Let's talk robots!

[MoonlessNight]

Oh and jubilationtcornpone I'm much more inclined to trust a conclusion arrived at through a series of connected and logical causal steps (determinism) than one generated out of some kind of odd acausal causal paradoxical free will, or one generated by randomness

This is quite a false dichotomy. The setup is that every argument can be performed by a computer, or else it is random and untrustworthy. But there needs to be an important distinction between mathematical logic and computation. According to Roger Penrose (and I agree with him) mathematical logic can't be reduced to the types of computations that a computer uses. This is suggested by Godel's incompleteness theorem, but there are other arguments for it. What they basically come down to is that either human beings can (often easily) deduce things that could never be solved by any algorithm, or our logical system is hopelessly flawed. What they suggest to me is that for artificial intellegence to truly exist it would at least have to operate in a way drastically different than what we see today. It flat out couldn't run on a modern computer, the entire system would have to be redesigned in a way that isn't clear to me.

EDIT: There are of course related arguments that have nothing to do with mathematics. The Chinese Room thought experiment, for example, is a fairly good argument that human understanding does not function in the same way that a computer program does. But I think the mathematical arguments are more interesting because they suggest that higher logic is something that can never be duplicated by a computer, even if we accept that the computer would have to be unthinking. In other words, you can't build a computerized mathematician.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Oh and jubilationtcornpone I'm much more inclined to trust a conclusion arrived at through a series of connected and logical causal steps (determinism) than one generated out of some kind of odd acausal causal paradoxical free will...

So you still think we're nothing more than complex robots? The only reason you say that is because you're programmed to do so.

You seem to think that a deterministic thinking machine (e.g. a robot) will produce trustworthy, reliable conclusions. Speaking as a roboticist, I disagree. Robots may be deterministic, but they can still be programmed incorrectly, and they can still use incorrect data. Being deterministic is no guarantee of producing correct results.

In fact, consider this. According to your premise, you and I are both nothing but complicated robots. (At least, that's what your "robot" brain says.) Well, speaking as a roboticist, my robot brain thinks that you're in error. Obviously, we can't both be correct. If determinism inherently produces reliable results, then which one of us is correct?

... or one generated by randomness

I don't trust conclusions generated by randomness either. That's precisely why I did not appeal to randomness as a solution.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

BTW, MoonlessNight is referring to Roger Penrose's classic text, The Emperor's New Mind. I agree that Penrose drew the right conclusions. Penrose really nailed that one.

(Some critics disagree, but based on their arguments, it's obvious to me that they failed to grasp the simple logic of Penrose's case.)

 

[PapaLandShark]

Here's one defining question in these debates:

If a perfect physical simulation of a human body and brain and a surrounding enviroment were created in a computer (whether or not this computer would need to be more powerful than every computer we've ever built by several dozen orders of magnitude is irrelevant) would this perfect physical simulation be sentient?

Oh and jubilationtcornpone I'm much more inclined to trust a conclusion arrived at through a series of connected and logical causal steps (determinism) than one generated out of some kind of odd acausal causal paradoxical free will, or one generated by randomness

No...It would be a perfect simulation of a sentient being.

 

[Jamza]

But what really makes us different? If we take aside the religious issues here; we are highly advanced chemical 'computers'. Surely an equally advanced electrical computer would act in a simliar way to us? Lol imagine, in a world full of electronic life:

"What ya doing with those test tubes Jeff?"

"Oh I'm having great fun mixing them together, getting certain effects; sometimes they seem to have a mind of their own."

"Come on!! They're only chemicals!"

"But what if you had chemical reactions so complex they resembled programs?"

"Oh so now we're going to have living detergent. You're insane Jeff; chemicals will never equal the billions of calculations and programs run by an electric brain."

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

But what really makes us different? If we take aside the religious issues here; we are highly advanced chemical 'computers'. Surely an equally advanced electrical computer would act in a simliar way to us?

No, because computers, no matter how advanced, do not have free will.

 

[Jamza]

Do we?

