Robots

[Logik]

A machine could only be considered sentient if it can experience senses such as pain. A machine will never experience emotion\pain. Oh yes, a robot is a machine.

You can't prove to me or anyone else that you experience emotion/pain.

Does that mean we should reject your sentience?

[Logik]

I don't think you understand the difference between what I call 'cold logic' and consciousness. Cold logic is what a machine is, just a bunch of on\off switches. Speed it up all you like, it ain't gonna have emotion, it ain't gonna experience the sense of 'touch'..

Emotions are information from various sensors in your body.

"Touch" is a tactile sensor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactile_sensor

And as you stated - it SIMULATES what it is to have physiological responses...they ain't gonna cut the mustard for intelligent folk like myself, if the damn thing starts demanding anything by way of 'robot rights'.

Do you think you can prove to me or anyone that you don't SIMULATE physiological responses.

We can already digitize/simulate worm brains. https://newatlas.com/c-elegans-worm-neu ... ork/53296/

As technology improves we will be able to accomplish this task for more evolved animals with larger neural networks.

[attofishpi]

I don't think you understand the difference between what I call 'cold logic' and consciousness. Cold logic is what a machine is, just a bunch of on\off switches. Speed it up all you like, it ain't gonna have emotion, it ain't gonna experience the sense of 'touch'..

Emotions are information from various sensors in your body.

"Touch" is a tactile sensor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactile_sensor

No its not. The sense of 'touch' is only capable via an entity capable of consciousness - even if at its most fundamental definition.

A monkey and a robot put out there hand onto a table top. A person slams a hammer down upon their respective hands. Only ONE is going to FEEL PAIN.

A tactile sensor might be able to measure the pressure on a finger of a robot when a hammer bangs, and it will also retract its hand, maybe it feigns a whimper or two - oh poor machine.

And as you stated - it SIMULATES what it is to have physiological responses...they ain't gonna cut the mustard for intelligent folk like myself, if the damn thing starts demanding anything by way of 'robot rights'.

Do you think you can prove to me or anyone that you don't SIMULATE physiological responses.

Oh, its the 'problem of other minds'.

I am extremely certain, as I stated that speeding up a CPU in a system of binary electronic switches is NOT going to enable sense.

We can already digitize/simulate worm brains. https://newatlas.com/c-elegans-worm-neu ... ork/53296/

Digitise by way of simulating is not getting to crux of the point I am making. With enough processing using a network of super computers its feasible to digitise/simulate the human brain - maybe one day.
SO WHAT? You ain't got consciousness. Its still just a MACHINE.

As technology improves we will be able to accomplish this task for more evolved animals with larger neural networks.

Technology will need to interface to something a lot more than electronic switches to accomplish anything more than just a simulation of physiological responses.

[Logik]

No its not. The sense of 'touch' is only capable via an entity capable of consciousness - even if at its most fundamental definition.

Who cares about definitions?

I don't. If it's ONLY true by definition it's called a truism.

Truisms are uninformative.

A monkey and a robot put out there hand onto a table top. A person slams a hammer down upon their respective hands. Only ONE is going to FEEL PAIN.

False. If the monkey suffers from CIP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenita ... ty_to_pain ) it will not feel anything.
If the robot is programmed to detect damage to its actuators it can pretend to 'feel pain' by REACTING.

Removing its hand from the trajectory of the hammer etc.

'FEEL PAIN' is just a stimulus-response algorithm!

A tactile sensor might be able to measure the pressure on a finger of a robot when a hammer bangs, and it will also retract its hand, maybe it feigns a whimper or two - oh poor machine.

And the CPU/algorithm detects that the pressure/temperature is beyond the robot's own safe operating parameters.
The robot is PROGRAMMED for self-preservation. It is PROGRAMMED to avoid dangers to itself.

If it detects "PAIN" (damage) it retreats or something.

Oh, its the 'problem of other minds'.

Precisely. You are claiming that you have a mind, but the robot doesn't.

You are claiming that you have consciousness but the robot doesn't.

You are just making shit up so you can feel special, or different from other things.

I am extremely certain, as I stated that speeding up a CPU in a system of binary electronic switches is NOT going to enable sense.

All is required for 'sense' is a self-preservation algorithm.

Stimulus -> response.

That's it!

SO WHAT? You ain't got consciousness. Its still just a MACHINE.

YOU are just a machine. Prove to me that YOU have consciousness.

Technology will need to interface to something a lot more than electronic switches to accomplish anything more than just a simulation of physiological responses.

You can't prove that your psychological responses are NOT simulations.
You REACT to pain. Why? Programming. Organisms which REACT to pain survive.

That is LITERALLY the most common cause of death for sufferers of CIP. They ignore fatal injuries.
They remain in the burning building because they don't FEEL anything is wrong.

Their CPU cannot process the stimuli required for the 'RUN FOR YOU LIFE" algorithm to kick in. Their self-preservation circuitry is fucked.

[attofishpi]

LOGIK - I gotta go and will address your points tomorrow.

Just so we understand each other, a little experiment:-

Scratch the back of your hand...you feel it right, that is the sense of touch.

Do you honestly think hooking up a bunch of super computers that can mimic (simulate) the actions of synapses within the human body (brain included) will provide an entity - a robot interfaced - with that sense?

[Logik]

Do you honestly think hooking up a bunch of super computers that can mimic (simulate) the actions of synapses within the human body (brain included) will provide an entity - a robot interfaced - with that sense?

I don't know what 'THAT sense" is and you can't tell me!

I have absolutely no idea how YOU experience touch and absolutely no idea whether you experience it the same way that I do!
And we have no tools at our disposal that can allow us to settle this issue.

In fact there is plenty of evidence AGAINST the 'similarity' of experiences.

Monochromats, Trichromats, Tetrachromats, Pentachromats and Dodecachromats experience color differently!!!

In this video Feynman tells a story of how the word 'counting' (as in 1,2,3,4...) means different things to two different people!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y

To assume a shared experience of touch across all humans is to assume too much!

All we can ever agree on is "Please don't kick me - I don't like it!". And I sure as hell can program a robot to say "Please don't kick me - you might break me.'

I begin to wonder. Have you ever had to consider another human being's feelings?
Have you not noticed that women tend to be far more sensitive to fear than men?
As in - fear can be PHYSICALLY overwhelming and paralysing to some women!

Literally - they can't CHOOSE to experience it any other way. Their brain is wired that way.

[commonsense]

Attofishpi, Logik, Walker, impenitent,
I just want to see if I've got things right. I think the gist of the discussion thus far consists of many salient points, a few of which have been re-ordered for my benefit here, so that you might clarify anywhere I have gone off the tracks, please.

[The] experts say the robots are sentient. They certainly appear to be sentient.

SO WHAT? You ain't got consciousness. It’s still just a MACHINE.

In other words, robots are mere machines without consciousness.

And BTW the experts appear to be sentient. Ha!

A machine could only be considered sentient if it can experience senses such as pain. A machine will never experience emotion\pain. Oh yes, a robot is a machine.

In other words, without sensation there’s no sentience. Machines lack sensation and therefore sentience.

You can't prove to me or anyone else that you experience emotion/pain.

The argument here seems to imply that if the problem of other minds applies to humans, then it ought to apply to robots as well.
The point is that if a machine’s observable behavior cannot be distinguished from potential human behavior, what possible test is there that could differentiate robots and humans.

I am extremely certain… that speeding up a CPU in a system of binary electronic switches is NOT going to enable sense.

Another claim against consciousness in robots is that no matter how fast a robot can process input, it is still doing so without sentience. After all, the input is simply data represented by electronic 1’s and 0’s.

All [that] is required for 'sense' is a self-preservation algorithm.
Stimulus -> response.

If [a] robot is programmed to detect damage to its actuators it can pretend to 'feel pain' by REACTING.
'FEEL PAIN' is just a stimulus-response algorithm!

the CPU/algorithm detects that the pressure/temperature is beyond the robot's own safe operating parameters.
The robot is PROGRAMMED for self-preservation. It is PROGRAMMED to avoid dangers to itself.
If it detects "PAIN" (damage) it retreats or something.

Here again is the argument that if the behaviors are indistinguishable, then the identities are also indistinguishable.

A tactile sensor might be able to measure the pressure on a finger of a robot when a hammer bangs [on it], and it will also retract its hand, maybe it feigns a whimper or two...

The sense of 'touch' is only capable via an entity capable of consciousness.

…a machine is just a bunch of on\off switches. Speed it up all you like, it ain't gonna have emotion, it ain't gonna experience the sense of 'touch'..

