Philosophy Now Forum

Think about that question as you read this article:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/watch- ... self-aware

There are many secondary questions, but let's start off with this.

PhilX

When you stop asking stupid questions and fuck off this forum.

HexHammer wrote:When you stop asking stupid questions and fuck off this forum.

Nonresponsive.

PhilX

For once I'm on the same side as Hex.

It's one thing to ask a question and put in a link once or twice a week. But to obsessively post stupid question about which you have no understanding or interest is moronic.
I wouldn't mind if you had something to say, or if the links were a bit more substantial, but it is clear that, however thin those links are, you either do not seem to read them, or are incapable of understanding them.

So, yeah, when you get a brain is when robots become self-aware.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:For once I'm on the same side as Hex.

It's one thing to ask a question and put in a link once or twice a week. But to obsessively post stupid question about which you have no understanding or interest is moronic.
I wouldn't mind if you had something to say, or if the links were a bit more substantial, but it is clear that, however thin those links are, you either do not seem to read them, or are incapable of understanding them.

So, yeah, when you get a brain is when robots become self-aware.

Nonresponsive.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:For once I'm on the same side as Hex.

It's one thing to ask a question and put in a link once or twice a week. But to obsessively post stupid question about which you have no understanding or interest is moronic.
I wouldn't mind if you had something to say, or if the links were a bit more substantial, but it is clear that, however thin those links are, you either do not seem to read them, or are incapable of understanding them.

So, yeah, when you get a brain is when robots become self-aware.

Nonresponsive.

PhilX

RESPOND TO THIS

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:For once I'm on the same side as Hex.

It's one thing to ask a question and put in a link once or twice a week. But to obsessively post stupid question about which you have no understanding or interest is moronic.
I wouldn't mind if you had something to say, or if the links were a bit more substantial, but it is clear that, however thin those links are, you either do not seem to read them, or are incapable of understanding them.

So, yeah, when you get a brain is when robots become self-aware.

Nonresponsive.

PhilX

RESPOND TO THIS

LOL

PhilX

Hobbes' Choice wrote:For once I'm on the same side as Hex.

It's one thing to ask a question and put in a link once or twice a week. But to obsessively post stupid question about which you have no understanding or interest is moronic.
I wouldn't mind if you had something to say, or if the links were a bit more substantial, but it is clear that, however thin those links are, you either do not seem to read them, or are incapable of understanding them.

So, yeah, when you get a brain is when robots become self-aware.

..awww!! ..you melt my rotten heart!

HexHammer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:For once I'm on the same side as Hex.

It's one thing to ask a question and put in a link once or twice a week. But to obsessively post stupid question about which you have no understanding or interest is moronic.
I wouldn't mind if you had something to say, or if the links were a bit more substantial, but it is clear that, however thin those links are, you either do not seem to read them, or are incapable of understanding them.

So, yeah, when you get a brain is when robots become self-aware.

..awww!! ..you melt my rotten heart!

You and HC are two sides of the same coin.

PhilX

HexHammer wrote:When you stop asking stupid questions and fuck off this forum.

"Telling someone to go research something isn't philosophy and isn't productive debate. At best, it's simply off-topic. More likely, it's an insulting insinuation that the person is ignorant and an ad hominem fallacy.

The rules regarding being on-topic, particularly when it comes to personal attacks and ad hominem fallacies, are there precisely to avoid cozy chat and be conducive to on-topic productive debate void of off-topic blabbering, personal attacks and flame wars."

PhilX

I began answering but found it is too deep to simply answer without everyone understanding computer architecture, programming, and cellular biology including neurology.

For a very simplistic answer, robots require drive programs that define emotions (and moral values as a component 'emotions') and an ability to reflect on inputs and outputs through feedback by sensors and motors (via peripheries). It also needs many multiple processors that act in parallel than we presently have to represent cells. An eight-cell processor in some of our modern systems is still too little. We'd need thousands. This is because while we might replicate this through our limited cells by adding very fast programs, consciousness is a product of distinct logical events in kind acting simultaneously in real different locations in space.

On the last point of multi-processors, this may be hard to understand without investigating consciousness. While the electronics and programming will likely eventually mimic consciousness, if each 'cell' is virtualized through linear programming, while it may 'feel' as a component through different times, the sensation of consciousness itself is a simultaneous one and only gets 'confirmed' or realized a moment later. This is weird but has logic to it for which I'd need to present illustrations. I've discussed this before in many places on the subject of what consciousness is and could possibly find links to them if anyone asks.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

HexHammer wrote:When you stop asking stupid questions and fuck off this forum.

"Telling someone to go research something isn't philosophy and isn't productive debate. At best, it's simply off-topic. More likely, it's an insulting insinuation that the person is ignorant and an ad hominem fallacy.

The rules regarding being on-topic, particularly when it comes to personal attacks and ad hominem fallacies, are there precisely to avoid cozy chat and be conducive to on-topic productive debate void of off-topic blabbering, personal attacks and flame wars."

PhilX

Apparently you don't have a clue what you are saying, so I must consider you a bot.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

HexHammer wrote:When you stop asking stupid questions and fuck off this forum.

"Telling someone to go research something isn't philosophy and isn't productive debate. At best, it's simply off-topic. More likely, it's an insulting insinuation that the person is ignorant and an ad hominem fallacy.

The rules regarding being on-topic, particularly when it comes to personal attacks and ad hominem fallacies, are there precisely to avoid cozy chat and be conducive to on-topic productive debate void of off-topic blabbering, personal attacks and flame wars."

PhilX

Hex did not make an ad hom. He was just making a useful suggestion.
However until you offer something of substance you are simply shooting your self in the foot.

Scott Mayers wrote:I began answering but found it is too deep to simply answer without everyone understanding computer architecture, programming, and cellular biology including neurology.

For a very simplistic answer, robots require drive programs that define emotions (and moral values as a component 'emotions') and an ability to reflect on inputs and outputs through feedback by sensors and motors (via peripheries). It also needs many multiple processors that act in parallel than we presently have to represent cells. An eight-cell processor in some of our modern systems is still too little. We'd need thousands. This is because while we might replicate this through our limited cells by adding very fast programs, consciousness is a product of distinct logical events in kind acting simultaneously in real different locations in space.

It's odd that you immediately anthromporphise the idea of "self awareness'. As there is no necessary connection between "moral values", and "emotions", with self awareness I think you have got off on the wrong foot. I do not see speed as a necessary factor either.

The first place to start might be to ask if we have any reason to think that other humans or animals are self aware. Then see if what we think we mean by self aware makes any sense at all, before we disclude computers and robots.

Some people assert that the Universe is self aware. In this case computers would also have to have that quality. Personally this question reveals the paucity of that assertion as utterly ridiculous.

On the other extreme, whilst I can accept that I am self aware, what is the evidential basis for me thinking that PhilX is self aware??