Robots

[Willamena]

Free will is an illusion. We have a lot of options and we think we choose them, but they happen in chain reactions. Because we don't, and really can't pay attention to all of these countless small chain reactions happening around us, it created the illusion. We don't completely realize that 'wants' are actually a result of these chain reactions, and aren't chosen out of thin air.

Christians say that God is good. Some say that.. but then in contradiction to that, say He can choose not to be. I say, He doesn't have a choice but to be what He is. The best that can be done is illusion, at that point.. And so, some may think that God is not good.

But why does the illusion get more illusory? Isn't an illusion already as illusory as it needs to be?

 

[Sleeppy]

But why does the illusion get more illusory? Isn't an illusion already as illusory as it needs to be?

I could only guess.

 

[Sleeppy]

The first option. Obviously.

Incorrect. I decide all the time. Please demonstrate my lack of decision making. You'll have to show not only what decisions I make but why they were not my decision to make and where they came from. Good luck.

Your decisions result from countless chain reactions between your physiology and the outside world. How you were programmed or forced to interact with every internal and external influence.

Where did you think your decisions come from?

I also highly doubt you could open your eye to exactly 1mm, without help from some other tool.

Alright. I will. No one is anywhere near the creation of machine life. They aren't even trying in any realistic way. The closest thing we have is people like you speculating about what our future generations MIGHT be capable of. The only other thing that even comes CLOSE is biological and genetic engineering which is definitely not machine life by any stretch of the imagination.

What are you talking about. Machine life?

Brilliant programmers are working on more and more advanced artificial intelligence that simply comes closer and closer to mimicking life accurately but at the same time does not come anywhere near it as every single choice it makes must be given to it before hand. There is no difference between a complex AI like you see in advanced robots like the ones they make at MIT and simple AI like the ghosts on Pacman. They respond to specific input with specific output. The only difference is the number of inputs vs. the number of outputs. And every single input must be correlated with every single output manually.

We also respond to specific input with specific output.

Sure, lets pretend that's what I said. How does one grow a monitor?

Again. What are you talking about? Who said anything about growing a monitor?

Yeah, I did. I can go further if you are really that disconnected with computer technology that you've never heard of binary code and why it works.

I'm so disconnected with computer technology, Doom. Help me out.

Haha, so we had to start somewhere and why not in someone's robotics lab, eh? What an odd little duck you are.

Odd little duck. Right. Guess that was a good one?

 

[Sir Doom]

Your decisions result from countless chain reactions between your physiology and the outside world. How you were programmed or forced to interact with every internal and external influence.

Okay, wait just one damn minute. So you are telling me that because I make decisions based on the fact that I'm a human on Earth and have no ability to change that fact that I don't actually make any decisions at all? In other words, if I do not possess full omnipotent control over reality, I do not make any choices whatsoever?

Where did you think your decisions come from?

My human brain. Luckily, that brain is not limited to set outputs based on set inputs, and instead can receive an infinite number of inputs and cause an infinite number of outputs that may or may not have any correlation with each other at all. Separating me from the mindless machinery I use to hold my pictures and music.

I also highly doubt you could open your eye to exactly 1mm, without help from some other tool.

You are probably right. If I did do it, it would likely be accidental instead of intentional. Of course, like you say... I could use a tool to do it. I'd probably even fail a bunch of times with a tool. I wonder if a machine would have similar difficulty...

What are you talking about. Machine life?

Please try to follow along. The comment you responded to was me telling you that I wasn't going to ask you to detail any specific research or development aimed towards creating artificial life with computer technology as you didn't even seem to grasp the widely used technology we're communicating on currently. Then you asked me to do it for you. So I did. That's what I was talking about. Caught up now?

We also respond to specific input with specific output.

Incorrect. We respond to non-specific input with self-assigned output. They actually don't even need to correlate at all. Usually they do because we intend to respond directly to the input. Of course, being that we are not robots in any way, we often fail at estimating the proper response to any given input.

Again. What are you talking about? Who said anything about growing a monitor?

You did. Birds grow wings. As they are robots according to you, a computer must be able to grow a monitor. Show me! Or you can just accept that birds aren't robots. Either way.

I'm so disconnected with computer technology, Doom. Help me out.

Doing my best over here, chief. Binary. Electricity on, electricity off. Do you need more than that? 1 and 0? Machine code? Hello? Is any of this sinking in?

Odd little duck. Right. Guess that was a good one?

Thanks. I stole it from this hilarious girl I used to know. She used to use it to make fun of Arena-pros in World of Warcraft. Are you any good at PvP? I sure hope so...

