Robots vs Humans The War to Come

[SpheresOfBalance]

One day there will be a war between robots and humans.
The robots do not know what is coming.
Humans operate from placid to viciousness.
Robots are not motivated to these extremes.
The robots with all their implanted intelligence will be crushed
by the the ruthless determination of humans.

So are you a prophet, or do you have a crystal ball? Should I call you Miss Cleo?

[The Jesus Head]

One day there will be a war between robots and humans.
The robots do not know what is coming.
Humans operate from placid to viciousness.
Robots are not motivated to these extremes.
The robots with all their implanted intelligence will be crushed
by the the ruthless determination of humans.

So are you a prophet, or do you have a crystal ball? Should I call you Miss Cleo?

I am glad you have noted the messianic branding.
This is how Jesus and Tony Blair started out.

[Arising_uk]

There is a resonant consciousness which belongs to the original of the species which cannot be replicated . ...

Care to explain what this "resonant consciousness" is?

John Gray has written some very interesting material ,about transference of cognition and he concludes that there are certain qualities ,that cannot be implanted. ...

What does he mean by "transference of cognition"?

I see no possibility that a robot can become a 100% human thinker.

Depends what you mean by 'thinking' here?

[Ginkgo]

There is a resonant consciousness which belongs to the original of the species which cannot be replicated . ...

Care to explain what this "resonant consciousness" is?

John Gray has written some very interesting material ,about transference of cognition and he concludes that there are certain qualities ,that cannot be implanted. ...

What does he mean by "transference of cognition"?

I see no possibility that a robot can become a 100% human thinker.

Depends what you mean by 'thinking' here?

From what I have read of Steven King's Pet Sematary he his talking zombies. Zombies that have no experience of their own, but mediate the experience of other people. Perhaps the JH reference, "transference of cognition" and the "certain qualities, that cannot be implanted" is reference to the fact that zombies cannot have experience therefore they have no consciousness. This has always been a popular theme in movies and books. Blade Runner and The Matrix spring to mind.

Zombies (philosophical ones) and robots can be used as a means of demonstrating that consciousness is something unique to each individual and consciousness is something 'extra' and has a special subjective character about it.

Robots may at some stage have cognition. This is basically Chalmer's 'easy problem', but they will never have the 'hard problem' or experience. One day robots may well act like they are angry, hurt or happy, but it only will ever be an act. They don't actually know what it is like to be angry, hurt or happy. The same type of argument can be applied to philosophical zombies. They have cognition , but they lack experience so therefore also lack consciousness.

[The Jesus Head]

From what I have read of Steven King's Pet Sematary he his talking zombies. Zombies that have no experience of their own, but mediate the experience of other people.

I was referring to the raising of the dead dog from death to life.
King used this to explain that such a reconstruction could not recover the
dog's disposition. This I find explains trying to implant a human component into a robot.

[SpheresOfBalance]

One day there will be a war between robots and humans.
The robots do not know what is coming.
Humans operate from placid to viciousness.
Robots are not motivated to these extremes.
The robots with all their implanted intelligence will be crushed
by the the ruthless determination of humans.

So are you a prophet, or do you have a crystal ball? Should I call you Miss Cleo?

I am glad you have noted the messianic branding.
This is how Jesus and Tony Blair started out.

I suspected you were delusional, thanks for the conformation.

[chaz wyman]

From what I have read of Steven King's Pet Sematary he his talking zombies. Zombies that have no experience of their own, but mediate the experience of other people.

I was referring to the raising of the dead dog from death to life.
King used this to explain that such a reconstruction could not recover the
dog's disposition. This I find explains trying to implant a human component into a robot.

This does not explain anything. S King is not a clinical psychologist; cerebral anatomist; a Neurologist or any other expert that might have an idea about what may or may not happen in such a circumstance. His guess is as good or bad as anyone else, and whilst he comes at the problem with an assumption that souls are real, then his view is likely to be scewed in that direction.

[The Jesus Head]

I am glad you have noted the messianic branding.
This is how Jesus and Tony Blair started out.

I suspected you were delusional, thanks for the conformation.

You mean confirmation .
When you improve on your English Language then you
can start to work on your philosophy.

[Ginkgo]

I am not exactly sure what type of argument King is developing but I think the following argument is where we are headed.

Is it logically possible{not actually) to have a human being that is exactly the same as us in every way, yet lacking conscious experience, sentience, qualia, soul? If we can establish the logical possibility of a philosophical zombie then is this a good argument against physicalism? In other words, is there only ever 'the easy problem' of consciousness?

[chaz wyman]

I am not exactly sure what type of argument King is developing but I think the following argument is where we are headed.

Is it logically possible{not actually) to have a human being that is exactly the same as us in every way, yet lacking conscious experience, sentience, qualia, soul? If we can establish the logical possibility of a philosophical zombie then is this a good argument against physicalism? In other words, is there only ever 'the easy problem' of consciousness?

What I meant to imply is that the re-animation of a corpse would lack the soul- it having departed. This being the reason why it was not as it was before. There would be no reason materialistically why a person would loose memory, personality, experience etc, as these would be wired into the brain and not dependant on an incorporeal soul.

[chaz wyman]

I am glad you have noted the messianic branding.
This is how Jesus and Tony Blair started out.

I suspected you were delusional, thanks for the conformation.

You mean confirmation .
When you improve on your English Language then you
can start to work on your philosophy.

Nice try, avoiding the issue. But the fact remains - it is "confirmed" you are delusional.

[Ginkgo]

What I meant to imply is that the re-animation of a corpse would lack the soul- it having departed. This being the reason why it was not as it was before. There would be no reason materialistically why a person would loose memory, personality, experience etc, as these would be wired into the brain and not dependant on an incorporeal soul.

Hi Chaz

Do you think there is an argument for classifying the soul as independent from-say consciousness or sentience? Or, do you think because they are all non-physical entities (different substances from the physical substances) they must be the same?
I guess I am asking why is the non-physical soul different from other non-physical substances?

[The Jesus Head]

Hi Chaz

Will he reply "Hi Ginkgo"

Do you think there is an argument for classifying the soul as independent from-say consciousness or sentience?

There is no such thing, as a soul beyond Christian mythology.

I guess I am asking why is the non-physical soul different from other non-physical substances?

Non physical soul ? What absurdity !

[chaz wyman]

What I meant to imply is that the re-animation of a corpse would lack the soul- it having departed. This being the reason why it was not as it was before. There would be no reason materialistically why a person would loose memory, personality, experience etc, as these would be wired into the brain and not dependant on an incorporeal soul.

Hi Chaz

Do you think there is an argument for classifying the soul as independent from-say consciousness or sentience? Or, do you think because they are all non-physical entities (different substances from the physical substances) they must be the same?
I guess I am asking why is the non-physical soul different from other non-physical substances?

Hi GInkgo,
I do not think that the soul, as usually described, is a viable proposition. It seems to me nothing more than an ancient invention to explain 'what leaves' the body on death.
What happens at death is the activity of the mind ceases, there is nothing that leaves (in the sense of going elsewhere). The mind is what the brain does; the sum of the physical interactions of the modules of memory and activities and so on. All this has to be physical to make sense of the neurology. When a drug, or an accident can change the personality, what role does a soul really have?

[chaz wyman]

Hi Chaz

Will he reply "Hi Ginkgo"

Do you think there is an argument for classifying the soul as independent from-say consciousness or sentience?

There is no such thing, as a soul beyond Christian mythology.

I guess I am asking why is the non-physical soul different from other non-physical substances?

Non physical soul ? What absurdity !

I'm not making that claim. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would be nearly halfway to knowing what I am talking about.