Again, there is no sensation, therefore there is no sentience.

…you can monitor physiological responses to known stimuli in a human… These physiological responses can be simulated in a machine

[A robot] SIMULATES what it is to have physiological responses...

Once again, if human behavior can be copied and presented by a robot, then what evidence is there that the behavior of the robot is not subject to consciousness.

You can't prove that your psychological responses are NOT simulations.
You REACT to pain…

And again the challenge is to devise and pass a test that will separate humans from robots.

Technology will need to interface to something a lot more than electronic switches to accomplish anything more than just a simulation of physiological responses.

So the assertion here is that electronic 1’s and 0’s can only emulate human behavior. However, it still stands to reason that if you can’t see any differences, how can you say that one is a human and another is a robot.

We can already digitize/simulate worm brains. ..With enough processing using a network of super computers its feasible to digitise/simulate the human brain - maybe one day.

Technology seems to have found a way to simulate a brain. That should count as more than a mere collection of electronic circuits.

a robot that transcends its program to utilize free will is no longer a robot...
-Imp

Wow.

Oh, its the 'problem of other minds'.

And that’s the crux of it.

So I'm going to have to weigh-in on the side of sentient robots. Behaviors are observable. Brains are not (without medical procedures that are not routinely done for other than medical purposes). I just cannot tell who's a robot and who snot.

[attofishpi]

Do you honestly think hooking up a bunch of super computers that can mimic (simulate) the actions of synapses within the human body (brain included) will provide an entity - a robot interfaced - with that sense?

I don't know what 'THAT sense" is and you can't tell me!

I can tell you at the least, that it is a result that you ARE conscious.
Then you will say - how would one know whether someone is conscious? Doctors perform tests to ascertain the level of consciousness that one has, and since we are all human, they don't need to confuse the issue with philosophical considerations such as the problem of other minds.

I have absolutely no idea how YOU experience touch and absolutely no idea whether you experience it the same way that I do!
And we have no tools at our disposal that can allow us to settle this issue.

That wasn't the question I posed. I was not asking whether you and I experience the sense of touch the same. I said scratch the back of YOUR hand and you sense 'touch' - well do you or don't you?

All we can ever agree on is "Please don't kick me - I don't like it!". And I sure as hell can program a robot to say "Please don't kick me - you might break me.'

No, I don't agree. The test as to whether the thing is conscious sentience would not rely on such a ridiculous test. Can we agree that your tactile-sensor connected to a PC will not sense touch?

I begin to wonder. Have you ever had to consider another human being's feelings?
Have you not noticed that women tend to be far more sensitive to fear than men?
As in - fear can be PHYSICALLY overwhelming and paralysing to some women!

Literally - they can't CHOOSE to experience it any other way. Their brain is wired that way.

Irrelevant - we are not comparing what we understand as sentient beings, whether they be women or men. I am stating there is a far stretch between sentience and a machine that accurately simulates such a thing.
How would I know the machine is not sentient? I would pull it apart and see a bunch of electronic on\off switches and a CPU or two - that is a machine, and has no consciousness, no sentience.

[attofishpi]

Oh, its the 'problem of other minds'.

And that’s the crux of it.

No. It's not.

So I'm going to have to weigh-in on the side of sentient robots. Behaviors are observable. Brains are not (without medical procedures that are not routinely done for other than medical purposes). I just cannot tell who's a robot and who snot.

Really? Well why not get a screwdriver out?

[commonsense]

Oh, its the 'problem of other minds'.

And that’s the crux of it.

No. It's not.

I'll bite. What is it then?

So I'm going to have to weigh-in on the side of sentient robots. Behaviors are observable. Brains are not (without medical procedures that are not routinely done for other than medical purposes). I just cannot tell who's a robot and who snot.

Really? Well why not get a screwdriver out?

Some robots, for example the ones I've used in medical training scenarios, look and talk like humans. Taking a screwdriver to one of these would tell me that I've opened a robot. But, before dissecting the robot, I cannot know what it is. Before knowing, I would run the risk of performing vivisection on a human. So, yes, I can tell who's a robot and who isn't by ending robots and killing people.

[attofishpi]

No. It's not. (RE whether the problem of other minds is the crux of the debate)

I'll bite. What is it then?

That sentience will not be acheived with silicon chip/CPUs.
Simulation of sentience does not imply sentience, the two are wolrds apart. With enough processing using a network of super computers its feasible to digitise/simulate the human brain - maybe one day.
SO WHAT? You ain't got consciousness. Its still just a MACHINE.