 

[Sleeppy]

Okay, wait just one damn minute. So you are telling me that because I make decisions based on the fact that I'm a human on Earth and have no ability to change that fact that I don't actually make any decisions at all? In other words, if I do not possess full omnipotent control over reality, I do not make any choices whatsoever?

Yep.

My human brain. Luckily, that brain is not limited to set outputs based on set inputs, and instead can receive an infinite number of inputs and cause an infinite number of outputs that may or may not have any correlation with each other at all. Separating me from the mindless machinery I use to hold my pictures and music.

So you believe these inputs and outputs just happen.. out of thin air.. Their only basis is your choosing?

You are probably right. If I did do it, it would likely be accidental instead of intentional. Of course, like you say... I could use a tool to do it. I'd probably even fail a bunch of times with a tool. I wonder if a machine would have similar difficulty...

It could. Why couldn't it?

Please try to follow along. The comment you responded to was me telling you that I wasn't going to ask you to detail any specific research or development aimed towards creating artificial life with computer technology as you didn't even seem to grasp the widely used technology we're communicating on currently. Then you asked me to do it for you. So I did. That's what I was talking about. Caught up now?

But what exactly is your idea of artificial life? What constitutes that?

Incorrect. We respond to non-specific input with self-assigned output. They actually don't even need to correlate at all. Usually they do because we intend to respond directly to the input. Of course, being that we are not robots in any way, we often fail at estimating the proper response to any given input.

No. Correct. I'm still wondering how you would prevent yourself from starvation. If you don't input energy, you will continue to output what energy you do have, until you're dead and gone. That's the same on every level.

Why do you think you would fail at that estimation? That's an output isn't it? Why isn't it self-assigned?

You did. Birds grow wings. As they are robots according to you, a computer must be able to grow a monitor. Show me! Or you can just accept that birds aren't robots. Either way.

Wow. Ridiculous. It was more of a metaphor.. I'm not actually saying we're metal machines using 0's and 1's here. You get that, right? I'm drawing analogies. A computer able to build a monitor for itself, really shouldn't seem far fetched.. at all.

Doing my best over here, chief. Binary. Electricity on, electricity off. Do you need more than that? 1 and 0? Machine code? Hello? Is any of this sinking in?

I might need more.. Thought I was missing something. This is nothing new so far.

Thanks. I stole it from this hilarious girl I used to know. She used to use it to make fun of Arena-pros in World of Warcraft. Are you any good at PvP? I sure hope so...

Sounds like the result of a series of chain reactions.

 

[confused453]

First we need to understand the consciousness, as a thing. Then somebody could create a programming code, or integrate a consciousness into a synthetic system.

Is android considered to be a conscious robot that looks like a human? Can a tree be considered as a robot?

 

[Koldo]

What exactly does "changing my nature" mean? All I said is that I can ignore it at will. My nature notifies me that I am in pain and there is a neurological function outside of my control which attempts to move me away from that pain. And yet I managed to receive two tattoos without any mistakes. Funny that.

Where does your will arise from? Your nature.
And you already said it yourself: Your body notifies you of ( potential ) damage. It doesn't force you to stop doing it. I don't even know why you mentioned this, and why you find it funny.

Having been created by other humans is a clear distinction, yes. And while the 'first cause' of my existence was not by my design, my current form is the result of many many many many causes afterwards. A vast majority of which were, are, and always will be under my control.

In the case of robots, yes. If they could learn at all I would stop arguing the point. The fact remains that they never gain any new information that is not given to them by a human being. And even when new information is given, a new reaction to that information has to be given to it as well. It has no understanding of the information. It all looks the same. Electricity on and electricity off.

So the issue you take on this are the current capabilities of our robots.
It is obvious that if you compare what our robots are currently able of doing, we are not like them. I find it far more relevant to ponder whether we are just advanced automated machines compared to them.

Because it doesn't have "likings" to begin with, for one.

You can build a robot with arms and hands and a face and a tongue and a speaker in its mouth. Then you can program it to pick up an ice cream, pull it to its face and lick it, and then proclaim, "I LIKE CHOCOLATE! BEEP BOOP BEEP!" but you haven't really made that robot like chocolate. You've just made a machine for lifting ice cream cones, licking them, and speaking the words.

Lets take it beyond basics. Lets say you are a brilliant engineer and programmer. You could create a robot that looks identical to a human being. You could then program that robot to enter an ice cream shop and have an entire conversation with questions and answers with the clerk and ultimately select a chocolate ice cream to have, pay for it, and devour the entire thing with enthusiasm. You could even go so far as to give the robot the option of selecting any flavor the shop offers and allow it to randomly select one. You could even go so far as to program chocolate to be selected more often than any other flavor and program it to still try all the others and proclaim that it still likes chocolate more than any of the others after trying them all. You could EVEN go so far as to program it with flavors that don't even exist in the shop and make it ask for those even when they aren't available and make it pout every time the chocolate is missing or refused.

But no matter how brilliant you are, no matter how cleverly you design this robot's set of choices, it will never under any circumstances make a choice that you didn't tell it to make. It doesn't even recognize that it is making a choice at all. To the robot there is no difference between getting the chocolate and proclaiming that it loves it and not getting the chocolate and acting upset. It is just moving electricity from the power source to its components in the way you've designed it in both cases. It doesn't like either choice. It doesn't make any choice at all. Its YOU making the choice as the designer.

But we were also designed in such a manner that we are able to make choices. The difference is that our code doesn't go into specifics to be able to make them.

 

[Sir Doom]

Yep.

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.

So you believe these inputs and outputs just happen.. out of thin air.. Their only basis is your choosing?

Straw man. I never said anything like that.

It could. Why couldn't it?

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

But what exactly is your idea of artificial life? What constitutes that?

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

No. Correct. I'm still wondering how you would prevent yourself from starvation. If you don't input energy, you will continue to output what energy you do have, until you're dead and gone. That's the same on every level.

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

Why do you think you would fail at that estimation? That's an output isn't it? Why isn't it self-assigned?

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

Wow. Ridiculous. It was more of a metaphor.. I'm not actually saying we're metal machines using 0's and 1's here. You get that, right? I'm drawing analogies. A computer able to build a monitor for itself, really shouldn't seem far fetched.. at all.

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.

I might need more.. Thought I was missing something. This is nothing new so far.

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".

Sounds like the result of a series of chain reactions.

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

 

[Sir Doom]

Where does your will arise from? Your nature.

I'd say its a combination of things. Nature is certainly one of those things.

And you already said it yourself: Your body notifies you of ( potential ) damage. It doesn't force you to stop doing it. I don't even know why you mentioned this, and why you find it funny.

So my nature doesn't force me to do anything? I wonder what does force me. Something would clearly HAVE to force me in order for it to be beyond my choice. I mentioned it because it was a clear example of ignoring my nature. I thought it was funny because it was an example of willfully changing my skin color which was brought up earlier. I guess it was a bit too subtle.

So the issue you take on this are the current capabilities of our robots.
It is obvious that if you compare what our robots are currently able of doing, we are not like them. I find it far more relevant to ponder whether we are just advanced automated machines compared to them.

We are nothing like a machine. We are not created to complete tasks. We aren't created for ANY perceivable purpose at all. In fact, all tasks completed by us are designed and implemented after the creation of us.

But we were also designed in such a manner that we are able to make choices. The difference is that our code doesn't go into specifics to be able to make them.

This is a clear distinction between life and robots. The same exact distinction I've been drawing throughout this entire thread. We have choice. They do not. They don't even have the illusory non-godlike choice that we (apparently) pretend to have.

 

[PolyHedral]

It is far fetched.

Only because you don't understand how the Von Neumann replicator works.

We are nothing like a machine. We are not created to complete tasks. We aren't created for ANY perceivable purpose at all.

We are optimized to survive and breed.

 

[waitasec]

Hence, John 6:44

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

 

[waitasec]

Actually, i don't believe in any conscious designer being on control.

i don't either, perhaps we were not programmed to

 

[waitasec]

They are not capable of imagination...yet.

if this were the case then we are limiting our potential...and imo, our potential is limitless.

But who said you are coming up with a melody from thin air?

the copyright office

Haven't you considered the possibility that you are using sounds you already know to make new songs?

sounds and melody are two different things...
melody is formed in the imagination...sounds can be mimicked.

It is important for you to say whether that works.

oh i see, i don't know what 'random dungeon generators' are.

The strict definition has absolutely nothing to do with emotional response. This is what i am saying.

ha ha...now you are going by the strict definition of emotional response...
i respectfully disagree.
Dance movement therapy improves emotional res... [Int J Neurosci. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
consider the purpose of a mosh pit

Also, all humans being equal, under the same conditions, they would express themselves the same way.

again i respectfully disagree...

Scientists have offered a new explanation for the differences between identical twins. Epigenome refers to natural chemical modifications within a person's genome (genetic material). As an article in the New York Times explains, they "act on a gene like a gas pedal or a brake, marking it for higher or lower activity."

A study conducted by a team of researchers at the Spanish National Cancer Center in Madrid concluded that, while identical twins are born with the same epigenome, their epigentic profiles begin to diverge as they age. The differences increase as twins live longer and spend more time apart. The scientists offered two theories to explain this phenomenon. First, that epigentic marks are removed randomly as people age. Secondly, environmental influences change the pattern of epigentic marks.

In a Washington Post article Dr. Manel Esteller, lead researcher, said that "small epigenetic events before birth probably account for many of the minor distinguishing differences in the appearance, personality and general health of young twins."

The research is significant because changes in the epigenome may be responsible for the development of disease, like cancer. It's hoped that further study of the epigenome in identical twins will help researchers pinpoint factors that contribute to cancer.

Twin Differences - Why Identical Twins Are Different

how does one put their finger on why people choose to express themselves in the way they do?

 

[Koldo]

i don't either, perhaps we were not programmed to

Certainly.

if this were the case then we are limiting our potential...and imo, our potential is limitless.

What do you mean by 'limiting our potential'?
Also, our potential isn't limitless. There is a limit to what you can do.

the copyright office

sounds and melody are two different things...
melody is formed in the imagination...sounds can be mimicked.

Wikipedia offers a good explanation as to what a melody is:

"A melody (from Greek μελῳδία - melōidía, "singing, chanting"),[1] also tune, voice, or line, is a linear succession of musical tones which is perceived as a single entity." - Wikipedia

It is nothing more than a sequence of sounds.
When you come up with a new melody you are just organizing the sounds in a particular manner.

oh i see, i don't know what 'random dungeon generators' are.

Softwares able to randomly create dungeons for games.

ha ha...now you are going by the strict definition of emotional response...
i respectfully disagree.
Dance movement therapy improves emotional res... [Int J Neurosci. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
consider the purpose of a mosh pit

Do you disagree the strict definition of 'dance' doesn't involve emotion? Really? :sarcastic

again i respectfully disagree...

Scientists have offered a new explanation for the differences between identical twins. Epigenome refers to natural chemical modifications within a person's genome (genetic material). As an article in the New York Times explains, they "act on a gene like a gas pedal or a brake, marking it for higher or lower activity."

A study conducted by a team of researchers at the Spanish National Cancer Center in Madrid concluded that, while identical twins are born with the same epigenome, their epigentic profiles begin to diverge as they age. The differences increase as twins live longer and spend more time apart. The scientists offered two theories to explain this phenomenon. First, that epigentic marks are removed randomly as people age. Secondly, environmental influences change the pattern of epigentic marks.

In a Washington Post article Dr. Manel Esteller, lead researcher, said that "small epigenetic events before birth probably account for many of the minor distinguishing differences in the appearance, personality and general health of young twins."

The research is significant because changes in the epigenome may be responsible for the development of disease, like cancer. It's hoped that further study of the epigenome in identical twins will help researchers pinpoint factors that contribute to cancer.

Twin Differences - Why Identical Twins Are Different

how does one put their finger on why people choose to express themselves in the way they do?

And? How is this relevant to what i said?

People choose to express themselves the way they do due to nature and nurture.

 

[Koldo]

I'd say its a combination of things. Nature is certainly one of those things.

It is the only one. And it is shaped by your nurture.

So my nature doesn't force me to do anything? I wonder what does force me. Something would clearly HAVE to force me in order for it to be beyond my choice. I mentioned it because it was a clear example of ignoring my nature. I thought it was funny because it was an example of willfully changing my skin color which was brought up earlier. I guess it was a bit too subtle.

You are not ignoring your nature when you ignore your pain.
As i said, your will arises from your nature, therefore it is your nature interacting with your nature when you ignore pain.

We are nothing like a machine. We are not created to complete tasks. We aren't created for ANY perceivable purpose at all. In fact, all tasks completed by us are designed and implemented after the creation of us.

We are not created to complete tasks, in the strict sense, as this could perhaps imply we were created for a purpose. However, we are created in a manner that allows us to perform tasks. This could also be true to robots once we have better means and knowledge to create them.

This is a clear distinction between life and robots. The same exact distinction I've been drawing throughout this entire thread. We have choice. They do not. They don't even have the illusory non-godlike choice that we (apparently) pretend to have.

Robots also have the ability to choose but ours is far more complex than theirs currently. Whenever you make a choice, you either use a criteria or ( try to ) make a random choice. It is no different from what robots do, just far more complex.

 

[Sir Doom]

Only because you don't understand how the Von Neumann replicator works.

Who does? Its hard to 'understand' how something works when it doesn't exist. Or do you have one to show me. Perhaps something close? Further, do you have a reasonable path from today to a self-monitor-building von Neumann? I rather doubt it.

We are optimized to survive and breed.

We exist to exist? Yeah, that's a purpose.

 

[Sir Doom]

It is the only one. And it is shaped by your nurture.

It can't be both "nature alone" and "nature and nurture".

You are not ignoring your nature when you ignore your pain.
As i said, your will arises from your nature, therefore it is your nature interacting with your nature when you ignore pain.

So it is both my nature to shrink from pain and to ignore it? I think you might be stretching the limits of the term.

We are not created to complete tasks, in the strict sense, as this could perhaps imply we were created for a purpose. However, we are created in a manner that allows us to perform tasks. This could also be true to robots once we have better means and knowledge to create them.

Which tasks were we created to perform? I'll need the complete list.

Robots also have the ability to choose but ours is far more complex than theirs currently. Whenever you make a choice, you either use a criteria or ( try to ) make a random choice. It is no different from what robots do, just far more complex.

For the last time, robots do not make choices AT ALL. Did you even read all of that ice cream stuff I wrote?

 

[Koldo]

It can't be both "nature alone" and "nature and nurture".

Nurture shapes your will. Your will doesn't arise from your nurture though.

So it is both my nature to shrink from pain and to ignore it? I think you might be stretching the limits of the term.

The answer to question is: yes.

Which tasks were we created to perform? I'll need the complete list.

Read again what i said. There appears to be some misunderstanding here.
I didn't say we were created to perform tasks, in the strict sense.

For the last time, robots do not make choices AT ALL. Did you even read all of that ice cream stuff I wrote?

Yes. If you don't choose based on a criteria ( or randomly ), then how do you make choices? How is this different from robots?

I have already said you were programmed by your nature and nurture to make the choices that you do. That's how you have come up with being able to make choices.

 

[Sir Doom]

Nurture shapes your will. Your will doesn't arise from your nurture though.

So, first comes nature, then comes will, then nurture 'shapes' will. Anything else after that? Or is that the end of the process? If so, how often do you return to your mommy for a will-update?

The answer to question is: yes.

Contradiction. Good job. Now I know you haven't a clue what you mean.

Read again what i said. There appears to be some misunderstanding here. I didn't say we were created to perform tasks, in the strict sense.

That's right, you specifically stated it wasn't strict. And then you said:
However, we are created in a manner that allows us to perform tasks

Do you mean this in the most general sense, then? The fact that we exist within a universe governed by predictable physical laws and our bodies are miraculously able to interact with that universe? Is that what you meant? Boy I hope so.

Yes. If you don't choose based on a criteria ( or randomly ), then how do you make choices? How is this different from robots?

I'm not answering this. Not again. Go back and read my answers again as many times as you'd like if you just want to keep asking the same garbage over and over.

I have already said you were programmed by your nature and nurture to make the choices that you do. That's how you have come up with being able to make choices.

Draw a line from this conversation back to my birth. Have fun with that.

 

[Koldo]

So, first comes nature, then comes will, then nurture 'shapes' will. Anything else after that? Or is that the end of the process? If so, how often do you return to your mommy for a will-update?

That is it. Nurture never ends though, until you die. Nurture is the 'the sum of environmental influences and conditions acting on an organism'.

Contradiction. Good job. Now I know you haven't a clue what you mean.

Do you mean a logical contradiction?
As much as autoimmune diseases are.

That's right, you specifically stated it wasn't strict. And then you said:
However, we are created in a manner that allows us to perform tasks

Do you mean this in the most general sense, then? The fact that we exist within a universe governed by predictable physical laws and our bodies are miraculously able to interact with that universe? Is that what you meant? Boy I hope so.

Yes, except i wouldn't use the word 'miraculously'.

I'm not answering this. Not again. Go back and read my answers again as many times as you'd like if you just want to keep asking the same garbage over and over.

You only made vague assertions as to how you determine your choices in a former post, however i formulated this question to show you are unable to determine anything about your choices if you don't have any previous criteria.

Draw a line from this conversation back to my birth. Have fun with that.

I am unable to do this due to my lack of knowledge on how your conciousness works exactly and in specifics ( nature) and because i am not able to take into consideration every factor that contributed to your nurture.