Could a robot really love a human?

[Still Waters]

Society must decide if it is willing to accept relationships between humans and robots before the machines become so sophisticated they start demanding rights, a legal expert has warned.

Rapid advances in technology mean cyborgs, or human-like robots, are no longer a vision of a distant future.

The machines have been made famous by films like Terminator and Blade Runner but real life is increasingly catching up with fiction.

Earlier this year researchers announced they had created robot ‘scientists’ – complete with the ability to think for themselves.

As the machines become more sophisticated, they will increasingly seem more like humans and could demand ‘human rights’, Anna Russel, from the University of San Diego warns.

One of the flashpoints could be over relationships, including sexual relationships, with humans, she claims.

Read more...

[Alchera]

If it is programmed in the right way, I think that a machine would indeed feel emotions just in the same way that we do. Afterall, we are "programmed" by nature to feel these things to and dispite this grand notion of emotions we have, they are the result of chemical changes in our body. If we can simulate these in a self aware robot then I think it must have the same or similar rights. This programming would have to be very advanced however.

[DurgaMata]

No but it could probably do a very good impression.

[Mr Honeybadger]

This is bad news for women.

If fully functional and real to life female androids became a reality, the waiting list by guys would be a mile long.

[Alchera]

This is bad news for women.

If fully functional and real to life female androids became a reality, the waiting list by guys would be a mile long.

Maybe women will have male ones?

[DurgaMata]

They said that about the dildo..

[The Silver Thong]

Wonder how people will take to the first marriage between man and machine? doh better yet what happens if the robots are gay? what will people do LOL

[jbondo]

Cyborgs with rights? Forget it! A machine is a machine is a machine. They should be built to serve humankind not become equals. As for having one in the home to do everything from cook to have sex, IMO only the very rich will be able to afford them for quite a long time.

Also we have to consider them taking jobs away from humans. I mean why would a company hire a human when it can buy a programmed cyborg to work 24/7/365? No training, no vacations, no personal issues. That is until their feeling and thinking get too advanced.

[behaviour???]

That would of course be a problem because I hardly think society will do such a thing...But the thing is its in the near future and I don't think we have to worry so much about that.but really i am intrigued on how they are going to make it possible because they will have to produce hormones and find ways in fixing human tissue that react to this hormone...and its so complicated that i hardly think this will come in to affect in the next 75 years...though possibilities are endless

thanks

B???

[G3N0M3]

Personally if I would have a fully functional robot with me all the time I would grow attached to it.

In which case yes, I think we will have emotions for them but untill they become sentient I don't see how they could have their own feelings... Even that thought is to encompasing...

What is our emotion if not a reaction of different "factors" (molecules, chemicals) which then translate to physical want or "need" (again pre determined 'variables').

In this train of thought I would like to get out the understanding of emotions:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion
  

This in fact is "programmed" into our brains through pre determined variables, so the only way that we could NOT have a fully functioning robot as our maid, it would not be able to think for itself. A robot thinking for itself would mean it could learn from humans, what it would learn from humans is how it would try to immitate us to become sentient.

Here is a peice of information that could show you how it is percieved:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeling
  

Though they can learn what happens from what it could not take a robot to long to become a replicate human. In this case as B??? added, the only time that we would need to worry about any kind of emotional awareness is within the amount of time it would take for a robot or AI to learn, and interpret what emotions and feelings are. This could take minutes, hours, days, months, years, decades...

Now to get a bit off subject, when we are able to have robots I would have it with me 24/7 just so that it could learn me, and understand me. This way I would be connected to this mechine just as I am to my laptop, because we are a materialistic race of people (humans), we will even fight for our property with our lives. This was shown throughout time as wars and battles over non essential resources and land even now with oil.

G3N0M3

[aquatus1]

No but it could probably do a very good impression.

Just like humans.

[ShaunZero]

"Love" requires consciousness. You could never know if a robot actually is aware, or if it just mimics awareness. There's no way to quantify "subjective experience", and so you could never know whether it was actual love or not to begin with.

Just like humans.

Humans do an impression of being in love? I thought love was simply defined as the group of feelings someone gets when they are attached to someone in "that" specific way. I say that because love itself isn't well defined. We know from personal first hand experience.... well, we ASSUME (Safely) that all humans are conscious because we know that we are conscious and that all humans have brains that work the same; however, we know that a computer in it's current state is not aware, and so even if a robot had a computer so complex that it SEEMED to be aware, would you really be comfortable to say it IS aware and be confident that there's no way you're wrong? The implications to me would be dangerous. We'd be treating these things that are actually completely unaware and have no subjective FEELINGS as humans. It'd almost be like treating a video game character as a real person and a huge waste of time. Do we give rocks rights too?

I can understand some coding (I do very simple/mediocre coding on my own project I'm working on) and it's easy to see that when you have enough variables at play, you could easily create something that resembles awareness. But really nothing subjective would be going on, just a huge amount of input and output that's so complex the end sum could not be predicted; just as the brain.

Edited November 19, 2009 by ShaunZero

[brlesq1]

Sounds like Isaac Asimov. But yeah, I can see it. But what if a robot was programmed to love someone (assuming it could be done)? Would that be any different from humans? Or would it still be just an incredibly sophisticated machine?

[kobolds]

an robot action is depend on the programs . you can program robot to show love but in the end it's just something that predefined .

it's a foolish though to think that a robot can love human.

[RamboIII]

Cyborgs with rights? Forget it! A machine is a machine is a machine. They should be built to serve humankind not become equals. As for having one in the home to do everything from cook to have sex, IMO only the very rich will be able to afford them for quite a long time.

Also we have to consider them taking jobs away from humans. I mean why would a company hire a human when it can buy a programmed cyborg to work 24/7/365? No training, no vacations, no personal issues. That is until their feeling and thinking get too advanced.

Jbondo... if we make robots that can work that long with no problems then humans won't need to work because we can just enjoy life and get all our necessities from robots. The only human jobs would be electrical engineers and the other jobs associated with machine building and maintenance. Humans could finally be free and do whatever the hell we damn please

[Des Hikari]

The question here has nothing to do with rights.. at least not yet in any case.

The question is if a machine or entity can be programmed to love.

My take on this is that no, love cannot be programmed into something, but they could "feel" infatuation.

Love is more defined as a changing thing, not as simple as upwards of a million lines of code. Love requires no thought, is a very animalistic bond that is innate like a mother and her child.

It seems such as a case that real feelings of what love is are so simple it can never be accurately reproduced. Imitated, but not reproduced.

[Des Hikari]

And I apologize for not being all one post but I noticed I missed something.

If we were debating the possibility of humans successfully recreating human emotion by any means, then we're talking about "IF x THEN y" I'm sure it came up in math class, grade 11 possibly.

Our situation would look like this: "IF (humans recreate emotions) THEN (robot feels emotions)

Which looks the same as "IF (robots can love) THEN (robots could love).

The ideology behind this seemed to miss something called reality here. Sure ideas and dreams are quite impressive, but it's keeping the reality factor in mind that makes things possible.

And just like any other human. "We gon' haev us a problm yo" o.0

[chemical-licker]

well i am marrying my ps3:wub: it's true love.

when it breaks down though and I have to get a new one is it still true love?

[BlindMessiah]

Cyborgs with rights? Forget it! A machine is a machine is a machine.

You're a machine. Built not by another species, but by natural selection. So nature is your master. Do you serve nature? No, you assert yourself as an individual and claim your rights. How would it be any different for a sentient machine created by humans? We're all just processes. They'll have microchips running their brains(and we might too for that matter) and we have squishy stuff running ours. Either way, its just electrical impulses coming together to form consciousness.

[ShaunZero]

You're a machine. Built not by another species, but by natural selection. So nature is your master. Do you serve nature? No, you assert yourself as an individual and claim your rights. How would it be any different for a sentient machine created by humans? We're all just processes. They'll have microchips running their brains(and we might too for that matter) and we have squishy stuff running ours. Either way, its just electrical impulses coming together to form consciousness.

People are skipping over the real issue here. The real issue is awareness and subjectivity. A rock does not have rights, not just because it isn't human, but because it has no subjective feelings. There's no need to give rights to something that does not feel anything. It doesn't matter whether you believe in determinisim, free-will or a mix of the two, the very fact that we can experience subjectivity qualifies us for rights. It's the opposite for say, your keyboard in front of you.

Edited November 20, 2009 by ShaunZero

[ShaunZero]

Either way, its just electrical impulses coming together to form consciousness.

How do you define consciousness? How would you scientifically quantify and prove that it had consciousness while being able to falsify your theory?

Edited November 20, 2009 by ShaunZero

[BlindMessiah]

How do you define consciousness? How would you scientifically quantify and prove that it had consciousness while being able to falsify your theory?

You'd have to compare the fuctions of its brain with the function of other conscious living organisms, like humans. If they work the same, then you'd have to conclude that they're conscious. How to falsify it, if it doesn't work the same. I don't know why I'm conscious, but I am, and it's because of whatever the hell goes on in my body. So if we can replicate that in a machine, then they are, at heart, human. You could create a machine to feel like a cat, and at heart, it is a cat. The trick would be in creating an entirely new sort of awareness. With nothing to compare it to, we could only guess.

[ShaunZero]

You'd have to compare the fuctions of its brain with the function of other conscious living organisms, like humans. If they work the same, then you'd have to conclude that they're conscious. How to falsify it, if it doesn't work the same. I don't know why I'm conscious, but I am, and it's because of whatever the hell goes on in my body. So if we can replicate that in a machine, then they are, at heart, human. You could create a machine to feel like a cat, and at heart, it is a cat. The trick would be in creating an entirely new sort of awareness. With nothing to compare it to, we could only guess.

If you can't falsify your theory, then it is not really valid. One could only assume that the robot would be consciousness. What we know of consciousness and the brain is the CORRELATION. In other words, we may know that brain activity "x", leads to "y" type of conscious/subjective experience. What we do NOT know is what the CAUSE of consiousness is. Look at my thread on "What are thoughts"? We can say that thoughts are neorons, but that's wrong. Neorons CAUSE thoughts, because the thoughts and the neurons have seperate properties and do not look the same. When I think I do not see neurons in any shape or pattern. Subjectivity exists, yet can't be quantified or studied, only experienced.

And what I meant by falsifly is this; you tell me that machine/robot "Sam" is aware and conscious. 1.) How do you prove this? 2.) How do you falsify this? Sure you may have replicated the brain, but did you also replicate the consciousness we safely assume it produces? There could be a key difference missing, since we do not even know how to explain consciousness yet.

There is nothing in logic nor reasoning that prevents a computer or robot having a HUUUGELY complex coded brain and still not being aware. If I have a robot that can produce an outcome after considering one variable it is not consciouss. If I increase this so that it considers two variables, or three variables, or even considers ten thousand variables, no awareness or consciousness is required. If I took it a step further and had the robot have a huge bundle of code which determined it's "mental state", another for it's "personality" and other human like behaviors, and had it take input and match this input with billions of variables from these databases, I still see no need for consciousness. It would APPEAR to be conscious of course, because the interactions within it's code are so complex they're practically unpredictable. The logical conclusion would be that it is still nothing but unconsciouss input and output of complex code (Which is what it was coded to be in the first place!). Me hitting my keys on my keyboard and getting a reply from my computer's code is a simplified version of what I described above.

You could create a machine to feel like a cat, and at heart, it is a cat.

How do you know it actually feels like anything, rather than acts like a cat? How can you tell me what is going on it's the subjective side of the machine? All you can do is tell me what's going on with it's code and it's objective actions.

Edited November 21, 2009 by ShaunZero

[BlindMessiah]

If you can't falsify your theory, then it is not really valid. One could only assume that the robot would be consciousness. What we know of consciousness and the brain is the CORRELATION. In other words, we may know that brain activity "x", leads to "y" type of conscious/subjective experience. What we do NOT know is what the CAUSE of consiousness is. Look at my thread on "What are thoughts"? We can say that thoughts are neorons, but that's wrong. Neorons CAUSE thoughts, because the thoughts and the neurons have seperate properties and do not look the same. When I think I do not see neurons in any shape or pattern. Subjectivity exists, yet can't be quantified or studied, only experienced.

And what I meant by falsifly is this; you tell me that machine/robot "Sam" is aware and conscious. 1.) How do you prove this? 2.) How do you falsify this? Sure you may have replicated the brain, but did you also replicate the consciousness we safely assume it produces? There could be a key difference missing, since we do not even know how to explain consciousness yet.

There is nothing in logic nor reasoning that prevents a computer or robot having a HUUUGELY complex coded brain and still not being aware. If I have a robot that can produce an outcome after considering one variable it is not consciouss. If I increase this so that it considers two variables, or three variables, or even considers ten thousand variables, no awareness or consciousness is required. If I took it a step further and had the robot have a huge bundle of code which determined it's "mental state", another for it's "personality" and other human like behaviors, and had it take input and match this input with billions of variables from these databases, I still see no need for consciousness. It would APPEAR to be conscious of course, because the interactions within it's code are so complex they're practically unpredictable. The logical conclusion would be that it is still nothing but unconsciouss input and output of complex code (Which is what it was coded to be in the first place!). Me hitting my keys on my keyboard and getting a reply from my computer's code is a simplified version of what I described above.

How do you know it actually feels like anything, rather than acts like a cat? How can you tell me what is going on it's the subjective side of the machine? All you can do is tell me what's going on with it's code and it's objective actions.

Forgive me, but using your reasoning, how do I know you're self aware? How do I know you're actually experiencing subjectivity and not just imitating it? I mean, that line of thought brings to the old musing of, "Is it all in my head? Am I the only conscious being?"

[Grey Area]

This is a difficult topic that deals with many things neither science nor philosophy has been able to give a truly definitive answer to.

For the question whether a machine could love, well that depends on your point of view. First ask what is love? We know the common feelings attached to such emotion, but what causes those feelings, some might argue that it is a series of bio-chemical reactions stimulated in the brain, if you choose to believe this then no, a machine couldn't love, at least not the way humans do, and perhaps other species, because these chemical reactions would not be present, however a similar process may occur, but who knows?

As for concerns over robots and cyborgs in general, well robotics has already replaced a large portion of the automotive workforce, and other production industries, computers have been doing a similar role in administrative fields. And by definition cyborgs have been around for a long time... Prosthetic limbs, hearing aids, even people who wear glasses.

This is not a black and white area, and most of the issues have already begun, as for robots for sex, as long as they make the Shakira model,bring it on!