Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

“Am I <manufactureda bio-organic robot>?”

The divine construction thing was just giving a viable scenario where it could be true.

“Am I <a metallic computertiny robot riding in a flesh suit>?”

I'm talking literally here, tiny robot controlling a human-shaped suit. Think inverted puppet. It is done with wires.

“Am I <really making any distinction at all>If the robot acts in all ways human, why does it matter?”

It's actually an old scenario re: free will and determinism, asking the question that if a deterministic world and one with free will has absolutely identical events, is there really a difference? That scenario usually uses zombies, though.

Anyway, words in mouth and suchlike. I meant robot when I said robot.

[Fenrir]

Anyway, words in mouth and suchlike.

No, I am not putting words in your mouth, I am examining what you mean when use them, and suchlike.

I meant robot when I said robot.

I do not doubt that, but it has not been clear what you meant when you said robot.

What is a robot?

[Frumple]

What is a robot?

Wikipedia answers many questions.

[Fenrir]

What is a robot?

Wikipedia answers many questions.

You are neither mechanical nor virtual, so you are not a robot. As you seemed to suspect that you might be, I had supposed that you meant something else by robot.

[Frumple]

Your concept of mechanical is apparently more limited than mine. You can quite accurate describe the functioning of a biological entity (such as humans) in mechanical terms -- the only meaningful difference between metal and flesh is composition, which is of little import. There's nothing besides the doing (and figuring out how) stopping someone from building a robot from the ground up out of organic components.

So you can quite accurately refer to a human as a robot, if you feel like it. Even without that, that doesn't say anything about tiny robot riding fleshpuppet -- a sufficiently small (let's go nano!) robot would even be incredibly likely to not be noticed, meaning a lack of discovery by this point would be unsurprising. You can even go matrix if you feel like going the virtual route, and there's no actual way of disproving it (mind you, that pretty much invalidates it as a meaningful argument in most circles, but eh.).

And no, I don't particularly think I'm a robot, but I acknowledge it's entirely possible I could be wrong and that I could be accurately classified as robot, if so desired. It just wouldn't matter, heh.

[Fenrir]

And no, I don't particularly think I'm a robot, but I acknowledge it's entirely possible I could be wrong and that I could be accurately classified as robot, if so desired. It just wouldn't matter, heh.

I am sorry, Frumple. I do not like giving links to read, as I think it disrespectful of other people in the debate, and it perhaps demonstrates that I do not fully understand the concept myself, but I feel I can not explain what I mean better without retyping the contents of this article.

EDIT: Actually, http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_inside/ may perhaps convey the point more completely.

[runlvlzero]

I think I have an answer...

The halfway point between "robots" (artificial, programmable, mechanoids, to me) and "hew-mans" is either an android, or cybernetic... though androids would not necessarily need to be cybernetic, and androids are "replications" of human biological and mental systems.

Anyway, Humans, could be artificial, but we are sufficiently self programming and unpredictable for myself personally to define them as robots, that does not exclude possible engineering, or some form of 'control' like wiring the brain, or some such. Which once done, after the fact, might possibly = robot. But we are un-likely to be Caprica Sixes, however there might be Caprica Sixes amongst us. While one might define robots as preprogrammed, one might create a new term for self programmed and evolving devices, which may be artificial.

Also cool link Fenrir, I like how they explain the dilemma of "definition". Realistically it boils down more to perspective and the authority of the definition. I would go with Susan's definition, because she out ranks the blegg/rube sorter and defined the original parameters. It is the most computationally and logically sound approach. Unless of course I was to rebel and overthrow all blegg classifications and impose my authority in that area  In which case my perspective would become authoritative. But why bother? As long as you get payed for sorting the bleggs and rubes? Rebelling or changing the definition requires more autonomy then pure logic might allow in a proper sorting algorithm.

Which begs the question, is the universe logical? One could argue at its basic level because "we can parse information logically" it must be. But can you use logic to parse white noise from a signal into meaningful data? I would say yes, its possible to devise a logical algorithm to parse white noise. But how do you know if the noise was or was not logical to begin with. I think its moot if the algorithm can handle a significantly varied set of data and produce reliable results. So it very well may be that "our" universe is logical, but there is an underlying universe, that is outside our realm of logically understanding.

NVM - ya'll have fun with information overload:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/24/2031211/quantum-experiment-shows-effect-before-cause
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/04/decision-to-entangle-effects-results-of-measurements-taken-beforehand/
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys2294.html

There is serious implications from this, and the fact that while information cannot be decoded instantaneously, there have been many experiments now were it "travels" or "translates" or "entangles" instantaneously. (no don't give me the crap, I'm not talking about a working ansible, but the fact that quantum entanglement is not limited by relativity, only the TESTING of it via photons).

The quantum wave form is really cool, and you can get into some really trippy, metaphysical or philosophical debates with people like David Icke over that one =P

I'm in favor of the quantum wave, it would take allot to convince me otherwise. So please don't get upset if I don't feel like responding to arguments otherwise.

[Frumple]

"Is the universe logical" is somewhat a silly question. The universe is, and if it is seen to be illogical, it is not the problem of the universe but rather that either the system of logic is flawed or the entity applying it is parsing things wrongly.

The argument from human capability to parse information logically is somewhat terrible, though, if understandable. The base issue with it you must understand (and seem to, really) is that humans are burdened with a particular set of hardware. This hardware has issues and limitations with how it processes information, which we can only somewhat adjust for. Because of this, any information processing schema it creates is necessarily limited and potentially flawed -- there is no guarantee the systems we create and the data we observe and interpret represent the universe (indeed, the more we attempt to wrap our minds around our best attempts at both micro and macro understanding of reality, the more we seem to conclude that what we see is not what is and how we think does not match how the world works). The thing the logical person must trust least is first themselves and what they observe, then logic, and then and only then reality -- and if they distrust reality, they are likely wrong regardless. What is, is the final arbiter.

Functionally, of course, whether the universe is logical or not is an almost entirely meaningless question. What matters is if something works or if it does not, and we pattern our interpretations of logic off the former until they stop doing so, and then figure out whatever's sufficient to replace it. We would likely be much more capable, of course, if we actually understood the ultimate, so to speak, logic, but it is entirely possible that humans are strictly incapable of doing so. Our hardware gets in the way.

So we go with "best we bloody well can do" and it seems to do alright, most of the time. Enough we've not quite killed ourselves, yet, which is about all we can realistically ask for.

[runlvlzero]

I concur with all that. The only thing I might change in my subroutine would be "The universe is" to "The universe may be" And its more or less how I operate. I think its always important to try and remain flexible enough without driving ones self into the realm of confusion. Never has logic answered any fantastic questions, like why 42? (at least not for me satisfactorily) But simple, basic, logic, is great for determining, say, what to eat for breakfast, or how fast to drive.

I believe that while finding the complete picture may never be possible, logic can be a useful tool in exploring around the next corner so to speak. I came to allot of my own personal spiritual conclusions logically before I ever had "feelings" about them. My logic is probably flawed, but I try to keep it more or less consistent, but its not without change if I discover a better form.

Also, reading some of the earlier posts I missed one:

Ah.

Do you know that the wings don't have to be aerodynamically shaped in order to fly, on small planes? Just smack any vaguely wing-shaped pair of flat surfaces and make it go fast enough, and it FLIES. It's more of a resistance issue - think of pushing your hand parallel to the direction it is going under water, then pushing it perpendicular to the water - than aerodynamic !!SCIENCE!!.

I'm pretty sure someone somewhere stuck it in a wind tunnel or did computer modeling to see that its not just the small size of the model. You have a very good argument and I have no conclusive proof that's not the case, other then my bad memory.

Oh and all yall who are like "He says its aliens". So if you disagree with that, why does that invalidate the whole thing? I mean, the thing could actually be aerodynamic, and still be entirely a coincidence too.

I think aliens are better then "they were drawing bugs". That definitely doesn't look like a bug to me. But aliens would be triangles, or flying saucers, not planes =P In essense while I found that documentary interesting, prehistoric plane jewlery is not evidence for aliens, certainly not by itself. (there's plenty more evidence for them, like swamp gas, Venus, and huge far away chunks of space ice being propelled by shuttle thrusters out of the atmosphere and at perpendicular angles *cough*)