Philosophy Now Forum

So Robots could never evolve their own intentions ?

Hatred and irrationality is the human edge in any battle.

So what you are saying is that you do not believe intelligent robots could
think abstractly ?

Depends upon what you mean?

But lets say they can then why could they also not behave with hatred and irrationality?

I believe that a degree of abstract thought could be implanted in a robot in order that it may adapt but not hatred and certainly not irrationality .
Hatred is a particular human quality that arises cumulatively .
You could not build cells in a robot that respond in such a way.
Human cognition has followed an evolution over millions of years.
My point was not meant to be taken literally however.

Because everything that Plato said was bollocks.
And when we start to unpack what he said I will show you (from what I know of your opinions already) that you already agree with me on this point. All of Plato's work is predicated on a thing that you have already objected to, namely God.
For Plato there is a set of purposes, a set of meanings, a set of duties, and a overriding scheme attached to life and we way we are supposed to live it.
Someone once said of Plato that philosophy was just a set of footnotes to Plato. In reality Plato is an edifice which philosophy has had to chip away at until he is gone forever.

Plato ist Tot

When you say evolve....

You've not said what you mean by "abstract thought" so I can't really answer but what the hell, lets be irrational. If you mean that we'll be coding such a thing then I think you mistaken as we pretty much haven't defined the concept in such a way that it can be algorithmically implemented.

You'll need to define what you mean by "hatred" and "irrationality" as I think with respect to irrationality that people are not, they work with positive intentions, all behaviour has a positive intention behind it. With respect to hatred, I'll have to wait to see what you say.
See above.
What do you mean by this? As its not cells that 'hate'?
Has it? I think we've pretty much not evolved from our forebearers for a very long time. But again, you'd have to say what you mean by "evolve" and "cognition" before I could properly comment.
Then you might be in the wrong place.

So are you saying that a life of order ,duties,and schemes require the endorsement
of God ?

So what you are saying is that all positive intentions produce positive outcomes?




If a robot evolves hatred that would be remarkable.
How it could be engineered is another matter .



Cells would have to carry hatred.



Yes I agree there is no further evolution in ethics but my point is that the complex
human mind can not be engineered for a robot.It will always be a simulation.

Depends if the person achieved the outcome they wanted. Would it be a positive outcome for all? Not necessarily but then you'd have to say what you meant by "positive outcomes" in this instance.
If robots evolve at all would be the remarkable thing.
This contradicts the idea of robots evolving.

Cells don't have the abillity to 'hate'.

Who was talking about ethics? This is why I asked you what you meant by 'cognition'.

If it can be a simulation then this "complex human mind" has been engineered?

The subject was robotic hatred and no one has ruled out how this could come about.
Engineered or evolved. Both are possible but most unlikely.



That is like saying the brain does not have the ability to play tennis.



I was introducing ethics as a point about human evolution
and in doing so asking you to juggle with three oranges instead of two.

Because everything that Plato said was bollocks.
And when we start to unpack what he said I will show you (from what I know of your opinions already) that you already agree with me on this point. All of Plato's work is predicated on a thing that you have already objected to, namely God.
For Plato there is a set of purposes, a set of meanings, a set of duties, and a overriding scheme attached to life and we way we are supposed to live it.
Someone once said of Plato that philosophy was just a set of footnotes to Plato. In reality Plato is an edifice which philosophy has had to chip away at until he is gone forever.

Plato ist Tot


No, I am saying that is the case with Plato obviously. (you do ask some odd questions at times.)

It is possible to suggest an ethical code without god, but this is not the case with Plato.
Plato thinks in absolute terms in a world designed by Zeus. Moral duties are absolute and unvarying. Your class is determined at birth and you have a duty to follow the design your capabilities be you a slave or an aristocrat.
The entire conception of this scheme is based on Ideal Forms that give meanings and purposes to life and you roles in it that are pre-defined outside humans' immediate conception or personal opinion.
Plato is aristocratic and anti-democratic. Philosophers know best how to organise society and ordinary people have a duty to behave as they are told.

Sounds a bit like the New Labour Manifesto under Tony Blair.

An extreme example carried out by thousands of people in the name of "obedience" is the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis.

You are confused. It's more like Hitler or Thatcher.

So are you giving up your defence of Plato so easily?