Let's talk robots!

[Jamza]

This may be a little silly...but I think this will an issue in philosophy. Robots are becoming more and more advanced; there are even basic simulated personalities in some robots; and slight ability to learn.

Apparently, as it is right now, the cleverest robot can be outwitted by a rather dim earthworm; but, this is changing! In twenty years its going to be a different story.

Anyway, there's loads of issues around this AI debate which really interest me; but to start it off; it is theorised that our 'intelligent' behavior is a result of mere complicated chemical processes. Logically, advanced electrical circuits could also display 'intelligence' technically it would be artificial...but is chemical based intelligence any different? Well, if we take away religious ideas, nope! It seems the same.

So, if we suspend disbelief and say what if robots started showing signs of intelligence, what would the impact be for philosophy and theology? Would they have rights and unions? What if they got more and more intelligent...what questions could they ask?

Anyway, what's you're thoughts?

 

[Species8472]

Thats' interesting and probably right on key: thoughts are chemical processes; but more than that.

The breath controls thought. Ever read the tao or zen--meditations.
You cannot have a single thought without pushing or taking a breath. Thought comes from the breath. Chemicals just store thoughts. Try not breathing and thinking at the same time. Impossible because it is like the breath of god. you command your thoughts by speaking and more importantly--breathing.

 

[Patzak]

So, if we suspend disbelief and say what if robots started showing signs of intelligence, what would the impact be for philosophy and theology? Would they have rights and unions? What if they got more and more intelligent...what questions could they ask?

Anyway, what's you're thoughts?

I've thought about this in the past and it's quite a problematic situation.

I'm of the opinion that any sort of self-consciousness that approches the human in complexity and intelligence should definitely have the same rights as a human has, regardless of whether it's mechanical or biological.

Meaning an AI should definifely have at least the right not be forcibly shut down and deleted.

But this of course creates the problematic situation where an AI possibly far surpasses us in intelligence and we face the danger of being reduced to zoo animals to be looked and laughed at. Although I suppose our Creator position would command some respect. Hard to say.

 

[Febe]

I'm of the opinion that any sort of self-consciousness that approches the human in complexity and intelligence should definitely have the same rights as a human has, regardless of whether it's mechanical or biological.

Interresting idea, about robots!
I would like one to clean my appartment...
But to give IT the same rights as humans? NO!
Humans are special!

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Apparently, as it is right now, the cleverest robot can be outwitted by a rather dim earthworm; but, this is changing! In twenty years its going to be a different story.

Speaking as a roboticist, I don't think so. With all due respect, we are centuries away from duplicating the complexity of even the tinest microbe. Twenty years from now, we wil have made some significant advances, but we'll still be nowhere close to the capabilities of even a primitive earthworm.

Are things changing? Yes, but not in any way that would make robots challenge the capabilities of biological organisms.

 

[PapaLandShark]

I might also make the distinction between AI and AA. AI ( Artificial Intelligence ) is actually rather highly developed in the sphere that it is used. There are "Expert" devices used now for diagnosis of illness that are really rather spooky. So that begs the question what is "intelligence".

AA ( Artificial Awareness ) is closer to what we think of, and has been discussed as a "new" term, when we think of "thinking" robots. They would have a concept of self and other aspects of what is termed "aware". This also begs the question of what is "awareness" but is a better descriptive term for this discussion imoo.

So in regards to the OP I think this is the perfect place to discuss this...although with the above in mind, and previous posts, it may slide into an Ethics topic.

 

[Jamza]

Speaking as a roboticist, I don't think so. With all due respect, we are centuries away from duplicating the complexity of even the tinest microbe. Twenty years from now, we wil have made some significant advances, but we'll still be nowhere close to the capabilities of even a primitive earthworm.

Are things changing? Yes, but not in any way that would make robots challenge the capabilities of biological organisms.

Well, you'd know far more than me. I wasn't saying twenty years from now we would have intelligent robots, just much more complex ones. Also technology always surprises me with the rate things move along; it seems you get a breakthrough once in a while that causes exponential advances, I guess we'll see.

I wonder if they'll come a time when 'humanist' becomes an abusive term like rascist!

 

[Species8472]

I'm more interested in the cyborg enhancements. Forget the robots. Robots make people lazy. Cyborg enhancements creates a superior man. Imagine having total recall--like your brain is all hardwired with nanotech. You know, the ghost in the machine.

 

[shinbits]

Apparently, as it is right now, the cleverest robot can be outwitted by a rather dim earthworm;

If Gary Kasperov ever reads this, he will shoot himself.

What if they got more and more intelligent...what questions could they ask?

We'd probably have robots arguing if they evolved from calculators.

 

[bob135]

I think deep blue just used brute force, which isn't anything like thinking. Honestly, i think we are too far away from anything like AI to speculate about the future of AI.

 

[Species8472]

I think deep blue just used brute force, which isn't anything like thinking. Honestly, i think we are too far away from anything like AI to speculate about the future of AI.

True. Deep blue just used a catalog of moves to best counterattack any human logic. It used pre-programmed logic to make its moves. Kasparov figured to not use any logical direction with his play. He fooled the machine on occasion.

 

[Species8472]

all you need for robots is to create better sensory systems; as it is evident that we use our senses to learn. Creating better sensory systems, in logic, means that more precise sensory 'information' can be gathered at a central processing unit...and processed...into thought or what have you...The permutations of the capabilities of the human eye are extreme. We see more than we actually gather. Like a filtration system. Refine and precise this element of senses and you have a human-thinking-like robot.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Well, you'd know far more than me. I wasn't saying twenty years from now we would have intelligent robots, just much more complex ones.

With all due respect, I think your posting said a great deal more than that. In particular, the following statement:

"Apparently, as it is right now, the cleverest robot can be outwitted by a rather dim earthworm; but, this is changing! In twenty years its going to be a different story."
​

implies that twenty years from now, we are likely to have robots that can outthink earthworms. I see no reason to accept that claim. If anything, we are probably centuries away from duplicating the complexity in even a single microbe.

Is it going to be a different story 20 years from now? Not in any substantial way. We will certainly have better robots, but not in any way that would pose philosophical difficulties for anyone.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

all you need for robots is to create better sensory systems; as it is evident that we use our senses to learn.

I strongly disagree! Sure, we use our senses to learn; however, our senses merely provide data upon which the brain can act. There is still a whole world of cognition lying within the brain, and we have only the faintest hints of how this cognition oprates.

So is it true that "all you need for robots is to create better sensory systems"? I don't know any roboticists or cognitive scientists who would accept that conclusion.

 

[MoonlessNight]

We program robots to seem intellegent and we can make them seem intellegent. There is no major philosophical crisis involved in that observation.

Have you ever used the "robot" 2XL? If you follow the instructions given to you it will seem like it is following your instructions, making calculations, remembering past incidents and so forth. But all it is is a multi-track tape player with some cleverly designed "program" tapes. If you follow the rules, though, this is not immediately apparant. When you add loops and conditional statements all the other trappings of programming to the mix of course the simulation becomes more convincing, but is there any reason to think that much of anything is going on there?

Personally I don't see it. Or at least I think that if a computer program can really become intellegent in a true sense, then good old 2XL must be intellegent as well (though far less so).

 

[PapaLandShark]

I ran across this site while poking about for robot info. Hope you enjoy it:

http://isobe.typepad.com/robotsvideos/

 

[Jamza]

We program robots to seem intellegent and we can make them seem intellegent. There is no major philosophical crisis involved in that observation.

Have you ever used the "robot" 2XL? If you follow the instructions given to you it will seem like it is following your instructions, making calculations, remembering past incidents and so forth. But all it is is a multi-track tape player with some cleverly designed "program" tapes. If you follow the rules, though, this is not immediately apparant. When you add loops and conditional statements all the other trappings of programming to the mix of course the simulation becomes more convincing, but is there any reason to think that much of anything is going on there?

Personally I don't see it. Or at least I think that if a computer program can really become intellegent in a true sense, then good old 2XL must be intellegent as well (though far less so).

I think some people would say we're no different though, just that the variables and such are much more complicated.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I think some people would say we're no different though, just that the variables and such are much more complicated.

People say that, but there's no good reason to think so from what I've seen.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

I think some people would say we're no different though, just that the variables and such are much more complicated.

With all due respect to those people, that is a self-refuting notion.

If we are nothing more than robots -- even robots with complicated parameters -- then everything we think, say or do only occurs because it has been programmed into our behavior. Hence, even a thought such as "We are nothing more than robots" only occurs because someone has been programmed to think that way.

For that matter, what about the logic one would use to arrive at that conclusion? Such reasoning would merely be the result of our internal programming and external input. There would be no volition, no self-determination, no free will. Why should we trust that our logic has any validity, if we were merely programmed to think that way?

These are the sort of questions that people want to sidestep in their desire to deny the spiritual -- to reduce human beings to mere mechanistic devices that were born out of randomness. That way lies madness.

 

[kingreaper]

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