God and robots: Will AI transform religion?

[+Nuclear Wessel]

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Thy latest neuroscience shows that  pain is constructed in the brain   more precisely in the brainstem interface with the top of your spinal cord 

That is why you can feel pain when there is no physical  reason to do some, and sometimes when it is impossible to have a physical cause for pain.

It is why some people never feel pain, because this part of their brain is disconnected or not working  

The pain you feel is not from  the physical trauma but from  the brain's response to that trauma. The pain is not generated in the wound but in the brein 

basically

quote 

The science is clear: the brain makes pain. Pain is 100% Brain Made®, like everything else in life.1 Threat signals from “insulted” tissues are only one factor of many that the brain considers before creating an experience of pain. The brain often even over-protectively exaggerates pain, sometimes sounding alarms so persistently false that it can become a much bigger problem than whatever caused the alarm in the first place: “sensitization.”

https://www.painscience.com/articles/pain-is-weird.php

quote

All pain, no matter how it feels, sharp or dull, strong or mild, is always a construct of the brain and is uncorrelated with tissue damage.

That is to say, pain is not produced in the body; it is produced in the brain. A danger message coming from the body is neither sufficient nor necessary to produce pain.

http://www.lateralmag.com/articles/issue-29/the-brains-role-in-brain

quote

When you whack yourself with a hammer, it feels like the pain is in your thumb. But really it's in your brain.

That's because our perception of pain is shaped by brain circuits that are constantly filtering the information coming from our sensory nerves, says David Linden, a professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University and author of the new book Touch: The Science of Hand, Heart, and Mind.

"There is a completely separate system for the emotional aspect of pain — the part that makes us go, 'Ow! This is terrible.' "

David Linden, neuroscientist, Johns Hopkins University

"The brain can say, 'Hey that's interesting. Turn up the volume on this pain information that's coming in,' " Linden says. "Or it can say, 'Oh no — let's turn down the volume on that and pay less attention to it.' "https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/02/18/387211563/pain-really-is-all-in-your-head-emotion-controls-intensity

It is not surprising if you were not aware of this. 

It is fairly new scientific knowledge, gained in the last decade or so 

and so, yes of course you can train your brain to feel/perceive  less pain. Indeed it(the perception or sense of pain)  can be reduced by over 50%, eliminating the need for chemical pain killers in many cases 

Modern pain clinics are rapidly moving away from the use of chemical drugs to manage pain, towards training and teaching your brain how to feel less of it 

 

Eg chronic pain with no physical cause is a creation of neural circuitry sending false messages. It  can't be helped by taking painkillers but it can be eliminated, or much reduced,  by retraining your neural pathways 

quote

That suggests that at least some people can teach their brains how to filter out things like chronic pain, perhaps through meditation, Jones says.

A 2011 study supports this idea. It found that people who practiced mindfulness meditation for eight weeks greatly improved their control of the brain rhythms that block out pain.

"https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/02/18/387211563/pain-really-is-all-in-your-head-emotion-controls-intensity

 

You said the mind, not the brain. They are not the same thing. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

No. Developing anything that could replicate a brain with more synapses than there are stars in the the galaxy is far beyond our foreseeable future. The fallacy of equating our primitive computational devices with genuine AI is the problem. So far, all we've done is crude facsimiles. From one nut to another.

Thats not actually true. I wont try and convince  you, but if you read a little about modern work on artificial intelligences you will see how quickly it is coming 

(I'd call 2060 or so part of our " foreseeable future"  and this will happen by or before then) 

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

You said the mind, not the brain. They are not the same thing. 

lol no, but it is our mind which controls our brain, and it is by using our mind to manipulate our brain's neural  pathways that we can do this

It requires mindfulness (eg meditation is one means to achieve it  )

is that really your only critique of this post ?  

[+Nuclear Wessel]

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

lol no, but it is our mind which controls our brain, and it is by using our mind to manipulate our brain's neural  pathways that we can do this

It requires mindfulness (eg meditation is one means to achieve it  )

is that really your only critique of this post ?  

The mind does not control the brain—the mind is wholly a product of brain activity, and is very much at the mercy of the brain’s optimal functioning. We were also specifically discussing pain being a construct of the mind, which it is not. 
 

Getting slippery again, Paul. 

