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. Kwah

    Kwah

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    3,391
    Resources:
    8
    Icons:
    5
    Maps:
    1
    Tutorials:
    2
    Resources:
    8
    I'll single this out as it seems to be your theme. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    In rebuttal, why do you think that sentience is only possible exactly as you experience it? Humans just aren't the pinnacle of evolution, and infact evolution doesn't even have a direction.

    So it's totally plausible to develop sentient machines. They may not, and probably won't be exact replicas of humans, at least at first. However, it doesn't mean they won't be sentient.

    The rest of the points you discussed were peripheral to what I think is the question at hand, so this is me trying to leave them out.
     
  2. Elenai

    Elenai

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,457
    Resources:
    36
    Models:
    14
    Icons:
    22
    Resources:
    36
    To be sentient requires that they be self-aware at the minimum. This would involve the creation of a robotic construct that is 'alive'.

    I'll be quite impressed, when we manage to breathe life into a piece of metal. Nano, or not.
     
  3. Boris_Spider

    Boris_Spider

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    728
    Resources:
    6
    Icons:
    3
    Maps:
    2
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    6
    The only thing that seperates Humans from everything else (other animals) is arrogance. The thought that everything on this world is here to serve us is preposterous, and responsible for all the problems (non-survival problems) that we (as a race) have ever 3encountered.
    Sentience is defined the ability to feel or percieve subjectively.
    We have no grounds on which to support an arguement against other animals being sentient. All animals are capable of "feeling" and "percieving" fear. The exceptions to that rule generally don't live very long. Fear is what helps keep things alive while killing the ability to explore. Everything fears the unknown, for a common human example look at death.

    Elenai, I think I understand the basis of your arguement (your sig. gives it away). The reason you're having a problem conveying your point is those who don't share your PoV have little or no reference to your position (interpretation). By that same logic, who can say that animals aren't sentient because we haven't found a point of reference on which to guide by.
    Perhaps this makes more sense (to Elenai): "The light which provides our sight often blinds our minds."

    Back on topic...
    ~To be considered alive, one requirement is that the thing in question must reproduce in one way, shape, or form.
    ~We use machines to build other machines; a weak similarity exists in slaves producing more slaves.
    ~So machines are capable of reproducing, just not the level of self-awareness that members of the Animal Kingdom appear to have.

    @ hawk900, switch sides and see what counter-arguements you can come up with.

    //\\oo//\\
     
  4. MySpaceBarBroke

    MySpaceBarBroke

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,554
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Yes, I heard you the first and second time, and have already established why they can. But obviously two times will not suffice for someone whose words are as beautiful as yours.
    Well that's what we're arguing, aren't we?
    That would depend on the qualities that you believe constitute alleged supertomatoes dancing to Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker.

    What's silly isn't that you're comparing future objects to the present, it's that by our common definition of "tomato", we are fundamentally different from them.

    This is the difference between your argument and his. The definition of a machine or a robot has been established by him or someone else already, and by that definition, it is perfectly plausible that we might be "robots".
    ONCE AGAIN, if thought is nothing more than chemical reactions and electrical impulses, "thinking" could be broken down into these "calculations".

    ...Is this thing on?
     
  5. Devine

    Devine

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,195
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    God tel me robots are no humans.
     
  6. NearbyHermit

    NearbyHermit

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,894
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    ''God made human by his appearance''

    Surely that's a hint :wink:
     
  7. HINDYhat

    HINDYhat

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,594
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    2
    Spells:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Then I can only assume that by "Might be" and "If this," you're saying MSBB is wrong because we don't know it possible yet. See hawk's example:
    "We cannot program a sentient AI at this point in time, ergo it must be totally impossible is not proof."
    I'll be careful to state all of my argument as facts so you won't pull this one whenever you see "if" or "might."

    ... Silly because we can attribute them any property. In reality, we can't, because there are such things as plausible futures and implausible futures.

    I'd ask you to back this up, but I'm pretty sure you'd say no.

    Because magic voodoo exists, right?

    A computer program's abilities are limited by the programmer's abilities* obviously because the programmer writes the program.

    I'm just going to ignore this because you haven't been observant.

    Because of magic voodoo. Mhmm.

    Yadda yadda yadda, something about the future, see above or be observant.

    No, and neither are you. That doesn't refute my argument, and neither does it refute yours. See hawk's example about not knowing enough doesn't mean we never will.

    I wasn't aware that hyperspace travel was still completely impossible.

    Hawk's point.

    Hawk's point.

    You have no idea how far into the future that is, so this claim is worthless. A couple of centuries ago, I doubt many would have imagined all of the progress we'd make.

    Common sense = magic voodoo, mhmm.

    So your entire argument has been "No," and you won't explain why, either because you don't feel like it or because I'm not observant.

    Physically, of course it's impossible to recreate an art piece down to the molecule. On any observable level, though, it surely is possible. On a very simple level, stroke by stroke similarity could easily be accomplished by putting some motion sensors on the artist's paintbrush, and recreating that motion using a sort of robot.

    Something about knowing more in the future, blah blah.

    "Stoke by stroke" is not "molecular exactness."

    Hawk said it was very, very hard. He did not say it was impossible. Very, very hard things are not impossible.

    What about animals? They don't seem to be exactly like humans.

    "when"
     
  8. Boris_Spider

    Boris_Spider

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    728
    Resources:
    6
    Icons:
    3
    Maps:
    2
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    6
    "Humans are arrogant, if we are made in god's image, then god is arrogant"

    It has been repeatedly asked that religion be kept out of these discussions...

    Off topic: for those of you who are obsessed with bringing one of the modern-day gods into this thread, check out this and this.

    //\\==//\\
     
  9. Shiroaisu

    Shiroaisu

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    202
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    wow... is this thread still on?... lol

    People that say we cant create those fellings and such things as that:

    FEELINGS come from the BRAIN, wich is a MATERIAL thing that functions with ELECTRICITY... no... i cant see no magic voodoo here... we can CREATE a fully functional BRAIN using the right materials, but we havent been able to manipulate those materials YET...

    pls wake up ppl

    btw sory about my english :SS
     
  10. Luffy

    Luffy

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    607
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I think we are just highly (actually most) intelligent -at everything- organic robots on the earth right now. But I am not sure if we are going better or worse.
     
  11. mato2

    mato2

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    468
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Robots can think - As in process a situation, and predict outcomes for their actions. (This might not be true sentience, but 200 years ago no one thought this to be possible. Just an ex. http://www.21stcentury.co.uk/robotics/nomad.asp )
    And about humans feeling, every feeling is just a chemical process, sometimes when our life depends on it we can actually cut off some emotions ( ex. pain).
    I think we're basically just super advanced organic machines, nothing more, when we die, i don't we're going to heaven or hell, we'll just decompose and the cycle of nature will continue with us being absorbed by the bacteria that feed of corpses, which in turn will be absorbed by something higher in the food chain and so on.
     
  12. Shiroaisu

    Shiroaisu

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    202
    Resources:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Resources:
    1
    YEY someone who DOES get my point :D
     
  13. Luffy

    Luffy

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    607
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    yes, also it's hormones what people make feel, so emotions are not so big deal too, I think.
     
  14. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Do you have to have undertones of religion in every post? Humans are not perfect. We are not the ultimate life form. There is no indication that there are only two states of awareness (ie aware and unaware) or that we are better for what we are. There isn't even indication that we are anywhere near as aware as possible (if forced to guess I would say we probably aren't). However, by definition something can't imagine things more aware than it, for the same reason a being living in N dimensions cannot imagine living in (N-M) dimensions or even the shape of (N+M) dimensions.
     
  15. NearbyHermit

    NearbyHermit

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

    Religion has nothing to do with this thread indeed !

    But if we are in the image of God then if we are ''nothing more than organic robots'' then God is an organic robot Himself !

    I am comparing God as a puppeteer ,since we are nothing more than robots,then our creator has to be something different!

    Its a paradox ,that blows your mind away:xxd:
     
  16. Boris_Spider

    Boris_Spider

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    728
    Resources:
    6
    Icons:
    3
    Maps:
    2
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    6
    ~How to close this god-door...

    ~puppeteer? ... I think you mean programmer
    ~It's not a paradox, and my mind is still here.

    ~Further explain the logic begind god being being something different, as opposed to being an organic robot; why can't he be a mechanical robot? An advanced mechanical being would appear to be a god to those who are ignorant of its technology.
    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
    -Arthur C. Clarke (1917 - ), "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)

    Your entire post negates your first statement, if religion wasn't incorporated into your PoV, your arguement wound make no sense.

    //\\oo//\\
     
  17. NearbyHermit

    NearbyHermit

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,894
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObTDvMUMgr4
     
  18. Boris_Spider

    Boris_Spider

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    728
    Resources:
    6
    Icons:
    3
    Maps:
    2
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    6
    Explain the purpose of the song in this thread please. (If there are supposed to be words in it, I didn't hear any)

    //\\o0//\\
     
  19. NearbyHermit

    NearbyHermit

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

    I wrote a long post and the page refreshed and I lost all that time !



    I'm going to put it blunt and simple :

    Man = Robot
    God = Programmer

    Man is capable of greater feelings ,so why call it a robot?
    But a robot could be programmed to ''feel'' !

    In order to create something ,you must be superior to that creation. So ,God must be superior ,something far superior than a robot !

    But man made God , it means that God is inferior ,along with us ,He is just a robot!


    We're just contradicting ourselves:bored:




    +the song is an instrumental !
     
  20. Boris_Spider

    Boris_Spider

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    728
    Resources:
    6
    Icons:
    3
    Maps:
    2
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    6
    "Superior" is a very subjective word, as is "Inferior." It's not required to be superior to whatever it is you create, although it comes in handy if you desire to completely control it. Where is it stated that we must be superior to our creations? Must we be superior to our kids? It's not neccesary to make them.

    A true AI would be "superior" to us in several ways (Immortal to our perspective, stronger, smarter (as in possess a greater storehouse of information, and a greater reasoning that isn't based on emotions, like many humans have); a true AI won't require Oxygen to breathe, only air to cool. Water is a useful coolant, but it won't need to be purified to the extent that we need it to be, and we require food to live, an AI would only require a source of power (solar, wind, fuel cell, water turbine, etc...).

    Superiority is not a requirement for creation, more often then not "Shit Happens."

    //\\oo//\\