The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have been thinking about this for a long time, and after various heated debates with friends, i have come to a conclusion. Humans will always be better then robots. The reason being, that no matter how well programmed,
designed, or marketed, robots will never be truly sentient. Oh, they may one day seem sentient, and even the greatest biologists may not be able to tell the difference, but they will have 'bugs' something humans dont have.For example, take BOT's (basically robots with no body, used in games as opponents) When playing bots AND humans on perfect dark, I notice several key differences. No matter how good aim, speed or weapons human players always manage to trick the bots with carefully placed explosives, teamwork and tricks like getting behind a door and using a farsight to shoot through it as soon as the bots try to open it.
Bots also tend to walk into doors and get stuck. I often have to put them out of their misery, so they can regenerate and try again. The reason they walk into the wall, against all rationality, is because they are being told to by a faulty routine in their program. They have no free will to change that program. I know PD simulants and robots are quite different, but the fundamentals are the same. ROBOTS HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD. they cannot 'break' programming. They cannot choose.
Can a bullet become a pacifist in mid air and stop? Can a wrench choose where it is used? No. Tools have no choice how, when and where they are used. People always do. Humans learn and adapt. Robots can only do this as long as their programs alow them to. They cannot improvise.
If the programmer forgot to insert the movement program, even Data would have been a cripple dragging himself along the floor like an idiot. Robots may be stronger and quicker, but they will never be smarter.
designed, or marketed, robots will never be truly sentient. Oh, they may one day seem sentient, and even the greatest biologists may not be able to tell the difference, but they will have 'bugs' something humans dont have.For example, take BOT's (basically robots with no body, used in games as opponents) When playing bots AND humans on perfect dark, I notice several key differences. No matter how good aim, speed or weapons human players always manage to trick the bots with carefully placed explosives, teamwork and tricks like getting behind a door and using a farsight to shoot through it as soon as the bots try to open it.
Bots also tend to walk into doors and get stuck. I often have to put them out of their misery, so they can regenerate and try again. The reason they walk into the wall, against all rationality, is because they are being told to by a faulty routine in their program. They have no free will to change that program. I know PD simulants and robots are quite different, but the fundamentals are the same. ROBOTS HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD. they cannot 'break' programming. They cannot choose.
Can a bullet become a pacifist in mid air and stop? Can a wrench choose where it is used? No. Tools have no choice how, when and where they are used. People always do. Humans learn and adapt. Robots can only do this as long as their programs alow them to. They cannot improvise.
If the programmer forgot to insert the movement program, even Data would have been a cripple dragging himself along the floor like an idiot. Robots may be stronger and quicker, but they will never be smarter.
Page:
Well, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Some voice recongition middleware has been developed for the PS2, it has a vocabulary of 3000 words and a 93% accuracy as well.
Also, you said:
"It only roughly doubles because we get old technology the goverment(s) had about 3 years after them. This is why computers suddenly get better in about a month every year."
That is also untrue. The company I work for does some MoD work, and, without revealing too much, what you've said is wrong.
The new chips the Intel and AMD and Solaris, and SUN produce are put on sale to the normal customer at the same time as they are on sale to the government. The only reason the government may be one step ahead is due to the costs involved.
Intel have released a document stating that with the current growth (doubling of processor speed every 18 months) we will have 20Gig chips by 2007.
Compare that to the 2Gig chips we have now, and you can see that's an increase of 10 times, in 6 years. Compare what PC's can do now to what they could do 6 years ago and you can see the possibilities for the future are endless.
You also said:
"Well, in the confines of a virtual world where the same cpu controlls the pet and the world it lives in isnt quite the same as a real robot living out here in a world that is extremely complicated and variable. The program knows what will happen in the game, it wouldnt know what could happen out here.
Yes, the real world is complex, I'm not arguing with that, but no matter HOW complicated it is, it can be represented by a mathematical model. If it can be represented by maths, it can by used in a program in a computer or in a robot.
You said:
"A computer game is very basic compared to a robot. Even now, we have only JUST taught a robot how to walk. "
Yes, a computer game is basic compared to a robot, but look how young the computer industry is, about 50 years. Look how long humans ave had to evolve - thousands fo years. Imagine what the technology will be like in a thousand years time. Are you telling me that in 1000 years, we won't have a robot with a brain and a concience? (Whether we actaully WANT a robot with a concience is another matter - one we won't go into here).
It seems to me that neither of us can win this argument. You have to admit though, that with all I've said, all the points I've put forward, it is very UNLIKELY, we WON'T see a proper robot, with concience etc, with 500 years (IMHO it'll be about 80 years).
If you can't agree with that, then there is no point continuing this discussion.
Some voice recongition middleware has been developed for the PS2, it has a vocabulary of 3000 words and a 93% accuracy as well.
Also, you said:
"It only roughly doubles because we get old technology the goverment(s) had about 3 years after them. This is why computers suddenly get better in about a month every year."
That is also untrue. The company I work for does some MoD work, and, without revealing too much, what you've said is wrong.
The new chips the Intel and AMD and Solaris, and SUN produce are put on sale to the normal customer at the same time as they are on sale to the government. The only reason the government may be one step ahead is due to the costs involved.
Intel have released a document stating that with the current growth (doubling of processor speed every 18 months) we will have 20Gig chips by 2007.
