The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
The original argument was Edwin's suggestion that 'real' AI was impossible, against my suggestion that there was no reason why it shouldn't be.
Innocent until proven guilty.
It's possible unless you prove it isn't.
I haven't been quoting the same arguments, I've been arguing against your points. I would do that now, but a lot has been said since my last post and I'm tired.
Innocent until proven guilty.
It's possible unless you prove it isn't.
I haven't been quoting the same arguments, I've been arguing against your points. I would do that now, but a lot has been said since my last post and I'm tired.
YAY! another humanitarian (jk)
Humans are pre-programmed with adaptibility and curiousity - robot's need humans to do it for them.
Well again, thanks SIP.
Anyone else gonna fight for the humans?
Anyone else gonna fight for the humans?
etila wrote:
> It will be possible to create a robot with human emotions a 'soul' if you like,
> not now maybe not in a hundred years, but it will eventually happen!
For
> example electricity; try saying that will exist to a roman or an ancient
> egyptian, ortrying to persuade a tudor to belive in Television.
Okay so on the surface this is a valid point. However, electricity is an actual thing that existed within nature, the Romans didnt harness it but they had lightning storms. Now where in nature can anyone show me a real physcial representation of a soul or conscience ? Television again is a real physical thing which interacts with other real physical things. The Tv displays images, created by people, recorded and converted into data that it sent by satellite to transmittors which relay it to your television. It is a method of communication and persuading a tudor might not have been that hard because it comes down to the fact that an image must come from somewhere - it is not spontaneously created from nothing. Now a conscience or soul has no definable source, you cant say it comes from one place because it cannot be seen or made artificially.
We can't think
> of it happening because we feel challenged that there might be something that is
> better than us on our insignificant little planet, so we try and convince
> ourselves that it can't be done, just like alot of us can;t accept that we as a
> race are a freak accident which was never meant to happen so we cling to
> religion.
Nope, I'm the least religious person going so thats not valid. Insignificant ? Yeah I guess life on one planet among hundreds is insignificant - NOT ! Life is never insignificant. We as a race are the product of evolution, unless the X Files happens to be getting a bit of media attention, in which case its trendy to claim aliens put us here. Most religions contradict the scientific view of how the world was created so to say we all cling to it is again a far too wide statement.
>So i agree with VenomByte, it could easily be created, >maybe even
> using a technology making the robot biological with >natural components.
If its so easily created then why isnt it ? :) And if you use biological components where do you get them from ? Cloning ? If you give a robot biological components you remove the advantages the robot form could give with regards to taking damage and illness. What parts would it be beneficial to give a robot ?? The ethics alone are questionable - sure we can do it, but should we. Say you succeed and create the perfect better than human robot then theres antoher problem, eventually your enemies will get that same technology and use it against you. Cananyone imagine the possiblities of terrorist created robots in an urban centre, with no conscience, bullet proof bodies, resistance to gases and toxins, no fear or emotion, the results would be unimaginable. If your aim is to create a biological robot with real human emotions, human parts, a conscience and a soul then theres about 8 billion exapmles on this planet !!
> It will be possible to create a robot with human emotions a 'soul' if you like,
> not now maybe not in a hundred years, but it will eventually happen!
For
> example electricity; try saying that will exist to a roman or an ancient
> egyptian, ortrying to persuade a tudor to belive in Television.
Okay so on the surface this is a valid point. However, electricity is an actual thing that existed within nature, the Romans didnt harness it but they had lightning storms. Now where in nature can anyone show me a real physcial representation of a soul or conscience ? Television again is a real physical thing which interacts with other real physical things. The Tv displays images, created by people, recorded and converted into data that it sent by satellite to transmittors which relay it to your television. It is a method of communication and persuading a tudor might not have been that hard because it comes down to the fact that an image must come from somewhere - it is not spontaneously created from nothing. Now a conscience or soul has no definable source, you cant say it comes from one place because it cannot be seen or made artificially.
We can't think
> of it happening because we feel challenged that there might be something that is
> better than us on our insignificant little planet, so we try and convince
> ourselves that it can't be done, just like alot of us can;t accept that we as a
> race are a freak accident which was never meant to happen so we cling to
> religion.
Nope, I'm the least religious person going so thats not valid. Insignificant ? Yeah I guess life on one planet among hundreds is insignificant - NOT ! Life is never insignificant. We as a race are the product of evolution, unless the X Files happens to be getting a bit of media attention, in which case its trendy to claim aliens put us here. Most religions contradict the scientific view of how the world was created so to say we all cling to it is again a far too wide statement.
>So i agree with VenomByte, it could easily be created, >maybe even
> using a technology making the robot biological with >natural components.
If its so easily created then why isnt it ? :) And if you use biological components where do you get them from ? Cloning ? If you give a robot biological components you remove the advantages the robot form could give with regards to taking damage and illness. What parts would it be beneficial to give a robot ?? The ethics alone are questionable - sure we can do it, but should we. Say you succeed and create the perfect better than human robot then theres antoher problem, eventually your enemies will get that same technology and use it against you. Cananyone imagine the possiblities of terrorist created robots in an urban centre, with no conscience, bullet proof bodies, resistance to gases and toxins, no fear or emotion, the results would be unimaginable. If your aim is to create a biological robot with real human emotions, human parts, a conscience and a soul then theres about 8 billion exapmles on this planet !!
Well thanks again to SIP for actually helping me out.
etila wrote:
> It will be possible to create a robot with human emotions a 'soul' if you like,
> not now maybe not in a hundred years, but it will eventually happen!
For
> example electricity; try saying that will exist to a roman or an ancient
> egyptian, ortrying to persuade a tudor to belive in Television.
We can't think
> of it happening because we feel challenged that there might be something that is
> better than us on our insignificant little planet, so we try and convince
> ourselves that it can't be done, just like alot of us can;t accept that we as a
> race are a freak accident which was never meant to happen so we cling to
> religion.
So i agree with VenomByte, it could easily be created, maybe even
> using a technology making the robot biological with natural components.
But I
> understand your point of view and you have made some good points Edwin25 and
> SIP, you may be right (lol) or i maybe wrong, who knows?!
Well, personally i dont think we and are planet are insignificant. Why does everybody except SIP and me have an inferiority complex?
Maybe we were originally a freak accident, but we are far from meaningless. Which other animal studies its own dna like it was a stip of ribbon with a few letters on it?
We (well most of us) have outgrown instincts and the more primitive reactions. That proves we are more than a simple protien chain.
Taking our own DNA and mixing it with a robotic body (cyborg) would essentially create be a human with a metal body. Are we ready to give anybody that kind of power over others? Also making a human who could not feel, touch or eat might be dangerous. Most people go insane when deprived of simple sensory input for too long.
I am not narrow minded as you belive me to be. Just because i dont belive robots will ever be like humans completely, doesnt mean i am not ready top embrace the future and whatever it may have.
etila wrote:
> It will be possible to create a robot with human emotions a 'soul' if you like,
> not now maybe not in a hundred years, but it will eventually happen!
For
> example electricity; try saying that will exist to a roman or an ancient
> egyptian, ortrying to persuade a tudor to belive in Television.
We can't think
> of it happening because we feel challenged that there might be something that is
> better than us on our insignificant little planet, so we try and convince
> ourselves that it can't be done, just like alot of us can;t accept that we as a
> race are a freak accident which was never meant to happen so we cling to
> religion.
So i agree with VenomByte, it could easily be created, maybe even
> using a technology making the robot biological with natural components.
But I
> understand your point of view and you have made some good points Edwin25 and
> SIP, you may be right (lol) or i maybe wrong, who knows?!
Well, personally i dont think we and are planet are insignificant. Why does everybody except SIP and me have an inferiority complex?
Maybe we were originally a freak accident, but we are far from meaningless. Which other animal studies its own dna like it was a stip of ribbon with a few letters on it?
We (well most of us) have outgrown instincts and the more primitive reactions. That proves we are more than a simple protien chain.
Taking our own DNA and mixing it with a robotic body (cyborg) would essentially create be a human with a metal body. Are we ready to give anybody that kind of power over others? Also making a human who could not feel, touch or eat might be dangerous. Most people go insane when deprived of simple sensory input for too long.
I am not narrow minded as you belive me to be. Just because i dont belive robots will ever be like humans completely, doesnt mean i am not ready top embrace the future and whatever it may have.
It will be possible to create a robot with human emotions a 'soul' if you like, not now maybe not in a hundred years, but it will eventually happen!
For example electricity; try saying that will exist to a roman or an ancient egyptian, ortrying to persuade a tudor to belive in Television.
We can't think of it happening because we feel challenged that there might be something that is better than us on our insignificant little planet, so we try and convince ourselves that it can't be done, just like alot of us can;t accept that we as a race are a freak accident which was never meant to happen so we cling to religion.
So i agree with VenomByte, it could easily be created, maybe even using a technology making the robot biological with natural components.
But I understand your point of view and you have made some good points Edwin25 and SIP, you may be right (lol) or i maybe wrong, who knows?!
For example electricity; try saying that will exist to a roman or an ancient egyptian, ortrying to persuade a tudor to belive in Television.
We can't think of it happening because we feel challenged that there might be something that is better than us on our insignificant little planet, so we try and convince ourselves that it can't be done, just like alot of us can;t accept that we as a race are a freak accident which was never meant to happen so we cling to religion.
So i agree with VenomByte, it could easily be created, maybe even using a technology making the robot biological with natural components.
But I understand your point of view and you have made some good points Edwin25 and SIP, you may be right (lol) or i maybe wrong, who knows?!
VenomByte wrote:
> Basically, you're making a couple of points here (the same ones in every post
> you make)
Because they are the main points I beleive matter, you might not agree but thats the point of forums !
>1) You're insisting a robot will always think logically and
> unemotionally.
>Which basically means you've been watching too many Sci-fi
> films, and haven't taken a blind bit of notice of >anything you've been told in
> this thread.
Ok so if a robot is going to be emotional whats the advantages ? Robots are envisioned to be used to things human find too dangerous. We consider them too dangerous because of our emotions - like fear - a robot with emotions would fear its own destruction whether the situation it faced actually threatened it or not. If a robot will not to what humans won't then that is one advantage gone.
2) You're assuming that humans have something which can >never be
> recreated - soul, conscience, whatever.
>I ask why can it not be recreated?
> You are a biological entity, not a spiritual one.
You're right, we are biological. A robot that is created would be mechanical, made from inanimate parts and programming. It could give the illusion of conscience by using programming to imitate it but that programming ultimately comes from a human who has a design to follow regarding the robot. That conscience owned by the robot is not one moulded by experience, life and other things - its is the creation of a human.
>Also, you have the ignorant
> and elitist view that humans are very different to >animals. You said a dog could
> be recreated because it wasn't as difficult as a human. >That, to me, shows how
> completely ignorant you are of the underlying issues >involved here. In terms of
> the basic problems needing to be addressed, making a robotic human is only a
> small step up from a robotic dog. Do you realise how complicated a dog
> is?
I said it would be easy to ccreate a dog that people would accept, not an accurate representation of one. You are the ignorant one if you have not read what I have put or cannot bother to ask me to clarify what I mean. I agree that creating a robot would be easy if that robot was for a specific task or if you wanted to creat an unquestioning monster that obeyed everything. That's not life, its slavery and morally wrong.
>You are the people who would once have argued that man was >never meant to
> fly. You are the people who would have been horrified at >the notion that the
> Earth was round, and not at the center of the universe.
On what basis ? Because I disagree with you makes me that kind of person ? To the contrary I agree with technology and where it has taken the human race, but I will never accept you can create a robot which is better than a real human. I'm not against technology, if you read my other posts on other topics you'd see that, but I guess you haven't and are just throwing blind accusations. The very fact we had gravity on earth meant it had to be round by the way, and as early as the 1800's it was an acknowledged fact that any nation which could control tha air would have an advantage over others, we just needed the technology.
>You can't argue
> against science with ethics and religion. You might try, >and it might sound
> convincing to you and those sharing your view, but at the >end of the day you're
> spouting theoretical, insubstanciated rubbish. You simply >cannot prove anything
> with it.
Well I believe no one on this earth has made a robot which acts like a human so everything you're saying is indeed theoretical and unsubstantiated facts (things are not rubbish just because you disagree) You yourself cannot prove anything and the point of a forum is to discuss, not blindly accuse people of being what they are not. If you believe you cannot mix science with ethics then the rest of the world disagrees - Nuremberg again emphasised thatas does the debate over cloning. Science and religion is a more complex topic, because what religion ? To a degree all religion relies on science, for example the properties of some metals seem to heal certain illnesses despite no obvious proof ( copper and rheumatism ), but maybe its just science cannot explain it yet. The sum of human knowledge is never complete so to rule out anything is ignorant with regards to the future.
> Basically, you're making a couple of points here (the same ones in every post
> you make)
Because they are the main points I beleive matter, you might not agree but thats the point of forums !
>1) You're insisting a robot will always think logically and
> unemotionally.
>Which basically means you've been watching too many Sci-fi
> films, and haven't taken a blind bit of notice of >anything you've been told in
> this thread.
Ok so if a robot is going to be emotional whats the advantages ? Robots are envisioned to be used to things human find too dangerous. We consider them too dangerous because of our emotions - like fear - a robot with emotions would fear its own destruction whether the situation it faced actually threatened it or not. If a robot will not to what humans won't then that is one advantage gone.
2) You're assuming that humans have something which can >never be
> recreated - soul, conscience, whatever.
>I ask why can it not be recreated?
> You are a biological entity, not a spiritual one.
You're right, we are biological. A robot that is created would be mechanical, made from inanimate parts and programming. It could give the illusion of conscience by using programming to imitate it but that programming ultimately comes from a human who has a design to follow regarding the robot. That conscience owned by the robot is not one moulded by experience, life and other things - its is the creation of a human.
>Also, you have the ignorant
> and elitist view that humans are very different to >animals. You said a dog could
> be recreated because it wasn't as difficult as a human. >That, to me, shows how
> completely ignorant you are of the underlying issues >involved here. In terms of
> the basic problems needing to be addressed, making a robotic human is only a
> small step up from a robotic dog. Do you realise how complicated a dog
> is?
I said it would be easy to ccreate a dog that people would accept, not an accurate representation of one. You are the ignorant one if you have not read what I have put or cannot bother to ask me to clarify what I mean. I agree that creating a robot would be easy if that robot was for a specific task or if you wanted to creat an unquestioning monster that obeyed everything. That's not life, its slavery and morally wrong.
>You are the people who would once have argued that man was >never meant to
> fly. You are the people who would have been horrified at >the notion that the
> Earth was round, and not at the center of the universe.
On what basis ? Because I disagree with you makes me that kind of person ? To the contrary I agree with technology and where it has taken the human race, but I will never accept you can create a robot which is better than a real human. I'm not against technology, if you read my other posts on other topics you'd see that, but I guess you haven't and are just throwing blind accusations. The very fact we had gravity on earth meant it had to be round by the way, and as early as the 1800's it was an acknowledged fact that any nation which could control tha air would have an advantage over others, we just needed the technology.
>You can't argue
> against science with ethics and religion. You might try, >and it might sound
> convincing to you and those sharing your view, but at the >end of the day you're
> spouting theoretical, insubstanciated rubbish. You simply >cannot prove anything
> with it.
Well I believe no one on this earth has made a robot which acts like a human so everything you're saying is indeed theoretical and unsubstantiated facts (things are not rubbish just because you disagree) You yourself cannot prove anything and the point of a forum is to discuss, not blindly accuse people of being what they are not. If you believe you cannot mix science with ethics then the rest of the world disagrees - Nuremberg again emphasised thatas does the debate over cloning. Science and religion is a more complex topic, because what religion ? To a degree all religion relies on science, for example the properties of some metals seem to heal certain illnesses despite no obvious proof ( copper and rheumatism ), but maybe its just science cannot explain it yet. The sum of human knowledge is never complete so to rule out anything is ignorant with regards to the future.
VenomByte wrote:
> Basically, you're making a couple of points here (the same ones in every post
> you make)
So do you matey!
1) You're insisting a robot will always think logically and
> unemotionally.
Which basically means you've been watching too many Sci-fi
> films, and haven't taken a blind bit of notice of anything you've been told in
> this thread.
Yes i have. But programs will only 'learn' what they need to. No logic in helping others is there? But plenty in killing your main opponents = humans. And there is no logical use for emotions, so robots wont need to learn them.
2) You're assuming that humans have something which can never be
> recreated - soul, conscience, whatever.
I ask why can it not be recreated?
> You are a biological entity, not a spiritual one.
Well most of the world disagrees with you there. 500 religions cant be wrong! (jk)
I dont want to get into what heaven is, and what god created us, but sentience is the one thing we have over all other animals on the planet. I think, therefor I am. I know i exist. You know you exist. But how will we know a robot will exist?
You shouldnt just say humans are a biological accident caused by DNA. You know we are far more than that. Does a puddle of goo on the floor ever wonder 'why am i puddle of goo on the floor?' Do humans wonder why they are human?
Also, you have the ignorant
> and elitist view that humans are very different to animals. You said a dog could
> be recreated because it wasn't as difficult as a human. That, to me, shows how
> completely ignorant you are of the underlying issues involved here. In terms of
> the basic problems needing to be addressed, making a robotic human is only a
> small step up from a robotic dog. Do you realise how complicated a dog
> is?
A robotic dog might be complicated but not impossible. surely you belive there is a rather obvious, large gap between dogs and humans?
Dogs are not sentient. They have no civilisation. They rely on instinct, and instinct alone. This would not be hard to replicate. Humans however, think and talk and build civilasations. Replicating this would be impossible.
You are the people who would once have argued that man was never meant to
> fly. You are the people who would have been horrified at the notion that the
> Earth was round, and not at the center of the universe.
Man was never meant to fly on a genetic level, and that is bloody obvious. Anyway, robots and astrophysics are quite different topics. You cant compare them.
You can't argue
> against science with ethics and religion. You might try, and it might sound
> convincing to you and those sharing your view, but at the end of the day you're
> spouting theoretical, insubstanciated rubbish. You simply cannot prove anything
> with it.
Isnt science just a religion? no god, but the cold comfort that eveything has a reason and everything can be explained?
You must accept that there are many mysteries that science will never be explained. Like 'what caused the big bang?' and ' what existed before the big bang?'. some things science, nor general religion will never answer or solve.
> Basically, you're making a couple of points here (the same ones in every post
> you make)
So do you matey!
1) You're insisting a robot will always think logically and
> unemotionally.
Which basically means you've been watching too many Sci-fi
> films, and haven't taken a blind bit of notice of anything you've been told in
> this thread.
Yes i have. But programs will only 'learn' what they need to. No logic in helping others is there? But plenty in killing your main opponents = humans. And there is no logical use for emotions, so robots wont need to learn them.
2) You're assuming that humans have something which can never be
> recreated - soul, conscience, whatever.
I ask why can it not be recreated?
> You are a biological entity, not a spiritual one.
Well most of the world disagrees with you there. 500 religions cant be wrong! (jk)
I dont want to get into what heaven is, and what god created us, but sentience is the one thing we have over all other animals on the planet. I think, therefor I am. I know i exist. You know you exist. But how will we know a robot will exist?
You shouldnt just say humans are a biological accident caused by DNA. You know we are far more than that. Does a puddle of goo on the floor ever wonder 'why am i puddle of goo on the floor?' Do humans wonder why they are human?
Also, you have the ignorant
> and elitist view that humans are very different to animals. You said a dog could
> be recreated because it wasn't as difficult as a human. That, to me, shows how
> completely ignorant you are of the underlying issues involved here. In terms of
> the basic problems needing to be addressed, making a robotic human is only a
> small step up from a robotic dog. Do you realise how complicated a dog
> is?
A robotic dog might be complicated but not impossible. surely you belive there is a rather obvious, large gap between dogs and humans?
Dogs are not sentient. They have no civilisation. They rely on instinct, and instinct alone. This would not be hard to replicate. Humans however, think and talk and build civilasations. Replicating this would be impossible.
You are the people who would once have argued that man was never meant to
> fly. You are the people who would have been horrified at the notion that the
> Earth was round, and not at the center of the universe.
Man was never meant to fly on a genetic level, and that is bloody obvious. Anyway, robots and astrophysics are quite different topics. You cant compare them.
You can't argue
> against science with ethics and religion. You might try, and it might sound
> convincing to you and those sharing your view, but at the end of the day you're
> spouting theoretical, insubstanciated rubbish. You simply cannot prove anything
> with it.
Isnt science just a religion? no god, but the cold comfort that eveything has a reason and everything can be explained?
You must accept that there are many mysteries that science will never be explained. Like 'what caused the big bang?' and ' what existed before the big bang?'. some things science, nor general religion will never answer or solve.
Basically, you're making a couple of points here (the same ones in every post you make)
1) You're insisting a robot will always think logically and unemotionally.
Which basically means you've been watching too many Sci-fi films, and haven't taken a blind bit of notice of anything you've been told in this thread.
2) You're assuming that humans have something which can never be recreated - soul, conscience, whatever.
I ask why can it not be recreated? You are a biological entity, not a spiritual one.
Also, you have the ignorant and elitist view that humans are very different to animals. You said a dog could be recreated because it wasn't as difficult as a human. That, to me, shows how completely ignorant you are of the underlying issues involved here. In terms of the basic problems needing to be addressed, making a robotic human is only a small step up from a robotic dog. Do you realise how complicated a dog is?
You are the people who would once have argued that man was never meant to fly. You are the people who would have been horrified at the notion that the Earth was round, and not at the center of the universe.
You can't argue against science with ethics and religion. You might try, and it might sound convincing to you and those sharing your view, but at the end of the day you're spouting theoretical, insubstanciated rubbish. You simply cannot prove anything with it.
1) You're insisting a robot will always think logically and unemotionally.
Which basically means you've been watching too many Sci-fi films, and haven't taken a blind bit of notice of anything you've been told in this thread.
2) You're assuming that humans have something which can never be recreated - soul, conscience, whatever.
I ask why can it not be recreated? You are a biological entity, not a spiritual one.
Also, you have the ignorant and elitist view that humans are very different to animals. You said a dog could be recreated because it wasn't as difficult as a human. That, to me, shows how completely ignorant you are of the underlying issues involved here. In terms of the basic problems needing to be addressed, making a robotic human is only a small step up from a robotic dog. Do you realise how complicated a dog is?
You are the people who would once have argued that man was never meant to fly. You are the people who would have been horrified at the notion that the Earth was round, and not at the center of the universe.
You can't argue against science with ethics and religion. You might try, and it might sound convincing to you and those sharing your view, but at the end of the day you're spouting theoretical, insubstanciated rubbish. You simply cannot prove anything with it.
Page: