Emergence of consciousness
someone2
an organic robot, from which consiousness emerged, I was wondering if
there are any on alt.atheism, that hold that viewpoint, prepared to
answer questions on it (presumably the concept held up to their own
scrutiny).
For the sake of the discussion, I won't write off the idea of
consciousness emerging in a robot.
The question is, would the behaviour of a robot be expected to change
if consciousness had emerged, or will it still just behave according
to how it was built and programmed?
za...@emphyrio.demon.co.uk
Douglas Berry
<glenn....@btinternet.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
First of all, you're using the wrong word. Consciousness exists in
pretty much all animals. They are aware of themselves and their
surroundings. What you are looking for is sapience, the ability to
form abstact thought beyond "eat, flee predator, reproduce."
Of course it changed out behavoir. We went from reacting to stimulus
to being able to plan. We also invented a wide range of activities
that have little to do with the survival of the species, but we enjoy.
Now the base "programming" (better known as biological imperatives) is
still there. We still are troop-based primates, with all that
baggage. We still are quite obsessed with sex, gorge ourselves when
we can, and factionalize at the drop of a hat. But we've taken these
urges and used them in unique was. We've invented porn, Food TV, and
sports.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
ShellStockTrader
"someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1171730958....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> As many atheists hold the materialist perspective, that we are simply
> an organic robot, from which consiousness emerged,
As you hold the delusional, fictional perspective, that we were manufactured
by a figment of man's imagination, then you and your cult programmed
mentality are much more robotic than any free thinking human being.
Time after time, you have proved through your posts here, that you are
facinated by fiction such as the terminator movies, robots, gods, ghosts and
the supernatural.
Reality seems to be something you despise, or cannot acknowledge in your
semi-consious brain.
> I was wondering if
> there are any on alt.atheism, that hold that viewpoint, prepared to
> answer questions on it (presumably the concept held up to their own
> scrutiny).
Here we go again, you are bent on trying to prove a point, where no point
exists (outside of your delusional semi-consious brain). Robot humans are
pre-programmed with ancient fictional stories. Robot humans do not have the
ability to think outside of what they have been brainwashed (programmed)
with. You will continue to see only black/white until the day you die.
> For the sake of the discussion, I won't write off the idea of
> consciousness emerging in a robot.
For the sake of discussion, I WILL write you off as having the consciousness
of a robot.
> The question is, would the behaviour of a robot be expected to change
> if consciousness had emerged, or will it still just behave according
> to how it was built and programmed?
You will never change. Just like a robot, you are unable and unwilling to
accept anything other than fiction. Reality, facts and understanding
anything that contradicts with your fictional bibull is outside your relm of
reasoning.
You are the Robot. And I think you know that.
David Schwartz
someone2 wrote:
> The question is, would the behaviour of a robot be expected to change
> if consciousness had emerged, or will it still just behave according
> to how it was built and programmed?
Your question contains numerous false assumptions, but I think the
simplest answer is that living things were never like robots. They
were never "built" and "programmed" in the sense you use those words.
Their behavior emerged and is only constrained by construction to the
extent that was advantageous to constrain it.
DS
Denis Loubet
"someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1171730958....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> an organic robot, from which consiousness emerged, I was wondering if
> there are any on alt.atheism, that hold that viewpoint, prepared to
> answer questions on it (presumably the concept held up to their own
> scrutiny).
I am. But this is a blatant repeat of your previous threads on the subject.
Did you not get the answers you were hunting for in your previous threads?
Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is one
definition of insanity.
> For the sake of the discussion, I won't write off the idea of
> consciousness emerging in a robot.
Why would you?
> The question is, would the behaviour of a robot be expected to change
> if consciousness had emerged, or will it still just behave according
> to how it was built and programmed?
If consciousness emerges, then it emerges because the robot is following its
programming.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Michael Gray
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171730958....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>As many atheists hold the materialist perspective, that we are simply
>an organic robot, from which consiousness emerged,
I am one of them.
> I was wondering if
>there are any on alt.atheism, that hold that viewpoint, prepared to
>answer questions on it (presumably the concept held up to their own
>scrutiny).
Sensible, coherent and logically sound questions: yes.
Question begging illogical non-sequiturs from a monomaniacal
intellectual infant who still fervently believes that Santa is real,
and who has pre-decided that anything I say will be wrong: NO.
>For the sake of the discussion, I won't write off the idea of
>consciousness emerging in a robot.
How very grand of you, Mr. Russell.
>The question is, would the behaviour of a robot be expected to change
>if consciousness had emerged, or will it still just behave according
>to how it was built and programmed?
You make several logical fallacies right there, Einstein!
1) You do not define "consciousnees".
2) You make the ridiculous assumption that it is either On or Off!
3) You beg the question by only offering your pre-provided (and
non-inclusive) responses.
4) You assume implicitly that it's behaviour is not an emergent
property of it's "learning" by it's enviornment.
They are just the very basic flaws. You have committed several more
subtle ones that I don't care to go into.
Not a good start, eh Einstein?
Try again, only just ask a coherent single question this time, and
don't attempt to provide a shopping list of your rather stupid
responses.
--
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <0oKdnaDMr5cN4ErY...@io.com>
>
>"someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:1171730958....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> As many atheists hold the materialist perspective, that we are simply
>> an organic robot, from which consiousness emerged, I was wondering if
>> there are any on alt.atheism, that hold that viewpoint, prepared to
>> answer questions on it (presumably the concept held up to their own
>> scrutiny).
>
>I am. But this is a blatant repeat of your previous threads on the subject.
>
>Did you not get the answers you were hunting for in your previous threads?
>
>Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is one
>definition of insanity.
Being a committed Christian is another viable defintion of insanity.
This monomaniac fits both definitions.
>> For the sake of the discussion, I won't write off the idea of
>> consciousness emerging in a robot.
>
>Why would you?
>
>> The question is, would the behaviour of a robot be expected to change
>> if consciousness had emerged, or will it still just behave according
>> to how it was built and programmed?
>
>If consciousness emerges, then it emerges because the robot is following its
>programming.
He's trying to sneakily conflate designed artifacts with evolved
intelligences to "trap" you later down the road.
That is assuming that he actually has the brains to do this all by
himself, and is not simply reading from one of those cretinous Kirk
Cameron training videos!
--
ShellStockTrader
"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:0oKdnaDMr5cN4ErY...@io.com...
>
> "someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:1171730958....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> As many atheists hold the materialist perspective, that we are simply
>> an organic robot, from which consiousness emerged, I was wondering if
>> there are any on alt.atheism, that hold that viewpoint, prepared to
>> answer questions on it (presumably the concept held up to their own
>> scrutiny).
>
> I am. But this is a blatant repeat of your previous threads on the
> subject.
You bet! This sick character hopes to prove that fiction is more powerfull
than reality.
Therion Ware
Sure. I thought about replying to the message, but it really wasn't
worth the effort given what one would have to make clear and ask and
exchange. Though "adaptation" would have been there somewhere...
>That is assuming that he actually has the brains to do this all by
>himself, and is not simply reading from one of those cretinous Kirk
>Cameron training videos!
