Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Robots and love
Near Lurker:
--- Quote from: snubnose on 01 Sep 2011, 06:58 ---Yeah its true you can write a simulation of feelings. But if a human being loves, its not the result of an arithmetic operation. If a human being is hurt physically, the pain they feel is real. A computer wouldnt be stunned or disabled by pain, either.
--- End quote ---
It's a result of a chemical reaction stimulated by arithmetic operations. The pain a human or animal feels is no more "real" than that which can be simulated by a computer.
DSL:
Don't know who said it, but this works for me as a def. of love: When the happiness of another is central to your own.
rsquared:
I can agree completely with DSL's definition. But this just moves the question sideways: Can robots feel happiness? Snubnose is asserting 'no' (indirectly, perhaps). As we know robots now, I am inclined to agree that they, based on computers, could never truly feel emotions. Maybe somebody someday will invent a new kind of computational engine, a leap over our arithmetic-based PCs the way PCs are a leap over the abacus, that will have that capability.
With sufficiently clever programming, though, I'm sure an arithmetic-based computer could convincingly fake emotions. If an emotion is a state of mind, a complex and nuanced and probably multilayered finite-state machine computer program could evince emotions in a completely convincing way. Which would be "good enough". If you cannot distinguish between "genuine" emotions and programmed emotions, then really, there is no difference. (A Turing test of the heart…)
idontunderstand:
--- Quote from: HiFranc on 02 Sep 2011, 07:56 ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Maybe. But I would say you can show care for someone without necessarily loving them. And to say "to love is to care" or "to care is to love", doesn't really make for a definition, since then we would have to define what "care" means in this context.
I like DSL's definition as well, can't find anything wrong with it no matter how I try, hehe.
questionablecontentfan:
--- Quote from: DSL on 02 Sep 2011, 09:38 ---Don't know who said it, but this works for me as a def. of love: When the happiness of another is central to your own.
--- End quote ---
That sounds like Momo.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version