Originally posted by RobtardIs it this?
Xmarks,You might know something of this, I remember reading that some research facility/laboratory was trying to develop and organic CPU chip based off brain cells (or something similar).
I'm sure there are other labs working on similar though.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not in the same way but they would still need to draw power from somewhere, pay for maintenance, spend time recharging and so on.
Why would a robot pay for maintenance? Wouldn't it be up to us to pay for it's maintenance? We are the ones who built it and it is serving a purpose for us. I doubt we'd build robots to think for themselves just to benefit robot-kind.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Is it this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358822.stm
Or this?
http://www.livescience.com/health/060327_neuro_chips.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8902-chip-ramps-up-neurontocomputer-communication.htmlI'm sure there are other labs working on similar though.
Close enough.
Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Why would a robot pay for maintenance?
Because it makes economic sense.
Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Wouldn't it be up to us to pay for it's maintenance? We are the ones who built it and it is serving a purpose for us. I doubt we'd build robots to think for themselves just to benefit robot-kind.
If we don't make them pay for maintenance and such we'd be doing nothing but benefiting robots.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosAs is, we pay for robot mainenance all the time because the robots serve a purpose for us. If we designed robots to think for themselves and they did not serve a purpose for us, then of course they should pay for their own maintenance. But if that is the case, why create these robots in the first place?
If we don't make them pay for maintenance and such we'd be doing nothing but benefiting robots.
Originally posted by Devil King
There was an episode of ST:TNG that dealt with that. I think Data ended up with rights.
Indeed, he argued that Data had Self-Awareness, Intelligence and Consciousness therefore he was as sentient as any other being.
Why does it matter if your carbon based or platinum based etc?
Pregnancy and Machine Construction isn;t even that different if you think about it.
Raw Materials are transformed into an end product.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a software problem not a hardware problem which as the issue being addressed.
You are correct. This is why some people say that real AI will never exist. We can create the processing power, eventually, and the "robots" will be more intelligent than we are but we never be able to create true AI.
I disagree, because I'm an optimist and it just seems close-minded and egotistical to think that a ridiculously complex program cannot be created. It doesn't matter if the program is merely mimicking human intelligence (or lack thereof), we ourselves are programmed via genetics and nurture anyway.
It's a two-sided coin (on an aside: what a redundant phrase - all coins by their nature must have two sides).
It may be egotistical to think that human neural systems are too complex to be mimicked by software algorithms. But then it's equally egotistical to posit that human programmers are capable of writing software algorithms able to mimic complex neural systems - human or otherwise.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
But then it's equally egotistical to posit that human programmers are capable of writing software algorithms able to mimic complex neural systems - human or otherwise.
You could say that...but I wasn't thinking about the capability of the human-mind to produce such. I was more or less thinking that it was a mere probability that would come to fruition due to the greed and perseverance of humanity (That still may seem egotistical, but in my thoughts, I am placing perseverance on the same level as say, driver ants.) That's probably why I didn't think it was egotistical to hold such a view. From my now former perspective (because you made a good point), I could only see the ego of evangelicals as it related to the divine disposition of humanity. Fairly strange of a theist to hold such a perspective, isn't it? 😄
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It's a two-sided coin (on an aside: what a redundant phrase - all coins by their nature must have two sides).
I am pretty sure the common expression is "two sides of the same coin". Which makes more sense. Maybe "double-edged sword" would have been closer to your meaning.
Re: Artificial Intelligence
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavDepends what you mean by Intelligence (or for that matter, life). Broadly speaking, the factors involved in Intelligence are Knowledge, Memory, Logic and Creativity (making alogical, synergistic connections). The first three we understand and are already replicable. But Creativity: afaik, that remains an enigma.
The question is this, can an Intelligence which is of artificial life be considered sentient and indeed equal with Organic Intelligence?
Should we ever develop "robots" who are say like Data from Star Trek or Andrew from The Bicentennial Man should they have access to the same human rights as mankind?I think this involves more than Intelligence. As you implied above, this now touches upon Life, as well as Consciousness, ie, what it means to have either. Personally, I don't think a human-mimicking Turing machine should have the same rights as a human being.
If any of you have about an hour...this is a nice summary of Ray Kurzweil's thoughts. I just stumbled across this. He makes my specualtions look like chld's play.
He was wrong on some things but rediculously correct on others. Why aren't the Christians hailing this guy as a prophet?