Really? Well why not get a screwdriver out?

Some robots, for example the ones I've used in medical training scenarios, look and talk like humans. Taking a screwdriver to one of these would tell me that I've opened a robot. But, before dissecting the robot, I cannot know what it is. Before knowing, I would run the risk of performing vivisection on a human. So, yes, I can tell who's a robot and who isn't by ending robots and killing people.

May I suggest try taking blood from a robot or even give it a CT scan..

[Walker]

Some robots, for example the ones I've used in medical training scenarios, look and talk like humans. Taking a screwdriver to one of these would tell me that I've opened a robot. But, before dissecting the robot, I cannot know what it is. Before knowing, I would run the risk of performing vivisection on a human. So, yes, I can tell who's a robot and who isn't by ending robots and killing people.

Future headline, or future jury trial, or future scenario.

She swore that she was a human, but he just didn’t believe her. He thought she was con-artist robot, and ever since that thing had happened, he lived by the motto that it’s not paranoia if it’s true.

And then he thought, hell, it’s only cutaneous cosmetics, let’s take a look.

But of course that wasn’t enough knowledge, was it. No, not for him. He just had to know for sure.

Afterwards, even in memory the burning need to know seemed so logical to him. However, others were horrified by what he had done. When in custody and interviewed, he was quoted as demanding to know how anyone can prove personal humanness, because by then many robots had become more animated than folks.

Even seasoned cops felt punched in the gut because they knew. They knew the ways of all the copycats out there, the ways of doubt, and the need to know although the detectives felt that most acutely. They knew of the trend that was going to follow.

[Walker]

May I suggest try taking blood from a robot.

Get a search warrant or else you're violating the Fourth Amendment in the USofA.
To do that (get a search warrant), you would have to show probable cause.
A bad date might qualify as probably cause, but only after the Supreme Court hears it.

Used to be if you lied to a judge about probable cause to obtain a search warrant, you were up to your neck in hot water.

An excellent method of determining human sex without all the cozy chat, btw.

Just ask the other for a drop of blood, and know the score.

[Logik]

I can tell you at the least, that it is a result that you ARE conscious.
Then you will say - how would one know whether someone is conscious? Doctors perform tests to ascertain the level of consciousness that one has, and since we are all human, they don't need to confuse the issue with philosophical considerations such as the problem of other minds.

You have said nothing but appealed to authority of doctors.

You have two categories "conscious" and "not-conscious". Define your sorting algorithm.

What are the inclusionary and exclusionary criteria for consciousness.

That wasn't the question I posed. I was not asking whether you and I experience the sense of touch the same. I said scratch the back of YOUR hand and you sense 'touch' - well do you or don't you?

This is a poor attempt to frame the conversation. I experience something yes. I call the something I experience "touch"
But that brings us no closer to answering the question of whether you experience "touch" the same way that I do.

All that we can ever say is that we both use the same LANGUAGE to describe it.

You have explicitly ignored ALL the evidence that support my position.

Trichromats, Tetrachromats and Pentachromats have ALL reached consensus that the sky is blue.

They all use the same language to describe their perception of blue - it is a scientific fact that their eyes are physically different and that they EXPERIENCE "blue" differently!

Even though they use the same language to describe it.

No, I don't agree. The test as to whether the thing is conscious sentience would not rely on such a ridiculous test.

You are yet to provide us with a "less ridiculous" test...

Can we agree that your tactile-sensor connected to a PC will not sense touch?

Nope. We can't agree. That's literally why it's called a tactile (touch) sensor.

Irrelevant - we are not comparing what we understand as sentient beings, whether they be women or men. I am stating there is a far stretch between sentience and a machine that accurately simulates such a thing.

I am still waiting for you to prove your own sentience to me...

Given your ability to reason consistently, I am beginning to doubt.

How would I know the machine is not sentient? I would pull it apart and see a bunch of electronic on\off switches and a CPU or two - that is a machine, and has no consciousness, no sentience.

Well, that's a ridiculous test!

How would I know that attofishpi is not sentient?

I would pull you apart and find a bunch of organs, a brain, plenty of blood and bones.

That is a human and it has no consciousness, no sentience.

[Walker]

A little story = A drop of blood; in the Turing Test sense.