The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Blimey, you've written a lot in those two posts, I don't know if I'll cover it all.
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.
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...
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.
As for you calling me a Friodian, I have absolutley no idea what one of those is. I hope it isn't something rude.
"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?
"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.
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 ..."?
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.
Unless you can prove to me mathematically that it's not possible, of course....
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.
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...
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.
As for you calling me a Friodian, I have absolutley no idea what one of those is. I hope it isn't something rude.
"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?
"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.
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 ..."?
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.
Unless you can prove to me mathematically that it's not possible, of course....
By the way i took all your advice, and read all you work in detail.
By the way i am not 'thick' just because i dont agree with your points.
I just read and reply to one person at a time as you all write alot and i dont have the time to sit here all day and reply.
And why do I notice that your honour is always the one insulting me? Surely he realises that in a real debate their is no point in insulting your opponent just because they dont share your views. Notice how everyone else is kind and refrains from insulting me directly your honour?
I refrain from insulting you, please show me at least a little courteousy.
And now back to the action, hopefully without all that lip from YH..........
I never said i belive in god. You all label me as a religious fanatic just because I dont instantly comply to the general belief that robots will be just like us, or even better one day.
there is a word for labelling someone for their personal beliefs. Its 'perscution'
Anyway rant over...... (wipes brow, takes deep breath)
Dogs and humans are different, wouldnt you agree?
Would you also agree that robotic dogs and humans would be different?
I made te mistake of hastily writing replies, as i have said before, my time is limited.
Dogs do have a little something in them, but as we cannot communicate with them, will will never know to what extent that 'something' goes to. But any creature which eats its excrement and licks its testicles cant be too smart now can it?
MY definetion of a soul, is SELF awareness. No one else but you can be sure you exist. No one else knows what you are really thinking. They can have a much better idea by being able to talk and reson with you, but they can never be sure.
The same is true with robots. We cant be sure they will be real, and we cant be sure they are not. We must agree to disagree. No side can win this arguement, not even with insults YH so i suggest we form a truce. I agree that i MAY be wrong, if you agree u MAY be wrong. OK?
By the way i am not 'thick' just because i dont agree with your points.
I just read and reply to one person at a time as you all write alot and i dont have the time to sit here all day and reply.
And why do I notice that your honour is always the one insulting me? Surely he realises that in a real debate their is no point in insulting your opponent just because they dont share your views. Notice how everyone else is kind and refrains from insulting me directly your honour?
I refrain from insulting you, please show me at least a little courteousy.
And now back to the action, hopefully without all that lip from YH..........
I never said i belive in god. You all label me as a religious fanatic just because I dont instantly comply to the general belief that robots will be just like us, or even better one day.
there is a word for labelling someone for their personal beliefs. Its 'perscution'
Anyway rant over...... (wipes brow, takes deep breath)
Dogs and humans are different, wouldnt you agree?
Would you also agree that robotic dogs and humans would be different?
I made te mistake of hastily writing replies, as i have said before, my time is limited.
Dogs do have a little something in them, but as we cannot communicate with them, will will never know to what extent that 'something' goes to. But any creature which eats its excrement and licks its testicles cant be too smart now can it?
MY definetion of a soul, is SELF awareness. No one else but you can be sure you exist. No one else knows what you are really thinking. They can have a much better idea by being able to talk and reson with you, but they can never be sure.
The same is true with robots. We cant be sure they will be real, and we cant be sure they are not. We must agree to disagree. No side can win this arguement, not even with insults YH so i suggest we form a truce. I agree that i MAY be wrong, if you agree u MAY be wrong. OK?
Your Honour wrote:
I believe that when people are born, they are like an
> empty piece of paper.
They learn things as they grow, they learn morals, they
> learn right from wrong etc. Why do they need a soul? They know if what they are
> doing is right or wrong, as they were taught it by their parents.
Ah. I see you are a froidian.
Not everthing we do is dictated by our parents. Plenty of pyscotic murderers have come from wealthy, loving parents.
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.
All i am sure of is that I exist. I can't be completely sure of anything else.
But, i can give reasons why it is very UNLIKELY that robots cannot be sentient, and I have done so.
The reason this argument is a standoff. because you cant PROVE your point, and I cant PROVE mine. Lets agree to disagree.
to be
> honest I'm getting increasingly tired of answering your same old points over and
> over. It wouldn't surprise me if this was some school project, and you're just
> going to copy out and hand in everything me and Venom have said.
Getting tired of the same old points? But you throw the same points back at me each time as well =
'humans dont have a soul'
'programming'
'they can learn
etc.
I dont have any intention of using this as a topic for school (anyway ive finished school) and i find it quite offensive that you think i wouldnt ask your permission.
Going back
> to the original topic, you seem to have changed your view. Initially you're
> saying that robots can't ever be sentient, yet now you're saying they have ne
> need for sentience.
If they have no need for it, it must still be an option
> for them to have it, so therefore you're now contradicting yourself from what
> you were saying initially.
If you don't understand what I've jsut said, as I
> didn't explain it very well, you are now accepting the possibility that robots
> could be sentient.
How did I work that out?
Well, you're now saying that
> robots won't need sentience. But for them to not need it, it must be possible
> for them to have it. Like buying an umbrella. It's not raining, so I don't need
> an umbrella, but I can buy one if I want one.
look i dont need to make giant rocks by blinking. And i cant, by the laws of physics. Just because i dont need something, doesnt mean its automatically possible.
That argument is flawed.
If I couldn't buy one, I
> wouldn't say, "I don't need an umbrella", I'd say "I can't buy an
> umbrella" in the same way a robot won't say "I don't need
> sentinece", as it's not option for him to have it.
See?
You've now
> contradicted yourself, and you now accept the possibility of robots/computers
> being sentient.
No i havent. See above.
And i must thank you all for your intrest and time. This topic has become far bigger than i ever expected it to be.
I urge you all to continue debating this, as it is an important topic Morally, religiously and scientifically.
I will always add my point of view, but as i said above, neither side can win this argument.
I believe that when people are born, they are like an
> empty piece of paper.
They learn things as they grow, they learn morals, they
> learn right from wrong etc. Why do they need a soul? They know if what they are
> doing is right or wrong, as they were taught it by their parents.
Ah. I see you are a froidian.
Not everthing we do is dictated by our parents. Plenty of pyscotic murderers have come from wealthy, loving parents.
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.
All i am sure of is that I exist. I can't be completely sure of anything else.
But, i can give reasons why it is very UNLIKELY that robots cannot be sentient, and I have done so.
The reason this argument is a standoff. because you cant PROVE your point, and I cant PROVE mine. Lets agree to disagree.
to be
> honest I'm getting increasingly tired of answering your same old points over and
> over. It wouldn't surprise me if this was some school project, and you're just
> going to copy out and hand in everything me and Venom have said.
Getting tired of the same old points? But you throw the same points back at me each time as well =
'humans dont have a soul'
'programming'
'they can learn
etc.
I dont have any intention of using this as a topic for school (anyway ive finished school) and i find it quite offensive that you think i wouldnt ask your permission.
Going back
> to the original topic, you seem to have changed your view. Initially you're
> saying that robots can't ever be sentient, yet now you're saying they have ne
> need for sentience.
If they have no need for it, it must still be an option
> for them to have it, so therefore you're now contradicting yourself from what
> you were saying initially.
If you don't understand what I've jsut said, as I
> didn't explain it very well, you are now accepting the possibility that robots
> could be sentient.
How did I work that out?
Well, you're now saying that
> robots won't need sentience. But for them to not need it, it must be possible
> for them to have it. Like buying an umbrella. It's not raining, so I don't need
> an umbrella, but I can buy one if I want one.
look i dont need to make giant rocks by blinking. And i cant, by the laws of physics. Just because i dont need something, doesnt mean its automatically possible.
That argument is flawed.
If I couldn't buy one, I
> wouldn't say, "I don't need an umbrella", I'd say "I can't buy an
> umbrella" in the same way a robot won't say "I don't need
> sentinece", as it's not option for him to have it.
See?
You've now
> contradicted yourself, and you now accept the possibility of robots/computers
> being sentient.
No i havent. See above.
And i must thank you all for your intrest and time. This topic has become far bigger than i ever expected it to be.
I urge you all to continue debating this, as it is an important topic Morally, religiously and scientifically.
I will always add my point of view, but as i said above, neither side can win this argument.
Yeah, what he said.
Actaully, make it a double, with cheese.
Actaully, make it a double, with cheese.
Yes. Most of our perceived 'soul' stems from a mixture of morality, intelligence and emotional responses to certain situations. Slamming our new AI robot because it has no emotion is typical of human behaviour, in categorising all sets of intelligent life below use because they do not match criteria set out by us.
An ideal example of this would be the character 'Data' from Star Trek. Most of the character interaction involves Data attempting to logically rationalise human emotional behaviour, which he cannot of course do (except he could at one point). Looking at another character from Star Trek, Mr Spock, we see the same confusion generated by his inability to comprehend what the fuss is all about.
This does not make him any less a sentient being (albeit a fictional one). Data is no less a sentient being, our AI bot is no less a sentient being. Just because it does not require love in the same way that we do, doesn't make it any less 'alive'.
It's comfortable to assume that any other sentient life ascribes to the same principles that we do, but it is just as likely that they will not. This holds true to any artificial life that we may create.
An ideal example of this would be the character 'Data' from Star Trek. Most of the character interaction involves Data attempting to logically rationalise human emotional behaviour, which he cannot of course do (except he could at one point). Looking at another character from Star Trek, Mr Spock, we see the same confusion generated by his inability to comprehend what the fuss is all about.
This does not make him any less a sentient being (albeit a fictional one). Data is no less a sentient being, our AI bot is no less a sentient being. Just because it does not require love in the same way that we do, doesn't make it any less 'alive'.
It's comfortable to assume that any other sentient life ascribes to the same principles that we do, but it is just as likely that they will not. This holds true to any artificial life that we may create.
To me, most of those definitions make absolutely no sense at all, except for 5a. Which, as far as I'm concerned, kids are taught by their parents as they grow up. Morals, right and wrong etc should all be taught to kids by their parents.
I fail to see why a robot (or dog)
> cannot exhibit these traits. Exept of course that it is only used by humans for
> describing other humans. Which is quite fortunate for us really.
Exactly. Dog's can, and indeed do, exhibit those traits. Dogs can love people, if you've ever had one as a pet you'll know what I mean.
dDogs have morals, they know it's wrong to crap on the carpet etc. What's the difference between that and a human knowing it's wrong to kill someone? Nothing.
I fail to see why a robot (or dog)
> cannot exhibit these traits. Exept of course that it is only used by humans for
> describing other humans. Which is quite fortunate for us really.
Exactly. Dog's can, and indeed do, exhibit those traits. Dogs can love people, if you've ever had one as a pet you'll know what I mean.
dDogs have morals, they know it's wrong to crap on the carpet etc. What's the difference between that and a human knowing it's wrong to kill someone? Nothing.
Here's Websters definition:
Main Entry: 1soul
Pronunciation: 'sOl
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English soule, from Old English sAwol; akin to Old High German sEula soul
Date: before 12th century
1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
2 a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe b capitalized, Christian Science
3 : a person's total self
4 a : an active or essential part b : a moving spirit
5 a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c : spiritual or moral force
I fail to see why a robot (or dog) cannot exhibit these traits. Exept of course that it is only used by humans for describing other humans. Which is quite fortunate for us really.
Main Entry: 1soul
Pronunciation: 'sOl
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English soule, from Old English sAwol; akin to Old High German sEula soul
Date: before 12th century
1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
2 a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe b capitalized, Christian Science
3 : a person's total self
4 a : an active or essential part b : a moving spirit
5 a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c : spiritual or moral force
I fail to see why a robot (or dog) cannot exhibit these traits. Exept of course that it is only used by humans for describing other humans. Which is quite fortunate for us really.
Hooplah wrote:
PS,
> liked the FOR thing. Heh, programming humour....
Just thought about it as I'm doing a bit of programming at work.
As for the SOUL thing, I personally think that the word SOUL is defineable in so many different ways that it has actually become meaningless.
But maybe that's just me...
PS,
> liked the FOR thing. Heh, programming humour....
Just thought about it as I'm doing a bit of programming at work.
As for the SOUL thing, I personally think that the word SOUL is defineable in so many different ways that it has actually become meaningless.
But maybe that's just me...
The trouble with the soul is that it is an entirely human created phenomena, which can be used to handily separate us from animals when the need is required. But if god did create humans and dogs, it's not very nice that dogs aren't allowed into the afterlife.
I thought all dogs went to heaven??
;0)
PS, liked the FOR thing. Heh, programming humour....
I thought all dogs went to heaven??
;0)
PS, liked the FOR thing. Heh, programming humour....
Page: