Could a robot really love a human?

[ShaunZero]

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?"

As odd as it may sound, that line of thinking is actually somewhat valid. You have no way of proving that I am actually aware. HOWEVER, you know that we are both humans, have identicle brains(From a biological standpoint) and both evolved in the same way. So you can safely ASSUME that whatever it is that consciousness is, and whatever the mechanism and the cause of consciousness is, we both have it.

When trying to create conciousness and subjective experience in a robot, we have nothing to base it off of besides the human brain, and without being able to define what consiousness and thoughts are, you can never duplicate the brain using code because you'd have absolutely nothing to compare it to.

Edited November 21, 2009 by ShaunZero

[BlindMessiah]

As odd as it may sound, that line of thinking is actually somewhat valid. You have no way of proving that I am actually aware. HOWEVER, you know that we are both humans, have identicle brains(From a biological standpoint) and both evolved in the same way. So you can safely ASSUME that whatever it is that consciousness is, and whatever the mechanism and the cause of consciousness is, we both have it.

I realize that it is valid but there are so many lines of thought, that are valid, but impractical. There is little that is concrete fact in this world. We make a lot of safe assumptions. The same reasoning you use to conclude that other humans have consciousness is what I'm doing to conclude that a hypothetical robotic replica of a human would be conscious.

[jpjoe]

If we talk about the now, given the knowledge and societal status that we currently have, many would defeinitely deter to the idea of machines having rights. But as technology advances, and as we get used to the idea, only then would people begin to gradually realize that these machines are starting to take form as "true" human beings in every sense, though probably not biologically.

That given. Here's another thought, the time machines became more advanced than humans.

Most of the issues here are still speculation though. So let's just take things lightly..

[ShaunZero]

The main difference though, is that when it comes to other humans, the fact that we don't know what exactly causes consciousness, and we don't know exactly WHAT it is; is irrelevant. WHATEVER it is and WHATEVER causes it does not matter since I know we evolved in the same way and thus have the necessary ingredients for consciousness. With the robot, all we can do is replicate the brain, but we could easily miss out on the key parts of awareness and subjectivity. Besides, nothing of the brain appears to require conciousness. The brain would function just the same without subjective experience. The concensus is already that we have no free-will, and we ARE the brain and the brain is simply on auto-pilot. In other words, our subjective experience, or "we"(IE: YOU, "the experiencer") are just here to be convinced that we are in control when we're actually just a passenger in a brain on auto-pilot. There's no need for this experience.

The same can be understood by looking at a computer. In it's simple forms, IE: hitting a key on your keyboard and getting output from that input, does not require any type of "experience" of subjectivity from the computer to process this information. Let the computer get more complex, and there is still no need for subjective experience. Let it get ten thousand times more complex, and still there is no need, because at the core of all of the complex variables, all it is is automatic input and output of data. So on and so forth. The brain is on auto-matic and does the same as a computer. It takes input and then makes output based on MANY complicated variables. The very fact that we have consciousness seems amazing to me.

That was a bit of a rant, but essentially what I'm saying is that even with the human brain, there appears to be no reason to have consciousness when it's simply a complex computer that is on auto-pilot.

[behaviour???]

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?

As it can be termed 'Artificial love'...you know that term explains it all

Thanks

B???

[ShaunZero]

To add:

How would you replicate thought in a robot? You couldn't use code, because that would not be equivilant to thought. On one side of thought you have the known physical aspects; you have the neurons. On the other half we have the subjective side, the side in which can only be experienced and that can not currently be quantified. We don't know exactly what thoughts are "made of"(Another topic all together). Each thought a person experiences can be drastically different, though from the objective physical aspect they all look the same. They are just neural activity.

With lines of code being so drastically different from the actual nature of a thought, and so different from what we know of thoughts so far, you could never begin to claim a robot can think as we do. How do you replicate something that hasn't even been quantified yet?

As it can be termed 'Artificial love'...you know that term explains it all

As it would have to be called untill we have a way to quantify subjective experience/consciousness.

Edited November 22, 2009 by ShaunZero

[Fitter]

The main difference though, is that when it comes to other humans, the fact that we don't know what exactly causes consciousness, and we don't know exactly WHAT it is; is irrelevant. WHATEVER it is and WHATEVER causes it does not matter since I know we evolved in the same way and thus have the necessary ingredients for consciousness. With the robot, all we can do is replicate the brain, but we could easily miss out on the key parts of awareness and subjectivity. Besides, nothing of the brain appears to require conciousness. The brain would function just the same without subjective experience. The concensus is already that we have no free-will, and we ARE the brain and the brain is simply on auto-pilot. In other words, our subjective experience, or "we"(IE: YOU, "the experiencer") are just here to be convinced that we are in control when we're actually just a passenger in a brain on auto-pilot. There's no need for this experience.

