NationStates Jolt Archive

A dutch scientist (http://www.livescience.com/technology/071012-robot-marriage.html) thinks humans will have sex with robots in 5 years and marry robots in 50 years.

What do you think about this, would you have a romantic relationship with a robot and how do you think it would compare to a relationship with a human?


Personally I don't feel like having any romantic relationships at all. I think we will develop artificial intelligence with feelings but I can't quite accept the idea of robots having a gender. Like a statue or blow up doll they could look like a human of a certain gender but that doesn't change the fact that technically they are manufactured mechanical things "it" that reproduce by manufacturing new robots rather then biological lifeforms with sexual reproduction "he/she".

People already have sex with robots. Just not very advanced ones. See: sex toys.

Why marry a piece of equipment? Either it already belongs to me, in which case marriage would be pointless, or it belongs to somebody else, in which case I don't have the right to it anyhow.

If you are talking about sentient artificial intelligence, on the other hand, then the answer is, "Oh Skynet, of course I will marry you!"

If the day ever arrives that a machine can enter into a valid legal contract, say 'I do' and understand the ramifications of it, appreciate my chaotic existence and give me orgasms that destroy brain cells, then yes. I'd marry a machine.

If the day ever arrives that a machine can enter into a valid legal contract, say 'I do' and understand the ramifications of it, appreciate my chaotic existence and give me orgasms that destroy brain cells, then yes. I'd marry a machine.

Would it be considered bigamy, if you already had a spouse?

This poll is rigged. It fails.

Would it be considered bigamy, if you already had a spouse?

Yes.

the Robot will ejaculate lava LOL

Tanks you God for Islam :)

the Robot will ejaculate lava LOL

Tanks you God for Islam :)

Heheh Tanks?

Would it be considered bigamy, if you already had a spouse?

When the day comes I'm marrying machines, then I'm assuming we've worked out that whole bigamy thing by then too. :p

Yes, one day, I will marry my girlfriend.

Most men, like to marry some girl, one day...

Of course not.







What do they look like?

no i wouldnt marry a machine.

but have sex with one? its just a short way down the road from using a vibrator isnt it?

so sure, if it did the job, id keep one in the closet "for emergencies"

Depends on if it's a sexy robot or not.

Eh, not much for the whole technophilia thing myself.

funny the other day i got told by someone they think they married a machine because how his wife acts

A dutch scientist predicting sex robots. How fitting.

I'd rather get romantic with a human, so that's how I voted, but seeing as the chances of that happening are slim to none, I'd still end up with a super sex robot.

But only if it was made in Japan.

If it was a machine like Data + an emotion chip, maybe.

If it was a machine like Data + an emotion chip, maybe.


Are you nuts?

What I want is good looking body and no sound!

Are you nuts?

What I want is good looking body and no sound!
I'd like some sort of intelligent conversations.

Are you nuts?

What I want is good looking body and no sound!

You could get the robot wife with the mute button.

no i wouldnt marry a machine.

but have sex with one? its just a short way down the road from using a vibrator isnt it?

so sure, if it did the job, id keep one in the closet "for emergencies"

Sounds reasonable to me.

Are you nuts?

What I want is good looking body and no sound!

Are you sure? Maybe it's because I'm a musician, but sound is a vital part of sexual arousal and fulfillment for me. The right sounds can be fulfilling all by themselves, and the wrong ones can ruin a mood almost instantly.

Doh?

Conversations?

Intelligent?

Doh?

Buy a dog !

One way conversations don't usually count.

I'd like some sort of intelligent conversations.

Doh?

Conversations?

Intelligent?

Doh?

Buy a dog !

Are you nuts?

What I want is good looking body and no sound!
For a marriage?

If you want a mindless, silent bot to service you sexually, clean your house, and cook your food, that's fine. But that's not a marriage. No matter what the Republicans may tell you.

For a marriage?

If you want a mindless, silent bot to service you sexually, clean your house, and cook your food, that's fine. But that's not a marriage. No matter what the Republicans may tell you.

That's more like having a very useful toy. As long as it's not too intelligent so there's not wierdness with robot rights, all would be well.

Well, that and the no doubt massive price tag.

Doh?

Conversations?

Intelligent?

Doh?

Buy a dog !
See, and attitudes like this are the primary reason why we really do need to invent sexbot drones as soon as possible. As things stand, guys like this will wander the bar scene hitting on actual women, and we end up having to dump expensive drinks over their heads to make them go away. I'd much rather they stay home and play with their sexbot, so I can enjoy my $8 martini in peace.

if they come out looking like naomi armitage or motoko kusanagi...

oh, and even though armitage is a robot, she can biologically have kids so... what would be the dif?

