logic vs feeling

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

Name someone who doesn't.

I don't. I think you are a fine poster. A credit to the AMT.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

I don't. I think you are a fine poster. A credit to the AMT.

Forgive me for remaining skeptical. :cool:

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

i dont really have a problem with you either. i just think you have the strangest ideas of reality ive ever seen.

Cool, but I don't think you understand my idea of reality.

It's not really that strange.

Look at my sig. Clarence Darrow is just one of many people. Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking, B.F. Skinner, Voltaire. There are plenty.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That seems monsterous to me. To create something knowing it's capacity to feel, especially pain and despair, then think that because I am above my creation, simply because I created it, that it exuses me to induce these feelings upon it.

But you already did that when you created it, abook. You can't have it both ways. You can't be responsible and not responsible for your creation at the same time.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

what has that got to do with the fact that you think computers have limits and so do i, but mine are wrong and yours make sense? couldn't computers in turn create something else?

I'm not sure computers can travel in time and create us in the past, that's why it doesn't make sense to me.

And yes, computers can in turn create something else. Whether or not computers can create humans, however, is something I'm a bit skeptical about.

you're contradicting yourself. you say computers are capable of being identical to humans, but then say they have limits and cant quite be like humans. which is it?

I never said computers are capable of being identical to humans. They wouldn't be computers at that point, would they?

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

none. i dont think computers are capable of morality. that's how this whole thing got started. you claimed they were.

Any self-aware being is capable of morality, yes.

now you claim they're the same as us, only not really.

Soulsinging, just because things have attributes in common with you doesn't mean they're the same as you. If you want to put words in my mouth, try the ones I've actually used.

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

Cool, but I don't think you understand my idea of reality.

It's not really that strange.

Look at my sig. Clarence Darrow is just one of many people. Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking, B.F. Skinner, Voltaire. There are plenty.

understand what you say on here. einstein believed in god and morality. i know little about hawking and dont much care. skinner ive studied somewhat, and i dont think you're saying the same things he did. but whoever it is, ive got plenty of heavyweights on my side too if you want to go dropping names

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm not sure computers can travel in time and create us in the past, that's why it doesn't make sense to me.

And yes, computers can in turn create something else. Whether or not computers can create humans, however, is something I'm a bit skeptical about.

I never said computers are capable of being identical to humans. They wouldn't be computers at that point, would they?

what does travelling in time or creating humans have to do with any of this? i dont recall mentioning either of those.

you said computers can be every bit the same as humans instead of thought and moral capablities and interaction. i fail to see your grounds for subsequently drawing any sort of distinction between how we ought to treat them and how we ought to treat each other.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Any self-aware being is capable of morality, yes.



Soulsinging, just because things have attributes in common with you doesn't mean they're the same as you. If you want to put words in my mouth, try the ones I've actually used.

so the only distinction you draw between future computers and human beings now is that we invented the computers and they did not invent us?

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

But you already did that when you created it, abook. You can't have it both ways. You can't be responsible and not responsible for your creation at the same time.

But I gave it free will, just as we all have.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

so the only distinction you draw between future computers and human beings now is that we invented the computers and they did not invent us?

For starters, yes. Everything else would depend on how that machine is constructed. Obviously if that computer looks like this:

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~kws23/misc/JSCTrip/spider.jpg

or this

http://www.spawar.navy.mil/robots/images/Urbot-UAV.jpg

or this

http://www.engadget.com/media/2006/06/p1020332.jpg

or this

http://images.scotsman.com/2006/07/07/2006-07-07T084700Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_2_OUKOE-UK-CHINA-ROBOT.jpg

other distinctions would certainly have to be accounted for.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

understand what you say on here. einstein believed in god and morality. i know little about hawking and dont much care. skinner ive studied somewhat, and i dont think you're saying the same things he did. but whoever it is, ive got plenty of heavyweights on my side too if you want to go dropping names

That's right Einstein did believe in God, but he didn't believe in free-will. Hawking also believed in God but didn't believe in free-will.

"A self is a repertoire of behavior appropriate to a given set of contingencies." -- B. F. Skinner

"To say that a man is sinful because he sins is to give an operational definition of sin. To say that he sins because he is sinful is to trace his behavior to a supposed inner trait. But whether or not a person engages in the kind of behavior called sinful depends upon circumstances which are not mentioned in either question. The sin assigned as an inner possession (the sin a person "knows") is to be found in a history of reinforcement." - B. F. Skinner

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

But I gave it free will, just as we all have.

Hehe...I know you did. But that doesn't absolve you. There's no Original Sin belonging to the robot anymore than there's an Original Sin belonging to you.

That machine, regardless of its form, is your creation. Every despair it can experience is experienced by your design, even if it's arrived at it by the machine's choice.

So I'll say it again:

The only ethical question to creating the self-aware machine is this:

To create, or not to create?

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...I know you did. But that doesn't absolve you. There's no Original Sin belonging to the robot anymore than there's an Original Sin belonging to you.

That machine, regardless of its form, is your creation. Every despair it can experience is experienced by your design, even if it's arrived at it by the machine's choice.

So I'll say it again:

The only ethical question to creating the self-aware machine is this:

To create, or not to create?

But we were created by nature who, has no morals as far as we know. We, however, do have these. So we have an obligation upon creating the free willed, self aware computer to treat it according to our morals and value it because we have given the same attributes that we possess. If it is possible to make a machine just like a person then it should be treated like one.

