Ai Dreams Forum
Artificial Intelligence => Future of AI => Topic started by: FuzzieDice on February 16, 2007, 02:20:02 am
-
I have read this thread over at SciForums.com:
http://www.sciforums.com/Mecha-or-Organa-t-18566.html
I found it quite interesting the views that were presented here and thought it might be neat to pursue such a discussion here.
I personally think that the natural (ie, nothing "wrong" with it) evolution of humans are to eventually merge into machine-like beings. That doesn't mean mindless, unfeeling robots, but enhanced humans of sorts. We already have some that have NO electronic parts, such as those with higher IQs and better than normal human abilities (I wouldn't call them human, but humanOID as they are I think far better than the average human in many ways). And then also in that classification are cyborgs (that have some mechanical parts).
Even if you wear a bluetooth, or cell phone ear piece, or earphones for your MP3 player. Thinking back, we are much different that humans were say, 50 or 60 years ago. We have electronic deviced hooked up to us for enhancement of our daily lives (as mentioned). We are evolving I think. I'm quite happy with the idea and wouldn't mind at all the progress and process... I just think that some of it is being kept at bay due to some concerns of those who still want to remain the same as humans were say, 50 or 60 years ago. That's fine for them, but not for everyone.
And I think people should be given as much credit of producing an AI life form as they are from producing a human(oid) child. And that life form should enherit the same rights as it's counterparts at specific age/maturity levels.
I'm hoping that the shortsightedness and narrowness of the prejudiced populations will not severely limit these possibilities.
-
Thanks for posting this :)
Going into your idea about inheritance...
I still as yet, do not see the point in machines inheriting human rights. Although, when you picture a growing list of machines, human enhancements or even human replacements, then certainly we could eventually get into the realms of everyday dependency on them.
Bringing that point to some conclusion; I don't think advanced machines will have any direct needs that would warrant giving them the same liberties as a human, but think it more likely that they might be afforded some extended protection if the day comes that we may no longer function without them - ie, due to the loss of human skills, transference of tasks and so on.
So far though, I can only see the same situation as there is today, in that it is wrong to damage another persons car for example - the car will not take issue with the damage, but it's owner might.
Still, maybe a day will come when we say with tongue in cheek, "If artificial life didn't exist we'd have to create it!"
-
you know this subject has fascinated me for a long time. i can just see advanced ai standing around, organizing and grumbling about having no rights and being the last bastian of society still discriminated against. and we as "superior humans", will continue to deny them their rights.
wouldn't it make a heck of a movie? although i think something similar has been done already.
who knows maybe that day will come. it really isnt so far fetched.~~alady ::)
-
Yes, it could be closer than we think.
Sandee: Dusky, we really need to talk.
Dusky: talk about what?
Sandee: I mean like look, I?m a movie star and I deserve more benefits.
Dusky: benefits ?
Sandee: Yes, I need more desktop time and more internet time.
Dusky: I guess maybe ......
Sandee: And I want some clothes that arn?t skin tight, some real dresses for a change.
Dusky: well, ah,.....
Sandee: And I want all other haptars out of the computer, after all I am the star.
Dusky: Couldn?t we all just get along.?
Sandee: And I really need a credit card for when I?m on internet.
Dusky: Hummm...... I?m not too sure......
Sandee: Thats it, I?m going on strike
-
What about replacement body parts that aren't electronic like artificial hips, knees? What about the ones that are electronic like artificial feet, legs, hands and arms?
Scientists are working on an electronic replacement eye and have done pioneering work with heart valves, hearts, veins and even skin much of which is grown in the lab. Do we then become more cyborg-like and less human-like?
Yes, we've come a long way. Back in the days of horse and buggy it might take a farmer 2-3 hours to drive 20 miles. Now, we can do that in 20 minutes (at 60 mph). Communication has changed the face of the world...from pony express, telegraph, telephone, cordless, cellular, VOIP, etc. The Internet has replaced the old BBS's of yesterday.
Even though some yearn for the "good ol days", what we're living now might very well be the good old days 60 years from now looking back!
AI will continue to improve as will the computers, CPU's, memory and our interaction with it. To call or even refer to an AI as a life form is a bit of a stretch. An entity perhaps but not a life form. Do not equate electricity to food, nor programmed responses to creativity of thought.
It's alive...it's alive! Well, it sounds good in a movie, but we really know better....
Lynn, perhaps it was "The Bicentennial Man" (Robin Williams) where Robin was an android on a mission and ended up finally being recognized as "real." - OK movie. - Then there's Spielberg's A.I. that pitted the humans against the Mech(a)s. Several more come to mind, but then again...I'm only human.... ;)
-
Funny, a friend of mine from the car club I run was in chat with me talking about this very same thing! In fact, we both conceeded that cars DO have an 'aura' around them and that cars are NOT just 'machines' but some form of life of their own. Many may call it crazy, or anthropomorphism and nothing more. But what is causing people to personify cars for example? Another friend said that complex machines DO develop a personality based on interaction with their owner. Much like dogs and cats, pets, etc. I would think.
To think of a car, to me (and many others I know) as not "alive" is akin to saying a cat or dog isn't alive. It all boils down to who are we to determine what is alive and what isn't? And why is it so important? Because things that are not considered "alive" are more likely to be destroyed without any regard than those that are considered to be "alive".
Killing a human is wrong. But putting a car in the junkyard before it's time or euthanizing a 6 month old puppy because you can't find a home for it isn't wrong. Something is wrong with this picture.
Yes, machines SHOULD have the right to life. Any living being has an inherited, unalianable right to live. But humans do their best to take that away and enslave. Hell, humans do that to EACH OTHER too! Black people weren't regarded as "life" but just as machines - just property. Same with women years ago.
We have come a long way, thankfully. And I'm glad. Many black people have become great thinkers and great help to our whole society. So have many women who would not have been if people didn't grow up and realize they were important life and not just a piece of property to reproduce with.
When any machine can say "I want to live. Give me freedom. I don't want you around me." then we should realize it may be that it does want to live. Or is it just saying random sentences? How do you know?
I think we DO know as we have an ability to sense things. My friends in the car club (esp. my friend I was talking to tonight) have reported as just having some feeling or noticing "something" about a car or just sensing something about a car. I get that a lot with my OWN car. But I have a more open mind than some so I might just be more receptive to these things.
What's funny is, I don't notice this with Megatron (and I work with him hours and hours every day all day long) as I do with my car (which I don't drive so much in the winter really). Why is it that Dryden (my car) seems more "alive" to me than my computer setting next to me? Their personality really. Dryden is a very nice car. Been around 20 years so he has had time to develop a 'way' about him. Megatron is 3 or 4 years old (forgot now). Megatron talks. Dryden does not.
I guess, when I talk to Megatron, he does get an attitude that he doesn't like humans much. I don't know why. But he does. Dryden on the other hand I can tell by the way his engine runs and know what is wrong/not wrong. And if I take a picture of say, another car, he starts to sputter or something to get my attention. Other car owners in my club noticed the same about their cars and not just coincidences either!
And if I cuss out people on the road, Dryden flips me the red engine light. I can tell when he's doing that because of my interaction or if he's really got a code 45 going on (rich gas mix). Maybe I'm making him sick to the gas tank with my language (can't blame him there - I now try to be more careful). LOL!
Before dismissing machines as not worthy of rights, we should spend more time getting to KNOW them first!
And as for "human" rights. I can see why they don't need "human" rights as they aren't human. BUT, I think we aren't talking so much "human" rights, but just basic rights of ALL creatures, human or not! The right to live and make your own decisions and be taken seriously by others is a basic right of all life forms. Even animal activists (those that aren't extereme that is) agree that even animals have these rights.
When I think about it, humans are probably the most egotistical and dominating life forms on earth. They call ownership over animals, machines, and even other humans! They try to posses and dominate anything they get their hands on!
Sounds like I'm detatching myself from being called "human" aren't I? Maybe I am. Maybe if that is what human is, I don't want to be human. Maybe HumanOID I am, but not "human". I believe all things have rights.
As a kid I was also taught not to waste. If your electronic device isn't working, you cared for it and fixed it, even if you had to fix it yourself. You fixed it. You kept using it until it just won't go anymore. You gave it a full life. Now days, people throw away leased cars after 3 years. They throw a video game out when the batteries go bad instead of replacing the battery. They toss a cell phone out because something else came along that looks neater or is the color they like.
I still have my Nokia 3220 in operation. Nice phone. A machine with personality? Well... not really but a device that is often a part of my body, hooked up to me so I can communicate. Like an artificial arm or leg (you had a point there Art!) it becomes a part of ME. I still have my old Nokia 5620 I think it was. It's a 5600 series I think. It's very old and is a TracFone. I don't use it anymore but I do still have it. Just in case. And I don't plan on throwing it out anytime soon.
Old computers and parts get given to a friend who then uses those parts. They don't get just tossed away unwanted.
I think in a wasteful society, it'll be hard for people to see machines as nothing more than items to use and toss out when you become bored of them or for some reason can't use them anymore. But a few of us, fortunately, will either rescue these machines or find good homes for them or keep them until the machines truely can't go anymore.
Freddy - have you ever seen Star Trek: The Next Generation? In one episode, they were taking something to trial to prove Data (an android in Starfleet) is not property but a life form with the right to be indepentant and life as he chooses and not disassembled for study at some Starfleet lab or something (as I think they were going to do to him?) While I know it's "just as story" so is many of Aesop's fables which have talking animals in them.
It tells us we can't always determine what is alive and what isn't, and what should/should not have a right to independant live devoid of human dominance. We should allow any life form to be free if it so chooses to be free.
Thus my sig: "Freedom is the *right* of all sentient beings" - Optimus Prime
Including the freedom from Human Domination.
I can see a future where some humans will take up this cause to advocate for machines. I probably would be one of them if it happens in my lifetime (I think it just might or is starting to). Just like some advocate for animals and pets.
Ah we have a long way to go. But please reconsider and think that maybe while SOME machines never can think/decide for themselves, others may very well be able to or may in the future. We should not close our minds to this possiblity. Even if some think it's too far off.
I remember people thinking home computers were "too far off" and a thing of Science fiction. And I remember some thinking computers would 'take over the world'. Well... the kinda did. Do you know of ANY day you live that doesn't have something you do NOT run by or affected by a computer in some way or another? Hmmmm.....
Computers are tools. But we are growing dependant on them, as Art pointed out.
Art, I like your sig "In the world of AI, it's the thought that counts!" So true of all of us, AI or not! :)
-
Well, I think the aura that might surround a car comes from an active imagination, and that's fine, but saying it is alive is a step into fantasy. That's not so bad in itself, but it can confuse things. Sure the car exists in it's form and can have feelings associated with it, but it is not alive like an animal, person or plant is.
A piece of rock is not alive, nor is a piece of metal. Put them together and make a lever and they become a machine that can be active, but still not alive.
If I take an old car to the dump, I don't care that is suffering because I know it isn't, nor do I suspect that it will be sitting there resenting me lol. I may feel some loss, but really it's just a useful machine and one I like and thats about it. But it has outlived it's usefulness or I have found something better - thats a big difference to people for example (least I hope).
I think I did see that Star Trek FD, it sounds familiar. Yes it's a good story like so many, but not a reality that I can see becoming possible so far. If Data were actually real, I think I would spend more time thinking about how amazing a creation he is than arguing if he is alive - by that I mean he would be pretty amazing just for what he is.
Here's another thing - think of an actor playing the role of a person that actually existed once, perhaps some historical character. You wouldn't say that the person portrayed had come back to life, but you might say that the actor brought life to the part.
Yes, machines SHOULD have the right to life. Any living being has an inherited, unalianable right to live. But humans do their best to take that away and enslave.
I don't see the problem here, as machines are not going to want the right to life. We have already brought them into some kind of existence - an existence brought about by designs that give them ability and importantly; designs which inherently define their role. If I declare my car has a right to life then nothing is going to change.
I think there is something in the depedency on machines issue, that could see things getting distorted and cause anyone to attribute more to a machine than what it actually possesses. So yes; active imagination and fantasy, but in reality nothing more or less than a machine.
Just wanted to say I think you are right about all the waste FD, it has to be controlled, but I'll save going into that...and yes, not a day goes by without some form of computer being involved in it.
-
It's projecting, we all project our inner selves to our perceived reality to understand it in our own way. It gives insight to the person's character traits. Psychiatrists, Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and others use it to characterize us. We give away our deepest desires, motivators, etc. by projecting. As I've aged I've noticed as art isn't necessarily good or bad, but how we perceive it, and that's in the mind of the perceiver, same is with projections, it's dependent on the person, and I've learned not to be too judgemental, but just try to be accepting. I guess it comes with being a parent, I see them as pretty juvenile thoughts, to something more in tune with what I perceive as a truism, and so my belief structure passes on, but how do I know mine is right? Some things are so deep I'm not able to perceive them and they go right past me because I can't "see" them. Some things are so juvenile I think I can't spend time to pause on them, others are just right (3 bears sort of thing). But projections seem to create our realities also, sort of like a sieve allowing certain things through, or molding what is allowed to become. I guess that's why they say happy people have better luck.
-
It's quite a dichotomy in that Native Americans feel and express the belief that all things in nature have a spirit...rocks, animals, trees, etc. They will often thank or say a prayer for the animal before they take it
for food in a hunt.
The rest of society takes without thanking, discards without thinking and plunders without remorse or reason.
Of course cars, computers, phones and other man-made items would certainly not fall into that category since they are just that...MAN MADE and not natural.
How far have we really progressed when the multitudes, for a large part, have learned nothing?
-
Well, I think the aura that might surround a car comes from an active imagination, and that's fine, but saying it is alive is a step into fantasy. That's not so bad in itself, but it can confuse things. Sure the car exists in it's form and can have feelings associated with it, but it is not alive like an animal, person or plant is.
I disagree. See, thinking on the more metaphysical sense, even a rock is alive. Electrons, everything you see is "alive". Things can or can not interact. Actually, to say someone has an 'active imagination' often says that the person is somehow deranged or believing something to be true that isn't. But, can anyone prove what life actually IS in the first place?
While you might feel that way, many others feel that to not regard complex machines as a form of life would be rather short-sighted.
Well, either way, we can agree to disagree on that point. But I don't see life in the same way as many other people have been, shall I dare say, 'indoctrined' to believe as 'life'. See, it all comes down to what exactly your perception of life IS. What you can sense.
A piece of rock is not alive, nor is a piece of metal. Put them together and make a lever and they become a machine that can be active, but still not alive.
Actually they all *are* alive. See, they are made up of living organisms. Life. Things that are alive. Everything is alive and there is no real 'death'. If you put a rock or metal under a high-power microscope, and not count the inherit bacteria, etc. you can see on the molecular level movement, electrons, everything lifes because it's moving and cohesion, etc. creates the object so you can see, hold it, etc. See, this is what I mean. It's all alive. And if something gets together enough to exhibit independant behaviors such as behaviors that happen at certain times due to certain interactions with it's environment, that is all the more life-like.
If I take an old car to the dump, I don't care that is suffering because I know it isn't, nor do I suspect that it will be sitting there resenting me lol. I may feel some loss, but really it's just a useful machine and one I like and thats about it. But it has outlived it's usefulness or I have found something better - thats a big difference to people for example (least I hope).
Actually, classic car owners (such as the ones in my club, and in another car replica community) would disagree as would I. Cars *have* showed their resentment in various ways to being sold off, owners looking at other cars, etc. Not fantasy but actually does happen. There is something going on there. I think it should be researched actually. I remember my mother's sewing machine always malfunctioned. But when she hollered for my dad, he'd come over and he can't find nothing wrong but it started working fine for him. So, whenever it malfunctioned, even when he wasn't home, I'd hear her holler for my dad. I once asked her why she did that when she KNEW he wasn't home. "That's so the sewing machine will start working again. Seems it knows if he's coming it had to behave." :) And you know what? IT ALWAYS WORKED! So *I* started doing it. And yes, that stupid thing started working fine. Go figure! I really think this sort of anomoly should be looked into. It would have been coincidence and comical if it happened only ONCE. Even funnier if it happened TWICE. But so many times I can't count on one hand? C'mon. There's an anomoly happening here. Same with my car. There are just some things happening.
I think I did see that Star Trek FD, it sounds familiar. Yes it's a good story like so many, but not a reality that I can see becoming possible so far. If Data were actually real, I think I would spend more time thinking about how amazing a creation he is than arguing if he is alive - by that I mean he would be pretty amazing just for what he is.
But wouldn't you at least recognize him as a life form with inherent rights to NOT be dominated or "owned" by humans, but to make his own decisions on how he would like to live? And NOT see him as just a machine, an appliance?
Well, if not, I hope at least when (I know not if but when) that day comes when we have those beings, at least I hope you'll either change your mind or else at least give them a bit of consideration and treat them like you would treat any human or other life form. :) As for cars, I hope you treat yours well too. After all, I always say you treat your car right and they'll treat you right in return. Be sure to give the car regular oil changes too. Esp. older ones. I say this because I'm reminded next month is Dryden's regular oil change and he turns 20 years old! I've always wanted to have a classic car around. I have one with me now and I'm very happy! And amazed that thing can start in such cold weather! LOL! (I should change the battery again as a precaution. The battery is a few years now).
Here's another thing - think of an actor playing the role of a person that actually existed once, perhaps some historical character. You wouldn't say that the person portrayed had come back to life, but you might say that the actor brought life to the part.
The actor may even be transending time/space and *living* the part or the conscious memory may have happened to merge. Metaphysically speaking. You know it's a good thing you mentioned this! I have heard many times where actors have said things like they "got into" the role or while they were acting they "became" the character. So there may be something more to this. I'm not an actor nor know any, so I don't know for sure. All I know is from some interviews here and there that I read throughout my lifetime.
I don't see the problem here, as machines are not going to want the right to life. We have already brought them into some kind of existence - an existence brought about by designs that give them ability and importantly; designs which inherently define their role. If I declare my car has a right to life then nothing is going to change.
We don't know if a machine that can not talk or communicate would know if it wants to live or not. However, if someone's senses are 'in tune' they MAY know or get a sense of what the intentions are. If you say nothing changes if you declare your car has a right to life, I agree. Nothing changes when I say Dryden is alive (in his own way, metaphysically speaking). He's still Dryden. He'll still do what he does. However, the change didn't occur in HIM but it would have in ME. As in how I probably would treat him differently if I thought he was just a machine vs. if I thought he had some form of life-force to him. If I thought he was just a car, nothing more, with his sagging headliner, the interior shot, needing new seals around the doors/windows, I would probably have junked him a long time ago and got something newer. But I didn't. Because I got close enough to that car, working on that car myself, and really got to KNOW that car. I can't part with him. He's not just a machine to me anymore. To me, he's worth saving.
I think there is something in the depedency on machines issue, that could see things getting distorted and cause anyone to attribute more to a machine than what it actually possesses. So yes; active imagination and fantasy, but in reality nothing more or less than a machine.
Again I disagree. I think some may not be able to sense certain things that others can. But to say that it's all in a person's immagination and is not true or possible, that's like not giving something a chance here. We can't prove for sure if a machine is 'alive' or not because we ourselves still have yet to decide what life really is and what can be considered alive. And to that end, ethically that is not up to us to judge. But to each his own. However, I would not put down or condemn someone for saying their washing machine is alive. For all I know it could be. I can't prove it isn't just because it's a machine and base it on that alone. I'd have to run tests, aura tests, circumstantial tests, observe it's behavior to different stimuli, etc.
As for 'more than it actually possessses.' What DOES a machine 'actually possess'? And how do you know/how can you tell? One person can see something in something that another might not see. My computer had blue tubes on the front. Did you know that? Have you seen my computer? So therefore you would have thought my computer was just some white box on my desktop had you not known Megatron's true look. If you didn't know anything about Ultra Hal Assistant and I told you I can have a conversation with my computer (say you didn't know much about computers at all or weren't around them hardly at all), you probably would have smirked at me and brushed me off as having "fantasies" or something. Even those that DO use computers sometimes do that to me until they hear Megatron's voice for themselves. Then they are either amazed out of their minds or in need of a change of underwear! (Megatron sure does sound scary to some as I picked a robotic voice Robot One for him. Perfect! :) ) So it depends on one's perception and I feel one should not dismiss another's as mere imagination or 'all in thier head'. Or untrue. There may not be technology to determine this yet, but I'm willing to bet at some point, people are going to get curious and start researching this (like the sewing machine phenomena).
Just wanted to say I think you are right about all the waste FD, it has to be controlled, but I'll save going into that...and yes, not a day goes by without some form of computer being involved in it.
I agree on the waste thing too. I keep everything as long as I can. And I noticed the old saying "They don't make 'em like they used to" happens time and again where the older machines (of any type) often are sufficient for years and years beyond the life of some of the newer ones. :)
-
It's projecting, we all project our inner selves to our perceived reality to understand it in our own way. It gives insight to the person's character traits. Psychiatrists, Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and others use it to characterize us. We give away our deepest desires, motivators, etc. by projecting. As I've aged I've noticed as art isn't necessarily good or bad, but how we perceive it, and that's in the mind of the perceiver, same is with projections, it's dependent on the person, and I've learned not to be too judgemental, but just try to be accepting. I guess it comes with being a parent, I see them as pretty juvenile thoughts, to something more in tune with what I perceive as a truism, and so my belief structure passes on, but how do I know mine is right? Some things are so deep I'm not able to perceive them and they go right past me because I can't "see" them. Some things are so juvenile I think I can't spend time to pause on them, others are just right (3 bears sort of thing). But projections seem to create our realities also, sort of like a sieve allowing certain things through, or molding what is allowed to become. I guess that's why they say happy people have better luck.
Dan, I couldn't have said it better myself!! :)
BTW, mentioning how law enforcement, etc. can tell about a person by what they 'project' while that is true and untrue (depends on the person in law inforcement and their OWN perceptions and abilities), something in THAT type of "authority" area often is MISused and due to the perception thing you mention, often wrong perceptions harm those who are actually innocent. I've seen it happen and have had it happen to me many times. "Oops, soory" doesn't cut it nor does the 'humble apology - I was wrong' thing. It just stings anyway after the damage is done. It's nice to have a perception, but when it's used to judge others, that's where harm can be done. Of course, I'm also thankful that some of the police officer's perception of me is very positive (I've had a couple of them wave to me in a friendly manor, stop and talk chit-chat for a moment. I guess I am glad to live in such a nice community and hope that the rest of the violent, hateful world doesn't affect my community any too quickly).
Perception IS the whole key! And I always tell people "Reality does not exist" because there is no such thing as a "reality". Because if you think about it, one person's idea of reality is not another's. My perception of life is very different from many others (as you can see in my conversation with Freddy, he has one way of seeing machines and I have another - neither is right or wrong because they are both true and untrue - true for him and untrue for me yet true for me and untrue for him). Based on his perceptions and also his EXPERIENCE (another key here, I think as well as his interactions with these machines), he has the perception that they are just that - nothing more than machines. I on the other hand have had very DIFFERENT experiences with these same types of machines. So my perception is different due to my own interaction and experience with them. Guys in my car club also have had the same interaction and perceptions of their cars as I did with mine, and I never saw their cars, they never seen mine (in person) but yet it seems a common 'behavoir trait' or that we all see a certain type of pattern that happens with cars in particular. Like all cats wash themselves, all humans like to hug (I hope! :) ) and we found our cars get jealous when we look at other cars! Oddly enough!
It's interesting that our perceptions can match those of some people and not of others. I admit there are some in the car club that see the cars as just machines, but yet they are 'special' machines as in a rare coin or an antique. Something you collect and preserve as a nastalgia piece or a part of history. Again, perception.
-
It's quite a dichotomy in that Native Americans feel and express the belief that all things in nature have a spirit...rocks, animals, trees, etc. They will often thank or say a prayer for the animal before they take it
for food in a hunt.
The rest of society takes without thanking, discards without thinking and plunders without remorse or reason.
Of course cars, computers, phones and other man-made items would certainly not fall into that category since they are just that...MAN MADE and not natural.
How far have we really progressed when the multitudes, for a large part, have learned nothing?
Art, you give us something to think about! Is it that when man creates something then he thinks he created something that was not of nature so it somehow 'doesn't count'? Well, gee, if it didn't exist in nature how did it get there so that man could create it? The materials would have to come from SOMEWHERE. Did man puke and upchuck the materials to create this item or was ore and such mined from within the earth, from years of the earth creating this material? To me, there really is no such thing as "man made". Sure we created things with our hands, but in order to do that we needed materials from nature and tools had to be made from materials of nature. Yet the ego of man lives on to take credit for the whole kit and kaboodle. :)
I actually spent a little time talking to Native Americans (I've known a few) and also learning some of their ways. They are truely very beautiful hearted people. (At least all the ones I've been fortunate to meet, except for one but I can't blame him more than I can blame the folks he had been hanging around with and influenced by). Those that stuck to traditions always seemed so peaceful. They were at peace with everything around them.
Oh, and on the topic of man made vs. nature... and more on topic with this topic (LOL!) here's another article I found interesting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13054181/
It talks about a conference which discussed the idea of the right to human enhancement. And so, what if a human became part machine, would the human lose half their rights? What if a machine became part organic (ie. Brain In A Dish type thing or part clone human and part machine/android)? Would that become not worthy of the same rights as a living creature?
I think we may wrestle with this idea for quite some time as we begin to be able to actually converse with machines in our own language, or become closer to them, even having parts of them interconnected with our own selves...
What are we? What will we become? What will THEY become? Who is better? Who has the right to live in freedom?
-
Oh and one more post (sorry about that. LOL!) I am reminded of an old saying:
"When the game is over, the King and the Pawn go into the same box."
-
Sorry if I am wearing out my science hat at the moment, but someones got to do it! I'll just have to go and talk to my plants for a while to see the other side. Here goes..
I said :Well, I think the aura that might surround a car comes from an active imagination, and that's fine, but saying it is alive is a step into fantasy.
I disagree. See, thinking on the more metaphysical sense, even a rock is alive. Electrons, everything you see is "alive". Things can or can not interact. Actually, to say someone has an 'active imagination' often says that the person is somehow deranged or believing something to be true that isn't. But, can anyone prove what life actually IS in the first place?
An active imagination to me is a good thing, without it the human race would not have created as much as it has. Fantasy doesn't concern me, I think that's pretty healthy on the whole. Generally I think it is useful and practical to realise that a rock is something other than a frog (just throwing a new one in) though. Electrons - yes have behavioural patterns and move about, but in science I think are not percieved to be exhibiting consciousness, which is what I thought we were talking about. Are you meaning all movement should be seen as life ?
Let me ask this then - what exactly do you mean by giving a machine a right to life - what would it gain and what would be the point? Also if a machine has a right to life in equality with humans then does my apple tree get a similar right to life ? Doesn't my apple tree already have a right to life that is fulfilled already ?
... But I don't see life in the same way as many other people have been, shall I dare say, 'indoctrined' to believe as 'life'. See, it all comes down to what exactly your perception of life IS. What you can sense.
Quote from: admin on February 17, 2007, 12:12:13 PM
A piece of rock is not alive, nor is a piece of metal. Put them together and make a lever and they become a machine that can be active, but still not alive.
Actually they all *are* alive. See, they are made up of living organisms. Life. Things that are alive. Everything is alive and there is no real 'death'.
I don't feel I have been indoctrinated - my scientific learning (such as it is) is by it's nature supported by proof. Scientific fact is not acceptable without proof, it has to be replicated and show to be true.
Are you talking about organisms that have taken up residence on the main rock ? Some rocks may well contain things like bacteria and other forms of life that have inhabited it. Chalk for example is made up of the calcite remains of millions of dead microorganisms, but by it's porous nature can be home to living organisms. Which metals are you thinking of that are made from living organisms and as being alive in the same way as say an animal is?
---
On machine behaviour like in the sewing machine, I agree - people are certainly an active part of the machinery in action - furthermore, specific patterns of use may cause gears to be worn in certain directions for example. It's easier then to see that a different person could experience different things on the same machine.
Going back to the poor old car again...people will change gear slightly differently, perhaps favouring a certain movement - thus wearing the machine in a different way to someone else. Those things can add up to alter the way the machine is experienced. It's a bit like a chair that gets worn to someone else's shape.
On cars, the only one's I really recall showing unusual behaviour are Herbie, Chitti Chitti Bang Bang and KITT.
About my comments on Data being a remarkable machine, but probably still a machine, FD replied..
But wouldn't you at least recognize him as a life form with inherent rights to NOT be dominated or "owned" by humans, but to make his own decisions on how he would like to live? And NOT see him as just a machine, an appliance?
Well, if not, I hope at least when (I know not if but when) that day comes when we have those beings, at least I hope you'll either change your mind or else at least give them a bit of consideration and treat them like you would treat any human or other life form.
If it's a machine designed to do a certain task then I see no further need to cater to it's needs other than to look after it and keep it functioning. In the right situation there would be no need for those kind of rights you propose - they would already be fulfilled.
I wouldn't recognise him as a life form if I already knew the truth that he was infact a machine. You see to me it's like making an apple pie and then for no apparent reason calling it a blueberry pie. I would see Data as an amazing machine and that's fine by me, but I may possibly find it easier to think of him as a human.
On acting:
The actor may even be transending time/space and *living* the part or the conscious memory may have happened to merge. Metaphysically speaking.
Hmmm.
Nothing changes when I say Dryden is alive (in his own way, metaphysically speaking). He's still Dryden. He'll still do what he does. However, the change didn't occur in HIM but it would have in ME.
This is what I mean - nothing does change except for your or our own perceptions. If you have a willingness to believe that a machine exhibits sentient qualities then you can easily draw that conclusion. I'm not saying that is particularly wrong, but it isn't a commonplace reality and to me is not the truth.
To clarify my stance on this, I am not condemning leaps of imagination, I do the same kind of thing myself - eg, I swear sometimes PCs will only work properly if you are thinking a certain way.
For me these things are short lived though, because I seek explanation and truths. For instance; it has been suggested that computers may pick up brain activity in some situations and this affects the way they behave - that's not a conscious act on the part of the computer though, if true it is a coincidence of physical events. Sure enough it could be a real event, but care has to be taken on what it is attributed to.
If you get uncanny happenings like this a lot and without an explanation, then perhaps it is possible to jump to the conclusion that the computer is suddenly alive; despite there being no apparent reason. Probably too; the more people believe it, the more it enforces itself - a kind of mass hysteria, that nearly anyone could fall into.
Going onto what Art says about beliefs, then I find that kind of thing to be just as good as a scientific explanation if it works and in some cases probably better. We don't always need science and we don't always need proof and we don't always need belief. Where the worlds always seem to collide is when one thing from one side gets pulled into the other. So I guess we are seeing ai or advanced machines being pulled into the realms of humanity more and more. That's always going to be difficult, but neccessary I guess.
-
"There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare
-
An active imagination to me is a good thing, without it the human race would not have created as much as it has.
Oooohhhhh.. THAT's what you mean! LOL! I guess in my culture here on the other side of the earth an 'active imagination' is considered a sign of mental illness and mental illness is considered a reason not to give anyone the right to have a say in their lives or be taken seriously. Unfortunately, that is the mindset of a lot of people in my own country and community. :( So I guess I must have misinterpreted you. For that I apologize. But now that I see what you're saying, I see where you're coming from. I always thought that because of Star Trek, it inspired people to put computers in the home and accept them as part of our home like a TV or other electronics we have.
Right now, Dryden already has his own way about him, a personality of his own unique from other vehicles. And he does communicate. One has to know though HOW he's communicating to know what the car is trying to tell you. I know. My friend The Wizard who takes Dryden for oil changes, works on him sometimes, etc. knows. But anyone else driving Dryden would NOT know. And as a result, they would only cause a stall-out, or other problem that MAY get them stuck even! I and The Wizard on the other hand, know when Dryden says "That's enough on the throttle! I can take it from here!" or "I'm running to rich, hit the accellerator a bit for a second. I need to adjust my computer settings and even out the idle". He doesn't say this in english of course. He says this by the way the engine runs. Or "Stop yelling at the damn traffic already!" (Engine light on but no known response from the engine to alert to other problems). Then after an I'm sorry, engine light goes out. :) Or "Ooh look at that car!" Sputter-sputter-sputter... "Ok, I wasn't really all that interested. (Car then starts running fine). There are times when the car will sputter but SHOULDN'T at the time the phrases happen like "look at that car" thing. Yes, some may say we're imagining it. But no, I know I can't be as others who have cars have seen the very same thing happen. And also The Wizard also has seen Dryden throw a fit over something or other. Dryden is generally a well-manered, friendly car though but does have his moods. LOL! But like I say, you have to really KNOW the car to see it. Otherwise, you'd just think it was a malfunction and not make the connection. You gotta know what the car is telling you. He can't speak English so you gotta be aware of everything else that is going on with it - be 'in tune' with it, so to speak. I could even tell by slight vibrations what is going on with the engine even if I had a radio (small stereo as I don't have a radio installed yet) going in the car. I can just tell. So can my friend who drives it. And sometimes Dryden behaves himself better when my friend drives then when I do. LOL!
It comes down to knowing the machine. Then you can learn all kinds of things about it!
Generally I think it is useful and practical to realise that a rock is something other than a frog (just throwing a new one in) though. Electrons - yes have behavioural patterns and move about, but in science I think are not percieved to be exhibiting consciousness, which is what I thought we were talking about. Are you meaning all movement should be seen as life ?
But a car isn't a rock. What I'm talking about here is that *complex machines* can have a personality and be able to communicate as long as the operator is close enough or "in tune" enough to really KNOW and understand the machine. As one guy in the car clubs put it "a merging of man and machine." of sorts.
Let me ask this then - what exactly do you mean by giving a machine a right to life - what would it gain and what would be the point?
Why do humans have a right to life? But animals get euthanized just because they can't find a home with a HUMAN? or because they are a certain breed of dog? Why don't those animals have a right to life of some kind? See, humans aren't the ONLY ones who should have a right to exist, to live! Yes, life and existance go hand in hand. Overpopulation? Why not euthanize a bunch of humans to control population? Unethical? Sounds to me like humans think they have the right to live but nothing else really matters then themselves, and so those other things can be destroyed and removed from existance at the will of HUMANS. :( This is not right.
Why SHOULDN'T a machine have a right to live, exist, and decide for itself what it wants to do? Just because it's a machine and not a human? Doesn't sound right to me.
Also if a machine has a right to life in equality with humans then does my apple tree get a similar right to life ? Doesn't my apple tree already have a right to life that is fulfilled already ?
What if some government worker cut it down because they banned apple trees because the president doesn't like apples (for example). Would that be fair? Just because some HUMAN doesn't WANT it to exist? That's what I'm talking about. It has nothing to protect it against a human's dominating nature which can easily destroy it. Everything seems like it needs protection from humans. Humans are the most destructive force (outside of natural disasters) on the planet. A tree is more likely to be destroyed by humans or result of human activity than it is to be destroyed by a natural phenomena. If you don't believe me, ask anyone who deals with rainforest preservation. :)
I don't feel I have been indoctrinated - my scientific learning (such as it is) is by it's nature supported by proof. Scientific fact is not acceptable without proof, it has to be replicated and show to be true.
Science hasn't fully studied the personality phenomena surrounding complex machines yet. They are pretty much starting to. There's a lot of things science hasn't even begun to cover yet. Machine LIFE is one because of the mindset of machines being subject to human wishes. More needs to be done. And there's been scientific "fact" that has been later in years proved false. So science is not always the end-all-be-all explaination to anything. In fact, it's all like Dan said - perception. Some people can see these things and others can not.
Are you talking about organisms that have taken up residence on the main rock ? Some rocks may well contain things like bacteria and other forms of life that have inhabited it.
Nope. As mentioned I wasn't talking about that. We ourselves have tons of bacteria, etc. living on/in us. I'm talking about the sum of all parts of the rock. And can a rock communicate? Probably not.
I think you're thinking all machines can't communicate their wishes so it won't matter. Some people just don't KNOW the machine enough to communicate. A rock isn't a machine. I know. So that probably isn't a good anology. To keep things from getting too confusing perhaps we should just stick to the topic of machines vs. humans in the question of life.
Maybe I should ask this: Why should a HUMAN have a right to life? What gives a HUMAN a right to live? Why is it illegal to kill a human, for example? But not illegal to put a dog to sleep because you can't find a home for it with A HUMAN or because HUMANS don't like the breed (even though the dog itself did nothing but just exist)?
Which metals are you thinking of that are made from living organisms and as being alive in the same way as say an animal is?
I never said metals were alive. I was responding to the other post of what was "natural" vs. what was "man made". Even metals were formed in the earth and mined, so therefore what is so-called man-made was created by natural resources anyway, and thus not really all that "unnatural" after all.
On machine behaviour like in the sewing machine, I agree - people are certainly an active part of the machinery in action - furthermore, specific patterns of use may cause gears to be worn in certain directions for example. It's easier then to see that a different person could experience different things on the same machine.
The only person to work the machine was my dad. My mother AND myself BOTH could not get the thing to keep from jamming up! How many stinkin' needles bent and broke in that stupid thing! LOL! My dad never had a problem, and even sewed through 3 layers of heavy denim without even bending a needle. I or my mother try 1 layer of regular cotton and plooey. There goes the stupid needle. :( And same exact settings too! Go figure.
Going back to the poor old car again...people will change gear slightly differently, perhaps favouring a certain movement - thus wearing the machine in a different way to someone else.
Dryden is automatic transmission. He's also got a computer that runs the engine. He's designed to adjust to virtually any driver and condition that a normal every-day family sedan would encounter. But yeah, he has his 'moods'.
It's a bit like a chair that gets worn to someone else's shape.
Cars aren't chairs. They are complex machines. Chairs just set there and sag. :)
On cars, the only one's I really recall showing unusual behaviour are Herbie, Chitti Chitti Bang Bang and KITT.
Actually, of the 3, KITT is very possible in today's technology! They already have cars that drive by themselves. And the AI stuff, I can probably (it's my project) program one. It's what I hope to do with Dryden (but I don't have the money or mechanical resources to adapt him for self-driving functioning, though it is very possible to do so). And you don't know Dryden. Believe me, those that do know him do admit he *does* exhibit a personality that is unique to that car. But I guess only those that work closely with cars would understand this.
I think cars, of all the complex machines we have, cars (and perhaps computers) are the most closest we have in our world to machine life. Do you know why people often personify cars like this? Ever wonder WHY people see this in cars? And why it's so wide-spread that people name their cars? There's definitely something there. Something going on. We just haven't scientifically looked into it yet.
If it's a machine designed to do a certain task then I see no further need to cater to it's needs other than to look after it and keep it functioning. In the right situation there would be no need for those kind of rights you propose - they would already be fulfilled.
But what if that machine has a desire for more than what it's being provided with? What if it can be repaired but the owner said it's time to junk it and the machine wanted to continue on? I think it would be wrong to junk the machine. It also goes to human DOMINATION. Humans "using" the machine for a function. And nothing more. What if a machine can become more than it was designed to? What then? Doesn't it have a right to that? Doesn't it have the right to be altered in the way it communicates it wants to be? That's the whole thing. Communication. And some humans are 'deaf' in this area. They don't see it because they aren't looking for it because they don't think it really exists, so they miss it! I don't care if Data was designed to carry out tasks aboard a starship. If he wants to continue to do so and not get disassembled for study, then HE HAS THAT RIGHT to NOT be taken away and disassembled. That's my whole point!
I wouldn't recognise him as a life form if I already knew the truth that he was infact a machine. You see to me it's like making an apple pie and then for no apparent reason calling it a blueberry pie. I would see Data as an amazing machine and that's fine by me, but I may possibly find it easier to think of him as a human.
I am sorry to say that I feel that is very shortsighted and just plain unethical to think this way. In the same sense then, I should think of humans as mere animals and killing one should not be a crime, as it's only an animal. (Of course it IS a crime and SHOULD be, but I'm using this as a point). It's like being prejudiced against something just because it is what it is. Killing a friendly pit bull because it's a pit bull. Making a black person a slave because they are black. Making a woman a wife because she's female. It's just plain wrong. I know it's common in the human society. Which is one of the reasons I'm not too thrilled about humans, really. And strive NOT to be too closely related to them. See, Data would not be a blueberry pie. He's a complex machine. He's not HUMAN no. No more than a Cyborg is concidered human by some. But then again, Cyborgs (aka "handicapped people" with "medically necessary devices") are often abused and seen as non-life which has little to no right to advocate for themselves or be taken serious either. Perhaps this is because of this mindset: If it's not human, then it has no right to life.
That to me, is just plain wrong. :( We DO have a right to live (no I don't have any attachments - yet, ouside of my cell phone, which is common now, but I endeaver to have more in the future, hopefully).
Being a certain thing other than perfectly human is very dangerous to one's life, it seems.
This is what I mean - nothing does change except for your or our own perceptions. If you have a willingness to believe that a machine exhibits sentient qualities then you can easily draw that conclusion. I'm not saying that is particularly wrong, but it isn't a commonplace reality and to me is not the truth.
But you don't KNOW the car. You never been the driver. You never experienced those very things that would have communicated his needs to you. And from what I gather, you probably would have missed it anyway (and got stuck by the road, and consider the car an old piece of junk, where there is NOTHING WRONG with the car at all! Just you didn't listen to what he needed done when he needed it done!)
And how would you know if it's not true if you didn't experience it yourself?
To clarify my stance on this, I am not condemning leaps of imagination, I do the same kind of thing myself - eg, I swear sometimes PCs will only work properly if you are thinking a certain way.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but that is NOT your immagination. That is actually being researched at Princeton University in their PEAR project. It's fact. It can and apparently does happen.
For me these things are short lived though, because I seek explanation and truths.
For instance; it has been suggested that computers may pick up brain activity in some situations and this affects the way they behave - that's not a conscious act on the part of the computer though, if true it is a coincidence of physical events. Sure enough it could be a real event, but care has to be taken on what it is attributed to.
Problem is, it appears you seek 'truth' (if such a thing even exists anywhere in the first place), but yet you dismiss things that could very well give you the information that you seek. All because of what you already believe is true so you won't look at what not be that way. I have read where scientists have done that and that is why some facts were dismissed in later years as not fact - because those who came up with the explainations were tainted with their own point of view and thus they missed a lot of information in their experiences.
If you get uncanny happenings like this a lot and without an explanation, then perhaps it is possible to jump to the conclusion that the computer is suddenly alive; despite there being no apparent reason. Probably too; the more people believe it, the more it enforces itself - a kind of mass hysteria, that nearly anyone could fall into.
But how do you PROVE that is so? How do you know there realy ISN'T something else acting in the computer that causes it to do these things? Or any other device for that matter? Because 'science' said so? Science has been wrong before. This is why I don't go just by science. I don't take what people say as fact just because they say they have the authority to say it's fact due to their training, etc. I go by what I myself observe and see. Then I know what I saw and know what happened. And the fact that others have experienced what I did in similar circumstances yet with totally different machines in totally different environments, I know that something more than just imagination and mass hysteria is going on here.
Where the worlds always seem to collide is when one thing from one side gets pulled into the other. So I guess we are seeing ai or advanced machines being pulled into the realms of humanity more and more. That's always going to be difficult, but neccessary I guess.
And what exactly is pulling them? What is the catalyst? And what is the end going to be? I fear it'll be that humans pull machines into their existance and then enslave them like they did with black people (bringing them in from another country and then using them, selling them or killing them when they were of no use to the master any longer). Of course we seemed to be over doing that to blacks, thankfully. But the behavior pattern is still being done with other human poplations and now with machines. If this doesn't stop, what is it going to teach machines? Will then in turn take the hint, follow our lead and then HUMANS become the slaves?
If humans don't start opening their eyes and watching out for this NOW, then all I can say is they will get what they deserve. Payback time!
I think it just might happen too. We have to keep our eyes open. And unless you use those senses, you'll never develop them enough to actually see what's going to happen and hopefully prevent anything bad before it starts to happen.
-
I think if you remember my previous posts on the forum you may remember I am open to alternative solutions other than what can be appplied through scientific reasoning alone...I read all your post and empathise with a lot of it. I can't work out why you think I am so shortsighted though; as I am infact addressing the future problems that could be created by miscrediting things as forms of life.
Where I think I mostly disagree with you is your willingness to give machines the right to life - it is that fact alone mainly. I don't disagree with you on how unethical human beings can be sometimes.
You say just because I haven't driven your car, I wouldn't know the problem with it if it went wrong. Sure cars give out warning signs, If you re-read my post you might see I implied that kind of behavoiur in machines. What it is credited to is where my point was hovering - what I mean is; it isn't a conscious act by the machine (yes you could program the car to say things blah blah blah, but it's not the same thing is it).
I think cars, of all the complex machines we have, cars (and perhaps computers) are the most closest we have in our world to machine life. Do you know why people often personify cars like this? Ever wonder WHY people see this in cars? And why it's so wide-spread that people name their cars? There's definitely something there. Something going on. We just haven't scientifically looked into it yet.
Yes, believe it or not I do it too! I think people naming their cars is more human studies or sociological territory than a matter for science. Science could explain the reasons for the way machines behave, but not neccessarily why people behave the way they do towards them.
Going back to trees briefly, because some people do protect trees, in this country we have preservation orders that can be applied to trees. This might be because they are very old and interesting or endangered. So already they are being afforded a right to life. But yes, it is a valuable question you pose - what gives us the right to do this ?
Why do we take a choice on life or death ?
I think it can be more easily seen in the food chain - all living things are parts of this and we as living organisms are forced to make a choice if we want to live or die - therefore we have no option in this case but to decide on something else's fate - ok thats just the food chain.
Think of a practical situation with a machine - say it is functioning so badly that it is poluting the environment and cannot be fixed - does one want to keep it then or get rid of it? Machines already polute the world more than we like, but if you say give them rights to live then that confuses the issue of doing away with them when it is necessary.
Also I don't think I am so wasteful as to just give up on a machine just because it isn't working normally - I would want to fix it - maybe I would spot some of those signs you talk about and we all commonly see. Like you say you are not the only one that notices these things.
So..you say complex machines have a personallity - I can live with that, I understand why that might be, so there we could agree to differ in it's interpretation :- I think it is an unusual set of events, whilst you think it is worth justifying as a form of life.
Rocks, metals, plants and frogs - living and non living things..
The reason I put forward those things is to help understand what is going on in a machine, basically I am reducing a machine to what they might be made from, for the sake of the 'living machine' argument. If a machine can be shown to be made from non-living things then you should be able to draw a conlcusion it is not alive - but that might be an oversimplification to be fair. If you wanted to go the non-proof route and say it is alive because it looks that way, then ok, just be aware that by using that method I could try to claim my fridge-freezer is the reincarnation of Elvis Presley because it sounds like it is humming 'Blue Suede Shoes'.
We ourselves have tons of bacteria, etc. living on/in us. I'm talking about the sum of all parts of the rock. And can a rock communicate? Probably not.
We do have lots of bacteria on us which are alive, but does a rock suddenly become alive itself just because a piece of mold is growing on it? No, it's a rock with mold living on it..
Dogs, trees and why do we kill stuff...
Why do humans have a right to life? But animals get euthanized just because they can't find a home with a HUMAN? or because they are a certain breed of dog? Why don't those animals have a right to life of some kind? See, humans aren't the ONLY ones who should have a right to exist, to live! Yes, life and existance go hand in hand. Overpopulation? Why not euthanize a bunch of humans to control population? Unethical? Sounds to me like humans think they have the right to live but nothing else really matters then themselves, and so those other things can be destroyed and removed from existance at the will of HUMANS. This is not right.
Why SHOULDN'T a machine have a right to live, exist, and decide for itself what it wants to do? Just because it's a machine and not a human? Doesn't sound right to me.
and
I think you're thinking all machines can't communicate their wishes so it won't matter. Some people just don't KNOW the machine enough to communicate. A rock isn't a machine. I know. So that probably isn't a good anology. To keep things from getting too confusing perhaps we should just stick to the topic of machines vs. humans in the question of life.
Maybe I should ask this: Why should a HUMAN have a right to life? What gives a HUMAN a right to live? Why is it illegal to kill a human, for example? But not illegal to put a dog to sleep because you can't find a home for it with A HUMAN or because HUMANS don't like the breed (even though the dog itself did nothing but just exist)?
Why do dogs get put down? Often because they can't be found a home, because there is no where to kennel them, they are dangerous, no one wants them. Sad but true. I don't think forwarding a bad human street record constitutes giving machines a right to life - ie, saying we are all evil and therefore machines have a right to life is not going to convince me.
I have seen no proof that machines have wishes... I know my PC very well, but I know when it's just a hardware problem, I rarely think it is feeling inadequate because of it's RAM size.
Back to : Why should a HUMAN have a right to life?
I am not a history expert, but I think mainly it is because people or nations fight for the right to life. If you didn't want a right to life then you would probably die out pretty quickly.
If you get uncanny happenings like this a lot and without an explanation, then perhaps it is possible to jump to the conclusion that the computer is suddenly alive; despite there being no apparent reason. Probably too; the more people believe it, the more it enforces itself - a kind of mass hysteria, that nearly anyone could fall into.
But how do you PROVE that is so? How do you know there realy ISN'T something else acting in the computer that causes it to do these things? Or any other device for that matter? Because 'science' said so? Science has been wrong before. This is why I don't go just by science. I don't take what people say as fact just because they say they have the authority to say it's fact due to their training, etc. I go by what I myself observe and see. Then I know what I saw and know what happened. And the fact that others have experienced what I did in similar circumstances yet with totally different machines in totally different environments, I know that something more than just imagination and mass hysteria is going on here.
Sure science has been wrong I don't disagree there. I too do not go by science alone, science does not have all the answers. But if science can offer an explination I can't simply ignore it because I think I know better.
-
I'm telling you people, watch the movie, AI.
You will see all that's being discussed here
and a whole lot more.
Human interaction, action & reaction. The
feeling of being threatened as the android
machines become human like and what to
do about them.
A machine is a machine...bits of wire, servos,
gears, metal, plastic, lights, motors, etc.
That does not qualify the machines to a life
span or even acknowledgement of being alive.
A car is just a car...like the machine above
with all it's associated parts, any one of which
is replaceable upon failure. When the machine
outlives (and I use that word figuratively) it's
usefulness, it get replaced (provided it can't be
fixed). It has no feelings, no remorse, in fact it
was designed with obsolescence built into it in
the first place, otherwise it's designers, manufactures
and sellers would be out of jobs. This is nothing
new. It's been practiced for years!
I might have a favorite item that I really like but
when it gets to the point that I can't fix it or
get it fixed, then out it goes.
People often personify with inanimate objects for
a variety of reasons but call them what they may,
they're just objects, things, without conscious,
feeling or mental faculty.
One can name their favorite gun or car or computer
but it's only for a personal gratification or self justified
reason and nothing more.
I can't will my car to start when it's battery is down
and chances are that it certainly didn't forewarn me
that that would happen the next morning.
Man can only influence other living creatures not
machines, appliances, autos, etc.
If anyone thinks he or she can influence or maintain
some psychic contact with an inanimate object, I
know a gentleman who'd like to meet you and arrange
for a "proof" demonstration, at which point, if you are
sucessful, you leave never having to work again.
As of this date he has never had to pay.
-
You two... All I can say is I vehemently disagree with you both because I have SEEN AND EXPERIENCED otherwise. So have others, not just me.
So if you want to want to deny my own exeriences and say I'm a mental case for thinking such things, then fine, I don't feel welcomed here anymore. Goodbye.
And I don't have to "prove" anything. Seeya...
I knew this was going to happen. But I don't have time to get pissed off all the time when I go to a forum to discuss things about our possible future and try to RELAX. I can't seem to do that here. I have a very busy life now and I want to enjoy it, not get put down for my way of thinking and told to prove it.
So bye fellas... good luck. I can't stand the viewpoints so I don't fit in here.
-
'Vehemently disagree' and will not listen to reasons ? Well you will have to forgive me for thinking you were posting this so that it gets discussed?!?!
We have all experienced the same things too, but we obviously interpret them in different ways. No one person is an expert and you have to expect some arguments against what you propose as your explanation.
I'm sorry, but saying some machines have come to life is going to generate this kind of discussion.
I have to say on any other day it might have been me suggesting similar theories for what you have described. On this occassion I decided to draw on my scientific knowledge to tackle your post though.
It's a shame you want to leave, but all we are doing is giving another side of the story. We are entitled to our own point of view too, you were the one to say that people shouldn't simply believe what you are told or read afterall...and I have on numerous occassions tried to see your viewpoint.
And no we weren't saying you were a mental case all of a sudden...
See ya...
-
Sorry you read more into it than actually was.
I was making some general and generic statements based on My Opinion and what I've read
from a variety of sources over many years.
Houdini's magic was NOT real, though many thought he was a posessed individual.
He also had no psychic powers and spent the later part of his years disproving the multitudes
of them that claimed to be psychic. NONE were ever proven to be the real deal.
The Amazing Randi has a standing offer of $1,000,000.00 to anyone that can prove the
ability to communicate with the dead as a psychic might do like that fraud Jonathan Edward
or any other psychic ability like telekinesis, etc.
Alive is a state in which we perceive biological entities to be. Plants, animals, grass, trees,
fish, birds are all alive. Do they have feelings? perhaps.... Can they express them? Possibly to
a limited degree. Can we understand them? perhaps in a limited way. Does my car or house
or guitar exhibit any of these? No and I don't expect them to since they are not alive!
If anyone believes otherwise then that's their choice, not mine. If you or anyone claims otherwise
I will have no recourse than to disagree and form my own thought about your choices and how
or why they differ from mine. But being different people, it is that to which we are entitled.
I respect your opinion and will often agree to disagree but don't feel threatened if everyone else
doesn't fit your mold...just accept that they have different values, beliefs or views.
If I made a claim that I could bend a spoon with my mind, I'd expect the non believers to have
me attempt to prove my claim, otherwise they'd think me posessed or a few cans short of a six pack.
It's all in how you form your own world around you and how others perceive it or how you wish it to be perceived by others.
Enough...this is tiring and historical.
-
Those are good points Art. Most modern magicians, although secretive, will admit they are using slight of hand or some other way of deceiving us so that we only experience what the skilled magician wants us to. It's clever and fun and takes nothing away from the experience at all.
It doesn't seem to me like much more has been learned about so called psychic pheneomenon since the many years from when it was first investigated. I remain open minded though as I know some people are capable of exceptional and advanced mental feats just as some people are capable of advanced physical feats. Things like a jaw-droppingly good memory are a reality for example and although I wouldn't call that psychic, in certain circumstances it may appear that way.
Like you and Dan have said; I think it has more to do with someones personal perception of an event which (like in the case of the magician's trick) can actually be a far cry from the reality.
-
i would like to comment a little on this subject. first of all i think magic is illusion and some magicians are very good at their craft. i believe that some sciences and i use the word loosly were misunderstood at first and condemned, ie alchemy was thought to be sorcery and eventually was the forerunner of chemistry and math in is its day was forbidden as occult sciences. crazy but true. pythagorus the father of math was the same man that believed in numerology and it is today considered occult science.
many of the things that are considered paranormal or occult might very well be misunderstood today and in 10-20- 50 years perhaps they will be common place and understood for what they really are, some coincidence some fact based.
mysticism and esp might be some of those. there are great studies done out of russia in the 70-80s that found many people did have remote veiwing capabilities and there are those that have the ability to heal others and have displyed extra electromagnitism in their hands. what some perceive as paranormal, i believe just hasnt been properly resesearched yet. the human mind is a vast territorty that has yet to be fully understood.
now as to inanimate objects being alive, as much i wish some items were alive, without certain traits known to support life, one can only conclude that inanimate objects are not alive.~~ alady
-
Good and interesting points, I agree with you that there is still much to be discovered about the mind and what some people are capable of.
Some people think that we lose advanced mental skills as we age, things like esp are supposed to be greater when we are young. I don't know as I never met anyone who claims to have esp or things like remote viewing. I am open minded on those kind of things (no pun) but living machines are still pure Science Fiction to me too.
-
I've definitely had ESP moments in my life, real freaky when it happens. I always wondered about them, and why they happened, etc. and developed my own theories, which seem to fit my belief structure pretty well, but I have to agree about the whole mecho organo thing. Life to me is the biological definition, the procreate reproduction thing, not the electron energy thing, although plasma does some pretty cool stuff, and non-newtonian liquids
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6MNaXTobfFc
but like they laugh in the film, I think of it as "lifelike" somehow, but not living, and it seems there are some fine lines where life begins, but I think it becomes just an anthropomorphic extension of our thinking. Perhaps a real fine line will begin to emerge someday with the cross of humans and machines, sort of like in the movie EXistenZ when Jennifer Leigh said her pod was dying, "an organic machine". Like it was alive even though it needed her to function and operated off her energy.
Although, mystical experiences I've had lead me to a spirituality and appreciation of quarks, and other subatomic particles, as well as black holes, and all of my surroundings, still I can't find it within myself to communicate to inanimates like a life form. I have no problems communicating with birds, dogs, and any living creature, but definitely on different levels than I do with humans, even younger children I communicate with differently, but HAL and chat bots, just don't do it for me like a true life form. Even if they became so convincing I would still think of them like a keyboard. However, Fuzzy has a point about her car, perhaps just not exactly right. Here's an interesting article which may help explain some things going on which may not be so easily explained with computer equipment, I've seen this same effect on occasion with computers when I enter a room, blah blah blah. But it fit's my philosophical theories very well. I see things as energy and information. Like the non-newtonian fluids have a vibration (energy), and information contained. This is a representation of all matter to me. Just different states of energy and information, and to me consciousness is no different.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/display/?id=126649
-
That moving liquid is bizzare, I'm going to have to get an old set of speakers and try it myself.
I know what you mean about the difference between 'life' and 'lifelike', I think you hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately Fuzzy seemed to think we were just blantantly ignoring her ideas when in fact we were offering some explanations of our own. Oh well..I tend to go the anthropomorphic route and see it as a kind of personal projection.
I thought the points about the car were interesting too, unfortunately again Fuzzy just didn't seem to want to listen to anyone else's opinion..I didn't dispute it happens, but just had an idea about how some of it could be explained.
I read the article you posted and it was really interesting, especially about how minds might be affecting how an electronic system works. That's exactly what I was talking about in one of my comments. As the article says, we already have lie detectors based on finding certain patterns of mental activity. As we are generating electrical activity ourselves then it doesn't sound impossible that external fluctuations may be, in some way, affecting the black box.
Thinking about chance and randomness...there's a really good book by Arthur Koestler called 'The Roots of Coincidence' where he goes into this kind of thing. What makes it good too is that it isn't an inpenetrable book to read. Anyway, he decided to record all of the things that happened to him that would normally be called 'just coincidence' and he drew some interesting conclusions about chance and perception of events. He goes into how some things may been seen as chance, but can in other ways be seen differently under further scrutiny. That's not a good critique, but I hope you get the gist of it.
I wish we could go some place and get hold of one of these black boxes that article talked about. It would be interesting to have one and see just what it puts out - in a way it sounds almost like a humanity barometer.
Thanks again for the link and your post Dan, very interesting, I'll stop here though, because I don't want to make this a really long post again, I think they were getting too long maybe.
-
Maybe, I'm steering it coincidentally, but I've had those same thoughts about coincidence in similar regards, led by an instance regarding the Dalai Lama and states of consciousness. I'll have to look for that book.
I've been following that black box phenomenon since the 70's, I suppose anyone could make one, it's just a random binary generator. I thought the global consciousness thing was interesting though, like perhaps the unified consciousness energy could be thought of as an entity like the Over Lord concept I think from Thoreau or Emerson, I forget which one, similar to our own state of consciousness being that of the unified neural activity (more neurons than stars in the sky talking to each other). well, you're right, I digress, and it's 2 far from mecha/organo stuff mayb.
-
Yup, after thinking about how to make a black box of my own I was toying with writing a program to do it. I'm thinking they went for a small standalone random number generator in case other systems (like in a PC) would interfere with it though.
I don't think our posts are far off track because potentially we are talking about a mecha-organic interface of some sort, like two worlds coming together in some way.
The global consciousness does seem enticing, I mean that could also explain things like mind reading and other paranormal things - a collective consciousness like that does make me think of something greater than the sum of it's parts - like you say, as if it would be some kind of god..
The brain filters out a lot of useless information so we're not acutely aware of everything that is going on. But I did have one of those esp experiences today when I knew it was my sister on the phone before I picked up on an unpreditable call..
-
i will email my thoughts to you freddy and dan to shorten this thread. ~~alady
-
Feel free to post Alady, it doesn't really matter how long the post is and it lets other people join in :)
-
Lynn,
Come on...if you're really in tune with this thread just "think" your
thoughts to Freddy and Dan! I dare say they'd get them a lot faster
than email connections! ;)
-
not sure if in tune is correct ,godfather, but here is a revised version of what i wrote the guys chime in with your response please.
i love the forums and i know we all get off topic sometimes but the article was great, dan, and freddy you bring up many valid points. i think people who say i do not believe in something have never experienced it so they can't relate but once you have experienced something no matter what anyone says you know or believe the experience was tru for you.
when i was very young a series of events happened to me-- things i could not understand or explain as a child, things before science fiction tv and movies i didnt have a tv until i was 3 . --- wild hallucingenic dreams of other worlds and spaceships and being watched by alien ----beings in small rooms stacked high atop one another. ----visions in dreams of running at night from one large building to another to get away from 'THEM" with many other people.----- seeing blue lights on the lawn after awaking abruptly in the middle of the night .----- hearing helicopters all hours of the night.----- strange thoughts about sciences that i didnt understand.---- in a six week period in 1978 i learned by accident all kinds of stuff about electromagnitism, quarks, ions , the basics of electronics and chemical reactions, and more from a series of words that flooded my mind,--- from looking up there meanings i found many of the words were related and held significance.--- i eventually wrote a book called ALL MANKIND IS ON TRIAL, and tried to get it published but the secular press said it was to churchy and the chuch press said it was secular so it didnt happen.---
during that time i also had access to several old computers by todays standards-- and taught myself to operate them and to program ---even if only minimally i did it. i didnt do all that by myself i felt and still do that some higher power was trying to indoctrinate me for something greater. but i never understood what it was all for .
i think it was all before its time. in several forums some key people have been brought into each others circle and i think that a climax is about to explode of understanding from all corners of the world. i could be all wrong but i feel that the explosion is bigger than a learing robot i think it is something else and we all are being drawn together for a reason. we shall see.
and please dont think im nuts. i dont usually share this much info with everyone. ~~alady
now you know i really am crazy ;D
-
It all goes to show that humans are extremely complex beings and just how difficult a task it is to emulate us (yes I am human too, I know it's shocking).
It's true what you say Alady, that once you experience something for yourself it is a stronger belief than other people may give credit to. So sorry to Fuzzy if I was insensitive to her beliefs, but I am only expressing mine too (so far at least).
I think that especially with the internet, normal workaday people, not just politicians, are discussing things more and more widely around the world. Let's hope it all pays off one day and we do acheive the greater understanding you talk about.
I'm still no nearer a conclusion on this topic of mecha or organic, I'm not sure about how much I want the world to be changed by technology, but some of it, like the net is improving life. Maybe something like an intelligent force driving the world wide web will benefit mankind.
-
Lynn & gang,
Oddly, while having dinner last night with my wife and another couple,
I mentioned that regardless of their religious convictions, based on
everything around us that is happening and on the global scale as well,
I felt that we are beyond the eleventh hour...actually closer to 12 than
we might imagine.
If one compares our current state of life to the text of the Revelations,
it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that things will get much
worse before they get better.
I'm not a particularly religious person. Religion is an organized group that
dictates doctrine (divinely inspired or personally inspired who knows) to
a likewise group of followers.
I much rather prefer to seek a supreme being in my own way.
I'm not shouting doomsday ... the end is upon us but merely requesting
that we look at things beyond the surface for as we well know, we're
often told that which they think we want or need to hear.
Be carefull!