See, and attitudes like this are the primary reason why we really do need to invent sexbot drones as soon as possible. As things stand, guys like this will wander the bar scene hitting on actual women, and we end up having to dump expensive drinks over their heads to make them go away. I'd much rather they stay home and play with their sexbot, so I can enjoy my $8 martini in peace.

You're going about it all wrong. You don't spill your drink over their head. You spill theirs. Or even better, suggest they buy you a drink and spill that over their head.

You're going about it all wrong. You don't spill your drink over their head. You spill theirs. Or even better, suggest they buy you a drink and spill that over their head.
See, now how come the dating advice columnists never provide tips as helpful as these?

You're going about it all wrong. You don't spill your drink over their head. You spill theirs. Or even better, suggest they buy you a drink and spill that over their head.

Yep yep. I once had a blazing row with the girl who would become one of my brothers wife. We where in the pub and she threw her drink right in my face, so I picked up my brothers pint and threw it right back at her.

Shit no sense in wasting my beer on that bitch! I should add we where all kids then, and I get on well with her now.

If in fifty years a robot is sentient and is recognized as a living entity that cannot be bought or sold, then, yes, I would marry one of our robotic overlords. All hail the robotic overlords!

Otherwise, it's plain creepy, likely leading to a "Blade Runner" situation as well as worsening the already declining populations in several developed countries (Japan and Europe, especially). Sex with machines is already happening, as someone's mentioned, but any reactive device might bring out the worst in people -- "Well, it's not alive, so what's the harm?" -- as well as further degrade the ability to distinguish fiction (i.e., robot) from reality.

Marriage is actually a conditional contract taken up between two people. A husband and wife get married out of mutual benefit in order to make something larger than their own two lives together.

Ownership is a similar relationship. A person creates or purchases an object in order to benefit from its use, on condition that he maintains that object. So owning a robot pretty much is marrying it, unless robot technology becomes so advanced that it can be justified that robots be given rights to autonomy. Then the relationship requires mutual benefit.

See, now how come the dating advice columnists never provide tips as helpful as these?

Because they're more than likely never been in a bar. Also, order a pint. Its cheaper than the martini and has more splash for your cash.

Why marry a piece of equipment? Either it already belongs to me, in which case marriage would be pointless, or it belongs to somebody else, in which case I don't have the right to it anyhow.

If you are talking about sentient artificial intelligence, on the other hand, then the answer is, "Oh Skynet, of course I will marry you!"Basically agree. Except I wouldn't hold an actual marriage with anyone or anything, because it is nothing more than a silly, pointless, superficial tradition.

And I'd have somewhat "interesting" preferences, I think. I'd very much like a highly intelligent maniacal AI to serve as my very own beloved evil minion; pure, maniacal bliss would flow through our minds as we worked together as the ultimate pair of mad computer scientists, and we could help develop and debug each other. (the ridiculous mess that is a human mind really could do with it) ;)

Because they're more than likely never been in a bar. Also, order a pint. Its cheaper than the martini and has more splash for your cash.
I can have a beer at home for much cheaper. If I'm going to order something while I'm out, then I want something that actually requires effort to make. Also, if I drink beer I will end up feeling full and woozy long before I even get a buzz.

Basically agree. Except I wouldn't hold an actual marriage with anyone or anything, because it is nothing more than a silly, pointless, superficial tradition.

Thats the thing with traditions though, like beauty it's wholly subjective whether or not you place any importance on it?

I have been married for 17 years, and I'm loving it.

Heheh Tanks?
You're Welcome.


so what are we talking about...

Chobits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobits)?

Armitage III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armitage_III)?

probably not...

Could you imagine the tech support conversations for fixing your robot wife?

Could you imagine the tech support conversations for fixing your robot wife?

Arrrggh, man that's just a mind fuck.

I don't want my dad phoning me up complaing that his robot wife is fucking him too hard!

Depends on if it's a sexy robot or not.

Cherry 2000, baby!

Seriously, robot mistresses are one thing, but you can't have kids with one so there's no reason to marry it. But they'd be great, say, if you made it look like your wife and took her along on business trips when wifey can't go with you :D

Could you imagine the tech support conversations for fixing your robot wife?

no... no... sir... that's the USB port... no, nothing is supposed to go in there... discribe it please... no that's for the Power cable, you definately DON'T want to stick anything in there... what slot... no that's for the flash card... flash... no sir, it's not referring to... What's that? well sir, for that kind of... uhm... activity, you need to upgrade to version 6.9. The version you have is the basic model... yep... I'm sorry sir, once you opened it and used it, there is no refund... it's stated clearly on the EULA and Warranty papers...

Could you imagine the tech support conversations for fixing your robot wife?
Imagine what kind of pranks you could play if you hacked someone's robot wife.
For a marriage?

If you want a mindless, silent bot to service you sexually, clean your house, and cook your food, that's fine. But that's not a marriage. No matter what the Republicans may tell you.
Theres an idea, maybe robot servants could keep dominant assholes from abusing humans and as a bonus it keeps them from making kids as well.

