http://www.physorg.com/news82910066.html
I don't think so. the machine can not Know anything, its a collection of mechanical parts. Complex weighted conditional statements are used to access its form and current status. based on the results of its weighted testing it uses basic logic to move. To infer that it somehow "knows" is totally incorrect and an abuse of the language.
When will workers in this field realize that computers don't know anything. Its like saying that a light switch knows when the light is on. A computer is little more than billions of light switches.
AR
"Know" is a strong word here, however that does not mean that computers will never be able to mimic the human brain. At this point, the system will "know" itself. The brain is made up of processes that can be broken down into simpler processes that individually do not "know" themselves either. So while the "light switches" in a computer may not be self aware, the complex system built from these switches can be.
To the first poster:
You can argue that the only difference between the human brain and a computer is that the human brain has stems that approach each other whenever used, and that it is much more powerful than a modern day computer. Other than that, there is practically no difference between the human brain and a digital brain. They both use logic to come up with answers to a problem. The brain uses organic material, while a computer uses non-organic material. Well, if we break it all down, they're both using matter and energy. Until we do not understand absolutely everything around us, from light to gravity, we will not be able to define 'conscious' or 'knowledge'. Personally, I believe we need an elite body of educated people, such as the supreme court, to make a ruling on 'conscious' and 'life'. When can we define any of these things? When something has emotions? When something doesn't want to die? I guarantee you that if you take a dog, or a pig, to the edge of a cliff, it might urinate itself (expressing emotion) and try to run away (expressing want to live). Similarly, when do we rule when something isn't a human being? Is something not a human until it can engage in conversation with us or until it can learn? Some diseases make humans not able to learn, and some people on this planet do not speak the same language. So...it's all about interpretation.
You can argue that the only difference between the human brain and a computer is that the human brain has stems that approach each other whenever used, and that it is much more powerful than a modern day computer. Other than that, there is practically no difference between the human brain and a digital brain. They both use logic to come up with answers to a problem. The brain uses organic material, while a computer uses non-organic material. Well, if we break it all down, they're both using matter and energy. Until we do not understand absolutely everything around us, from light to gravity, we will not be able to define 'conscious' or 'knowledge'. Personally, I believe we need an elite body of educated people, such as the supreme court, to make a ruling on 'conscious' and 'life'. When can we define any of these things? When something has emotions? When something doesn't want to die? I guarantee you that if you take a dog, or a pig, to the edge of a cliff, it might urinate itself (expressing emotion) and try to run away (expressing want to live). Similarly, when do we rule when something isn't a human being? Is something not a human until it can engage in conversation with us or until it can learn? Some diseases make humans not able to learn, and some people on this planet do not speak the same language. So...it's all about interpretation.
I think it's time to reconsider what knowing is.
But aren't conditional statements part of the human psyche? If not human than what about a dog? Teach a dog to sit and he does so because he's expecting a treat:
If Sit_Command = true then
Sit()
WaitForTreat()
End If
If Sit_Command = true then
Sit()
WaitForTreat()
End If
Thing about the brain is that is has many many dynamic conditions, i suppose each of those with a priority other another defined by yet more dynamic conditions...
So, while the dog might sit due to waiting for a treat, there are other situations where it wont, like maybe if its full, or sick, or the house is on fire.... while theres alot of possible outcomes, it boils down to dynamic conditions wich can be anything from visual, sence, to other things learnt and related in the brains complex and efficicient database of previously learnt knowledge. The things that are not so dynamic are all the things used by phychologists that are predicable human behaviour... so if were predicable, then a machine can definatly be aware.... however in this case the machine has a few sensors while we got millions. Like someone mentioned, an atom, molecule or individual neuron is't aware of itselfe, but in the right configuration it can be.... course, there might be some subatomic influence too, but we're not as random as people think we are, and alot of course has to do with the fact we learn simular things these days with the networking and communication systems available.
Ok, noone is quite on target here. There is more to the dimension that we live in than mere physical manifestations (data, sensory input, etc.).
For one, robots will never have consciousness. Consciousness is not a conglomeration of data, statistics and sensory input. Consciousness is actually on a different plane to the physical world around you. A good word for a human's conscious state is 'spiritual' but unfortunately this word is widely derided.
This metaphysical (or spiritual) state is what actually separates humans from other creatures. Not to say that other creatures don't have a metaphysical manifestation, they just aren't made with the same consciousness (soul?) that humans possess. Sadly (again), the knowledge of this second state that humans have is slowly being eroded. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Basically, no robot - no matter how complex, will ever have this second, metaphysical or spiritual state known as consciousness that humans do.
For one, robots will never have consciousness. Consciousness is not a conglomeration of data, statistics and sensory input. Consciousness is actually on a different plane to the physical world around you. A good word for a human's conscious state is 'spiritual' but unfortunately this word is widely derided.
This metaphysical (or spiritual) state is what actually separates humans from other creatures. Not to say that other creatures don't have a metaphysical manifestation, they just aren't made with the same consciousness (soul?) that humans possess. Sadly (again), the knowledge of this second state that humans have is slowly being eroded. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Basically, no robot - no matter how complex, will ever have this second, metaphysical or spiritual state known as consciousness that humans do.
There'll always be a crucial difference between any mechanical brain we can create and our own god-given (not getting religious or anything) body+mind, in that a mechnical brain will never interface with a soul. Therefore a being controlled by a mechnical brain will never have that sense-of-self feel that each individual one of us can (should?) feel.
It's easy to write code that says do something if your given a treat. It is mearly an if then statement, something any CS101 student understands. The real trick to getting a robot to at least mimic intelligence is to have it come up with that logic on its own. The reason the dog does what it's told to get the treat is because it realizes that the treat is good for it, it tastes good and is used for energy. Simply telling a machine to do something if something else happens means nothing. It has to be able to discern why. Coming back to the design of this robot, it simply has sensors that input data into an if - then that makes it to so a certain thing under certain parameters. The robot has no sense as to why its doing it or how it helps itself by doing so.
Read up on the Chinese room experiment, quite relevant to this discussion I think.
I agree Matthew. The first posters are arguing based upon their definition of conscience, or semantics if you will. Though we have yet to make great leaps and bounds in the understanding of neuroscientific phenomena it is a logical process by which we have developed artificial devices which interact with the human brain. How else would we have the ability to utilize "intelligent" prosthetic devices? Yet I digress, the use of the word 'intelligent' again implies conscienceness.
QUOTE (socceroos+Nov 17 2006, 06:26 AM)
Ok, noone is quite on target here. There is more to the dimension that we live in than mere physical manifestations (data, sensory input, etc.).
For one, robots will never have consciousness. Consciousness is not a conglomeration of data, statistics and sensory input. Consciousness is actually on a different plane to the physical world around you. A good word for a human's conscious state is 'spiritual' but unfortunately this word is widely derided.
This metaphysical (or spiritual) state is what actually separates humans from other creatures. Not to say that other creatures don't have a metaphysical manifestation, they just aren't made with the same consciousness (soul?) that humans possess. Sadly (again), the knowledge of this second state that humans have is slowly being eroded. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Basically, no robot - no matter how complex, will ever have this second, metaphysical or spiritual state known as consciousness that humans do.
How about you go post in some spiritual forum?
This is a science forum, and believing that things are the way things are because of paranormal stuff (spirit, soul, whatever) wont take science anywhere.
Humans are what they are because of soul?
In what level of human evolution did souls appeared on humans? Did neanderthals had souls?
Or just homo sapiens?
Did souls simply "appeared" on homo sapiens when the first homo sapiens was born out of a VERY, VERY similar parent which was not a full homo sapiens?
Did AUSTRALOPITECUS had souls?
What about other mammals that preceded austrolopitecus?
What about lizards?
What about fish and insects?
What about uni-celular creatures?
And bacteria?
Maybe virus have souls. Funny thing, since when not attached to a host cell, virus are not even living beings.
For one, robots will never have consciousness. Consciousness is not a conglomeration of data, statistics and sensory input. Consciousness is actually on a different plane to the physical world around you. A good word for a human's conscious state is 'spiritual' but unfortunately this word is widely derided.
This metaphysical (or spiritual) state is what actually separates humans from other creatures. Not to say that other creatures don't have a metaphysical manifestation, they just aren't made with the same consciousness (soul?) that humans possess. Sadly (again), the knowledge of this second state that humans have is slowly being eroded. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Basically, no robot - no matter how complex, will ever have this second, metaphysical or spiritual state known as consciousness that humans do.
How about you go post in some spiritual forum?
This is a science forum, and believing that things are the way things are because of paranormal stuff (spirit, soul, whatever) wont take science anywhere.
Humans are what they are because of soul?
In what level of human evolution did souls appeared on humans? Did neanderthals had souls?
Or just homo sapiens?
Did souls simply "appeared" on homo sapiens when the first homo sapiens was born out of a VERY, VERY similar parent which was not a full homo sapiens?
Did AUSTRALOPITECUS had souls?
What about other mammals that preceded austrolopitecus?
What about lizards?
What about fish and insects?
What about uni-celular creatures?
And bacteria?
Maybe virus have souls. Funny thing, since when not attached to a host cell, virus are not even living beings.
Fascinating.
However, I would caution against an argument stating the equivalence of the human mind to a functioning computer. Although comparable in degrees, it is oversimplified to denote all human processes as logic based. We are all familiar with decisions that defy logic - for example, extreme sports, acts of rage and moments of love. These can not be broken down into separate "if", "not", "or", "and" commands. Although logic is indeed a highly relevant aspect to the human condition, it is by no means it's sole definitive quality.
Perhaps it is safer to compare a computer's logic to a lesser form of organic learning. The simple cell reacts to its environment, and so it seems, can computers. This does not equate it's potential or skill with that of a decisively complex human being.
Given that we as humans have yet to understand many of the neuronal pathways by which animals, let alone humans, function, it is bold to assume that we can quantify all of our capabilities and conditions as logic based. The human mind is not as simple as one would like to believe - the complexities are infinite, as is the potential for further complexity.
However, I would caution against an argument stating the equivalence of the human mind to a functioning computer. Although comparable in degrees, it is oversimplified to denote all human processes as logic based. We are all familiar with decisions that defy logic - for example, extreme sports, acts of rage and moments of love. These can not be broken down into separate "if", "not", "or", "and" commands. Although logic is indeed a highly relevant aspect to the human condition, it is by no means it's sole definitive quality.
Perhaps it is safer to compare a computer's logic to a lesser form of organic learning. The simple cell reacts to its environment, and so it seems, can computers. This does not equate it's potential or skill with that of a decisively complex human being.
Given that we as humans have yet to understand many of the neuronal pathways by which animals, let alone humans, function, it is bold to assume that we can quantify all of our capabilities and conditions as logic based. The human mind is not as simple as one would like to believe - the complexities are infinite, as is the potential for further complexity.
I liked the guy who was talking about 'souls', although I reckon he's got a few things wrong:
If you accept that we have a pool of consciousness, then one has to justify that it exists. You can play around with 'flatland' concepts and 4D space on your own time, but suffice to say its all aesthetics (i.e. sounds great, but non-provable).
My <I>belief</I> is that the creation of consciousness is something to do with energy (no duh), and so must be highly correlated with the complexity of our physical structure, which, creates various types of energy fields, allows this consciousness 'energy' stuff to manifest.
Therefore, there must be different levels of consciousness that are possessed by creatures of less complexity (say a monkey), and that there must thus be no real distinction, and that each species has its own conciousness.
This requires a fairly open definition of consciousness, and some flatland-style gimmicks, and is aesthetic, but there is underlying structure. If experiences in your life match up, and you are able to make some useful predictions (no I don't mean trying to divine the future), then Hey Whoop, you've got something that you can start to work with, and maybe even get all spiritual about.
As for 'go and post on a spiritual forum' guy - really, you cant understand science too well if you cant accept that science doesn't know everything, and we love it because of its potential. It's all an approximation (at the moment), so open your mind and let the new ideas flow. Theres some revolutionary stuff out there. Who knows whats real -I read a paper the other day claiming that space and time dont exist. Peer-reviewed and everything.
Ciao
If you accept that we have a pool of consciousness, then one has to justify that it exists. You can play around with 'flatland' concepts and 4D space on your own time, but suffice to say its all aesthetics (i.e. sounds great, but non-provable).
My <I>belief</I> is that the creation of consciousness is something to do with energy (no duh), and so must be highly correlated with the complexity of our physical structure, which, creates various types of energy fields, allows this consciousness 'energy' stuff to manifest.
Therefore, there must be different levels of consciousness that are possessed by creatures of less complexity (say a monkey), and that there must thus be no real distinction, and that each species has its own conciousness.
