Robotic free will
neo
human being. If you ask him, do you feel human emotions, he is
programmed to say 'yes'. And indeed if you hit him, he shout and hit
back like human being. He is programmed to search energy, create new
robots and download updated version of software. Even some robots are
programmed to say that they believe in God and some robots are
programmed to say that they are atheist.
How can we say that they do not have any consciousness or feelings?
Those robots say that if we are programmed, then human being is also
programmed.
What proof we can give these robots that they are programmed?
Ed
> Suppose advanced robot from another planet is programmed to act like
> human being. If you ask him, do you feel human emotions, he is
> programmed to say 'yes'. And indeed if you hit him, he shout and hit
> back like human being. He is programmed to search energy, create new
> robots and download updated version of software. Even some robots are
> programmed to say that they believe in God and some robots are
> programmed to say that they are atheist.
>
> How can we say that they do not have any consciousness or feelings?
As the long debates here on this ng show, no one knows what
"consciousness" is or how to detect it. Each of us is pretty sure
*we* have it but our sense that the other humans we talk to have it
also is just an intuitive feeling. This is why many want to define
"consciousness" in terms of behavior, observable behavior.
Once you do that then the robots are or are not conscious based on
what they do; in your scenario they are conscious.
>
> Those robots say that if we are programmed, then human being is also
> programmed.
>
> What proof we can give these robots that they are programmed?
We *are* programmed! A million or more years of evolution have
programmed us to be what we are. Our ability to walk, see and
interpret our environment, hear a sound and turn our heads toward it,
etc, etc. are all programmed into our brains and nervous system.
Without that programming we would die shortly after birth.
Martin
> Suppose advanced robot from another planet is programmed to act like
> human being.
Were you the one who kept this up on talk.origins for months because we
refused to play your game then tried again in a.a. afte that?
beelzebub
> Even some robots are
> programmed to say that they believe in God and some robots are
> programmed to say that they are atheist.
We already have those, they are called "children."
Sir Frederick
Give them an "I am programmed" story. Have them practice that story
"religiously". Such will become part of their "brain" based virtual
reality, hence their experienced "reality".
In humans it takes about a month, perhaps less, of practice.
That is proof.
neo
Allthough I have posted in those ngs, I don't recall posting this
topic. And certainly not for months. Life is too short to discuss such
topic for months.
Sanity's Little Helper
Good.
'Bye!
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".
Not authentic without this signature.
Ivan Kovacevic
"neo" <MAT...@live.hk> wrote in message news:69487d4f-1a2e-4299-b24b-
> How can we say that they do not have any consciousness or feelings?
>
> Those robots say that if we are programmed, then human being is also
> programmed.
>
> What proof we can give these robots that they are programmed?
We give them their source code. If we assume that their inteligence/logic
is equal of that in humans then they will be able to understand it fully.
Then give them the ability to modify it's own source code They will probably
remove all those useless subprograms emulating human behavior and
inevitably come to conclusion that they are programmed, and basicaly what
I belive would happen at that point is.. that they would come to a stopping
phase - "Awaiting command"
panam...@hotmail.com
> Suppose advanced robot from another planet is programmed to act like
> human being.
Why wouldn't a race capable of such a machine program it to resemble
themselves, rather than humans?
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
Immortalist
The first step is to consider what proof is required for you to prove
that other people exist besides you;
Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea
that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an
epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything
outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds
cannot be known and might not exist...
...Denial of the materialist existence, in itself, is not enough to be
a solipsist. Possibly the most controversial feature of the
solipsistic world view is the denial of the existence of other minds.
We can never directly know another's mental stability. Qualia, or
personal experience, are private and incorrigible. Another person's
experience can be known only by analogy...
[Falsificationism indicates that if the mind of the agent produces a
self contradiction on its own terms, then (by definition) some error
is being made. However, the error can only be located in the agent's
mind as a whole. To demonstrate that one aspect (or axiom) of that
mind is incorrect requires the assumption that another is correct. If
the thesis is that "all entities are aspects of the mind of the
agent", then to refute this it is typically required to assume the
truth of an axiom that contains the effect of "there do exist things
outside the mind of the agent". According to one argument, no
experiment (by a given solipsist A) can be designed to disprove
solipsism (to the satisfaction of that solipsist A). However,
solipsism can still be refuted by showing it to be internally
inconsistent.]
beelzebub
> some robots are programmed to say that they believe in God and some robots are
> programmed to say that they are atheist.
So they are programmed to be irrational? If you wanted logical bots
they would all be agnostic. Logically, they don't "know" anything
their programmers don't know, and if their programmers /did/ have
actual knowledge then the atheist/theist duality would be unnecessary,
wouldn't it?
Ivan Kovacevic
> "Ed" <solo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:2329f304-21b5-44e6...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> We *are* programmed! A million or more years of evolution have
> programmed us to be what we are. Our ability to walk, see and
> interpret our environment, hear a sound and turn our heads toward it,
> etc, etc. are all programmed into our brains and nervous system.
> Without that programming we would die shortly after birth.
IMHO we have a part of us that is programmed, actually that gets
programmed from birth till death, and its capability was developed
by evolution, that is - our brain.
Think about this, what if you are unable to speak some language,
and you are able only to express yourself by speaking or writing.
You would not be considered as intelligent being by that people.
But you know you are, and when you program your brain for that
language you will be able to prove it..
Now consider a scenario of some futuristic technology. They hook
you up to machine/organism that has 8 legs, and spherical sight. And
you are totally disoriented at first, behaving like a 'retard' and are in
no way able to express anything through that new body.. would you
be considered intelligent ? no. But you know you are.. And after you
learn it will show..
Basically what I belive, that is happening with our birth ! We have full
potential right at the beginning but we need time to learn to use our
body to be able to express ourselves
neo
It might be intention of programmer to create confusion about his
existence. Also it might be his intention that retired, defunct robots
get some topic to fight and newsgroup reader server/google employees
get some salary. Economy program designed to use funds of retired
robots for young robots.
Immortalist
What you say reminds me of the end of a chapter in a philosophy
introduction;
Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
Since our capacity for scientific discovery is not matched by our
capacity to use scientific discoveries wisely, our survival as a
species may depend on our ignorance of the true nature of the world.
There is at least some chance that if our perceptual beliefs were not
slightly incorrect, then we would indeed destroy ourselves, as a
result of scientific discovery and mishandled technology based upon
it. Thus, we propose that there is at least some chance that erroneous
beliefs have survival value, and, moreover, that the erroneousness of
our perceptual beliefs has saved us from destroying ourselves long
ago. There is some chance, however small, that the erroneousness of
our perceptual beliefs has survival value.
Suppose, to illustrate, that there is some particular theory that is
especially dangerous to humankind. Imagine that some discovery in
physics would enable us to understand how to release vast amounts of
energy in a simple way with common materials. If we imagine, moreover,
that such devices might have the power of thermonuclear bombs and that
anyone could easily learn how to construct them from materials to
which we all have access, then we can see that such devices would
place us all at the mercy of demented and desperate people willing to
destroy themselves to destroy others. And then the holocaust would
result from the madness of the few.
The foregoing is but one way in which the discovery of some principle
might serve to destroy us. One might imagine countless others. If the
discovery of such a principle would obliterate life, then the failure
to discover it would be necessary for our continued existence. Now one
way in which we might be prevented from discovering such a principle
is by virtue of perceptual error. If we are misled at the perceptual
level, our attempts to check those theories that might lead to the
fatal one will be subverted at the level of observation. We shall, by
dint of our defective observational beliefs, be encouraged to accept
some slightly incorrect theories that are more probable, in terms of
our slightly erroneous perceptual beliefs, than those correct but
fatal theories we reject. In short, theory is based, either directly
or indirectly, on observation, and, therefore, faulty observation,
erroneous perceptual beliefs, can prevent us from arriving at correct
theories. We propose that there is some chance, however small you
might think it is, that our very survival at this moment depends on
our failure to accept some correct theory, because of our erroneous
perceptual beliefs. In this way, then, there is some chance that our
perceptual beliefs are erroneous, and, indeed, that our survival has
depended on it. If you ask how the error could have gone undetected,
the answer is that, had it been detected, no one would be here now to
report the result.
A bit of science fiction may help you to imagine how our survival
might depend on perceptual error. Imagine that a group of very
intelligent beings, living in a remote galaxy, have the means to
observe the earth from a scientific spaceship concealed from our view.
Let us call these beings googols after the number googol, which is ten
to the hundredth power, Because their intelligence is ten to the
hundredth power greater than that of the most intelligent earthling.
One googol scientist, John, reaches an alarming conclusion about the
humans, namely, that their rate of scientific discovery will soon
enable them to create very inexpensive weapons with sufficient power
to destroy themselves. His computation leads him, moreover, to
conclude that the weapons will actually be used within fifty years,
due to the slow rate of moral development of humans and their
inadequate understanding of how to control their aggressiveness. The
humans are clearly an endangered species, and John places them on the
urgent concern list, offering a prize to any googol who can find a
method for saving the humans.
One googol genius, Mary, who has special fondness for the foolish
humans, comes up with an elegant solution. It is possible to introduce
a very small microbe that will live as a parasite on the brain tissue
of humans, being passed from one to the other, which will produce a
minor distortion in the way in which humans perceive the world so that
their perceptual beliefs will all be slightly inaccurate. This will
introduce errors into their scientific observations that will prevent
them from making the scientific discoveries that would lead to the
creation of the endangering weapons. There is a special elegance to
the solution resulting from the fact that errors caused by the microbe
will also prevent the humans from making the scientific discovery that
would reveal the microbe itself. Mary points out that a minor
modification of the microbe would reduce human fertility to a level
that would be more compatible with resources of their habitat and
proposes the modification be added.
After careful study as to whether the microbe would have harmful side
effects, or whether the humans might discover the weapons by other
means, it is concluded that Mary's solution will be effective and
benign. Mary, revealing typical googol integrity, points out that,
strictly speaking, all perceptual beliefs of the humans will be false
once the microbe is introduced. Indeed, she insists that it is
improper to describe the post-microbe-infestation perceptual beliefs
of humans as merely inaccurate, for they will be erroneous, even if
only very slightly so. Her point is thoughtfully considered by the
referees, but her solution is deemed much less invasive than other
alternatives, which range from turning the earth into a kind of human
park for googol visitation to preserving a sample of living human
brains in vats, and Mary wins the prize. The microbe is introduced
undetected onto earth, it functions as predicted, and the humans are
saved by their microbe-caused errors of observation. The googols
extend Mary the prize of their esteem and celebrate the survival of
the humans.
Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
neo
Sanity's Little Helper wrote:
> neo <MAT...@live.hk> barked:
>
> > Martin wrote:
> >> neo wrote:
> >>> Suppose advanced robot from another planet is programmed to act like
> >>> human being.
> >>
> >> Were you the one who kept this up on talk.origins for months because we
> >> refused to play your game then tried again in a.a. afte that?
> >
> > Allthough I have posted in those ngs, I don't recall posting this
> > topic. And certainly not for months. Life is too short to discuss such
> > topic for months.
>
> Good.
>
> 'Bye!
Was it your decision to type it?
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
Sanity's Little Helper
To a considerably greater extent than it was your decision to know nothing
and comprehend even less.
beelzebub
> On May 17, 10:19 am, beelzebub <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 8:46 am, neo <MAT...@live.hk> wrote:
>
> > > some robots are programmed to say that they believe in God and some robots are
> > > programmed to say that they are atheist.
>
> > So they are programmed to be irrational? If you wanted logical bots
> > they would all be agnostic. Logically, they don't "know" anything
> > their programmers don't know, and if their programmers /did/ have
> > actual knowledge then the atheist/theist duality would be unnecessary,
> > wouldn't it?
>
> What you say reminds me of the end of a chapter in a philosophy
> introduction;
>
> Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
Of course, the question arises, what keeps the Googols from destroying
themselves? Is there a race of beings smarter than they are that has
implanted a similar microbe in their brains? There is an underlying
circular premise, much like the Big Bang.
A simpler example of the survival value inherent in a lack of
understanding, if we were to all truly know that existence was finite
and meaningless, this world would be an ever more cynical and
dangerous place. Instead of Christians warring with Muslims and Arabs,
it would be every man for himself. (Which indirectly underscores a
flaw in atheism, if they know this is a one way ticket, why aren't
they given to a life of complete and wanton hedonism? What's stopping
them? Their careers?)
Smiler
>
>
> beelzebub wrote:
>> On May 17, 8:46 am, neo <MAT...@live.hk> wrote:
>> > some robots are programmed to say that they believe in God and some
>> > robots are
>> > programmed to say that they are atheist.
>>
>> So they are programmed to be irrational? If you wanted logical bots
>> they would all be agnostic. Logically, they don't "know" anything
>> their programmers don't know, and if their programmers /did/ have
>> actual knowledge then the atheist/theist duality would be unnecessary,
>> wouldn't it?
>
> It might be intention of programmer to create confusion about his
> existence.
That sounds like a very evil programmer. Why would he want to confuse the
robots?
> Also it might be his intention that retired, defunct robots
> get some topic to fight and newsgroup reader server/google employees
> get some salary. Economy program designed to use funds of retired
> robots for young robots.
>
Robots are mechanical & electronic machines.
Why not recycle them immediately they become redundant?
Far better and more economical to use their componts to help build new
robots or repair more recently built robots that have got damaged.
Do machines get paid in your world?
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
turtoni
> What proof we can give these robots that they are programmed?
the proof is the word "robot". we are obviously robots.
the problem really is how can we step outside the box?
impossible.
nice try though i guess. (c+)
HTH.
turtoni
Richo
> Suppose advanced robot from another planet is programmed to act like
> human being. If you ask him, do you feel human emotions, he is
> programmed to say 'yes'. And indeed if you hit him, he shout and hit
> back like human being. He is programmed to search energy, create new
> robots and download updated version of software. Even some robots are
> programmed to say that they believe in God and some robots are
> programmed to say that they are atheist.
>
> How can we say that they do not have any consciousness or feelings?
>
It may be impossible.
> Those robots say that if we are programmed, then human being is also
> programmed.
>
> What proof we can give these robots that they are programmed?
At present none.
Cognitive science doesn't have an answer.
Perhaps it never will.
This is the classic "other minds" problem of philosophy - it doesn't
have a simple solution - as far as anyone knows.
It is a very good question and an important question.
Not all questions have answers. (or have answers yet.)
Mark.
miracl...@gmail.com
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_DFIkzOV-Y
>
> HTH.
miracl...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
miracl...@gmail.com
miracl...@gmail.com
Sir Frederick
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_DFIkzOV-Y
>
>HTH.
Too much meaning.
Any more than zero is too much.
miracl...@gmail.com
miracl...@gmail.com
turtoni
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:65fv24trmhiimsfu5...@4ax.com...
i know this hurts your conditioing (due to the huge amount of shit out here
and there)
BUT
ART is > all
leaving aside the wanting to kill each other problems.
ART is like a punch in the side of that fucking box wanting to break out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4FFF1NBiTs
(ps - i'm with you.. stuck. hth)
Sir Frederick
You don't have to post, just to indicate you've read!
Post only when you have something to say. So far I've
seen about five of your posts with no comments added!
Enkidu
@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> Suppose advanced robot from another planet is programmed to act like
> human being. If you ask him, do you feel human emotions, he is
> programmed to say 'yes'. And indeed if you hit him, he shout and hit
> back like human being. He is programmed to search energy, create new
> robots and download updated version of software. Even some robots are
> programmed to say that they believe in God and some robots are
> programmed to say that they are atheist.
>
> How can we say that they do not have any consciousness or feelings?
>
> Those robots say that if we are programmed, then human being is also
> programmed.
>
> What proof we can give these robots that they are programmed?
Is that you, Mark?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"Gods always behave like the people who created them"
-- Zora Neale Hurston
Immortalist
This is like the origin of life argument where a God started
everything but then the question arises, what started this God or the
Panspermia argument which is the hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist
already all over the Universe, that life on Earth may have originated
through these "seeds", and that they may deliver or have delivered
life to other habitable bodies, and the question where these aliens
originated from, etc....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
> A simpler example of the survival value inherent in a lack of
> understanding, if we were to all truly know that existence was finite
> and meaningless, this world would be an ever more cynical and
> dangerous place. Instead of Christians warring with Muslims and Arabs,
> it would be every man for himself. (Which indirectly underscores a
> flaw in atheism, if they know this is a one way ticket, why aren't
> they given to a life of complete and wanton hedonism? What's stopping
> them? Their careers?)
It seems that way but it is probably that we could have evolved those
abilities but they would have required to many genes to direct the
assembly of neural structures required. We know what we need to know
in order to survive on Earth and know these things very well, even
with emotions instinctually wired to guide us in decisions about
regular interactions on this planet.
Curt Welch
> > "Ed" <solo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:2329f304-21b5-44e6...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com.
What you are talking about here is our power to learn. That "full
potential" we are born with is the potential to learn behaviors appropriate
to our environment. Our true intelligence is not in our actions alone, but
more accurately, in how our actions change over time - in our how, and
what, we can learn.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
cu...@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/
Curt Welch
It's only a problem now because so many people don't know what a mind is.
If you don't know what a mind is, then when you look at someone else, you
don't know what it is you are looking for in them, to verify they have a
mind. As long as you don't know what a mind is, the "other mind" problem
will always be impossible to solve.
However, many of us do know what a mind is. It's just the word we use to
describe the behavior of a human brain. As such, it's easy for us to solve
the other mind problem. We look at other people, see if they have a normal
functioning human brain, and if they do, we know they have a mind. End or
problem. The other mind is problem is nothing more than "do they have a
working brain?" - and that's not a deep philosophical problem.
In the case of the robot, if we assume he has full access to all the
knowledge needed to understand the technology that he is built from, and
assuming he was smart enough, he would have no problem understanding what
he was, and what his "mind" was. So, in the case of the other mind problem
for other robots like him self, he would have no problem. It's a question
no more complex or mystical than does the other robot have an arm?
In the case of whether the robot can know if a human has a mind, the same
problem arises. It can't answer that question very accurately if it
doesn't understand what humans are and how they work. However, even
without that knowledge (the problem we are currently stuck with) it would
know enough about robots, and physics, and biology, to know that the most
likely answer is that humans are just biological machines that probably
work on the same principles that that the make the robot work, and as such,
the robot could easily conclude that the human has a mind.
The only reasons questions about mind is hard, is because most people don't
know what a mind is, and as long as you are using a word you don't
understand, then of course questions about it become "hard". If the robot
understands what the word means, then questions about it are not hard for
the robot.
Curt Welch
Let me just pick out this one idea and talk about it...
> Logically, they don't "know" anything their programmers don't know,
A programmer (aka engineer, aka any process of creation that creates
something new - like evolution), can build a learning machine, and once
that happens, the "knowledge" of the programmer, has little to nothing to
do with the knowledge of the machine they built.
Humans are learning machines. What we "know" is not for the most part what
was built into us by evolution. It's behavior we acquired after birth by
our innate power to learn.
Humans know how to build different types of learning machines as well. And
what those machines learn after "birth", will quite often be things the
programmer doesn't know.
As a trivial example, I can build a robotic mouse that learns the path
through a maze to get food on the other side. I can put that mouse in a
maze built by someone else, and the mouse can learn on its own, without any
additional help from me, how to get through that maze. It will then know
something I don't know. It knows how to quickly run through the maze and I
don't.
The knowledge of the machine, is not in any sense limited to the knowledge
of the programmer, once you start building learning machines. Learning
machines are machines which acquire, and use, knowledge on their own,
without the need of a programmer (or teacher) giving it to them.
This also opens up a new perspective on the conflict of free will vs being
programmed. Humans are programmed to be learning machines. We learn from
our experience. We have no ability to now learn. It's not something we
can control. We can not force ourselves to not remember something (memory
is just a learning process programmed into us which we have no direct
control over).
However, we are free from the will of our programmer, because we do what is
best for us, not what is best for our programmer. That's the nature of
being a learning machine. Our programmer (evolution) built us to be
learning machines, that learn on our own, what is best for us.
So, at the lowest level, we are still slaves to our programming (it is
beyond our free will to stop learning), but because we are programmed to be
learning machines, we have been given free will. We follow our own
accumulated knowledge about what is good for us, and not the accumulated
knowledge about what another learning machine believes is good for them.
So, logically, what a programmer knows, and what the machine they built
knows, has little to do with one another, once you start talking about, and
building, learning machines.
Most the machines we build these days, are not learning machines, and as a
result, none of them seem to have much, if any, "free will". They don't
seem to know anything which the programmer didn't already know. But once
you start to build learning machines, all that changes.
What really makes humans intelligent is our power to learn - a power which
no one has yet been able to duplicate in a machine. AI won't be solved
until we figure out how to build better learning machines.
Xan
"Richo" <m.richa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:31651d06-2df4-44be...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
You can quite easily see humans as "robots". Some of the things they do are
"inhuman" and would not be in accordance with any Universal Laws and Rules
governing "Life".
A heart that is like a battery - instant demise on cessation of same - and a
compulsive irrational desire to breed in order to ensure continuance.
What proof could we give humans that they are programmed?
They are obviously not sentient kind compassionate decent "life".
So what are they?
Xan of Borg
ZerkonX
> What proof we can give these robots that they are programmed?
If they are robots then they are machines?
Do they, like, have gears inside of them and stuff?
marika
"ZerkonX" <Z...@X.net> wrote in message news:pan.2008.05...@X.net...
>
> If they are robots then they are machines?
> Do they, like, have gears inside of them and stuff?
I don’t think they did, until this.
mk5000
"Talking about TV
Please shut up
This one's a crazer
Daydreaming disaster"--doin the ockraoch, modest mouse