The same can be understood by looking at a computer. In it's simple forms, IE: hitting a key on your keyboard and getting output from that input, does not require any type of "experience" of subjectivity from the computer to process this information. Let the computer get more complex, and there is still no need for subjective experience. Let it get ten thousand times more complex, and still there is no need, because at the core of all of the complex variables, all it is is automatic input and output of data. So on and so forth. The brain is on auto-matic and does the same as a computer. It takes input and then makes output based on MANY complicated variables. The very fact that we have consciousness seems amazing to me.

That was a bit of a rant, but essentially what I'm saying is that even with the human brain, there appears to be no reason to have consciousness when it's simply a complex computer that is on auto-pilot.

I would challenge the reasoning that brings you to your conclusions. Also that of there being a consensus on the non-existence of 'free will.'

How do you account for the individual personality traits and individualistic thought patterns and levels of intelligence if the brain acts and reacts in the same way without the need for subjective experience? Isn't it generally held that childhood forms the mental traits and characteristics of the adult? If all brains acted and reacted the same to the same input, then wouldn't all be identical? I do not think it is enough to say that minor variations in upbringing can alter the assimilation of data in a growing brain, after all, people change their actions and opinions throughout their lives...

I'm also curious as to how you are so sure thought is not akin to code if you admit that it is not known what 'thought' is?

I admit that my dislike of the idea that there is no free will may be colouring my opinion, but I do not think that I am convinced that I just a passenger.

F

[ShaunZero]

How do you account for the individual personality traits and individualistic thought patterns and levels of intelligence if the brain acts and reacts in the same way without the need for subjective experience? Isn't it generally held that childhood forms the mental traits and characteristics of the adult?

Because the data(Could be considered a comparable aspect to "code" in a robot) differs because of what the person experienced in life. The data that your brain uses to create the "personality", and the data it uses to respond to input is different for each person. A person is conditioned by their environment, though not completely because you have all of the necessary brain data when you are born that allows you to function on a minimal level and learn as you age.

If all brains acted and reacted the same to the same input

But they don't react the same. Think of two different computer programs on a computer which have different code; they will respond differently to input but they are both programs.

I do not think it is enough to say that minor variations in upbringing can alter the assimilation of data in a growing brain, after all, people change their actions and opinions throughout their lives...

But like I said before, you are born with some differences, and thus even if you are raised in the same environment as say a twin, you could easily grow up differently because your brain handles data differently based on different factors. One event may mean one thing for you, and it may mean something completely different for someone else.

I'm also curious as to how you are so sure thought is not akin to code if you admit that it is not known what 'thought' is?

Well from what we do know of thought is what I meant(Think that's what I said as well), it does not appear like code. Code is more comparable to the "data" of the brain. The brain has to access this data to make outputs in response to it's input. Thoughts can't currently be quantified, and the things that cause it (Neurons) look nearly identicle no matter what the thought is of. I can sit here and focus on 10 different thoughts, and if you'd look at my neurons causing these thoughts, they would look similar all ten times. The actual nature of thoughts is.... weird at best. I was just saying that creating a subjective experience for a robot would be near impossible without knowing how to replicate something we can't even quantify.

And believe me, I hate the no free-will idea myself. It makes me depressed when thinking about it. So, I live my life as if we DO have free-will, and I pretend that determinism(The consensus between scientists is that determinism > free-will) is false and we somehow have free-will in some incomprehensible way.

Edited November 22, 2009 by ShaunZero

[BlindMessiah]

That was a bit of a rant, but essentially what I'm saying is that even with the human brain, there appears to be no reason to have consciousness when it's simply a complex computer that is on auto-pilot.

Tell me about it. Thinking about consciousness ***** with the mind. It's kind of like trying to imagine an existance where there is nothing.

[SRCivic98]

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.

does the movie Surrogate ring a bell? Androids walking around looking like us humans which are in cyro-sleeping chambers so we don't age from our current age but then we can make the android does what ever we think. Or better yet, how about Robocop? Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines or Salvation? The Fifth Element? funny to mention this one but it could happen, Bubblegum Crisis 2040 with the androids that they called Boomers? Walle? <-- Humans in that movie got where they couldn't walk or do anything for them selves because machines did it all! The movie called I-Robot with Will Smith is another good example. The list goes on and on. It would be a good idea but they would have to be watched closely. What I would like to see is a robot as a partner in law enforcement like Robocop so the human could do what is humanly possible but let the machine do things like hacking into networks, walk you into a heavy fire fight, helping carry out wounded personnel or helping fire fighters in their jobs, or even EMT's. Even though a movie like the one that Robin Williams was in is a good example of the positive side of androids. At least you'd have someone to talk to, to learn from and to teach at the same time, someone that would be there for you in a time of need no matter when it was. That might be okay then....but still, everything would have to be watched. Although a generation of androids would make humans place their brains inside the Android's core system to live forever but if an EMP ( Electro Magnetic Pulse ) bomb went off or a transformer blew near by those androids then good bye machine.

[Fitter]

Because the data(Could be considered a comparable aspect to "code" in a robot) differs because of what the person experienced in life. The data that your brain uses to create the "personality", and the data it uses to respond to input is different for each person. A person is conditioned by their environment, though not completely because you have all of the necessary brain data when you are born that allows you to function on a minimal level and learn as you age.

