Androids Versus Humans

[JosephM]

That may be true Mike. However, what is there to stop a programmer from programming in his own intentions and meaning except a better knowledge of how it works.

[JosephM]

people

 

But, the evidence is that depressed people see reality more accurately. That is why they are depressed.

 

Myron

 

I certainly am not qualified to debate that point. Yet it would seem to me that the advantage in using androids is to avoid such disfunctional behavior although it probably could be programmed with intelligence to recognize it in humans and prescribe a fix.

[JosephM]

I don't think 'meaning' is what computers work with, but quantitative (measurable, external, objective) values. In other words, it is all mechanical. Likewise, they do not experience anything, but respond mechanically according to quantitative processes. There is no theoretical point where it acquires meaning or experience. A computer can 'call it' damage if it is programmed to do so while avoiding some objectively measurable force. But at no point does it have a subjective experience of saying 'I want to avoid pain'. At no point is it having an internal intentional state where it doesn't want to get hurt.

 

Yes computers don't work with meaning but meaning can be programmed in. Software programming is totally flexible. We have genetics built in that is much of our programming. Computers can interpret data in accordance with software which can allow it to be programmed to avoid pain. Sure you can probably say it can't feel pain, but what is pain but a stimulus and a programmed reaction to it?. A computer can be programmed to sense degress of stimulus and interpret it anyway the programmer programs it to be experienced. he can even put in some random irrational actions to the stimulus to chose from but why copy the dysfunctional aspects of humans when creating an android.

[minsocal]

Yes computers don't work with meaning but meaning can be programmed in. Software programming is totally flexible. We have genetics built in that is much of our programming. Computers can interpret data in accordance with software which can allow it to be programmed to avoid pain. Sure you can probably say it can't feel pain, but what is pain but a stimulus and a programmed reaction to it?. A computer can be programmed to sense stimulus and interpret it anyway the programmer programs it to be experienced. he can even put in some random irrational actions to chose from but why copy the dysfunctional aspects of humans when creating an android.

.

To avoid pain is to avoid compassion.

[Mike]

Hi Joseph,

 

The nature of the mind is probably the most perplexing question of all. I do think you're right in that we don't know what's possible, in the sense that machines could very well become so complex that they begin to exhibit meaningful behavior comparable to humans. But I really do think that this transition would be as much a mystery as our own mind is.

 

I really tend to think that reality itself is mindful, meaningful and emotional in some sense. If robots ever manifested this quality, I think it would not really be because of programming but because of the spiritual nature of our existence to begin with. You can't get more out of a system than is already there.

 

Whitehead taught that cause and effect is not merely mechanical but involves real subjective, feeling influence, analogous to how our feelings are efficacious.

 

But I think it remains at least true in principle, that 'computation' in the abstract -- that is, programing, computation, machinery, as such -- do not work with meaning or experience anything. That is to say, even if we created a machine that could feel, its feeling could not be explainable by the machinery alone. Pain for instance is more than registering a pattern and formally 'reacting' to it. Interpretation -- meaningful, intentional interpretation that involves first-person thinking, conceptualization, etc. -- are not what computers are doing when they 'interpret'. So if a computer did experience pain, it would not be because it is a "computer", but because it is a mindful subject.

 

Peace,

Mike

[JosephM]

Yes Mike , I agree with your last post and i don't think we want androids to be human. We want them to serve us. In my view, it would be silly to program them to have emotions and think as we do and find meaning themselves.. It is true " that even if we created a machine that could feel, its feeling could not be explainable by the machinery alone." Of course not, because it requires a programmer, just like we require a programmer to put in such things in us so we can find meaning. And it also seems we feel, and our feelings are also not explainable by our self alone.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I think the problem here is that we're using two different meanings of the words 'meaning' and 'experience' as if they were the same. There's a difference between say, programming a robot to process patterns of information about wavelengths of light, and programming a robot to subjectively experience the beauty and inexpressible meaning of a sunset. Sure, you can program a computer to mindlessly spit out this output when it registers on its machinery a certain pattern corresponding to a sunset: "My, how moving! I makes me contemplate the cosmos and wonder if there's more to my life than meets the eye." But the computer will not be thinking that, feeling that, or finding any meaning whatsoever in that pattern. The meaning is there only at the other end when we find something meaningful in the output.

 

But would it really be that different than how humans discover meaning? Contrary to what fundamentalist Christians claim, there is no universally accepted definition of the meaning of life that you discover in a vacuum but what your purpose in life is is "programmed" into you by your culture, family, friends, religion, and life circumstances. A fundamentalist Christian who grew up in Arkansas going to Sunday potluck lunches at their local Baptist church may have a completely different outlook on the meaning of life than say a liberal atheist growing up in a gay friendly Massachusetts does or something. We may choose how to respond to our purpose but our purpose is "programmed" into us just as much by our families, friends, our spiritual mentors, our role models, etc. and I don't see how that would be that radically different than an android running on say some form of advanced self-learning software.

[Mike]

Hi Neongenesis,

 

But would it really be that different than how humans discover meaning?

 

I could scarcely imagine it being more different.

 

Contrary to what fundamentalist Christians claim, there is no universally accepted definition of the meaning of life that you discover in a vacuum but what your purpose in life is is "programmed" into you by your culture, family, friends, religion, and life circumstances.

 

Well, this is certainly true. But there's "programming," and then there's programming. Computers work with vacuous formal operations and manipulation. There is no intentional content associated with this. Human meaning is not merely formal but experiential, intentional, and subjective. It has intimate content and makes associations based on real meaning and value.

 

and I don't see how that would be that radically different than an android running on say some form of advanced self-learning software.

 

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue, as I think they're only similar by way of analogy, not in actual content.

 

 

Peace,

Mike

[Neon Genesis]

The question then becomes though if androids shouldn't be counted as humans, what impact would this have on robot ethics? Would it be acceptable for humans to enslave androids and treat them as inferior because they're not human? Would it be ok for a married man to have sex with a woman android since she's not a "real" woman? Would it be acceptable to hurt androids that look like children because they aren't "alive?"

[GeorgeW]

Before we could ever program computers to emulate human self awareness, emotion, imagination, empathy, love, hate, revulsion, craving and the like, we would have to understand how these function in our own brains. Since we are a long way from understanding this, we are even farther from being able to program it in machines. What we have now are abstract theories and rudimentary capabilities of seeing where the physical lights are going on and off when exposed to stimuli.

 

Since a number of human behaviors and attitudes are motivated at the core by biological factors like hunger, thirst, the urge to reproduce, etc., I am not sure it would be even possible to replicate them in a physical machine.

 

Not only are we hampered by scientific knowledge, we also limited in this quest by ethical considerations. We cannot do the kind of experiments in which we alter the brains of one group and compare the results with a control group.

 

George

[minsocal]

Joseph,

 

I think what you are describing is like a human reflex response which does not require the same kind of "knowing" as a planned response.

 

Myron

[JosephM]

Joseph,

 

I think what you are describing is like a human reflex response which does not require the same kind of "knowing" as a planned response.

 

Myron

Perhaps that may be the case..

[JosephM]

Mike and Myrion,

 

What do you think or make of this statement by Dr. David Hawkins ?

 

" The phenomena of life are not being caused by anything or anyone at all. It is at first sometime disconcerting to realize that all the events of life are impersonal, autonomous interactions of all the facets of prevailing conditions of nature and the universe. These include bodily functions, mentations, and the value and meaning the mind places on thoughts and events. These automatic responses are impersonal consequences of prior programming. "

 

When we watch our thoughts it does seem obvious to me that we are listening to all our programming and that there isn't an inner 'me' causing all this stream. Do you think that the mind is really acting out of volitional choice? One can demand the mind to stop thinking and it is obvious the mind ignores our wish and goes right on doing its thing.

 

I think this might relate to our discussion.

 

Joseph

[GeorgeW]

Another obstacle to this idea is that computer and brains are fundamentally different mechanisms and operate quite differently. I have read where they have been compared with a sundial and a clock which share almost nothing in common except their function. Computers are great at retaining volumes of data, brains are great at pattern recognition.

 

I don't think we could train a person to retain every social security number by name and date of birth of every American citizen. Likewise, attempts at computer generated communication to date cannot even come close to that of a normal 10 year old. Writing programs to distinguish sociolinguistic variation would be extremely difficult, if even possible. Often, it only takes a few sentences for us to know a great deal about a strangers education, ethnicity, social class, region of origin, etc. The complexity of issues like this are such that linguists can't agree on a single theory much less be able to program a model into a computer. Yet, humans do it easily and intuitively.

 

George

[JosephM]

George,

While it may be true at present that communications may not come close to a 10 year old, i believe technology is headed to a point where that will be rapidly exceeded beyond your imagination. Computers currently recognize patterns of people and objects and are able to access remote databases that can identify millions of people by their features faster and more accurately than humans. This is presently used in some foreign cities to identify criminals on the street corners as they pass by. Secondly data can be fed in such as entire encyclopedias in a matter of seconds or minutes and they can be educated in a fraction of the time required by humans and with no memory loss. Personally, i don't think we are far at all from the point where computers will outshine the intellectual capacity of man in such things as medical advice, prescribing medications and a host of other things in various fields. They already do a superior job in building automobiles in modern factories than humans. (robotics)

Joseph

[Neon Genesis]

And things will get really complicated when we start replacing body parts with advanced robotic limbs like for injuries and such if we ever do get that far.

