Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:32 am**

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:26 am A little story = A drop of blood; in the Turing Test sense.

A sentient robot that knows it will be subjected to such a test; and knows that the results of such a test will be used to discriminate against it has every reason and incentive to:
1. Refuse the test
2. Game the system.

You want a blood sample? Sure thing. <inserts needle into blood storage vesicle containing the blood of the human it killed>. A vesicle which is installed only in its left arm, because that's how 99.99% humans perform blood sampling.

Posted: **Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:42 am**

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:32 am
Walker wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:26 am A little story = A drop of blood; in the Turing Test sense.
A sentient robot that knows it will be subjected to such a test; and knows that the results of such a test will be used to discriminate against it has every reason and incentive to:
1. Refuse the test
2. Game the system.

You want a blood sample? Sure thing. <inserts needle into blood storage vesicle containing the blood of the human it killed>. A vesicle which is installed only in its left arm, because that's how 99.99% humans perform blood sampling.

In that way a robot could also pass the piss test that will be required in the robot union/management agreement. After it passes the test it can be reinstated into its job of unloading truckloads of parcels ... mandated (botdated) only because humans had to pass the same test.

Posted: **Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am**

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:16 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:49 pm 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.

Good question. 1. Is it human?

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:16 am
attofishpi wrote: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?
I experience something yes. I call the something I experience "touch"

Agreed.

Logik wrote:But that brings us no closer to answering the question of whether you experience "touch" the same way that I do.

Irrelevant, the point I am making is that you conciously experience it.

Logik wrote:You have explicitly ignored ALL the evidence that support my position.
Trichromats, Tetrachromats and Pentachromats have ALL reached consensus that the sky is blue.

Evidence of what? That living organisms consciously experience their reality differently? ...irrelevant, hence why its ignored.

Logik wrote:
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:49 pmNo, 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...

Easy, I'll ask the maker for schematics.

Logik wrote:
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:49 pm 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.

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

Logik wrote:
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:49 pmIrrelevant - 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...

We both know that is impossible.
If it walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck -- and just to ensure its not a robot duck, I'll CT scan it.
The same applies to us humans, we can be certain beyond reasonable doubt that since I am defined as human, and I know I have consciousness, that other humans are also conscious.

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

Of course you would doubt yourself when confronted with someone reasoning consistently.

Logik wrote:
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:49 pmHow 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.

Really? Seemed rather heavy handed. Surely a CT scan at the least would have confirmed I am human, and again, if it quacks like a duck..

Posted: **Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:27 am**

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am Good question. 1. Is it human?

Are you "human"? What makes you "human"?

That which bestows humanity is two-fold:
1. My own self-recognition/self-identification with the label "Human"
2. Me bestowing this recognition upon you by saying "you are like me and therefore you are human too".

I could just as easily de-humanize you by saying "You don't THINK like me and therefore you aren't human".

If you say that you are human, and I say that I am human but YOU are not human. Who is right?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am Irrelevant, the point I am making is that you conciously experience it.

OK. So make that point then? I am still waiting for you to demonstrate to me that you are conscious OR that you "experience" anything the way that I do.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am Evidence of what? That living organisms consciously experience their reality differently? ...irrelevant, hence why its ignored.

Begging the question.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am Easy, I'll ask the maker for schematics.

OK. Shall we ask your maker for schematics?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am Can we agree that your tactile-sensor connected to a PC will not consciously sense touch?

No. We can't agree until you demonstrate to me that you have consciousness.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am We both know that is impossible.

It is impossible to prove to me that you are sentient? But you want a robot to do it?

Way to admit to double-standards

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am Of course you would doubt yourself when confronted with someone reasoning consistently.

I don't reason consistently. I reason para-consistently. That's why I am doubting you - you are religious

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am Really? Seemed rather heavy handed. Surely a CT scan at the least would have confirmed I am human, and again, if it quacks like a duck..

Not at all! A CT scan might tell us that you have a brain similar to that of all humans.

It's NOT going to tell us whether you or ANY human have sentience/consciousness. You said it yourself - it's impossible to prove.

So what you are really saying is "The robot is not like us". Obviously - that's a trivial truism.

You are not like me either!

Hopefully you see/understand WHY the CONCEPT of "human" and "humanity" is entirely made up yet absolutely necessary!

Posted: **Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:33 am**

Robots for me is a representation of our vanity of being a superman whose ego is really working that way. However, we want to be unbeatable, and we feel betrayed with the new technology, we fear that artificial intelligence will surpass us. Then, finally, if we adapt the robots to be as emotional and intelligent as we are, it will be useful for some routine tasks, but we are sure that we could solve them as individuals with automatic thinking?, That could be dangerous. Our perspective of the world. All of us working closely with robots will mean that our alter ego (robots) will allow us to be superheroes through their performance, like rescuing people, taking care of children ... etc. If they are monitored for humans it will not be a problem, the thing is how to control the aspects so that they do not become a superior intelligence and we will have a battle with them due to their absolute profitability without errors in their behavior?