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

For your definition of 'perceive'.  I do agree with you that if dogs could make a choice whether to be euthanized or not, we shouldn't euthanize them against their will, that's an easy one.  Pointing out, again, that humans are different from animals is fine but still already obvious, and isn't really buttressed by linking words like 'suffer' only to minds that have the seemingly divine quality in your view of self-awareness.  So I'm not sure of your overall point, unless this is just an info dump which again is fine.  As an aside of my own, these distinctions concerning perceiving and suffering you make are really irrelevant from an important point of view to me: non-self-aware beings still have experiences, and there is no evidence that the experience of pain for some of them is any less uncomfortable just because they are not self-aware.  

Perceive is, in mind, very different to feel 

feeling is a physical sensation. Perception is a conscious recognition 

All animals may feel pain Only humans  consciously perceive it in themselves and thus are probably the only animals capable of increasing or reducing our perception  of it by mental training

In humans pain is not a physical construct. it is a mental one and thus susceptible /amenable to alteration and control by our minds  eg anxiety and  fear increases the pain we feel/perceive   Calmness of mind reduces it  The amount of physical trauma doesn't change but what we feel is altered by our state of mind 

it has nothing to do with divinity and all to do with the significant evolved  difference in human neuro- cognivity/ self aware consciousness   ie what we are consciously aware of and how e  can nadjus to ste of mind  If you fear pain or become worried and anxious then the perception of pain will increase  (and you will think you are feeling more pain) even though nothing physical has changed.

If you are calm, optimistic about your future,   or use certain mental abilities like meditation  to help, then you will reduce the perception of pain even though the physical trauma is identical

We do know that our awareness can increase or reduce the  pain we think we are feeling ie perceiving.

Thus we know that  non self aware  beings will feel pain, but not perceive it as we  do    eg they are not going to be worrying about dying, their   health cover future   recovery times etc  Those worries increase the amount of pain you perceive,  ie believe that you are feeling 

[Mr Walker]

33 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

The mind does not control the brain—the mind is wholly a product of brain activity, and is very much at the mercy of the brain’s optimal functioning. We were also specifically discussing pain being a construct of the mind, which it is not. 
 

Getting slippery again, Paul. 

No, wrong 

human consciousness is self aware and thus self  directed.

its the mind which is in control not the brain which is simply an organic organ  which hosts the  mind.

You might as well argue tha t your feet decide when you are going to walk and what direction you will take   Your mind decides that. it gives instructions to your feet and they obey.

The brain  is simply an organ like the heart 

Like i said this isn't my argument, it is modern neuroscience and pain management knowledge, and is  applied in all modern hospitals and pain relief centres  read the sources iI provided or do your own research. Pain is a product of the mind. it is sometimes produced in response to physical trauma but may be produced by the mind in the absence of any physical trauma at all 

It couldn't be generated without a body or a brain but basically its felt by you from within your mind   The  mind  (using the brain)  actually creates pain and thus the mind can control reduce, or increase, your pain levels.

   If it was entirely a  physical product of brain/body, this simply would not be possible  

The following is a pretty complex paper, but it explains the dual nature of pain very well 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3438523/

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Mr Walker

[SHaYap]

What telling lies does to your brain... 

Quote

https://ethicalleadership.nd.edu › news

What Dishonesty Does to Your Brain

 

But what about telling a lie? It is less obvious why an unethical decision would alter what's inside our heads. Yet new research in neuroscience offers a window ...

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.businessinsider.com › 7...

7 Lies Your Mind Tells You That You Should Stop Believing

 

8 Aug 2015 — Sometimes it's a lie. What you think is true is really just a complicated deception orchestrated by your mind to make you feel better about your ...

 

 

 

 

 

www.scientificamerican.com

The Art of Lying

 

11 Jul 2018 — This region of the brain may, among other things, be responsible for the decision to lie or tell the truth. Most people have trouble...

~

 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No, wrong 

human consciousness is self aware and thus self  directed.

its the mind which is in control not the brain which is simply an organic organ  which hosts the  mind.

You might as well argue tha t your feet decide when you are going to walk and what direction you will take   Your mind decides that. it gives instructions to your feet and they obey.

The brain  is simply an organ like the heart 

Like i said this isn't my argument, it is modern neuroscience and pain management knowledge, and is  applied in all modern hospitals and pain relief centres  read the sources iI provided or do your own research. Pain is a product of the mind. it is sometimes produced in response to physical trauma but may be produced by the mind in the absence of any physical trauma at all 

It couldn't be generated without a body or a brain but basically its felt by you from within your mind   The  mind  (using the brain)  actually creates pain and thus the mind can control reduce, or increase, your pain levels.

   If it was entirely a  physical product of brain/body, this simply would not be possible  

The following is a pretty complex paper, but it explains the dual nature of pain very well 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3438523/

 

That articles does not support your claim of pain being a "construct" of your mind. You're not very good at this.

Are you actually going to post something half-sensible or are you just going to continue wasting our time?

Edited October 29, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

That articles does not support your claim of pain being a "construct" of your mind. You're not very good at this.

Are you actually going to post something half-sensible or are you just going to continue wasting our time?

Exactly, typical Google cut and paste, out of context and ignorant in scope and understanding. I would say it is nonsense too. There are mental, emotional and physical components to pain, maybe that is what he is trying to say.  In actuality, there are actual nerve signals that alert one to something is wrong with the body that needs intervention ASAP. There is acute pain ( which will eventually heal or respond to medication and then there is chronic pain and some terminal illnesses that come with a hell of a lot of pain that do not go away with pharmaceuticals or meditation. Acute pain lets one know something is wrong that requires immediate attention. There are chronic conditions that are painful and come with a vicious cycle the things a person needs to do such as exercise, get around people ( a change in environment) are greatly impeded by the chronic pain and create a vicious cycle and profoundly affect ones quality of life, chronic pain requires a pain management program which can include meditation to explore the cognitive component of the chronic pain, but it depends on a lot of factors. There is no “magic pill” for chronic pain, some days something might work and others it just won’t. as a caregiver social support and empathy are key factors in helping one deal with chronic pain lifestyles, there is also the ruminating on the pain too that has to be addressed too, then the isolation from the pain keeps one from being able to do the things that might give some relief because a person is in so much pain. Each person is different and the idea is to find a way to relieve a persons pain even for a few hours. I work with those who have chronic debilitating pain and there are many days we spend all day or night cycling through all the pain management strategies or trying to find new ones for just an hour of relief. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No, wrong 

human consciousness is self aware and thus self  directed.

its the mind which is in control not the brain which is simply an organic organ  which hosts the  mind.

You might as well argue tha t your feet decide when you are going to walk and what direction you will take   Your mind decides that. it gives instructions to your feet and they obey.

The brain  is simply an organ like the heart 

Like i said this isn't my argument, it is modern neuroscience and pain management knowledge, and is  applied in all modern hospitals and pain relief centres  read the sources iI provided or do your own research. Pain is a product of the mind. it is sometimes produced in response to physical trauma but may be produced by the mind in the absence of any physical trauma at all 

It couldn't be generated without a body or a brain but basically its felt by you from within your mind   The  mind  (using the brain)  actually creates pain and thus the mind can control reduce, or increase, your pain levels.

   If it was entirely a  physical product of brain/body, this simply would not be possible  

The following is a pretty complex paper, but it explains the dual nature of pain very well 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3438523/

 

If you actually just read the 1st paragraph you would see that your link doesn’t support your opinion. 
 

“Thus, pain has sensory and affective components, as well as a cognitive component reflected in the anticipation of future harm. The purpose of the following review is to integrate the literature on the neurobiological pathways within the central, autonomic, and peripheral nervous systems that mediate pain processing, and discuss how psychological factors interact with physiology to modulate the experience of pain.“

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Perceive is, in mind, very different to feel 

feeling is a physical sensation. Perception is a conscious recognition 

All animals may feel pain Only humans  consciously perceive it in themselves

Again, only in the Walker Dictionary of Narrow Definitions.  Perceive also means 'become aware of'.  Non-self-aware creatures are conscious, and they are aware of pain and other sensations.

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Thus we know that  non self aware  beings will feel pain, but not perceive it as we  do

I've mentioned this so many times now that I'll try a shorter response:  Duh. Everybody knows that all animals perceive and feel things differently from one another and from humans, I don't know why you keep thussing to get to that indisputable point over and over.

 

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Perceive is, in mind, very different to feel 

feeling is a physical sensation. Perception is a conscious recognition 

All animals may feel pain Only humans  consciously perceive it in themselves and thus are probably the only animals capable of increasing or reducing our perception  of it by mental training

In humans pain is not a physical construct. it is a mental one and thus susceptible /amenable to alteration and control by our minds  eg anxiety and  fear increases the pain we feel/perceive   Calmness of mind reduces it  The amount of physical trauma doesn't change but what we feel is altered by our state of mind 

it has nothing to do with divinity and all to do with the significant evolved  difference in human neuro- cognivity/ self aware consciousness   ie what we are consciously aware of and how e  can nadjus to ste of mind  If you fear pain or become worried and anxious then the perception of pain will increase  (and you will think you are feeling more pain) even though nothing physical has changed.

If you are calm, optimistic about your future,   or use certain mental abilities like meditation  to help, then you will reduce the perception of pain even though the physical trauma is identical

We do know that our awareness can increase or reduce the  pain we think we are feeling ie perceiving.

Thus we know that  non self aware  beings will feel pain, but not perceive it as we  do    eg they are not going to be worrying about dying, their   health cover future   recovery times etc  Those worries increase the amount of pain you perceive,  ie believe that you are feeling 

MW, your only personal experience is with acute pain, as the healing process unfolds the pain becomes less and less, hence why it is acute and not chronic pain. 
 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Sherapy

[+Liquid Gardens]

38 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Acute pain lets one know something is wrong that requires immediate attention.

I had been thinking about the evolution of pain and it makes me wonder how much of it evolved to provide a reproductive advantage and if some of it is instead actually more evolutionary by-product.  Obviously pain is beneficial in notifying you of something wrong with your body.  For animals this may trigger behavioral responses that will aid in its healing or if it's injured may make it seek refuge from predators, but I wonder what the evolutionary purpose of extreme pain is.  My personal extreme pain incidents are restricted to an occasional bad tooth and worst of all several kidney stone episodes, which suck but I'm thankful these are not indications of any ongoing pathology.  During some of these kidney stone attacks I've been essentially incapacitated, the pain is so intense that you can't really do anything, if humans were hunted by giant eagles I'd be done for and easy pickings.  In this particular example things would be out of whack a little; a kidney stone left untreated can increase your risk of an infection but isn't itself really something that must be dealt with immediately, it's the excruciating pain that is the emergency.  Thus the extreme pain would seem to put me more at risk if I were prey and wouldn't seem to be evolutionarily advantageous, as opposed to us somehow evolving some pain maximum or something that we can feel but still function.

This is just an aside and a fun-to-think-about for me, I think the answer is that not every quality or feeling we have derived to suit an evolutionary purpose or increase our reproductive success, some of it are side effects. 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

If you actually just read the 1st paragraph you would see that your link doesn’t support your opinion. 

He said it himself: "The following is a pretty complex paper,"

I assume that's why he couldn't understand what he was reading.

Something-something Dunning-Kruger.

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I had been thinking about the evolution of pain and it makes me wonder how much of it evolved to provide a reproductive advantage and if some of it is instead actually more evolutionary by-product.  Obviously pain is beneficial in notifying you of something wrong with your body.  For animals this may trigger behavioral responses that will aid in its healing or if it's injured may make it seek refuge from predators, but I wonder what the evolutionary purpose of extreme pain is.  My personal extreme pain incidents are restricted to an occasional bad tooth and worst of all several kidney stone episodes, which suck but I'm thankful these are not indications of any ongoing pathology.  During some of these kidney stone attacks I've been essentially incapacitated, the pain is so intense that you can't really do anything, if humans were hunted by giant eagles I'd be done for and easy pickings.  In this particular example things would be out of whack a little; a kidney stone left untreated can increase your risk of an infection but isn't itself really something that must be dealt with immediately, it's the excruciating pain that is the emergency.  Thus the extreme pain would seem to put me more at risk if I were prey and wouldn't seem to be evolutionarily advantageous, as opposed to us somehow evolving some pain maximum or something that we can feel but still function.

This is just an aside and a fun-to-think-about for me, I think the answer is that not every quality or feeling we have derived to suit an evolutionary purpose or increase our reproductive success, some of it are side effects. 

Thank you for such an interesting point. I look forward to unpacking this with you when I get home from work. I think I can add some things too. I will get some feedback from the Neurologist I work for on evolution and pain also. Acute Pain definitely aids in our survival. 
 

Stay tuned. 

[SHaYap]

1 hour ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Something-something Dunning-Kruger.

Something nothing never feel pain, no emotions, no feelings, no ego... Almost no brain. 

~

50 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Stay tuned. 

Took me a bit of time to remember where to start digging when I had the time that I remembered.... 

"Woody"

Quote

[00.01:30]

~

 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I had been thinking about the evolution of pain and it makes me wonder how much of it evolved to provide a reproductive advantage and if some of it is instead actually more evolutionary by-product.  Obviously pain is beneficial in notifying you of something wrong with your body.  For animals this may trigger behavioral responses that will aid in its healing or if it's injured may make it seek refuge from predators, but I wonder what the evolutionary purpose of extreme pain is. 

One could posit that extreme pain may actually be an evolutionary disadvantage. For example, when we are in extreme pain we are much more likely to vocalize, thus potentially alerting other predators to our location.

On the other hand, maybe our brain associates more severe pain with a much higher risk of mortality, therefore sending out an "alert" for help? I see extreme pain as a double-edged sword.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[lightly]

Pain is "generated" in the body...and Percieved/Experienced in the brain.   In exactly the same way that my voice is 'generated' in my body and Experienced in my brain.?       All physical stimuli are Experienced in the brain.    It's not rocket science...it's physical science.

[Tatetopa]

11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No, wrong 

human consciousness is self aware and thus self  directed.

its the mind which is in control not the brain which is simply an organic organ  which hosts the  mind.

I suppose we come at this from different angles.  I believe the human brain and consciousness is a product of evolution. We are different by degree from other organisms, I don't think we have been able to separate ourselves from dependence on our derived cortical structure. We can't lift our brains up by our own figurative bootstraps.  I have no proof or reason to believe that except that no more is required

I am going to give you total credit for deriving this on your own and not pulling it out of David Lynch's movie, 

 "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion."

[+Liquid Gardens]

47 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

One could posit that extreme pain may actually be an evolutionary disadvantage. For example, when we are in extreme pain we are much more likely to vocalize, thus potentially alerting other predators to our location.

On the other hand, maybe our brain associates more severe pain with a much higher risk of mortality, therefore sending out an "alert" for help? I see extreme pain as a double-edged sword.

Yes the disadvantage part is what I was thinking also, Nuclear.  Some animals already compensate for this I think, pet cats can be notoriously difficult to tell from outside behavior that they don't feel well as I believe there is a theory that they naturally and purposely try to hide it due to evolutionary factors because sick/wounded creatures invite predation.

Since we were talking about pain (unfortunately, since I don't like to even imagine animals in that state, but it was the easiest example to work with) I had been thinking also about animal intelligence and @third_eye's video with the dog faking a broken leg.  That appears to be something it learned, but it made me think of birds like the killdeer that (it is believed) instinctively/reflexively employ deception:

To me that's fascinating, it fakes a broken wing to lead potential predators away from its ground nest, it is by all outward appearances an intelligent response.  I had also stumbled on an article talking about why dogs bury bones (by burying larger kills it preserves the meat and hides it from other dog-ancestors), and these examples make me wonder if really all that is going on is just brute force random mutation.  I guess I have trouble imagining how this behavior even gets going; was there just some crazy spastic dog in the past that once put it's meat in a hole and for some utterly bizarre reason, with no intelligence involved, buried it with some dirt?  There is no known evidence for this idea but some of these kind of animal behaviors make me wonder if at some point one of the animals didn't have some 2001: A Space Odyssey-like ape-touching-the-monolith intelligent insight, even if it was minor.  Along the way no dog ever had an inkling or noticed or registered that when they don't bury their food it's not there when they come back but it is when they do?

Again, my idea there is pretty much science fiction, even if we had a genius killdeer ancestor in the past who somehow had an inkling that led to the broken-wing display, she still has to get that learned behavior into her genes so it can be passed on (assuming it's not taught) which currently doesn't work.  There's a lot more to our intelligence of course, but as far as dealing with certain issues evolution, and some computers like in chess, seem to employ the best strategy of all: 'simply' evaluate every possibility or throw an absurd number of random variations at 'the problem' with a few extra rules to perpetuate what works (with acknowledgment that there's no purpose in evolution). I'm not sure I'd even call this a 'strategy', we come up with strategies because we cannot do what chess computers can do (and because chess has more confined rules than life).  If it was possible the best way to approach any problem, whether it's in business, war, whatever, is to evaluate every possible action and its outcome and choose the best outcome (which we don't have the power to do).  I don't necessarily want to call that process simple but it is the most 'intelligent' way to come to the best, and intelligent, outcome. 

Which places it at odds in a way with what we would call intelligence in the strategies we do come up with:  I'm going to put the archers on the top of the walls of the castle so that they can shoot farther at the approaching siege, I'm going to end my cavalry around the back and charge them into the enemy archers because they can attack fast and archers in this kind of close combat are vulnerable, I'm going to build a hidden tunnel so that we can preserve our forces in case of defeat, etc.  The best way, brute force, to get at the most intelligent way to respond to an issue doesn't involve any of these specific 'so that's or 'because's, it doesn't involve this connection between cause and effect that is what is involved in what we typically call intelligence, it's an algorithm that ignores all that.  I'm realizing now that when I hear the term AI I many times misattribute the 'artificial' part; I mostly associate the artificial part with whatever's computing like a computer doing the 'thinking', but it's actually the intelligence that is artificial.  I understand the distinction, but in a way since AI can outperform humans in some tasks it would seem there's nothing really artificial about it, it's real intelligence.  Otherwise we'd have to say things like 'the best possible way to win at chess is not the most intelligent', which I'm not sure works.  Is evolution AI, even though its completely inadvertent? 

I'm obviously in 'bs-things-I'm-thinking-about' mode here before I head to the brewery, so I'm not really arguing any point.  My above about a seemingly less intelligent process (brute force) to get the best outcome requires omniscience in most cases essentially so not realistic, and to be clear if you've read much @eight bits over time it's clear that there's an enormous amount of intelligence involved with evaluating the uncertainty that is our actual reality.

[jmccr8]

On 10/26/2021 at 8:48 PM, Mr Walker said:

We once kept slaves because  they  looked difernt to us  and we though them inferior,  even sub human

Hi Walker

We who did you have slaves I didn't nor does anyone I know? Slaves were at first the survivors of battles lost and some of the people from their clan/culture so no they were not seen as not human as many warriors in  some cultures were sacrificed as an offering to the winners god/gods because they had fought bravely and were considered a great offering. Were they abused yes they were and they came from cultures very much like their own. How much difference would there be between and Irishman and an English man, none but they were a defeated people and many were sold into slavery so your point is way off track until more recent times with Black slaves in the new world.

Edited October 29, 2021 by jmccr8
dyslexic spelling

[docyabut2]

Are we all going to turn into the Terminator ?

The Terminator - Wikipedia

[docyabut2]

All life is going to feel pain

[docyabut2]

 slaves? we all have a our heredity of slaves, the black  slavery don't realized  their chiefs of Africa sold their lives  into Slavery 

 

Slavery occurs relatively rarely among hunter-gatherer populations^[2] because it develops under conditions of social stratification.^[3] Slavery operated in the first civilizations (such as Sumer in Mesopotamia,^[4] which dates back as far as 3500 BC). 

 

History of slavery - Wikipedia

Edited October 29, 2021 by docyabut2

[jmccr8]

On 10/27/2021 at 6:40 AM, eight bits said:

I notice that you have great faith that "the robot was programmed to do X, therefore the robot will do X." Especially, the robot wil do only X, never anything more

Hi Eight Bits

Actually I don't know much about AI and was in part why I got involved in this thread. I understand that the programming is the essence of what it will be intended to do but will all AI have the option to write their own script? For the Robots that are created to serve a function need programming that allows it to educate itself outside of the parameters of it's intended use? I can't see where it would serve to owners needs if the owner has to create AI robots that are self aware because it creates social issues like rights and having to pay them an income after having paid to purchase them and do maintenance on them as well. If they are a wage earner with rights then they will have to be responsible for their own maintenance so there would likely have to be something like a health care program for them that they will have to pay for and then as well they can refuse to do work that they do not want to do so how would they be a cost effective solution for industry?

As I said earlier I don't have a problem with AI robots for what they are but do have reservations about how they can be used by humans. I don't know if they will need wifi to operated and if they do what is there to stop someone from hacking them like you computer or smart tv and used to watch and listen to what goes on around them in the environments that they are in?

On 10/27/2021 at 6:40 AM, eight bits said:

So, if a robot displays emotion, then we can infer that somebody programmmed the robot to make such displays and when it should make the display and how much display on each occasion (example: robot dog: owner comes home, robot dances and wags tail for 12.7 seconds). We would also infer that if we had access to the robot's source code, then we could find the relevant coded routines (what decides "owner comes home," what determines "12.7 seconds").

I guess I really won't know how I feel about them until they are a part of the society we live in and the fact that they can simulate an emotion but would wonder if they cried at a funeral if it is sincere as relationships depend to some degree on emotional connections and bonds and I am not sure if simulated emotions for an AI mean anything to them personally and is just a display for us to be comfortable with them living among us like that little flashing light on my keycode deadbotl that assures me that the door is locked or unlocked.

On 10/27/2021 at 6:40 AM, eight bits said:

That ain't necessarily so. In connectionist AI (artificial "neural" networks, where ultimately the net's behavior is not determined by the architecture of the net but rather the current values of many, many variable parameters, "programming" = "training" the net to alter all those parameters) nobody did program the actual behavior in any detail. That is, the observed behavioral descriptive parameter "12.7 seconds" would probably not correspond to any specific stored parameter in the network.

To me there is a difference between thinking like us and feeling like us and yes to some degree they may actually feel as in the sense of stating it in a conversation as a descriptor rather than actually having any real feelings.

On 10/27/2021 at 6:40 AM, eight bits said:

What got me started on this reply was history. This Alonzo Church I mention so often, the "Church" in Church-Turing, who's he? He's the creator of an abstract model of computation in general. His name is linked with Turing's because however different in form, Church's model and Turing's model have the same capabilities (= are isomorphic). So, the two men did some work together.

Now that I am back I will have to look into Church given I have limited knowledge about him so cannot directly address a worthwhile comment on his work so bear with me as I am at a disadvantage.

On 10/27/2021 at 6:40 AM, eight bits said:

BUT the principle is there. There's a dog I walk who, when I first met her as a puppy, retreated to her wire cage and just sat there. I did all the greeting rituals, Nada. She still just sat there in her protective cage, not even looking at me. I gave up. The owner points. I look. She had moved one paw, one inch, more-or-less in my direction. She let me touch the paw. No reaction, but she didn't retract the paw, either ... well, that's enough for one day. Fast forward to today, and we have a different problem: she jumps all over people: new people, people she already knows, dogs new and old, and people with dogs? Look out. We're working on that.

I used the example of a dog because most people have personal experiences with them and for the most part they would be less threatening or adverse that human to human interactions and thought it would make discussing this easier for some to understand that are following along so thanks for illustrating some of what I was inferring for others. Real dogs and human feign hurts be they physical or emotional so it is no surprise that an intelligent AI dog or human would/could do the same for it's own reasons.

 My laptops auto corrupt changes an to and and than to that does it want to change what I say to suit it's own needs? Does it have something it wants to say and big bad meanie me keeps writing what I want.

On 10/27/2021 at 6:40 AM, eight bits said:

Now if a hypothetical robot is really so much like a real dog, then I could be telling the identical story about one of those robots. I am morally certain that the real-world dog's behavior reflects "genuine emotions" on her part, based on some mix of "dog architecture" and her individual experience of a haphazard world.

Absolutely and that is what the dog was created for so that you could share a common experience that you could/did have with a real dog. How each person would react will vary but for the most part once they have had that experience they likely would not care if the dog was a real dog or not because they had a good experience with it and to some degree feel better that that dog will not die and be with them a long long time so they are spared the feeling of loss like when a real dog dies.

But that still brings me back to can it be used by someone else to watch you because you have no assurances that what the dogs eyes and ears is limited to staying in the dogs memory banks and not transmitted beyond it physical form.

On 10/27/2021 at 6:40 AM, eight bits said:

f suddenly I found out she was a robot, then I would at least conclude that she might have rewritten her programming in the senses I know for a fact can be achieved (because they have been achieved).

On what basis, then, would I deny the genuiness of the robot's "apparent" emotions when I cannot simply say "Oh, that's how she was programmed at the factory"?

And while we've had some discussion in the thread about developing a relationship with a known robot, what about the scenario where I've developed an emotional bond with this dog (I assure you that I have done so), and only then discover that she's a robot? What changes?

Would the pronouns suddenly go from she-her-hers to it-it-its? In my head maybe, but in my heart?

Of course a robot could make a person feel comfortable or even attached to it and if I found out that what I thought was a human female was actually a robot in my mind yes it would still be a she although emotionally I would not make the same attachment that I would with a real human female I don't trust people so the person that created the AI robot would have to prove themselves to me, all the robot can prove to me is that is can seem humanlike but I may not know the full purpose of an AI because I don't not know what it's creator is looking to gain from my interaction with the AI.

Edited October 29, 2021 by jmccr8