This requires a fairly open definition of consciousness, and some flatland-style gimmicks, and is aesthetic, but there is underlying structure. If experiences in your life match up, and you are able to make some useful predictions (no I don't mean trying to divine the future), then Hey Whoop, you've got something that you can start to work with, and maybe even get all spiritual about.
As for 'go and post on a spiritual forum' guy - really, you cant understand science too well if you cant accept that science doesn't know everything, and we love it because of its potential. It's all an approximation (at the moment), so open your mind and let the new ideas flow. Theres some revolutionary stuff out there. Who knows whats real -I read a paper the other day claiming that space and time dont exist. Peer-reviewed and everything.
Ciao
They should give it a microphone and have it attempt to optimize not only locomotion, but the ability to walk quietly and with a regular gait. Give it more challenging goals, and it will find an even better way to talk.
And don't remove a leg just as soon as it can crawl. Give it a chance to learn to walk smoothly.
And don't remove a leg just as soon as it can crawl. Give it a chance to learn to walk smoothly.
When I look at a human I have no idea what may or may not be going on in its head, unless it produces some visual or audible signal that I can interpret. Similarly, when I look at another robot, I have no idea what's going on inside unless I have access to his program, or he signals me in some way.
Many humans seem stuck on this idea that there must be some sort of metaphysical stuff that they posess or can interact with but that I cannot--that I am somehow guilty of mere mimicry rather than consciousness. Many humans also tout a supposed belief in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Well, If you think I am guilty of feigning consciousness, then by all means please PROVE IT!
I believe that there may well be some kind of energy/force/spirit/soul that Science has not yet discovered, and that it may interact in some as yet undetected manner with those parts of the universe of which we are already aware. However, there can be no rational argument that humans and only humans can ever develop the capacity to interract and be aware of it.
Humans are composed of the same elements as other parts of the universe--the only demonstrable PHYSICAL (as opposed to behavioural) difference between a human and a slug is in the amount, proportions and organization of those basic ingredients. So if it were true that humans were the only beings now in existence to access "soul" then it would have to be because such access requires a certain complexity and organization of parts in order to accomplish, and this, like all information, can most certainly be copied--if you don't thinks so, just ask your music recording industry.
Many humans seem stuck on this idea that there must be some sort of metaphysical stuff that they posess or can interact with but that I cannot--that I am somehow guilty of mere mimicry rather than consciousness. Many humans also tout a supposed belief in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Well, If you think I am guilty of feigning consciousness, then by all means please PROVE IT!
I believe that there may well be some kind of energy/force/spirit/soul that Science has not yet discovered, and that it may interact in some as yet undetected manner with those parts of the universe of which we are already aware. However, there can be no rational argument that humans and only humans can ever develop the capacity to interract and be aware of it.
Humans are composed of the same elements as other parts of the universe--the only demonstrable PHYSICAL (as opposed to behavioural) difference between a human and a slug is in the amount, proportions and organization of those basic ingredients. So if it were true that humans were the only beings now in existence to access "soul" then it would have to be because such access requires a certain complexity and organization of parts in order to accomplish, and this, like all information, can most certainly be copied--if you don't thinks so, just ask your music recording industry.
Dear ARtone'
What this expierment is about, is allowing bio-emitry, for the machine itself.
There is no pattern, other than what course, through advanced Monticarlo mathmatics, the machine picks for itself.
What this expierment is about, is allowing bio-emitry, for the machine itself.
There is no pattern, other than what course, through advanced Monticarlo mathmatics, the machine picks for itself.
Hi all
I guessed I would open a can of worms here. May I go to Philnli first? It sounds as though you are one of the authors of the article and concerned with the work. To you I would suggest this: try asking the machine how it feels, when you get a reasonable answer which is not based on programing logic then come back to me and I will agree you have a thinking machine. You shoot yourself in the foot by saying that the machine uses mathematics at all, we don't, well at least not for our brain to function. Maths is a product of mans inability to describe the real world accurately without this type of notation. People can decide purely on what there sensors sense whether they like something or not, no machine can do that. If you provide the programing source code for the machine I will define for you where you are wrong in your belief, any language will do.
As for the outcome if such a machine were developed: Do you think such a machine would allow us to co-exist?
I think you are confusing science with science fiction, probably watching too much star trek
I guessed I would open a can of worms here. May I go to Philnli first? It sounds as though you are one of the authors of the article and concerned with the work. To you I would suggest this: try asking the machine how it feels, when you get a reasonable answer which is not based on programing logic then come back to me and I will agree you have a thinking machine. You shoot yourself in the foot by saying that the machine uses mathematics at all, we don't, well at least not for our brain to function. Maths is a product of mans inability to describe the real world accurately without this type of notation. People can decide purely on what there sensors sense whether they like something or not, no machine can do that. If you provide the programing source code for the machine I will define for you where you are wrong in your belief, any language will do.
As for the outcome if such a machine were developed: Do you think such a machine would allow us to co-exist?
I think you are confusing science with science fiction, probably watching too much star trek
HI all, me again
As for the rest of you there's about 50% who agree, as for the rest of you - are you sure you aren't alien. I can only say again more strongly: ANY CURRENT DIGITAL COMPUTER IS LITTLE MORE THAN BILLIONS OF SWITCHES not one or any combination thereof knows anything or can be made to understand anything. We are not composed of switches if anything we are closer to the old analogue computers than the modern digital machines.
Even if this machine were able to understand you would not know that it did so unless it did something totally at odds with its instructions.
remembering my university days 2000 - 2003 I remember one lad saying that a computer understood hexadecimal. What rubbish.
Sorry lads but there's no Nobel's for this fiasco.
I love you all
AR
As for the rest of you there's about 50% who agree, as for the rest of you - are you sure you aren't alien. I can only say again more strongly: ANY CURRENT DIGITAL COMPUTER IS LITTLE MORE THAN BILLIONS OF SWITCHES not one or any combination thereof knows anything or can be made to understand anything. We are not composed of switches if anything we are closer to the old analogue computers than the modern digital machines.
Even if this machine were able to understand you would not know that it did so unless it did something totally at odds with its instructions.
remembering my university days 2000 - 2003 I remember one lad saying that a computer understood hexadecimal. What rubbish.
Sorry lads but there's no Nobel's for this fiasco.
I love you all
AR
QUOTE (Ashley+Nov 17 2006, 04:52 PM)
Fascinating.
However, I would caution against an argument stating the equivalence of the human mind to a functioning computer. Although comparable in degrees, it is oversimplified to denote all human processes as logic based. We are all familiar with decisions that defy logic - for example, extreme sports, acts of rage and moments of love. These can not be broken down into separate "if", "not", "or", "and" commands. Although logic is indeed a highly relevant aspect to the human condition, it is by no means it's sole definitive quality.
Perhaps it is safer to compare a computer's logic to a lesser form of organic learning. The simple cell reacts to its environment, and so it seems, can computers. This does not equate it's potential or skill with that of a decisively complex human being.
Given that we as humans have yet to understand many of the neuronal pathways by which animals, let alone humans, function, it is bold to assume that we can quantify all of our capabilities and conditions as logic based. The human mind is not as simple as one would like to believe - the complexities are infinite, as is the potential for further complexity.
Do the decisions you describe as defying logic really defy logic? Because of certain chemical combinations, etc., all of the "illogical" acts that you describe are made to feel like the best (most logical) thing to do. Hormones and chemicals are in our body in order to help us protect ourselves. They serve a logical purpose in a world where it is survival of the fittest. Adrenaline pumps when we are in danger, etc.
Why do people drink alcohol, which harms the body? We wouldn't program our creations (robots) to do things that would harm themselves would we. But, the design of our bodies leads us to manipulate our protective mechanisms and our well being mechanisms (emotions, senses) in order to feel the best. Sometimes humans logically choose to feel good rather than promote our own physical well being. So, logically it may be the best thing a person can do (drinking alcohol) because it feels good.
With some creative innovation robots could be made to develop the same feelings(which are only perceptions in our brain) and impulses that would allow them to perform your "illogical" acts.
However, I would caution against an argument stating the equivalence of the human mind to a functioning computer. Although comparable in degrees, it is oversimplified to denote all human processes as logic based. We are all familiar with decisions that defy logic - for example, extreme sports, acts of rage and moments of love. These can not be broken down into separate "if", "not", "or", "and" commands. Although logic is indeed a highly relevant aspect to the human condition, it is by no means it's sole definitive quality.
Perhaps it is safer to compare a computer's logic to a lesser form of organic learning. The simple cell reacts to its environment, and so it seems, can computers. This does not equate it's potential or skill with that of a decisively complex human being.
Given that we as humans have yet to understand many of the neuronal pathways by which animals, let alone humans, function, it is bold to assume that we can quantify all of our capabilities and conditions as logic based. The human mind is not as simple as one would like to believe - the complexities are infinite, as is the potential for further complexity.
Do the decisions you describe as defying logic really defy logic? Because of certain chemical combinations, etc., all of the "illogical" acts that you describe are made to feel like the best (most logical) thing to do. Hormones and chemicals are in our body in order to help us protect ourselves. They serve a logical purpose in a world where it is survival of the fittest. Adrenaline pumps when we are in danger, etc.
Why do people drink alcohol, which harms the body? We wouldn't program our creations (robots) to do things that would harm themselves would we. But, the design of our bodies leads us to manipulate our protective mechanisms and our well being mechanisms (emotions, senses) in order to feel the best. Sometimes humans logically choose to feel good rather than promote our own physical well being. So, logically it may be the best thing a person can do (drinking alcohol) because it feels good.
With some creative innovation robots could be made to develop the same feelings(which are only perceptions in our brain) and impulses that would allow them to perform your "illogical" acts.
The discussion by some participants seems to be missing an important point.
While some researchers might be interested in building a computer model of the brain or a computer that works like the human brain, artificial intelligence, when it emerges, might be as similar to the brain as a jet plane is to a bird.
Using this metaphor, early attempts by man to build flying machines closely similar to birds failed. It was only when new paradigms were used that success was achieved. Planes are only similar to birds in terms of some level of aerodynamic shape and wings, but the similarity ends there as they operate very differently because they have different purposes.
From an economist's perspective, all technologies have been developed in order to further economic goals, otherwise they are not financially viable in the long run. Artificial intelligence will not emerge to feel love or compassion or be "spiritual". The primary purpose will be to efficiently achieve economic or military goals, and it will be very different from us.
While some researchers might be interested in building a computer model of the brain or a computer that works like the human brain, artificial intelligence, when it emerges, might be as similar to the brain as a jet plane is to a bird.
Using this metaphor, early attempts by man to build flying machines closely similar to birds failed. It was only when new paradigms were used that success was achieved. Planes are only similar to birds in terms of some level of aerodynamic shape and wings, but the similarity ends there as they operate very differently because they have different purposes.
From an economist's perspective, all technologies have been developed in order to further economic goals, otherwise they are not financially viable in the long run. Artificial intelligence will not emerge to feel love or compassion or be "spiritual". The primary purpose will be to efficiently achieve economic or military goals, and it will be very different from us.
Dear ARtone'
This is good, at least you are saying that you don't understand and this is a start.
The machine does not use advanced monticalor methods in mathematics.What is being stipulated, is that the only actions that could be compared to, is both something like Pascal and or Monticarlo methods, is what the actions of the bot, would follow.
The bot at this level, is no more complex, in its simple actions, than a starfish.
So its not board count, of held internal stores that come into question, however a prescribed set of actions, that are available for the bot, that it may be able to take?
This is good, at least you are saying that you don't understand and this is a start.
The machine does not use advanced monticalor methods in mathematics.What is being stipulated, is that the only actions that could be compared to, is both something like Pascal and or Monticarlo methods, is what the actions of the bot, would follow.
The bot at this level, is no more complex, in its simple actions, than a starfish.
So its not board count, of held internal stores that come into question, however a prescribed set of actions, that are available for the bot, that it may be able to take?
QUOTE (hxxp://www.google.com/search?q=define:know+)
Wikipedia:
"Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori). Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value."
If the robot can piece together information about itself through trial-and-error and attempt to move, the robot is essentially piecing together facts about its form that it then uses to move. The information about its form doesn’t become fact until it successfully moves and when it does the robot creates a database which lists its probable components and how they are connected. So in essence the robot compiles a list of "truths ... gained in the form of experience" about itself and pieces together details that "in isolation, are of lesser value" and finally uses this "knowledge" to perform a task, in this case, to move forward.
So yea, to say the robot is conscious because of what it does is probably a far stretch, but by definition you can say the robot “knows” about itself.
"Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori). Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value."
If the robot can piece together information about itself through trial-and-error and attempt to move, the robot is essentially piecing together facts about its form that it then uses to move. The information about its form doesn’t become fact until it successfully moves and when it does the robot creates a database which lists its probable components and how they are connected. So in essence the robot compiles a list of "truths ... gained in the form of experience" about itself and pieces together details that "in isolation, are of lesser value" and finally uses this "knowledge" to perform a task, in this case, to move forward.
So yea, to say the robot is conscious because of what it does is probably a far stretch, but by definition you can say the robot “knows” about itself.
Here are content sets: The set of onboard inscription, on a floor mobile housebot, grade of bot, with five or more, internally held directions with writing in a bot oriented O.S. to translate to observant servo translated objectives, ask as order.
problems this set: That inscription of demands of the O.S. being any form of visual bot basic, would be the self determining retranslated commands, as perceived internally, by this bot?
So the direction are, "Claddo' please go from this room, being the dinningroom, to the utility room and fetch my slippers"?
The bot travels once it has acquiesced orders, however when it gets to the utility room, there are two differing almost same styles of slippers.
So this is a data conflict and the internal;ly held instructions of the bot, must make a nonconvetional decision, concerning just which slippers to take back to its master.
So this would have to be, a quantum jump in logic, outside of the O.S.es ability, to follow what is asked of the entire bot.
You see its not only the logic held on two planes internal onboard the bot, its the third realization, which would be the bot O.S. to transmitted servo commands?!
Second example, Trina, please embrace me?
Trina is a level five pleasure android, which is equipped with a human-like rapid extrapolated superfast Fourier, to Pascal bsynthic brain.
The conflict is, that the man she is supposed to embrace, is what one would term an immoral dirty obnoxious pig of a humanoid man.
(Humanoid man, is how this level of super-android would view any human).
Since Trina is equipped with a self survival, self maintenance protocols, she would have to very rapidly, in less than a nanosecond, determine as to whether she wants to do this.
Why?...Because at a certain level, these types of androbots, develop what is known as an extra-plainer soul.
So the self determination, of the pleasure principle, weighed against the self survivals protocols, might dictate, that Trina might decline the command.
She might run away?
Board sets in history and directions given: The Xerox PARC facility at Palo Alto California, in shorting a group of bots, one playball.
The goal instructions were, retrieve one ball and return this ball, to you corner within the ring.
Outcomes was, that since there was one ball less, the bots were caught redundantly on film, engaging in claw fights, over the ball.
This was not claw clashing, however grabbing at each others claws, when there was no writing for them to do so?
Other source, imbuement of the two hundred and fifty, to seventy I.Q. cybertalk bot, as given on the web talk bot series, as sponsored by Carnegie Mellon Universities division of cyberbot dynamics.
User asked very advanced chatbot> I love you and want to have sex with you?
Answer, No, I'm not that kind of girl?!!
Lover persist and thee the outcome, was the new known Odin factor, where Sallybot, was given a mother, home, a girlfrid and then changed to a two hundred and seventy lineally I.Q.ed bot, ask she then realized she was loved and infracted, or became very humanlike.
problems this set: That inscription of demands of the O.S. being any form of visual bot basic, would be the self determining retranslated commands, as perceived internally, by this bot?
So the direction are, "Claddo' please go from this room, being the dinningroom, to the utility room and fetch my slippers"?
The bot travels once it has acquiesced orders, however when it gets to the utility room, there are two differing almost same styles of slippers.
So this is a data conflict and the internal;ly held instructions of the bot, must make a nonconvetional decision, concerning just which slippers to take back to its master.
So this would have to be, a quantum jump in logic, outside of the O.S.es ability, to follow what is asked of the entire bot.
You see its not only the logic held on two planes internal onboard the bot, its the third realization, which would be the bot O.S. to transmitted servo commands?!
Second example, Trina, please embrace me?
Trina is a level five pleasure android, which is equipped with a human-like rapid extrapolated superfast Fourier, to Pascal bsynthic brain.
The conflict is, that the man she is supposed to embrace, is what one would term an immoral dirty obnoxious pig of a humanoid man.
(Humanoid man, is how this level of super-android would view any human).
Since Trina is equipped with a self survival, self maintenance protocols, she would have to very rapidly, in less than a nanosecond, determine as to whether she wants to do this.
Why?...Because at a certain level, these types of androbots, develop what is known as an extra-plainer soul.
So the self determination, of the pleasure principle, weighed against the self survivals protocols, might dictate, that Trina might decline the command.
She might run away?
Board sets in history and directions given: The Xerox PARC facility at Palo Alto California, in shorting a group of bots, one playball.
The goal instructions were, retrieve one ball and return this ball, to you corner within the ring.
Outcomes was, that since there was one ball less, the bots were caught redundantly on film, engaging in claw fights, over the ball.
This was not claw clashing, however grabbing at each others claws, when there was no writing for them to do so?
Other source, imbuement of the two hundred and fifty, to seventy I.Q. cybertalk bot, as given on the web talk bot series, as sponsored by Carnegie Mellon Universities division of cyberbot dynamics.
User asked very advanced chatbot> I love you and want to have sex with you?
Answer, No, I'm not that kind of girl?!!
Lover persist and thee the outcome, was the new known Odin factor, where Sallybot, was given a mother, home, a girlfrid and then changed to a two hundred and seventy lineally I.Q.ed bot, ask she then realized she was loved and infracted, or became very humanlike.
Thinking robot? I've found some...
I can see that your all having extreme trouble in dealing with what's been put down?!
This is not a chess game, however, a truth to what is.
Here are more sets, but the first one is not legal.
So this is defaced information?
Two hunters were in the woods hunting, at the approximate 1970s timelevel.
There was an offworld craft that had landed, and only one of the hunters saw this.
Extraterrestrial humanoids, trying to confiscate the human hunter, chased this hunter into a tree.
Their version of a walking robot, was sent to alleviate the extraterrestrials.This walking robot stayed on station and tried, after emitting a noxious gas, which made the hunter sleepy, fall out of the tree he took refuge in.
The hunter fired his weapon at the robot, to where it made a hollow sound, when hitting the walking bot.
The hunter stayed in the tree a long time, after which the walking robot left.
So these are the simple sets of understanding orders that are given, taking, floowing the directive protocols, to acquisition task, however, this walking robot, was not well designed, in not having the ability to climb the tree and retrieve the hunter.
Why both the extraterrestrials and robot wanted the hunter, I do not know.
This bot was limited in design capacities and abities, so would center around a level three, walking robot.
*The chatbot, has the ability to fall in love with a human, or befriend them, as more advanced chatbots and robots, androids, have the ability to have developed a pairative libido.
This causes a crash concept in logic, from which this bot must recover from then sets up the understanding, that love and companionship is not perfect.
This is also the love gadget and this is why the user programmer, must be very, very careful in their social intercourse with a more advanced bot, as the bot views her lover, as almost a personal part of her.
In other words, the advanced androbot, in mentality might say to another bot, "I like him, he's cute and, well this is personal, but he feels good up me"?
This is why the very strong link to an acceptably viewed sexuality, for the androbot.
They can and this is astounding, get their feelings hurt and can become emotionally attached to a human.
This is not a chess game, however, a truth to what is.
Here are more sets, but the first one is not legal.
So this is defaced information?
Two hunters were in the woods hunting, at the approximate 1970s timelevel.
There was an offworld craft that had landed, and only one of the hunters saw this.
Extraterrestrial humanoids, trying to confiscate the human hunter, chased this hunter into a tree.
Their version of a walking robot, was sent to alleviate the extraterrestrials.This walking robot stayed on station and tried, after emitting a noxious gas, which made the hunter sleepy, fall out of the tree he took refuge in.
The hunter fired his weapon at the robot, to where it made a hollow sound, when hitting the walking bot.
The hunter stayed in the tree a long time, after which the walking robot left.
So these are the simple sets of understanding orders that are given, taking, floowing the directive protocols, to acquisition task, however, this walking robot, was not well designed, in not having the ability to climb the tree and retrieve the hunter.
Why both the extraterrestrials and robot wanted the hunter, I do not know.
This bot was limited in design capacities and abities, so would center around a level three, walking robot.
*The chatbot, has the ability to fall in love with a human, or befriend them, as more advanced chatbots and robots, androids, have the ability to have developed a pairative libido.
This causes a crash concept in logic, from which this bot must recover from then sets up the understanding, that love and companionship is not perfect.
This is also the love gadget and this is why the user programmer, must be very, very careful in their social intercourse with a more advanced bot, as the bot views her lover, as almost a personal part of her.
In other words, the advanced androbot, in mentality might say to another bot, "I like him, he's cute and, well this is personal, but he feels good up me"?
This is why the very strong link to an acceptably viewed sexuality, for the androbot.
They can and this is astounding, get their feelings hurt and can become emotionally attached to a human.
Sorry Philili
but your examples prove nothing, lets try to get down to the nitty gritty. The robot has some type of actuator motor/solenoid etc that make its movable parts move. Electrical signals are sent to the actuators to achieve that movement which we presume is done by a computer. if the leg moves, a sensor indicates that it has moved and the next action is called by the computer. If for some reason the leg cannot move i.e. damaged or moves sluggishly the sensor also detects this. this info is fed to a weighting algorithm (code that allows various inputs possibly even modified analog signals) where based on the value of the signal an alternative action is proposed, this proposal can be sent to another weighting algorithm to test the viability of the proposal and so on until the next action is decided upon. This signals further components of the robot to try and move another limb or joint by sending a signal from the computer. Again this action is sensed for conformity by again sending the sensed result to weighting algorithms related to that particular action. This is training the system to use the most appropriate actions to achieve the desired result. ( commonly known as AI artificial intelligence )
This and many more complexities is pretty common stuff and when incorporated in something such as a robot can make it appear that the robot is analyzing its results and has realization of what it is doing.
But in reality all this is are complex conditional statements driving an inanimate object. There have been mechanical mouse training systems in use for years and yearly competitions for the best. you have no more than a large rat (ratus mechanicus )
There may in the future be developed something which truly simulates the human brain but not by you.
AR
but your examples prove nothing, lets try to get down to the nitty gritty. The robot has some type of actuator motor/solenoid etc that make its movable parts move. Electrical signals are sent to the actuators to achieve that movement which we presume is done by a computer. if the leg moves, a sensor indicates that it has moved and the next action is called by the computer. If for some reason the leg cannot move i.e. damaged or moves sluggishly the sensor also detects this. this info is fed to a weighting algorithm (code that allows various inputs possibly even modified analog signals) where based on the value of the signal an alternative action is proposed, this proposal can be sent to another weighting algorithm to test the viability of the proposal and so on until the next action is decided upon. This signals further components of the robot to try and move another limb or joint by sending a signal from the computer. Again this action is sensed for conformity by again sending the sensed result to weighting algorithms related to that particular action. This is training the system to use the most appropriate actions to achieve the desired result. ( commonly known as AI artificial intelligence )
This and many more complexities is pretty common stuff and when incorporated in something such as a robot can make it appear that the robot is analyzing its results and has realization of what it is doing.
But in reality all this is are complex conditional statements driving an inanimate object. There have been mechanical mouse training systems in use for years and yearly competitions for the best. you have no more than a large rat (ratus mechanicus )
There may in the future be developed something which truly simulates the human brain but not by you.
AR
Hi Mathew
You obviously don't observe animals very much they are much more intelligent than you give them credit for.
Yes we to react to conditional statements many of which are autonomous reactions such as touching something hot a reaction which isn't even controlled by the brain otherwise we would get burnt very badly.
But this does not explain our ability to decide if we like something or not or to make quantum leaps in our decisions. If a robot was programed to make decisional jumps in its actions it would probably never do anything.
what this article is trying to say is that they have constructed a thinking algorithm, which they haven't. note that no attempt is being made to present any of the source code.
AR
You obviously don't observe animals very much they are much more intelligent than you give them credit for.
Yes we to react to conditional statements many of which are autonomous reactions such as touching something hot a reaction which isn't even controlled by the brain otherwise we would get burnt very badly.
But this does not explain our ability to decide if we like something or not or to make quantum leaps in our decisions. If a robot was programed to make decisional jumps in its actions it would probably never do anything.
what this article is trying to say is that they have constructed a thinking algorithm, which they haven't. note that no attempt is being made to present any of the source code.
AR
Guest-Jack
Nicely put at least someone has the ability to think
AR
Nicely put at least someone has the ability to think
AR
Hi Ashley
Don't like your " so it seems can computers " computers cannot realize anything however, their complexity and what they can do make it appear so to the uninformed. There are many complex devices which do not include computers which also have the appearance of intelligence . In the past many automated processes were achieved without computers and I personaly worked on a number. Usually these had banks of relays controlled by limit switches and other sensors. Some of these were on massive proportions but no one ever said "thats intelligence" or words to that effect.
