|
Post by BlueDolphin on Mar 21, 2006 20:11:34 GMT -5
Why not? Aren't we also programmed to feel pain in a sense? Pain is merely the way our brains interpret nerve impulses.
After all it is not like we choose to be able to feel pain. It is involuntary.
Actually this brings up an interesting question. What exactly are emotions?
|
|
|
Post by Random on Mar 21, 2006 20:59:49 GMT -5
i know programming, and no matter what you do with it, something will always be based directly on something else, and no matter how complex you make it, you would always be able to say exactly what the program would do given a specific set of input
a sentient creature cannot be created via a program due to the simple fact that you cannot make a program think, all you can do is make a program follow commands, and even if you make them incredibly complex they will still be nothing more than commands
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Mar 21, 2006 21:10:42 GMT -5
Except that if you can make a program learn various things, that would be the basis of it beginning to think. Thinking is just our way of analyzing and categorizing information that we had stored away in our "cache". To that extent, thinking might be the easiest part of getting a machine to achieve. I believe that emotions, the ability to notice patterns, and creativity would be the hardest things to emulate.
And feeling pain is different from actually feeling emotions Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Mar 21, 2006 22:00:12 GMT -5
What makes pain different? I know that it is more vivid than simple emotions since it make a physical response to it. What is it exactly and why can't an artificial creation be able to feel it?
|
|
|
Post by Random on Mar 21, 2006 22:14:43 GMT -5
its not an emotion. . . . pain is part of the sense of touch, emotions are a bit different
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Mar 21, 2006 22:28:48 GMT -5
In that case, can artificial creations have a sense of pain? I wasn't trying to say emotions and pain are the same. The second question on the top of the page is not meant to build off of the idea of pain.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Mar 21, 2006 22:31:40 GMT -5
artificial creations can have a sense of pain, they might however, not necessarily have the proper mental faculties to deal with in the way we do, that is to actually "feel" the pain. For them, it would only be a programmed mechanical response to something that they should avoid touching.
|
|
|
Post by Blues on Mar 21, 2006 22:37:07 GMT -5
all this brings Asimov to my mind.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Mar 21, 2006 22:44:20 GMT -5
I think if robots can display a reaction identical to humans then it should be treated as if the pain was real. In a sense, pain is a programmed mechanical response to things we shouldn't touch.
Of course, it is easy to say that robots do not truly feel since everything they do is just an act that they put up for show. But that leads to the question of whether you can know for sure if other people around you can feel pain too. Maybe they are just acting and you are the only one who truly feels?
|
|
|
Post by Random on Mar 21, 2006 22:51:44 GMT -5
i disagree, as real as it could look it still would not be real
and with that second part, i don't really consider it a good point, whether or not its possible/arguable, to me that'd be a bit of a conspiracy theory thing
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Mar 21, 2006 23:05:30 GMT -5
I sort of agree... the second point would be valid if it was indeed an interesting answer. The thing is though, what reason would everyone have to lie to you? If your going to start doubting everybody you have to at least give them a motivation.
On that line of questioning though, what if everybody saw colors differently. Like I saw the sky as purple, you saw it as red, and somebody else saw it as green. However, because we all at birth learnt that the sky is blue, we all call it the same color even though we see it differently. How would we ever know?
More importantly, if we found out that this was the case, and somebody asked you what color the (brown) table was, but you saw it as blue, would you be lying if you told them blue? would you be lying if you told them brown?
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Mar 21, 2006 23:15:53 GMT -5
That is also an interesting question. If that were true, we would never know since it would appear we are all in agreement when we are not.
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Mar 21, 2006 23:21:25 GMT -5
Hmm, you guys are silly. Lessee, pain: Pain is simply perception and conception. Perception being the nerves on your hand realizing the stove is 130 degrees farenhiet, conception being the interpretation of those perceptions in your brain that the stove A: Hot and B: Hurts Considering that, I'd say it would be very much possible if not easy to program pain.
Emotions: I think your all forgetting something vital there. Emotions are merely hormonal mixes, instinct from our lower brain thingy, and our conceptions and memories. Considering that, I'd say its possible, if not for us with our current technology, to build a computer with feelings, though I agree with the majority of the scifi canon that it would have to be at least largely organic in composition.
Sentience and learning should also be possible with complex enough programming. You forget Jp that while most of us do not know C+ or C++(which you have to admit is still a very simple language) we DID all grow up in the Silicon valley, and we're far from ignorant or superstious about computers and programming. I for one have spent hours watching my dad write in programs, or design his own, and asked annoying questions the entire time.
|
|
Max
Member
Eat rocket, dirty pic stealer
Posts: 177
|
Post by Max on Mar 21, 2006 23:37:56 GMT -5
here's my question, if a computer were to emulate the chemical reactions as they would happen in a brain perfectly, and be able to give perfect stimuli to this virtual brain, would this brain be considered alive
i know that this is not feasible with current technology, but remember, computer speed doubles every roughly year and a half ( yes i know that one cannot predict future trends based on past ones, but computers will get faster), and we will be eventually at the point where we can create a perfect virtual homo sapien, would we consider him a human then?
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Mar 22, 2006 0:36:59 GMT -5
Well if it were to emulate it perfectly, all we'd do is grow a brain in a dish, but then we'd have to figure out how to mesh it with a computer What i'd imagine is something that would have to use technology to be smaller than a brain, and itnerfacable, so some sort of cross between electronics and organics. Or I might argue that it could be possible theoretically to use something else to give the same effects as hormones and such Or soemthing that very closely follows a brain useing electronic parts, bareing in mind that a brain is merely a very complicated system for communicating and storing electronic signals, which only reminds me of a hypercomplex version of binary, simple yet complicated
But yes, it it felt and thought and learned and had emotion, AND was organic at least partly, it would definitely be alive If it weren't organic, then it'd be harder to argue, though I personally would call it alive and say id deserved rights
|
|