Sci/Tech Will robot romance become a reality?

[Father_Yetti]

I believe the mind that can see the beauty of love through chemical and electrical impulses is beautiful, however, the same mind that limits them to such is a tragedy in my eyes. The argument about rape, ironically, was beautiful. This is something that robots cannot claim. This instinct is a completely different dynamic than thousands or even billions of ones and zeros stringed out in code. Can a robot mimic sex, sure, is sex love, no.

I think therefore I am. Robots don't truly think, they process. They don't have self awareness and although you could program them to consider such its not true self awareness. We don't have self awareness as a program or script the same way a line of code works, we have it intrinsically. Cell memory for example is another thing robots will not have in the same way we as humans have it. Our auras or electrical fields as well are unique to organic entities, to flesh and blood, to human beings. Humans have something called an ego, Robots do not. There is an extremely delicate social awareness that all humans interact with and are a part of. This is built around a genuine ego, not a scripting that yes could be closely mimicked.

I do believe you could get very close to mimicking humans in our interactions socially, etc. I believe you could program a robot with the propensity to rape. However these things are just like sex; a mechanical motion, or rhythm. While we can make the motions appear more and more streamlined on the surface, the under current stimulating these interactions will never be of the same essence. It will be only flattery of the real thing. The lines for many may draw close yes, but these two are just not the same. Close maybe in appearance, but in essence I believe you are dealing with a schism that cannot be crossed.

 

[duyen]

> but haven't you guys encountered someone who's so smart that it alienates them and makes them largely outcasts?

Good that you have spotted one, also computers can always programmed stupider until you feel like being smarter and go bed with it. Once people didn't believe they can fly and later discovered they can, I see parallels with AI here.

They have never been able to fly and probably never will.

They designed machines that can "fly".

 

[Sooda]

> They designed machines that can "fly".

You even got point there. Still I' m not going to admit my defeat and my idea stays same.

 

[WolSHaman]

Yes machines can be dumbed down, but they still couldn't necessarily be considered "human." For example, if we discovered an alien race that looked radically different then us, yet had about the same mental ability, would you consider them human also?

 

[aznsteph]

pfft... by the time they invente those robots--> ~2050, id be like 55 years old and id probably lose the "passion" for sex and even if i still had it, i wouldnt fall for a robot that looks human...

cmon i mean they might be perfect, flawless but still id prefer my baby asian girlfriend
then a tin can

 

[Ninva]

Yes machines can be dumbed down, but they still couldn't necessarily be considered "human." For example, if we discovered an alien race that looked radically different then us, yet had about the same mental ability, would you consider them human also?

No.
---

Love is not sex.

 

[WastedSavior]

No.
---

Love is not sex.

This poses the question: What is love?

Devotion? compassion? compliance? Compromise? Longing? Lust? How do you define love?

 

[thewrongvine]

Me.

 

[Ninva]

This poses the question: What is love?

Devotion? compassion? compliance? Compromise? Longing? Lust? How do you define love?

I once wrote an essay about love, and I came to this conclusion. Love is not lust, longing, or anything overly complicated. Love is the emotion you have for someone you care for. To truly love someone you must truly care for that person. Love is simple.

 

[Seb!]

I think eventually a robot could be made to love.

Anyone see iRobot?

 

[TheDamien]

I believe the mind that can see the beauty of love through chemical and electrical impulses is beautiful, however, the same mind that limits them to such is a tragedy in my eyes. The argument about rape, ironically, was beautiful. This is something that robots cannot claim. This instinct is a completely different dynamic than thousands or even billions of ones and zeros stringed out in code. Can a robot mimic sex, sure, is sex love, no.

It is feasible that a robot could be programmed to mimic love, hatred and consciousness, given that we recognize these attributes in the form of various behaviors. What would make them so different, in that case?

I think therefore I am. Robots don't truly think, they process. They don't have self awareness and although you could program them to consider such its not true self awareness.

You think therefore you are. You can't extend that to other human beings if consciousness transcends empirical evidence in the way necessary to prevent the construction of conscious machines. You can only say:

"I am a human being."
"I am conscious."
"Therefore, all other human beings are conscious."

Which is as valid as concluding that all countries are named America.

We don't have self awareness as a program or script the same way a line of code works, we have it intrinsically. Cell memory for example is another thing robots will not have in the same way we as humans have it. Our auras or electrical fields as well are unique to organic entities, to flesh and blood, to human beings. Humans have something called an ego, Robots do not. There is an extremely delicate social awareness that all humans interact with and are a part of. This is built around a genuine ego, not a scripting that yes could be closely mimicked.

Anything that is part of an observable phenomena can be mimicked given the right amount of time, resources and ingenuity. Machines that appear to have an ego that seems as real as any humans are certainly possible, why would they still be different?

I do believe you could get very close to mimicking humans in our interactions socially, etc. I believe you could program a robot with the propensity to rape. However these things are just like sex; a mechanical motion, or rhythm.

This is empty categorizing. Why is it that when a machine does something human it is merely a mechanical motion but when a human does it, it is consciousness? If there is an observable distinguishing factor, it can be programmed into machines. If there isn't, human beings are just as mechanical.

 

[BlargIAmDead]

pfft... by the time they invente those robots--> ~2050, id be like 55 years old and id probably lose the "passion" for sex and even if i still had it, i wouldnt fall for a robot that looks human...

So you're counting on ditching your libido in your mid-50s? Well, best of luck with that, friend. But that Viagra stuff?...they make it for a reason.

 

[Father_Yetti]

It is feasible that a robot could be programmed to mimic love, hatred and consciousness, given that we recognize these attributes in the form of various behaviors. What would make them so different, in that case?

The first part is as you say, mimicry is not beyond reality. These things can be programed to mimic such behaviors. But to throw out the supposition that we as creatures define things like love through behavior is missing the boat. How we recognize something is different than what actually defines it.

This is also regardless of how we as individuals perceive and even think. Something is what it is regardless of our way of perceiving it. Love is still love even if many would degrade it to actions or behavior. You cannot ignore the philosophical properties of love - it is more than the action of sacrifice itself - it is the internal "heart" change to put others well being above one's own. Missing this is IMO forgetting what it means to be human, I'm not saying you have done this as an individual, btw. Science is a creation of man, it is not then through these means which we define ourselves.

Many unfortunately would like you to believe this.

You think therefore you are. You can't extend that to other human beings if consciousness transcends empirical evidence in the way necessary to prevent the construction of conscious machines. You can only say:

"I am a human being."
"I am conscious."
"Therefore, all other human beings are conscious."

Which is as valid as concluding that all countries are named America.

Okay, this one cracked me up. I'm not being rude just direct - think about what you've said here. I don't have to extend this to other human beings because other human beings are conscious and can think for themselves. This is not something I am doing for them. This is something the individual is witness to within his or her own mind. The only thing you could do to disprove this to me is to state that you have no acknowledgment of yourself. This however would be impossible because in that very affirmation you elude to you being a present being capable of self awareness. "I think therefore I am" is not something I made up - it is one of the most basic legs to modern philosophy.

Anything that is part of an observable phenomena can be mimicked given the right amount of time, resources and ingenuity. Machines that appear to have an ego that seems as real as any humans are certainly possible, why would they still be different?

Okay, I see now that you are maybe just more playing the devils advocate here which I like, but again you have to tackle this from a philosophical stance. And again mimicry is not necessarily genuine. With self awareness we have awareness because we can think and we know we think - we are recognizing ourselves as a whole, not some compartmentalized code programed to act as if it could acknowledge not just the entirety of its creation but to actually develop an ego therein. For a computer to have self awareness you would have to tell it to, this is not genuine.

I do think you could make a computer (robot) that can run a check on itself and say I am X amount of RAM, have X amount of processing power, take up X amount of space, and am capable of X. Being able to run this scan that it is programed to do does not make it self aware even though it can verify to itself that it exist as one property or another - does not grant it an ego or true self awareness.

To really go into it, the answer is not readily available, hence my sometimes more vague generalizations. It's safe to say we cannot tackle everything here. But one area you would really need to dissect is free will. Sure you can grant a machine a certain propensity to access pre-controlled and predefined faculties to come up with a random or even fore casted result, but again this is not true free will. For further evidence of this, one would need to really tackle the issues of the subconscious mind, the metaphysical connection, intuition, instinct, the ability to tell a lie and be deceived, deceived even knowingly, our third eyes, cell memory, auras, the paranormal connection, miracle healings, etc., and the list goes on.

These complexities are not necessarily fully known, however they are and I believe for the most part will remain distinctions between man and machine. Unfortunately however since the world we live in doesn't know when to stop I fear our future may exist of some perverse amalgamations of the two. And this is not even a joke but if we are around long enough - robot rights.

This is empty categorizing. Why is it that when a machine does something human it is merely a mechanical motion but when a human does it, it is consciousness? If there is an observable distinguishing factor, it can be programmed into machines. If there isn't, human beings are just as mechanical.

When a human does something human it is a human being doing it and thats precisely the difference. Hence a machine can't do anything human its just a machine. Vibrators have been pleasing women for years - is it doing something human - not by my standards - its doing what it was designed for.

By the way how come so many people here address only the weaknesses they see in others' arguments without giving any credence to what might be genuine opposition to theirs. For example you are asking for explanations to your issues but you haven't taken any time to consider some of the other things brought up in this thread. For example: instinct, cell memory, auras, social and emotional temperatures, the ego, etc. Where are the answers for these, or would some of you rather keep the ball only on your side of the court? Just something to think about. Seems everyone just answers one question with another without facing issues difficult to negate.

I'm not saying every issue has to be hashed out but I just love it when someone puts down another's logic or post when there are huge pitfalls they're avoiding in their own. I'm just saying the sword should cut both ways - that's all.

--Disclaimer-- ^ these are my views and I'm right.

 

[TheDamien]

I'm going to have to cut some of this post out in an effort to avoid an inevitable snowballing of posts.

... How we recognize something is different than what actually defines it. ...

As human beings we might define love as an emotional thing, but this is not a quantifiable property beyond the self. Love in others can only be discerned based on their behavior, which gives us a definition of love based on sets of circumstances and behaviors.

... The only thing you could do to disprove this to me is to state that you have no acknowledgment of yourself. ...

I can tell I exist as a conscious being because I am aware of my own conscious and emotional experience. The problem is that I am the only human being who actually experiences my consciousness. Others may assume that I am conscious based on my actions but unless consciousness can be defined in consequential and empirical terms (i.e., that can be applied externally) there is no possible way to tell whether I am actually conscious or merely an unthinking automaton that mimics consciousness.

"I think therefore I am" is not something I made up - it is one of the most basic legs to modern philosophy.

The cogito relates only to the self. It is not proof of the consciousness of others, and I don't think it has ever been put forward as one.

we are recognizing ourselves as a whole, not some compartmentalized code programed to act as if it could acknowledge not just the entirety of its creation but to actually develop an ego therein. For a computer to have self awareness you would have to tell it to, this is not genuine.

Humans are "told" to have self-awareness and other humanly properties by their genes, which define (much like a code might) how their brains and bodies develop. I doubt a conscious AI will be possible using conventional computer architecture, but if a program was written that defined how an artificial neural network developed, it wouldn't be that different from how our genes define the growth and structure of our brain.

But one area you would really need to dissect is free will. Sure you can grant a machine a certain propensity to access pre-controlled and predefined faculties to come up with a random or even fore casted result, but again this is not true free will.

I can't imagine what "free will" is, other than a vague sensation of being "free" in choice, regardless of whether this is demonstrably false or not. Since free will has never been well defined, there is little to suggest that it exists independently of the feeling that one has it. Not really an issue, AFAIC.

the metaphysical connection, intuition, instinct, the ability to tell a lie and be deceived, deceived even knowingly, our third eyes, cell memory, auras, the paranormal connection, miracle healings, etc., and the list goes on.

We have reached a fork in the road, then, because I believe in none of those things (except for cell memory and miracle healings to a very small non-supernatural extent).

Unfortunately however since the world we live in doesn't know when to stop I fear our future may exist of some perverse amalgamations of the two.

This may sadly be true.

When a human does something human it is a human being doing it and thats precisely the difference. Hence a machine can't do anything human its just a machine.

Naturally, I am describing as human behaviors things which may only be performed by a conscious or seemingly conscious being. Since human beings are the only conscious species we know of so far, this is a convenient shorthand.

By the way how come so many people here address only the weaknesses they see in others' arguments without giving any credence to what might be genuine opposition to theirs.

If I see something that I consider genuine opposition, I try to respond to it. If I do not consider something genuine opposition, it is generally because there are irreconcilable differences between my basic belief-set and the other persons (paranormal topics are an example of this).

For example: instinct, cell memory, auras, social and emotional temperatures, the ego, etc. Where are the answers for these, or would some of you rather keep the ball only on your side of the court?

I haven't considered an individual reply for any of these things either because:

1. I have considered them at a different point in time, and simply decided that I do not believe in them (rendering any discussion on them a pointless ping-pong match).
OR
2. I consider them covered in some other way. The ego and social and emotional "temperatures" (if I am getting the right sense of the word), for example, I consider a subset of the general conscious experience (which I have already written about). Nothing unique stands out about them which may make them a dividing factor between a man and a complex machine that is either conscious or mimicking consciousness.

I will end here before this post becomes any larger.

 

[WolSHaman]

Damien, I think you're making some points that are valid about how a robot could be CONSCIOUS, but I don't think a robot could ever truly be HUMAN. Because it takes more then conscious thought to be considered human. Their are many common experiences that we have as a species that bind us together. A robot will never be born immature and not knowing everything, and slowly develop over time, learning new things and learning to be more rational and less emotional, and have a brain that develops over time and learn to think with a different part of its brain like a human does. Also, a robot will never grow up, and be able to do things like measure his height to see if he's gotten taller, because its impossible for robots to grow naturally. Also, robots will never truly be able to taste and sample foods, because what one person likes can be hated by another, and we still don't exactly know what determines how something tastes. Sure we know the part of the brain that holds taste, but we don't know what triggers the reactions that do trigger. Also, robots won't need sleep, and that's a common element that all humans need, and a robot wouldn't. So, in conclusion, though a robot might somehow be able to be conscious, although I doubt this to, a robot could still never truly be HUMAN.

 

[TheDamien]

I think you are correct, WolSHaman. A machine, no matter how much it may be consciously or emotionally similar to a human, will never have the same richness of experience. Although I'm not so sure about things like tastes, and I suppose it is possible that something analogous to sleep may be an emergent factor of an artificially intelligent neural network.

This is still all hypothetical. Even if conscious, emotional AI are possible, I doubt that humans as a species will ever be able to create them.

 

[sjakie]

conscious, emotional AI? Robots simply do not love, they are not emotional, they are not aware of anything, all they do is follow their programized orders.

Robots can sole mimic real emotions, but you wont really a get a emotional AI.

 

[WastedSavior]

If i am conscious, and you are much like myself and admit to be conscious, Then it would be illogical to assume otherwise. You could argue that red is not red, that the earth revolves around the sun, or even argue over god if we use the same terms your using in your argument. If you were to get any more vague you would just be being perverse for the sake of argument.

Everything is defined by a consensus, not the individual. Love is much like color, you can't know what someone else sees, but you can come to the conclusion based on common experiences what it is.

I am capable of thought, I am capable of fear, I am capable of analyzing my own existence.

Is a computer capable of a unique thought?

Can a computer fear for its life?

Can a computer analyze its existence in means greater then physical attributes?

What about you? are you capable of unique thought? fear? can you analyze your emotions? Things that are not tangible?

What about emotion? can a computer feel sadness? happiness? hate?

It can act accordingly to a pre-programmed response to an event that would simulate happiness. But that wouldn't be real. It wouldn't be an experience. It wouldn't be happy, it wouldn't prefer to be happy over sad. It would merely be a program to complete. Much like double clicking on your internet browser, the computer is indifferent to it, it completes its task. It wouldn't one day decide that instead of opening the internet browser it would prefer to launch windows media player because it likes music.

It's possible in the future, but currently? I don't think a robot would be capable of holding romantic interest. It's just an elaborate toy with delusions of grandeur.

 

[sjakie]

It's possible in the future, but currently? I don't think a robot would be capable of holding romantic interest. It's just an elaborate toy with delusions of grandeur.

As far as I understand your post I agree with it, exept for this part. Possible in the future? How advanced the technology the robots are made with may be, robots stay robots, programmed emotionless computers. Perhaps in the future they will have very realistic emotion-like AI's, but no real emotions.

 

[WastedSavior]

As far as I understand your post I agree with it, exept for this part. Possible in the future? How advanced the technology the robots are made with may be, robots stay robots, programmed emotionless computers. Perhaps in the future they will have very realistic emotion-like AI's, but no real emotions.

I leave room for the unknown, perhaps one day they will create organic robots, which could then potentially possess emotion. No one can really predict the future, but we've conquered quite a bit in our short stay on this planet.