Robots

[waitasec]

Yes it would be, or maybe we're only semisentient? The point being were not so different than machines, hell, you could even argue that cells behave like nanites.

not the other way around?

 

[Koldo]

yes i would. because robots are ultimately subjected to OUR knowledge...even though our knowledge is expanding doesn't mean a robot in a 100 yrs from now is anymore than a robot is today.

are robots capable of being self indulgent?

You are using a strict definition for 'robot'.
Still, if we were to build a robot able to learn, would you then not consider it to be a robot anymore, as it wouldn't be subject to our knowledge anymore?

reproducing a song that already exists is not abstract concept...it's basically painting by numbers.

i certainly hope you are not serious. are you suggesting that this robot actually came up with the story on it's own, or was it programmed?
the day a robot can create a story based on it's own imagination is the day robots take over the world.

You never said the robot had to use its own imagination.
You are once again moving the goalposts.

how so? that has been the point i was making with the 1st post you responded to...
let me remind you...

You never mentioned the robot had to make up its own abstract style.
Therefore, you are moving the goalposts.

 

[Sir Doom]

My goalposts haven't moved. All of this silliness with what robots can or can't do are literally beyond the point. Of course we can build a machine that will accomplish any task we build it to accomplish. That is simply a human using a complex tool to accomplish the task. The painting robot is programmed to paint. The storytelling robot is programmed to tell stories. If that painting robot looks at what its supposed to paint and suddenly writes a story about it instead, I'll be impressed. In fact, if it is given a subject to paint and simply throws down the brush and denies its human made purpose, I'll be impressed. But we both know that without a human being coding these behaviors into the machine, it will NEVER do either of those things. It will just keep painting because that's what its been designed to do.

 

[Tonix]

not the other way around?

The direction is ultimately irrelevant, the conclusion is that they behave in a similar manner.

 

[Sleeppy]

Let me know the next time a Robot creates a human life...then I will be happy to continue this discussion.

or paints a painting
or writes a song, or a poem...
dances
makes up stories

edit:
all robots being equal...
are they able to manipulate other robots?
are they capable of forgetting?

how about this...
are robots capable of being irrational?
are they capable of disagreeing with one another?
are robots capable of understanding what coming to an understanding means?

so no, we are not robots.

Really.. surprising responses to say the least..

What does a robot creating human life have anything to do with.. anything? Last time I checked...... life hasn't been created from scratch even by humans. It usually takes two humans for that. But, maybe I'm out of date on that one. Look it up for me.

Robots manipulating.. I'm sure that happens everyday as well, in my computer.

Robots forgetting.. My computer does that as well. I lost my bookmarks the other day, but I finally got it to remember them.

Robots being irrational.. My smartphone no longer brings up the camera when the camera button is pushed, it redials the last call.

Robots disagreeing.. Sometimes when I want to play a PC game, I have to turn off firewalls or add permissions, etc. Call me peacemaker?

Robots understanding.. If you can detail that process, it can be programmed into a robot. Even add a little improvisation. Really.. anything you can think of, to make it unique.

 

[Koldo]

My goalposts haven't moved. All of this silliness with what robots can or can't do are literally beyond the point. Of course we can build a machine that will accomplish any task we build it to accomplish. That is simply a human using a complex tool to accomplish the task. The painting robot is programmed to paint. The storytelling robot is programmed to tell stories. If that painting robot looks at what its supposed to paint and suddenly writes a story about it instead, I'll be impressed. In fact, if it is given a subject to paint and simply throws down the brush and denies its human made purpose, I'll be impressed. But we both know that without a human being coding these behaviors into the machine, it will NEVER do either of those things. It will just keep painting because that's what its been designed to do.

You are talking about a robot doing what it wasn't programmed to do.
However, without knowing what your code is, how would you determine that you are able to do things which you haven't been programmed for?

 

[waitasec]

The direction is ultimately irrelevant, the conclusion is that they behave in a similar manner.

i think it is very relevant....are robots supposed to emulate us?
why would they behave in a similar manner...was it a coincidence or was it intentional?

 

[waitasec]

You are using a strict definition for 'robot'.

but of course i am...what other definition is there?

Still, if we were to build a robot able to learn, would you then not consider it to be a robot anymore, as it wouldn't be subject to our knowledge anymore?

that is my point. robots are just as limited as we are when it comes to our knowledge...we set the parameters...
nevertheless, we do not nor can we put emotion, curiosity and our innate sense of exploration in a box either.

You never said the robot had to use its own imagination.
You are once again moving the goalposts.

this is the post i responded to:

Let me know the next time a Robot creates a human life...then I will be happy to continue this discussion.

or paints a painting
or writes a song, or a poem...
dances
makes up stories

edit:
all robots being equal...
are they able to manipulate other robots?
are they capable of forgetting?

how do you interpret "make up stories"?

You never mentioned the robot had to make up its own abstract style.
Therefore, you are moving the goalposts.

again, how do you interpret "make up stories"?

 

[Sleeppy]

What is "Free Will" that it becomes more illusory with more options?

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.

 

[waitasec]

Really.. surprising responses to say the least..

What does a robot creating human life have anything to do with.. anything?

excuse me but doesn't you OP state we are robots?

Robots manipulating.. I'm sure that happens everyday as well, in my computer.

:spit:
perhaps you are overlooking user error

Robots forgetting.. My computer does that as well. I lost my bookmarks the other day, but I finally got it to remember them.

man if there were a disk warrior for my brain i would be
awesome

Robots being irrational.. My smartphone no longer brings up the camera when the camera button is pushed, it redials the last call.

how is that irrational?

Robots disagreeing.. Sometimes when I want to play a PC game, I have to turn off firewalls or add permissions, etc. Call me peacemaker?

all robots being equal, there would be compatibility across the board.

Robots understanding.. If you can detail that process, it can be programmed into a robot. Even add a little improvisation. Really.. anything you can think of, to make it unique.

that is a big if, wouldn't you say?
wonder why that would be
:foot:


next.

 

[Koldo]

but of course i am...what other definition is there?

An automated machine.

that is my point. robots are just as limited as we are when it comes to our knowledge...we set the parameters...
nevertheless, we do not nor can we put emotion, curiosity and our innate sense of exploration in a box either.

You didn't really answer my question.
if we were to build a robot able to learn, would you then not consider it to be a robot anymore, as it wouldn't be subject to our knowledge anymore?
Still, just because we are currently unable to do something doesn't mean this will always be the case.

how do you interpret "make up stories"?

again, how do you interpret "make up stories"?

I never replied specifically to 'make up stories'.
Why do you ask?
The last video i posted was an example of a storyteller robot.

 

[waitasec]

You are talking about a robot doing what it wasn't programmed to do.
However, without knowing what your code is, how would you determine that you are able to do things which you haven't been programmed for?

wouldn't that be a cruel joke from the designers point of view?

 

[Koldo]

wouldn't that be a cruel joke from the designers point of view?

Can you elaborate?

 

[waitasec]

An automated machine.

is a robot
Robotic Integration and Automated Machines

You didn't really answer my question.
if we were to build a robot able to learn, would you then not consider it to be a robot anymore, as it wouldn't be subject to our knowledge anymore?
Still, just because we are currently unable to do something doesn't mean this will always be the case.

i did answer the question before you even asked it
check out post #100
where i said this

the day a robot can create a story based on it's own imagination is the day robots take over the world.

I never replied specifically to 'make up stories'.
Why do you ask?
The last video i posted was an example of a storyteller robot.

well the post you responded to did in fact say that.
so i am not sure why you would imply i was moving goal posts, since the post you responded to stated that in the 1st place...

i am talking about "creating"
the post i responded to was pointing out the day a robot can reproduce life then the point of this thread would be something worth discussing...
i responded on the premise of "creating", making something up...
dancing is an emotional response to musical stimulation, as far as i am concerned as one who is not a trained dancer...i react to music by improvising...nothing contrived just go...
when jamming with other musicians i just go...there is no sense of a calculated response to what the drummer and bass player are doing

do you see where i am going with this?

i thought that maybe the obvious was displayed in the original post you responded to.

 

[Sir Doom]

You are talking about a robot doing what it wasn't programmed to do.

Exactly.

However, without knowing what your code is, how would you determine that you are able to do things which you haven't been programmed for?

Look, if you'd like to suggest that there is some external programmer deciding what it is that life accomplishes, that's fine. But there is no evidence that this is the case, and there is a WEALTH of evidence to suggest otherwise. To the best of my knowledge, my 'programming' is under my control. It's self-assigned. There may be some environmental factors that I am using to determine what programming I want, but I that programming still happens internally. It is me programming me. You can say that my programming is built upon that of my ancestors, but that was still internal to them. And life programming more life is just as internal. This is why self-replication is such a big deal for a robot if they ever hope to be life.

A robot is the opposite. It literally CAN'T do anything without an external programmer telling it first how to accomplish the task, and then second that it SHOULD accomplish the task. Does the painting robot have a say in what it is designed for? Does it ask to be designed for something else? Does it ever get sick of painting and wish it was a storytelling robot? Never. It doesn't even care that it paints. It doesn't even KNOW that it paints. All it 'knows' is that the collection of circuits within itself are on or off in a pattern that results in a pattern of output. What that output ultimately is makes no difference to the robot. It isn't fulfilling an internal goal to paint. Its just guiding electricity from the power source to the output in a predetermined path set by us.

 

[Sleeppy]

excuse me but doesn't you OP state we are robots?



:spit:
perhaps you are overlooking user error



man if there were a disk warrior for my brain i would be
awesome


how is that irrational?

all robots being equal, there would be compatibility across the board.


that is a big if, wouldn't you say?
wonder why that would be
:foot:


next.

You're still missing the actual point. So.. I'll simplify it further for you. Does light exceed it's speed limit? No. It's supposedly the fastest in the universe. Nothing can push it faster than what it already maxes out at. Like a simple calculator.. It's not going to solve math's most complex equations by it's own accord. It doesn't have that capability, or programming, it only has part of it (the 1+1's and 2x2's, etc.) And like a human.. I'm not going to jump 30 feet in the air unless something helps me do it. I don't have that capability, or programming.

Two parallel lines, not necessarily the same line.

 

[Sleeppy]

Exactly.

A robot is the opposite. It literally CAN'T do anything without an external programmer telling it first how to accomplish the task, and then second that it SHOULD accomplish the task.

Wait.. So you can decide what color your skin is? Or if you get hungry or not? Not even your ancestors programmed that much.

 

[Koldo]

is a robot
Robotic Integration and Automated Machines

Are you asking me if this is a robot?
What is "this"?

i did answer the question before you even asked it
check out post #100
where i said this

You still didn't answer my question. :sarcastic

well the post you responded to did in fact say that.
so i am not sure why you would imply i was moving goal posts, since the post you responded to stated that in the 1st place...

To the first post i replied to, i provided two examples with painting and dancing.
In a later post of yours, you mention a list of things which robots supposedly can't do: 'poetry, story telling, singing, playing an instrument'.
When i mentioned an example of storytelling, you moved the goalposts ( back ) to 'make up stories'. Every time i offer an example you raise the bar.

i am talking about "creating"
the post i responded to was pointing out the day a robot can reproduce life then the point of this thread would be something worth discussing...
i responded on the premise of "creating", making something up...

Creating a human life is not the same as making something up as there is already a design to follow with some clear limits to what you can do. A human life is a very specific kind of organism.

Other than this, we already have 'random dungeon generators' for example, does that work as example of ''creating''?

dancing is an emotional response to musical stimulation, as far as i am concerned as one who is not a trained dancer...i react to music by improvising...nothing contrived just go...
when jamming with other musicians i just go...there is no sense of a calculated response to what the drummer and bass player are doing

do you see where i am going with this?

i thought that maybe the obvious was displayed in the original post you responded to.

It is rather odd you would choose to stick to strict definitions during some moments but not in others. Dance, for example, is defined as moving 'rhythmically usually to music, using prescribed or improvised steps and gestures.'. It doesn't require an emotional response of any sort.

 

[Koldo]

Look, if you'd like to suggest that there is some external programmer deciding what it is that life accomplishes, that's fine. But there is no evidence that this is the case, and there is a WEALTH of evidence to suggest otherwise. To the best of my knowledge, my 'programming' is under my control. It's self-assigned. There may be some environmental factors that I am using to determine what programming I want, but I that programming still happens internally. It is me programming me. You can say that my programming is built upon that of my ancestors, but that was still internal to them. And life programming more life is just as internal. This is why self-replication is such a big deal for a robot if they ever hope to be life.

We have been programmed by nature and nurture. Do you consider these to be external programmers?

A robot is the opposite. It literally CAN'T do anything without an external programmer telling it first how to accomplish the task, and then second that it SHOULD accomplish the task. Does the painting robot have a say in what it is designed for? Does it ask to be designed for something else? Does it ever get sick of painting and wish it was a storytelling robot? Never. It doesn't even care that it paints. It doesn't even KNOW that it paints. All it 'knows' is that the collection of circuits within itself are on or off in a pattern that results in a pattern of output. What that output ultimately is makes no difference to the robot. It isn't fulfilling an internal goal to paint. Its just guiding electricity from the power source to the output in a predetermined path set by us.

You wouldn't be able to do anything if you weren't given the means to do it too. You need a working brain to do pretty much any conscious task, to be aware of something, or to care about anything. Also, do you have a say on whether you like chocolate? Did you ask for liking chocolate ( or not ) when you were designed?

 

[Sir Doom]

Wait.. So you can decide what color your skin is? Or if you get hungry or not? Not even your ancestors programmed that much.

Yes, I can decide what color my skin is. Not only can I leave it the color it began, I can change it to any color I wish. Further, I can describe the color it is or which color I want it to be in any conceivable way I choose.

I may get hungry without approval, but I can decide to ignore that hunger or satisfy it with food. I can also decide to satisfy it by eating rocks and pennies which won't do anything. I can also stand on my head and sing show tunes.

We have been programmed by nature and nurture. Do you consider these to be external programmers?

Absolutely not. Nature is the environment I program myself to react to. Nurture is just as internal since it is the product of the very same life I am part of. Further, I retain the ability to ignore both in any given situation.

You wouldn't be able to do anything if you weren't given the means to do it too. You need a working brain to do pretty much any conscious task, to be aware of something, or to care about anything.

You keep telling me that I'm bound by my biology as if this doesn't support my argument. A computer is bound by its biology as well and still can't do anything without a human being telling it what to do and when. My biology is self-sufficient. A computer is a lump of compounds that is useless without a human. It's very clear difference that you illustrate for me over and over. Without the speculation of some external programmer, you can't draw a similarity at all.

Also, do you have a say on whether you like chocolate? Did you ask for liking chocolate ( or not ) when you were designed?

You seem to think the design is finished. It isn't. We are constantly designing ourselves. Even if I have no clear intention of 'liking chocolate' I am also not bound to that preference either. It could change tomorrow. Today. 10 years from now. Whenever I decide. A computer does not have this ability. It must be changed by a human.