But they don't react the same. Think of two different computer programs on a computer which have different code; they will respond differently to input but they are both programs.

But like I said before, you are born with some differences, and thus even if you are raised in the same environment as say a twin, you could easily grow up differently because your brain handles data differently based on different factors. One event may mean one thing for you, and it may mean something completely different for someone else.

Well from what we do know of thought is what I meant(Think that's what I said as well), it does not appear like code. Code is more comparable to the "data" of the brain. The brain has to access this data to make outputs in response to it's input. Thoughts can't currently be quantified, and the things that cause it (Neurons) look nearly identicle no matter what the thought is of. I can sit here and focus on 10 different thoughts, and if you'd look at my neurons causing these thoughts, they would look similar all ten times. The actual nature of thoughts is.... weird at best. I was just saying that creating a subjective experience for a robot would be near impossible without knowing how to replicate something we can't even quantify.

And believe me, I hate the no free-will idea myself. It makes me depressed when thinking about it. So, I live my life as if we DO have free-will, and I pretend that determinism(The consensus between scientists is that determinism > free-will) is false and we somehow have free-will in some incomprehensible way.

So basically, you're saying that making robots shaped like people is succumbing to anthropomorphism at it's most fundamental level?

If that's the case then I agree with you on that. Just for the record, I don't think that robots could 'love' a human because that would be a misinterpretation of the word... They would only be mimicking a description of love and not interpreting it; but still, could the formative years of a child's life not be taken as programming ? Abused children have a warped idea of what constitutes attention and love whilst on a subconscious level know that it is not right...

And is artificial intelligence a possibility or a pipe dream? I'm led to believe that we have learning programs now, it's maybe just a short step to a creative program.

F

[Render]

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.

A machine is a machine.

Well what's human body then? It holds our spirit yes...but we can recreate it in a lab. It's just a pile of flesh. What does difference in material mean anyway? Flesh, metal..it's all just a container.

If we can recreate the human body, and we can write the software, just like the software in our minds(find a mate..procreate etc), what's the difference?

There are enough ppl in the world that call humans, machines..slaves to impulses..to work or whatever.

[Alchera]

Yes I stick to my original post. As for thought patterns, there are computer engineers out there already trying to go back to square one and design computers that function more like the human brain. I will search for the article.

[Fitter]

A machine is a machine.

Well what's human body then? It holds our spirit yes...but we can recreate it in a lab. It's just a pile of flesh. What does difference in material mean anyway? Flesh, metal..it's all just a container.

If we can recreate the human body, and we can write the software, just like the software in our minds(find a mate..procreate etc), what's the difference?

There are enough ppl in the world that call humans, machines..slaves to impulses..to work or whatever.

I think that the jury's still out on this one. It's probably true that the body came first... sentience and intelligent thought evolved at a greater rate than the evolution of the body, which took ages to get to the state it is in now. BUT that's not to say that the body created the mind or that an artificially created body could support a mind. I think the vast majority would disagree with you on the surmise that any old jumble of tissue that is not actually decaying is, in fact, a viable subject for life. Transplant organs, once removed, are savable for a relatively short period of time and brain stem death renders the body totally dependent on artificial means of survival.

No, the living body, human or animal is much more than just a container.

F

[Render]

I think that the jury's still out on this one. It's probably true that the body came first... sentience and intelligent thought evolved at a greater rate than the evolution of the body, which took ages to get to the state it is in now. BUT that's not to say that the body created the mind or that an artificially created body could support a mind. I think the vast majority would disagree with you on the surmise that any old jumble of tissue that is not actually decaying is, in fact, a viable subject for life. Transplant organs, once removed, are savable for a relatively short period of time and brain stem death renders the body totally dependent on artificial means of survival.

No, the living body, human or animal is much more than just a container.

F

the living body perhaps.

But just the flesh in itself? Could be just a container.

Living body would mean adding a spirit. I don't see why those 2 can't be seen seperately.

[Fitter]

the living body perhaps.

But just the flesh in itself? Could be just a container.

Living body would mean adding a spirit. I don't see why those 2 can't be seen seperately.

Well, to add further doubt to your suggestion, there are many anomalies and unexplained effects of the human body that may one day prove to be essential to the continued existence of the mind/psyche... such as the gut having some of the same characteristics as the brain...

The body shouldn't be underestimated... half the reason Frankenstein is such a good yarn... it's totally impossible whilst being plausible..

F

[Render]

Well, to add further doubt to your suggestion, there are many anomalies and unexplained effects of the human body that may one day prove to be essential to the continued existence of the mind/psyche... such as the gut having some of the same characteristics as the brain...

The body shouldn't be underestimated... half the reason Frankenstein is such a good yarn... it's totally impossible whilst being plausible..

F

I don't underestimate the body. Well I don't underestimate the will that drives the body at least.

They say the same thing about certain chakra points around the body..if you impact them you'll have brainlike effect. Meaning the impulses send from your brain through your body.