MennoniteHobbit Posted February 15, 2004 Share Posted February 15, 2004 Personally, I don't think that machines can think. They do what we order them to, right? Even if we program to have like a "random circuit" it just wouldn't work as well as organic brain, like the one I have right here... oops! lost my brain there.... [/side tracking]. Either way, robots have to be controlled at one point or another, such as programming. We have to program the robot before it can do anything. Otherwise it's just a piece of junk, decorated scrap metal. And yes, I do think of thinking as occurring in a TRUE brain, not some synthetic crap that we make look good... So, if a robot's programming "brain" rewrites itself over and over, it would have to have A LOT of memory... just think, one bit of human memory digitized... how large would that be? 2GB? more? 5 senses, too. But we can overcome the size portion, because of upcoming working bionanotechnology. The power supply for the robot has to be big, because thinking takes a lot of power if it's not organic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit because thinking takes a lot of power if it's not organic... What's your source for THAT bit of info? A computer can handle more tasks in a day than we can handle in a year. Seems like handling thought wouldn't be a major need on power or memory, it's just a matter of understanding HOW thought occurs in the first place, and how to replicate it. I'm slightly torn as to whether or not it's possible. I'm going to say maybe Are we so selfish as to deny more intellegent beings life, only because we want to live? Damn right we are. The number one basic instinct that is hard-wired into our brains is our will to survive, not just as individuals, but as a species. Why would we actively seek out our own demise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior Why would we actively seek out our own demise? For a greater purpose. If we can create machines that can think better and faster then us, why not? Do we not give up things for our children, so that they will do better in life? Since we do, cant we just think of robots like our own children- which could end up requiring us to receed from power? Frankly though, I'd much prefer it that we could live in a future much akin to that in I, Robot. I'd rather stay alive then rot in the ground, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit Personally, I don't think that machines can think. They do what we order them to, right? Even if we program to have like a "random circuit" it just wouldn't work as well as organic brain, like the one I have right here... oops! lost my brain there.... [/side tracking]. Either way, robots have to be controlled at one point or another, such as programming. We have to program the robot before it can do anything. Otherwise it's just a piece of junk, decorated scrap metal. And yes, I do think of thinking as occurring in a TRUE brain, not some synthetic crap that we make look good... So, if a robot's programming "brain" rewrites itself over and over, it would have to have A LOT of memory... just think, one bit of human memory digitized... how large would that be? 2GB? more? 5 senses, too. But we can overcome the size portion, because of upcoming working bionanotechnology. The power supply for the robot has to be big, because thinking takes a lot of power if it's not organic... Brains, IMO, are just a large amount of cells, that when put together, create something called "consciousness". Each of these cells have functions. If we can duplicate such cells that can do everything the original can, we pretty much would have succeeded in making them, albeit a cell made of different material. About the power supply thing. Humans take in food, digest them, and blood brings the digested food to the cells, where combustion occurs in the mitochondria by burning food with oxygen from the lungs. There, the food is converted into energy that can be used by our bodies . Can you say that human beings do not need as much power for X amount of thinking as a machine? So what if it is not organic? No big deal. The robot can just "consume" food, or something else made artificially to sustain the robots. Pretty much the same thing? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid_Allanon Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 Are we so selfish as to deny more intellegent beings life, only because we want to live? Obviously. I wouldn't want something created to kill me. That would be foolish. If we can create machines that can think better and faster then us, why not? Do we not give up things for our children, so that they will do better in life? Why do we give up things for our children? Because we love them. Sure, creating intelligent machines would be great, but not at the expense of our lives. I wouldn't give up a single thing to a machine which is neither my flesh and blood, nor close to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 Originally posted by Druid Allanon Obviously. I wouldn't want something created to kill me. That would be foolish. firstly there're a lot of things we could creat which could "kill us all" .. no need of "intelligence" or "AI" for that. and there's only a small possibility that this is gonna happen. there is even less possibility to that if we only build some "thinking brain". Why do we give up things for our children? Because we love them. Sure, creating intelligent machines would be great, but not at the expense of our lives. I wouldn't give up a single thing to a machine which is neither my flesh and blood, nor close to me. i am pretty sure there are people who arent your "flesh and blood" but are from "flesh and blood". the "close to you" fact you mentioned depends a) to the "current" idea of such machines and b) you dont know what such a "machine" would be like. or do you? also.. c) mankind is not the center of life or the universe or whatever. who are we to deny the possibilities of "life spreading itself" or it's effects? also who says, that without humans there would be no life? or if humans ever "fail" (which musnt be "our fault" btw..), isnt it still quite possible that there be "someone" after us and if it's "only" another buch of primates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid_Allanon Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 firstly there're a lot of things we could creat which could "kill us all" Hmm... I take it you mean things like nuclear weapons? You have a point there. who are we to deny the possibilities of "life spreading itself" or it's effects? I'm not against 'life spreading itself', but if it's at the expense of the lives if humans, yes, I'd do my best to prevent it. You may not want to live, but I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 Originally posted by Druid Allanon Hmm... I take it you mean things like nuclear weapons? You have a point there. I'm not against 'life spreading itself', but if it's at the expense of the lives if humans, yes, I'd do my best to prevent it. You may not want to live, but I do. i'm human, i'm living, i am part of "life" i am a iving creature. so per definition of life, i want to live, yes, of course!! but we as humans are a quite cool "construction" if you like, but we are nothing very special. we only are one form of life, and no matter what we do, shooting a weapon or planting a tree, there is quasi no difference to a primate using a stick to get the ants or a bird catching a fish and so on: after all, all of those "happenings" are just an "effect" caused by a "thing" we call life. and mainly this "effect" leads to one thing: "spreading of life". or at least is an attempt to do so. that would be my point when i ask: who are we to deny the possibilities of "life spreading itself"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid_Allanon Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 Originally posted by RayJones i'm human, i'm living, i am part of "life" i am a iving creature. so per definition of life, i want to live, yes, of course!! but we as humans are a quite cool "construction" if you like, but we are nothing very special. we only are one form of life, and no matter what we do, shooting a weapon or planting a tree, there is quasi no difference to a primate using a stick to get the ants or a bird catching a fish and so on: after all, all of those "happenings" are just an "effect" caused by a "thing" we call life. and mainly this "effect" leads to one thing: "spreading of life". or at least is an attempt to do so. that would be my point when i ask: who are we to deny the possibilities of "life spreading itself"? Oh, I see. I apologise for misinterpreting your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.