• Robots compared to animals
    44 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;33193116]Our consciousness is just caused by our brains being very advanced. Theoretically, you would be able to produce the exact same result by programming an extremely advanced computer that way.[/QUOTE] Yes, I tried to acknowledge that. Robots/technology are/is (slashSLASH) nowhere near that advanced though, so therefore they are just inanimate objects.
[QUOTE=Andokool12;33207667]Yes, I tried to acknowledge that. Robots/technology are/is (slashSLASH) nowhere near that advanced though, so therefore they are just inanimate objects.[/QUOTE] They aren't as advanced as most animals that we see daily, but they have the ability to be- Also, microorganisms exist that are many times more simple than current robots, and have simpler brains. I'm not just talking about dogs and cats.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;33195394]True, however we can chose to ignore those signals, they can't. If you've got ten big guys coming to kill you, and you twist your ankle, you're going to keep running.[/QUOTE] This isn't a very good argument. There's nothing stopping you from programming a robot to evaluate which of its functions should be running to which degree based on its surroundings and internal statuses. There's also nothing stopping you from programming self-learning AI. This has been done fairly successfully already, and AI complexity is increasing at a massive pace as technology progresses.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;33197477]Robots don't have free will, at least not at the moment as robots are pre-programmed do to tasks, while I'm sure that all forms of life have at least some basic free will. I'm sure even workers for a colony (such as bees) would still have free will, or simply just free thought (but they only act for a greater good). Animals are also capable of reproduction, I think that's also a factor to be considered in this debate.[/QUOTE] Free will doesn't exist. You just take your past experiences and factor that into how you act in response to any given situation.
Right now I think it's fairly easy for everyone to say that robots aren't a form of life. I think once robotics has advanced and we actually have advanced robots like in Sci-Fi then the debate will become more interesting. Maybe it would be easier to call them a basic physical simulation of a living being.
[QUOTE=krazipanda;33190333]have YOU ever done biology? there are things classified as life that do not do hardly ANY of those.[/QUOTE] list 2
They don't have the necessary chemicals in their body to complete the metabolic processes that defines life.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;33224980]list 2[/QUOTE] Pick any two of the millions of Viruses thought to exist. Those seven arbitrary characteristics are not our definition of life by a long shot, there isn't even any agreed upon definition of life and suggested definitions have little to do with most of the seven (except reproduction which is key). Here's one for example: [quote]We propose to define living systems as those that are (1) composed of bounded micro-environments in thermodynamic equilibrium with their surroundings (2) capable of transforming energy to maintain their low-entropy states and (3) able to replicate structurally distinct copies of themselves from an instructional code perpetuated indefinitely through time, despite the demise of the individual carrier through which it is transmitted.[/quote] [url=http://lazypawn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Lifedef.pdf]I suggest people read this.[/url]
The main difference is that AI is not advanced. The AI bases everything purely on IF>ELSE, where's a real brain has randomness to it where even if presented with the same situation twice, it might act different. And also robot does not have instincts to keep itself alive, which means it will not hunt or beg for electricity. And no, robots and living things do not operate on the same electric signals. Comparing a brain to a chip is just silly.
The problem with robots right now is that their not advanced enough for us to classify as. If someone were to ever develop a robot with similar AI to that of a human, I don't see why it is less human than anyone else. The problem is with the definition of animal or human or living or whatever. There are never sharp definitions to anything, there's somewhat of a blurry line between them-That's because there isn't really a clear distinguish between animals and humans and robots that is defined by the laws of nature, we set these definitions for our comfort. It's like arguing where the border between Microwaves and Infrared-It doesn't matter, since there is no universal constant to where Microwaves end and Infrared begins-We defined these things, and we defined the border between them.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;33229095]The problem with robots right now is that their not advanced enough for us to classify as. If someone were to ever develop a robot with similar AI to that of a human, I don't see why it is less human than anyone else. The problem is with the definition of animal or human or living or whatever. There are never sharp definitions to anything, there's somewhat of a blurry line between them-That's because there isn't really a clear distinguish between animals and humans and robots that is defined by the laws of nature, we set these definitions for our comfort. It's like arguing where the border between Microwaves and Infrared-It doesn't matter, since there is no universal constant to where Microwaves end and Infrared begins-We defined these things, and we defined the border between them.[/QUOTE] It would never be a human. It can be a person, an individual, but not a human. To be a human you need to have human dna. So unless the robot had human brain, then not really. It's like calling aliens humans, they are not. They're totally different. (If they exist) Well unless they actually are humans.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33229114]It would never be a human. It can be a person, an individual, but not a human. To be a human you need to have human dna. So unless the robot had human brain, then not really. It's like calling aliens humans, they are not. They're totally different. (If they exist) Well unless they actually are humans.[/QUOTE] Even if a robot had a human brain, it would still not be human. It would be a robot with a human brain.
Animals are negentropic. Robots are not.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33229089]The main difference is that AI is not advanced. The AI bases everything purely on IF>ELSE, where's a real brain has randomness to it where even if presented with the same situation twice, it might act different.[/QUOTE] actually, no, its just that at no point you can provide the exact same input to a brain, so it will always come up with something at least a "tiny" bit different, the brain as we know it (human or animal) does work with ifs and else's just as your regular computer program, only far more elaborate (not really that much more complex, just waaaaay more elaborate) then any program made to date if you make it do an exact same action twice with the same variables and conditions (if that is even possible), at the very least the second one will be different because the brain now knows the end result of the first one and learned from that free will is nothing more then "past experiences" * "basic programming" * "current situation" with maybe a few more inputs depending on the situation or the organism making the decision in effect, free will does not become invalid if the organism makes the same choice over and over and over in the same situation And also robot does not have instincts to keep itself alive, which means it will not hunt or beg for electricity. [QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33229089] And no, robots and living things do not operate on the same electric signals. Comparing a brain to a chip is just silly.[/QUOTE] its just silly because you are talking about comparing a few nerve cells to a fully equipped brain without all the rest backing it up, a few nerve cells wont do any more or less then a computer chip but when that computer chip has input, output, programming, etc etc, it is just as valid of a brain then anything current day computers could probably outsmart a fly or small rodent quite easily, they are not only smarter, but if enough time and resources would be put into researching how for example a rats brain works and everything, scientists could re-create a rats brain with just computers and software... sure it would be the moon landing all over again but it is technologically possible same for making a robot that fits all demands for being a lifeform (not those 7 listed before, they are bullshit and any science teacher teaching that should be sent back to middle school) the most open ended and accepted requirements for life currently if i recall correctly are -reproduction (you don't have to be able to do it yourself, for example viruses often hijack and reprogram other organisms into building more viruses), -adaptation (don't think of this as just being able to evolve depending on outside influences, its more "being able to get inputs and react to them") -not environment-assembling (read as, the same "organism" does not get created independently over and over by random events, if slamming 2 rocks against each other creates a specific microbe, then the microbe is not life... as it would probably be created all over the world independantly the last one is a tricky one, because im translating this from dutch and im not perfectly bilingual its even more a problem for me ^^ the last one basically is there to root out the self replicating molecules and atoms etc, atoms can go into replicative processes, but are not alive because they are created by there surrounding environment, and not by the atom parent
The criteria for defining life is out-dated I think. The arguments that robots are not alive because they do not grow are absurd in the sense that life as we know it only grows from necessity. If anything robots would simply be working around a biological short-coming.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.