Posted: **Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:50 am**

planetlonely23 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:33 am Robots for me is a representation of our vanity of being a superman whose ego is really working that way. However, we want to be unbeatable, and we feel betrayed with the new technology, we fear that artificial intelligence will surpass us. Then, finally, if we adapt the robots to be as emotional and intelligent as we are, it will be useful for some routine tasks, but we are sure that we could solve them as individuals with automatic thinking?, That could be dangerous. Our perspective of the world. All of us working closely with robots will mean that our alter ego (robots) will allow us to be superheroes through their performance, like rescuing people, taking care of children ... etc. If they are monitored for humans it will not be a problem, the thing is how to control the aspects so that they do not become a superior intelligence and we will have a battle with them due to their absolute profitability without errors in their behavior?

TL;DR we are lazy and we want slaves. Slaves with rights is an oxymoron.

Posted: **Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:28 pm**

FYI, a CT scan of a (medical training) robot would reveal the same organs and structures that a human has.

Posted: **Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:06 am**

planetlonely23 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:33 am Robots for me is a representation of our vanity of being a superman whose ego is really working that way. However, we want to be unbeatable, and we feel betrayed with the new technology, we fear that artificial intelligence will surpass us. Then, finally, if we adapt the robots to be as emotional and intelligent as we are, it will be useful for some routine tasks, but we are sure that we could solve them as individuals with automatic thinking?, That could be dangerous. Our perspective of the world. All of us working closely with robots will mean that our alter ego (robots) will allow us to be superheroes through their performance, like rescuing people, taking care of children ... etc. If they are monitored for humans it will not be a problem, the thing is how to control the aspects so that they do not become a superior intelligence and we will have a battle with them due to their absolute profitability without errors in their behavior?

And what of judgment that depends on memory when every human is carrying a research search engine?

It atrophies.

Humans passed knowledge from generation to generation before writing.

The robot of the future will possess built-in access to elephant-shaming memory, and will probably control the search engine at some point, so there's no need to remove the search engine from the human hand, and the wise man won't even try if the human is female.

If a man tries to do that, you know he's a robot.
No vivisection required.

Posted: **Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:01 am**

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:50 am
planetlonely23 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:33 am
TL;DR we are lazy and we want slaves. Slaves with rights is an oxymoron.
I think we're afraid that they adapt better to the rules of the game than we do and confine themselves to a higher degree and relieve us...lol

Posted: **Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:09 am**

[/quote]
And what of judgment that depends on memory when every human is carrying a research search engine?

It atrophies.

Humans passed knowledge from generation to generation before writing.

The robot of the future will possess built-in access to elephant-shaming memory, and will probably control the search engine at some point, so there's no need to remove the search engine from the human hand, and the wise man won't even try if the human is female.

If a man tries to do that, you know he's a robot.
No vivisection required.
[/quote]

We are in fact already involved in human experimentation even if it is not said. Since the first thing we have learned is to tolerate what we see as scientific research practices to improve the "race", but will we accept technological experimentation with superior beings?

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:03 am**

planetlonely23 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:09 am We are in fact already involved in human experimentation even if it is not said. Since the first thing we have learned is to tolerate what we see as scientific research practices to improve the "race", but will we accept technological experimentation with superior beings?

Like when they took away the card catalogues in the libraries.

They tell us that computers are time-saving devices.

Nice to remember when you're winding your way through some interactive phone or computer menu of time-wasting, trivial questions. That's when you need a real human on the reception end, to cut through the guff.

The question is, what is the time being saved for?

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:03 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:27 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am Good question. 1. Is it human?
Are you "human"? What makes you "human"?

That which bestows humanity is two-fold:
1. My own self-recognition/self-identification with the label "Human"
2. Me bestowing this recognition upon you by saying "you are like me and therefore you are human too".

I could just as easily de-humanize you by saying "You don't THINK like me and therefore you aren't human".

If you say that you are human, and I say that I am human but YOU are not human. Who is right?

There are methods to determine if one is human.
Us humans have a framework of understanding, that although culturally diverse, we have little reason to doubt each others sentience.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:27 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am Irrelevant, the point I am making is that you conciously experience it.
OK. So make that point then? I am still waiting for you to demonstrate to me that you are conscious OR that you "experience" anything the way that I do.

Again, its not whether we consciously experience the things the SAME way, its that we ARE CONSCIOUS.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:27 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am Evidence of what? That living organisms consciously experience their reality differently? ...irrelevant, hence why its ignored.
Begging the question.

My dog rolled in horse manure the other day...to him it probably smelled like something by Kelvin Kline.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:27 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am Easy, I'll ask the maker for schematics.
OK. Shall we ask your maker for schematics?

I don't think you know the chap, maybe I should ask it.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:27 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am Can we agree that your tactile-sensor connected to a PC will not consciously sense touch?
No. We can't agree until you demonstrate to me that you have consciousness.

I can demonstrate to anyone qualified that I am human, and it is known, by humans, that humans have sentient consciousness.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:27 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am We both know that is impossible.
It is impossible to prove to me that you are sentient? But you want a robot to do it?

It is comparetively easy to disprove sentience by way of understanding something we have manufactured and the hardware it is built with.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:27 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am Of course you would doubt yourself when confronted with someone reasoning consistently.
I don't reason consistently. I reason para-consistently. That's why I am doubting you - you are religious

Am i?

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:27 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:20 am Really? Seemed rather heavy handed. Surely a CT scan at the least would have confirmed I am human, and again, if it quacks like a duck..
Not at all! A CT scan might tell us that you have a brain similar to that of all humans.

It's NOT going to tell us whether you or ANY human have sentience/consciousness. You said it yourself - it's impossible to prove.

So what you are really saying is "The robot is not like us". Obviously - that's a trivial truism.

You are not like me either!

Hopefully you see/understand WHY the CONCEPT of "human" and "humanity" is entirely made up yet absolutely necessary!

I hope I've clarified that.

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:23 pm**

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:03 pm There are methods to determine if one is human.
Us humans have a framework of understanding, that although culturally diverse, we have little reason to doubt each others sentience.

Ok. I stand right before you - doubting your sentience and humanity.
I am dehumanizing you, because you clearly don't think like I do - so you can't be like me.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:03 pm Again, its not whether we consciously experience the things the SAME way, its that we ARE CONSCIOUS.

Well, look. I don't know if I am conscious or not because I don't know what consciousness is.
You are claiming to be "conscious". You MAY be conscious. I don't know. You need to convince me.

What I do know is that I am human. And you don't think like me and so, conscious or not, you can't possibly BE human.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:03 pm I can demonstrate to anyone qualified that I am human

Appeal to authority.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:03 pm , and it is known, by humans, that humans have sentient consciousness.

Look. I already told you. I am human. I don't know if we have consciousness.

What it seems that you are claiming to me is that you can only demonstrate your claim to somebody who already believes what you believe.

That's not useful, is it?

I am asking you to demonstrate it TO ME!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:03 pm It is comparetively easy to disprove sentience by way of understanding something we have manufactured and the hardware it is built with.

It's comparatively easy to disprove humanity also.

I am human. Anything that is different to me is not.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:03 pm I hope I've clarified that.

Nope. Your words missed the mark

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:40 pm**

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:23 pm
attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:03 pm There are methods to determine if one is human.
Us humans have a framework of understanding, that although culturally diverse, we have little reason to doubt each others sentience.
Ok. I stand right before you - doubting your sentience and humanity.
I am dehumanizing you, because you clearly don't think like I do - so you can't be like me.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:03 pm Again, its not whether we consciously experience the things the SAME way, its that we ARE CONSCIOUS.
Well, look. I don't know if I am conscious or not because I don't know what consciousness is.
You are claiming to be "conscious". You MAY be conscious. I don't know. You need to convince me.

What I do know is that I am human. And you don't think like me and so, conscious or not, you can't possibly BE human.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:03 pm I can demonstrate to anyone qualified that I am human
Appeal to authority.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:03 pm , and it is known, by humans, that humans have sentient consciousness.
Look. I already told you. I am human. I don't know if we have consciousness.

What it seems that you are claiming to me is that you can only demonstrate your claim to somebody who already believes what you believe.

That's not useful, is it?

I am asking you to demonstrate it TO ME!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:03 pm It is comparetively easy to disprove sentience by way of understanding something we have manufactured and the hardware it is built with.
It's comparatively easy to disprove humanity also.

I am human. Anything that is different to me is not.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:03 pm I hope I've clarified that.
Nope. Your words missed the mark

OK then. Fuck off.

Posted: **Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:02 pm**

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:40 pm OK then. Fuck off.

So you admit that you cannot convince us that you are:
1. Human
2. Conscious
3. Sentient

You could have just told us that you are a robot...

Philosophy Now Forum

Robots

Re: Robots

Re: Robots

Re: Robots

Re: Robots

Re: Robots

Re: Robots

Re: Robots

Re: Robots

Re: Robots

Re: Robots

Re: Robots

Re: Robots

Re: Robots

Re: Robots

Re: Robots