Robots vs Humans The War to Come

[Arising_uk]

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.

About as unlikely as them developing intention, abstract thought and all the other things you've postulated.

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

Brains can't 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.

Fine as I taught myself to juggle a long time back.

Not sure what your point was tho' as our Ethics have 'evolved' over time. Its was our cognition I was questioning but you'd have to say what you mean by "cognition" before we could discuss fruitfully.

[The Jesus Head]

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.

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

I suggest you read a bit about Blair before you brand yourself as
knowing all about politics

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

Well I am not sure I can rely on the objectivity of what you have said about
Plato. I mean you use the word "bollocks" frequently and I have never heard an academic
use such language to support his case so I think your credibility is lowered in my estimation.
I mean you could be a fraud and who would know?

[chaz wyman]

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

Well I am not sure I can rely on the objectivity of what you have said about
Plato. I mean you use the word "bollocks" frequently and I have never heard an academic
use such language to support his case so I think your credibility is lowered in my estimation.
I mean you could be a fraud and who would know?

I have not made any objective statements about Plato. I expressed an opinion.
But at least I know what I am talking about. We have had nothing from you about your understanding of Plato.
If you think I am wrong then say why.
If I were a fraud you would know from your own understanding of Plato. Which is I think limited; as is evidenced by your statement about Tony Blair of whom you are either ignorant or ignorant of Plato, or both.
When you know something about Plato then come back and talk about it.
You might want to start with the latest edition of Philosophy Now.. It's for beginners.

As the Americans say: put up of shut up.

[The Jesus Head]

I have not made any objective statements about Plato.

You said Plato talked bollocks Granted that is not an objective statement.

I expressed an opinion.

A rather crude one may i say

But at least I know what I am talking about.

You know the rudimentary aspects .

We have had nothing from you about your understanding of Plato.
If you think I am wrong then say why.

I would say that claiming Plato talked bollocks is kind of
childish.

If I were a fraud you would know from your own understanding of Plato. Which is I think limited; as is evidenced by your statement about Tony Blair of whom you are either ignorant or ignorant of Plato, or both.

I think you are deluded is what I really think.
I suspect you believe you are a great thinker which is exemplified by your
arrogance. as for Tony Blair and politics I would say you understand very little.

When you know something about Plato then come back and talk about it.
You might want to start with the latest edition of Philosophy Now.. It's for beginners.

You cannot but embroider your rhetoric with derision can you?
I think you wish to compensate for your failures in life by dishing out frustrated
remarks .

As the Americans say: put up of shut up.

I spent many years in America, in two States ,and to be honest ,the Americans
have far greater self control and manners than the British and certainly
you set a very bad example with your crude, bolshie, arrogant communication
and let me ask you in what capacity you are a teacher ; because I think that is a doubtful
claim.

[Ginkgo]

Perhaps Plato is making 'a category error' when he postulates his theory of Forms. Gilbert Ryle gives us an example of this when he tells the story of a son showing his parents the University he is about to attend. He shows he parents a number of colleges, libraries, playing fields, scientific departments and administration offices. The father tells his son that this is all very interesting but insists that his son now show him, the University. After all the son has only shown him the particulars, not the actual.

Plato is possibly on the right track if we look at what Plato is doing in a different way.In other words, within the mind there is some type of mental process going on that naturally unifies our experience. The mind seems to categorize particular experiences into a unified understanding. Plato's mistake is to think this unity is somehow real. Or, as in Plato's case the universal is the 'really real'.

[chaz wyman]

I have not made any objective statements about Plato.

You said Plato talked bollocks Granted that is not an objective statement.

I expressed an opinion.

A rather crude one may i say

But at least I know what I am talking about.

You know the rudimentary aspects .

We have had nothing from you about your understanding of Plato.
If you think I am wrong then say why.

I would say that claiming Plato talked bollocks is kind of
childish.

If I were a fraud you would know from your own understanding of Plato. Which is I think limited; as is evidenced by your statement about Tony Blair of whom you are either ignorant or ignorant of Plato, or both.

I think you are deluded is what I really think.
I suspect you believe you are a great thinker which is exemplified by your
arrogance. as for Tony Blair and politics I would say you understand very little.

When you know something about Plato then come back and talk about it.
You might want to start with the latest edition of Philosophy Now.. It's for beginners.

You cannot but embroider your rhetoric with derision can you?
I think you wish to compensate for your failures in life by dishing out frustrated
remarks .

As the Americans say: put up of shut up.

I spent many years in America, in two States ,and to be honest ,the Americans
have far greater self control and manners than the British and certainly
you set a very bad example with your crude, bolshie, arrogant communication
and let me ask you in what capacity you are a teacher ; because I think that is a doubtful
claim.