Researchers create a virtual mouse brain:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=242
all we need to do is program the hundreds of billions of neurons and potentially thousands of connections between each of them and we will have a functioning brain, only in C++ or whatever 🙂
My question about this would relate to neuroplasticity. One of the craziest things about brains is their ability to reorganize themselves based on external stimuli. Hypothetically, robots might not have the ability to, at a hardware level, reorganize their basic machinery to adapt to novel situations, and might need a memory system far greater than ours with many more pre-set options available.
Originally posted by inimalist
Researchers create a virtual mouse brain:http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=242
all we need to do is program the hundreds of billions of neurons and potentially thousands of connections between each of them and we will have a functioning brain, only in C++ or whatever 🙂This is effective as of today, 06-23-2008.
[QUOTE=10717420]Originally posted by inimalist
[B]My question about this would relate to neuroplasticity. One of the craziest things about brains is their ability to reorganize themselves based on external stimuli. Hypothetically, robots might not have the ability to, at a hardware level, reorganize their basic machinery to adapt to novel situations, and might need a memory system far greater than ours with many more pre-set options available.
Nanotechnology is supposed to be the remedy. Supposedly, it will reorganize things at the nano level...very similar to biological cells.
Originally posted by Bardock42
What does it matter. You don't have to be of a species to get certain rights and being of a species does not grant you equal rights to other species.
It does matter. They're machines. Period! There is no DNA in them.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, we should give them rights because they have emotions and thoughs similar to humans or even higher.
Let's follow your train of thought here. We civilize humans should give rights to the ancestors of those future machines. So that in the future this machines won't have hard feelings towards us for treating their kin with respect. Yeah, let's give machines rights! So thus all laptops, video game consoles, microwaves etc...give them rights. Oh brother! Love your thinking.
Here is an idea! You want to give rights to someone? Give it to human clones...I'm sure they'll appreciated more than some mechanical gadget.
Because that is basically what we are. And because (in this scenario) they can suffer just like we can.
It's a friggin machine! It's not organic! It's program to replicate human emotions...it's not living.
Okay, answered. Your post is still stupid.
Not as stupid as giving a machine rights just because it can mimic a human being.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
It does matter. They're machines. Period! There is no DNA in them.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Let's follow your train of thought here. We civilize humans should give rights to the ancestors of those future machines. So that in the future this machines won't have hard feelings towards us for treating their kin with respect. Yeah, let's give machines rights! So thus all laptops, video game consoles, microwaves etc...give them rights. Oh brother! Love your thinking.
Don't try that thinking thing, doesn't suit you. I never said we should give ancestors of anything rights, just because their descendants might qualify as equals. I said, once that is the case, those machines should have rights...
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Here is an idea! You want to give rights to someone? Give it to human clones...I'm sure they'll appreciated more than some mechanical gadget.
Did you somehow think I was against rights for human clones?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
It's a friggin machine! It's not organic! It's program to replicate human emotions...it's not living.
What's the difference. If it feels pain, if it feels fear, if it has hopes and emotions. Why should it not have rights like we do? We give animals some rights and in this hypothetical situation they would be emotionally and intelligence wise far below the machines talking about. Why are you so strongly opposed to non-human rights?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Not as stupid as giving a machine rights just because it can mimic a human being.
We were talking about a machine that actually has those emotions and does not just emulate them. Though, in practice, I doubt we could differentiate, and I doubt it would make a difference.
I don#t think humans deserve rights because it has DNA, but because it has a mind that can feel pain, that can think and believe...
Originally posted by Bardock42
What's the difference. If it feels pain, if it feels fear, if it has hopes and emotions. Why should it not have rights like we do? We give animals some rights and in this hypothetical situation they would be emotionally and intelligence wise far below the machines talking about. Why are you so strongly opposed to non-human rights?
That's the point. It feels nothing! It's a program. It can mimic emotions nothing more. I oppose giving rights to something that is so absurdly silly as a mechanical gadget. I can see giving it something like an insurance or a warranty....like my Xbox 360, or my car, or my PC. But give it rights? ha!
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don#t think humans deserve rights because it has DNA, but because it has a mind that can feel pain, that can think and believe...
And can do many other things machines can't...such as humor, passion, kindness and other stuff.
Think for a moment of the lack of jobs that these machines would cause to the future proletariat.
Can you imagine a world in which a human have to compete for a job with another machine? Put yourself in that man shoes...how is he going to put food on his table while some mechanical automaton does the job the man rightfully should have?
That's right Bardock! This capitalist pig (i.e. me) would agree with a Communist. We would rather give a job to a man than to a machine.
WORKERS OF ALL NATIONS...UNITE!