Compare that to the 2Gig chips we have now, and you can see that's an increase of 10 times, in 6 years. Compare what PC's can do now to what they could do 6 years ago and you can see the possibilities for the future are endless.
You also said:
"Well, in the confines of a virtual world where the same cpu controlls the pet and the world it lives in isnt quite the same as a real robot living out here in a world that is extremely complicated and variable. The program knows what will happen in the game, it wouldnt know what could happen out here.
Yes, the real world is complex, I'm not arguing with that, but no matter HOW complicated it is, it can be represented by a mathematical model. If it can be represented by maths, it can by used in a program in a computer or in a robot.
You said:
"A computer game is very basic compared to a robot. Even now, we have only JUST taught a robot how to walk. "
Yes, a computer game is basic compared to a robot, but look how young the computer industry is, about 50 years. Look how long humans ave had to evolve - thousands fo years. Imagine what the technology will be like in a thousand years time. Are you telling me that in 1000 years, we won't have a robot with a brain and a concience? (Whether we actaully WANT a robot with a concience is another matter - one we won't go into here).
It seems to me that neither of us can win this argument. You have to admit though, that with all I've said, all the points I've put forward, it is very UNLIKELY, we WON'T see a proper robot, with concience etc, with 500 years (IMHO it'll be about 80 years).
If you can't agree with that, then there is no point continuing this discussion.
Your Honour wrote:
> You say that computing and the development of computers has slown down
> dramatcially in the last few years.
I say you're wrong.
Look at the rate
> at which CPU's have advanced. There speed doubles roughly every 18 to 24 months.
> Becuase of this extra speed, we can compute things that would never have been
> possible a few years ago.
It only roughly doubles because we get old technology the goverment(s) had about 3 years after them. This is why computers suddenly get better in about a month every year.
With this lag, it is impossible to tell if computers have stopped getting better or not.
I was only suggesting they had.
Look at Black & White as an example. One of the
> aims of the game? To TRAIN your pet. Yup, to TEACH your COMPUTER CONTROLLED pet.
> IT does something you don't want it to, you hit it. It does something you do
> want it to, you stroke it. It learns.
Well, in the confines of a virtual world where the same cpu controlls the pet and the world it lives in isnt quite the same as a real robot living out here in a world that is extremely complicated and variable. The program knows what will happen in the game, it wouldnt know what could happen out here.
It wouldn't take much extra programming
> to transform that into something like "If it doesn't like being hit, it
> hits you back."
See? AI in working form , now. Available to buy
> today.
Yes, but very primitive AI. And how this AI has improved from the original 'populus' remains to be seen.
Also, there is a game available in Japan called Seaman, out on DC and
> soon out on PS2 as well, don't know if you've heard of it. Here's a quote from
> OPSM2 about the game:
"For anyone unfamiliar with the Dreamcast
> incarnation, Seaman is a fish with a human facethat you interact with via a
> voice recognition system. After plugging the microphone iperipheral privided
> into your PS2, gamers can ask questions, hold CONVERSATIONS and generally
> recieve verbal abuse from the manfish-with-attitude. The idea is to EVOLVE the
> freaky pondlife in avirtual aquarium from BIRTH as a tadpole through to a frog
> by adjusting his environment and talking, so he can eventually leave the tank
> and find true love in the outside world."
I put some words in CAPITALS
> to draw your attention to them. Ok, the game sounds weird. BUT it does show how
> a computer program, can learn from, and evolve with human help, in the same way
> a robot could. As for the sentience thing, I kind of guess the fish thinks he's
> alive, don't you?
A computer game cannot compare with life or what robots will be made. Both will operate in a world that cannot be predicted or controlled.
A computer game is very basic compared to a robot. Even now, we have only JUST taught a robot how to walk.
I will agree the basics are similar (in fact my original post said the same thing) but the translation from VR to real reality will be hard, and could be impossible. No one can predict the future.
And that is an example of a game you can buy today. Albeit
> its from Japan. The programming is there to enable computers to learn and evolve,
> and it's available NOW.
Well, seaman for ps2 is only available in japan so i cant get it.
These games can only learn and evolve in certain ways, and only with about 20 different tools, and 200 words. A real robot would have to be a lot more advanced to even begin to learn about the world.
Look at us, we've been here 40 thousand years and we still havent learnt it all.
And are you trying to advertise for these games or something?
> You say that computing and the development of computers has slown down
> dramatcially in the last few years.
I say you're wrong.
Look at the rate
> at which CPU's have advanced. There speed doubles roughly every 18 to 24 months.
> Becuase of this extra speed, we can compute things that would never have been
> possible a few years ago.
It only roughly doubles because we get old technology the goverment(s) had about 3 years after them. This is why computers suddenly get better in about a month every year.
With this lag, it is impossible to tell if computers have stopped getting better or not.
I was only suggesting they had.
Look at Black & White as an example. One of the
> aims of the game? To TRAIN your pet. Yup, to TEACH your COMPUTER CONTROLLED pet.
> IT does something you don't want it to, you hit it. It does something you do
> want it to, you stroke it. It learns.
Well, in the confines of a virtual world where the same cpu controlls the pet and the world it lives in isnt quite the same as a real robot living out here in a world that is extremely complicated and variable. The program knows what will happen in the game, it wouldnt know what could happen out here.
It wouldn't take much extra programming
> to transform that into something like "If it doesn't like being hit, it
> hits you back."
See? AI in working form , now. Available to buy
> today.
