on imagination and sentience

 

[waitasec]

Where's the reasoning for believing I don't know what I'm talking about?

you know exactly what you are talking about when it comes to YOURSELF.
however as i have been saying, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to other people

Also, just because Christianity helped me to better understand something doesn't necessarily mean that it's the only way for everyone to better understand it.. And neither did I say that; stop playing games with yourself.

you are the one who brought up christianity in the OP...
what was the purpose of mentioning christianity then?

Ok. Let's see.



Were they? What makes an exceptional person?

favoritism is implicit

Right.

A person =/= a tree
As.. A calculator =/= a computer

then why did you ask me:

Are both a calculator and a computer, robots?

it sure seemed like you were qualifying a calculator and a computer as the same thing

So, people and trees are still analogous to robots.

how so?

 

[PolyHedral]

sure ok...
a method that is contingent on imagination and sentience

Imagination is just prediction with bells on. Computers can do that pretty well. What's sentience?

 

[idav]

Improvisation is, itself, a method. It is merely a way to find a solution to a specific problem.

Trial and error is another method of finding a solution which computers can do much faster than humans.

 

[apophenia]

Imagination is just prediction with bells on. Computers can do that pretty well. What's sentience?

And there is the question.

That is the part that always amazes me in these discussions. You know perfectly well, IMO, that being aware of yourself is the crux of this issue. Yet you ( and by 'you' I don't only mean you specifically, Polyhedral, I mean the artificial intelligentsia in general) constantly try to baffle everyone including yourselves with logic which will make this mystery go away.

Oh dear. I have said 'mystery'. Therefore I am a religious hysteric ! I am talking mysticism ! Time for the rolling eyes, derision and sense of scientifically-based superiority.

Actually, no. I am aware that I am aware. There is no explanation for that. I have read what you and many others (starting with Ray Kurzweil and Marvin Minsky) have to say about it, and it is in fact techno-mystical bafflegab.

No-one, neither scientist nor mystic, has ever said anything which in any way makes sentience comprehensible. As I have often said, AI can simulate behaviour. But behaviour is not awareness of existence. Behaviour is not awareness of behaviour.

For some reason - I would nominate perverse pride, and/or insecurity about anything which does fall fall under the purview of science, and is not amenable to the scientific method - the artificial intelligentsia either pretend they can't see the difference between behaviour and sentience, or dismiss awareness as being merely stimulus-response ( hey presto ! problem goes away !).

Now, I know perfectly well that the most likely response to this post will be to quote a definition of sentience which will be interpretable as behaviour, as something calculable, as merely the acquisition of data by sensors.

This is basically a stooge based on language, and the absence of a word in our language which refers to 'knowing existence'.

And there is a wicked loop here - there are words which mean exactly this in other languages, but since those words are not used in scientific descriptions, they are called invalid by scientific thinkers. And because science has no handle at all on the fact that we know we exist, any word which refers to the 'knowingness', the experience of 'being', is dismissed on the grounds that it can't be demonstrated scientifically !

Of course it can't ! That is the point. Science has no handle on the noetic act of self-awareness. And that is the crucial difference between a conscious being and a robot.

 

[idav]

this is the best i can explain why i do not agree, at the moment...

every atm macine will spit out what one requests from them

every calculator will equate 2+2=4

however a calculator or an atm machine did not come up with a method...
methods are contingent on improvising, improvising is contingent on imagination, imagination is contingent on sentience

All animals are just machines. Some machines can do more than others. Just cause a plant doesn't do math doesn't change the fact that it is a factory. In the same respect just because bees can do calculations far more complex than the average humans doesn't make bees as cognitive as humans. Saying that machines aren't sentient just means they have not been evolved/designed for that ability just yet.

 

[Sleeppy]

you know exactly what you are talking about when it comes to YOURSELF.
however as i have been saying, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to other people

That's not reasoning.. Just more assertion.

you are the one who brought up christianity in the OP...
what was the purpose of mentioning christianity then?

It's not an orthodox idea in Christianity.. at all. Which is why I mentioned it may being weird.

favoritism is implicit

What's that supposed to mean?

then why did you ask me:

it sure seemed like you were qualifying a calculator and a computer as the same thing

Different complexities. Though, they are both "robots," as are people and trees.

how so?

In the ways I've listed beforehand. For example, using the definition of "robot" - We are all machines, carrying out complex series of actions automatically.. all the time.

 

[waitasec]

Imagination is just prediction with bells on.

i do not agree...imagination is limitless

Computers can do that pretty well.

can you give me an example?

What's sentience?

i would say it is being aware of ones feeling to conjuring up abstract concepts, i suppose

 

[waitasec]

That's not reasoning.. Just more assertion.

did you say

We're All Just Robots.. Humans Only Have More And Differing Options With Our Responses And Experiences Than Most Other Life Forms.. Or Actual Robots.

:yes:
you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to other people

It's not an orthodox idea in Christianity.. at all. Which is why I mentioned it may being weird.

what isn't an orthodox idea in christianity?
you said:

I'm Christian. And Because Of This, I Actually Came To, And Have A Better Understanding Of This Idea.

because of what...being a christian?
a better understanding then those that are not christian???
please

What's that supposed to mean?

the robots that were programmed to "get it" implies favoritism...
hence your idea supports a cruel joke

Different complexities. Though, they are both "robots," as are people and trees.

people =/= trees

In the ways I've listed beforehand. For example, using the definition of "robot" - We are all machines, carrying out complex series of actions automatically.. all the time.

that also implies programming....a programmer, and a program

besides, WE are not robotic machines...YOU may think you are and if your happy with that for YOURSELF, fine...but WE are not robotic machines...
speak for yourself hal 9000

 

[waitasec]

All animals are just machines. Some machines can do more than others. Just cause a plant doesn't do math doesn't change the fact that it is a factory. In the same respect just because bees can do calculations far more complex than the average humans doesn't make bees as cognitive as humans. Saying that machines aren't sentient just means they have not been evolved/designed for that ability just yet.

i meant in the robotic sense....

 

[Koldo]

And there is a wicked loop here - there are words which mean exactly this in other languages, but since those words are not used in scientific descriptions, they are called invalid by scientific thinkers. And because science has no handle at all on the fact that we know we exist, any word which refers to the 'knowingness', the experience of 'being', is dismissed on the grounds that it can't be demonstrated scientifically !

Of course it can't ! That is the point. Science has no handle on the noetic act of self-awareness. And that is the crucial difference between a conscious being and a robot.

But it is also true i ( or you, or anybody else for this matter ) can not know whether other humans beings and animals are conscious. For example, it is impossible for you to know whether i am a conscious being.

Therefore the distinction you make is only pertinent between 'I' and the rest, not between humans and robots.

 

[Sleeppy]

did you say

:yes:
you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to other people


what isn't an orthodox idea in christianity?
you said:

because of what...being a christian?
a better understanding then those that are not christian???
please


the robots that were programmed to "get it" implies favoritism...
hence your idea supports a cruel joke


people =/= trees



that also implies programming....a programmer, and a program

besides, WE are not robotic machines...YOU may think you are and if your happy with that for YOURSELF, fine...but WE are not robotic machines...
speak for yourself hal 9000

Lol.. So basically as long as you say it, it becomes automatically true, somehow?

The level of dishonesty that you're displaying is really something. Where exactly does it say I came to a better understanding than those who weren't Christian? In fact, I said the opposite quite explicitly, in my previous post. Quit that.

Also, last time I checked, most people treat each person differently, according to the relationship. Doesn't always mean favoritism or a cruel joke. Repeating it as if it will become true, doesn't help either. So, if you don't have a chain of logic, don't bother responding. You'll be wasting time for both of us.

It implies a programmer, programming and programs, because they all exist. Depending on who you are, the programmer chain starts with evolution.. or the Big Bang.. or God.

Again, repeating things with no logical effort whatsoever, does nothing for either of us, in the debate forum. Name calling doesn't really do much either, but remind me of middle school. We're not in middle school.

 

[idav]

i meant in the robotic sense....

Like a robotic mouse? Humans are just highly sophisticated machines.

 

[waitasec]

Lol.. So basically as long as you say it, it becomes automatically true, somehow?

as long as i say what?

The level of dishonesty that you're displaying is really something. Where exactly does it say I came to a better understanding than those who weren't Christian? In fact, I said the opposite quite explicitly, in my previous post. Quit that.

here

Originally Posted by Sleeppy
I'm Christian. And Because Of This, I Actually Came To, And Have A Better Understanding Of This Idea.

so then because of what do you have a better understanding...better then whom?

Also, last time I checked, most people treat each person differently, according to the relationship. Doesn't always mean favoritism or a cruel joke. Repeating it as if it will become true, doesn't help either. So, if you don't have a chain of logic, don't bother responding. You'll be wasting time for both of us.

It implies a programmer, programming and programs, because they all exist.

there is the programmers cruel joke.
seems to me that you don't like the "cruel joke" but yet you argue that you are a robot programmed to be a certain way. and you have a better understanding that it isn't a cruel joke, because you're a christian?

Depending on who you are, the programmer chain starts with evolution.. or the Big Bang.. or God.

that doesn't add up if "we are all robots"
besides, evolution isn't a program...there is no intent in evolution

the program does make sense if you are using god as the programmer
who programs some to get it and others not to

the cruel joke.
your god then has a sick sense of humor...

 

[waitasec]

Like a robotic mouse? Humans are just highly sophisticated machines.

i do not disagree about the machine part...
i disagree, in that a robotic machine does not have a sense of imagination, or a sense of honor and integrity which are all abstract ideas ...

 

[Sleeppy]

as long as i say what?

Pretty much everything you've said here are 'baseless claims,' as you'd put it. You don't support your assertions very much, if at all. Basically all you do is say, 'no.'

so then because of what do you have a better understanding...better then whom?

Did you notice the word 'actually?' Just wondering. I'd take a poll to see who actually read that sentence and inferred the same thing you did.. I'd be very surprised if you weren't the only one of your kind. That'd be too petty though.

Better than my previous understanding.. As I've stated so many times before.

there is the programmers cruel joke.
seems to me that you don't like the "cruel joke" but yet you argue that you are a robot programmed to be a certain way. and you have a better understanding that it isn't a cruel joke, because you're a christian?

Well first you'd have to explain why it's either cruel or joke.. And I'm sure you aren't quite qualified to do that, due to your limited and warped understanding of Biblical scripture and context clues as well, it seems. You can always prove me wrong though.

that doesn't add up if "we are all robots"
besides, evolution isn't a program...there is no intent in evolution

Hopefully you're alone on that one. If evolution had no intent, there'd be no intended patterns. As you should know, it is a major pattern in evolution to adapt and change, along with the environment, for better survival. Something gave life the intent to survive, otherwise we wouldn't be doing it.

the program does make sense if you are using god as the programmer
who programs some to get it and others not to

the cruel joke.
your god then has a sick sense of humor...

I'm finding it very interesting that you'd identify that as humor, in the first place. Why do you find it humorous?

 

[PolyHedral]

Actually, no. I am aware that I am aware. There is no explanation for that.

Sure there is. You're applying your ability to predict people to yourself, and correlating the result with the brain's reflection abilities.

No-one, neither scientist nor mystic, has ever said anything which in any way makes sentience comprehensible. As I have often said, AI can simulate behaviour. But behaviour is not awareness of existence. Behaviour is not awareness of behaviour.

For some reason - I would nominate perverse pride, and/or insecurity about anything which does fall fall under the purview of science, and is not amenable to the scientific method - the artificial intelligentsia either pretend they can't see the difference between behaviour and sentience, or dismiss awareness as being merely stimulus-response ( hey presto ! problem goes away !).

I imagine you know what a p-zombie is. You've got to say that sentience is a behaviour, or inferable from behaviour, otherwise nobody is known to be sentient.

Of course it can't ! That is the point. Science has no handle on the noetic act of self-awareness. And that is the crucial difference between a conscious being and a robot.

Cognitive science and logic have a very good grasp on self-reference. "I think therefore I am" isn't actually that hard, since the concept of "I" falls out of the aforementioned correlation of what you're planning to do and which object ends up doing it.

i do not agree...imagination is limitless

You'll be hard-pressed to imagine the layout of the web in the same way Google can.

can you give me an example?

Stock market analysis is normally aimed at predicting where prices a significant time in the future.

 

[waitasec]

Pretty much everything you've said here are 'baseless claims,' as you'd put it. You don't support your assertions very much, if at all. Basically all you do is say, 'no.'

show me a post where i did not support my assertion....since it's pretty much everything i have said, it should be really easy for you to find one.

Did you notice the word 'actually?' Just wondering.

wait you are not an actual christian?


you didn't actually assert you have a better understanding because your are an actual christian?

do you know what it is you are actually asserting?

I'd take a poll to see who actually read that sentence and inferred the same thing you did.. I'd be very surprised if you weren't the only one of your kind. That'd be too petty though.

do it. put your money where your mouth is
i'm willing.

Better than my previous understanding.. As I've stated so many times before.

right. so in light of YOU being a christian, as opposed to a non christian, you are programmed with a "better understanding" otherwise what was the purpose of bringing up christianity in the OP?

come on...get real.

Well first you'd have to explain why it's either cruel or joke..

to program a robot to believe they have the "better understanding" and to program other robots with an opposing "better understanding" just incites ignorance.
it is deliberately causing strife and unrest between both sets of robots...and for what purpose? i am assuming it's for the purpose of entertainment..., for the sake of argument because there is no programmer imo....chaos is a reality that can not be programed. indifference would assert nothing was done on purpose.

just so you know, i just supported my assertion.

And I'm sure you aren't quite qualified to do that, due to your limited and warped understanding of Biblical scripture and context clues as well, it seems. You can always prove me wrong though.

by what criteria do you assert that i have a warped understanding?
what gives you the "better understanding" your programming, or that you are a christian?

Hopefully you're alone on that one. If evolution had no intent, there'd be no intended patterns. As you should know, it is a major pattern in evolution to adapt and change, along with the environment, for better survival. Something gave life the intent to survive, otherwise we wouldn't be doing it.

evolution is chaotic...there is no program.

I'm finding it very interesting that you'd identify that as humor, in the first place. Why do you find it humorous?

cruel jokes are not humorous...well at least for me it isn't...it is for the purpose of entertainment of the programmer you are rooting for...