So Robots could never evolve their own intentions ?Yes, humans provide the intentionality. This is not a contradiction. Maybe you should consult a dictionary for the word "intention"?
Are you sure you are up to this?
Robots vs Humans The War to Come
- The Jesus Head
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:18 am
- Location: Golgotha, Jerusalem
Re: Robots vs Humans The War to Come
- The Jesus Head
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:18 am
- Location: Golgotha, Jerusalem
Re: Robots vs Humans The War to Come
Hatred and irrationality is the human edge in any battle.
think abstractly ?
So what you are saying is that you do not believe intelligent robots couldNope, the ability to change and adapt is the human edge in any battle.
think abstractly ?
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Robots vs Humans The War to Come
Depends upon what you mean?The Jesus Head wrote:So what you are saying is that you do not believe intelligent robots could
think abstractly ?
But lets say they can then why could they also not behave with hatred and irrationality?
- The Jesus Head
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:18 am
- Location: Golgotha, Jerusalem
Re: Robots vs Humans The War to Come
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 .Arising_uk wrote:Depends upon what you mean?The Jesus Head wrote:So what you are saying is that you do not believe intelligent robots could
think abstractly ?
But lets say they can then why could they also not behave with hatred and 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.
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: Robots vs Humans The War to Come
Because everything that Plato said was bollocks.The Jesus Head wrote:What did you mean by little ?
How could you value my comprehension when you say thatIt's the size of your comprehension.
Do you know what "intentionality" means?
You do not seem to.
Plato is "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
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: Robots vs Humans The War to Come
When you say evolve....The Jesus Head wrote:So Robots could never evolve their own intentions ?Yes, humans provide the intentionality. This is not a contradiction. Maybe you should consult a dictionary for the word "intention"?
Are you sure you are up to this?
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Robots vs Humans The War to Come
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.The Jesus Head wrote: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 . ...
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.Hatred is a particular human quality that arises cumulatively . ...
What do you mean by this? As its not cells that 'hate'?You could not build cells in a robot that respond in such a way. ...
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.Human cognition has followed an evolution over millions of years. ...
Then you might be in the wrong place.My point was not meant to be taken literally however.
- The Jesus Head
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:18 am
- Location: Golgotha, Jerusalem
Re: Robots vs Humans The War to Come
So are you saying that a life of order ,duties,and schemes require the endorsementchaz wyman wrote:Because everything that Plato said was bollocks.The Jesus Head wrote:What did you mean by little ?
How could you value my comprehension when you say thatIt's the size of your comprehension.
Do you know what "intentionality" means?
You do not seem to.
Plato is "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
of God ?
- The Jesus Head
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:18 am
- Location: Golgotha, Jerusalem
Re: Robots vs Humans The War to Come
So what you are saying is that all positive intentions produce positive outcomes?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.
If a robot evolves hatred that would be remarkable.With respect to hatred, I'll have to wait to see what you say.
How it could be engineered is another matter .
Cells would have to carry hatred.You could not build cells in a robot that respond in such a way. ...What do you mean by this? As its not cells that 'hate'?
Yes I agree there is no further evolution in ethics but my point is that the complexHuman cognition has followed an evolution over millions of years. ...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.
human mind can not be engineered for a robot.It will always be a simulation.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Robots vs Humans The War to Come
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.The Jesus Head wrote:So what you are saying is that all positive intentions produce positive outcomes?
If robots evolve at all would be the remarkable thing.If a robot evolves hatred that would be remarkable. ...
This contradicts the idea of robots evolving.How it could be engineered is another matter .
Cells don't have the abillity to 'hate'.Cells would have to carry hatred.
Who was talking about ethics? This is why I asked you what you meant by 'cognition'.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.
If it can be a simulation then this "complex human mind" has been engineered?
- The Jesus Head
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:18 am
- Location: Golgotha, Jerusalem
Re: Robots vs Humans The War to Come
The subject was robotic hatred and no one has ruled out how this could come about.How it could be engineered is another matter .
This contradicts the idea of robots evolving.
Engineered or evolved. Both are possible but most unlikely.
That is like saying the brain does not have the ability to play tennis.Cells would have to carry hatred.Cells don't have the abillity to 'hate'.
I was introducing ethics as a point about human evolutionYes 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.Who was talking about ethics? This is why I asked you what you meant by 'cognition'.
and in doing so asking you to juggle with three oranges instead of two.
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: Robots vs Humans The War to Come
Because everything that Plato said was bollocks.The Jesus Head wrote:How could you value my comprehension when you say thatchaz wyman wrote:It's the size of your comprehension.
Do you know what "intentionality" means?
You do not seem to.
Plato is "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.)The Jesus Head wrote: So are you saying that a life of order ,duties,and schemes require the endorsement
of God ?
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.
- The Jesus Head
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:18 am
- Location: Golgotha, Jerusalem
Re: Robots vs Humans The War to Come
Sounds a bit like the New Labour Manifesto under Tony Blair.chaz wyman wrote:Because everything that Plato said was bollocks.The Jesus Head wrote:How could you value my comprehension when you say thatchaz wyman wrote:It's the size of your comprehension.
Do you know what "intentionality" means?
You do not seem to.
Plato is "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.)The Jesus Head wrote: So are you saying that a life of order ,duties,and schemes require the endorsement
of God ?
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.
-
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am
Re: Robots vs Humans The War to Come
Philosophers know best how to organise society and ordinary people have a duty to behave as they are told.
An extreme example carried out by thousands of people in the name of "obedience" is the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis.Sounds a bit like the New Labour Manifesto under Tony Blair.
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: Robots vs Humans The War to Come
You are confused. It's more like Hitler or Thatcher.The Jesus Head wrote:Sounds a bit like the New Labour Manifesto under Tony Blair.chaz wyman wrote: 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.
So are you giving up your defence of Plato so easily?