[JosephM]

Something else i was thinking, the limitations of size of the android because of the amount of memory and storage space required can easily be overcome just by using a central bank of computers that could take up an entire building. All the android needs is a fast wireless hyper link connection to it. This is similar to our access on the internet except their data base would be limited to androids.

[JosephM]

George,

this entire post was dictated by my voice talking into my droid x smartphone. Both speech and voice recognition is advancing rather quickly. I am personally amazed at the advancement of technology. just a few years ago, I wouldn't have been able to do this. It even gets the punctuation marks and spelling correct.

Joseph

 

PS. Well almost. I forgot to say period and comma twice so it didn't capitalize the beginning of the next sentence and I put them in myself. My error, not the Droid's.

[GeorgeW]

Joseph,

 

There is no doubt that computers can store and process much more data than the human brain. But, just processing tons of data is not the same process that the human brain goes through.

 

Would a computer be able to distinguish a high-class person from a working-class person based on a picture? You could do it in an instant without even knowing what criteria you applied. Could a computer determine that a Michelangelo painting is better quality than my granddaughter's kindergarten drawings? From whose perspective, an art critic or the family? How would a computer evaluate the beauty of a sunset vs. that of a trash heap?

 

We make so many subjective evaluations that depend on our personal genetic makeup, our social milieu, our individual experiences. I don't see how these can be programmed into a computer. Could a computer change the way an individual changes as a person proceeds through life? We don't even know what factors or the strength of the factors that cause a person to change as they age. Do we all change the same given the same inputs? How would we even begin to put these variables into a computer program?

 

George

[Mike]

Mike and Myrion,

 

What do you think or make of this statement by Dr. David Hawkins ?

 

" The phenomena of life are not being caused by anything or anyone at all. It is at first sometime disconcerting to realize that all the events of life are impersonal, autonomous interactions of all the facets of prevailing conditions of nature and the universe. These include bodily functions, mentations, and the value and meaning the mind places on thoughts and events. These automatic responses are impersonal consequences of prior programming. "

 

When we watch our thoughts it does seem obvious to me that we are listening to all our programming and that there isn't an inner 'me' causing all this stream. Do you think that the mind is really acting out of volitional choice? One can demand the mind to stop thinking and it is obvious the mind ignores our wish and goes right on doing its thing.

 

I think this might relate to our discussion.

 

Joseph

 

I think Hawkins is probably right in his analysis of there being no separate self 'behind' such workings (though even if he's right, I'm not sure if he's right for the right reasons). The problem is that none of that actually explains what mind, meaning, value, etc., are. Whatever he thinks of the causes of phenomenal experience, he can't reduce experience to such causes per se. The mind still 'places meaning and value', a role that no computer can even theoretically accomplish. A computer behaves according to automatic programming, for sure, but it could never come to a "disconcerting realization" that "all the phenomena of life" are autonomous reactions (computation has no phenomenology associated with it).

 

That is, unless, again, we assume that 'mind' and 'meaning' are already fundamental to the nature of existence, in which case computers may indeed have some phenomenology associated with them. But that's beside the point, because that phenomenology wouldn't be rooted in its 'programming' so much as the very nature of existence. A tree or a rock would then have some subjective reality, as well.

 

Peace,

Mike

[JosephM]

Joseph,

 

There is no doubt that computers can store and process much more data than the human brain. But, just processing tons of data is not the same process that the human brain goes through.

 

Would a computer be able to distinguish a high-class person from a working-class person based on a picture? You could do it in an instant without even knowing what criteria you applied. Could a computer determine that a Michelangelo painting is better quality than my granddaughter's kindergarten drawings? From whose perspective, an art critic or the family? How would a computer evaluate the beauty of a sunset vs. that of a trash heap?

 

We make so many subjective evaluations that depend on our personal genetic makeup, our social milieu, our individual experiences. I don't see how these can be programmed into a computer. Could a computer change the way an individual changes as a person proceeds through life? We don't even know what factors or the strength of the factors that cause a person to change as they age. Do we all change the same given the same inputs? How would we even begin to put these variables into a computer program?

 

George

George,

 

From my programming experience, YES. All that can be programmed in. If you can put in words the process by which you want the computer to analyse what it sees, it can be written in software code. The only problem i see is that it is necessary to understand the process to write the code. I wrote code for P&G and Armco Steel and General Electric and anything they could explain in words i could write and implement in software. So to me the answer is yes if we know how the mind works we can program a computer to operate and perform those functions including emotions if we wanted but to me that would not make sense.

 

Your genetic makeup is written in your DNA. If we wanted and understood it better, we could write it in software. We can program in social structure and also teach it to analyse painting by judgements based on stored past analysis by humans and results that would be more accurate than human memory analysis and it could modify its analysis based on inputs from recognized artists and such. Yep. It can do all these things if you got the time to program it. .

 

Joseph

[JosephM]

 

I think Hawkins is probably right in his analysis of there being no separate self 'behind' such workings (though even if he's right, I'm not sure if he's right for the right reasons). The problem is that none of that actually explains what mind, meaning, value, etc., are. Whatever he thinks of the causes of phenomenal experience, he can't reduce experience to such causes per se. The mind still 'places meaning and value', a role that no computer can even theoretically accomplish. A computer behaves according to automatic programming, for sure, but it could never come to a "disconcerting realization" that "all the phenomena of life" are autonomous reactions (computation has no phenomenology associated with it).

 

That is, unless, again, we assume that 'mind' and 'meaning' are already fundamental to the nature of existence, in which case computers may indeed have some phenomenology associated with them. But that's beside the point, because that phenomenology wouldn't be rooted in its 'programming' so much as the very nature of existence. A tree or a rock would then have some subjective reality, as well.

 

Peace,

Mike

 

Mike,

 

Perhaps your last paragraph has spoken for me. And i would add the programmer can root in anything he wishes. Mind meaning and value are what ever you give them. Or perhaps whatever the programmer has programmed in.

 

PS Is not a tree or rock as much a part of the whole as we? Are there really parts to the Whole? Is Reality One? Is there a volitional "I" or is it all perhaps impersonal aspects of consciousness giving value and meaning where there is in reality none? Just some questions to sort out.

[GeorgeW]

From my programming experience, YES. All that can be programmed in. If you can put in words the process by which you want the computer to analyse what it see, it can be written in software code. The only problem i see is that it is necessary to understand the process to write the code. Joseph

Joseph,

 

Yes, I think that is the key; understanding the factors and processes that influence human behavior. We haven't even scratched the surface of this. The complexities of our minds are, . . . well, mind blowing.

 

This also assumes, BTW, that there is no free will. It assumes that with all the same inputs (genetics and experience) that each of us would behave precisely the same. Can we say that with any certainty?

 

George

[JosephM]

Joseph,

 

(snip)

This also assumes, BTW, that there is no free will. It assumes that with all the same inputs (genetics and experience) that each of us would behave precisely the same. Can we say that with any certainty?

 

George

 

George,

While it may say or assume we have no free will in a sense of the meaning of the word truly free why would that assume that we wouild all behave the same with the same genetics and experience? We still occupy different space as humans and cannot therfor have the same view and experience of things regardless of genetics. In my view, your hypothetical presentation is not possible so there is no answer. Besides hypotheticals have no existence , in my experience, of reality.

[minsocal]

Mike and Myrion,

 

What do you think or make of this statement by Dr. David Hawkins ?

 

" The phenomena of life are not being caused by anything or anyone at all. It is at first sometime disconcerting to realize that all the events of life are impersonal, autonomous interactions of all the facets of prevailing conditions of nature and the universe. These include bodily functions, mentations, and the value and meaning the mind places on thoughts and events. These automatic responses are impersonal consequences of prior programming. "

 

When we watch our thoughts it does seem obvious to me that we are listening to all our programming and that there isn't an inner 'me' causing all this stream. Do you think that the mind is really acting out of volitional choice? One can demand the mind to stop thinking and it is obvious the mind ignores our wish and goes right on doing its thing.

 

I think this might relate to our discussion.

 

Joseph

 

Joseph,

 

I have about 20 years experience in programming. For 16 of those years I worked for a company that designed and manufactured computers. The debates between the hardware and software engineering groups was often informative, and sometimes amusing. Some of the debates were over whether it was best to implement a new feature with hardware or emulate the feature with software. Hardware is faster, software slower but easier to modify. The human brain is similar. Some functions are executed by hardware, some through learning. But, hardware is stil necessary for learning to occur and, in some cases, is selective.

 

That aside. Speaking of computers, in one heated exchange, the head of engineering exclaimed "But it was humans who invented this darn contraption in the first place ... God help us understand what we're doing!"

 

I'm not really sure what Hawkins means by "prior programming". It sounds like a Blank Slate stance and I'm not sure why nature evolved all of this stuff running around in my head for no reason at all.

 

Myron

 

P.S. This program is telling me I am almost out of posts that I can make today.