News:

There is also the shroud of turin, which verifies Jesus in a new way than other evidences.

Main Menu

Robotics

Started by Inevitable Droid, November 05, 2010, 12:33:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I don't think sexuality will become obsolete. It's something that's ingrained into the human psyche. It may not be necessary at that point but people enjoy sex for a lot more than the drive to keep the human machine rolling, I think sexuality will remain an important part of our society unless we choose to write it out of the human consciousness, something I doubt will happen.

Hmm.  You know, if we actually replace all of the brain tissue with tech before we transfer the hardware out of the skull and into a robot, then you may well be right, the robot will have sexuality, since it wouldn't be merely the cerebrum that was replaced with tech, but the cerebellum as well, and the medulla oblongata, and all the rest.  The parts of the brain responsible for sexuality would be replaced with tech, and presumably would be doing the same job as always, thus the tech would be performing the function of triggering and maintaining the sex drive.  I wonder if we would be able to make the transition away from being attracted to meat.  Could we be attracted to plastic and steel instead?  Could we program ourselves with this new attraction?  Would we?  We would certainly have accomplished the final severing of sexuality from reproduction.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Ultima22689

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"
Quote from: "Ultima22689"I don't think sexuality will become obsolete. It's something that's ingrained into the human psyche. It may not be necessary at that point but people enjoy sex for a lot more than the drive to keep the human machine rolling, I think sexuality will remain an important part of our society unless we choose to write it out of the human consciousness, something I doubt will happen.

Hmm.  You know, if we actually replace all of the brain tissue with tech before we transfer the hardware out of the skull and into a robot, then you may well be right, the robot will have sexuality, since it wouldn't be merely the cerebrum that was replaced with tech, but the cerebellum as well, and the medulla oblongata, and all the rest.  The parts of the brain responsible for sexuality would be replaced with tech, and presumably would be doing the same job as always, thus the tech would be performing the function of triggering and maintaining the sex drive.  I wonder if we would be able to make the transition away from being attracted to meat.  Could we be attracted to plastic and steel instead?  Could we program ourselves with this new attraction?  Would we?  We would certainly have accomplished the final severing of sexuality from reproduction.

I don't the distinction between meat and plastic and steel would even be necessary. Most people i'm sure, myself included, would want said new body to appear indistinguishable from a homo sapien or at least very similar to one.  I'm sure once we can achieve the above with technology, creating an android body that appears and feels identical to a human being will be simple. We already have artificial skin which is sensitive enough to feel the wing beat of a butterfly, a couple of decades from now, there ought to be little difference. It would be a very hard sell to people, a new body that's only humanoid at best. People are resistant to change enough as it is however people will buy into such a technology if it resembles  familiarity AKA the human body. Businesses want to make a profit so you can bet your buns that sexuality, modern standards of beauty and anything else we can see as definitively human will be very alive in a post biological society.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Most people i'm sure, myself included, would want said new body to appear indistinguishable from a homo sapien or at least very similar to one.

Not me!  Not at all.  That's the last thing in the world I'd want.  I'd want to be Optimus Prime! :)
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

joeactor

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Count me in as one of those, so long as I can still be me, which is a tricky question.  You know, it occurs to me that the path to h-bots may go like this:

1. Begin replacing human brain tissue with tech
2. Continue iteratively replacing human brain tissue with tech until tissue is zero and tech is all
3. Remove the tech from the skull and insert it into a robot

The difference between this and what most people usually envision is the absence of any software or data upload.  This would be a hardware transfer.

Yes... I agree.  Always thought this was the only way to truly "become" the new creation.
Would it still be "me"?  Well, it's a much better chance than any method that makes a copy.

Count me in too ;-)

Ultima22689

Yeah, I think this method is more ideal than trying to take out your software. Would be nice once the transition is complete to exist solely as a program though. Humanity is in a world war you say? Ah, oh well, guess i'll spend the next few decades in this virtual universe and ride my pet dragon across the rainbow.

Inevitable Droid

More about moral responsibility and automotons, which determinism says all agents are, be they humans, robots, or other.

I am a human and an agent - but how would I define what I mean when I say, I?  I think I could reasonably define I as, "the current state of the process that began when my father's sperm conjoined with my mother's egg."

If I were a robot, I think I could reasonably define I as, "the current state of the process that began when my hardware was conjoined with my software."

These definitions imply that there is no such thing as a permanent self.  Welcome to Buddhism!  Yet it is uncontroversial that today I am a little different from how I was yesterday, moderately different from how I was last year, and radically different from how I was 49 years ago, when I was six months old.  It isn't that much of a leap to say that a difference in attributes is a difference in being, and if we make that leap, then my definitions above become more than reasonable - they become almost necessary.

My definitions matter to moral theory because, if we accept them, we immediately make the self inseparable from its decisions, rendering the question of ultimate causes moot, since without the decision, there is no self.  Agency no longer runs in only one direction, the self being the agent of the decision, for it would be equally true to say that the decision is the agent of the self.  In fact it would be truer to say that the decision and the self are one, that the relationship between them isn't one of agency, but of identity - because making the decision is the current state of the process.

If I am the current state of a process that began in the past, then my existence begins and ends right now.  In this moment and this moment only, I live and move and have my being.  In the past this I doesn't exist and in the future this I doesn't exist.  In the past some other I existed, and in the future, some other I will exist.  The I that exists right now, only exists right now - and, crucially, its existence cannot be disentangled from the decision it is making right now.  Before making the decision this I doesn't exist.  After making the decision this I doesn't exist.  Making the decision defines this I's existence, because making the decision is the current state of the process.

Can we hold a future I accountable for a past I?  No.  They're different beings.  But we can hold the process accountable.  The process is a higher order being.  The process is the collective of all past I's, the present I, and all future I's.  We can blame the whole for its parts.  We can blame the life for its moments.  In laying blame, we aren't judging a self.  We are judging a life.

We are judging a life.  The life, if human, began when sperm and egg conjoined.  To say the life is determined by the conjoining of sperm and egg is false, because the relationship between the life and the conjoining isn't that of agency, but of a whole to one of its parts.  The moment of conjoining was the first state of the process, the first I, and all I's together comprise the life.  The life couldn't be different than it is, it is determined, but it is self-determined, for the most crucial determining event, the conjoining of sperm and egg, is included in the life as a part of a whole.  The life cannot be separated from its first state, any more than it can be separated from any of its other states.

We are judging a life.  Selves are elusive.  We can never get a hold of one for more than a moment.  But a life is a panorama.  We can survey its length at our leisure.

It is a fearsome thing to judge a life.  But that is what we do when we make a moral judgment.

None of the above changes at all if we speak of a different conjoining, that of hardware and software.  When the condition of being awake and the condition of moral competence are established in robots, it will be appropriate to apply moral judgments to the process that began when hardware and software first conjoined.  We might as well call that a life.  In applying moral judgment, we will be judging a life.  And it will be a fearsome thing to do so.  But humanity will do it, for such is the human process.  If moral competence is established in robots, then moral judgment will be part of the robotic process too.  Robots too will engage in the judgment of whole lives, be it their own, or other robotic lives, or lives that are human.  Hopefully they will appreciate what a fearsome thing is being done.  They will only appreciate it if we program their software such that they have the capacity for said appreciation.  Such is the power and the moral burden inherent in the science of robotics.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Inevitable Droid

Robotic quadruped.  Watch it navigate treacherous terrain, even regaining its footing after slipping or being pushed.  Fantastic!
[youtube:18erq1uk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww[/youtube:18erq1uk]

High speed robotic hand.  Super-dexterous.  Magnificent!
[youtube:18erq1uk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KxjVlaLBmk[/youtube:18erq1uk]
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Ultima22689


Inevitable Droid

Still a work in progress - needs to improve - but fun and inspiring in its aspirations and what it so far has achieved.
[youtube:217ei96j]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUbXoVET-rc[/youtube:217ei96j]
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Ultima22689

I wish I had an inkling of talent or at least competence with mathematics, I would easily go into robotics but noooo, i'm right brained, I have to come from a family of eccentric artsy people.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Ultima22689"I wish I had an inkling of talent or at least competence with mathematics, I would easily go into robotics but noooo, i'm right brained, I have to come from a family of eccentric artsy people.

Are you a graphic artist of some kind?  Maybe you can make art around the concept of robots or cyborgs.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Inevitable Droid

Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Ultima22689

Woah, I thought he was a real person at first. That's pretty good.

I'm not a graphics artist but I am going to school for game design, if I get to make my own games, naturally robotics and science in general will be a creative foundation for all my work.

Inevitable Droid

Robot running:
[youtube:35nyr1hi]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv35ItWLBBk[/youtube:35nyr1hi]
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

joeactor

I think I like the quadruped running better than the biped.

Asimo is way cool from the front, bit it always looks like it's about to take a dump from the side...

(really enjoying these vids, btw)