The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Ok i will.
You see
A) humans and robots are totally different. A soul is a human thing. It cant be transferred.
b) You cant 'program' a soul. It is earned by experience.
c) robots will have something as a counterpart, but it wont be the same as robots are obviously not the same as humans. What robots will have is a mystery, but it will be along the lines of a computer. IE. lots of logic, little creativity.
You see
A) humans and robots are totally different. A soul is a human thing. It cant be transferred.
b) You cant 'program' a soul. It is earned by experience.
c) robots will have something as a counterpart, but it wont be the same as robots are obviously not the same as humans. What robots will have is a mystery, but it will be along the lines of a computer. IE. lots of logic, little creativity.
Why can't the robot be programmed to have a soul?
Answer that.
Answer that.
Look lets do a test: i will hit you, and you can tell me when it hurts.
The brain and the computer are totally different. We know the brain makes sentience, but we cant be sure what the computer can do. what it will create wont have any semblance to us. It will be a totally new thing. It may think, but it wont feel. We are just starting out. Humans are the result of millions of years work, computers are about 80. Large gap.
You (and culture today) seem to find a real link between the brain and a computer. You think humans could be outmatched by robots, and you desperatly seek to create the metal adonis. Why i will never be sure, but like alot of dreams it will never happen. Robots will be like any of our representation of ourselves Almost real, but lacking that vital element, called by some a soul.
The brain works behind 'us' (the part of the brain which stores our personality, the cerebellum) and without 'us'. We can never be sure what the brain does, as we dont have complete control over it. We only have a small room in the house. Emotions can overwhelm logic and reason like a flood at any second, We also have depths that we rarely get to, like artistic design and love. We havent even begun to explore what we can do. We still have remeants of ape fur, and useless toe's. We are a middle stage, and what we will become is beyond our comprehension at the moment. We are smart now, but we will be somrthing far better than a system of 1, 0 and electricity. Give us time, and dont be so quick to try and replace us.
The brain and the computer are totally different. We know the brain makes sentience, but we cant be sure what the computer can do. what it will create wont have any semblance to us. It will be a totally new thing. It may think, but it wont feel. We are just starting out. Humans are the result of millions of years work, computers are about 80. Large gap.
You (and culture today) seem to find a real link between the brain and a computer. You think humans could be outmatched by robots, and you desperatly seek to create the metal adonis. Why i will never be sure, but like alot of dreams it will never happen. Robots will be like any of our representation of ourselves Almost real, but lacking that vital element, called by some a soul.
The brain works behind 'us' (the part of the brain which stores our personality, the cerebellum) and without 'us'. We can never be sure what the brain does, as we dont have complete control over it. We only have a small room in the house. Emotions can overwhelm logic and reason like a flood at any second, We also have depths that we rarely get to, like artistic design and love. We havent even begun to explore what we can do. We still have remeants of ape fur, and useless toe's. We are a middle stage, and what we will become is beyond our comprehension at the moment. We are smart now, but we will be somrthing far better than a system of 1, 0 and electricity. Give us time, and dont be so quick to try and replace us.
Hav you read any of what me and Venom have put? Just because you don't know how to do something, doesn't make it impossible.
A neuron system works the same as a probability tree, but the other way round. Or one of those charts for the world cup, where you start of with all the teams, and then narrow it down, stage by stage.
You start off with loads of inputs. If these collate to being over the threshold level, you move on to the next stage, where other results are put together.
If this is over the threshold level you move onto the thrid stage, where you mix it with other results etc etc.
This continues until either a). you're not over the threshold level, or b). You get to the end and carry out the result, like hitting the bloke back.
That's how it works in the brain (albeit a very simplified version) and that's how it works in a computer program as well. Just because we can't do it now, doesn't mean we won't be able to in the future....
A neuron system works the same as a probability tree, but the other way round. Or one of those charts for the world cup, where you start of with all the teams, and then narrow it down, stage by stage.
You start off with loads of inputs. If these collate to being over the threshold level, you move on to the next stage, where other results are put together.
If this is over the threshold level you move onto the thrid stage, where you mix it with other results etc etc.
This continues until either a). you're not over the threshold level, or b). You get to the end and carry out the result, like hitting the bloke back.
That's how it works in the brain (albeit a very simplified version) and that's how it works in a computer program as well. Just because we can't do it now, doesn't mean we won't be able to in the future....
If i get hit in the stomach, it will hurt. I dont need a boxer to do it!
Bit thin on the ground your argument is.
Venom and I have already proven that programming and the human mind are hideously complicated. U cant say one can learn so the other can to. They are totally different.
Bit thin on the ground your argument is.
Venom and I have already proven that programming and the human mind are hideously complicated. U cant say one can learn so the other can to. They are totally different.
From what I've done on this at universtiy (which sounds to be less than Venom, so no doubt he can correct me), tells me this:
Say you get hit in the stomach.
Signals (1's or 0's) get sent to the brain. Parts of the brain recieve them. They go through some neurons, each neuron has a different weighting. So if for example neuron 1, 2, 3 and 4 had a weighting of 10, and neuron 5 had a weighting of 200, for example, and the threshold was 70. If neuron 1, 2, 3 and 4 recieved a 1 and neuron 5 recieved a zero, the overall threshold would only be 40 (40x1).
Becuase of this, the result would be a zero, so your brain wouldn't feel any pain.
If however, LEnnox Lewis punched you in the stomch, all of the neurons would be high (logic 1), so the result would go over the threshold, and you would feel pain.
It's exactly the same in a computer.
Multiply these inputs by the weighting, if the result is over the limit, save the data. Or whatever. It's the same.
As for the morals things, I think people learn morals as they grow up. If each time a kid says a swear word, and his mum slaps him, he'll stop swearing. If however, his dad says "Nice one son!" then he'll carry on.
It's the same with a computer. It can learn in the same way.
Say you get hit in the stomach.
Signals (1's or 0's) get sent to the brain. Parts of the brain recieve them. They go through some neurons, each neuron has a different weighting. So if for example neuron 1, 2, 3 and 4 had a weighting of 10, and neuron 5 had a weighting of 200, for example, and the threshold was 70. If neuron 1, 2, 3 and 4 recieved a 1 and neuron 5 recieved a zero, the overall threshold would only be 40 (40x1).
Becuase of this, the result would be a zero, so your brain wouldn't feel any pain.
If however, LEnnox Lewis punched you in the stomch, all of the neurons would be high (logic 1), so the result would go over the threshold, and you would feel pain.
It's exactly the same in a computer.
Multiply these inputs by the weighting, if the result is over the limit, save the data. Or whatever. It's the same.
As for the morals things, I think people learn morals as they grow up. If each time a kid says a swear word, and his mum slaps him, he'll stop swearing. If however, his dad says "Nice one son!" then he'll carry on.
It's the same with a computer. It can learn in the same way.
One thing that robots have over humans, they don't feel pain.
Not much evidence there matey.
Physics and biology are quite different. Anyway we only have THEORIES on the stars. We have no proof. The same goes for the brain. Anyway, science fiction said we would all be living on the moon by now, and we're not.
Physics and biology are quite different. Anyway we only have THEORIES on the stars. We have no proof. The same goes for the brain. Anyway, science fiction said we would all be living on the moon by now, and we're not.
Just from looking at the light emitted from stars, we can tell their age, distance, mass, speed, chemical composition, and a whole host of other things. Sounds absurd, doesn't it?
Yet you say we'll never be able to understand how our brain works, despite the fact we have such easy access to it for scientific testing and research purposes. I think the suggestion that we'll never be able to understand how the brain works, is rather like the old suggestion that we'd ever be able to walk on the moon.
Yet you say we'll never be able to understand how our brain works, despite the fact we have such easy access to it for scientific testing and research purposes. I think the suggestion that we'll never be able to understand how the brain works, is rather like the old suggestion that we'd ever be able to walk on the moon.
well i used some bad wording. What i meant was, we dont know exactly how we work. You dont know, I dont know, even the best phychiatrist in the world doesnt know completely.
Things are hidden in our brain, and because it is our brain we cant understand it completely. It would be like trying to write a review on your own artwork or creation. We have theroies and ideas, but they are just that. Ideas. No definet proof. Some parts of the brain are more active than others, but the brain still is a mystery. Seritonin is linked to happyness, but we dont know quite why. We also dont know why vCJD causes the protiens in our brain to change.
Seeming as we are the only sentient species available for study, and we only have limited information, we cannot replicate ourselves. We can try and make our own version of it, but it would be like an artist trying to make new arms for the venus de milo. It wouldnt be the same. It wouldnt be like it was supposed to be. It wouldnt work.
Things are hidden in our brain, and because it is our brain we cant understand it completely. It would be like trying to write a review on your own artwork or creation. We have theroies and ideas, but they are just that. Ideas. No definet proof. Some parts of the brain are more active than others, but the brain still is a mystery. Seritonin is linked to happyness, but we dont know quite why. We also dont know why vCJD causes the protiens in our brain to change.
Seeming as we are the only sentient species available for study, and we only have limited information, we cannot replicate ourselves. We can try and make our own version of it, but it would be like an artist trying to make new arms for the venus de milo. It wouldnt be the same. It wouldnt be like it was supposed to be. It wouldnt work.
Page: