Dismiss Notice
60,000 passwords have been reset on July 8, 2019. If you cannot login, read this.

Are we something more than organic robots?

Discussion in 'Recycle Bin' started by Shiroaisu, Dec 26, 2009.

?

Are we more than organic robots???

  1. yes

    32 vote(s)
    55.2%
  2. no

    26 vote(s)
    44.8%
  1. Shiroaisu

    Shiroaisu

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    202
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    dude... have u read the last posts ??? -.- im tired of this "we have feelings" excuse seriously

    We evolved... nothing created us as we are now, and the first cells were created by accident.
     
  2. Elenai

    Elenai

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,457
    Resources:
    36
    Models:
    14
    Icons:
    22
    Resources:
    36
    And atheists say "I [and most other Christians]" am presumptuous...

    On topic: In order to reproduce sentience, you also have to create something that is even more complex than 'feelings', and far deeper...and something that many people don't even believe exists...

    "Free...Will"

    Inevitably...I don't believe we have the capacity to program Free-will.
     
  3. Mulgrim

    Mulgrim

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    941
    Resources:
    3
    Models:
    2
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    well can robots reproduce? /thread

    I just destroyed your theories
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2010
  4. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Assuming we expand the definition of "presumptuous" to include research-backed findings alongside blind faith. Not all beliefs are created equal, and creationism does not fall on equal ground with science.

    As far as I see it free will is just a pseudo random number generator associated with the emotional and logical reasoning centres of the brain (this should describe it pretty well). Either way, scientists will eventually work out how we're wired at this rate.

    Go away.
     
  5. Elenai

    Elenai

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,457
    Resources:
    36
    Models:
    14
    Icons:
    22
    Resources:
    36
    Or we can just leave the definition as it is meant to be, not 'assume', and stick to the root of the matter as I had stated.

    "Don't state things as fact Christian! But watch as I turn around and do the same"

    Essentially, it is a matter of blatant hypocrisy.

    But as I said...on topic...

    "Random" isn't "Free will".

    With every answer, comes many more questions...The universe is huge.
     
  6. MySpaceBarBroke

    MySpaceBarBroke

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,554
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    When you say gravity is pulling objects towards the earth, you clearly aren't acknowledging the theory that at the center of the earth there lives an invisible cowboy with an infinite supply of lassos.

    Like Poot said, not all theories are created equal. Inteligent design is devoid of any credibility as far as science goes.
    Because we've never seen the Let Me Get The Last Word In Before I Act Holier-Than-Thou Game before.
    Poot was making a comparison. A metaphor, if you will.

    Y'see, a pseudo random number generator is, as its name implies, a program that generates numbers that seem random because we can't predict it but are actually part of a set order or system. They do this because it beats the shit out of installing dice rolling capsules in your computer, but that's besides the point.

    What Poot is saying is that while free will seems unpredictable and indecipherable, it's actually might be some kind of system.
    Yes, there will be more questions with every answer, in the same way clean toilet paper will always get shit on it. That's really besides the point here. How does this argument apply to anything at all?

    "We can probably find a way to make it to space in a few years."
    "Yes, but with every answer, there will come many more questions. Therefore, traveling to space is impossible."

    Naturally, there's probably going to be complications. That still doesn't make it any less plausible.
     
  7. Elenai

    Elenai

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,457
    Resources:
    36
    Models:
    14
    Icons:
    22
    Resources:
    36
    It would be an irony if the cowboy did indeed exist, wouldn't it?

    I am holier than you are. If you want to get technical about it...considering that is the a large part of the whole point of Christianity in the first place...And something would be 'terribly wrong' if I wasn't making progress in that particular area. (which I am able to observe than I have, and am)

    With a system like what Purplepoot was suggesting...it ceases to be 'free'.

    In the case of programming 'random' generators...as far as I recall, I don't think we've ever managed to program a truly random generator. At which point the robot would not have free will of its own accord, but would be acting on what I would call "Random Instinct [built in processes]"

    Observation takes a nose dive.

    In an effort to break it down...

    "Scientists will eventually work out how we are wired at this rate"

    Implies that we will eventually figure it all out...

    I don't think we ever will...Because of what I said earlier.

    So...yes...my post did make sense...

    Really...I grow so tired sometimes of pointing out the obvious.
     
  8. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Well there's pretty good evidence that the universe is essentially random, and a great man once said "and I think the world would be a lot better off if people just realized that the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not."

    No, not really.

    That's kinda the point. Freedom or the illusion thereof because we cannot see the interior at the moment? Large parts of what used to be ascribed to faith or something special about humans has been explained by science, so free will has become its own "god of the gaps" per se.

    It's impossible--that's the point. We have made random number generators but you need special hardware (ie a quantum computer) to do so; you can't just program them where and when you want.

    You seem to be grasping the point.

    No it doesn't. It's not like those questions don't exist before we've discovered them.

    Do the toy disappear when I hide it behind my back? Does it not exist until I show it to you for the first time? Only a baby would say yes to both (if they could say yes), and yet seemingly different questions with the same meaning are widely accepted.

    Not really. It implies that we have already discovered a hell of a lot about the body and are discovering more every year; there is no plausible reason for free will being some sort of barrier.

    Consider the rational interpretation of the statement rather than the literal one. I understand what you mean but don't think it makes sense (and have good reason to believe so), if you will.
     
  9. Shiroaisu

    Shiroaisu

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    202
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    WTF DUDE??? of course that if we want we can make something that will be able to reproduce, but then again.. only when we start to work with organic materials to create living behings.. but that would not be a true robot but im not using the word "robot" to refer to a robot itself... read the other posts -.-

    sory but... u destroyed nothing :S

    FAIL

    and then again:

    sentience, free-will??? BRAIN
     
  10. Mulgrim

    Mulgrim

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    941
    Resources:
    3
    Models:
    2
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    I hope you realize you just contradicted yourself

    failonyou
     
  11. Shiroaisu

    Shiroaisu

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    202
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    how did i contradicted myself??? wtf?? this is getting weird
     
  12. Mulgrim

    Mulgrim

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    941
    Resources:
    3
    Models:
    2
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    ....
     
  13. Shiroaisu

    Shiroaisu

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    202
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    ... i hope you realize that if ur talking about my definition of robots in this post i am not contradicting myself...

    seriously... read the older posts...

    more details:

    When i refer to true robot in that particular post i refer to a non organic machine but in general in this thread ive been using the word "robot" as a soulless behing.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2010
  14. Elenai

    Elenai

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,457
    Resources:
    36
    Models:
    14
    Icons:
    22
    Resources:
    36
    Show me this evidence. Every time I look at the universe I see clockwork, how is it that you see jumbles of...stuff....that somehow produce orbits, and predictable occurrences?

    On another note...I still can't quite get passed the whole 'ludicrous nature' of all of this...

    "The universe is exceedingly random, but it is perfectly logical [predictable by observation]"

    Random by its very definition is not predictable...

    Something is clearly wrong with the root here...it can't be both.

    Science more often than not, tends to show ever more just how complex and special human beings really are, so far as I have seen. Heck...even the science channels tend to tout on about how humans are magnificent in their abilities.

    Free will, as you said though...seems to be something we have no understanding about.

    And yet, in order to reproduce sentience, we must reproduce a will that is outside of our own choices for it, but it cannot be a random will, it must be a 'purposeful' one.

    We don't throw dice to figure out if we want grape juice, grapefruit juice, or urine to drink. Our instincts drive us to need to drink, but you can choose not to drink also, and you can choose 'what' to drink.

    Inevitably, there is a thing called 'free will', that we don't know how to create, and I don't believe we ever will, because we as limited things can't program it without inevitable putting our own suggestions into it.

    Off topic: I often find "God of the gaps" to be an ironic statement. It is the exact equivalent to a statement of Faith, for such a group who seems so entirely disdainful of it.

    "Science has not explained it, yet, so it is essentially just a Christian calling out a god in the gaps. But science will surely explain it, I have great faith in science, and its ability to produce the answer."

    "God has not explained it, yet, so it is essentially just an a-religious person stating that God does not exist. But God will surely explain it, I have great faith in God, and his ability to produce the answer."

    Then it is perfectly impossible to create free will...heck, you can't even seem to create a 'pseudo random will' let alone a free one.

    Sentience therefore cannot be reproduced.

    Not really, all I can see so far is that you deny the existence of free will, and call it random...among other things.

    When free will is the very backbone of sentience in the first place.

    If you can't reproduce it, you can't make a sentient.

    You yourself have deemed it impossible.

    Unless...this is an attempt to hide that little detail away and not face it...so that you can believe mankind eventually will create a sentient...

    There seems to be a disturbing pattern here in the way science tries to work.

    "A, B, and C are required to produce D."

    "We can sort of produce B, and we can produce a working if not limited C...but we can't produce A, so lets hide or ignore A, so we can believe to produce D."

    Inevitably...this won't work for long.

    What does that have to do with pointing out to MSBB that he entirely missed the whole point?

    You've flipped your statements around...

    But anyway...

    Free will is a barrier until you can reproduce it perfectly. Free will is an absolute, you either have it or not. And you've just stated that it is impossible to even produce a random number generator of the size and complexity it would take to even mimic free will. Let alone free will which is infinitely more complex than randomocity.

    "alskgado;fighadf; ajdogrhaeorighaer;ogih" = random number generator.

    "A system of unified sounds producing a meaning as presented by symbols representing the phonemes, and organised by punctuation marks that we call a sentence." = Free will.

    And I have good reason for my belief. If you will, I believe we shall leave that, at that.
     
  15. Boris_Spider

    Boris_Spider

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    728
    Resources:
    6
    Icons:
    3
    Maps:
    2
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    6
    Elanai, if you want a simple example of the order in chaos (the lack of random in random) then check out Chaos Theory.

    The primary reason you're missing the counter to your point (Elanai) is one fundamental difference between science and religion.
    ~Religion simply states that a god is responsible for all that was, is, and will be. Religion also requires its members to not question what is "for god only" (have faith). Essentially religion focuses on answers.
    ~Science focuses on questions, as in the what, where, when, why, how, etc... Science forms a hypothesis, and then tries to disprove it (true science does). If it can't be disproven, its taken for being true UNTILL the theory is disproven.

    What I just stated in other words (Philosophy and science are similar enough for this comparison to work):

    "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned." ~Author Unknown

    Before you get all defensive, realize "Faith" is "Blind Faith" in the sense that you can't question something you're supposed to take as-is. BTW, if god has a divine plan and we have free will, that's a contradiction. It only works if we are like actors on a stage who are ignorant of our next lines/roles, but that doesn't change the fact that we have no choice but to speak/act our next lines/roles. Free Will is an illusion at best. Therefore machines could obtain it fairly easily by applying your logic.

    Now, since this thread is focusing on religion rather then the OP, I suggest a new thread be created for this tangent. The entire arguement on machines never becoming sentient due to the dissapproval of a religion lacks a solid foundation. The only counter-arguements I've heard thus-far are all based on modern-day machines (not us). So, lets get back on topic.
    "Are we something more than organic robots?" - Answer: No ,Why?: See my previous posts
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2010
  16. NearbyHermit

    NearbyHermit

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,894
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0


    Lol,dude !

    I think I was the first to bring up ''greater feelings'' to the discussion,check the first pages.

    If you really believe all this mumbo jumbo about ''robot humans'' ,I'm sorry for you !
    I strongly advice you not to pick a screw driver and stick it in your organs to see if you're either leaking oil or blood !

    Don't connect any USB cables to one of your body ''terminals'' ,your ''mechanical'' brain won't acces the computer.

    Accident?

    Accidents result by a chain of events ! So please explain this :cool:
     
  17. mato2

    mato2

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    468
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Big bang,
    Earth evaporations,
    Seas,
    first life,
    evolution,
    evolution,
    evolution,
    evolution,
    evolution,
    evolution,
    human

    Oh and about the free will, won't be free if it's random, how free are u exactly?
    U make your decisions based on the situation and your abillity to process it, at some point in time robots will be able to do the same thing. Now if you're thinking, well humans do illogical things in certain situations, like say acts of bravery where some1 goes into a burning building to save a baby, even though it's obviously dangerous to do so, it all comes down to our programming, genes. You could program a robot to be brave, you could program him to be a coward, just like we are programmed when the genes of our parent's merge.
     
  18. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Don't take it from me; go learn quantum mechanics. When you look out at the sky you see the power of randomness driving the universe; you just wouldn't recognize it because it doesn't dance in front of your eyes.

    You have clearly never heard of the mathematical field of statistics (and its subset probability).

    Confirmation bias. It shows how complex all life if anything.

    Wrong and straw man.

    Straw man. Notice the entire lecture on pseudorandomness versus true randomness.

    Straw man. "god of the gaps" refers to god's role throughout history.

    Non-sequitur.

    Psychology (the various biases for instance) is excellent at demonstrating that we're much less free than we would like to think, if we are at all. Our brain is doing a lot of the piloting subconsciously and then lying to us about doing it.

    You still haven't demonstrated that you have; it surely doesn't look like it.

    Uuh, same with everything else?

    Straw man and blatant lie.

    Lack of evidence and straw man.

    Attacking said straw man without realizing that your opponent knows what a logical fallacy is.

    Oh, and that's fairly nonrandom, which sort of shoots your argument in the foot (since you clearly have no understanding of what random means). Most of those characters are on the home row, the space is clearly intentional, and the only punctuation mark used is the semicolon.

    In fact, excluding the (intentional) space only 12 of 39 characters lie off the home row, and no number of punctuation mark is ever pressed, excluding ; which is directly beside l! characters near each other on the keyboard tend to appear near each other in that string, and the frequency of deviation from the home row increases as the string's length does.

    Bullshit. We've written AI based on very simple rules which talks coherently to you (ELIZA was ages ago and that's an example).

    This post doesn't support that hypothesis.
     
  19. NearbyHermit

    NearbyHermit

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,894
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Can you programm a robot to change its mind ? :cool:
     
  20. Shiroaisu

    Shiroaisu

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    202
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    ... dude ffs another one how missinterpreted the way i use robot in this threat...

    and i use feelings to make my point just when someone uses them and it is allways to say: feelings come from the brain wich is material.