Can a robot love?

[Exist]

That is an incredibly vague definition that doesn't line up with either the professional or common definition of robots. Under that definition a power drill would be a robot.

I would define robots as an autonomous device which can be reprogrammed to perform a multitude of tasks. For the purposes of our discussion I would also like to say that including a computer, even if it is an extremely primitive one, is part of the definition.

I seem to be completely missing out on your point.

 

[elman]

Could a robot love?

Ok, not talking about the ones today, but soon there will be quantum computers, and with that, we could make robots with human brain compacities. Now, will a robot that has a fully simulated inteligence have emotions, will it be able to love?

My own oppinion is this. If love is just some chemical process, then yes a robot can love. But don't let my idea stop you, post your own.

(the sad part is this sounds like some part of a sci-fi movie, when in truth we could be facing it soon)

In order to determine if a robot can love it must be determined can the robot on its own decide to not love? If so, then I think it can decide to love.

 

[Mocca]

Well, how does the brain work? And how does one define "robot?"

 

[azzy]

Well,before we try to teach robots to love ,we need to teach people to do it first,and thats not easy always.

 

[elman]

Well, how does the brain work? And how does one define "robot?"

I think a robot is preprogramed and unable to make its own decisions on what is loving and what is not, therefore unable to love or not love.

 

[Mocca]

Well, depends on if a brain can be "recreated" in a mechanical fashion. Looking at our technological advancement in the past 200 years, I'm guessing that this can be done soon.

 

[elman]

Well, depends on if a brain can be "recreated" in a mechanical fashion. Looking at our technological advancement in the past 200 years, I'm guessing that this can be done soon.

If it is done, I don't think the result would be a robot.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Could a robot love?

Ok, not talking about the ones today, but soon there will be quantum computers, and with that, we could make robots with human brain compacities.

Well first of all, quantum computers are still a long ways from becoming reality.

And second, what makes you think that quantum computers will be able to provide the capacity of a human brain? I see absolutely no evidence to that effect, and I'm a roboticist by training.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Well, depends on if a brain can be "recreated" in a mechanical fashion. Looking at our technological advancement in the past 200 years, I'm guessing that this can be done soon.

On what grounds? Can you cite any peer-reviewed articles in a cognitive science journal , for example, that suggest a path for accomplishing this goal?

Once again, speaking as a roboticist, I'd say that we're nowhere close to doing so.

Earlier, you asked "How does the brain work?" Quite frankly, we don't know. We understand bits and pieces of the brain, but these are mere snippets. We are nowhere close to grasping the complexity of the brain.

How would you model human consciousness, for example? Or emotion? Or intuition? Or self-awareness? How about that moment where a human infant infers the concept of object permanence, for example? Or grasps the notion that the person looking back at her in the mirror is her very own self? Those are non-algorithmic operations, and we haven't the foggiest idea of how to implement such functions.

And even if we could, that would require a mechanistic view of human life. It only makes sense if you believe that humans have no free will -- that they only do what they have been programmed to do. Personally, I reject such a notion, as does the overwhelming majority of humanity.

Do the technological advances of the past 200 years suggest that we are close to creating robots with human intelligence, or human emotion? Not in the least.

 

[Mocca]

Note the phrase: "I'm guessing".

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Note the phrase: "I'm guessing".

Of course. With all due respect though, you also said that this guess was based on "our technological advancement in the past 200 years" and that creating loving robots would be accomplished "soon"... the implication being that this was an informed guess, based on a systematic analysis of our technological progress and the amount of work that remains to be accomplished.

And my point is that -- as someone who did his doctoral work in this field -- I don't see a shred of evidence to suggest that we're anywhere close to accomplishing this goal. In fact, I don't see any evidence that we ever will.

 

[Exist]

Wow. You've made it clear that you do robotics. You do realize that by you pushing that fact, you're trying to commiti a falacy, right? Your training does nothing to make your argument any stronger.

How would you model human consciousness, for example? Or emotion? Or intuition? Or self-awareness? How about that moment where a human infant infers the concept of object permanence, for example? Or grasps the notion that the person looking back at her in the mirror is her very own self? Those are non-algorithmic operations, and we haven't the foggiest idea of how to implement such functions.

I was thinking that you literally duplicate all the chemical processes and transfers of electricity mechanically. It's not a computer where we program up some conciousness. It's a brain. A complete duplicate of a human brain, created by humans, and not organic.

Will we ever be able to do that? My guess is yes, if we as a race can live long enough.

I think that would actually be the easiest, most human-like consciousness we could ever create, but there's no telling where technology might take us.

 

[Exist]

"And my point is that -- as someone who did his doctoral work in this field -- I don't see a shred of evidence to suggest that we're anywhere close to accomplishing this goal. "

I would agree though. I don't see it happening in the near future at all. Technology is flying right now, but we're just too far away from what this idea entails.

"In fact, I don't see any evidence that we ever will."

I think it's more of a Naturalists' idea, actually.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Wow. You've made it clear that you do robotics. You do realize that by you pushing that fact, you're trying to commiti a falacy, right?

And what fallacy would that be, exactly?

Your training does nothing to make your argument any stronger.

Nonsense. A lawyer is more qualified to comment on legal mattes than a layperson. A physician is more qualified to comment on medical matters than someone with no medical training. That doesn't mean that these people are infallible; however, in any court of law, their opinions would carry more weight than those of people with no experience or training in those fields.

And with all due respect, I can say with confidence that few (if any!) people working in robotics would claim that we are close to developing robots that exhibit emotion.

I was thinking that you literally duplicate all the chemical processes and transfers of electricity mechanically. It's not a computer where we program up some conciousness. It's a brain. A complete duplicate of a human brain, created by humans, and not organic.

Numerous problems there:

• How does our technological progress over the past two centuries demonstrate that we are close to duplicating all of these processes? (Remember, I was addressing the claim that "our technological advancement in the past 200 years") If anything, these advances suggest that we are nowhere close to doing so!
• Moreover, if we're going to talk about duplicating these chemical processes, then this is a radical departure from the existing state of robotics. No, not just a radical departure... it's an entirely diffferent direction. Whatever technological advancements we've made would be mostly irrelevant in your scenario.
• And finally, such a proposal assumes a purely mechanistic view of the universe. It assumes that human beings have no free will, and that they are nothing more than complex biochemical machines. Not only is this unproven, it's implausible in the extreme.

So no, I see no reason to accept the view that it's just a matter of time before we build complex robots (whether organic or inorganic) that duplicate human emotions. Not even a hint thereof.

 

[Exist]

Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Your training in robotics doesn't has no bearing in in philosophical question "Can we reproduce mechanical life in a lab?" Your training does, however, give you credit to the statement, would it come soon? But I've already said, I agree with you there. It won't be soon.

But to say, "And my point is that -- as someone who did his doctoral work in this field ... I don't see any evidence that we ever will," You're arguing against a Naturalists' belief, that we are biological machines. And being trained in robotics doesn't give you credit for any of your opinions here.

Now to the problems you pointed out:

1> I've already said that I agree with you. I've never said, or even thought, that we are anywhere near this point in technology.

2> I thought we already had a working definition of what a "robot" is? If humans design and create an mechanical/electronic humaniod, how does this not fit the definition or a robot? Because it's not like the robots we have today? That's kinda the point of the discussion. What future robotics might bring.

3> Well, it's a good thing I'm a Naturalist, and already said that this belief is usually just for Naturalists, or else I'd feel like a fool.

Not only is this unproven, it's implausible in the extreme.

Implausible, huh? Do tell.


I'm off to work now.

 

[Dexx]

As I've stated several times on this board during my time here, I don't think that robots can ever be concious as a consequence of the manner in which they operate. So that would exclude them for love, I guess.

I think an atheist would be more likely to answer yes than a Christian. As a Christian i believe we humans have a soul. The soul, in some way, is involved in our personality/identity/sentience. A machine will never have that, so a machine will never be sentient enough to love.

However, to an atheist a human is just a biological machine. There is no soul, only chemical reactions in the brain. There would be no reason why a mechanical machine couldnt emulate what our biological brain does.

 

[Faith In God]

A robot cannot love. A robot is programmed. it cannot do what it is not programmed to do. programmed love is forced. Forced love is not love: it is rape.

 

[Niels]

I think a robot can love in the same way that a hug can love. They can and will, unless meddled with by some alien species, always be an extention or tool of the human psyche. So as long as humans love, robots can love... and maybe even for a little while after that.

 

[Faith In God]

I think a robot can love in the same way that a hug can love.

A hug??

They can and will, unless meddled with by some alien species, always be an extention or tool of the human psyche. So as long as humans love, robots can love... and maybe even for a little while after that.

...I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't understand a word of that...

 

[Mocca]

A hug?? ...I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't understand a word of that...

I thought that made good sense, except for the hug part, maybe.