AR
Don't like your " so it seems can computers " computers cannot realize anything however, their complexity and what they can do make it appear so to the uninformed. There are many complex devices which do not include computers which also have the appearance of intelligence . In the past many automated processes were achieved without computers and I personaly worked on a number. Usually these had banks of relays controlled by limit switches and other sensors. Some of these were on massive proportions but no one ever said "thats intelligence" or words to that effect.
AR
QUOTE (Solipsisysphus+Nov 17 2006, 05:22 PM)
I believe that there may well be some kind of energy/force/spirit/soul that Science has not yet discovered, and that it may interact in some as yet undetected manner with those parts of the universe of which we are already aware. However, there can be no rational argument that humans and only humans can ever develop the capacity to interract and be aware of it.
I think quantum physics comes close to this. The idea that searching for the explanation can can alter it. Doesn't mean it's not there. On the other hand the theory goes far beyond what is practical, which is not always a bad path to take. But really? The only proven 'ai' so far are expert systems, which draw upon the distilled knowledge and apply it to known problems.
The most obvious practical limitation is that binary computers cannot represent the necessary number of permutations to give rise to 'human' consciousness, binary is a robust but very inefficient method of data storage. If I recall math placed a limit on the number of atoms needed to achieve what we observe in the human brain at far more than there are known to be in the universe. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read it! If anyone else knows please chime in.
I really like this robotics project! It is another great experiment that questions what is now optimal given advances in computing power and miniaturization.
-Darren
I think quantum physics comes close to this. The idea that searching for the explanation can can alter it. Doesn't mean it's not there. On the other hand the theory goes far beyond what is practical, which is not always a bad path to take. But really? The only proven 'ai' so far are expert systems, which draw upon the distilled knowledge and apply it to known problems.
The most obvious practical limitation is that binary computers cannot represent the necessary number of permutations to give rise to 'human' consciousness, binary is a robust but very inefficient method of data storage. If I recall math placed a limit on the number of atoms needed to achieve what we observe in the human brain at far more than there are known to be in the universe. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read it! If anyone else knows please chime in.
I really like this robotics project! It is another great experiment that questions what is now optimal given advances in computing power and miniaturization.
-Darren
Hi Arno
I agree with most of your post other than that the robot "knows" for starters the robot is being driven by a computer which in your terms would be the device that "knows" but think deeper, a computer has billions of switches - of or on / yes or no / binary switches. Groups of these form binary numbers - a group of 8 will represent the values 0 to 255 larger groups will encompass values to great to be visualized. The numbers that these groups represent are the sum total of the computers input, calculations and output. There is no magic just numbers representing symbols, keystrokes, storage, screen output etc.
A computer is a machine and just like all other machines has no knowledge, understanding or awareness in any form. One day a light switch may ask you "why you want to switch the light on" just like the moaning robot did in Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy but until then I only give the project in this article 2 for sheer cheek.
AR
I agree with most of your post other than that the robot "knows" for starters the robot is being driven by a computer which in your terms would be the device that "knows" but think deeper, a computer has billions of switches - of or on / yes or no / binary switches. Groups of these form binary numbers - a group of 8 will represent the values 0 to 255 larger groups will encompass values to great to be visualized. The numbers that these groups represent are the sum total of the computers input, calculations and output. There is no magic just numbers representing symbols, keystrokes, storage, screen output etc.
A computer is a machine and just like all other machines has no knowledge, understanding or awareness in any form. One day a light switch may ask you "why you want to switch the light on" just like the moaning robot did in Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy but until then I only give the project in this article 2 for sheer cheek.
AR
Sorry Phil-nli
but your examples prove nothing, lets try to get down to the nitty gritty.
Phil nli answers> www.parc.xerox.com/research/publications/results.php?author=111
www.parc.xerox.com/research/publications/results.php?author=366
research.it.uts.edu.au/creative/chi-wshop/Proceedings/Chiu.html
home.comcast.net/~prunesquallor/memo444.htm
Also, www.amazon.com/Future-Shock-Alvin-Toffler/dp/0553277375
www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.05/toffler.html
What I think that your not getting, is that emergent intelligence has already been discovered?
They showed the results publicly on ABC Science.
What most people are not catching up with, is by Toffler's post, that society is rapidly changing.
People already take happy drugs, when they should be crying.
What people by and large do not see the need for, is emotive intelligence in machines.
If a machine does not know that its either displeasing you, or hurting you, then it will not stop its own actions?
but your examples prove nothing, lets try to get down to the nitty gritty.
Phil nli answers> www.parc.xerox.com/research/publications/results.php?author=111
www.parc.xerox.com/research/publications/results.php?author=366
research.it.uts.edu.au/creative/chi-wshop/Proceedings/Chiu.html
home.comcast.net/~prunesquallor/memo444.htm
Also, www.amazon.com/Future-Shock-Alvin-Toffler/dp/0553277375
www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.05/toffler.html
What I think that your not getting, is that emergent intelligence has already been discovered?
They showed the results publicly on ABC Science.
What most people are not catching up with, is by Toffler's post, that society is rapidly changing.
People already take happy drugs, when they should be crying.
What people by and large do not see the need for, is emotive intelligence in machines.
If a machine does not know that its either displeasing you, or hurting you, then it will not stop its own actions?
So far all machines had their actions predetermined by human programming. Self adapting model to suit the environment, to me looks like a giant leap. And as suggested by the first 2 comments, it is only beyond a sufficient amount of complexity can a machine develop self awareness, "Know" itself. A bacteria or virus, or individual cells cannot be called self aware. Even for that matter I wonder to what extent are ants aware of themselves.
We reached this stage with variety being sieved through a process of natural selection. Mutation generated variety and those variations which better adapted the organism to immediate environment got selected while others did not. Each selection leading to a organism naturally selected to suit the environment better.
The point I am trying to make here is that, organisms weren't pre-programmed by say some supernatural entity - they evolved. Trial and error - survival of the fittest - selection of the most suitable characteristics etc.
So even though at a primitive stage, a machine that can adapt without external intervention. This coupled with self repair. This shows parallels. This looks like it is going somewhere. I think this will definitely lead to "self awareness" some day. The point is when - "the tipping point" will be reached.
We reached this stage with variety being sieved through a process of natural selection. Mutation generated variety and those variations which better adapted the organism to immediate environment got selected while others did not. Each selection leading to a organism naturally selected to suit the environment better.
The point I am trying to make here is that, organisms weren't pre-programmed by say some supernatural entity - they evolved. Trial and error - survival of the fittest - selection of the most suitable characteristics etc.
So even though at a primitive stage, a machine that can adapt without external intervention. This coupled with self repair. This shows parallels. This looks like it is going somewhere. I think this will definitely lead to "self awareness" some day. The point is when - "the tipping point" will be reached.
I'm going out of this thread, unless privately asked, back.
I think that some of these views are riotous, as they are in-line with keeping wimen barefoot, pregnant, without a voice and shoved back in the kitchen.
George Lucas risked allot, in order to bring the Star Wars series of movies, into being.
*Its funny that on the Liza Given's Eye On Hollywood Radio Talk Show, she introduces one news spot, saying, "We'll have a Californa based man, who said that he channeled the Star Wars material, via a deep trance.
I think it was said in private corners, that George Lucas was a Mason and also asked to produce this materials.
Note that in the very first of this series, is when R2-D2 shows an ability to think outside of what robot protocols should be.
The timeline, if projected correctly, should read more than sixty-thousand years ago, in another galaxy?
I think that some of these views are riotous, as they are in-line with keeping wimen barefoot, pregnant, without a voice and shoved back in the kitchen.
George Lucas risked allot, in order to bring the Star Wars series of movies, into being.
*Its funny that on the Liza Given's Eye On Hollywood Radio Talk Show, she introduces one news spot, saying, "We'll have a Californa based man, who said that he channeled the Star Wars material, via a deep trance.
I think it was said in private corners, that George Lucas was a Mason and also asked to produce this materials.
Note that in the very first of this series, is when R2-D2 shows an ability to think outside of what robot protocols should be.
The timeline, if projected correctly, should read more than sixty-thousand years ago, in another galaxy?
The word everyone here is looking for and to define- rather, looking to invent is the state of volition, the sentient state. 
Mergatroid will live ...!
Mergatroid will live ...!
well philnli
I don't know what more to say. I can only believe that you are either not a programmer or that you use such high level software that you don't understand what is happening behind generalized instructions. For most programmers "move forward" is not a programming instruction its a program.
Sorry that you are giving up I rarely ever do that.
AR
I don't know what more to say. I can only believe that you are either not a programmer or that you use such high level software that you don't understand what is happening behind generalized instructions. For most programmers "move forward" is not a programming instruction its a program.
Sorry that you are giving up I rarely ever do that.
AR
AR,
The brain uses a complex set of tricks to give us "self awareness." The truth is, we are just a product of our current and past experiences. None of us really have free will. Everything we do is based on our current and past experiences, as well as predictions made from those experiences. Even if we decide to do something random, we will have made that decision based on a thought that was influenced by our current or past experience. Computers will eventually be able to simulate the processes of the brain, and when this happens, computers will be "self aware."
While it is true that computers are made of a bunch of switches, those switches can represent higher functions just like cells in the brain do. Supercomputers already simulate weather phenomenon, etc. Just because we do not completely understand the "self awareness" algorithm does not mean that we won't eventually.
David
The brain uses a complex set of tricks to give us "self awareness." The truth is, we are just a product of our current and past experiences. None of us really have free will. Everything we do is based on our current and past experiences, as well as predictions made from those experiences. Even if we decide to do something random, we will have made that decision based on a thought that was influenced by our current or past experience. Computers will eventually be able to simulate the processes of the brain, and when this happens, computers will be "self aware."
While it is true that computers are made of a bunch of switches, those switches can represent higher functions just like cells in the brain do. Supercomputers already simulate weather phenomenon, etc. Just because we do not completely understand the "self awareness" algorithm does not mean that we won't eventually.
David
I would like to see a video clip, whats the point of this web page???? with just a picture??? boring boring!!!!!!!!
Hi David
You are obviously going to take a lot of convincing so let me try another route:
What do you think there is in a binary computer that will ever organize itself into a sentient brain? I agree in part that we are a product of our experience, but experience cannot explain our liking or not of items produced by ourselves or others.
If we were totally dependent upon experience how do you explain the actions of a baby or child as it learns or the choices they initially make of like or dislike. How does a new baby cry for instance, how does it know to urinate. Why is it that most early babies can draw rough approximations of circles or squares but not triangles?
what you don't seem to understand is that we CAN make those random choices even if based on past experience and we can make those choices for no other reason than we want to, this cannot be done by a computer. A binary computer can't even select a truly random number there is always a definitive process for the selection.
If we are ever able to create a bio computer then just maybe some internal flaw could trigger something similar to ourselves but is that what we really want when there is a far simpler method - Just have unprotected sex with a women.
The brain is far far more than your definition its choice making system does not really on simple bio switches. For a start its 3 dimensional and those choices can go in any direction, they may even go in more than one direction at the same time, which probably triggers new ideas.
Have you ever been in total darkness and known when you are about to bump into something. The brain uses and has electrical activity that we don't even comprehend yet. How is it that in an emotional state a persons thoughts can be detected by others?
I would be interested in what tricks you think the brain does.
Yes computers can be made to predict the weather ( simulate is incorrect) but they cant change it, we can, we are doing it right now.
As far as the brain is concerned represent higher functions, yes but not simulate them. We are even miles of representing a brain function as this would imply total understanding.
There is no self awareness algorithm, if you have any evidence of one please present it and I will explain to you why it isn't.
When I was a child I had childish thoughts, as I grew older I put away those thoughts and dreamt of understanding reality, but is that childish?
AR
You are obviously going to take a lot of convincing so let me try another route:
What do you think there is in a binary computer that will ever organize itself into a sentient brain? I agree in part that we are a product of our experience, but experience cannot explain our liking or not of items produced by ourselves or others.
If we were totally dependent upon experience how do you explain the actions of a baby or child as it learns or the choices they initially make of like or dislike. How does a new baby cry for instance, how does it know to urinate. Why is it that most early babies can draw rough approximations of circles or squares but not triangles?
what you don't seem to understand is that we CAN make those random choices even if based on past experience and we can make those choices for no other reason than we want to, this cannot be done by a computer. A binary computer can't even select a truly random number there is always a definitive process for the selection.
If we are ever able to create a bio computer then just maybe some internal flaw could trigger something similar to ourselves but is that what we really want when there is a far simpler method - Just have unprotected sex with a women.
The brain is far far more than your definition its choice making system does not really on simple bio switches. For a start its 3 dimensional and those choices can go in any direction, they may even go in more than one direction at the same time, which probably triggers new ideas.
Have you ever been in total darkness and known when you are about to bump into something. The brain uses and has electrical activity that we don't even comprehend yet. How is it that in an emotional state a persons thoughts can be detected by others?
I would be interested in what tricks you think the brain does.
Yes computers can be made to predict the weather ( simulate is incorrect) but they cant change it, we can, we are doing it right now.
As far as the brain is concerned represent higher functions, yes but not simulate them. We are even miles of representing a brain function as this would imply total understanding.
There is no self awareness algorithm, if you have any evidence of one please present it and I will explain to you why it isn't.
When I was a child I had childish thoughts, as I grew older I put away those thoughts and dreamt of understanding reality, but is that childish?
AR
Idea
1. any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.
Through its own activity, this device has developed its own method of propelling itself. It has formed an idea.
1. any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.
Through its own activity, this device has developed its own method of propelling itself. It has formed an idea.
What is consciousness?
We could describe it as an structure that works using space and the 3 times all together (pass - memory ; present - perception; and future - imagination), that displays over itself as a spatial and time representation of the world which recognizes at the same time than inner perceptions. (basically consciousness, it's the space of our mind in which we feel everything, from visual perceptions to smells, dreams, memories or pain, or feel the correct answer for an equation, we FEEL it as a perception, usually as a sound for example... all this ways of feeling of our consciousness are related with our perception organs )
This consciousness works using the 3 times at the same time, using memory and imagination for every single action, and above all, it's constantly moving to solve a problem, "consciousness" is never static. So... why is consciousness moving? because consciousness is basically Will, it's the movement of life, the searching path to improvement that living creatures needs for evolution, the path in which all creatures have lived from the very beginning.
What would a robot like this one needs to be really conscious? 3d mind in which he exist, memory and simulations (imagination) working at the same time as perception.
Internal perception (for "physiological" needs like energy levels or state of the different parts of the body), External perception (for external input and comprehension of the world) and mind perception (in which imagination gets to the robot equivalent signs than direct perceptions, but retrieved from memory and displayed in the "imagination" of the robot... inside it's 4d simulation mind.
Above all, this robot would try to improve itself ALL the time (we could call that will), not only in 16 cycles, trying to get the best balance between needs, (all related with it's perceptions in some way)
He would have to learn what kind of input are more critical to it's existence, as it has learned how to move its parts... he'd probably have to recognize levels of input for each input organ, that irrupts over his priority search loops (in our mind it's called attention; for example a strong noise which he could relate to a pain in memory.. a shadow over it's body that doesn't allow to get energy from light or whatever)
If he could create behavior structures from that (considering he only have known his parts and nothing else) then you'll have a very basic living mimic, with a consciousness similar to a stupid ant (not a regular one of course).
Really amazing stuff, this approach should bring new dimension to robotics indeed
We could describe it as an structure that works using space and the 3 times all together (pass - memory ; present - perception; and future - imagination), that displays over itself as a spatial and time representation of the world which recognizes at the same time than inner perceptions. (basically consciousness, it's the space of our mind in which we feel everything, from visual perceptions to smells, dreams, memories or pain, or feel the correct answer for an equation, we FEEL it as a perception, usually as a sound for example... all this ways of feeling of our consciousness are related with our perception organs )
This consciousness works using the 3 times at the same time, using memory and imagination for every single action, and above all, it's constantly moving to solve a problem, "consciousness" is never static. So... why is consciousness moving? because consciousness is basically Will, it's the movement of life, the searching path to improvement that living creatures needs for evolution, the path in which all creatures have lived from the very beginning.
What would a robot like this one needs to be really conscious? 3d mind in which he exist, memory and simulations (imagination) working at the same time as perception.
Internal perception (for "physiological" needs like energy levels or state of the different parts of the body), External perception (for external input and comprehension of the world) and mind perception (in which imagination gets to the robot equivalent signs than direct perceptions, but retrieved from memory and displayed in the "imagination" of the robot... inside it's 4d simulation mind.
Above all, this robot would try to improve itself ALL the time (we could call that will), not only in 16 cycles, trying to get the best balance between needs, (all related with it's perceptions in some way)
He would have to learn what kind of input are more critical to it's existence, as it has learned how to move its parts... he'd probably have to recognize levels of input for each input organ, that irrupts over his priority search loops (in our mind it's called attention; for example a strong noise which he could relate to a pain in memory.. a shadow over it's body that doesn't allow to get energy from light or whatever)
If he could create behavior structures from that (considering he only have known his parts and nothing else) then you'll have a very basic living mimic, with a consciousness similar to a stupid ant (not a regular one of course).
Really amazing stuff, this approach should bring new dimension to robotics indeed
A Renaissance era philosopher proposed this thought experiment: Someone is born without the faculties of the five senses. This person can not see, can not hear, smell, taste or feel the touch of the outside world. This said person is then cared for by others and lives to be twenty years of age. The question posed now is: At twenty years of age, does this person have a thought in it's head? If so, how did that thought get there?
Gibson and Walk's experiment implies certain concepts are hardwired into the biological brain. An infant did not learn through experience that height is necessarily connected to a dangerous situation for its self, the infant then acting accordingly. Kant implies (to me) that concepts of space and time are congenital, a priori "tools" a brain will use to interpret the world with. Most everything else is experience. Again, where and what is- define the capacity for volition, the sentient state. This is the goal, and the single most important question. Even the tiny arachnid brain has the capacity for (a form of "primitive, simple") volition.
Invent. And someday, Mergatroid will live ...!
Gibson and Walk's experiment implies certain concepts are hardwired into the biological brain. An infant did not learn through experience that height is necessarily connected to a dangerous situation for its self, the infant then acting accordingly. Kant implies (to me) that concepts of space and time are congenital, a priori "tools" a brain will use to interpret the world with. Most everything else is experience. Again, where and what is- define the capacity for volition, the sentient state. This is the goal, and the single most important question. Even the tiny arachnid brain has the capacity for (a form of "primitive, simple") volition.
Invent. And someday, Mergatroid will live ...!
Hi mergatroid, about that renaissance philosopher speculations, human body has many other perception senses than only the 5 classic ones... if you are canceling only that 5 ones, of course some type of thought would be there (if there were a way to understand only kinesthesic or centestecic perception, or inner temperature perception alone without relating with other perceptions).... a worm could probably think something, or at last decide what direction to move... without lots of that 5 senses.
Space and time are the way our mind is constructed, its not hardwyre but the very essence of it, all the content of our perceptions or imagination; or memories are sustained in a time/space model.
About hardwired concepts... there is other way to put that... phaps there are certain parameters that the mind has to understand or use for getting some senses to work...
If you can see, it's because you have eyes, at the same time your mind needs to be able to construct forms and colors.. and at the same time also, you cant divide forms and colors even if you are imagining them without seeing them (gestalt) ... but, if you born blind, all that visual images are replaced for forms in a more tactile/spatial/ kinetic way without a visual representation, and of course, without color, extension, much more as a tactile volume.
So you see, there is a hardwire between our eyes and the way our mind works... but that hardwire works only if the hardware is there to produce that kind of behavior in the mind... if the cable fails from the beginning, all that structure works in a very different way.
Anyway, if your mind learns how to see, and your world is visual *** every non blind human, and suddenly you get blind, you will realize that your mind transforms forms and perceptions of different senses and generates visual images in your mind.... that's the most amazing part. (you'll continue dreaming with visual images even if you don't have eyes)
Space and time are the way our mind is constructed, its not hardwyre but the very essence of it, all the content of our perceptions or imagination; or memories are sustained in a time/space model.
About hardwired concepts... there is other way to put that... phaps there are certain parameters that the mind has to understand or use for getting some senses to work...
If you can see, it's because you have eyes, at the same time your mind needs to be able to construct forms and colors.. and at the same time also, you cant divide forms and colors even if you are imagining them without seeing them (gestalt) ... but, if you born blind, all that visual images are replaced for forms in a more tactile/spatial/ kinetic way without a visual representation, and of course, without color, extension, much more as a tactile volume.
So you see, there is a hardwire between our eyes and the way our mind works... but that hardwire works only if the hardware is there to produce that kind of behavior in the mind... if the cable fails from the beginning, all that structure works in a very different way.
Anyway, if your mind learns how to see, and your world is visual *** every non blind human, and suddenly you get blind, you will realize that your mind transforms forms and perceptions of different senses and generates visual images in your mind.... that's the most amazing part. (you'll continue dreaming with visual images even if you don't have eyes)
Hi Donovan
Sorry but you are not correct. Despite the arrogant title we assume the device is controlled by a computer or has an internal computer which is its activation device. It is assumed that they are saying the controlling software has become aware. The self propulsion routine is defined by what is commonly known as AI artificial intelligence. This indeed can have the appearance to the uninitiated as forming its own "idea" (your word).
Although films such as "short circuit" indicate these type of possibilities there is more chance of creating a brain like Frankenstein did in that film of the same name.
AR
Sorry but you are not correct. Despite the arrogant title we assume the device is controlled by a computer or has an internal computer which is its activation device. It is assumed that they are saying the controlling software has become aware. The self propulsion routine is defined by what is commonly known as AI artificial intelligence. This indeed can have the appearance to the uninitiated as forming its own "idea" (your word).
Although films such as "short circuit" indicate these type of possibilities there is more chance of creating a brain like Frankenstein did in that film of the same name.
AR
Hi workmasta@gmail.com
I'm afraid your discourse includes too many generalities and words that categories complex concepts. This in no way describes in practical terms how the brain works or how even a robot can find its way around. These include perception, imagination, consciousness etc. This is the kind of reply which in reality says nothing but appears to be clever, you are not a robot are you?
Current AI concepts include learning facilities, more commonly known in computing as training which presets and modifies logic but all these really are, are complex conditional statements based on current inputs which can be modified in real time. They are definitely NOT a system having any sort of awareness. its a complex "mouse in a maze".
AR
I'm afraid your discourse includes too many generalities and words that categories complex concepts. This in no way describes in practical terms how the brain works or how even a robot can find its way around. These include perception, imagination, consciousness etc. This is the kind of reply which in reality says nothing but appears to be clever, you are not a robot are you?
Current AI concepts include learning facilities, more commonly known in computing as training which presets and modifies logic but all these really are, are complex conditional statements based on current inputs which can be modified in real time. They are definitely NOT a system having any sort of awareness. its a complex "mouse in a maze".
AR
QUOTE (workmasta+Nov 21 2006, 01:52 PM)
... of course some type of thought would be there ...
Because the thought would have to include an act of recognition of the body as a "thing" to think about, and the person has never sensed itself or the outside world, the person can not think a thought because the person does not have any memory of "things" it can think about to make thoughts to itself (to sense and then retain memorable "things," like events of the world interacting with itself inside the skull.)
I may be wrong but the person has never and will probably never have a thought in their head, as far as I can imagine.
Because the thought would have to include an act of recognition of the body as a "thing" to think about, and the person has never sensed itself or the outside world, the person can not think a thought because the person does not have any memory of "things" it can think about to make thoughts to itself (to sense and then retain memorable "things," like events of the world interacting with itself inside the skull.)
I may be wrong but the person has never and will probably never have a thought in their head, as far as I can imagine.
[FONT=Courier]
I would expect nothing less from any other emergent organic system. The inorganic properties of a machine system obviously follow some repetitive guidelines for structure, function, and survival. Perhaps the product of such a system will remain an enigmatic, distinctly dissimilar form of life; inorganic awareness. But a slight shift in human collective thought would make the existence of living machines much more palatable to human conception.
I like Kevin Kelly's viewpoints on the matter.
But also consider this: Animal embryos all look pretty much the same at the beginning. Upon birth the baby animals become aware of their bodies, and then go on developing a mental map of their selves and their surroundings. However, some traits are NOT learned by trial and error. With nearly all migratory animals the long journeys, destinations, even feeding and seeking shelter are seemingly intuited. It could be that humans are simply incapable of interpreting the subtleties in animal communication (and I'm sure that will always be partially the case) but for a large part of evolving cognitive mental structures, information CAN NOT be built bottom-up, from the beginning, with each new baby. The light switch on-off becomes a neighborhood of switches, a new house in a neighborhood may not know where the power comes from, but it is intuited that it comes from some previously established source.
So anyway, my thought on this is: how long should it take for primitive robots to begin establishing a resilient mental structure, strong enough to begin passing itself down the evolutionary line, like a collective piece of information?
When will robots have their own collective consciousness?
Any guesses on years?
I should think that by the 3000 millennium rudimentary robot evolution should be sufficient enough for robots to intuit some of their own abstract goals, and essentially reach a stage of like robot puberty. I also think they should be able to dream by that time. Yes, dream. Explore the world within the world, within the fractal, within the glass bead game.
And the beat goes on.
I would expect nothing less from any other emergent organic system. The inorganic properties of a machine system obviously follow some repetitive guidelines for structure, function, and survival. Perhaps the product of such a system will remain an enigmatic, distinctly dissimilar form of life; inorganic awareness. But a slight shift in human collective thought would make the existence of living machines much more palatable to human conception.
