Objectivity and how it can be achieved

Objectivity and how it can be achieved - robot model

Using a robot analogy the following posts may provide a clue as to how objectivity as a shared experience can be achieved.

If we take the following diagram as a starting point:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

• Allow each pentagon shape to indicate a robot.
• Allow each robot to have sophisticated data receptors such as video, air quality, radar, distance, energy reserves and any other pertinent external and internal information gathering devices.
• Allow each robot to be in constant data transfer communication via a radio signal
• Allow for the possibility of a virtually unlimited number of robots and walls available to this scenario.

The diagram shown shows two robots separated by a wall and are currently inactive or switched off. One is labeled red and the other is labeled green.

<>​

The next diagram shows the Red robot actively considering the experience that the Green robot is having. [ both robots are currently active ] [ the inner pentagon color in this case Green symbolically demonstrates what or which robot the red robot is considering]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Receiving the data stream via the constant and continuous radio signal transmitted by the Green robot it is able to compare it's own data acquired to that of the Green robots data and in doing so make many determinations such as distance of separation, relative position and that the wall between them exist for the green robot as well as for the red robot.

<>​

The next diagram shows the roles reversed:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

continued next post

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In this diagram both robots are simultaneously considering each others circumstance and experience, and are constantly updating each other with the results of what the culminate information stream produces.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The two robots have a continuous data stream of the other robots circumstances and experience to use in comparison with their own receptor information. Thus they can relate themselves to the other robot quite precisely. Including distance of separation, positing, intent, and other less important information such as energy reserves, disability or ability, and known obstacles.

At this stage we have a rudimentary shared mechanical consciousness and a basic background to support their individual endeavors.

Continued next post

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let us now consider the wall in between the robots.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Assume for a moment that both robots are sensing the wall and know that it is separating them and that it presents an obstacle to their getting together.

Assume also that the dividing wall is an inanimate part of the robots' environment and that the wall itself is in constant communication with all robots. The wall fitted with appropriate receptors can feed data accordingly to both robots confirming things like distance, and what their form is such as they would get from a mirror, however the wall is non-reflective in the typical mirror sense.

The robots both have confirmation of their reality in a very objective sense. All aspects of their position and experience are subject to confirmation and validation thus we have a self evident truth of their reality.

As objective as it can possibly get.

The significant difference is that the wall is in-animated where as the robots have a potential to be animated.

Extend the notion to floor, ceiling and all other barriers and all matter including that which the robots are constructed with and you can determine that an objective reality is available to both robots and any other robots that are joined into this arrangement.

So objective reality and shared consciousness are achieved by a confirmation feedback system. Truth therefore is available, self correcting and not subject to a single perspective but a shared perspective from all perspectives, including those that are in-animated, universally.

In the above scenario we have genereated a near perfect system of objectivity IMO and how this is relative to human circumstances can be further indicated by assuming that the Red robot has for example the lastest upgraded software [growth] and can determine his reality faster, cleaner, and more precisely than the Green robot, thus we could have by deliberately downgrading one or more robot software and even hardware, have diversity of reality [ pseudo objectivity]

~ preliminaries to Zero Point theory [Draft]​

care to discuss?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ok I have done with editing for the moment

 

How do the robots really "know" the wall is there? What if a programmer left a bug in the program that causes the sensors to report a returned signal at 3 meters, resulting in the illusion of a wall? What if the wall is part of the programming? What if the wall doesn't really exist as a physical construct, but the entire system is nothing more than 3 elaborate posts on an internet forum?

I believe in an Objective reality, but it requires a leap of faith. Faith in my senses, faith that the simplest answer is the correct one, etc... The fun that subjectivists have in pocking holes in the surety of Objective reality is twisted, but it is based on real concerns.

 

What makes object reality, object reality is in part the fact that your belief in it or against it is irrelevant. It has its own manifest existence.

 

I agree entirely...
However this thread is designed to show how an objective reality can be achieved in a practical sense regardless of the belief of the robots. [not that the robots would be programmed to believe anything but deal exclusively with the data they receive. [ at this point - but later it will be shown that when they actually start to move around amongst other robots speculation [ belief ] will no doubt enter the picture.

The current issue though is to establish that the robots and walls around them have by design achieved a fundamental objective state. Due to the "perspective confirmation available all robots including the walls share exactly the same information and data but handle it in different prioritized ways.

 

In the example you have given there are not actually two robots, but one robot located in two places. This probably renders this example defective for what you are trying to do.

 

I would agree with that assessment except that in this particular rudimentary scenario the two robots have unique positioning in 3 dimensional space.

However what would happen do you think if one side of the wall was painted black and the other side painted creamy white?
Does this highlight the distinction?

Also what if each robot had different grades of software each specializing in different priorities in their data handling etc...?

We may still have two identically constructed robots but each would be unique given their particular conditioning or pro gemmed conditions.

Assume also there is a virtually unlimited number of robots all uniquely conditioned in some way by virtue of the programming and individual evolution of said programming in this constructed universe and I think you can see how it would eventually depending on the depth of the design imitate humanity reasonably well yet allow for the reality of objectivity as the basis or premise to work from.

 

Because the two robots share all their data that makes them one, in my opinion. (Which I am currently holding to quite strongly.)

You suggest painting the two sides of the walls different colours. Well, I can put my right hand in a bowl of cold water and my left hand in a bowl of warm water. There is a clear distinction, but I do not think it will cause my personality to split in two.

 

just to clarify

Now let us add a bit of diversity to the scenario with out two robots.

The dividing wall is a painted a different color on each side that the robots sense with their receptors.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

On the Red robots side the wall is painted black and on the Green robots wall the color is creamy white.

Each robot now has a unique experience that is shared between both robots and because the wall is also providing data this uniqueness is confirmed. Extend the reasoning to all possible robots and walls.

 

In a sense you are right and so to is humanity. In that same sense we are also essentially one. Bonded as it were by the objective reality we exist in.

In this scenario each robot has a unique perspective which is uses to compare with the data stream coming from the environment and the other robots. It maintains it's unique perspective but is able to make comparisons between it and other [ a form of empathy/affinity ] . It clearly can identify between itself and others.

 

Well I'll watch how you develop the idea, but at the moment this identity comes across - in terms of your thesis - as a flaw, not a strength.

 

To achieve autonomy for each robot a unique perspective must be maintained. Also to facilitate the ability to individually focus their receptors which further enhances the uniqueness of each robots experience yet still maintain an objective state...
The case presented so far is merely setting the stage for further detail.
If autonomy is seen as a weakness by some in this constructed universe then so be it...

 

also I appreciate your critical eye Ophiolite

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Moving on to a global scenario the below diagram shows 9 robots.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Assume that it implies a virtually unlimited global population of robots. It also shows a number of barriers and a closed environment with the outer wall [ Olive green ] being part of the mechanical consciousness.

All aspects of data are shared equally between all robots however each robot has it's own unique priority of focusing their receptors and what it does with the objective data it receives from all the other robots. In this case for simplicity we are primarily concerned with optical [ visual data]

The red pentagon shows each robot considering what it is focused on the "gray" fill of that pentagon is symbolic of the objective data stream available to all robots equally.
Each robot has access to an objective reality shared by all robots but is focused upon it's particular priority, thus maintaining autonomy yet objectivity access simultaneously.
Thus we have achieved not only an objective state for this constructed universe we have also achieved a form of mechanical universal consciousness.

"Plug into this universe of data and you will have access to omni knowledge about all robots and their environment."
In fact every individual robot has the potential ability to take on a God like role with access to God like knowledge and control

 

So far, this is the only problem I have.

I see it as a problem, assuming of course that you're going to make some sort of analogy between the robot methodology of perception and the human one.
We humans never have perfect communication with one another. This is the whole Wittgensteinian 'Other Minds' problem. At best, we can only have a degree of confidence in our own perception, and this degree will almost always be greater than that we place in others' purported perception. So, as an argument by analogy, I can't see how this is going to work.....

Of course, I'm holding back from waxing into serious Cartesian solipsism or shades of Putnam's 'Brain In a Vat'.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

thanks for posting Glaucon,

yes such is the nature of our ego or self esteem. We always take a superior position to others [ re : the thread Ego - In the service of lesser Gods ]

And I guess in this robotic analogy the programming would reflect or emulate similar in that the robots would also have a self priority [ superiority ]

In defense of the system suggested the data transferred is pure data only and not subject to interpretation. Pure data only and assuming the receptors are of same quality and efficiency or alternatively adjustments made for exact differences in quality [ rectification - based on known deficiencies]

The end result should be objective with a degree of error which renders surreality or in some opinions flexibility.

In an ideal situation the data is objective and subject to speculation and that speculation is clearly understood to be just that speculation [ belief] thus maintaining a distinction between objective experience and subjectively created experience. [Am I real or living a belief driven fantasy sort of distinction ]

However Glaucon, can I ask...Do you see how this system would generate a self justifying set of objective data that is purely objective to the robots participating yet subjective to any observer outside the system looking in?

 

of course at this stage no robot is actually doing anything other than being purely receptive to their data flows.

No cogitating or analysis is taking place, no movement, and no speculation or planning.

Just sitting there - human analolgy - perfect meditation.
The idea is to explore firstly the innate passive state similar to when we are sleeping or near sleep. As if asleep regardling "control" yet awake enough to observe it.

 

Ophiolite mention in an earlier post that he felt that both robots were the same robot that they share the same experience abeit from a different perspective.
In an ideal passive meditatory state identity is effectively nonexistent as such so in this sense Ophiolite is correct in his assessment.

It is the way we create our identity thus generating a subjective reality for ourselves that generates our identity and evolves the "I" in "I want" or "I think there for I am"

In a generalistic sense this I feel holds true however if one pushes the robot analogy to it's ultimate conclusion one can see that an identity can lead an objective life with out the need to subjectively create his own identity. [ in an ideal universe of course ]



"My name is John only because that was the name my parents gave me upon my birth and the name my society recognises me by but as to my real name I can only be called "I" because that is who "I" am"

....and of course we are all identified as "I" regardless of what language you use... [ the most popular name in the universe - ha ]

notes:
Brain in a vat - The movie - Matrix analogue yes?
Cartesian Solipsism - Mental monism - Descartes yes?