Automatons

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Again: Not PASS it.

Show me thermostat that sits around and considers the ramifications of being a thermostat with sufficient depth to decide that convincing other thermostats that you're a thermostat is the touchstone to decide if you're a thermostat.

As with any other theory, however, if someone builds a non-human machine that successfully does "human," well enough to convince a simple majority of JREFers that it's human, I'll revise my theory.

Until then, as for, "if:" If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.

If saying, "if," in front of something for which there's no evidence makes it a fact, where can a proper atheist stand on the, "if God is real..." problem?

I will remain a nonbeliever on the, "we're just automatons," dogma, thanks. An autonomiton I shall remain until there's new data.

At some point in the future, all of these ignoramuses will have to just admit what they are really trying to say: "My shaky little worldview will implode if it turns out humans aren't intrinsicly special compared to everything else."

Oh - not at all. Chimpanzees and crows act autonomously. They're not much good at abstracts while humans are, but give 'em time. Porpoises seem to be able to learn things by watching others, and so can and do abstract information. Ravens and gorillas seem to be able to make up their own jokes.

As I mentioned before - a common menu, but a unique set of options within the menu.

As for anything else, that's opinion. I was purposefully limiting myself to a non-belief-based response.

...and: For a guy that prides himself in going with facts-on-hand, you seem to know a lot about the future.

Do I see a million dollars in your future?

 

[bokonon]

At some point in the future, all of these ignoramuses will have to just admit what they are really trying to say: "My shaky little worldview will implode if it turns out humans aren't intrinsicly special compared to everything else."

When humans created automatons which could add more quickly and more accurately than humans themselves, it didn't make humans less special, it just gave them more tools to become even more special. My worldview is in no danger from any shaking your puny little machines can throw at it.

 

[Piscivore]

Hi

Again: Not PASS it.

Show me thermostat that sits around and considers the ramifications of being a thermostat with sufficient depth to decide that convincing other thermostats that you're a thermostat is the touchstone to decide if you're a thermostat.

Hi back. While we're doing introductions, let me introduce you to a concept friend of mine. his name is Metaphor.

The fact that humans are a different kind of machine than the kind of machine humans can currently build, does not prove that humans are not machines.

Just because humans can think of a test that distinguishes them from the kind of machine humans can currently build, and the machines humans can currently build cannot, does not prove that humans are not machines.

As with any other theory, however, if someone builds a non-human machine that successfully does "human," well enough to convince a simple majority of JREFers that it's human, I'll revise my theory.

That would be PASSING the Turing test, not CONCEIVING it.

 

[Dunstan]

To me, viewing humans as mechanistic structures raises the question of why we should regard their lives or feelings in the first place if they have no intrinsic value. I wanted the opinions of others on this unsettling scenario.

(emphasis mine)

I think that's your problem right there. You need to explore your assumptions a little further. What is "intrinsic value," why is it required in order to value other people's lives or feelings, and why does the absence of souls negate it?

 

[Brian-M]

Regardless of what decisions you make, you'll eventually die and blink out of existence, so what point is there in anything? You could say that the point is to live a good life and have an impact on people after you're gone, but what do they matter? They'll blink out of existence too, as will everyone else.

On the flip side of the coin, why bother to make things better if the world doesn't matter? Who cares what difference you make? If there's no reason or purpose, then this is simply a sphere of matter orbiting around a star in an observable physical universe that goes on existing, pointlessly.

<snip>

But value isn't real. The ultimate, objective conclusion on the physicality of the universe would be that morals, emotions, and social norms are illusions of the brain, evolved out of necessity for survival. That means there's no difference between a philanthropist donating to charity or a homicidal maniac killing ten people. To the universe, it doesn't matter.

Who cares what impact we leave behind? There's no eternal god to care,

And what if all this religion stuff was true?

If someone was going to die and spend all eternity in joy and bliss in heaven anyway, why not kill them now and take all their stuff? After all, once they're in heaven, it won't really matter. Sure, their friends and family might be upset, but when they die and go to heaven (or hell), would what they feel now really matter?

Your point that everyone your actions affect will die eventually still applies regardless of whether or not the afterlife exists. While experiencing eternal bliss or suffering, will their mortal lives matter to them any more than if they had ceased to exist?

Regardless of whether or not there is an afterlife, there is always one person for whom your actions actions truly matter.

Yourself.

Am I coming off as overly analytical here?

Yes.

 

[rocketdodger]

Oh - not at all. Chimpanzees and crows act autonomously. They're not much good at abstracts while humans are, but give 'em time. Porpoises seem to be able to learn things by watching others, and so can and do abstract information. Ravens and gorillas seem to be able to make up their own jokes.

If chimps and crows are not machines, then God made them -- right? Which means God also made you, which makes you intrinsicly special. Like I said.

On the other hand, if chimps and crows are the result of evolution, then they are machines, and since they act autonomously, it means machines can act autonomously.

So which is it? I think I know your answer...

...and: For a guy that prides himself in going with facts-on-hand, you seem to know a lot about the future.

It does seem that way to those who don't know the facts that I know.

 

[Brian-M]

Come up with the dichotomous, simultaneous, and comingled concepts of justice and mercy.

Think of a nuclear-powered cheese-straightener.

Be John Cleese.

Find something both hilariously funny and heartrendingly tragic at the same time. (I used to go to science fiction conventions and tell funny stories about my tours of duty in Vietnam: Almost being killed, blowing up three American soldiers on a beach, a short stay I had at the Long Binh Evac hospital, or blowing up an elderly Vietnamese guy. They really are very funny stories.)

Make up a new joke. <snip>

Laugh at a new joke.

Laugh at a joke that isn't funny to spare another's feelings.

...and on and on and on....

Hi

Oh - and -

The Turing Test!

....

No - not pass it. Come UP with it.

Most people have never done many of those things. I, for example, never invented the Turing test, have never been John Cleese and had never thought of a nuclear-powered cheese-straightener until you mentioned it.

I assume you're referring to the potential to do these things?

If an automation lacked the potential to do this kind of thing, then it wouldn't really pass the Turing test. (More accurately, it wouldn't posses the qualities Alan Turing invented the Turing test to test... being indistinguishable in behavior from a human.)

The original Idea came when Turing wondered what would happen if the human brain was expressed as a set of instructions program for a theoretical Turing machine computer (which Turing had already established would be able to calculate anything that could be calculated).

He concluded that if the behavior of an automation was indistinguishable from that of a human in every way, then it should be treated the same way and given the same rights as a human.

Tell me Gagglegnash, if you were a computer simulation of yourself, perfectly simulated down to the subatomic level, living in a computer simulated world, would you be any less capable of doing these things you mentioned?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Hi back. While we're doing introductions, let me introduce you to a concept friend of mine. his name is Metaphor.

The fact that humans are a different kind of machine than the kind of machine humans can currently build, does not prove that humans are not machines.

....

Just because humans can think of a test that distinguishes them from the kind of machine humans can currently build, and the machines humans can currently build cannot, does not prove that humans are not machines.

....

That would be PASSING the Turing test, not CONCEIVING it.

Yes... and as soon as a machine passes the Touring Test, I figure it's only a little while until a machine can be a human, with all that entails, including creating the (or another) Turing Test, and conversely, humans will be shown to be machines.

I'll accept the fact when it's shown, thanks. I believe in God, and that He wants me to love Him and love everyone around me, and then act accordingly. Everything else is subject to double-blind testing and peer review.

...and right now, animals do a lot of stuff machines can't.

So, if you want to say that a human being is just another kind of animal, I'll be happy to agree with you.

I might even go along with the idea that all of the DNA-based stuff on the planet is just different ways to create more DNA, and human beings are just one chance, if not the only chance, for DNA to get off-planet.

As for the automaton aspect: You and Alan know how to convince me.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Most people have never done many of those things. I, for example, never invented the Turing test, have never been John Cleese and had never thought of a nuclear-powered cheese-straightener until you mentioned it.

I assume you're referring to the potential to do these things?

The original question was, "What does a human do that an automaton could not," and not what can all humans do. A human thought of the Turing Test, and a human was John Cleese, etc....

Now, if you want to ask, "what do humans do that automatons could not," (note absence of the indefinite article) my answer would be something along the lines of, "produce other machines like Alan Turing, John Cleese, and Soupy Sales."

Different answer. Similar content.

If an automation lacked the potential to do this kind of thing, then it wouldn't really pass the Turing test. (More accurately, it wouldn't posses the qualities Alan Turing invented the Turing test to test... being indistinguishable in behavior from a human.)

He also said, upon being asked if computers would ever think, that as soon as someone could define what, "think," meant, he would be able to program it.

If someone finally defines, "thought," as a mechanical or electrical phenomenon, I'll be in line to get the white paper.

The original Idea came when Turing wondered what would happen if the human brain was expressed as a set of instructions program for a theoretical Turing machine computer (which Turing had already established would be able to calculate anything that could be calculated).

He concluded that if the behavior of an automation was indistinguishable from that of a human in every way, then it should be treated the same way and given the same rights as a human.

...and I concur.

Tell me Gagglegnash, if you were a computer simulation of yourself, perfectly simulated down to the subatomic level, living in a computer simulated world, would you be any less capable of doing these things you mentioned?

If I were a simulation of sufficient quality, then I wouldn't be any less capable of doing those things, but, "if," is a big word, for such a small word.

So, if you don't mind, I'll hold my opinion about animals not being automatons while I eagerly await someone's Turing Test Passing Automaton.

....

...and seriously: You have never thought of a nuclear-powered cheese-straightener??

Sheesh!!

[ETA] Errrr... I meant to say, "I'll hold my opinion about some animals not being automatons," as I have already specified that it appears that some are. [/ETA]

 

[arthwollipot]

Bah! Even dictionaries can't handle irregular plurals these days...

I'm enjoying the conversation, BTW. I don't have anything in particular to say though, apart from my first response. Don't let me derail.

 

[Mark Felt]

Value is real. What is not real is intrinsic value. For something to be valuable, there must exist something for it to be valuable to. I think a lot of people get this thing backwards. Life is not valuable. Life values. We do not care about things which matter. Our caring makes them matter. And if that caring, that valuing, is nothing more than a physical state brought about by an inscrutably complex series of preceding events (as I do believe it is), what of it?

Grind down the universe to its smallest particles and show me one atom of justice, one molecule of truth.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I admit that I just skimmed this thread. I wanted to respond to one thing in the OP (which I can see has been touched on to a greater or lesser degree):

Why "cell-based"? If you're trying to reduce materialism to an absurd concept, why not say that my mind is nothing but a collection of atoms or molecules?

In fact, the atoms are arranged (mostly) into molecules that are mostly organized into cells that are organized into tissues that are organized into organs and organs systems. The brain, in particular, has other levels of organization.

At each level of organization, there are emergent properties (stuff that's not there at the lower level of organization).

While I am a materialist, and I reject the existence of a soul (for lack of evidence and the huge burden of unanswered questions that proposition would raise), I am by no means a "cell-based automaton".

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

If chimps and crows are not machines, then God made them -- right? Which means God also made you, which makes you intrinsicly(sic) special. Like I said.

If God made all the animals and me, then we're all intrinsically special.

On the other hand, if chimps and crows are the result of evolution, then they are machines, and since they act autonomously, it means machines can act autonomously.

If you define machines as the product of the evolutionary process, that would be correct.

I would have to challenge your definition, though.

Also: Being the only living things we know of means that we're all intrinsically special as well... or it should.

So which is it? I think I know your answer...

In the context of this conversation, I'll bet you don't.

It does seem that way to those who don't know the facts that I know.

Now, where have I heard that before....

 

[arthwollipot]

I admit that I just skimmed this thread. I wanted to respond to one thing in the OP (which I can see has been touched on to a greater or lesser degree):

Why "cell-based"? If you're trying to reduce materialism to an absurd concept, why not say that my mind is nothing but a collection of atoms or molecules?

In fact, the atoms are arranged (mostly) into molecules that are mostly organized into cells that are organized into tissues that are organized into organs and organs systems. The brain, in particular, has other levels of organization.

At each level of organization, there are emergent properties (stuff that's not there at the lower level of organization).

While I am a materialist, and I reject the existence of a soul (for lack of evidence and the huge burden of unanswered questions that proposition would raise), I am by no means a "cell-based automaton".

It depends on the definition of "cell". If you're going with the strict biological definition (a self-contained unit containing genetic information and other biological machinery, surrounded by a membrane), then sure. But "cell" can refer to any of those levels of organisation that you mention. We are a collection of "cells" where each "cell" is an organ, for example. The word "cellular" means simply "composed of a collection of individual units".

I admit, it's a bit of a stretch, but...

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It depends on the definition of "cell". If you're going with the strict biological definition (a self-contained unit containing genetic information and other biological machinery, surrounded by a membrane), then sure. But "cell" can refer to any of those levels of organisation that you mention. We are a collection of "cells" where each "cell" is an organ, for example. The word "cellular" means simply "composed of a collection of individual units".

I admit, it's a bit of a stretch, but...

It is a stretch to think he's talking about a biological system and not using the biological definition of cell.

At first I thought maybe he was just using a misunderstanding of the term "cellular automaton" (where the cells are grids on a computer screen or some such that change states in a model of an automaton that responds to rules about the states of neighboring cells), but then I thought he couldn't be so far astray. He's talking about humans, after all.

At any rate, I've also heard the strawman argument against materialism phrased as an attack on the idea that the mind is equal to the brain, or even the mind is the brain. I, a materialist, would never argue such a thing. It would be like saying that Bolt's 200 meter race is the same thing as his legs. Or, closer to me, juggling is equal to my arms. How absurd!

The mind is what the brain does.

As far as the soul, I'm simply skeptical. I've yet to see any credible evidence of disembodied consciousness or mind, and I've seen tons of evidence that mind and mental states correlate very well with changes in the functions and states of the brain. (There's also the logical problem of how something that is not matter or energy can somehow interact with or even control something that is material.)

 

[Toady]

Hi

Again: Not PASS it.

Show me thermostat that sits around and considers the ramifications of being a thermostat with sufficient depth to decide that convincing other thermostats that you're a thermostat is the touchstone to decide if you're a thermostat.

Inevitably, a computer with sufficient complexity and energy efficiency capable of processing in this way will be constructed. Currently, neurobiologists know which part of your brain thinks about its self-awareness. We know that the brain is made of neurons, mere physical objects arranged in a determined configuration that operate via biochemical processes. This makes you a machine of sorts.

I admit that I just skimmed this thread. I wanted to respond to one thing in the OP (which I can see has been touched on to a greater or lesser degree):

Why "cell-based"? If you're trying to reduce materialism to an absurd concept, why not say that my mind is nothing but a collection of atoms or molecules?

No particular reason. That's just the unit I chose off the top of my head. Substitute with whatever microscopic unit you see fit to use.

 

[FledgelingSkeptic]

It's difficult to face the fact that there IS no proof that a soul exists. There IS no proof that there is an afterlife. Especially if you were brought up, like I was, in a household of magical thinkers. Until you mentioned the automata issue, I had never really considered that I was not in control of my decisions.

However, consider that unlike other animals, we can choose, in certain cases, to sublimate instinctive frear based behavior for logical thought. So even though there is no soul or so afterlife, we still have our ability to think rationally. That, and opposable thumbs, place us much higher on the food chain than, say, my dog.

He makes all of his decisions based on his instincts and drives. That makes him far more of an automaton than a logically thinking human being.

As for my thoughts, the more I leave the magical world, the happier and more adjusted I become. Thank you for asking

Really what it comes down to it to just let go of what you fear other people's judgements are and just enjoy your life. It's all you've got.

 

[Kopji]

An eternal afterlife would make our decisions and existence here less meaningful, not more.

 

[rocketdodger]

If you define machines as the product of the evolutionary process, that would be correct.

I would have to challenge your definition, though.

Please do. Why is a product of evolution not a machine?

 

[Mark Felt]

Please do. Why is a product of evolution not a machine?

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but you're arguing from unproven premises. If you show the reasoning behind "evolution creates a machine" you'll have a better argument.