Yes, but very primitive AI. And how this AI has improved from the original 'populus' remains to be seen.
Also, there is a game available in Japan called Seaman, out on DC and
> soon out on PS2 as well, don't know if you've heard of it. Here's a quote from
> OPSM2 about the game:
"For anyone unfamiliar with the Dreamcast
> incarnation, Seaman is a fish with a human facethat you interact with via a
> voice recognition system. After plugging the microphone iperipheral privided
> into your PS2, gamers can ask questions, hold CONVERSATIONS and generally
> recieve verbal abuse from the manfish-with-attitude. The idea is to EVOLVE the
> freaky pondlife in avirtual aquarium from BIRTH as a tadpole through to a frog
> by adjusting his environment and talking, so he can eventually leave the tank
> and find true love in the outside world."
I put some words in CAPITALS
> to draw your attention to them. Ok, the game sounds weird. BUT it does show how
> a computer program, can learn from, and evolve with human help, in the same way
> a robot could. As for the sentience thing, I kind of guess the fish thinks he's
> alive, don't you?
A computer game cannot compare with life or what robots will be made. Both will operate in a world that cannot be predicted or controlled.
A computer game is very basic compared to a robot. Even now, we have only JUST taught a robot how to walk.
I will agree the basics are similar (in fact my original post said the same thing) but the translation from VR to real reality will be hard, and could be impossible. No one can predict the future.
And that is an example of a game you can buy today. Albeit
> its from Japan. The programming is there to enable computers to learn and evolve,
> and it's available NOW.
Well, seaman for ps2 is only available in japan so i cant get it.
These games can only learn and evolve in certain ways, and only with about 20 different tools, and 200 words. A real robot would have to be a lot more advanced to even begin to learn about the world.
Look at us, we've been here 40 thousand years and we still havent learnt it all.
And are you trying to advertise for these games or something?
You say that computing and the development of computers has slown down dramatcially in the last few years.
I say you're wrong.
Look at the rate at which CPU's have advanced. There speed doubles roughly every 18 to 24 months. Becuase of this extra speed, we can compute things that would never have been possible a few years ago.
Look at Black & White as an example. One of the aims of the game? To TRAIN your pet. Yup, to TEACH your COMPUTER CONTROLLED pet. IT does something you don't want it to, you hit it. It does something you do want it to, you stroke it. It learns.
It wouldn't take much extra programming to transform that into something like "If it doesn't like being hit, it hits you back."
See? AI in working form , now. Available to buy today.
Also, there is a game available in Japan called Seaman, out on DC and soon out on PS2 as well, don't know if you've heard of it. Here's a quote from OPSM2 about the game:
"For anyone unfamiliar with the Dreamcast incarnation, Seaman is a fish with a human facethat you interact with via a voice recognition system. After plugging the microphone iperipheral privided into your PS2, gamers can ask questions, hold CONVERSATIONS and generally recieve verbal abuse from the manfish-with-attitude. The idea is to EVOLVE the freaky pondlife in avirtual aquarium from BIRTH as a tadpole through to a frog by adjusting his environment and talking, so he can eventually leave the tank and find true love in the outside world."
I put some words in CAPITALS to draw your attention to them. Ok, the game sounds weird. BUT it does show how a computer program, can learn from, and evolve with human help, in the same way a robot could. As for the sentience thing, I kind of guess the fish thinks he's alive, don't you?
And that is an example of a game you can buy today. Albeit it from Japan. The programming is there to enable computers to learn and evolve, and it's available NOW.
I say you're wrong.
Look at the rate at which CPU's have advanced. There speed doubles roughly every 18 to 24 months. Becuase of this extra speed, we can compute things that would never have been possible a few years ago.
Look at Black & White as an example. One of the aims of the game? To TRAIN your pet. Yup, to TEACH your COMPUTER CONTROLLED pet. IT does something you don't want it to, you hit it. It does something you do want it to, you stroke it. It learns.
It wouldn't take much extra programming to transform that into something like "If it doesn't like being hit, it hits you back."
See? AI in working form , now. Available to buy today.
Also, there is a game available in Japan called Seaman, out on DC and soon out on PS2 as well, don't know if you've heard of it. Here's a quote from OPSM2 about the game:
"For anyone unfamiliar with the Dreamcast incarnation, Seaman is a fish with a human facethat you interact with via a voice recognition system. After plugging the microphone iperipheral privided into your PS2, gamers can ask questions, hold CONVERSATIONS and generally recieve verbal abuse from the manfish-with-attitude. The idea is to EVOLVE the freaky pondlife in avirtual aquarium from BIRTH as a tadpole through to a frog by adjusting his environment and talking, so he can eventually leave the tank and find true love in the outside world."
I put some words in CAPITALS to draw your attention to them. Ok, the game sounds weird. BUT it does show how a computer program, can learn from, and evolve with human help, in the same way a robot could. As for the sentience thing, I kind of guess the fish thinks he's alive, don't you?
And that is an example of a game you can buy today. Albeit it from Japan. The programming is there to enable computers to learn and evolve, and it's available NOW.
Oh and here is a defintion of sentience for you:
One's awareness or conciousness. The way you think and reason, in a logical sense. Only YOU can know if you are truly sentient.
I can make an educated guess however, and say you are.
One's awareness or conciousness. The way you think and reason, in a logical sense. Only YOU can know if you are truly sentient.
I can make an educated guess however, and say you are.
Your Honour wrote:
> Edwin25 wrote:
>No need to be rude.
I wasn't.
Well, i considered you saying you wouldnt be able to read my whole post, as it was big, just after i said the same thing about ur post a bit sarcastic. Sorry if you were NOT doing it on purpose
er, that why i do it to.
> Seems we
> have found a For loop in our argument. Lets try and refrain from
> using the same
> points again
Ok, fair enough.
At least we agree on something.
>Alright, if you
> want lick your testicles all day go >ahead......
Ok, so you've completely
> ignored my points, or just don't have an answer for them. Either way, that's up
> to you.
You said it might be a good way of living to lick your testes all day. I was only making a small joke.
>No offense? well sorry but i take lots of offense when someone
> calls
> me thick.
I can think of worse, believe me....
Why do you always have to be insulting? cant you argue well without trying to make fun of your opponent?
No its not
> rude. have you heard of DR. Sigmumd Froid?
He founded one
> of the main
> schools of pyschology.
basically, his said that all your mental
> problems
> were your mothers fault if you were a bloke, and your dads fault if u
> were
> a bird. I was just likeneing you to him, because you said your parents
>
> teach you how to live.
So are you saying your parents never taught you
> anything?
NO. I never said anything like that. Dont put words in my mouth
Oh well, at least you finally feel like i do when you
> go on
> about fuzzy logic and sss paradigm programming!
I haven't mentioned SSS Pardigm
> Programming, as I know nothing about it.
Sorry that was venom. My bad.
Yes, but my point was that how you
> develop is not
> completely up to how your parents treat you as you grow
> up.
Yes, but the way your parents treat you does have a HUGE bearing on how
> you grow up, but there are other factors as well, admittedly...
OK so your parents have a HUGE but not COMPLETE effect on your future self. Thats one thing sorted.
You
>
> said yourself that giving to charity is not a selfless act, it is to
> relive
> guilt. Well, if you had the choice of feeling guilty and loosing
> money, or not
> bothering trying to help something you couldnt possibly
> change what would you
> choose?
I didn't say that. Venombyte did.
Again, my bad.
Love
> is a weakness. That is why terrorists can take hostages and
> force us to do
> what they like. ID still rather have love, but it can hold us
> back.
The
> only way love would affect a terrorist operation would be if one of the rescuers
> had a loved one that was held hostage. Which doesn't happen very often. Normally
> the rescuers have no love interest with any of the hostages at all, to prevent
> personal feelings getting in the way of their job. And no, I haven't watched too
> many films, I know a few people in the army.
No, but the reason we feel sad when our people die, is because we love our fellow man. (in the biblical sense, not the homosexual sense. Please dont try and make that into an insult)
The terroists use this love to hurt us. And it worked.
Dont tell me love has never caused you great pain.
Well, i see u
> took my
> 'lets agree to disagree' offer seriously.....
I read and take everything you
> say seriously....
Is that more sarcasm i'm senseing?
>Emotions are not needed. They are an extra. Why would
> a robot need to> learn them?
>It wouldnt need to learn them, so it
> wouldnt bother.
That is my> argument.
A robot would learn whatever we
> programmed it to learn, simple as that.
A true sentient being would do as it liked, not as we told it to.
>Sentience and emotion are
> different, but as i said before we cant> technically tell if anyone but
> ourselves is sentient or not. That is why we can> never know if robots will
> be sentient or not. Neither one of us can win this
> argument.
Define
> sentinece please, before I answer this point.
Look, i JUST
> said that
> i couldnt (and you couldnt) prove my ((your)argument. anything is
>
> possible, its just very unlikely.
Why is it very unlikely? Look how far
> computing has come in the last 50 years. Imagine what will be possible in the
> next 50, or 100, or 200 years....
Or imagine we will hit a buffer, after which technology grows VERY slowly and eventually stops.
In the last few years computing has grown very slowley. The last great big 'revolution' (ie gas, lights, electricity, phones, cars etc) was the internet, and that was ages ago.
We just arent smart enough to copy
>
> ourselves completlywith The technology we have now (what i refer to when i
> say
> robot).
Exactly, WITH WHAT WE HAVE NOW. See above.
No, you miss my point. The very STYLE we programm with (silicon, binary etc) isnt good enough to copy a human. I dont know what other forms of machine we will make so i cant judge them. I can say however, that our current stuff wont work.
That was the whole point of this topic. Im sorry. i should have been more specific.
Well,
> sorry im
> not a mathmatician Anyway, when you get to quantum physics, maths
> goes completly
> screwy........
If you're not a mathmetician, you can't
> prove to me that it's not possible.
Well your not an advanced mathmatician so you cant prove it is possible.
> Edwin25 wrote:
>No need to be rude.
I wasn't.
Well, i considered you saying you wouldnt be able to read my whole post, as it was big, just after i said the same thing about ur post a bit sarcastic. Sorry if you were NOT doing it on purpose
er, that why i do it to.
> Seems we
> have found a For loop in our argument. Lets try and refrain from
> using the same
> points again
Ok, fair enough.
At least we agree on something.
>Alright, if you
> want lick your testicles all day go >ahead......
Ok, so you've completely
> ignored my points, or just don't have an answer for them. Either way, that's up
> to you.
You said it might be a good way of living to lick your testes all day. I was only making a small joke.
