Robotic age poses ethical dilemma
-
originSH wrote:
I thought we'd left the topic of religion behind?
Almost an impossible to do. "Religion" is about reality. edit: IF you were willing to actually thing about these matters, IF you were not content to remain willfully ignorant (thus, I said "Invincible Ignorance"), you would understand that the true things you said in your response to The Gnat's anti-rational post undermine the false things you want to believe. (Which false things but echoed the anti-rational nature of The Gnat's post.)
Ilíon wrote:
IF you were willing to actually thing about these matters
I actually thing about ???
Ilíon wrote:
you would understand that the true things you said in your response to The Gnat's anti-rational post undermine the false things you want to believe. (Which false things but echoed the anti-rational nature of The Gnat's post.)
Hahahahahahahaha..... leaving out some details I see. Gnat, lessee, more name calling, this is your replacement for logic? Dismissal through simplification? And circular logic. Nice.... What is it that is anti-rational here? Besides your remarks of course.
This statement was never false.
-
originSH wrote:
Back on to topic:
If you are willing to reason logically, if you are willing to think critically about what *you* are saying and (apparently) believing, if you are willing to actually pay attention to what I actually write (i.e. comprehend it, even if you do not agree with it) as I show you the errors in what you say and (apparently) believe, then I will be more than happy to be convinced that "Invincible Ignorance" does not apply to you. I will have time this evening to properly respond to your post.
So you are the authority on logical reason now? Not only pedantic but arrogant as well.
This statement was never false.
-
Do you, at least and at last, begin to understand that my undisguised scorn for the "thinking" exhibited by the Great Scientific Minds is fully earned and completely justified?
Absolutely not.
This statement was never false.
-
Like most things it depends on your point of view. I agree "Religion" is about reality, but I'd say its about the fiction created to deal with reality. But that's my own personal belief and I try to stay away from the Religion arguments. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs as long as they don't encroach on others. Back on to topic: What false things? I said: The debatable part is whether or not a man made brain will ever be able to truly "feel emotion" and have "free will", but then again its debatable whether we ourselves truly have that or are we just responding the way we are programmed to our surroundings like any other animal, just in a more complex way. Are you saying its false because it's not debatable? I didn't give any conclusions. Personally I do think that we will be able to produce something synthetic that will be able to "think", either directly or by producing machines sufficiently advanced enough to design it. As per my previous post, it's debatable whether this will be regarded as true intelligence or just a series of very complex reactions. But of course it can be argued that we too have minds that work on very complex reactions. Edit: As life has evolved it has slowly refined the ability to react to external stimuli, in fact much like how computers are evolving now. There is input, processing and output. The leaf is hit by sunlight (input) and it turns itself to face the sun (output), just as the sunlight hits the photo diode (input) and the motor turns the mirror to reflect the sunlight where needed (output). Currently our creations are behind the creations of nature, but they are following a similar route and so it appears it is quite feasible to keep refining and imp[roving until "thought" is produced.
OriginSH, this post only partially addresses your post(s). More later.
originSH wrote:
Ilíon: ... you would understand that the true things you said in your response to Gnat's anti-rational post undermine the false things you want to believe. originSH: What false things? I said: ... Are you saying its false because it's not debatable? I didn't give any conclusions ...
The *context* is not merely the words you wrote: the immediate context includes Gnat's question-begging post that you were responding to; the greater context includes my practical demonstration that Chriatian Graus' invocation of the "Turing Test" did nothing to falsify what I'd said (and, in fact, that practical demonstration demonstrates *why* there will never be a machine-that-can-think; the ultimate context is huge, but includes the unexamined assumptions -- AND the obstinate refusal to even acknowledge that they are assumptions, much less to examine them -- which underlie most of the comments made in this thread. originSH: "I didn't give any conclusions." Au contraire, you made some silly assertions which serve as both basic assumptions and as "conclusions" of the whole circular mess of unreasonable things you delight to believe to be truth about human minds. But, as you say, "Back on to topic," with attention to the immediate context:
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
A computer may not yet be as good as the human mind in pattern matching, but its rediculous to say that thinking is not computing. All you displayed here is pattern matching, and with the advent of quantum computers, I'd say wait and see.
originSH wrote:
Pattern matching is coming on leaps and bounds as well. The algorithms are being refined, massive repository's of information are being built up and calculation speed is always rising. To say that machines will never reach the level of complexity and ability of a human is to ignore the pattern of growth your brain should be perceiving ;P The debatable part is whether or not a man made brain will ever be able to truly "feel emotion" and have "free will", but then again its debatable whether we ourselves truly have that or are we just responding the way we are programmed to our surroundings like any other animal, just in a more complex way.
