Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Robots and love
HiFranc:
snubnose, you still haven't addressed my criticism of your assertion in that there may be another way of wiring the computer to achieve that end. You are still thinking that the brains for these robots are constructed in the same way as normal computers are nowadays. However, if they were constructed in a different fashion (for example by a complex[1] neural network[2]) which didn't rely solely on logic, you might get there.
[1] All complex animals have neural networks. In the case of a hydra its behaviour is not that far away from a computer. In our case, we have thoughts, feelings, ideas, inventions, etc.
[2] Electronic neural networks already exist. I know that the finance industry in Britain uses one (or more) to spot frauds for the reason that neural networks. Bear in mind that, compared to our brains, is a simple one.
Skewbrow:
--- Quote from: snubnose on 02 Sep 2011, 06:22 ---
Yet computers did no such thing. They only became faster and better able to store things. They did not turn sentient and show no sign to turn sentient in the near or distant future. It's simply not there. No matter how fast it is, it's still just a mathematical calculator.
--- End quote ---
Me the mathematician has to disagree. Computers are very good at arithmetic, but mostly useless at mathematics. Granted, I have done a lot of computer-aided mathematical research. But the role of the computer has been to do experiments on my behalf: like test an error correction scheme 100 million times under random conditions, or checking a hunch by exhaustive search in the couple of smallest cases, or.... But a computer won't give me an initial idea to play with, it won't get an insightful "Heureka" moment, or see its way thru a proof, or do anything real math is about. I realize that you equated math with arithmetic the way the general public does, so no harm was done. Your claim just touched a nerve here. So if we agree to emphasize calculator, I won't start a fight.
But life is very complicated (at the molecular level), and so is love. I'm not sure whether it was one of Akima's points, but I think that love cannot be explained in a purely reductionistic way. May be love is learned/programmed? I don't know. Another possibility is that it is, at some level, emergent behavior (a by-product of evolution?). Perhaps the simplest emergent behavior is exemplified by Langton's ant. As a programmer you will probably enjoy the demos! The upshot is that given any (random) initial "universe" an 'ant' (=an automaton much simpler than the Intel x86 processors) walking about in this universe, while following a simple rule, will first spend some time wandering aimlessly, but then eventually will start following a pattern giving the impression that it has a clear purpose and direction.
That example is, of course, anything but convincing. But it does hint at the possibility that out of a chaotic ocean filled with organic molecules apelike creatures capable of love eventually emerge. If love emerges out of combinations of chemical reactions, could it not also emerge out of automata that are somewhat more complicated than that simple-minded ant?
idontunderstand:
--- Quote from: HiFranc on 02 Sep 2011, 02:04 ---
--- Quote ---To understand the needs of another being and to meet them (even if it means a cost to the provider) and for that provision to be motivated out of genuine caring rather than narrow self interest.
--- End quote ---
I think that that's a reasonable definition of love. What do you think?
--- End quote ---
I think you can both be aware of the needs of another being and even meet them, to some extent, without really feeling love towards that being. You could feel responsibility or be liable through your profession, without really feeling anything. So no, I would have to disagree.
HiFranc:
--- Quote from: idontunderstand on 02 Sep 2011, 07:50 ---
--- Quote from: HiFranc on 02 Sep 2011, 02:04 ---
--- Quote ---To understand the needs of another being and to meet them (even if it means a cost to the provider) and for that provision to be motivated out of genuine caring rather than narrow self interest.
--- End quote ---
I think that that's a reasonable definition of love. What do you think?
--- End quote ---
I think you can both be aware of the needs of another being and even meet them, to some extent, without really feeling love towards that being. You could feel responsibility or be liable through your profession, without really feeling anything. So no, I would have to disagree.
--- End quote ---
But those two scenarios would be caught by the "genuine caring" clause I added to the end.
{edit} Now I think about it, it may be caught by the "even if it means a cost to the provider" if the person is willing to put their job on the line to get extra help for a person.
TRVA123:
It depends on the type of definition we are going for. Love is an internal sensation; we might apply it to situations we observe around us, but there is no way of knowing that it is love in the sense we assume. Identifying and defining love is as difficult as defining and identifying depression. People experiences it in their own way, not everyone experiences it, and finding a universal definition for it is bloody difficult and will probably never truly communicate what the emotion is to someone who hasn't felt it.
For identifying love in the actions of others I'd say that this:
"To understand the needs of another being and to meet them (even if it means a cost to the provider) and for that provision to be motivated out of genuine caring rather than narrow self interest."
is a fair definition, even though it might seem empty to some people, depending on how they have felt love.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version