>No offense? well sorry but i take lots of offense when someone
> calls
> me thick.
I can think of worse, believe me....
Why do you always have to be insulting? cant you argue well without trying to make fun of your opponent?
No its not
> rude. have you heard of DR. Sigmumd Froid?
He founded one
> of the main
> schools of pyschology.
basically, his said that all your mental
> problems
> were your mothers fault if you were a bloke, and your dads fault if u
> were
> a bird. I was just likeneing you to him, because you said your parents
>
> teach you how to live.
So are you saying your parents never taught you
> anything?
NO. I never said anything like that. Dont put words in my mouth
Oh well, at least you finally feel like i do when you
> go on
> about fuzzy logic and sss paradigm programming!
I haven't mentioned SSS Pardigm
> Programming, as I know nothing about it.
Sorry that was venom. My bad.
Yes, but my point was that how you
> develop is not
> completely up to how your parents treat you as you grow
> up.
Yes, but the way your parents treat you does have a HUGE bearing on how
> you grow up, but there are other factors as well, admittedly...
OK so your parents have a HUGE but not COMPLETE effect on your future self. Thats one thing sorted.
You
>
> said yourself that giving to charity is not a selfless act, it is to
> relive
> guilt. Well, if you had the choice of feeling guilty and loosing
> money, or not
> bothering trying to help something you couldnt possibly
> change what would you
> choose?
I didn't say that. Venombyte did.
Again, my bad.
Love
> is a weakness. That is why terrorists can take hostages and
> force us to do
> what they like. ID still rather have love, but it can hold us
> back.
The
> only way love would affect a terrorist operation would be if one of the rescuers
> had a loved one that was held hostage. Which doesn't happen very often. Normally
> the rescuers have no love interest with any of the hostages at all, to prevent
> personal feelings getting in the way of their job. And no, I haven't watched too
> many films, I know a few people in the army.
No, but the reason we feel sad when our people die, is because we love our fellow man. (in the biblical sense, not the homosexual sense. Please dont try and make that into an insult)
The terroists use this love to hurt us. And it worked.
Dont tell me love has never caused you great pain.
Well, i see u
> took my
> 'lets agree to disagree' offer seriously.....
I read and take everything you
> say seriously....
Is that more sarcasm i'm senseing?
>Emotions are not needed. They are an extra. Why would
> a robot need to> learn them?
>It wouldnt need to learn them, so it
> wouldnt bother.
That is my> argument.
A robot would learn whatever we
> programmed it to learn, simple as that.
A true sentient being would do as it liked, not as we told it to.
>Sentience and emotion are
> different, but as i said before we cant> technically tell if anyone but
> ourselves is sentient or not. That is why we can> never know if robots will
> be sentient or not. Neither one of us can win this
> argument.
Define
> sentinece please, before I answer this point.
Look, i JUST
> said that
> i couldnt (and you couldnt) prove my ((your)argument. anything is
>
> possible, its just very unlikely.
Why is it very unlikely? Look how far
> computing has come in the last 50 years. Imagine what will be possible in the
> next 50, or 100, or 200 years....
Or imagine we will hit a buffer, after which technology grows VERY slowly and eventually stops.
In the last few years computing has grown very slowley. The last great big 'revolution' (ie gas, lights, electricity, phones, cars etc) was the internet, and that was ages ago.
We just arent smart enough to copy
>
> ourselves completlywith The technology we have now (what i refer to when i
> say
> robot).
Exactly, WITH WHAT WE HAVE NOW. See above.
No, you miss my point. The very STYLE we programm with (silicon, binary etc) isnt good enough to copy a human. I dont know what other forms of machine we will make so i cant judge them. I can say however, that our current stuff wont work.
That was the whole point of this topic. Im sorry. i should have been more specific.
Well,
> sorry im
> not a mathmatician Anyway, when you get to quantum physics, maths
> goes completly
> screwy........
If you're not a mathmetician, you can't
> prove to me that it's not possible.
Well your not an advanced mathmatician so you cant prove it is possible.
Your Honour wrote:
> Edwin, I'm going to ask you a question. I want you to answer it with a simple
> YES or NO.
That's it, just the one word reply, understand? Good.
Here's
> the question:
Can you, with 100% accuracy, predict the future?
Remember,
> answer YES or NO only.
NO
I already said i couldnt. And you complain i dont read YOUR posts.
You will make a good lawyer one day.
And venom byte, i was talkin to your honour not you with the froid/freud thing (and i already said my spellin sucked). Sorry.
I cannot PROVE that a sentient robot will never exist, and I cannot predict the future.
BUT you cannot prove that there will eventually be a setient robot.
You cannot predict the future.
This method of argument is pointless.
> Edwin, I'm going to ask you a question. I want you to answer it with a simple
> YES or NO.
That's it, just the one word reply, understand? Good.
Here's
> the question:
Can you, with 100% accuracy, predict the future?
Remember,
> answer YES or NO only.
NO
I already said i couldnt. And you complain i dont read YOUR posts.
You will make a good lawyer one day.
And venom byte, i was talkin to your honour not you with the froid/freud thing (and i already said my spellin sucked). Sorry.
I cannot PROVE that a sentient robot will never exist, and I cannot predict the future.
BUT you cannot prove that there will eventually be a setient robot.
You cannot predict the future.
This method of argument is pointless.
Edwin, I'm going to ask you a question. I want you to answer it with a simple YES or NO.
That's it, just the one word reply, understand? Good.
Here's the question:
Can you, with 100% accuracy, predict the future?
Remember, answer YES or NO only.
That's it, just the one word reply, understand? Good.
Here's the question:
Can you, with 100% accuracy, predict the future?
Remember, answer YES or NO only.
Edwin25 wrote:
have you heard of DR. Sigmumd Froid?
No, but I've heard of Dr Sigmund Freud. Does he count?
have you heard of DR. Sigmumd Froid?
No, but I've heard of Dr Sigmund Freud. Does he count?
Edwin25 wrote:
>No need to be rude.
I wasn't.
er, that why i do it to. Seems we
> have found a For loop in our argument. Lets try and refrain from using the same
> points again
Ok, fair enough.
>Alright, if you want lick your testicles all day go >ahead......
Ok, so you've completely ignored my points, or just don't have an answer for them. Either way, that's up to you.
>No offense? well sorry but i take lots of offense when someone calls
> me thick.
I can think of worse, believe me....
No its not rude. have you heard of DR. Sigmumd Froid?
He founded one
> of the main schools of pyschology.
basically, his said that all your mental
> problems were your mothers fault if you were a bloke, and your dads fault if u
> were a bird. I was just likeneing you to him, because you said your parents
> teach you how to live.
So are you saying your parents never taught you anything?
Oh well, at least you finally feel like i do when you
> go on about fuzzy logic and sss paradigm programming!
I haven't mentioned SSS Pardigm Programming, as I know nothing about it.
Yes, but my point was that how you develop is not
> completely up to how your parents treat you as you grow up.
Yes, but the way your parents treat you does have a HUGE bearing on how you grow up, but there are other factors as well, admittedly...
You
> said yourself that giving to charity is not a selfless act, it is to relive
> guilt. Well, if you had the choice of feeling guilty and loosing money, or not
> bothering trying to help something you couldnt possibly change what would you
> choose?
I didn't say that. Venombyte did.
Love is a weakness. That is why terrorists can take hostages and
> force us to do what they like. ID still rather have love, but it can hold us
> back.
The only way love would affect a terrorist operation would be if one of the rescuers had a loved one that was held hostage. Which doesn't happen very often. Normally the rescuers have no love interest with any of the hostages at all, to prevent personal feelings getting in the way of their job. And no, I haven't watched too many films, I know a few people in the army.
Well, i see u
> took my 'lets agree to disagree' offer seriously.....
I read and take everything you say seriously....
>Emotions are not needed. They are an extra. Why would a robot need to> learn them?
>It wouldnt need to learn them, so it wouldnt bother.
That is my> argument.
A robot would learn whatever we programmed it to learn, simple as that.
>Sentience and emotion are different, but as i said before we cant> technically tell if anyone but ourselves is sentient or not. That is why we can> never know if robots will be sentient or not. Neither one of us can win this
> argument.
Define sentinece please, before I answer this point.
Look, i JUST
> said that i couldnt (and you couldnt) prove my ((your)argument. anything is
> possible, its just very unlikely.
Why is it very unlikely? Look how far computing has come in the last 50 years. Imagine what will be possible in the next 50, or 100, or 200 years....
We just arent smart enough to copy
> ourselves completlywith The technology we have now (what i refer to when i say
> robot).
Exactly, WITH WHAT WE HAVE NOW. See above.
Well, sorry im
> not a mathmatician Anyway, when you get to quantum physics, maths goes completly
> screwy........
If you're not a mathmetician, you can't prove to me that it's not possible.
>No need to be rude.
I wasn't.
er, that why i do it to. Seems we
> have found a For loop in our argument. Lets try and refrain from using the same
> points again
Ok, fair enough.
>Alright, if you want lick your testicles all day go >ahead......
Ok, so you've completely ignored my points, or just don't have an answer for them. Either way, that's up to you.
>No offense? well sorry but i take lots of offense when someone calls
> me thick.
I can think of worse, believe me....
No its not rude. have you heard of DR. Sigmumd Froid?
He founded one
> of the main schools of pyschology.
basically, his said that all your mental
> problems were your mothers fault if you were a bloke, and your dads fault if u
> were a bird. I was just likeneing you to him, because you said your parents
> teach you how to live.
So are you saying your parents never taught you anything?
Oh well, at least you finally feel like i do when you
> go on about fuzzy logic and sss paradigm programming!
I haven't mentioned SSS Pardigm Programming, as I know nothing about it.
Yes, but my point was that how you develop is not
> completely up to how your parents treat you as you grow up.
Yes, but the way your parents treat you does have a HUGE bearing on how you grow up, but there are other factors as well, admittedly...
You
> said yourself that giving to charity is not a selfless act, it is to relive
> guilt. Well, if you had the choice of feeling guilty and loosing money, or not
> bothering trying to help something you couldnt possibly change what would you
> choose?
I didn't say that. Venombyte did.
Love is a weakness. That is why terrorists can take hostages and
> force us to do what they like. ID still rather have love, but it can hold us
> back.
The only way love would affect a terrorist operation would be if one of the rescuers had a loved one that was held hostage. Which doesn't happen very often. Normally the rescuers have no love interest with any of the hostages at all, to prevent personal feelings getting in the way of their job. And no, I haven't watched too many films, I know a few people in the army.
Well, i see u
> took my 'lets agree to disagree' offer seriously.....
I read and take everything you say seriously....
>Emotions are not needed. They are an extra. Why would a robot need to> learn them?
>It wouldnt need to learn them, so it wouldnt bother.
That is my> argument.
A robot would learn whatever we programmed it to learn, simple as that.
>Sentience and emotion are different, but as i said before we cant> technically tell if anyone but ourselves is sentient or not. That is why we can> never know if robots will be sentient or not. Neither one of us can win this
> argument.
Define sentinece please, before I answer this point.
Look, i JUST
> said that i couldnt (and you couldnt) prove my ((your)argument. anything is
> possible, its just very unlikely.
Why is it very unlikely? Look how far computing has come in the last 50 years. Imagine what will be possible in the next 50, or 100, or 200 years....
We just arent smart enough to copy
> ourselves completlywith The technology we have now (what i refer to when i say
> robot).
Exactly, WITH WHAT WE HAVE NOW. See above.
Well, sorry im
> not a mathmatician Anyway, when you get to quantum physics, maths goes completly
> screwy........
If you're not a mathmetician, you can't prove to me that it's not possible.
Your Honour wrote:
> Blimey, you've written a lot in those two posts, I don't know if I'll cover it
> all.
No need to be rude.
Firstly, the reason I appear to be writing the same thing over and over
> is because you do. I am rephrasing my arguments to try and make you understand
> what I am saying, as it appears you haven't so far.
er, that why i do it to. Seems we have found a For loop in our argument. Lets try and refrain from using the same points again
Ok, that's that out the
> way.
Now, dogs and humans:
I would say that dogs are almost as intelligent
> as humans. You may laugh at this, but look at the evidence. Dogs learn - when
> pets, as children do. In the wild dogs live in communities and hunt in packs,
> they are social animals as opposed to soliatry animals.
So what that they
> haven't built things? That's becuase they have no thumbs. Also, what's wrong
> with lazying around all day licking your testicles? Sounds an ok life to
> me...
Alright, if you want lick your testicles all day go ahead......
As for you thinking I'm insulting you, that is simply because you don't
> appear to be reading or taking on board what I'm saying, I thought language that
> was a bit more risque qould get your attention. No offence meant.
No offense? well sorry but i take lots of offense when someone calls me thick.
Thank you for
As for you
> calling me a Friodian, I have absolutley no idea what one of those is. I hope it
> isn't something rude.
No its not rude. have you heard of DR. Sigmumd Froid?
He founded one of the main schools of pyschology.
basically, his said that all your mental problems were your mothers fault if you were a bloke, and your dads fault if u were a bird. I was just likeneing you to him, because you said your parents teach you how to live.
Oh well, at least you finally feel like i do when you go on about fuzzy logic and sss paradigm programming!
"Not everthing we do is dictated by our parents.
> Plenty of pyscotic murderers have come from wealthy, loving
> parents."
Just becuase parents are wealthy and loving, doesn't mean that
> the children will turn out to be social acceptable. Surely you know a single
> child who is spoilt and loved by his parents, yet is actually a conceited little
> git who thinks the world revolves around him?
Yes, but my point was that how you develop is not completely up to how your parents treat you as you grow up.
"My point is, why do we
> need morals. Guilt only deprives us of possesions and money, love ie
> techinically a weakness that can be used against us.
We are born with these
> things as part of us. Why, we dont know. How we dont know. And because we dont
> know, we couldnt put these into a robot. And the robot would never need to learn
> them, so it wouldnt.
That is proves emotions cant be put into a robot.
As
> for sentience, well personally i dont belive it can be put into a robot. But i
> cannot prove it cannot ever happen. Then again, i cant prove you are are
> sentient. You could just be a robot on the end of the phoneline for all i
> know."
Why do we need morals? You could argue that we don't. But I don't
> see how you can say that guilt deprives us of possesions and money? How does
> that work? Also, I wouldn't say love is a weakness. Love can be an amazing
> strength.
You said yourself that giving to charity is not a selfless act, it is to relive guilt. Well, if you had the choice of feeling guilty and loosing money, or not bothering trying to help something you couldnt possibly change what would you choose?
Love is a weakness. That is why terrorists can take hostages and force us to do what they like. ID still rather have love, but it can hold us back.
Also, I see another conmtradiction in your writings, you say
> "This proves emotions can't be put into a robot." Yet you then say
> that neither of us can prove our argument. If you can't prove your argument, how
> can you say "this proves ..."?
Well, i see u took my 'lets agree to disagree' offer seriously.....
What i meant was:
Emotions are not needed. They are an extra. Why would a robot need to learn them?
It wouldnt need to learn them, so it wouldnt bother.
That is my argument.
Sentience and emotion are different, but as i said before we cant technically tell if anyone but ourselves is sentient or not. That is why we can never know if robots will be sentient or not. Neither one of us can win this argument.
In my opinion, from an engineering
> and programming point of view, there is no reason why sentient robots/computers
> can't be created.
Whether you actually WANT a sentient robot is another
> question completely. As far as I can see, a sentient robot is practically a
> person. But the creation of one is definately possible. Whether it's next year
> or in 1000 years time, it doesn't matter.
I really fail to see how someone
> can say "This isn't possible, ever" which is what you appear to be
> saying. It's very unwise to say "This isn't possible, EVER" as you
> just don't know what will happen in the future.