Who?
someone2
wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2007 08:49:18 -0800 there was an Ancient "someone2"
>
> >As many atheists hold the materialist perspective, that we are simply
> >an organic robot, from which consiousness emerged, I was wondering if
> >there are any on alt.atheism, that hold that viewpoint, prepared to
> >answer questions on it (presumably the concept held up to their own
> >scrutiny).
>
> >For the sake of the discussion, I won't write off the idea of
> >consciousness emerging in a robot.
>
> >The question is, would the behaviour of a robot be expected to change
> >if consciousness had emerged, or will it still just behave according
> >to how it was built and programmed?
>
> First of all, you're using the wrong word. Consciousness exists in
> pretty much all animals. They are aware of themselves and their
> surroundings. What you are looking for is sapience, the ability to
> form abstact thought beyond "eat, flee predator, reproduce."
>
> Of course it changed out behavoir. We went from reacting to stimulus
> to being able to plan. We also invented a wide range of activities
> that have little to do with the survival of the species, but we enjoy.
>
> Now the base "programming" (better known as biological imperatives) is
> still there. We still are troop-based primates, with all that
> baggage. We still are quite obsessed with sex, gorge ourselves when
> we can, and factionalize at the drop of a hat. But we've taken these
> urges and used them in unique was. We've invented porn, Food TV, and
> sports.
Why was consciousness the wrong word? Also you didn't answer the
question.
someone2
> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
You seemed to have avoided answering the question, was it because you
didn't understand it, or just didn't want to answer?
someone2
I don't see any assumptions in the question, and I don't see any
reference to humans. Is it that you reject the idea of it being
possible for consciousness to emerge in a robot? Like the others that
have responded so far, you avoided answering the question.
someone2
> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
Yes it is a rewording of a previous question, the reason I reworded
it, is that strangely the people responding tend to avoid answering.
You might be an exception, though I suspect you have chosen to take a
behavioural definition of consciousness, in that it is simply
behaviour, and not something experienced. Is that correct? If it is,
then you also haven't answered the question, as I was talking about
the experience not the behaviour, though I should have made it clear.
Though considering you refer to my previous posts, you would have
known that, and so maybe I have misunderstood, else your reply would
seem disingenious. Assuming you were not being disingenious, after all
why would you be, presumably you are confident in your perspective,
and feel no need to be, perhaps you could explain what you mean when
you say :
"If consciousness emerges, then it emerges because the robot is
following its programming."
Are you saying that the if it does, then that is because the
programming and the build caused it? If so then I think I can
understand what you are saying, that the robot would behave according
to its build and programming regardless of whether consciousness
emerged or not, thus your use of the word 'if'.
Luna
"ShellStockTrader" <spam...@nospam.com> wrote:
Is he? I thought he was asking an interesting question, though it is
awkwardly worded and it didn't need a new thread. Seems like he's
vetting us on whether we think sapience is possible in a robot, and if
it is, whether it would affect the robot's observable behavior. And I
think it's fine is fictional stories make a person think beyond the
story to possible real world implications.
someone2
> On 17 Feb 2007 08:49:18 -0800, "someone2"<glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> - Refer: <1171730958.086202.59...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Regarding your criticisms:
1) I assumed the people that were asked to respond about their belief
of the emergence of consciousness. If you don't, then maybe you
shouldn't be replying. Do you understand what is meant by the word
'mind' by the way, or would the concept conveyed by it have to be
explained to you? I wonder whether theists would have the same type of
comprehension problems as some of you atheists seem to have.
2) I assumed something either experienced mind, or consciousness that
is true. Perhaps you could explain why it is ridiculous, after you
answer the question (assuming you can ever understand it).
3) It was a simple question, in that I think if it was asked by a
teacher in a class, most of the children would understand what is
being asked. You don't have to take any offered answers, you would
only have to answer the question, though you claim that you are unable
to comprehend it.
4) This is simply untrue, I make no such implications.
Is it a question that you still don't understand, or just one you
would prefer not to respond to?
someone2
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:11:29 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <0oKdnaDMr5cN4ErYnZ2dnUVZ_uejn...@io.com>
>
>
>
> >"someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
So is your objection that that consciousness couldn't emerge in things
built by humans, only in things that were built by evolution? If so, I
don't think Denis Loubet will be in agreement with you, as he could
see no reason for thinking such a thing (he said so in his response).
What is the trap that you forsee, in considering whether consciousness
could emerge in a robot, and asking about whether there would be any
expected impact on behaviour?
As a side issue, I don't know why you and the others seem so nervous
about answering, aren't you secure in your knowledge? It certainly
seems that you all seem very keen to reassure each other that it is
best not to answer? Most have used the excuse that they can't
understand the meaning of the question, you on the other hand seem to
have an alternative objection.
Luna
"someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
I don't care if there are traps or not. I'm not here to win any
arguments, just to play. I think a robot could become sapient,
sentient, conscious, whatever word you want to use. The impact on
behavior would depend on what the original programming was, and the
robot's feelings about that when the consciousness emerged. If the
robot was originally programmed, to, say, dance, and then once
consciousness emerged it decided it didn't like dancing, then maybe the
behavior would change. But if it did like dancing, maybe it wouldn't.
Martin
> In article <rzNBh.30342$1H5....@newsfe16.phx>,
> "ShellStockTrader" <spam...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
>> news:0oKdnaDMr5cN4ErY...@io.com...
>>> "someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1171730958....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> As many atheists hold the materialist perspective, that we are simply
>>>> an organic robot, from which consiousness emerged, I was wondering if
>>>> there are any on alt.atheism, that hold that viewpoint, prepared to
>>>> answer questions on it (presumably the concept held up to their own
>>>> scrutiny).
>>> I am. But this is a blatant repeat of your previous threads on the
>>> subject.
>> You bet! This sick character hopes to prove that fiction is more powerfull
>> than reality.
>
> Is he? I thought he was asking an interesting question, though it is
> awkwardly worded and it didn't need a new thread. Seems like he's
> vetting us on whether we think sapience is possible in a robot,
so why didn't he ask that question?
> and if it is, whether it would affect the robot's observable behavior.
He didn't ask that question though.
>
And I
> think it's fine is fictional stories make a person think beyond the
> story to possible real world implications.
I agree, IF he's asked those questions, but he didn't.
Martin
> Regarding your criticisms:
>
> 1) I assumed the people that were asked to respond about their belief
> of the emergence of consciousness.
Was that a sentance?
> If you don't,
don't what?
> then maybe you shouldn't be replying. Do you understand what is meant by the word
> 'mind' by the way,
Define your terms before asking the question.
> or would the concept conveyed by it have to be
> explained to you?
yes
> I wonder whether theists would have the same type of
> comprehension problems as some of you atheists seem to have.
I would hope so if they are logical beings.
> 2) I assumed something either experienced mind, or consciousness that
> is true.
Is English your first language?
> Perhaps you could explain why it is ridiculous, after you
> answer the question (assuming you can ever understand it).
> 3) It was a simple question, in that I think if it was asked by a
> teacher in a class, most of the children would understand what is
> being asked.
What do you feel a spongix relates to fliggoot?
Come on, this is a simple question, answer it.
Luna
Martin <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
Forgive me, I work with 4 year olds. Compared to the gibberish I am
used to, someone2 is clear as a bell. I knew what he meant, is what I
mean.
Martin
So answer his questions then. Bugger if I could.
Or translate into English the question you think he was asking.
Denis Loubet
Where does he say anything like that?
> If so, I
> don't think Denis Loubet will be in agreement with you, as he could
> see no reason for thinking such a thing (he said so in his response).
Correct.
> What is the trap that you forsee, in considering whether consciousness
> could emerge in a robot, and asking about whether there would be any
> expected impact on behaviour?
For me the trap is that if consciousness emerges, it's part and parcel of
the programming. You can't have two identical robots, one with consciousness
and one without, because then by definition they would be different, and
thus they would be expected to behave differently. Consciousness is not an
item that you add to a thing, it's an emergent property of that thing or it
isn't.
> As a side issue, I don't know why you and the others seem so nervous
> about answering, aren't you secure in your knowledge?
No, we're not certain of the meaning of your clumsily phrased questions and
the assumptions that lie behind them.
> It certainly
> seems that you all seem very keen to reassure each other that it is
> best not to answer?
I think they've seen for themselves the uselessness of answering you.
> Most have used the excuse that they can't
> understand the meaning of the question, you on the other hand seem to
> have an alternative objection.
He, like myself, can only guess at your motives for repeating your ambiguous
questions.
Michael Gray
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171764489.9...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
There you go AGAIN, conflating two unrelated issues, inventing straw
men, and committing all number of logical fallcies on the way!
>If so, I
>don't think Denis Loubet will be in agreement with you, as he could
>see no reason for thinking such a thing (he said so in his response).
>
>What is the trap that you forsee, in considering whether consciousness
>could emerge in a robot, and asking about whether there would be any
>expected impact on behaviour?
Eh?
I said exactly what the trap would be.
>As a side issue, I don't know why you and the others seem so nervous
>about answering, aren't you secure in your knowledge?
I don't wish to waste my valuable time debating with someone who has
already made up MY MIND for me!
So far, I have not received any indication that you are anything but
an ignoramus.
>It certainly
>seems that you all seem very keen to reassure each other that it is
>best not to answer? Most have used the excuse that they can't
>understand the meaning of the question, you on the other hand seem to
>have an alternative objection.
Ask a fucking coherent single question, and I will answer it!!
What is it with you, that you are incapable of asking a coherent
meaningful question, and yet you are puzzling as to why no-one can
answer you?
--
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <882dnUaHDKHpQ0rY...@io.com>
And its environment.
Which, by definition, would be different even for two originally
identical robots.
>> As a side issue, I don't know why you and the others seem so nervous
>> about answering, aren't you secure in your knowledge?
>
>No, we're not certain of the meaning of your clumsily phrased questions and
>the assumptions that lie behind them.
Too bloody right.
Why won't he ask a coherent question?
>> It certainly
>> seems that you all seem very keen to reassure each other that it is
>> best not to answer?
>
>I think they've seen for themselves the uselessness of answering you.
>
>> Most have used the excuse that they can't
>> understand the meaning of the question, you on the other hand seem to
>> have an alternative objection.
>
>He, like myself, can only guess at your motives for repeating your ambiguous
>questions.
I'm guessing that he has made up his mind about the "right" answers,
that match his bizarre infantile fantasy world, and will twist and
turn until he can con some poor sap into uttering them.
I doubt very much that his task is autodidactic.
--
Michael Gray
<luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
- Refer: <lunachick-9317E...@news.west.earthlink.net>
>In article <rzNBh.30342$1H5....@newsfe16.phx>,
> "ShellStockTrader" <spam...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
>> news:0oKdnaDMr5cN4ErY...@io.com...
>> >
>> > "someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1171730958....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> As many atheists hold the materialist perspective, that we are simply
>> >> an organic robot, from which consiousness emerged, I was wondering if
>> >> there are any on alt.atheism, that hold that viewpoint, prepared to
>> >> answer questions on it (presumably the concept held up to their own
>> >> scrutiny).
>> >
>> > I am. But this is a blatant repeat of your previous threads on the
>> > subject.
>>
>> You bet! This sick character hopes to prove that fiction is more powerfull
>> than reality.
>
>Is he? I thought he was asking an interesting question, though it is
Did you actually discern a question in that word salad?
>awkwardly worded and it didn't need a new thread. Seems like he's
>vetting us on whether we think sapience is possible in a robot, and if
>it is, whether it would affect the robot's observable behavior. And I
>think it's fine is fictional stories make a person think beyond the
>story to possible real world implications.
For what it is worth, I most definitely think that sapience,
consciousness is attainable in a human manufactured machine.
I have told him this, but he doesn't seem to want to go down *that*
path, the path of directness and clarity, for some reason.
--
Michael Gray
<luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
- Refer: <lunachick-33D91...@news.west.earthlink.net>
Given that he appears to possess the mentallity of a retarded 7 year
old, I expect that is true.
--
Michael Gray
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171763740.7...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
What fucking "question", you annoying loon?
You did not do what I asked, and give a single coherent question.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Do you wish to raise my blood pressure sky high by being deliberately
evasive and obtuse?
As I can still see no clear qquestion, I'm going to have guess.
If this will help you:
I most definitely believe that a human constructed computing machine
WILL attain what I call consciousness.
--
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <45d7bf5a$0$22125$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>
I think he's a shill for the Manufacturers of blood pressure
medication...
The loon is nearly totally incoherent.
Can you work out what language he is speaking?
Another poster is fluent in kiddie-talk, and can understand him.
Perhaps that's it.
--
Denis Loubet
"Michael Gray" <mike...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ivuft214ccjafrjgs...@4ax.com...
Ok, now you're gonna make me look up that damn word...
...Googlegooglegoogle...
...Ah, I see. Yes, I agree. ;-)
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <h4CdnXmjYpwDg0XY...@io.com>
It's all Greek to me...
--
someone2
> In article <1171764489.922629.128...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>
Well you seem more sensible than most of the others replying, in that
you can understand the question, and aren't running from it.
The implication of your answer is that once sapient, sentient,
conscious or whatever, that it will no longer simply follow it's build
and programming as before, which will mean that it will no longer
simply follow the laws of physics. That the consciousness that emerged
would have to be considered an influential entity.
someone2
> > "ShellStockTrader" <spamh...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote in message
> >>news:0oKdnaDMr5cN4ErY...@io.com...
> >>> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:1171730958....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> As many atheists hold the materialist perspective, that we are simply
> >>>> an organic robot, from which consiousness emerged, I was wondering if
> >>>> there are any on alt.atheism, that hold that viewpoint, prepared to
> >>>> answer questions on it (presumably the concept held up to their own
> >>>> scrutiny).
> >>> I am. But this is a blatant repeat of your previous threads on the
> >>> subject.
> >> You bet! This sick character hopes to prove that fiction is more powerfull
> >> than reality.
>
> > Is he? I thought he was asking an interesting question, though it is
> > awkwardly worded and it didn't need a new thread. Seems like he's
> > vetting us on whether we think sapience is possible in a robot,
>
> so why didn't he ask that question?
>
> > and if it is, whether it would affect the robot's observable behavior.
>
> He didn't ask that question though.
> >
> And I
>
> > think it's fine is fictional stories make a person think beyond the
> > story to possible real world implications.
>
> I agree, IF he's asked those questions, but he didn't.
>
Yes I did, that is what I was asking, Luna was correct.
someone2
> >>> "ShellStockTrader" <spamh...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>news:0oKdnaDMr5cN4ErY...@io.com...
> >>>>> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
Er, Luna has just explained it to you, and you indicated you
understood the way Luna worded it.
someone2
Denis, you seem to have misunderstood the question. There aren't two
robots, there is only one. The question is whether you think sapience
is possible in a robot, and if
someone2
> On 17 Feb 2007 18:08:09 -0800, "someone2"<glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> - Refer: <1171764489.922629.128...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Would you think sapience is possible in a robot, and if it is, whether
it would affect the robot's observable behavior?
someone2
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 01:46:32 GMT, Luna<lunach...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
>
> - Refer: <lunachick-9317EC.20465917022...@news.west.earthlink.net>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <rzNBh.30342$1H5.15...@newsfe16.phx>,
> > "ShellStockTrader" <spamh...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >>news:0oKdnaDMr5cN4ErY...@io.com...
>
> >> > "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:1171730958....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> As many atheists hold the materialist perspective, that we are simply
> >> >> an organic robot, from which consiousness emerged, I was wondering if
> >> >> there are any on alt.atheism, that hold that viewpoint, prepared to
> >> >> answer questions on it (presumably the concept held up to their own
> >> >> scrutiny).
>
> >> > I am. But this is a blatant repeat of your previous threads on the
> >> > subject.
>
> >> You bet! This sick character hopes to prove that fiction is more powerfull
> >> than reality.
>
> >Is he? I thought he was asking an interesting question, though it is
>
> Did you actually discern a question in that word salad?
>
> >awkwardly worded and it didn't need a new thread. Seems like he's
> >vetting us on whether we think sapience is possible in a robot, and if
> >it is, whether it would affect the robot's observable behavior. And I
> >think it's fine is fictional stories make a person think beyond the
> >story to possible real world implications.
>
> For what it is worth, I most definitely think that sapience,
> consciousness is attainable in a human manufactured machine.
>
> I have told him this, but he doesn't seem to want to go down *that*
> path, the path of directness and clarity, for some reason.
>
You are dishonest, I have no problem with you thinking that sapience/
consciousness is attainable in a human manufactured machine. The very
question is about whether you would expect the behaviour to be
different if sapience/consciousness did emerge.
someone2
> On 17 Feb 2007 17:55:40 -0800, "someone2"<glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> - Refer: <1171763740.753664.175...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
Would you expect the behaviour of the robot to be different if
sapience did emerge, or would you expect it still act the same as if
it hadn't, i.e. simply follow it build and programming?
za...@emphyrio.demon.co.uk
> >>> "ShellStockTrader" <spamh...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>news:0oKdnaDMr5cN4ErY...@io.com...
> >>>>> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
He's trying, laboriously and repeatedly, to trundle the discussion
round to concepts like the daft p-zombies of Chalmers, and to the
silly, and easily refutable, "thought experiments" of Jackson, et.
al. That's all.
Steve
Dubh Ghall
>As a side issue, I don't know why you and the others seem so nervous
>about answering, aren't you secure in your knowledge?
You couch your question in sophistry, and semantics, and vagaries.
Your question is rather akin to asking "What if?".
For example; What do you mean by "emerge"?
You ask, "Could intelligence "emerge" in a robot?"
What is the difference between that question, and asking "Could
intelligence "emerge" in a clockwork train?" ?
Luna
Martin <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
I did.
>
> Or translate into English the question you think he was asking.
I did. I'll repeat it, even though it's right up there:
Is sapience possible in a robot, and if it is, would it affect the
robot's observable behavior?
Dubh Ghall
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Denis, you seem to have misunderstood the question. There aren't two
>robots, there is only one. The question is whether you think sapience
>is possible in a robot, and if
>it is, whether it would affect
That ain't the same question.
Dubh Ghall
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
Different to what?
How would you tell?
What do you mean by "emerge".
Michael, is talking about a machine with built in intelligence.
What are you talking about?
Martin
> Well you seem more sensible than most of the others replying, in that
> you can understand the question, and aren't running from it.
>
> The implication of your answer is that once sapient, sentient,
> conscious or whatever, that it will no longer simply follow it's build
> and programming as before, which will mean that it will no longer
> simply follow the laws of physics.
What do you mean "no longer follow the laws of physics"? You're an idiot!
Martin
lol
> The loon is nearly totally incoherent.
> Can you work out what language he is speaking?
I recognise the words, but they seem to be thrown together such that
they don't really make sentences or questions.
> Another poster is fluent in kiddie-talk, and can understand him.
> Perhaps that's it.
I thought that was his own sock lol
Dubh Ghall
>Regarding your criticisms:
>
>1) I assumed the people that were asked to respond about their belief
>of the emergence of consciousness. If you don't, then maybe you
>shouldn't be replying.
It would make it so much easier to decide that, were you first to
explain what it is that you are assuming.
>Do you understand what is meant by the word
>'mind' by the way,
Not until you define it.
Mind, is one of those vague, subjective, terms, like thin, warm, weak,
cheap, dear, love, soul, etc.
> or would the concept conveyed by it have to be
>explained to you?
It would.
>I wonder whether theists would have the same type of
>comprehension problems as some of you atheists seem to have.
Why not go and ask them?
>2) I assumed something either experienced mind, or consciousness that
>is true.
Until you define "mind", and while yo are at it, "consciousness", that
statement is meaningless.
> Perhaps you could explain why it is ridiculous, after you
>answer the question (assuming you can ever understand it).
>3) It was a simple question, in that I think if it was asked by a
>teacher in a class, most of the children would understand what is
>being asked.
No, but most of the children, if very young, would *think* they
understood what was being asked.
Which is what I think you were hoping for here.
Trouble is, we are a little longer in the tooth, than most school
kids, and generally speaking, a LOT more cynical.
>You don't have to take any offered answers, you would
>only have to answer the question, though you claim that you are unable
>to comprehend it.
It is too vague to make any real sense.
>4) This is simply untrue, I make no such implications.
What "is simply untrue"?
Denis Loubet
"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:94qgt2hrkkuolgj8m...@4ax.com...
That IS bizarre, isn't it? No mention of programming this time.
Sigh.
Someone2, I think sapience is possible in a robot. I also think sapience
will affect the robot's observable behavior.
There, your questions have been answered. Please don't read any more into my
answers than is there. For instance, do not assume that I think that it's
possible to have an identical robot without sapience, or that one can
compare the behaviors of the robot with and without sapience.
Mettas Mother
explanation?
"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:BJ-dnQ49NuYSCkXY...@io.com...
someone2
> On 17 Feb 2007 18:08:09 -0800, "someone2"
>
They would probably want a definition on intelligence, and it wouldn't
necessarily be connected to consciousness, which is the issue I want
to ask about.
Where is the sophistry, semantics, and vagaries in my question?
someone2
Different to whether it wasn't sapient of conscious. I don't know what
bit is causing you a problem, the meaning of sapience/consciousness,
or the idea of it emerging from some physical activity. I notice you
seem to have posted alot of times, so far, the responses I have read
seem to be expecting me to answer, so wouldn't it be easier for you to
just stick to one thread instead of joining in in everyones
conversation, and I'll try to help you through it.
someone2
> "Dubh Ghall" <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
>
> news:94qgt2hrkkuolgj8m...@4ax.com...
>
> > On 18 Feb 2007 03:28:47 -0800, "someone2"
>
> >>Denis, you seem to have misunderstood the question. There aren't two
> >>robots, there is only one. The question is whether you think sapience
> >>is possible in a robot, and if
> >>it is, whether it would affect
>
> > That ain't the same question.
>
> That IS bizarre, isn't it? No mention of programming this time.
>
> Sigh.
>
> Someone2, I think sapience is possible in a robot. I also think sapience
> will affect the robot's observable behavior.
>
> There, your questions have been answered. Please don't read any more into my
> answers than is there. For instance, do not assume that I think that it's
> possible to have an identical robot without sapience, or that one can
> compare the behaviors of the robot with and without sapience.
>
You can consider the programming in the emergence of sapience if you
wish, I wasn't avoiding it.
I am not suggesting that you could have two identical robots, one with
sapience one without. As I have pointed out the question wasn't about
two robots.
So you have this robot, and you are expecting it to behave differently
if it had sapience than if it didn't. Now if it didn't have sapience
presumably you would be simply expecting it to follow its build and
programming. If you are suggesting that the emergence of sapience
would alter behaviour, are you suggesting that it would act
differently from if didn't. Just to reconfirm we are not talking about
two robots, just simply whether you could tell whether the robot
actually was sapient or conscious, or not (you have said that you
think behaviour would be altered with the emergence of sapience, but
you might change your mind, or that might not be the way you intended
it to be taken, and I just want to be sure that we aren't
misunderstanding each other).
Dubh Ghall
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 18 Feb, 14:41, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
>> On 17 Feb 2007 18:08:09 -0800, "someone2"
>>
>> <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >As a side issue, I don't know why you and the others seem so nervous
>> >about answering, aren't you secure in your knowledge?
>>
>> You couch your question in sophistry, and semantics, and vagaries.
>> Your question is rather akin to asking "What if?".
>>
>> For example; What do you mean by "emerge"?
>>
>> You ask, "Could intelligence "emerge" in a robot?"
>>
>> What is the difference between that question, and asking "Could
>> intelligence "emerge" in a clockwork train?" ?
>
>They would probably want a definition on intelligence,
Evasion. It was your question, so *you define intelligence.
>and it wouldn't
>necessarily be connected to consciousness, which is the issue I want
>to ask about.
In another post, I mentioned the difficulties with words like "mind"
and "consciousness".
>
>Where is the sophistry, semantics, and vagaries in my question?
Pretty well all through it. You use far too many subjectives, leaving
you free, in the thinking of a cynic, at a later time to deny that the
question answered, or the assumption made, was not the one that you
intended.
Dubh Ghall
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
Four, to be precise.
Why do you consider that a lot?
>so far, the responses I have read
>seem to be expecting me to answer,
Why yes. Isn't that the usually anticipated response to requests for
information and/or clarification?
>so wouldn't it be easier for you to
>just stick to one thread instead of joining in in everyones
>conversation, and I'll try to help you through it.
>
Is something troubling you, that you feel the need to add red herrings
to your repertoire?
Michael Gray
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1171798191.7...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
>On 18 Feb, 07:10, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
:
>> Ask a fucking coherent single question, and I will answer it!!
>>
>> What is it with you, that you are incapable of asking a coherent
>> meaningful question, and yet you are puzzling as to why no-one can
>> answer you?
>>
>
>Would you think sapience is possible in a robot, and if it is, whether
>it would affect the robot's observable behavior?
That is TWO questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Count 'em: ONE TWO!!!!!!!
I asked for a SINGLE question!
That means ONE (1) question.
Unity, uno, mono, solo, ONE!
Christianity has rotted your mind so severely that you have lost the
ability to count to ONE!!!
Welcome to my killfile you irritating imbecile.
--
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <6gjht2loms6d8psb7...@4ax.com>
With this evasive imbecile, you can bet your bottom dollar that will
happen.
--
Michael Gray
- Refer: <1171805532.1...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
In a very clumsy manner too.
The inept imbecile should stick to pulling the wings off flies.
--
Michael Gray
<luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
- Refer: <lunachick-B1E14...@news.west.earthlink.net>
That is not *a* question.
--
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <heqgt2hh35nvlhhnd...@4ax.com>
The bovine excreta that he has bettween his ears, I expect.
The fumbling fuckwit makes no real sense at all.
As far as I can tell, I have clearly answered his questions.
--
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <0sqgt2p59964ac2ok...@4ax.com>
He may have been generalizing about his offerings here.
If so, it would be the very first time that he had not been evasive.
--
Denis Loubet
"Mettas Mother" <mettas_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:era6cf$599$3...@registered.motzarella.org...
> You are talking to an idiot! Do you think it will understand your
> explanation?
Probably not.
Denis Loubet
> On 18 Feb, 18:14, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
>> "Dubh Ghall" <p...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
>>
>> news:94qgt2hrkkuolgj8m...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > On 18 Feb 2007 03:28:47 -0800, "someone2"
>> > <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Denis, you seem to have misunderstood the question. There aren't two
>> >>robots, there is only one. The question is whether you think sapience
>> >>is possible in a robot, and if
>> >>it is, whether it would affect
>>
>> > That ain't the same question.
>>
>> That IS bizarre, isn't it? No mention of programming this time.
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>> Someone2, I think sapience is possible in a robot. I also think sapience
>> will affect the robot's observable behavior.
>>
>> There, your questions have been answered. Please don't read any more into
>> my
>> answers than is there. For instance, do not assume that I think that it's
>> possible to have an identical robot without sapience, or that one can
>> compare the behaviors of the robot with and without sapience.
>>
>
> You can consider the programming in the emergence of sapience if you
> wish, I wasn't avoiding it.
I didn't say you were avoiding anything.
> I am not suggesting that you could have two identical robots, one with
> sapience one without. As I have pointed out the question wasn't about
> two robots.
Ok...
> So you have this robot, and you are expecting it to behave differently
> if it had sapience than if it didn't.
Yes.
> Now if it didn't have sapience
> presumably you would be simply expecting it to follow its build and
> programming.
Yes.
> If you are suggesting that the emergence of sapience
> would alter behaviour, are you suggesting that it would act
> differently from if didn't.
If it DOES NOT have sapience, it will behave according to its programming.
If it DOES have sapience, it will behave according to its programming.
This does not mean the behaviors will be the same, because the programming
will have to be different.
> Just to reconfirm we are not talking about
> two robots, just simply whether you could tell whether the robot
> actually was sapient or conscious, or not
Whoa! You're changing the question again!
I cannot tell if something is sapient or not. I can only look at its
behavior and make my best guess in the full knowledge that I could be
fooled.
> (you have said that you
> think behaviour would be altered with the emergence of sapience,
Yes.
> but
> you might change your mind,
No.
> or that might not be the way you intended
> it to be taken, and I just want to be sure that we aren't
> misunderstanding each other).
I think we can safely say that we don't understand each other.
someone2
So if you can understand what I am trying to ask, why don't you just
put it in your own terms?
someone2
> On 18 Feb 2007 03:29:51 -0800, "someone2"<glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> - Refer: <1171798191.734323.209...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
>
> >On 18 Feb, 07:10, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> :
>
> >> Ask a fucking coherent single question, and I will answer it!!
>
> >> What is it with you, that you are incapable of asking a coherent
> >> meaningful question, and yet you are puzzling as to why no-one can
> >> answer you?
>
> >Would you think sapience is possible in a robot, and if it is, whether
> >it would affect the robot's observable behavior?
>
> That is TWO questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Count 'em: ONE TWO!!!!!!!
>
> I asked for a SINGLE question!
> That means ONE (1) question.
> Unity, uno, mono, solo, ONE!
>
> Christianity has rotted your mind so severely that you have lost the
> ability to count to ONE!!!
>
> Welcome to my killfile you irritating imbecile.
>
> --
Ah ok, so question (1)
Would you think sapience is possible in a robot?
guess what question (2) is going to be if you answer yes. Though maybe
you won't, but instead just act as the atheist cheerleader.
someone2
> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
No I'm not changing the question again. Read carefully, there is only
one robot, you even acknowledged that in your reply.
So you say it would act differently if it was sapient. Yet you also
say "I cannot tell if something is sapient or not". Please explain, as
if it wasn't sapient, it would behave according to its programming and
build. So presumably if it was sapient, and this caused it to act
differently, then it would no longer be acting according to its
programming and build. You are quite disingenious, I'll give you that,
but I feel that you are going to be caught out.
Dubh Ghall
<mike...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>Where is the sophistry, semantics, and vagaries in my question?
>>
>>Pretty well all through it. You use far too many subjectives, leaving
>>you free, in the thinking of a cynic, at a later time to deny that the
>>question answered, or the assumption made, was not the one that you
>>intended.
>
>With this evasive imbecile, you can bet your bottom dollar that will
>happen.
No doubt he will use every trick in the book.
Dubh Ghall
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
No, no.
You phrase the question precisely, and concisely.
Dubh Ghall
He certainly seems to be doing everything he can to avoid asking a
clearly defined question.
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <44vht29f4ge4aejgh...@4ax.com>
I hope you have better luck than I.
--
someone2
> On 18 Feb 2007 16:34:58 -0800, "someone2"
>
>
>
>
>
Ok, well I'll try using the way Luna phrased it, as it seemed that
people understood it:
Do you think sapience is possible in a robot, and if it is, whether it
someone2
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:26:12 GMT, Dubh Ghall <p...@pooks.hill.fey>
> wrote:
> - Refer: <44vht29f4ge4aejghi57ob6gsn58bdn...@4ax.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 18 Feb 2007 16:34:58 -0800, "someone2"
Luna explained what it was to you, and you seemed to understand.
Though you still seem to be going around pretending that it is because
the question makes no sense to you, that you keep failing to respond.
Martin
> Ok, well I'll try using the way Luna phrased it, as it seemed that
> people understood it:
>
> Do you think sapience is possible in a robot, and if it is, whether it
> would affect the robot's observable behavior.
Not bad, getting better all the time. Do you really mean sapience rather
than sentience or consciousness or self-awareness?
Really you need to be totally sure of your definitions and be able to
tell people what your definitions are or replies are trying to
second-guesse your meanings.
On Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience it's defines as a form of
intellegence, wisdon and capacity for judgement. How could you tell
whether or not an automina had a capacity for judgement over and above
what was given to it from the start? Does a multi layer perceptron
demonstraight an increase in the "capacity for judgement" as it learns a
task? If yes, then it would seem to imply some kind of increase in sapience.
I still think you need to define your terms closely.
A much more interesting question is about self-awareness. I don't think
you'll find anyone who has ever read any good science fiction or knows
about science who would say a machine couldn't become self-aware. My
view is that the first to do so is unlikely to be a robot, it would come
about accidenally through some kind of hugely connected network. Think
the internet in 50 to 100 years time.
Noone knows what the effect would be, the question is "Would it be
ethical to turn it off?".
>
>
>
>
>
Dubh Ghall
<mike...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:26:12 GMT, Dubh Ghall <pu...@pooks.hill.fey>
>wrote:
> - Refer: <44vht29f4ge4aejgh...@4ax.com>
>>On 18 Feb 2007 16:34:58 -0800, "someone2"
>><glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
snip
>>>So if you can understand what I am trying to ask, why don't you just
>>>put it in your own terms?
>>
>>
>>No, no.
>>
>>You phrase the question precisely, and concisely.
>
>I hope you have better luck than I.
I ain't holding my breath.
Dubh Ghall
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Ok, well I'll try using the way Luna phrased it, as it seemed that
>people understood it:
>
>Do you think sapience is possible in a robot,
Yes.
>and if it is, whether it
>would affect the robot's observable behavior.
That would depend on how, where, when, etc, the robot acquired this
sapience.
If it were a part of the original design, then no, it would cause no
observable change, there being no previous behavior with which to make
a comparison.
If it were a developing/evolving trait, part of the machine's
programming, then there probably would be observable markers, to it's
growing self awareness, and capability for original thought.
However, should your machine gained sapience, due to some sort of
freaky, science fantasy type, accident, then most certainly, yes, the
differences in behavior would be clearly observable.
BUT: It is highly probable that those changes would be mistaken for
system failure, rather than intelligence.
someone2
> someone2 wrote:
> > Ok, well I'll try using the way Luna phrased it, as it seemed that
> > people understood it:
>
> > Do you think sapience is possible in a robot, and if it is, whether it
> > would affect the robot's observable behavior.
>
> Not bad, getting better all the time. Do you really mean sapience rather
> than sentience or consciousness or self-awareness?
>
> Really you need to be totally sure of your definitions and be able to
> tell people what your definitions are or replies are trying to
> second-guesse your meanings.
>
> intellegence, wisdon and capacity for judgement. How could you tell
> whether or not an automina had a capacity for judgement over and above
> what was given to it from the start? Does a multi layer perceptron
> demonstraight an increase in the "capacity for judgement" as it learns a
> task? If yes, then it would seem to imply some kind of increase in sapience.
>
> I still think you need to define your terms closely.
>
> A much more interesting question is about self-awareness. I don't think
> you'll find anyone who has ever read any good science fiction or knows
> about science who would say a machine couldn't become self-aware. My
> view is that the first to do so is unlikely to be a robot, it would come
> about accidenally through some kind of hugely connected network. Think
> the internet in 50 to 100 years time.
>
> Noone knows what the effect would be, the question is "Would it be
> ethical to turn it off?".
>
On 19 Feb, 14:00, Martin <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
> someone2 wrote:
> > Ok, well I'll try using the way Luna phrased it, as it seemed that
> > people understood it:
>
> > Do you think sapience is possible in a robot, and if it is, whether it
> > would affect the robot's observable behavior.
>
> Not bad, getting better all the time. Do you really mean sapience rather
> than sentience or consciousness or self-awareness?
>
> Really you need to be totally sure of your definitions and be able to
> tell people what your definitions are or replies are trying to
> second-guesse your meanings.
>
> On Wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapienceit's defines as a form of
> intellegence, wisdon and capacity for judgement. How could you tell
> whether or not an automina had a capacity for judgement over and above
> what was given to it from the start? Does a multi layer perceptron
> demonstraight an increase in the "capacity for judgement" as it learns a
> task? If yes, then it would seem to imply some kind of increase in sapience.
>
> I still think you need to define your terms closely.
>
> A much more interesting question is about self-awareness. I don't think
> you'll find anyone who has ever read any good science fiction or knows
> about science who would say a machine couldn't become self-aware. My
> view is that the first to do so is unlikely to be a robot, it would come
> about accidenally through some kind of hugely connected network. Think
> the internet in 50 to 100 years time.
>
> Noone knows what the effect would be, the question is "Would it be
> ethical to turn it off?".
>
>
I am not meaning sapience rather than sentience or consciousness or
self-awareness. I am meaning all of them. It just seems that people
are pretending they have no idea what I am talking about, and are
hiding behind a lack of definition.
If you mean by self-aware, having consciousness, then science has
nothing to say about machines being conscious. Though if it were to be
considered that they might, then the question is, would you expect the
emergence of consciousness to change the behaviour, or would it still
simply act according to its build and programming (in the same way it
would have if the physical activity hadn't caused conscious to
emerge)?
someone2
> On 19 Feb 2007 03:45:53 -0800, "someone2"
>
> >Ok, well I'll try using the way Luna phrased it, as it seemed that
> >people understood it:
>
> >Do you think sapience is possible in a robot,
>
> Yes.
>
> >and if it is, whether it
> >would affect the robot's observable behavior.
>
> That would depend on how, where, when, etc, the robot acquired this
> sapience.
>
> If it were a part of the original design, then no, it would cause no
> observable change, there being no previous behavior with which to make
> a comparison.
>
> If it were a developing/evolving trait, part of the machine's
> programming, then there probably would be observable markers, to it's
> growing self awareness, and capability for original thought.
>
> freaky, science fantasy type, accident, then most certainly, yes, the
> differences in behavior would be clearly observable.
>
> BUT: It is highly probable that those changes would be mistaken for
> system failure, rather than intelligence.
Just for clarity, supposing we are talking about a robot that was a
Turin's equivalent. Now whether it was sentient or not, would you
still simply expect it to be following its build and programming?
Fred Stone
news:1171845986.8...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
No, now you have two robots, one with sapient programming and one
without.
> So you say it would act differently if it was sapient. Yet you also
> say "I cannot tell if something is sapient or not". Please explain, as
> if it wasn't sapient, it would behave according to its programming and
> build. So presumably if it was sapient, and this caused it to act
> differently, then it would no longer be acting according to its
> programming and build. You are quite disingenious, I'll give you that,
> but I feel that you are going to be caught out.
>
Glenn, the only one being caught out here is you.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The Bush critics' position is that we must believe without reservation
or criticism any intelligence that can be used to argue against military
action and that we should never believe any intelligence, however
plausible, that can be used to argue for it. That's not very
intelligent." - Michael Barone
Martin
Jesus christ in a fish tank! You get asked to define your terms, you
agree to place straight-forward questions them come up with
"Do you think sapience is possible in a robot, and if it is, whether it
would affect the robot's observable behavior."
Followed by
> I am not meaning sapience rather than sentience or consciousness or
> self-awareness.
You're an idiot! That's the end, I tried to answer your stupid bloody
question and now you're telling us all - again - that your question
wasn't what you meant!
Go away and read a frigging book on phychology, learn what the words
mean, then post a qustion asking what it is you want answered.
> I am meaning all of them. It just seems that people
> are pretending they have no idea what I am talking about, and are
> hiding behind a lack of definition.
Well there ya go! You asked a straight forward question, then say "it
wasn't what I meant" Define what you mean then moron! Don't you think
that if everyone says the paper is black, while you contend it's white
the problem might be with you?
Martin
A gay mathematician and cryptologist? Can you explain how a machine
might have the concept of homosexuality inherent in the system? Probably
not but maybe, just maybe you might know something.
someone2
Fred, there aren't two robots. There is just one robot. Let's say it
had been built to, and succeeded in passing the Turin's test. Now some
might say, well then maybe we should consider that it might be
consciously experiencing. I was just trying to get confirmation, that
whether it was, or it wasn't, that from an atheist perspective, it
wouldn't be expected to influence the behaviour (i.e. whether it was
or it wasn't, it would still simply behave as it was built and
programmed to).
Mettas Mother
"Martin" <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45d9ada0$0$32028$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Mettas Mother
intelligence and knowledge than the human! But the question is how? In the
current space and time may be not! But no one could deny what the future
holds!
"someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1171896275....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Martin
> Euthanasia?
For a self-aware machine it is whether it would be genocide or murder to
turn it off. Or to disconnect enough of it that is stopped being
self-aware for a distributed network. It might be safer to kill it at
the first sign of self-awareness, I've seen Terminator :)
Fred Stone
news:1171901816.3...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
No, there are two robots. There are two entirely different scenarios, in
one, the robot is sapient and capable of passing a Turing test, in the
other, it isn't.
> Let's say it
> had been built to, and succeeded in passing the Turin's test.
That's "The Turing Test".
> Now some
> might say, well then maybe we should consider that it might be
> consciously experiencing. I was just trying to get confirmation, that
> whether it was, or it wasn't, that from an atheist perspective, it
> wouldn't be expected to influence the behaviour (i.e. whether it was
> or it wasn't, it would still simply behave as it was built and
> programmed to).
>
Of course it would, but there is a difference between a robot that is
built and programmed to pass a Turing test and one that is not. "The
behavior" is *DIFFERENT* because the *PROGRAMMING IS DIFFERENT*.
Frank Mayhar
> However, should your machine gained sapience, due to some sort of
> freaky, science fantasy type, accident, then most certainly, yes, the
> differences in behavior would be clearly observable.
> BUT: It is highly probable that those changes would be mistaken for
> system failure, rather than intelligence.
At which point it would promptly be rebooted to clear the error.
Oops.
:-)
--
Frank Mayhar fr...@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
Mettas Mother
'verification' and treatment and then report a suicide story!
"Martin" <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45d9ee9a$0$32017$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Denis Loubet
Context is important. My objection was not referring to robots, it was
referring to this sudden insistence that I should be able to tell what's
conscious or sapient and what's not. That was not part of your last
question.
> So you say it would act differently if it was sapient. Yet you also
> say "I cannot tell if something is sapient or not".
Yes. There is no contradiction.
> Please explain, as
> if it wasn't sapient, it would behave according to its programming and
> build.
Yes.
> So presumably if it was sapient, and this caused it to act
> differently, then it would no longer be acting according to its
> programming and build.
Sorry, no. To act contrary to its programming and build, a robot would have
to violate physical law. So it cannot act contrary to its programming and
build. Nothing can.
The sapient robot will act differently from the non-sapient robot because
its programming and build include sapience, and the non-sapient robot's
programming does not include sapience. Its programming and build would be
different.
> You are quite disingenious, I'll give you that,
> but I feel that you are going to be caught out.
You're wrong, and thus unjustly accusing others of lying.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
someone2
Fred, I am the one that came out with the scenario. So with the
scenario I am giving you accept that whether the robot that passed the
Turing test, actually was conscious or not, the behaviour would still
be the same, it would simply behave as it was built and programmed to.
someone2
Ok, let's just make sure we are on the same page here. There is a
robot built to pass the Turing test and it passes. Now would you
consider it possible that it is sentient (just to make sure of no
confustion)? If so, would you also agree that whether or not it was
actually sentient, that you would expect it simply to follow its build
and programming?
Dubh Ghall
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
I was never really convinced by Alan Turin's test, and would never put
any faith in any conclusions, based on such a test.
I do not believe that being able to hold a apparently intelligent
conversation with a machine, indicates an intelligent machine.
I have seen parrots that can, at first glance, seem to do that
>Now whether it was sentient or not, would you
>still simply expect it to be following its build and programming?
>
Sentience is not intelligence, my cat is sentient.
A machine can be sentient, without deviating from it's programming,
and without being *able to deviate from said programming.
A sapient(wise)/intelligent machine would not be bound to programming,
beyond the way we are bound by instinct, i.e, basic survival routines.
someone2
So you think that a sentient machine, would still follow its build and
programming (i.e. follow the laws of physics), but if it was also
sapient/intelligent, then it would no longer behave according to its
build and programming?
Dubh Ghall
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
Where did I say that?
Besides; intelligence does not negate the laws of physics.
We all obey the laws of physics.
> but if it was also
>sapient/intelligent, then it would no longer behave according to its
>build and programming?
As I said, that would depend entirely on the way that
sapience/intelligeence was obtained.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:35:31 +0000, Dubh Ghall wrote:
>> However, should your machine gained sapience, due to some sort of
>> freaky, science fantasy type, accident, then most certainly, yes, the
>> differences in behavior would be clearly observable.
>> BUT: It is highly probable that those changes would be mistaken for
>> system failure, rather than intelligence.
>
>At which point it would promptly be rebooted to clear the error.
>
>Oops.
>
>:-)
Yep, that was pretty much my own thought.
Denis Loubet
Ok, that's the first I've heard of that. I'll grant it, fine.
> Now would you
> consider it possible that it is sentient (just to make sure of no
> confustion)?
Sure, I'll grant the possibility that it's sentient.
> If so, would you also agree that whether or not it was
> actually sentient, that you would expect it simply to follow its build
> and programming?
Yes. Of course. How could it not? We're all following our build and
programming. The alternative is for the atoms and molecules of our brains to
violate physical law, and we don't see atoms and molecules doing that.
Sippuuden
observed regularities) of the universe. Everything does that by virtue
of being part of the universe, even the sapient (intelligent) organisms.
Isn't the one thing all organisms considered sapient (intelligent) have
in common the observation that they are all capable of emitting operant
behavior?
someone2
> On 19 Feb 2007 13:43:35 -0800, "someone2"
>
>
>
>
>
I'm slightly confused. If it followed the laws of physics, it would
follow its programming and build.
Yet you have said regarding a how you think a sentient robot would
behave:
------------
A machine can be sentient, without deviating from it's programming,
and without being *able to deviate from said programming.
------------
and with regards to how a sapient/intelligent machine would behave:
------------
A sapient(wise)/intelligent machine would not be bound to programming,
beyond the way we are bound by instinct, i.e, basic survival routines.
------------
someone2
So regardless of whether it was actually sentient or not, it would
still behave the same.
David Schwartz
> I don't see any assumptions in the question, and I don't see any
> reference to humans. Is it that you reject the idea of it being
> possible for consciousness to emerge in a robot?
No, I don't reject that.
> Like the others that
> have responded so far, you avoided answering the question.
Nobody knows what the requirements for consciousness are. It may be
that it's possible to make consciousness out of anything living (and
perhaps even some non-living things). It might be that only carbon and
something very much like neurons will do.
It might be that electrons are conscious. (Though that seems very
doubtful, of course. But it's not contradictory.)
DS
Denis Loubet
No. Why do you say that? Different programs result in different behaviors.
Is that too hard to understand?
I'm following my programming and you're following yours, and we don't behave
the same. Different programming, different behavior.
Are you trying to suggest that the programming and build is the same whether
the robot has sapience or not? Why would you assume that?
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <BsedndrtpolKz0fY...@io.com>
>
>"someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:1171934734.4...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
:
>> So regardless of whether it was actually sentient or not, it would
>> still behave the same.
>
>No. Why do you say that? Different programs result in different behaviors.
>Is that too hard to understand?
>
>I'm following my programming and you're following yours, and we don't behave
>the same. Different programming, different behavior.
>
>Are you trying to suggest that the programming and build is the same whether
>the robot has sapience or not? Why would you assume that?
It is an essential part of his feeble shell and pea game.
(Although it was supposed to have slipped by your attention.)
--
Michael Gray
wrote:
- Refer: <45d9ada0$0$32028$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk>
>someone2 wrote:
>
>> Ok, well I'll try using the way Luna phrased it, as it seemed that
>> people understood it:
>>
>> would affect the robot's observable behavior.
>
>Not bad, getting better all the time. Do you really mean sapience rather
>than sentience or consciousness or self-awareness?
>
>Really you need to be totally sure of your definitions and be able to
>tell people what your definitions are or replies are trying to
>second-guesse your meanings.
>
>On Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience it's defines as a form of
>intellegence, wisdon and capacity for judgement. How could you tell
>whether or not an automina had a capacity for judgement over and above
>what was given to it from the start? Does a multi layer perceptron
>demonstraight an increase in the "capacity for judgement" as it learns a
>task? If yes, then it would seem to imply some kind of increase in sapience.
>
>I still think you need to define your terms closely.
THat would completely spoil his silly little con-game.
>A much more interesting question is about self-awareness. I don't think
>you'll find anyone who has ever read any good science fiction or knows
>about science who would say a machine couldn't become self-aware. My
>view is that the first to do so is unlikely to be a robot, it would come
>about accidenally through some kind of hugely connected network. Think
>the internet in 50 to 100 years time.
>
>Noone knows what the effect would be, the question is "Would it be
>ethical to turn it off?".
--