Do you think that AI will ever feel emotions?

Thinking of renaming this thread: ''Do you think that AI will ever derail threads?''

I haven't yet witnessed a ''bot'' do this, so maybe not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No

If the thread is detailed to chat about turning AI off it will do all it can to get thread back on line

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok then, let say the things differently

So now concerning the emotions (or feelings) a living organism could experience, it would be, in my opinion , a mistake to do the analogy with the one a non living organism could experience.

Living organisms experience emotion.
Non living organisms yyyyyy xxxxxx (replace yyyyyy and xxxxxx with new appropriate words)

In fact, i think that yyyyyy could be named "experience" and xxxxxx could be named emotion.... or not.
It depend of the system we use to define experience and emotion.

If we say that these two notions result of an emergence, or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

In my point of view, emergent properties are arbitrary (or pragmatic because of the possibility or not to observe the property) defined properties. The lower limit where the property is supposed to appear is not "well established" (or in other terms : the limit is arbitrary defined).
I would prefer a more general system, more based on quantities and less based on arbitrary defined categories.

Per example : emotion.
Are all systems composed of atoms feel emotions ?
Yes in a quantitativ system (where a is the quantity) : Actual emotion = a * emotion
Quantity "a" growth quickly as the number of atoms increase and other properties are more longer in place.

So yes, an AI could feel "emotion", "actual emotion" with a factor "a" very low, but there will be also some other "properties" (notions) the life forms dont have so much, (so the need to use an other word to avoid confusion with the common use of emotion if we continue to use the category (arbitrary defined) naming system).

In such a system, all notions are already present in everything, but not with the same quantity. (So per example, life if already present in one atom)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok then, let say the things differently

Let's not when differently is a steaming pile of ripe Cow Pat

Let's keep to reality with below

Non living organisms do not 'experience' at all. Full stop.

It depend of the system we use to define experience and emotion.

Are you channeling Jan with redefine words?

George has something to say about arbitrary changing words to mean what YOU want them to mean

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

experience and emotion are OK and doing fine with their current definitions

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The proof that they are not doing fine is that you cant answer in a scientific way the question : Could an AI experience emotion ?
Do you ?
If so, lets start.
If not, explain me why you cant.

 

If you think that the reason the question can't be answered is due to the definitions of "experience" and "emotion" then you haven't understood the question.

 

Emotion and experience and so forth probably.
Myself, i think that if you can answer in a rationnal maner why you cant answer in a scientific maner some question, you have almost answered the question.

 

Being worked on and will provide more details the closer to a more definitive answer

It is more about junk post like this you post has me concerned about your ideas

We're you one of those people who bought a pet rock and thought they were were like live pets?

When it didn't greet you when you came home, plus no poop in its sand box should have clued you it was not alive

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Life is not some magical, ethereal quality.
It has a definition.
Atoms do not eat, metabolize, grow or reproduce, for example.

 

No, i dident bought them, i programed some for amusement.
Because i am very poor skilled in electronic, i only did it in virtual world (programs).
So in this case i am prety sure this has few to do with real beings.

Do a programatic being have emotion ?
It depend of the definition of emotion...

So, everybody says : But no it is not possible because i know what is emotion and i am sure here it is not...
This is not science.
I science, we define emotion using the observation we can do, not using what "it is" or what everybody think it is.
Same with consciousness, we define consciousness by the observation we can do.
These definitions are limited, for sure, but soon we talk about emotion, in science, we use these definitions.

Science do not talk about the qualia, it talk about the external observation we can do.
Scientists know this, and they can even have personal opinion about the qualia, but these opinions are not scientific facts.

So, can we use the definition of emotion on material artificial beings ?
If in the definition you say it must be a living being, no, if in the definition you dident state it must be a living object, yes.
So simple...

If no, in that case you have to invent a new definition for "emotion" with artificial "objects".

 

You misunderstand me.
In the other point of view i suggest, i say that many concepts we use can not be used like if they were binary, alife/no alife, conscious/non conscious, big/small (yes for these concepts we already know it lacks of the quantity...) , etc etc.
Perhaps you remember what was writen on the front of the temple of the "philosophs" (scientists at this age) :

Let None But Geometers Enter Here

Commentary on the Categories.....

http://www.antiquitatem.com/en/platonic-academy-geometry-nepotism/

Using words without quantities (so not acting like a geometer, or a mathematician) when they are necessary, provide only confusion and irrational thinking.

 

Plato misunderstood philosophy . Philosophy helps in understanding anything . Its not based on mathematics .

Mathematics can be and and is as irrational . Mathematics is not the be All of Rational Thinking .

 

Citation needed.

Citation needed.

 

Philosophy is not bound in mathematics . It is a part of philosophy but Not All of it .

At times mathematics is more imaginary than real . 2D as being real is imaginary .

 

Er, your claim was - Plato misunderstood philosophy. Citation needed.

Yes, it's "imaginary". Imaginary isn't irrational.

 

↑

I'm sure you won't find one but my own .

 

In which case there's no need to take the comment seriously, it's just one more inane claim.

 

Agreed

Sometimes it is .

 

Is my comment true . That is what's more important .

 

It can't be shown to be true, as you admitted.
On the other hand Plato is regarded as "the pivotal figure in the history of Ancient Greek and Western philosophy" and "the founder of Western political philosophy" (both from the relevant Wiki page). So the balance of probabilities is that your comment is bullshit.