Look, i JUST said that i couldnt (and you couldnt) prove my ((your)argument. anything is possible, its just very unlikely.
We just arent smart enough to copy ourselves completlywith The technology we have now (what i refer to when i say robot). A little green circuit board or even a million of them is not enough. Maybe if we took a totally different approach, maybe with DNA rather than metal it might be possible. But we could never be sure. Robots in the convention sci-fi sense are definetly outta the question.
Unless you can prove to me
> mathematically that it's not possible, of course....
Well, sorry im not a mathmatician Anyway, when you get to quantum physics, maths goes completly screwy........
> Blimey, you've written a lot in those two posts, I don't know if I'll cover it
> all.
No need to be rude.
Firstly, the reason I appear to be writing the same thing over and over
> is because you do. I am rephrasing my arguments to try and make you understand
> what I am saying, as it appears you haven't so far.
er, that why i do it to. Seems we have found a For loop in our argument. Lets try and refrain from using the same points again
Ok, that's that out the
> way.
Now, dogs and humans:
I would say that dogs are almost as intelligent
> as humans. You may laugh at this, but look at the evidence. Dogs learn - when
> pets, as children do. In the wild dogs live in communities and hunt in packs,
> they are social animals as opposed to soliatry animals.
So what that they
> haven't built things? That's becuase they have no thumbs. Also, what's wrong
> with lazying around all day licking your testicles? Sounds an ok life to
> me...
Alright, if you want lick your testicles all day go ahead......
As for you thinking I'm insulting you, that is simply because you don't
> appear to be reading or taking on board what I'm saying, I thought language that
> was a bit more risque qould get your attention. No offence meant.
No offense? well sorry but i take lots of offense when someone calls me thick.
Thank you for
As for you
> calling me a Friodian, I have absolutley no idea what one of those is. I hope it
> isn't something rude.
No its not rude. have you heard of DR. Sigmumd Froid?
He founded one of the main schools of pyschology.
basically, his said that all your mental problems were your mothers fault if you were a bloke, and your dads fault if u were a bird. I was just likeneing you to him, because you said your parents teach you how to live.
Oh well, at least you finally feel like i do when you go on about fuzzy logic and sss paradigm programming!
"Not everthing we do is dictated by our parents.
> Plenty of pyscotic murderers have come from wealthy, loving
> parents."
Just becuase parents are wealthy and loving, doesn't mean that
> the children will turn out to be social acceptable. Surely you know a single
> child who is spoilt and loved by his parents, yet is actually a conceited little
> git who thinks the world revolves around him?
Yes, but my point was that how you develop is not completely up to how your parents treat you as you grow up.
"My point is, why do we
> need morals. Guilt only deprives us of possesions and money, love ie
> techinically a weakness that can be used against us.
We are born with these
> things as part of us. Why, we dont know. How we dont know. And because we dont
> know, we couldnt put these into a robot. And the robot would never need to learn
> them, so it wouldnt.
That is proves emotions cant be put into a robot.
As
> for sentience, well personally i dont belive it can be put into a robot. But i
> cannot prove it cannot ever happen. Then again, i cant prove you are are
> sentient. You could just be a robot on the end of the phoneline for all i
> know."
Why do we need morals? You could argue that we don't. But I don't
> see how you can say that guilt deprives us of possesions and money? How does
> that work? Also, I wouldn't say love is a weakness. Love can be an amazing
> strength.
You said yourself that giving to charity is not a selfless act, it is to relive guilt. Well, if you had the choice of feeling guilty and loosing money, or not bothering trying to help something you couldnt possibly change what would you choose?
Love is a weakness. That is why terrorists can take hostages and force us to do what they like. ID still rather have love, but it can hold us back.
Also, I see another conmtradiction in your writings, you say
> "This proves emotions can't be put into a robot." Yet you then say
> that neither of us can prove our argument. If you can't prove your argument, how
> can you say "this proves ..."?
Well, i see u took my 'lets agree to disagree' offer seriously.....
What i meant was:
Emotions are not needed. They are an extra. Why would a robot need to learn them?
It wouldnt need to learn them, so it wouldnt bother.
That is my argument.
Sentience and emotion are different, but as i said before we cant technically tell if anyone but ourselves is sentient or not. That is why we can never know if robots will be sentient or not. Neither one of us can win this argument.
In my opinion, from an engineering
> and programming point of view, there is no reason why sentient robots/computers
> can't be created.
Whether you actually WANT a sentient robot is another
> question completely. As far as I can see, a sentient robot is practically a
> person. But the creation of one is definately possible. Whether it's next year
> or in 1000 years time, it doesn't matter.
I really fail to see how someone
> can say "This isn't possible, ever" which is what you appear to be
> saying. It's very unwise to say "This isn't possible, EVER" as you
> just don't know what will happen in the future.
Look, i JUST said that i couldnt (and you couldnt) prove my ((your)argument. anything is possible, its just very unlikely.
We just arent smart enough to copy ourselves completlywith The technology we have now (what i refer to when i say robot). A little green circuit board or even a million of them is not enough. Maybe if we took a totally different approach, maybe with DNA rather than metal it might be possible. But we could never be sure. Robots in the convention sci-fi sense are definetly outta the question.
Unless you can prove to me
> mathematically that it's not possible, of course....
Well, sorry im not a mathmatician Anyway, when you get to quantum physics, maths goes completly screwy........
Page: