Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Improbability
Again I reinterate: Please no II! II is Roman for two! I'm not a two! If you can't say "Nate," use "NTG."
|
Then don't call me Val
'Val' is short for 'Valentine', which is neither my real name nor the name I go by anywhere on the web.
'Valium'/'CV', or if you prefer formality, 'Chancellor' will do nicely.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite Improbability
1) Well, robots today don't count as self-aware OR living because I'd define those two terms as:
Self-aware: Posessing the knowledge of who and what you are, what you can and can't do (in general), and knowing what is required to stay functional.
Living: Experiencing a life. "Life" being defined as a state of experience and growth, influencing other lives.
|
I thought that this thread was rather more forward-looking than just the present...?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite Improbability
2) Well, to use a human analogy (and what else do we have, really?), we already influence how each other thinks. Media, hackneyed saying, fivers, etc. are all used in an attempt to make each other "wear our shoes," for lack of a better term. If there really are computers that satisfy 1), then we have the right to influence their thoughts, and they'd have the right to influence ours.
|
Yeah, it's all a method of control, man!
Seriously, do we have the right to PROGRAMME GUIDELINES into a thinking brain.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite Improbability
3) Okay, put on your explorer hats and prepare to dash out of the Temple of Doom, dudes and dudettes! Uh, who would take away our "right" to create thinking robots? After all, if we can create machines capable of genuine thought, that'd be the final nail in the coffin of evolution. God would be superfluous. Souls wouldn't exist. After all, if mechanical machines can think, then so can organic machines, and we're just the result of millions of years of trial and error by random forces trying to slap a thinking machine together.
|
Nope. Assuming there is a God, what right do we have to create life? Surely it would be His divine right, and His alone? Obviously I can't prove this, but neither can you disprove it. And call me Pascal, but I'd rather not risk it.
There's also the question of whether we can create life itself, and also, why do we *need* androids and sentient robots?
Re: the second part of part three: Prove Godless evolution to me without reference to the phenomenal (see also: Kant).
