Whats you'r prurpos for comin up wit that "common-ground".???
Can Robots Make Ethical Decisions?
- Thread starter sandy
- Start date
- Status
Whats you'r prurpos for comin up wit that "common-ground".???
My guess is it is genetic. Maybe it is in my DNA. You might agree with this thought; maybe things like attitudes and opinions are hard wired into our DNA and depending on if those genes are dominant or recessive, or maybe depending on the combination of your parents genes, you are predisposed to certain attitudes and opinions. What do you think?
Whats you'r prurpos for comin up wit that "common-ground".???
As far as i know... the combinaton of genitics an inviroment is what causes all atitudes/opinions.!!!
But i want to know what you'r "purpose" was for comin up wit that "common-ground" you spoke of (above).???
It is an attitude I guess, like what you say, "the combinaton of genitics an inviroment is what causes all atitudes/opinions".
But if you are wanting to analyze the idea of "common ground" further you must have some reason. I won't question the reason yet but I'll expand on the concept of "common ground" in the context that I mentioned it.
I think of myself as an observer as much as a participant on the forums, learning as I watch. It isn't hard to notice that there are opposing views on God. And it isn't hard to pick out people who are uncomfortable with other peoples beliefs to the extent that they ridicule and belittle each other. I just think that God cannot be proven to exist or not to exist. Holding that belief on my part makes me conclude that belief in God is either taught or decided upon and the lack of belief in God is either taught or decided upon.
Since in my view there is no irrefutable answer, then the exchanges of ridicule and belittling from both positions could benefit from some form of common ground.
Of course thers cause for why i ask
I didnt understan what you'r purpos was for puttin in the effort for the idea you called common-ground.!!!
Well i dont thank anythang can actualy be "proven"... but for esample... a hell of a good case can be made that bible-God is imposible.!!!
So what i suspect from that is... you have God beleifs but dont want 'em to be the focus when you'r discusson other issues... an personaly... i dont pretend to know if thers a God/creater-God or not :shrug: an as far as ridicule an belittlin goes over God issues i can take it or leave it... but even tho i have no idea if thers a God or not... i see no evidence for such a thang an im up-front about that.
Hallelujah.Of course thers cause for why i ask
I didnt understan what you'r purpos was for puttin in the effort for the idea you called common-ground.!!!
Well i dont thank anythang can actualy be "proven"... but for esample... a hell of a good case can be made that bible-God is imposible.!!!
I don't think my willingness to accept the possibility of some common ground between firm believers and non-believers is anything I would be ashamed of in other threads that I participate in. Your suspicions or intuition about me hedging God beliefs (let's call it genetic predisposition of be suspicious
) might well stem from the fact that I admit to being open about possibly accepting some common ground and from the ease that I have acquired when discussing an eternal natural universe which in my view requires no God but does not exclude the possibility.
Of course it woudnt exclude it... God is whatever individuals beleive it is... an if somone beleivs that consciousness requires God... the fact that thers no verifiable evidence that Gods/magic exist is irrelevent to them... but it does clear up why you dont thank robots coud have ethics indestinguishable from humans.!!!
Yes we'll if u program it to, like you program a robot to say judge thins morally , it could be moral ,or if u program it to know what's a table or a chair but for it to go to the table and sit down and orderwhats on the meneu and if it wouldent know a particular item you would also have to pragram it to either ask for asistance , but the tricky part is also when the robot is going to sit on the chair for. Humans its like our sences would estimate the distance of pulling the chair back to actaly sit on it, the same can be donewith a robot, but the programing, eg. Us humans can hold any part of the chair and pull it back,the same can be done with the robot, once again its the programing, the degree of each hand how
Yes its the programin... an what you have described is little mor than a fancy calculator.!!!
You wouldn't be trying to override my stated views with your suspicions would you? No, you wouldn't do that unless you are actually one of those human made robots that thinks it is equal to a human. Can you prove you are human and not a machine?
No... an i mite jus be a dis-embodied robot-brane in a junk-yard :scratchin:
Lol, I thought so. But if you are that explains why you use convenient spelling and punchyation; you're trying to cover up for the fact that you have perfect communication skills to keep us humans from suspecting your true nature
.
Lol, I thought so. But if you are that explains why you use convenient spelling and punchyation; you're trying to cover up for the fact that you have perfect communication skills to keep us humans from suspecting your true nature
"us" humans... yeah rite... well after that little post i now suspect that YOU are a robot :fright:
I'm nota nota nota nota ....
not a robo robo robo ...t.t.t.t.t.t.ttttt.
It's been fun chatting with you. I'll let you have the last word ... for now.
not a robo robo robo ...t.t.t.t.t.t.ttttt.
It's been fun chatting with you. I'll let you have the last word ... for now
.
I'm nota nota nota nota ....
not a robo robo robo ...t.t.t.t.t.t.ttttt.
It's been fun chatting with you. I'll let you have the last word ... for now
I have som accountin work (for my boss) i need to catch up on but i will be ready for you when ever you'r done plottin you'r nest attack... you smelly greasy robot.!!!
Bwaahahahahah<----------
A-Man.TTT
OK, Clueless. I have contemplated the universe and have come up with a scenario where your view of robots with any and all human characteristics could be a rare and remote possibility. It is based on iterations where a single iteration occurs when life is generated and evolves to our level of intelligence. The more iterations the higher the probability that at some point some intelligent life form will stumble onto what causes consciousness and will be able to hard wire it into a robot. But that said, the possibility of that in this particular iteration of ours here on this planet is so small that it is practically a statistical impossibility.
I am doubtful that our known universe will have enough iterations to make it a statistical probability so I suggest we search the possibilities. It would take an intelligence that has evolved much further than ours in order for them to essentially build “human capable” machines. Those machines might equal our human capabilities but would be quite inferior to those developers. Read this to see the extent of speculation that comes into play to make your robots a rare and remote possibility IMHO.
Let me start off with what I call the “infinities”.
The universe would have to be infinite in space, time, energy, and life to allow enough iteration.
So let’s explore that in the light of the consensus Big Bang Theory.
Here we are, on Earth, one intelligent life form that hasn’t been able to understand how life is generated or what makes consciousness work, let along being able to hard wire it into a robot. Of course our being here can easily be explained by the generative and evolvative nature of life. But what is less apparent, in fact impossible under the standard cosmology is the possibility of the perpetual existence of hospitable environments in which life can be generated to produce an endless string of iterations for your mission to have any hope of success.
Oh sure, our finite expanding universe is quite capable of producing billions and billions of hospitable planets, any of which might generate life and life forms that could evolve to or above our level of intelligence. But our universe is only 14 billion years old, so the heritage of life is short relative to infinity. And to make matters worse, our whole universe had a beginning according to the consensus cosmology, Big Bang Theory, and will have an unpleasant and inelegant end to all life in it if it plays out according to General Relativity. That is probably too little iteration for your goal to become a certainty.
That is certainly not a description of circumstances that could host anything that could be referred to as sufficient iterations to accomplish what you say you would like to happen in your life time, but if you insist you need to have a different cosmology.
If life where to occur with infinite iterations arriving at or beyond our level of intelligence to the greater levels of intelligence necessary for your robots to become a reality, it would have had to exist at the time of the Big Bang and before. Big Bang Theory would have to be incorrect.
It would take a more perpetual cosmology of the universe to generate the volume of iterations your idea would require. You have to hope that our observable universe that began as an expanding energy ball was just a tiny arena within an infinitely greater universe where life might have been generated and evolved perpetually across a potentially infinite universe.
But many might say that there is no evidence of anything beyond the event horizon of our Big Bang, and furthermore it is a waste of time to speculate since we cannot know. But to provide the needed iterations I speculate on your behalf. One hope you might cling to is that Big Bang theory doesn’t say where the energy ball came from. Was it created along with the Big Bang? You can hope that the law of physics that says energy cannot be created or destroyed is right. If it is true, and there is no reason to believe it is not true, then speculations about “before the Big Bang” become explanations about why there had to be a “before”; that explanation being that energy has always existed and cannot be created or destroyed.
So you can hope that the perspective that there had to be a “before” the Big Bang is right and that should give rise to more iterations for you dream to play out.
Now you have to wonder about our observable universe and how it started from a huge burst of energy in a tiny space if Big Bang Theory is not true.
I’ve wondered that and have contemplated that issue in the past and now, and have decided for myself that the alternative cosmology that could make your iterations possible is one that features the possibility of mergers of two expanding arenas within an infinite greater universe. Our observable finite “universe” is a perfect example of what one expanding arena might be like. My view is that the landscape of the greater universe existed before and beyond the Big Bang and could be filled with a potentially infinite number of arenas like our own, all composed of energy that has always existed; arenas which expand and overlap until gravity causes the collapse of galactic material that become big crunches.
A big crunch could form around a new center of gravity and leave plenty of galactic material from each parent arena to escape the crunch and expand on out into the greater universe to mix and merge with other arenas out there; a perpetual renewing of old cold galactic material into low entropy crunches and new big bangs.
It only takes a little new physics to give us the needed mechanics from which to speculate about the cause of the burst of such a crunch into a new expanding arena that would be very similar to ours in about 14 billion years. We would have to be speculating that if there is an infinite arena landscape then simple physics could lead to a history and future of big bangs and new arenas that each could host billions of new life forms in a perpetual process of arena action. This scenario gives you a potentially infinite number of iterations where intelligent life evolves to beyond our unremarkable level of intelligence and increases the chances that some greater intelligence will or has evolved somewhere across infinite time to make your dream robot a reality.
So there we have the infinites: the universe, space, time, energy and life. And that is your only hope, Clueless; the only way that your robots could ever be built in my opinion (opinions being driven by genetics and environment). Only if my speculations are right is there enough time and iterations for your “human capable” but much more durable robots to even be a rare and remote possibility, but that is a major concession on my part
.A-man.ttt (whatever that means). What exactly does that mean Clueless?
In my scenerio... "consciousness" is biological complexity an can therfor be duplicated... no new iterations needed... we're knockin on the door of "consciousness" as it is... an It wont be humans who create "conscious" robots... humans will make self-programin computers an those computers will soom evolve to the pont that ther thouts will be indistingushable from human... ie... "conscious" robots.!!!
We're on a fast track in that directon an i see no signs of it slowin down.!!!
In lamans terms... its perty much to infasize my stamp of approval of what i jus posted.!!!
A-Man.TTT
Will those conscious robots be carbon based or silicon based, or whatever they make computers out of these days
? We are getting dangerously close in this discussion to wondering about the presence of us humans in regard to whether or not we are the product of some self-programming computers .Do you follow the science of consciousness? I am thinking of it in terms of quantum activity within the brain cells that is linked into a consciousness network through the connections between the brain cells. If so it is physical and passed on to us in our genes and could be coding within the DNA molecule that determines the inner workings of the particular types of bran cells where consciousness resides. That might work in your favor but if I am right (just kidding about that possibility of course) then when we build those conscious robots wouldn't we have to be able to piece them together in quantum increments. I don't think we are close to being able to manipulate construction techniques at the quantum level.
And about A-Man.TTT, what does the TTT stand for? I think there is some symbology involved and since I am just starting to read The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown I have to ask.
I thank a calculator is jus as "conscious" as a biological brane... an the illusion that the human mind mus have a magical-like (non-biological) element is dew to the tremendus complexity that makes up a human brane... an the processor of a "conscious" robot coud be carbon or silicon based... mos likely... superior materials will be used.!!!
We are getting dangerously close in this discussion to wondering about the presence of us humans in regard to whether or not we are the product of some self-programming computers
Perty interestin idea... eh.!!!
What do you thank is the ultimate cause of the "spark-of-life" in humans.???
I dont thank thers any such thang as a conscious-network or a place whare consciousness resides... ie... "consciousness" is an illusion dew to complexity... not somptin to be constructed.!!!
My prevous internet device woud produce a symbol that looked like a "cross" an i woud put 3 of 'em after my "A-Man"... my curent internet device wont make that symbol... so the bes i can do is to use a capital "T" in place of the "crosses".!!!
Ultimate? I guess you might mean other than the fertilization thing and more like the origin of life from the non-living environment in which life first was generated? Because the spark of life from parent to baby is the fertilization that takes place when the sperm and the egg agree to continue the chain of life that is passed on by reproduction. You could say the spark is what causes the parents to get all excited and forget to be careful
.- Status