Non-exhaustive error #1 and 2 -- 'mind' is
-
OriginSH, this post only partially addresses your post(s). More later.
originSH wrote:
Ilíon: ... you would understand that the true things you said in your response to Gnat's anti-rational post undermine the false things you want to believe. originSH: What false things? I said: ... Are you saying its false because it's not debatable? I didn't give any conclusions ...
The *context* is not merely the words you wrote: the immediate context includes Gnat's question-begging post that you were responding to; the greater context includes my practical demonstration that Chriatian Graus' invocation of the "Turing Test" did nothing to falsify what I'd said (and, in fact, that practical demonstration demonstrates *why* there will never be a machine-that-can-think; the ultimate context is huge, but includes the unexamined assumptions -- AND the obstinate refusal to even acknowledge that they are assumptions, much less to examine them -- which underlie most of the comments made in this thread. originSH: "I didn't give any conclusions." Au contraire, you made some silly assertions which serve as both basic assumptions and as "conclusions" of the whole circular mess of unreasonable things you delight to believe to be truth about human minds. But, as you say, "Back on to topic," with attention to the immediate context:
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
A computer may not yet be as good as the human mind in pattern matching, but its rediculous to say that thinking is not computing. All you displayed here is pattern matching, and with the advent of quantum computers, I'd say wait and see.
originSH wrote:
Pattern matching is coming on leaps and bounds as well. The algorithms are being refined, massive repository's of information are being built up and calculation speed is always rising. To say that machines will never reach the level of complexity and ability of a human is to ignore the pattern of growth your brain should be perceiving ;P The debatable part is whether or not a man made brain will ever be able to truly "feel emotion" and have "free will", but then again its debatable whether we ourselves truly have that or are we just responding the way we are programmed to our surroundings like any other animal, just in a more complex way.
Non-exhaustive error #1 and 2 -- 'mind' is
Ilíon wrote:
the immediate context includes Gnat's question-begging post
Hahahahahahahaha..... Figure's that's all you can do. Call me a name. You certainly can't contend with logic. Troll on. And again, I assert that you are not a Christian, but merely a troll in Christian clothing. "Though I send you out as sheep among the wolves." You are not spreading the good news that's for sure. Which was the mandate from Jesus. Instead you aim to struggle with unbelievers. Pathetic.
This statement was never false.
-
Thats outrageous. Until we fully understand the human mind and consciousness we will not be able to create intelligent robots that deserve the same rights as a human. We can create a computer program that can seem intelligent and can seem to think and control a mechanical body of some kind but it is just software running on a computer. If I develop my own robot then I should be able to beat it with a hammer when it makes me mad. This also brings up an important point. What if the robot's software is running on my desktop computer and its controlling a virtual 3d robot body on my screen? I can tell you I wouldn't be going to jail if I deleted it or made it beat up another virtual robot's body. It's just dumb, It is extremely unlikely software and hardware will ever feel and experience the world no matter how smart it may seem.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Captain See Sharp wrote:
It is extremely unlikely software and hardware will ever feel and experience the world no matter how smart it may seem.
The issue is not "feeling" and "experiencing." The issue is 'mind' (with the related issue of 'agency'). And, it isn't merely "extremely unlikely software and hardware will ever" be a mind, it is impossible that a computer program will ever be a mind; it won't happen. Certainly, there will be people who will claim to be unable to distinguish a computer program from a human mind, and will on that basis assert that computer programs *are* minds -- or, to say it another way, that human minds are epiphenomena of human brains; which is to say, that human minds are "illusions." But, then, some people already assert that human minds are epiphenomena of human brains; and some even come right out and admit that they are asserting that minds are illusions. And, there are already some people who assert, or at least believe -- on "faith"[^] -- that someday computer programs really will be minds. Computer programs are logical/arithmetical algorithms, sets of logical/arithmetical rules for manipulating inherently meaningless arithmetical symbols; and they are nothing else or more. Mathematics (specifically, arithmetic) and logic are the entirety of the theoretical underpinning of computing; thus, a computer program -- a complex set of logical rules for manipulating inherently meaningless arithmetical symbols -- can never be written to do something that is not arithmetically and logically possible. It is theoretically (i.e. mathematically and logically) impossible for any set of logical/mathematical rules to generate a superset of itself. Period. Therefore, it is mathematically and logically impossible (which is to say, utterly impossible) for any computer program to ever be written which can generate a new program which is a superset of itself. No program will ever be written which can generate a new program which contains algorithms that are not already contained, explicitly or implicitly, in the original program. Period. Given the facts and theoretical underpinnings of what computer pro
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Perhaps the uncomfortable question is, if it's indistinguishable from 'thinking', then how do we know that there IS a difference ?
Yur'oe tinhknig of 'cpmotunig' in the retsirtecd and dveriaitve secne of the aviittcy wcihh is dnoe on or wtih mreodn eecotirnlc cpumteors. As I alsmot aylwas do, I was unisg 'cpumiotng' in the mroe bsiac sncee of cniountg and the relus by wchih ctnoiung ootpreains are premfored. But tehn, wehn you get dwon to it, taht is all a merdon ecoteirnlc cpmteour deos, it jsut does teshe tihgns ftsater tahn erailer mcaheniacl ctpumeors did. And, of csoure, tshee erailer mcaeniachl ctpueomrs to wchih I rfeer did nnohtig at all, it was the hmaun mnid dinog evyerhintg whcih was dnoe. And, by the smae tekon, meordn ecotirnlec cpumteors do not raelly do aytinhng; it is aaign a hmaun mnid dniog evyerhintg wichh is dnoe. Deos an etlercic psuh-btuton coalctular 'tihnk?' Deos a manccaihel psuh-btuton coalctular 'tihnk?' Does a sidle-rlue 'tnihk?' Deos a picnel and ppear 'tnhik?' Deos a mahncecail acabus 'tihnk?' If the Cenishe had invented a peowred acubas, wihch ddni't ruriqee a hmaun to mvoe the bttouns, wulod you say taht it 'tihnks?' Of crouse not! So, why do you wnat to inagime taht a mreodn eecotirnlc cptumeor can 'tinhk' or taht smoe hopathietcyl furute cptumeor wlil 'tnihk?' 'Ctpmutaioon' is not 'tkinhing.' Is taht ralely so dciiulfft to garsp?
Turing Test I (original text as scrambled according to a certain rule) (original careless misspellings retained) Yur'oe tinhknig of 'cpmotunig' in the retsirtecd and dveriaitve secne of the aviittcy wcihh is dnoe on or wtih mreodn eecotirnlc cpumteors. As I alsmot aylwas do, I was unisg 'cpumiotng' in the mroe bsiac sncee of cniountg and the relus by wchih ctnoiung ootpreains are premfored. But tehn, wehn you get dwon to it, taht is all a merdon ecoteirnlc cpmteour deos, it jsut does teshe tihgns ftsater tahn erailer mcaheniacl ctpumeors did. And, of csoure, tshee erailer mcaeniachl ctpueomrs to wchih I rfeer did nnohtig at all, it was the hmaun mnid dinog evyerhintg whcih was dnoe. And, by the smae tekon, meordn ecotirnlec cpumteors do not raelly do aytinhng; it is aaign a hmaun mnid dniog evyerhintg wichh is dnoe. Deos an etlercic psuh-btuton coalctular 'tihnk?' Deos a manccaihel psuh-btuton coalctular 'tihnk?' Does a sidle-rlue 'tnihk?' Deos a picnel and ppear 'tnhik?' Deos a mahncecail acabus 'tihnk?' If the Cenishe had invented a peowred acubas, wihch ddni't ruriqee a hmaun to mvoe the bttouns, wulod you say taht it 'tihnks?' Of crouse not! So, why do you wnat to inagime taht a mreodn eecotirnlc cptumeor can 'tinhk' or taht smoe hopathietcyl furute cptumeor wlil 'tnihk?' 'Ctpmutaioon' is not 'tkinhing.' Is taht ralely so dciiulfft to garsp? Turing Test II (same text, scrambled without that rule) (after correction of identified misspellings) Ruroe'y hingknit fo 'pmotunigc' in het etsirtdrec dan everidavit essen of teh cityvita chiwh is node no or whit remnod celtercoin rumstecop. Sa I lastmo yaslaw od, I saw ginsu 'pumigncot' in eth rome sicab neses of nigonuct nad the selur by chiwh tonicgun topreainso era frempoder. Tub hent, hwen uyo teg nowd ot it, hatt is lal a remond coletecirn permtocu sode, it sutj soed sheet sitghn traftes athn arirele lamachenic stopcurme idd. Nad, fo source, shete arreile lamecinach stupcorem to chiwh I frere ddi hingnot ta lla, it swa het manuh dimn ondig verhintegy cwhhi aws endo. Dan, by eth mesa konet, emnord cotecirnel rocpumtes do ton lyrael od tinayngh; ti is ganai a mahnu nidm goind verhintyge chihw is oden. Sedo an cleterci shup-nobtut toalcularc 'knith?' Osed a nacacihelm hups-nutbot toralculac 'knith?' Osde a lesid-lure 'knith?' Odse a lenpic adn rappe 'knith?' Sedo a accainhelm cabusa 'knith?' Fi het Shenice adh denevtin a rodpewe casuba, ihchw nitd'd queerri a nahmu to vemo teh stobnut, ludow uoy ays tath it 'shknit?' Fo rousec to
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
It is extremely unlikely software and hardware will ever feel and experience the world no matter how smart it may seem.
The issue is not "feeling" and "experiencing." The issue is 'mind' (with the related issue of 'agency'). And, it isn't merely "extremely unlikely software and hardware will ever" be a mind, it is impossible that a computer program will ever be a mind; it won't happen. Certainly, there will be people who will claim to be unable to distinguish a computer program from a human mind, and will on that basis assert that computer programs *are* minds -- or, to say it another way, that human minds are epiphenomena of human brains; which is to say, that human minds are "illusions." But, then, some people already assert that human minds are epiphenomena of human brains; and some even come right out and admit that they are asserting that minds are illusions. And, there are already some people who assert, or at least believe -- on "faith"[^] -- that someday computer programs really will be minds. Computer programs are logical/arithmetical algorithms, sets of logical/arithmetical rules for manipulating inherently meaningless arithmetical symbols; and they are nothing else or more. Mathematics (specifically, arithmetic) and logic are the entirety of the theoretical underpinning of computing; thus, a computer program -- a complex set of logical rules for manipulating inherently meaningless arithmetical symbols -- can never be written to do something that is not arithmetically and logically possible. It is theoretically (i.e. mathematically and logically) impossible for any set of logical/mathematical rules to generate a superset of itself. Period. Therefore, it is mathematically and logically impossible (which is to say, utterly impossible) for any computer program to ever be written which can generate a new program which is a superset of itself. No program will ever be written which can generate a new program which contains algorithms that are not already contained, explicitly or implicitly, in the original program. Period. Given the facts and theoretical underpinnings of what computer pro
Ilíon wrote:
mathematically and logically impossible
Impossible is absolute. Saying something is impossible is something a person with a limited mind would say. I'm not saying you are stupid, we all have limited minds, but people believed it is impossible to go to the moon at one time.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Ilíon wrote:
mathematically and logically impossible
Impossible is absolute. Saying something is impossible is something a person with a limited mind would say. I'm not saying you are stupid, we all have limited minds, but people believed it is impossible to go to the moon at one time.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Captain See Sharp wrote:
Ilíon: Therefore, it is mathematically and logically impossible (which is to say, utterly impossible) for any computer program to ever be written which can generate a new program which is a superset of itself. No program will ever be written which can generate a new program which contains algorithms that are not already contained, explicitly or implicitly, in the original program. Period. Captain See Sharp: Impossible is absolute. Saying something is impossible is something a person with a limited mind would say. I'm not saying you are stupid, we all have limited minds, but people believed it is impossible to go to the moon at one time.
Captain See Sharp: "Impossible is absolute." Indeed it is when you're talking about *logically* impossible; that's why I went to the bother of *proving* that it is mathematically and logically impossible (and thus, utterly impossible) for any program to ever be written that IS a mind. But, apparently, your sole response to the argument I laid out for your consideration is to pull out a shallow and self-refuting chestnut: "It's impossible to say that anything is impossible!" Do you really read what I'd written? Did you really think about what I'd written? That's the important question; did you think about it? Or did you just blow it off by relying on a self-refuting (i.e. inherently illogical) assertion? Captain See Sharp: "I'm not saying you are stupid ..." I always thank Heaven for these small, minor miracles. Captain See Sharp: "Saying something is impossible is something a person with a limited mind would say." Saying that "It is impossible to say that anything is impossible" is a sure indication of a shallow mind in action. Not that I am saying that you are a shallow mind, mind you. There is a vast difference between saying "Such-and-such is not possible in practice" and saying "Such-and-such is not possible in logic (or arithmetic), and is thus utterly impossible." You are falsely conflating the two. Captain See Sharp: "Saying something is impossible is something a person with a limited mind would say." To say "It is impossible to say that anything is impossible" is to assert that we can never, ever *know* anything at all. Do you really want to go there? Consider a bit further this self-refuting chestnut: "It is impossible to say that anyt
-
OriginSH, this post only partially addresses your post(s). More later.
originSH wrote:
Ilíon: ... you would understand that the true things you said in your response to Gnat's anti-rational post undermine the false things you want to believe. originSH: What false things? I said: ... Are you saying its false because it's not debatable? I didn't give any conclusions ...
The *context* is not merely the words you wrote: the immediate context includes Gnat's question-begging post that you were responding to; the greater context includes my practical demonstration that Chriatian Graus' invocation of the "Turing Test" did nothing to falsify what I'd said (and, in fact, that practical demonstration demonstrates *why* there will never be a machine-that-can-think; the ultimate context is huge, but includes the unexamined assumptions -- AND the obstinate refusal to even acknowledge that they are assumptions, much less to examine them -- which underlie most of the comments made in this thread. originSH: "I didn't give any conclusions." Au contraire, you made some silly assertions which serve as both basic assumptions and as "conclusions" of the whole circular mess of unreasonable things you delight to believe to be truth about human minds. But, as you say, "Back on to topic," with attention to the immediate context:
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
A computer may not yet be as good as the human mind in pattern matching, but its rediculous to say that thinking is not computing. All you displayed here is pattern matching, and with the advent of quantum computers, I'd say wait and see.
originSH wrote:
Pattern matching is coming on leaps and bounds as well. The algorithms are being refined, massive repository's of information are being built up and calculation speed is always rising. To say that machines will never reach the level of complexity and ability of a human is to ignore the pattern of growth your brain should be perceiving ;P The debatable part is whether or not a man made brain will ever be able to truly "feel emotion" and have "free will", but then again its debatable whether we ourselves truly have that or are we just responding the way we are programmed to our surroundings like any other animal, just in a more complex way.
Non-exhaustive error #1 and 2 -- 'mind' is
Ilíon wrote:
The truth is that I displayed no pattern matching at all, and that I didn't generate the message via a pattern matching algorithm. And, the further truth is that pattern matching is *not* the explanation for your ability to understand the intentionally jumbled message I posted.
Ilíon wrote:
So, I scrambled the spelling of words in some grammatically and syntactically correct standard English text (which was intended to be correctly spelled in the non-scrambled state) and posted it. BUT I NEVER TOLD YOU THE RULE. And, yet, you really had no difficulty in reading what I'd posted.
This is actually an old trick. As long as the first and last letter is used and the word still contains the letters of the word, the internals can be scrambled and our brains will use pattern matching to decypher the word. That's why we can read it. And not all brains can read it, only a percentage of the population. This isn't anything new by you. Nice try Sherlock.
This statement was never false.