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Do we?

Your signature identifies you as a Christian. If you don't believe in free will, then something is seriously wrong here.

Moreover, if you don't believe in free will, then you have no rational reason to get upset when someone insults your mother. Or when someone steals your stereo. Or when a group of terrorists decide to fly a plan into a prominent New York skyscraper. After all, if people do not have free will, then these miscreants cannot be held responsible for the evilness of their actions.

In fact, even when you ask "Do we?", you only do so because that's what you're physically programmed to do. And if you think that your beliefs are rational, it's only because you've been programmed to believe that way. Do you really accept that as a rational point of view?

 

[elman]

Here's one defining question in these debates:

If a perfect physical simulation of a human body and brain and a surrounding enviroment were created in a computer (whether or not this computer would need to be more powerful than every computer we've ever built by several dozen orders of magnitude is irrelevant) would this perfect physical simulation be sentient?

Oh and jubilationtcornpone I'm much more inclined to trust a conclusion arrived at through a series of connected and logical causal steps (determinism) than one generated out of some kind of odd acausal causal paradoxical free will, or one generated by randomness

If you look in the dictionary under jubilationtcornpone, you find: "Chosing to believe you don't have a choice" Sorry Jubilationtcornpone, I just realized that is your handle. I need to read closer before posting.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

If you look in the dictionary under jubilationtcornpone, you find: "Chosing to believe you don't have a choice" Sorry Jubilationtcornpone, I just realized that is your handle. I need to read closer before posting.

Have you been reading my postings at all? I am arguing for the exact OPPOSITE of what you are ascribing to me. I contend that we DO have free will, that we do have a choice, and that any other positions is self-refuting and self-defeating.

 

[MoonlessNight]

But what really makes us different? If we take aside the religious issues here; we are highly advanced chemical 'computers'. Surely an equally advanced electrical computer would act in a simliar way to us? Lol imagine, in a world full of electronic life:

"What ya doing with those test tubes Jeff?"

"Oh I'm having great fun mixing them together, getting certain effects; sometimes they seem to have a mind of their own."

"Come on!! They're only chemicals!"

"But what if you had chemical reactions so complex they resembled programs?"

"Oh so now we're going to have living detergent. You're insane Jeff; chemicals will never equal the billions of calculations and programs run by an electric brain."

Well, for one, we do not think in an algorithmic manner.

It's not that a computer is on circuits instead of neurons. It's the entire way in which it operates.

If what a computer does can be called thinking, then it is correct to say that a thermostat thinks on a very basic level. But people tend not to say that because it's obvious how it works and doesn't have the magic electricity factor going for it.

 

[MoonlessNight]

For those of you who support the notions of robots being intelligent because of their complexity:

1.) Do you actually have any idea of why a complex system would suddenly become concious?

2.) How complex does it have to be? I mean, is my computer intelligent in some limited sense (perhaps along the lines of a simple animal?)

3.) If its just complexity, why limit ourselves to electronic devices? The weather system of the planet is certainly more complex than any computer we have ever made, so perhaps it is sentient? Or how about the movements of the ocean?

 

[Species8472]

For those of you who support the notions of robots being intelligent because of their complexity:

1.) Do you actually have any idea of why a complex system would suddenly become concious?

2.) How complex does it have to be? I mean, is my computer intelligent in some limited sense (perhaps along the lines of a simple animal?)

3.) If its just complexity, why limit ourselves to electronic devices? The weather system of the planet is certainly more complex than any computer we have ever made, so perhaps it is sentient? Or how about the movements of the ocean?

Why do you believe in the ghost in the machine. A machine cannot have consciousness as we experience it because we are the spirits of Life. Why worship the work of your own hands to believe that you can give a machine a soul?
You have no power over Life. A machine can't eat the bread of Life.

 

[PapaLandShark]

Have you been reading my postings at all? I am arguing for the exact OPPOSITE of what you are ascribing to me. I contend that we DO have free will, that we do have a choice, and that any other positions is self-refuting and self-defeating.

Really?

Is making choices based on our nature free will or simply choice? Is there a difference?

If you are not Christ's...who's are you? What does this say about your "will"?

If you are Christ's...Who's will are you living in?

 

[Species8472]

Really?

Is making choices based on our nature free will or simply choice? Is there a difference?

If you are not Christ's...who's are you? What does this say about your "will"?

If you are Christ's...Who's will are you living in?

Amen.
I say to you if you live not in Christ then your will is imperfect, since your will is not that of your own willing but, rather, to the enslavement of sin. Those that live not in Christ are bound to sin. Those that live in Christ are Free to will as they please because they know the difference between right and wrong, purity and sin.

 

[KaleTainer]

Have any of you read Daniel C. Dennett's, Consciousness Explained ? If you have not and are interested in this topic, I would recommend it the next time you are at the library or bookstore.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Really?

Is making choices based on our nature free will or simply choice? Is there a difference?

I'm not sure what you mean. There is no contradiction between saying that we have "free will" and that we have a "choice." The point is that we are not merely robots that can only do what we have been programmed to do.

If you are not Christ's...who's are you? What does this say about your "will"?

If you are Christ's...Who's will are you living in?

With all due respect, you are now muddying the waters. We are using the term "free will" in the normal sense. That is, we are using it to describe the human capacity to choose between good and evil. Everyday experience shows that in any given situation, humans can choose to obey God or not.

You are apparently suggesting that we should turn our lives over to Christ... and that therefore, our will should be that of Christ. I do not deny that; in fact, I agree wholeheartedly. However, that is not how the term "free will" is normally used.

The point remains that we are NOT mere robots. We have the capacity to choose between good and evil, in any given situation. Ergo, we do have free will, in the ordinary sense-- that is, in the sense that we have the capacity to make moral choices.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Amen.

I say to you if you live not in Christ then your will is imperfect, since your will is not that of your own willing but, rather, to the enslavement of sin.

There is a sense in which that is true. As I said though, it's not the manner in which the term "free will" is normally used.

Please, people. When we toss around Christianese jargon amidst discussions like these, it can only serve to muddy the waters. It can only confuse those who do not yet grasp the gospel or the Word.

Even those who have been redeemed by Christ still sin on occasion; ergo, they still have the capacity to choose between good and evil actions. They are no longer slaves to sin, and in that sense, their will is "free." However, that is not the ordinary sense of the term "free will." While such distinctions are worth discussing, it is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether human beings are merely complicated robots or not.

 

[Species8472]

There is a sense in which that is true. As I said though, it's not the manner in which the term "free will" is normally used.

Please, people. When we toss around Christianese jargon amidst discussions like these, it can only serve to muddy the waters. It can only confuse those who do not yet grasp the gospel or the Word.

Even those who have been redeemed by Christ still sin on occasion; ergo, they still have the capacity to choose between good and evil actions. They are no longer slaves to sin, and in that sense, their will is "free." However, that is not the ordinary sense of the term "free will." While such distinctions are worth discussing, it is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether human beings are merely complicated robots or not.

Yes, I agree. However, there are different levels of discernment as to what sin is and what sin isn't--that is why Jesus said, I have come to close the eyes of those that see; and to open the eyes of those that don't see. Therefore, we, as Christians are accountable to sin through repentance; and not accountable to that which we can't discern, since God said, with what measure ye measure with the same shall be mete upon you. Therefore, be not hypocritical when passing judgement.
See, God covered all his bases; for those who show mercy shall receive mercy; and those that forgive shall be forgiven.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Yes, I agree. However, there are different levels of discernment as to what sin is and what sin isn't...

Agreed. I'm just saying that the depravity of man is not an important distinction for the purposes of this particular discussion. Whether unregenerate or redeemed, we all have the ability (however limited) to choose between right and wrong, good and evil, obedience and disobedience, and this is what we normally mean by "free will." This ability proves that we are not mere robots, nor can a mere robot ever behave like a human being.