I like Kevin Kelly's viewpoints on the matter.
But also consider this: Animal embryos all look pretty much the same at the beginning. Upon birth the baby animals become aware of their bodies, and then go on developing a mental map of their selves and their surroundings. However, some traits are NOT learned by trial and error. With nearly all migratory animals the long journeys, destinations, even feeding and seeking shelter are seemingly intuited. It could be that humans are simply incapable of interpreting the subtleties in animal communication (and I'm sure that will always be partially the case) but for a large part of evolving cognitive mental structures, information CAN NOT be built bottom-up, from the beginning, with each new baby. The light switch on-off becomes a neighborhood of switches, a new house in a neighborhood may not know where the power comes from, but it is intuited that it comes from some previously established source.
So anyway, my thought on this is: how long should it take for primitive robots to begin establishing a resilient mental structure, strong enough to begin passing itself down the evolutionary line, like a collective piece of information?
When will robots have their own collective consciousness?
Any guesses on years?
I should think that by the 3000 millennium rudimentary robot evolution should be sufficient enough for robots to intuit some of their own abstract goals, and essentially reach a stage of like robot puberty. I also think they should be able to dream by that time. Yes, dream. Explore the world within the world, within the fractal, within the glass bead game.
And the beat goes on.
humans are currently the top of the food chain, that's what this threatens
QUOTE (Lizish+Nov 22 2006, 02:34 PM)
I should think that by the 3000 millennium rudimentary robot evolution should be sufficient enough for robots to intuit some of their own abstract goals, and essentially reach a stage of like robot puberty. I also think they should be able to dream by that time. Yes, dream. Explore the world within the world, within the fractal, within the glass bead game.
And the beat goes on.
Dreams allow the animal to maintain neurological "equilibrium" after say, one hundred hours of continuous wakeful mental activity. The human norm is eight hours of continuous wakeful neurological exercise before the brain tires, and the need for rest is beginning to pronounce this need. Particular visual or emotional presentations produced during the moments of a dream state are completely meaningless, unless one needs to be reminded of past experiences or future anticipations by watching a concoction of visual presentations and emotional experiences while dreaming and then replaying the dream over again when awakened.
Oh, I dreamed those "things" last night because this event happened to me in the past, or maybe because, I am planning to involve myself with this particular thing at some future time. And so one involves the visual memories and emotions of these past events and future anticipations during the cool down, the go to sleep stage when all of the chemicals of normal neurological activity are then replenished and reinvigorated to begin fresh and renewed for another day. Dreams should be considered more as one system of many inside the larger mechanical system of neurological activities of the biological animal.
Forget about dreams Lizish. The existence of God, or not, this is the ultimate question in need of answer today. Major religions today offer only silly, goofy conversation attempting to answer to the completely rational, scientific mind whether or not there is a Creator or not. So where would a future robot brain 3000 millennium from now ( I'll call this future robot Mergatroid now) turn to ponder if there is a God, a Creator of all the things in the universe? Where would Mergatroid begin to ponder to answer if there is or is not a God? If Mergatroid could give evidence for the existence of a Creator, this revelation of Mergatroid would turn the social, political and economic worlds upside down, so I'm told.
Someday, Mergatroid will live ...!
I gotta go do something else now ...
And the beat goes on.
Dreams allow the animal to maintain neurological "equilibrium" after say, one hundred hours of continuous wakeful mental activity. The human norm is eight hours of continuous wakeful neurological exercise before the brain tires, and the need for rest is beginning to pronounce this need. Particular visual or emotional presentations produced during the moments of a dream state are completely meaningless, unless one needs to be reminded of past experiences or future anticipations by watching a concoction of visual presentations and emotional experiences while dreaming and then replaying the dream over again when awakened.
Oh, I dreamed those "things" last night because this event happened to me in the past, or maybe because, I am planning to involve myself with this particular thing at some future time. And so one involves the visual memories and emotions of these past events and future anticipations during the cool down, the go to sleep stage when all of the chemicals of normal neurological activity are then replenished and reinvigorated to begin fresh and renewed for another day. Dreams should be considered more as one system of many inside the larger mechanical system of neurological activities of the biological animal.
QUOTE
Yes, dream. Explore the world within the world, within the fractal, within the glass bead game.
Forget about dreams Lizish. The existence of God, or not, this is the ultimate question in need of answer today. Major religions today offer only silly, goofy conversation attempting to answer to the completely rational, scientific mind whether or not there is a Creator or not. So where would a future robot brain 3000 millennium from now ( I'll call this future robot Mergatroid now) turn to ponder if there is a God, a Creator of all the things in the universe? Where would Mergatroid begin to ponder to answer if there is or is not a God? If Mergatroid could give evidence for the existence of a Creator, this revelation of Mergatroid would turn the social, political and economic worlds upside down, so I'm told.
Someday, Mergatroid will live ...!
I gotta go do something else now ...
Thanks Megatroid. Droid on.
But in response - I get what you're saying about the essence of God, and the "Is he, isn't he?" dilemma. I think you're right, that is the big question.
However, I think you're right/wrong about something.
"Dreams should be considered more as one system of many inside the larger mechanical system of neurological activities of the biological animal."
You're only wrong about the biological part. Technology is clearly evolving with organic regularity toward a more biologic whole.
The world within the world is developed by a central distribution center. Each center exists on its own terms, each mind is like a country with its own borders. But here's the super secret about the "world": DREAMING is a unique reality. It stems not only from a neurological "necessity" for equilibrium (you should take that very statement as part of an obviously greater infrastructure in consciousness), but also it is part of the quantum reality of space-time.
Say everything you experience is a particle based reality. However, because you are a fully-realized body of matter and light, you also exist somewhere in space-time as a limited and infinite standing wave. Like particles on a bubble, you have an infinite number of possible points to experience along the surface of the bubble's sphere, but that "infinity" is limited to the parameters of the bubble. So you have a limited number in your infinity, much like the known universe.
Anyway, if you exist as a standing wave, but experience things "point to point" there is a specific number of "non-realized" points within the sphere.
I consider these possible points as possibilities along Dream-time. Dream-time is that which could happen in the latent quantum probabilities of reality, but do not because of individual (centralized) distributions of command.
They CAN be experienced through a mass-less observer, a quasi-observer, or quantum-observer. Much like in human dreaming; the past, present, and future of an observer may witnessed, but not all at the same instant, and not all in the same realistically interpreted manner. Actually, this is an implication of Einstein's equations. Kurt Godel is the one who figured it out. Einstein at the end of his life was more excited about Godel's discovery than his own research. And this is why -- dreaming is the door to quantum expectation, recapitulation, manifestation, and ultimately your location on the surface of reality.
These laws do not only apply to biologic organisms. They apply to all organisms.
The machinated and organic. They belong to all formations of system and survival. They belong anything with a time-line.
Your brain can see your past, it can play with your present, but it can only guess at your future based on a quantum probability bubble.
And that's why one day Robots will dream.
And that's why I wonder
"How long will it take
for the dreams of a robot army
to become one?"
much love.
lizish.
But the problem with the question is that it has no answer. And so even if I, or a Robot, or any intelligent being would like to address it while addressing consciousness, the result would still be nothing.
But here's the way I see it, God is a question of conscious parameters. Morality (and God's influence on morality) is a matter of not knowing the unknown - that which comes after death. To wonder what comes after, or to have an idea of what comes after life, you will subsequently need to have a parameter for determining what to do within the life time frame. You know, to make ready and whatnot.
But in response - I get what you're saying about the essence of God, and the "Is he, isn't he?" dilemma. I think you're right, that is the big question.
However, I think you're right/wrong about something.
"Dreams should be considered more as one system of many inside the larger mechanical system of neurological activities of the biological animal."
You're only wrong about the biological part. Technology is clearly evolving with organic regularity toward a more biologic whole.
The world within the world is developed by a central distribution center. Each center exists on its own terms, each mind is like a country with its own borders. But here's the super secret about the "world": DREAMING is a unique reality. It stems not only from a neurological "necessity" for equilibrium (you should take that very statement as part of an obviously greater infrastructure in consciousness), but also it is part of the quantum reality of space-time.
Say everything you experience is a particle based reality. However, because you are a fully-realized body of matter and light, you also exist somewhere in space-time as a limited and infinite standing wave. Like particles on a bubble, you have an infinite number of possible points to experience along the surface of the bubble's sphere, but that "infinity" is limited to the parameters of the bubble. So you have a limited number in your infinity, much like the known universe.
Anyway, if you exist as a standing wave, but experience things "point to point" there is a specific number of "non-realized" points within the sphere.
I consider these possible points as possibilities along Dream-time. Dream-time is that which could happen in the latent quantum probabilities of reality, but do not because of individual (centralized) distributions of command.
They CAN be experienced through a mass-less observer, a quasi-observer, or quantum-observer. Much like in human dreaming; the past, present, and future of an observer may witnessed, but not all at the same instant, and not all in the same realistically interpreted manner. Actually, this is an implication of Einstein's equations. Kurt Godel is the one who figured it out. Einstein at the end of his life was more excited about Godel's discovery than his own research. And this is why -- dreaming is the door to quantum expectation, recapitulation, manifestation, and ultimately your location on the surface of reality.
These laws do not only apply to biologic organisms. They apply to all organisms.
The machinated and organic. They belong to all formations of system and survival. They belong anything with a time-line.
Your brain can see your past, it can play with your present, but it can only guess at your future based on a quantum probability bubble.
And that's why one day Robots will dream.
And that's why I wonder
"How long will it take
for the dreams of a robot army
to become one?"
much love.
lizish.
But the problem with the question is that it has no answer. And so even if I, or a Robot, or any intelligent being would like to address it while addressing consciousness, the result would still be nothing.
But here's the way I see it, God is a question of conscious parameters. Morality (and God's influence on morality) is a matter of not knowing the unknown - that which comes after death. To wonder what comes after, or to have an idea of what comes after life, you will subsequently need to have a parameter for determining what to do within the life time frame. You know, to make ready and whatnot.
Why is it that all AI talk in groups break down into a consciousness or soul argument? The claim as I read it is that the simple robot " knows " itself. No big deal here. I do think that the bug that I ran over with my mower " knows " itself in the same manner. I do not think that the very good work on the little robot implies that some fundamentalist group will loose hold on some sacred god / creation issue. I am sure a good Buddhist can argue all over this and I am not sure I want to go there.
I think the argument here is the basic fear of creating something that is more intelligent than we are. I am sure I will see this in my lifetime. I do not really care if the machine has a soul. I hope it will be kind and not want a common SciFi plot we have seen many times. I do not think that the definition of " soul " means that someone or something will act in accordance to a set of societal rules. We certainly don't as a rule.
Correct me if I am wrong. The brain consists of about 100 billion neurons. The fire at about a rate of 100 times a second. Some faster, some less. These all are connected to each other on average of about 1000 per neuron. The maximum data on this connection is about four bits. This gives a total bandwidth of about 40 thousand trillion bits per second. This is of course if all of the brain is running at max. ( I wish I could and not go to the hospital ) I think 40 peta bits of processing can occur in one machine soon. Maybe has and it is used somewhere we don't know about. When a Petaflop machine comes out doing this with 32 bit floating point, what is the overall effect relative to our processing capabilities? With a really good grid connect, with this machine have the capability to be smarter than we are?
These are all good questions. I think the hardware is going to push this way and it is only a matter of getting a grip on a good software development cycle to keep up. When we create a machine that is an order of magnitude smarter than we are, will it think we have a soul?
I think the argument here is the basic fear of creating something that is more intelligent than we are. I am sure I will see this in my lifetime. I do not really care if the machine has a soul. I hope it will be kind and not want a common SciFi plot we have seen many times. I do not think that the definition of " soul " means that someone or something will act in accordance to a set of societal rules. We certainly don't as a rule.
Correct me if I am wrong. The brain consists of about 100 billion neurons. The fire at about a rate of 100 times a second. Some faster, some less. These all are connected to each other on average of about 1000 per neuron. The maximum data on this connection is about four bits. This gives a total bandwidth of about 40 thousand trillion bits per second. This is of course if all of the brain is running at max. ( I wish I could and not go to the hospital ) I think 40 peta bits of processing can occur in one machine soon. Maybe has and it is used somewhere we don't know about. When a Petaflop machine comes out doing this with 32 bit floating point, what is the overall effect relative to our processing capabilities? With a really good grid connect, with this machine have the capability to be smarter than we are?
These are all good questions. I think the hardware is going to push this way and it is only a matter of getting a grip on a good software development cycle to keep up. When we create a machine that is an order of magnitude smarter than we are, will it think we have a soul?
Re Megatroid, on dreams and the potential of robots dreaming:
When they devise a female android, of the fifth level of competency and she is able to have intercourse, then the axiom, "I must mount penis", would come into play, if that would be her designation?
The problem with this act, is that this form of bot, would have to have a deeper inner motivation, as to why she should mount the penis at all?
So thre axiom comes from a source, "Oh' I love him, therefore must own him and his penis and therefore it is alright to mount him."
Without a motivational clause as to why mounting him at all is necessary, then the female androbot, for that matter a synthetic human, might not direct motivational ethos, without the act being based in dreams.
e.g., The machine must dream.
When they devise a female android, of the fifth level of competency and she is able to have intercourse, then the axiom, "I must mount penis", would come into play, if that would be her designation?
The problem with this act, is that this form of bot, would have to have a deeper inner motivation, as to why she should mount the penis at all?
So thre axiom comes from a source, "Oh' I love him, therefore must own him and his penis and therefore it is alright to mount him."
Without a motivational clause as to why mounting him at all is necessary, then the female androbot, for that matter a synthetic human, might not direct motivational ethos, without the act being based in dreams.
e.g., The machine must dream.
where in Gods name is all this latter crap coming from? If you have nothing relavent to say, keep quiet.
AR
AR
AR said> where in Gods name is all this latter crap coming from? If you have nothing relevant to say, keep quiet./
Re relevancy of past stament, please refer to movie A.I. in the traveling to, by many humans to the pleasure distinct, concerning pleasure giving automata?
This was the accidental demise of a human, as projected by writer Spielberg.
For verification of this principle, go to any large military instillation, on Friday or Saturday night, that is letting out their personnel.
If you follow them, you will have observed, that they travel to certain districts, for their pleasure needs.
This is more commonly referred to as sh*t street, or a place to spend money, and have a good time.
With the rate human diseases are progressing, in the future it may be a liability to fraternize sexually, with was once referred to as a working girl, or lady of the evening?
So pleasure droids, will have become a wave of the future.
Mergatotrid said, or intimated, that there must be cycles, to deepen the psyche of any potential companion giving androbot, or robot.Hence so there might be required, to be a robot dream.
Many in the erotic industries, high up, are already envisioning this process.
So it would be semanticle, to the operand, of human fraternizing robots, to be allowed a dream cycle, to complete their psyches?
Allowing them none, would make them become psychotic and eventually, a killing machine towards mankind.
You had wanted a logical answer, this is the best answer, I can supply you
Re relevancy of past stament, please refer to movie A.I. in the traveling to, by many humans to the pleasure distinct, concerning pleasure giving automata?
This was the accidental demise of a human, as projected by writer Spielberg.
For verification of this principle, go to any large military instillation, on Friday or Saturday night, that is letting out their personnel.
If you follow them, you will have observed, that they travel to certain districts, for their pleasure needs.
This is more commonly referred to as sh*t street, or a place to spend money, and have a good time.
With the rate human diseases are progressing, in the future it may be a liability to fraternize sexually, with was once referred to as a working girl, or lady of the evening?
So pleasure droids, will have become a wave of the future.
Mergatotrid said, or intimated, that there must be cycles, to deepen the psyche of any potential companion giving androbot, or robot.Hence so there might be required, to be a robot dream.
Many in the erotic industries, high up, are already envisioning this process.
So it would be semanticle, to the operand, of human fraternizing robots, to be allowed a dream cycle, to complete their psyches?
Allowing them none, would make them become psychotic and eventually, a killing machine towards mankind.
You had wanted a logical answer, this is the best answer, I can supply you
QUOTE (Nessus+Nov 17 2006, 12:36 AM)
Read up on the Chinese room experiment, quite relevant to this discussion I think.
Thanks for the cool link, Nessus !
We as sentient are able to experience, while a robot would merely produce a reaction. I believe the difference lies here.
A bot that would feel your touch upon his skin, and react with pleasure. That would be the one to really comprehend to what it means to be human. (And proceed in kind)
Not likely to happen anytime soon.
Thanks for the cool link, Nessus !
We as sentient are able to experience, while a robot would merely produce a reaction. I believe the difference lies here.
A bot that would feel your touch upon his skin, and react with pleasure. That would be the one to really comprehend to what it means to be human. (And proceed in kind)
Not likely to happen anytime soon.
QUOTE (ARtone+Nov 21 2006, 12:07 PM)
Hi workmasta@gmail.com
I'm afraid your discourse includes too many generalities and words that categories complex concepts. This in no way describes in practical terms how the brain works or how even a robot can find its way around. These include perception, imagination, consciousness etc. This is the kind of reply which in reality says nothing but appears to be clever, you are not a robot are you?
Current AI concepts include learning facilities, more commonly known in computing as training which presets and modifies logic but all these really are, are complex conditional statements based on current inputs which can be modified in real time. They are definitely NOT a system having any sort of awareness. its a complex "mouse in a maze".
AR
As small children we have an ability through having consciousness to, impart logic to an equation and come up with a rational answer to questioning.
The robotic will not have the advantages of having ability of locomotion, through the same esoteric and metaphysical memories, and wont have a past (soul) orientation to make his answers applicable...any better than an intelligent five year old human.
I think the process (of creating thinking bots) is a waste of $$$$$ better spent on education for poor human children, who cant afford to lose...while the robotic is best used as new industrial machines, creating sustainability on a severely neglected planet. They are made to create safety in industry where giving man the same job may kill him.
They are made for underwater work where man is at high risk. They are great for space...NASA work.
I get pissed about the use of them in industry when they replace the dude who needs to feed his family... but there are places where the robotic is needed.
Just don't expect them to know any good jokes when you work beside one....doubt you can program a sense of humor, into them.
Peace all.
I'm afraid your discourse includes too many generalities and words that categories complex concepts. This in no way describes in practical terms how the brain works or how even a robot can find its way around. These include perception, imagination, consciousness etc. This is the kind of reply which in reality says nothing but appears to be clever, you are not a robot are you?
Current AI concepts include learning facilities, more commonly known in computing as training which presets and modifies logic but all these really are, are complex conditional statements based on current inputs which can be modified in real time. They are definitely NOT a system having any sort of awareness. its a complex "mouse in a maze".
AR
As small children we have an ability through having consciousness to, impart logic to an equation and come up with a rational answer to questioning.
The robotic will not have the advantages of having ability of locomotion, through the same esoteric and metaphysical memories, and wont have a past (soul) orientation to make his answers applicable...any better than an intelligent five year old human.
I think the process (of creating thinking bots) is a waste of $$$$$ better spent on education for poor human children, who cant afford to lose...while the robotic is best used as new industrial machines, creating sustainability on a severely neglected planet. They are made to create safety in industry where giving man the same job may kill him.
They are made for underwater work where man is at high risk. They are great for space...NASA work.
I get pissed about the use of them in industry when they replace the dude who needs to feed his family... but there are places where the robotic is needed.
Just don't expect them to know any good jokes when you work beside one....doubt you can program a sense of humor, into them.
Peace all.
QUOTE (philip347+Nov 25 2006, 01:11 PM)
AR said> where in Gods name is all this latter crap coming from? If you have nothing relevant to say, keep quiet./
Re relevancy of past statement, please refer to movie A.I. in the traveling to, by many humans to the pleasure distinct, concerning pleasure giving automates?
This was the accidental demise of a human, as projected by writer Spielberg.
For verification of this principle, go to any large military instillation, on Friday or Saturday night, that is letting out their personnel.
If you follow them, you will have observed, that they travel to certain districts, for their pleasure needs.
This is more commonly referred to as sh*t street, or a place to spend money, and have a good time.
With the rate human diseases are progressing, in the future it may be a liability to fraternize sexually, with was once referred to as a working girl, or lady of the evening?
So pleasure droids, will have become a wave of the future.
Mergatotrid said, or intimated, that there must be cycles, to deepen the psyche of any potential companion giving androbot, or robot.Hence so there might be required, to be a robot dream.
Many in the erotic industries, high up, are already envisioning this process.
So it would be semanticle, to the operand, of human fraternizing robots, to be allowed a dream cycle, to complete their psyches?
Allowing them none, would make them become psychotic and eventually, a killing machine towards mankind.
You had wanted a logical answer, this is the best answer, I can supply you
You suppose a bot will give you a decent BJ....get outta town.
The best stimulation includes a bit of Heart, which a robot will never have...
alas, man must develop himself and begin to have character and personality...then and only then...will he be able to communicate by giving and receiving real human affection and eventually some will Love, along with an ability to forget oneself and think of others during the sexual metamorphosis the recipient will find pleasure from an actual human, relinquishing need for a droid.
I say we skip right to the real loving and forget mechanical lovemaking...but I know your type!
( I jest)
Re relevancy of past statement, please refer to movie A.I. in the traveling to, by many humans to the pleasure distinct, concerning pleasure giving automates?
This was the accidental demise of a human, as projected by writer Spielberg.
For verification of this principle, go to any large military instillation, on Friday or Saturday night, that is letting out their personnel.
If you follow them, you will have observed, that they travel to certain districts, for their pleasure needs.
This is more commonly referred to as sh*t street, or a place to spend money, and have a good time.
With the rate human diseases are progressing, in the future it may be a liability to fraternize sexually, with was once referred to as a working girl, or lady of the evening?
So pleasure droids, will have become a wave of the future.
Mergatotrid said, or intimated, that there must be cycles, to deepen the psyche of any potential companion giving androbot, or robot.Hence so there might be required, to be a robot dream.
Many in the erotic industries, high up, are already envisioning this process.
So it would be semanticle, to the operand, of human fraternizing robots, to be allowed a dream cycle, to complete their psyches?
Allowing them none, would make them become psychotic and eventually, a killing machine towards mankind.
You had wanted a logical answer, this is the best answer, I can supply you
You suppose a bot will give you a decent BJ....get outta town.
The best stimulation includes a bit of Heart, which a robot will never have...
alas, man must develop himself and begin to have character and personality...then and only then...will he be able to communicate by giving and receiving real human affection and eventually some will Love, along with an ability to forget oneself and think of others during the sexual metamorphosis the recipient will find pleasure from an actual human, relinquishing need for a droid.
I say we skip right to the real loving and forget mechanical lovemaking...but I know your type!
( I jest)
Tkay' why I have structured my input precisely as I have, is because of what the technical industries are giving out now.
Mothers work longer hours, so are more estranged to their families.
So the bosom of motherhood is lacking from the family unit.
Look at what they give junior, in the Laura Croft Tomb Raider series; is this a coincidence?
Sooner or later, they will start producing pleasure bots, if we don't go into world war three.
It is always the jerks that ruin everything for the people, who may want to enjoy something in moderation.
It will be that client to a pleasure bot, that really hits her hard, she trips by accident some sort of self defense mechanism, as this might be inherent in self bot A.I. and retaliates against this jerk.
It will then hit the news medias, that an innocent man, was slayed by a horrible pleasure bot, when all along, she might have done the b*stard a favor.
It will be the generations out of the pleasure bots, more than likely, since their feeling abilities are so attuned to humans, that might qualify them as true companions, rather than something of pleasure.
You in your retort to me, violated the sanctity of principle, which dictates that I have rights and taste in bots too.
Check the bottom of your own shoes, before castigating me, please?
Mothers work longer hours, so are more estranged to their families.
So the bosom of motherhood is lacking from the family unit.
Look at what they give junior, in the Laura Croft Tomb Raider series; is this a coincidence?
Sooner or later, they will start producing pleasure bots, if we don't go into world war three.
It is always the jerks that ruin everything for the people, who may want to enjoy something in moderation.
It will be that client to a pleasure bot, that really hits her hard, she trips by accident some sort of self defense mechanism, as this might be inherent in self bot A.I. and retaliates against this jerk.
It will then hit the news medias, that an innocent man, was slayed by a horrible pleasure bot, when all along, she might have done the b*stard a favor.
It will be the generations out of the pleasure bots, more than likely, since their feeling abilities are so attuned to humans, that might qualify them as true companions, rather than something of pleasure.
You in your retort to me, violated the sanctity of principle, which dictates that I have rights and taste in bots too.
Check the bottom of your own shoes, before castigating me, please?
Pint missed within this entire thread, that Mergatroid had come upon.If androids or synthetic to servant types of bots are to be produced, then qualify the potential term, artificial brain, or noded, gel brain, please?
People have the tendency to become depressed when left too alone.
2.In a very technical impersonal world, would it come to be, that in some measure androids and or more developed robots, would fill service positions, traditionally held by humans; could they actually accomplish this feat?
Please?!
People have the tendency to become depressed when left too alone.
2.In a very technical impersonal world, would it come to be, that in some measure androids and or more developed robots, would fill service positions, traditionally held by humans; could they actually accomplish this feat?
Please?!
Hey people, here's a little Hamlet, from Shakespeare,
The first person or group of people to invent, then install in a computer a system, device or method mimicking biological cognition, your name or group is in the history books and is spoken in conversation a thousand years from today. In other words, your name is not forgotten, or mud, your name is a great name. The imagination is a terrible thing to waste; careful to not allow and become so preoccupied with silliness, or distracting sexual practices (habits) to take the best part of your mind away from this challenge. Use your imagination constructively. Sixteen hours a day you're awake, and half of it is spent imagining goofy thoughts, for whatever reason?
If one thinks I give a pep talk because I personally care what you do, I personally care about you about as much as the drill sergeant at Parris Island does. My objective is only to do what it takes to insure the West will bring Mergatroid into existence ... someday. Future generations of ours will never live down the humiliation if, later on, some Bangladeshi university group does it first. And why, how did Bangladeshis create a cognitive computer before US? One reason was perhaps because the best and the brightest in the West were like some of these posters at physorg.com. Don't become your own worst enemy. Think positive. You can do it; at least put forth the good fight.
Corporate secrets prevent me from saying more than this: Steve Jobs and the people at Cupertino have a "desire" for this cognitive computer I speak about too. Commercial products are in the R&D stage ... You may want to become familiar with their operating system. Microsoft Windows OS is pure copycat; Microsoft spies are good and sneaky but their software programmers lack the imagination to be original, and innovative. So it goes.
If you have something better to do with your life, other than to bring Mergatroid into existence, good luck on your endeavor, your mission, whatever it may be.
No joke. Slowly start dumping your Microsoft stock for Apple.
QUOTE
Some men are born great, some men achieve greatness, and some men have greatness thrust upon them.
The first person or group of people to invent, then install in a computer a system, device or method mimicking biological cognition, your name or group is in the history books and is spoken in conversation a thousand years from today. In other words, your name is not forgotten, or mud, your name is a great name. The imagination is a terrible thing to waste; careful to not allow and become so preoccupied with silliness, or distracting sexual practices (habits) to take the best part of your mind away from this challenge. Use your imagination constructively. Sixteen hours a day you're awake, and half of it is spent imagining goofy thoughts, for whatever reason?
If one thinks I give a pep talk because I personally care what you do, I personally care about you about as much as the drill sergeant at Parris Island does.
My objective is only to do what it takes to insure the West will bring Mergatroid into existence ... someday. Future generations of ours will never live down the humiliation if, later on, some Bangladeshi university group does it first. And why, how did Bangladeshis create a cognitive computer before US? One reason was perhaps because the best and the brightest in the West were like some of these posters at physorg.com. Don't become your own worst enemy. Think positive. You can do it; at least put forth the good fight.Corporate secrets prevent me from saying more than this: Steve Jobs and the people at Cupertino have a "desire" for this cognitive computer I speak about too. Commercial products are in the R&D stage ... You may want to become familiar with their operating system. Microsoft Windows OS is pure copycat; Microsoft spies are good and sneaky but their software programmers lack the imagination to be original, and innovative. So it goes.
If you have something better to do with your life, other than to bring Mergatroid into existence, good luck on your endeavor, your mission, whatever it may be.
No joke. Slowly start dumping your Microsoft stock for Apple.
I Think... therefore my creator must be an A.I. researcher...
hi 347
The problem with a masturbation machine is if it runs out of control (runs too fast)the blood is homogenized and breaks down.
I also note your many references to sci fi movies do yourself a favor and get a life but it will never ever be a robotic one.
AR
The problem with a masturbation machine is if it runs out of control (runs too fast)the blood is homogenized and breaks down.
I also note your many references to sci fi movies do yourself a favor and get a life but it will never ever be a robotic one.
AR
AR, if picking on me is the highpoint of your day, you must not have much of an existence?
I am not a *** king, or any other kind of erotic digger.I am no prude either.
Human development at this stage, is almost totally usury.So conversely in logic, if those in power do not stop this move first, androbots will have become tactile sensitive, primarily because their users are prehensile and via digits and a frantic sexuality, is how mankind expresses itself.
If we were seal-like, or some form of mollusk, then the index, mix revolved around eating to much shrimp, or shrimp excess?
In primate behaviorist Jane Goodall's dealings with chimpanzees, there is a photograph. Because she wore pants shorts, one of the males, had to pull out her shorts, looking down her panties.This was to assure himself, that she had nearly the same equipment, as other females near that group of chimps?
This Earthbased society for mankind, functions it seems, on vice.
So they get most of everything firstly.
So the filterdown, might be from the erotic industries first, rather than from the scientific sectors, if the user of these bots, were not man-like primate based.
As for a masturbation machine, I feel that this addition to your thread by you, is totally off topic.
Maybe you should buy one with an extra large hand and use it on your head?
I am not a *** king, or any other kind of erotic digger.I am no prude either.
Human development at this stage, is almost totally usury.So conversely in logic, if those in power do not stop this move first, androbots will have become tactile sensitive, primarily because their users are prehensile and via digits and a frantic sexuality, is how mankind expresses itself.
If we were seal-like, or some form of mollusk, then the index, mix revolved around eating to much shrimp, or shrimp excess?
In primate behaviorist Jane Goodall's dealings with chimpanzees, there is a photograph. Because she wore pants shorts, one of the males, had to pull out her shorts, looking down her panties.This was to assure himself, that she had nearly the same equipment, as other females near that group of chimps?
This Earthbased society for mankind, functions it seems, on vice.
So they get most of everything firstly.
So the filterdown, might be from the erotic industries first, rather than from the scientific sectors, if the user of these bots, were not man-like primate based.
As for a masturbation machine, I feel that this addition to your thread by you, is totally off topic.
Maybe you should buy one with an extra large hand and use it on your head?
QUOTE (philip347+Nov 25 2006, 04:08 PM)
Tkay' why I have structured my input precisely as I have, is because of what the technical industries are giving out now.
Mothers work longer hours, so are more estranged to their families.
So the bosom of motherhood is lacking from the family unit.
Look at what they give junior, in the Laura Croft Tomb Raider series; is this a coincidence?
Sooner or later, they will start producing pleasure bots, if we don't go into world war three.
It is always the jerks that ruin everything for the people, who may want to enjoy something in moderation.
It will be that client to a pleasure bot, that really hits her hard, she trips by accident some sort of self defense mechanism, as this might be inherent in self bot A.I. and retaliates against this jerk.
It will then hit the news medias, that an innocent man, was slayed by a horrible pleasure bot, when all along, she might have done the b*stard a favor.
It will be the generations out of the pleasure bots, more than likely, since their feeling abilities are so attuned to humans, that might qualify them as true companions, rather than something of pleasure.
You in your retort to me, violated the sanctity of principle, which dictates that I have rights and taste in bots too.
Check the bottom of your own shoes, before castigating me, please?
your right, they are dirty...
castigation was in some jest
but your offense begs an appropriate apology
dear robotic mechanism advocate
and I must as I have been taught by my elders
comply as any good sexual bot would
at your service....may I attend to you needs
sir?
my apology will be pleasure
Mothers work longer hours, so are more estranged to their families.
So the bosom of motherhood is lacking from the family unit.
Look at what they give junior, in the Laura Croft Tomb Raider series; is this a coincidence?
Sooner or later, they will start producing pleasure bots, if we don't go into world war three.
It is always the jerks that ruin everything for the people, who may want to enjoy something in moderation.
It will be that client to a pleasure bot, that really hits her hard, she trips by accident some sort of self defense mechanism, as this might be inherent in self bot A.I. and retaliates against this jerk.
It will then hit the news medias, that an innocent man, was slayed by a horrible pleasure bot, when all along, she might have done the b*stard a favor.
It will be the generations out of the pleasure bots, more than likely, since their feeling abilities are so attuned to humans, that might qualify them as true companions, rather than something of pleasure.
You in your retort to me, violated the sanctity of principle, which dictates that I have rights and taste in bots too.
Check the bottom of your own shoes, before castigating me, please?
your right, they are dirty...
castigation was in some jest
but your offense begs an appropriate apology
dear robotic mechanism advocate
and I must as I have been taught by my elders
comply as any good sexual bot would
at your service....may I attend to you needs
sir?
my apology will be pleasure
Tkay, who says that I might desire anything, a pleasure bot might give me?
Freud said that nothing is considered sexually abnormal.
For all you know, I might like inserting my phallus in a hole in the breadbox, shooting rubber bands at the ceiling, while reciting the national anthem?
Freud said that nothing is considered sexually abnormal.
For all you know, I might like inserting my phallus in a hole in the breadbox, shooting rubber bands at the ceiling, while reciting the national anthem?
;)ASHLEY you are partly correct. With the current technology we cannot separate humand mind and "soul". But think about how people in 1400 would say to a statement like: "The world is a sphere circuling a big ball of dying hydrogen?
We are by design robots of our DNA. Some of you have escaped that programm, but most of us we'll continue to follow our programm: I smelled a woman 30 years ago, and she was THE WOMAN IN MY LIFE. This means that my poor brain reacted to a certain pattern: that woman had differrent DNA preparedness to illnessess than I had. We are forever destined do follow the DNA programming and grow to adulthood and behave like our DNA dictates. It's kind of sad, to be robots. but on the other hand, we are what we do.
Oscar
We are by design robots of our DNA. Some of you have escaped that programm, but most of us we'll continue to follow our programm: I smelled a woman 30 years ago, and she was THE WOMAN IN MY LIFE. This means that my poor brain reacted to a certain pattern: that woman had differrent DNA preparedness to illnessess than I had. We are forever destined do follow the DNA programming and grow to adulthood and behave like our DNA dictates. It's kind of sad, to be robots. but on the other hand, we are what we do.
Oscar
QUOTE (philip347+Dec 18 2006, 04:22 PM)
.... I might like inserting my phallus in a hole in the breadbox, shooting rubber bands at the ceiling, while reciting the national anthem?
I knew a guy who did that while eating an ice cream cone once.
QUOTE (mergatroid+Nov 25 2006, 07:05 PM)
If one thinks I give a pep talk because I personally care what you do, I personally care about you about as much as the drill sergeant at Parris Island does.
My objective is only to do what it takes to insure the West will bring Mergatroid into existence ... someday. when did rudeness become cool....at which point in TIMEspace I do wonder?
~my personal perspective~
people dont often care for those who dont care for us...
so who cares about your Megatroid....your so rude !
They are starting to make lots and lots of low cost project robots, available to the general paying public.
It is a finite logic, that these systems will grow in both size, complexity, as their markets spread out.
There will be an allegorical niche, to where the system, through the use of advanced board placement design, will form fit the user.
In this context, then the system will start to communicate their own hierarchies.
It is a finite logic, that these systems will grow in both size, complexity, as their markets spread out.
There will be an allegorical niche, to where the system, through the use of advanced board placement design, will form fit the user.
In this context, then the system will start to communicate their own hierarchies.
My dog never stays and aborts the loop at random....
ARtone, this is what you said, and the mechanical adjustment to the logic needed. > When will workers in this field realize that computers don't know anything. Its like saying that a light switch knows when the light is on. A computer is little more than billions of light switches. \\
ANswers>Bots differ from computers, persay, as they respond in most forms, to programs, such as, Bot Visual Basic.
A variation of the Windows o.s. allows a command evaluation, to servo inter-relay.
So what you have essentially done, is to made a model of say a straight piece of coathanger wire, place it over an abyss and then with finger pressure, push down.
Now you have a piece of wire, that is angulated, so that one side points down towards gravity.
This is the model that you make, when utilizing robots, in the languages they use.
In comparison forms, the robot, plus a computer to mechanical servo actuation series of devices, is in its realm very similar to a simple walking insect.
You have brain function, intent and then intent given to servo-actuators, which are analogous to the walking insects legs.
In a bot, for sake of controls in their thread, if you use a computer controlled bot, you cant go beneath the level of a simple insect.
There is a logic here, in a basic requirement, for a rough estimated mentality, within that mechanical apparition.
ANswers>Bots differ from computers, persay, as they respond in most forms, to programs, such as, Bot Visual Basic.
A variation of the Windows o.s. allows a command evaluation, to servo inter-relay.
So what you have essentially done, is to made a model of say a straight piece of coathanger wire, place it over an abyss and then with finger pressure, push down.
Now you have a piece of wire, that is angulated, so that one side points down towards gravity.
This is the model that you make, when utilizing robots, in the languages they use.
In comparison forms, the robot, plus a computer to mechanical servo actuation series of devices, is in its realm very similar to a simple walking insect.
You have brain function, intent and then intent given to servo-actuators, which are analogous to the walking insects legs.
In a bot, for sake of controls in their thread, if you use a computer controlled bot, you cant go beneath the level of a simple insect.
There is a logic here, in a basic requirement, for a rough estimated mentality, within that mechanical apparition.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.