• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are We More Than Just a Machine?

Iacchus

Unregistered
I
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
10,085
What's the difference between a robot emulating human behavior versus a human being up on the movie screen? Not much I suppose. Neither one are real human beings and, both are just emulations. Need I say more?
 
Both a robot and a humanbeing are (bio) mechanical. That's what we have in common with robots.
Still, with my knowledge of status quo robots, the answer to your question must be; yes, we are more than robots at this point, for one thing; we can invent, but within time it's not unlikely that they will surpass us in the abilities they lack now.
Hey, I, for one, wouldn't like to play chess against Deep Blue or engage in an arm wrestle competition with a crane.

Edit: To answer your question more specifically: In my opinion, then humans are machines yes, acting according to stimuli/response patterns. If you wanna put an invisible pink unicorn in there between, be my guest.
 
Iacchus said:
What's the difference between a robot emulating human behavior versus a human being up on the movie screen? Not much I suppose.
Click to expand...
The latter is two-dimensional and way inferior to the robot!
 
Thomas said:
Both a robot and a humanbeing are (bio) mechanical. That's what we have in common with robots.
Still, with my knowledge of status quo robots, the answer to your question must be; yes, we are more than robots at this point, for one thing; we can invent, but within time it's not unlikely that they will surpass us in the abilities they lack now.
Hey, I, for one, wouldn't like to play chess against Deep Blue or engage in an arm wrestle competition with a crane.
Click to expand...
Yes, but just because something can put on a "good show," and appear to be real, does that make it real? What is it about human beings that makes them real? Is it just a matter of understanding the mechanics of human behavior, as if they were merely machines? Or, is there a bit more to it than that? I agree, machines are quite capable of exhibiting behavior. However, are they capable of "experiencing" anything remotely similar to what is responsible for that behavior?
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, but just because something can put on a "good show," and appear to be real, does that make it real? What is it about human beings that makes them real? Is it just a matter of understanding the mechanics of human behavior, as if they were merely machines?
Click to expand...
Well, actually; yes, when we try to understand ourselves in terms of science (at least), then we try to map the given mechanisms.


Or, is there a bit more to it than that? I agree, machines are quite capable of exhibiting behavior. However, are they capable of "experiencing" anything remotely similar to what is responsible for the behavior?
Click to expand...
I'm not all sure I understand your question completely here, but computers actually act according to stimuli-response like we do. More sophisticated models like the A.I. variant; neural networks, is a complete simulation of how certain mechanisms in your brain works. They're used for recognition software today.

I would like to get to the core of this, because I'm sure you have a clear point, so: You hint that there is "a bit more to it" than just a mechanism. What?
 
dann said:
The latter is two-dimensional and way inferior to the robot!
Click to expand...
Yet the actors on the screen have perfectly captured the essence of being human. Why? Because they are (were) human. And, although we may be able relate to what's happening on the screen, as if it were really happening to us, is it possible for us to interact with these "images?" No. Because they're not real. Neither is the three dimensional "imagery" that the robot projects real. Nor can it project anywhere's near the essence -- at this time -- which is projected on the screen.
 
Iacchus said:
Nor can it project anywhere's near the essence -- at this time -- which is projected on the screen.
Click to expand...
Why don't you get to the essence of the deal, and tell us what humans have more than a mechanism?
 
Thomas said:
I would like to get to the core of this, because I'm sure you have a clear point, so: You hint that there is "a bit more to it" than just a mechanism. What?
Click to expand...
What is it that articulates the machinery?
 
For a long time, I accepted the materialist premise that man is no more than a machine.

Today, I am questioning that premise. However, I want to put forward some thoughts that were very influential in my acceptance of materialism. I do so in the hope that some people can provide insightful commentary on the subject.

We have a sense of what it means to behave in a good and moral fashion, versus in an evil fashion. We can observe "good" people and "bad" people.

Certain brain injuries can turn "good" people into "bad" people. A good, upstanding, moral person can become an evil wretch because he survived a bullet to the brain. If that can happen, it seems difficult to accept that his behavior is truly good or evil.

Consider the case of one Adolf Hitler. Now, surely this man is a genuine symbol of evil. If anyone can be said to be truly evil, he is it. Hitler suffered from syphillitic dementia. This disease causes megalomania and immoral behavior. If a disease can so alter human behavior, can we say that our behavior is the result of a spirit, or a soul, or good and evil. Today, I am good. Tomorrow, I contract syphyllis, and I become evil?

I would like to believe that I am more than just a machine. Indeed, I am leaning toward that belief. However, there is certain evidence in this regard that weighs against that conclusion. If my behavior can be so altered by the existence of chemicals, viruses, or injuries, it would seem that perhaps it's all just stimulus/response after all.
 
Iacchus said:
What is it that articulates the machinery?
Click to expand...
Articulates? Anyway, as with many questions in science, we'll end up in infinity. Something we can't grasp because we recognize and process meaning through patterns, finite patterns. Infinity doesn't end, hence leaves no pattern. As a result, we can't recognize and process it.

Infinity doesn't suggest the existence of a soul, anymore than it suggest the existence of a green-spotted sloth sitting on the sun, enjoying a whiskey on-the-rocks.

Infinity is not evidence of anything but itself and our own limitations. We're but adapted by nature to this universe, and more specifically, to this planet.
 
Meadmaker said:
I would like to believe that I am more than just a machine. Indeed, I am leaning toward that belief. However, there is certain evidence in this regard that weighs against that conclusion. If my behavior can be so altered by the existence of chemicals, viruses, or injuries, it would seem that perhaps it's all just stimulus/response after all.
Click to expand...
I think what you may be referring to here is a case of "impaired reception," much in the way a damaged radio receiver will deliver an impaired output signal, yet the input signal is stronger than ever. However, if there was no signal in the first place, regardless of how fancy the radio is -- or, in a state of disrepair -- there will be nothing to reproduce.
 
By the way lacchus, don't resort to word games, as in, don't answer a question with a question. Keep it straight, and answer this: What do humans have more than mechanics?
 
Thomas said:
By the way lacchus, don't resort to word games, as in, don't answer a question with a question. Keep it straight, and answer this: What do humans have more than machines?
Click to expand...
Is this an admission that you don't know? Or, that you're relatively certain I don't know? You seem like a fairly learned person. So how is it that I can come to understand such things, and yet you haven't? You're obviously of the school that the Universe is strictly mechanical in nature, in other words a materialist, correct? So what could I possibly say to change your views on such matters? Little or next to nothing I suspect ... Or, it would take a lot more than I can explain on this thread, for sure.
 
Iacchus's first rule of Internet posting: Answer questions with questions--the more irrelevant, the better.

Corollary: If asked to not answer with a question, respond with five.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Iacchus's first rule of Internet posting: Answer questions with questions--the more irrelevant, the better.

Corollary: If asked to not answer with a question, respond with five.
Click to expand...
And as if your mind is not already made up either? Why should I waste my time talking to you?
 
Iacchus said:
And as if your mind is not already made up either?
Click to expand...
I reserve the right to change my mind in light of new evidence and/or sound argumentation.

Why should I waste my time talking to you?
Click to expand...
Beats me. If you have either of the above, though, I would love to hear them.
 
Is this an admission that you don't know? Or, that you're relatively certain I don't know? You seem like a fairly learned person. So how is it that I can come to understand such things, and yet you haven't? You're obviously of the school that the Universe is strictly mechanical in nature, in other words a materialist, correct? So what could I possibly say to change your views on such matters? Little or next to nothing I suspect ... Or, it would take a lot more than I can explain on this thread, for sure.
Click to expand...
So you can't explain what makes a human different from a human-emulating robot?

Try this, then:

A robot emulating a human needs a complicated program to control all the behaviors and reactions that would lead an observer to conclude it actually is human. The more closely it is observed, the more complicated the programming must be. The supposed difference between the two is simply due to the apparent fact that no one has yet produced a sufficiently complex program.

How can someone observe you and conclude you are not a robot with a sophisticated program? Any action, any speech, anything you do could be the product of that highly sophisticated program.

The difference is: the human is what the robot is emulating.

If you can't tell the difference between the construct and what it is emulating, then there is no difference. This applies to any comparison between "genuine" and "fake" equally well. If there is no test you can perform to show the difference, there is no difference, and no amount of insistence that there is a difference will make a difference appear.

ETA quote dropped from original response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom