First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Robots with Free Will
2064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F
Offline
Posted 2/5/14
I would probably cry tears of happiness to hear an android worker getting frustrated at someone and tell them off. I'm not even quite sure I would I could keep myself from hugging the android either.
25728 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/5/14

steef4000000 wrote:


schnipdip wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


schnipdip wrote:

Read this to understand anything pertaining to free will:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&srcid=0B8gtSVjMiyXJRktsSU9VcUpkanM


If free will would apply to robots then they would eradicate all human life because they would see us as inferior creatures and faulty by design. Kind of like terminator.
Why would you treat an inanimate object with the same dignity as an animate object? By treating a robot as the same as a human, wouldnt you be diminishing the importance to human life, and all life for that matter?

You can treat inanimate objects with respect and take care of them, but never treat them as equals to life. You would sacrifice your car for a human life, but would you sacrifice a human life for your car?


The difference is that a car doesn't have hopes, dreams, a personality, all those things currently limited to the best of our knowledge to the human animal.

what the thread is asking if we suddenly developed the technology to make 'inanimate object' able to have all the attributes we claim are the sole province of human PERSONS would we respect their personhood or treat them as no different from that wrench in your tool box or an expensive car.

arguably the same question would apply if we meet another civilization populated by extra terrestrial life. would they be PEOPLE to us? or... because they are not human merely "monsters", animals etc.

I WOULD sacrifice an object or an animal to save the life of a human, because humans are persons.

if the definition of person was expanded... I think choosing to sacrifice one person for another would be a harder choice. Though it's one people in a variety of professions have to make every day.



They would still be an inanimate object because they would only be imitating what one perceives to be feelings/emotions.
So if you give a car hope and dreams, does that make it an animated object? Does that mean it's living? No, they are simply perceptions of what hopes and dreams would be.

Would be really be that hard to sacrifice a person for another person? It's only hard when the person has some sort of relation to you, or you know of them. It's not hard to make the choice to save a family member at the sacrifice of a starving child in Africa. The majority of people would make that sacrifice to save a loved one at the expense of someone else who has no relation to them.


little unrelated but have to ask
whats your stance on mental hadicaped people since what you said apply's to certain people

They would still be an inanimate object because they would only be imitating what one perceives to be feelings/emotions
So if you give a car hope and dreams, does that make it an animated object? Does that mean it's living? No, they are simply perceptions of what hopes and dreams would be.

oh and i know i am living since i have a heartbeat and i know i will die someday


and so what's your point?

What does being handicapped have anything to do with this? Are you saying they are robots? In what way does what I said apply to only certain people? I'm pretty sure it applies to the majority of people.

In either case I am failing to recognize your point.

Are you assuming that handicap people can't make decisions, that they are tied down to what other people enforce on them?

Yes, we have heartbeats and are living and we will die. Is a car living? By your logic it would seem that a car is living because it runs for a time and it will eventually die. So by just giving it programmed feelings, hopes and dreams determines if something is living.

I'm not sure what you were trying to get at, so I had to make some interpreted assumptions of what you might have meant.
Posted 2/5/14
SrS Robot BsNs....

Have any of you ever heard of the Uncanny Valley? It's a theory that says tha- know what, f$&k it, Here's a Wiki

Some pretty interesting stuff in there. I feel I'd agree that the appearance of such a machine would be unsettling, at best. I'm unsure if it would ever be something that humans would "get used to" for quite some time. So if, lets say next Friday, a cyborg rolled of the line and it looked 'human' enough, science says that our puny human brains would pick up on any flaws in appearance or movement, and cause a deep-seeded resentment toward such a being. Studies vary, as dictated in the wiki article, but on the whole, it makes sense.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 2/5/14 , edited 2/5/14

steef4000000 wrote:

little unrelated but have to ask
whats your stance on mental hadicaped people since what you said apply's to certain people

They would still be an inanimate object because they would only be imitating what one perceives to be feelings/emotions
So if you give a car hope and dreams, does that make it an animated object? Does that mean it's living? No, they are simply perceptions of what hopes and dreams would be.

oh and i know i am living since i have a heartbeat and i know i will die someday


Do you know anyone who is developmentally delayed?

They have hopes and dreams too. are you saying they're valueless because they can't speak well or have to wear a Jofa helmet? or took a year of patient teaching just to zip up their own coats? I beg to differ. They are alive, they are persons, easily dismissed and feared because they are strange but hardly non-entities. And they have all the necessary elements to be a person in my book.

Unless you're talking of someone with zero brain function according medical scans. That's just cadaver that happens to be still breathing. It's like an empty house. I would treat it with dignity out of respect for the person who once lived there but in the end it's still an object.

12933 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Space
Offline
Posted 2/5/14
I would have no problem with a robot best friend.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Online
Posted 2/5/14

Skreig wrote:

SrS Robot BsNs....

Have any of you ever heard of the Uncanny Valley? It's a theory that says tha- know what, f$&k it, Here's a Wiki

Some pretty interesting stuff in there. I feel I'd agree that the appearance of such a machine would be unsettling, at best. I'm unsure if it would ever be something that humans would "get used to" for quite some time. So if, lets say next Friday, a cyborg rolled of the line and it looked 'human' enough, science says that our puny human brains would pick up on any flaws in appearance or movement, and cause a deep-seeded resentment toward such a being. Studies vary, as dictated in the wiki article, but on the whole, it makes sense.


Maybe I missed something back there. I don't think we are necessarily talking about androids. What if they were simply robot workers? or 'talking' cars?

I don't think personhood relies on appearance.

Also a Cyborg, Cybernetic Organism is not an android nor a robot. It's a general class of living beings that have cybernetic components. An amputee with a modern powered prosthetic (mostly experimental right now) is technically also a Cyborg.

And what has deep seated resentment based on appearance have to do with a philosphical stance on weather or not a 'thing' can become a 'person'?

37906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/5/14 , edited 2/5/14
Living things are made of cells. If robots could achieve the ability to be perceived as a person with free will, with thoughts, wouldn't we just find something that says they still aren't on the level of humanity?
1651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Mor Dhona
Offline
Posted 2/5/14
It's a matter of sentience, really, and given current AI abilities I'd not feel threatened by intelligent / self-aware robots at all.
9762 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Offline
Posted 2/5/14
I wouldn't mind self-aware robots. It's not like we actually know how they'd act.
852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 2/5/14
I'd treat them like living things.
Posted 2/5/14
You mean we aren't already robots?
5592 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / rotterdam
Offline
Posted 2/6/14

schnipdip wrote:


steef4000000 wrote:


schnipdip wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


schnipdip wrote:

Read this to understand anything pertaining to free will:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&srcid=0B8gtSVjMiyXJRktsSU9VcUpkanM


If free will would apply to robots then they would eradicate all human life because they would see us as inferior creatures and faulty by design. Kind of like terminator.
Why would you treat an inanimate object with the same dignity as an animate object? By treating a robot as the same as a human, wouldnt you be diminishing the importance to human life, and all life for that matter?

You can treat inanimate objects with respect and take care of them, but never treat them as equals to life. You would sacrifice your car for a human life, but would you sacrifice a human life for your car?


The difference is that a car doesn't have hopes, dreams, a personality, all those things currently limited to the best of our knowledge to the human animal.

what the thread is asking if we suddenly developed the technology to make 'inanimate object' able to have all the attributes we claim are the sole province of human PERSONS would we respect their personhood or treat them as no different from that wrench in your tool box or an expensive car.

arguably the same question would apply if we meet another civilization populated by extra terrestrial life. would they be PEOPLE to us? or... because they are not human merely "monsters", animals etc.

I WOULD sacrifice an object or an animal to save the life of a human, because humans are persons.

if the definition of person was expanded... I think choosing to sacrifice one person for another would be a harder choice. Though it's one people in a variety of professions have to make every day.



They would still be an inanimate object because they would only be imitating what one perceives to be feelings/emotions.
So if you give a car hope and dreams, does that make it an animated object? Does that mean it's living? No, they are simply perceptions of what hopes and dreams would be.

Would be really be that hard to sacrifice a person for another person? It's only hard when the person has some sort of relation to you, or you know of them. It's not hard to make the choice to save a family member at the sacrifice of a starving child in Africa. The majority of people would make that sacrifice to save a loved one at the expense of someone else who has no relation to them.


little unrelated but have to ask
whats your stance on mental hadicaped people since what you said apply's to certain people

They would still be an inanimate object because they would only be imitating what one perceives to be feelings/emotions
So if you give a car hope and dreams, does that make it an animated object? Does that mean it's living? No, they are simply perceptions of what hopes and dreams would be.

oh and i know i am living since i have a heartbeat and i know i will die someday


and so what's your point?

What does being handicapped have anything to do with this? Are you saying they are robots? In what way does what I said apply to only certain people? I'm pretty sure it applies to the majority of people.

In either case I am failing to recognize your point.

Are you assuming that handicap people can't make decisions, that they are tied down to what other people enforce on them?

Yes, we have heartbeats and are living and we will die. Is a car living? By your logic it would seem that a car is living because it runs for a time and it will eventually die. So by just giving it programmed feelings, hopes and dreams determines if something is living.

I'm not sure what you were trying to get at, so I had to make some interpreted assumptions of what you might have meant.


because i myself have a label as a person with an autism disorder and its just that this sentence

because they would only be imitating what one perceives to be feelings/emotions

is something that was once said to me so it was just something i noticed since according to some people
people with autism are also something are just different enough that some people find it difficult to recognize/acknowledge them as fellow humans and some people see us a little as robots and make them feel uncomfortable/creep them out

Are you assuming that handicap people can't make decisions, that they are tied down to what other people enforce on them?
by the way know a person for who this holds true but he is brain damaged
and some who come very close to it

and the whole i have a heartbeat remark was just to prevent some answer as the difference is that humans have heartbeats and ai don't

but as for the whole car is living of course not since its a tool it cant do anything without somebody operating it and it doesn't have a intelligence or thought process and feelings
but i think if you give a object feelings artificial or not and you stomp all over them then your a dick in my book

and yes maybe this subject gets to me even if its unrealistic because i don't feel very human myself i may look like a human talk and walk like a human but i don't really feel the same as what people consider a normal human i feel like something that has to do a lot of effort to act like a human

and the value of live is incredibly subjective since some people die for less then the money in there wallet and humans slaughter animals without a second thought and those are the things that actually have feelings
not saying its cheap per say

17752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Georgia
Offline
Posted 2/6/14
It must not happen. They would eventually destroy us all!
5592 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / rotterdam
Offline
Posted 2/6/14

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


steef4000000 wrote:

little unrelated but have to ask
whats your stance on mental hadicaped people since what you said apply's to certain people

They would still be an inanimate object because they would only be imitating what one perceives to be feelings/emotions
So if you give a car hope and dreams, does that make it an animated object? Does that mean it's living? No, they are simply perceptions of what hopes and dreams would be.

oh and i know i am living since i have a heartbeat and i know i will die someday


Do you know anyone who is developmentally delayed?

They have hopes and dreams too. are you saying they're valueless because they can't speak well or have to wear a Jofa helmet? or took a year of patient teaching just to zip up their own coats? I beg to differ. They are alive, they are persons, easily dismissed and feared because they are strange but hardly non-entities. And they have all the necessary elements to be a person in my book.

Unless you're talking of someone with zero brain function according medical scans. That's just cadaver that happens to be still breathing. It's like an empty house. I would treat it with dignity out of respect for the person who once lived there but in the end it's still an object.

you seem like a good person
26513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Narnia
Online
Posted 2/6/14
if robots had a free will, i feel like Terminator would become a reality....
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.