You are nothing more that fluff and bluster.
You know nothing about Plato, and your reflections on the UK and the USA are hopelessly prejudiced and based on a paltry sample.
You don't Know Americans as I do, though you are not likely to have gained as much experience of them as me.

[chaz wyman]

Perhaps Plato is making 'a category error' when he postulates his theory of Forms. Gilbert Ryle gives us an example of this when he tells the story of a son showing his parents the University he is about to attend. He shows he parents a number of colleges, libraries, playing fields, scientific departments and administration offices. The father tells his son that this is all very interesting but insists that his son now show him, the University. After all the son has only shown him the particulars, not the actual.

Plato is possibly on the right track if we look at what Plato is doing in a different way.In other words, within the mind there is some type of mental process going on that naturally unifies our experience. The mind seems to categorize particular experiences into a unified understanding. Plato's mistake is to think this unity is somehow real. Or, as in Plato's case the universal is the 'really real'.

This 'error' is the essence of his metaphysics (should we chose to categorise the ToF as such), so he can't get off the hook, nor should we try to make excuses for him.
This is only an error is retrospect and works inside the intellectual milieu of his time. The endemic assumption he is inevitably working on is that the world is of one design in the minds of the Gods.

[Ginkgo]

This 'error' is the essence of his metaphysics (should we chose to categorise the ToF as such), so he can't get off the hook, nor should we try to make excuses for him.
This is only an error is retrospect and works inside the intellectual milieu of his time. The endemic assumption he is inevitably working on is that the world is of one design in the minds of the Gods.

Perhaps the Greeks were not only the children of democracy but were also the children of Western philosophy. After all everyone loves a child.

[The Jesus Head]

Perhaps Plato is making 'a category error' when he postulates his theory of Forms. Gilbert Ryle gives us an example of this when he tells the story of a son showing his parents the University he is about to attend. He shows he parents a number of colleges, libraries, playing fields, scientific departments and administration offices. The father tells his son that this is all very interesting but insists that his son now show him, the University. After all the son has only shown him the particulars, not the actual.

Plato is possibly on the right track if we look at what Plato is doing in a different way.In other words, within the mind there is some type of mental process going on that naturally unifies our experience. The mind seems to categorize particular experiences into a unified understanding. Plato's mistake is to think this unity is somehow real. Or, as in Plato's case the universal is the 'really real'.

This 'error' is the essence of his metaphysics (should we chose to categorise the ToF as such), so he can't get off the hook, nor should we try to make excuses for him.
This is only an error is retrospect and works inside the intellectual milieu of his time. The endemic assumption he is inevitably working on is that the world is of one design in the minds of the Gods.

I think you are at your best when you plagiarise .

[Ginkgo]

So what of robots? Will there ever be a machine that is conscious. That is to say, a machine that has experience, or is experience only reserved for humans?

[Arising_uk]

... Philosophers know best how to organise society and ordinary people have a duty to behave as they are told.

Damm right!! I knew intuitively he was correct when I read about the Philosopher Kings and that I was destined to be one. Now if we could just get the great unwashed to respect philosophy.

[Arising_uk]

So what of robots? Will there ever be a machine that is conscious. That is to say, a machine that has experience, or is experience only reserved for humans?

Depends what you mean by "conscious" and "experience" here Ginko? I think you might mean "self-conscious" as do you think animals are conscious and self-conscious in the way appear to be.

[Ginkgo]

I'll go with David Chalmers on this one. Him being an Aussie and all of that.

David Chalmers refers to phenomenological consciousness as, 'the hard problem' and cognitive consciousness as, 'the easy problem' The easy problems are those that are directly susceptible to the standard methods of cognitive science, whereby phenomenon is explained in terms of computer mechanisms. In a similar fashion human cognition can be explained using neural mechanisms. The hard problem for Chalmers are those problems that resist these methods. For Chalmers consciousness is experience and the hard problem is why humans have experience at all.

As far as animals go most would have some sort of experience of in terms of their environment. As far as we know animals are not self-conscious in the same way we are. We rightly believe that a bat experiences its environment although we have no idea what this experience might be like.

[The Jesus Head]

So what of robots? Will there ever be a machine that is conscious. That is to say, a machine that has experience, or is experience only reserved for humans?

I say such is impossible. In a sense, this idea was exposed in Steven Kings novel, Pet Cemetery.
There is a resonant consciousness which belongs to the original of the species which cannot be replicated . John Gray has written some very interesting material ,about transference of cognition
and he concludes that there are certain qualities ,that cannot be implanted.
I see no possibility that a robot can become a 100% human thinker.

[chaz wyman]

I think we have good examples right now of the way in which this mythical war will be prosecuted.
US drone attacks are taking out targets right now. Its the means to wage a cowards' war with little or no personal consequences on targets that are no immediate threat.
(with a press release with the ubiquitous "links with Al-Quaeda" slapped on those deaths to cover their arses.)

Robots are nothing more than tools of humans.