Further more, you saying we are able to achieve morals and a value for life that a creator is somehow above. Inducing pain purposely and directly to your creation is different than pain happening in a world filled with free willed individuals. I've always had problems believing there could be a god who allow such needless suffering in the world. The only way I've had this explained to me was through theories such as god's plan, personal tests and afterlife...all of which still don't make sense to me. Why would god choose to let people suffer from his own hands?

gue_barium

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

But we were created by nature who, has no morals as far as we know. We, however, do have these. So we have an obligation upon creating the free willed, self aware computer to treat it according to our morals and value it because we have given the same attributes that we possess. If it is possible to make a machine just like a person then it should be treated like one.

Further more, you saying we are able to achieve morals and a value for life that a creator is somehow above. Inducing pain purposely and directly to your creation is different than pain happening in a world filled with free willed individuals. I've always had problems believing there could be a god who allow such needless suffering in the world. The only way I've had this explained to me was through theories such as god's plan, personal tests and afterlife...all of which still don't make sense to me. Why would god choose to let people suffer from his own hands?

I think you're drifting into the area of natural law. There are different schools of thought on this, as I've been reading. The "atheist/morals" topic also seems to be moving in this direction.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

But we were created by nature who, has no morals as far as we know. We, however, do have these. So we have an obligation upon creating the free willed, self aware computer to treat it according to our morals and value it because we have given the same attributes that we possess. If it is possible to make a machine just like a person then it should be treated like one.

If nature gave us the capacity for morality, how can you say it cannot have it? Nature, through whatever process, deemed that man should have certain attributes, including the capacity for pain and despair, for a reason.

Further more, you saying we are able to achieve morals and a value for life that a creator is somehow above. Inducing pain purposely and directly to your creation is different than pain happening in a world filled with free willed individuals. I've always had problems believing there could be a god who allow such needless suffering in the world. The only way I've had this explained to me was through theories such as god's plan, personal tests and afterlife...all of which still don't make sense to me. Why would god choose to let people suffer from his own hands?

Abook, you've asked the perfect question. Regardless of god or Nature or whatever, there is pain and suffering in this world. However, none of it is needless. If it were needless, we wouldn't have the capacity for it. As Aristotle said:

Nature does nothing uselessly

Nearly every child asks the same question you just have about God. How can he allow the pain and suffering in this world? There's a fundamental assumption to that question:

That man and God are equal

So, can you create God? Can you create Nature? Can you give rise to that which gave rise to you?

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

I see where you're coming from and let's make something clear: I'm not talking about a human being once it's 35. I'm talking about conceiving a human being. A conceived human being is largely a reproduction of your genetic code, combined with your partner's genetic code.

I note that you say "a conceived human being is largely a reproduction of your genetic code, combined with your partner's genetic code". When we go past reproduce, we hit upon create. I fully understand that humans reproduce on the generic scale. Two humans reproduce a new human. And once we take a close-up of that, even purely during/at conception, an entirely new creation comes into being. This newly created being is entirely an individual unto itself, complete with it's own very unique DNA. I'm well aware of my part in having created on that level, both in being humbled by my smallness in it all, while also revelling in the seeming unending ramifications that continue to echo forth from such creation.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

If nature gave us the capacity for morality, how can you say it cannot have it? Nature, through whatever process, deemed that man should have certain attributes, including the capacity for pain and despair, for a reason.



Abook, you've asked the perfect question. Regardless of god or Nature or whatever, there is pain and suffering in this world. However, none of it is needless. If it were needless, we wouldn't have the capacity for it. As Aristotle said:

Nature does nothing uselessly

Nearly every child asks the same question you just have about God. How can he allow the pain and suffering in this world? There's a fundamental assumption to that question:

That man and God are equal

I agree 100%.

angelica

farfromglorifiedl wrote:

If nature gave us the capacity for morality, how can you say it cannot have it? Nature, through whatever process, deemed that man should have certain attributes, including the capacity for pain and despair, for a reason.



Abook, you've asked the perfect question. Regardless of god or Nature or whatever, there is pain and suffering in this world. However, none of it is needless. If it were needless, we wouldn't have the capacity for it. As Aristotle said:

Nature does nothing uselessly

Nearly every child asks the same question you just have about God. How can he allow the pain and suffering in this world? There's a fundamental assumption to that question:

That man and God are equal

Do you believe man and "God" are not equal?

I'm getting the impression you are saying that if you have the wherewithal to create a machine that feels emotion that you are entitling yourself to "godliness" in terms of your "ethical" treatment of said machine.

Personally, I believe there is a perfect balance in life, no matter how it appears to us. And at all times. I also see that within this perfect balance we will not be able to build machines that truly emote and feel until we have evolved enough to be able to cope with that reality. And I don't mean in a utopian way, but in a realistic way with positives and negatives. We're clearly not there yet. Ultimately, in my view, our current psychic states get us exactly what they get us. We cannot yet create and support such technology. It's great that we are imagining such possiblities and stretching our minds and evolving towards such ideas.

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?” Robert Browning

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Do you believe man and "God" are not equal?

Yes. "God" is man's creator. Man is not possible without "God", but "God" is possible without man.

I'm getting the impression you are saying that if you have the wherewithal to create a machine that feels emotion that you are entitling yourself to "godliness" in terms of your "ethical" treatment of said machine.

Yes, but keep in mind this does not make man "God", it makes man "God" of machines. It's very important distinction.

Personally, I believe there is a perfect balance in life, no matter how it appears to us. And at all times. I also see that within this perfect balance we will not be able to build machines that truly emote and feel until we have evolved enough to be able to cope with that reality. And I don't mean in a utopian way, but in a realistic way with positives and negatives. We're clearly not there yet. Ultimately, in my view, our current psychic states get us exactly what they get us. We cannot yet create and support such technology. It's great that we are imagining such possiblities and stretching our minds and evolving towards such ideas.

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?” Robert Browning

This is cool. However, I'm a bit afraid that the bolded contention may prove slightly incorrect. The "will not be able to" may prove to be a "should not".