flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > would you love a robot?

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8902
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
maybe a robot like wall-e?
if a robot could care us like our girlfriend, or maybe like our dear dog/cat, is there a possibility you will fall in love with robot?
Post 22 Nov 2008, 06:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
So I guess it comes down to how one defines love. I love to eat chocolate, but I hardly expect that to mean that I love chocolate the same as I love a member of my family.
Post 22 Nov 2008, 07:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
If an anthropomorphic, sentient and sapient robot was programmed to behave like a human, what exactly would be the difference between a human and a machine?
Post 22 Nov 2008, 09:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bogdanontanu



Joined: 07 Jan 2004
Posts: 403
Location: Sol. Earth. Europe. Romania. Bucuresti
bogdanontanu
The profane definition of "love" is in fact an attachment to somebody or something, an addiction. In this respect many people are in love not only with humans or pets but with their car or their looks or their social status or their mental device or feelings or mathematics or physics etc.

So in this definition of love yes you can "fall" in love with a robot if it does look nice enough and behaves nice enough and has nice enough "features" and provides services and meets your expectations with no questions asked Razz .

The english words "to fall in love" explain this clearly: you fall down from grace into a lower state because of an addiction be it for a human or something else.

The correct and eternal definition of LOVE is hidden and unknown to "sleeping" or "thinking" humans but from my own experience the answer is YES you are in love with a robot, with all humans with all stones, with all stars, with all of the universe and with all that is and all that is not...
Post 22 Nov 2008, 09:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DJ Mauretto



Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 464
Location: Rome,Italy
DJ Mauretto
Quote:
The english words "to fall in love" explain this clearly: you fall down from grace into a lower state because of an addiction be it for a human or something else.

Osho Wink

_________________
Nil Volentibus Arduum Razz
Post 22 Nov 2008, 12:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
How do you define "robot"? Are we not robots?
Post 22 Nov 2008, 14:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
To be honest with you if I were to choose between the Matrix machines and humans I think I'll go with the machines. It's not like humans are any better and I think they need to learn something if they DARE to call themselves 'better'.


but yeah humans have feelings... technically it is also (proved i think) that 'water' has feelings (NO JOKE). hmm there was a russian video somewhere (from a russian friend) about it.

and since we are 90% water maybe you guessed it Wink

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 22 Nov 2008, 14:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
Are you talking about the Cherry 2000? Laughing
Post 22 Nov 2008, 15:23
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
baldr



Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Posts: 1651
baldr
What if someone falls in love with robot, and it/he dreams of electric sheep? Wink
Post 22 Nov 2008, 20:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8902
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

So I guess it comes down to how one defines love. I love to eat chocolate, but I hardly expect that to mean that I love chocolate the same as I love a member of my family.

but chocolate wouldn't care if you hungry or not, love came from something that care about us.. maybe.

Quote:

robot was programmed to behave like a human, what exactly would be the difference between a human and a machine?

i don't know, and kinda afraid to know.

Quote:

The english words "to fall in love" explain this clearly: you fall down from grace into a lower state because of an addiction

but at least in the end he/she knew what is "love". maybe like life too, in the end, we would know what is "life".

Quote:

How do you define "robot"? Are we not robots?

i don't know too... but are we robot? maybe you are, but i think i am not robot.... Razz
we got desire, and our desire creates creativity, something that instant and random and probably we don't know what is happening also, and sometime or most of the time beyond our logic.
how to implement desire into robot, to let it have conscious?

yeah matrix, since we all just watch the copies of reality inside our brain, nobody ever seen what is real out there. we just saw what our eyes interpreted.
Post 22 Nov 2008, 20:44
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
we got desire, and our desire creates creativity, something that instant and random and probably we don't know what is happening also, and sometime or most of the time beyond our logic.

Many other animals posses those qualities too. They can be sad, happy, they can love their offspring just like people, and all this is based on same underlying mechanisms.

Are chimps robots or not? Are dogs robots? Are chickens robots? Are ants robots? Are corals robots? Are single-cell organisms robots? Are viruses (DNA strands enveloped in chemicals) robots?

I think you see my point. You can't really draw a line anywhere. We are simply more complex animals, and we have very few, if any, qualities that other animals don't posses. And that is even though our closest living relative is removed by some 6 million years.
Post 22 Nov 2008, 21:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Are chimps robots or not? Are dogs robots? Are chickens robots? Are ants robots? Are corals robots? Are single-cell organisms robots? Are viruses (DNA strands enveloped in chemicals) robots?
I think the answer is no. Wink

vid wrote:
We are simply more complex animals, and we have very few, if any, qualities that other animals don't posses.
Uhm yes it is, for example, we don't just have a "bigger" brain (with more neurons) than apes -- that is an old myth but people like 'pleasant' myths that don't complicate stuff.

For example: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/35/13861.full

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 23 Nov 2008, 17:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Uhm yes it is, for example, we don't just have a "bigger" brain (with more neurons) than apes -- that is an old myth but people like 'pleasant' myths that don't complicate stuf

Yep, of course it's not just more neurons, but no one claimed that here.

What I meant is that for example, animals have only couple of sounds they use to communicate, while we have quite many of them, and can combine them more effectively, up to the language. So the difference is only quantitative, not qualitative.

I think that the study you posted (very good one btw, thanks) agrees in most points: animals have some (though very limited compared to us) cognitive and reasoning abilities.

I would be really interested in how close would pre-neolithic man be to animals. People living in constant hunger and fear for life are VERY different (read some gulag prisoner memoirs), and it seems that some mental processes quite changed purpose after neolithic revolution.

For example gulag prisoners mention drive for sex, but they say they didn't feel love or long for it. Doesn't it make sense for love to be simply drive which assured reproduction in past, but under new conditions it was allowed to grow into overexaggerated form we know now?
Post 24 Nov 2008, 03:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
What I meant is that for example, animals have only couple of sounds they use to communicate, while we have quite many of them, and can combine them more effectively, up to the language. So the difference is only quantitative, not qualitative.

I think that the study you posted (very good one btw, thanks) agrees in most points: animals have some (though very limited compared to us) cognitive and reasoning abilities.
Exactly, but the problem is that we have "different" algorithms, not just packed more RAM. That's the 'issue' -- it means that either both algorithms have the same stuff, or that there might be something else that controls "most" of our behavior -- which animals have too.

Example:

Object A has property X.
Object B has property X as well.

Object A has completely different structure than B. Then conclusion COULD (not that it IS) be that such structure is not necessarily the one making property X -- maybe there's something "inside" the structure (deeper) that actually makes property X. Since both have them, maybe they both possess something, but that is most certainly not the structure which is different (in this example).

Maybe we both (humans and animals) share something which is what gives us those 'abilities' but that may be not related to the neurons/brain. Thus a "robot" who would emulate just the brain would not be animal/human at all Exclamation


oh and you're welcome about the article Smile

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 24 Nov 2008, 14:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
I think it is pretty clear about what a robot is not. And it is not a dog or a cat. Anything "naturally" occurring is not going to be classed as a robot. Anything "artificially" occurring is open for discussion about being classed as a robot.

And by "natural" I am referring to anything produced by the mechanisms of evolution/god (whichever is your belief, I don't care here, and it is not important to the discussion). This is the usual meaning known to rational thinking people.

And by "artificial" I am referring to anything made by humans, but not babies (let's not get bogged down in such obvious sillyness, please, okay), or anything other offspring related things.
Post 24 Nov 2008, 19:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Or maybe "organic"?

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 24 Nov 2008, 20:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Maybe we both (humans and animals) share something which is what gives us those 'abilities' but that may be not related to the neurons/brain.

I doubt you could find much cognitive abilities that you would be able to separate from neurons. Once you destroy neurons, brain abilities disappear, in all studies i have seen so far.

Quote:
Maybe we both (humans and animals) share something which is what gives us those 'abilities' but that may be not related to the neurons/brain.

Yeah. And maybe all quarks are pushed by mildviolet pedophile bunny-rabbits who love to hide themselves. Or maybe its all goddidit... I hope you see my point... of course there are infinite possible explanations. But if I ought ot pick one, it should explain all that previous explanations did, and also truly predict something new, not predicted by existing explanations. Is that so much? Did any existing "paranomal" theory (immaterial souls, reincarnation, etc. etc.) ever accomplish this (like countless scientific explanations did with their data)?,
Post 24 Nov 2008, 23:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
revolution wrote:
And by "artificial" I am referring to anything made by humans, but not babies (let's not get bogged down in such obvious sillyness, please, okay), or anything other offspring related things.
Hm...genetic modifications don't produce something "artificial"? What about building DNA from the ground up? Or does it have to be non-RNA/DNA based?

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 25 Nov 2008, 03:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
bitRAKE wrote:
Hm...genetic modifications don't produce something "artificial"? What about building DNA from the ground up? Or does it have to be non-RNA/DNA based?
Yes, I am aware that my description has many holes but for the record: I don't think that simply modifying genes/DNA could ever make a robot.
Post 25 Nov 2008, 03:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
I doubt you could find much cognitive abilities that you would be able to separate from neurons. Once you destroy neurons, brain abilities disappear, in all studies i have seen so far.
Without your heart you can't live. If you can't live you can't think. Does that mean the heart has "thinking" capabilities? Wink

vid wrote:
Yeah. And maybe all quarks are pushed by mildviolet pedophile bunny-rabbits who love to hide themselves. Or maybe its all goddidit... I hope you see my point... of course there are infinite possible explanations. But if I ought ot pick one, it should explain all that previous explanations did, and also truly predict something new, not predicted by existing explanations. Is that so much? Did any existing "paranomal" theory (immaterial souls, reincarnation, etc. etc.) ever accomplish this (like countless scientific explanations did with their data)?,
Did I say anything about "paranormal" (what does that mean anyway? what's "normal"?)

I said that it could be a CLUE (not to paranormal of course). Of course, such "stuff" will NEVER flourish into concrete things (and possibly predictions) if you DO NOT follow the clues -- it's like quitting or ignoring data, you'll never reach the end! Like abandoning in the middle of it. You can never prove what you are not WILLING to follow (e.g: you are not willing to follow some clues/data, so you will never prove it!). If no one was willing to look at the microscope it would never have been proven that neurons exist Wink

And who said that "neurons did it" makes predictions? Wink

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 25 Nov 2008, 13:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.