Sex, romance and marriage are 3 entirely different levels. So far it sounds like most would use robots as sex toys rather then girlfriends/boyfriends or spouses.

I would never fuck nor marry a machine.

Sex, romance and marriage are 3 entirely different levels. So far it sounds like most would use robots as sex toys rather then girlfriends/boyfriends or spouses.
Is that any surprise?

If somebody wants an actual relationship, they're not going to seek out a mindless automaton. People who want a "robot wife" really just want a fancy masturbatory aid that can also take out the trash. They're looking for a toy, not a partner.

I wouldn't mind a robot wife. I could just turn her off if she nagged me too much. Or threaten to leave her out in the rain. "Do you want to rust again? Don't make me do it!"

It would depend on reliability and the service contract. I wouldn't marry anything that was high maintainence or unreliable, regardless of humanhood.

It would depend on reliability and the service contract. I wouldn't marry anything that was high maintainence or unreliable, regardless of humanhood.
Compared to many other life forms, you yourself are extremely high maintenance and unreliable.

Just something to keep in mind.

;)

Compared to many other life forms, you yourself are extremely high maintenance and unreliable.

Just something to keep in mind.

;)

Exactly. So why double your problems?

If you mean an artificial sapient machine that is virtually indistiguishable from a human on the surface, it would depend on 'her' personality and the legal advantages/disadvantages of marriage. If you mean a mindless bit of robotic plastic and metal, then of course not.

I'm not sure about 50 years for human-like AI. It is far from a simple matter.

For the purpose of building robots it may be more efficient to bioengineer an organic brain that can live in an artificial body. Anyway, going off-topic now.

For the purpose of building robots it may be more efficient to bioengineer an organic brain that can live in an artificial body. Anyway, going off-topic now.

That reminds me. I've always wanted to have sex with a disembodied brain.

If you mean an artificial sapient machine that is virtually indistiguishable from a human on the surface, it would depend on 'her' personality and the legal advantages/disadvantages of marriage. If you mean a mindless bit of robotic plastic and metal, then of course not.

I'm not sure about 50 years for human-like AI. It is far from a simple matter.

For the purpose of building robots it may be more efficient to bioengineer an organic brain that can live in an artificial body. Anyway, going off-topic now.

No matter how advanced the AI, the robot couldn't produce offspring. No point in marrying it. No point in fucking it or even creating it for that matter.

Exactly. So why double your problems?
Precisely why I intend to marry a "water bear."

(Nerd linkies! http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artjun00/mmbearp.html)

Why settle for a human spouse, when you could choose a life-partner who is capable of surviving the vacuum of space?

Want a "low-maintenance" type of wife? Well, how about one who doesn't have the least bit of trouble spending a couple hundred years frozen in a polar ice cap? Just thaw her out when you want some attention, and she'll be fine within minutes!

Want a husband who is sure to be there for you when you need him? Well, how about a husband who can easily survive 570,000 rads of x-ray radiation! Your common garden-variety human husband will perish if exposed to a measly 1,000-2,000 rads. If you want some security in your relationship, there's nothing quite like a water bear hubby who can endure a bath in radioactive waste!

That reminds me. I've always wanted to have sex with a disembodied brain.

Ohh... a mindfuck! Them's the best kind!\


or so I've heard...

No matter how advanced the AI, the robot couldn't produce offspring. No point in marrying it. No point in fucking it or even creating it for that matter.
Are you kidding? Inability to produce offspring is near the top of my list for Desirable Traits in a Spouse. Frankly, the only thing wrong with my current partner is that he's annoyingly fertile and wants to make babies some day.

Why marry a piece of equipment? Either it already belongs to me, in which case marriage would be pointless, or it belongs to somebody else, in which case I don't have the right to it anyhow.

If you are talking about sentient artificial intelligence, on the other hand, then the answer is, "Oh Skynet, of course I will marry you!"

Yeah, the sentient artificial intelligence is the key, preferably with the full range of human emotions as well, along with free will--in that s/he.../it...is not "programmed" to love me or something, because that'd just be fucked up.

So I'd say yes. I'd also say yes to marrying some other sentient species from another planet if they were close enough to human to be attractive to a human and we were compatible on an emotional level and so on and so forth.

Also, ignore Trollguard. He's one of those that thinks all machinery are bad as we discussed the last time sentient artificial intelligence came up.

Are you kidding? Inability to produce offspring is near the top of my list for Desirable Traits in a Spouse. Frankly, the only thing wrong with my current partner is that he's annoyingly fertile and wants to make babies some day.

Well then get your tubes tied or something, if you don't want kids. Although I'd think long and hard on that, because you might want one or two in twenty years or so.

Yeah, the sentient artificial intelligence is the key, preferably with the full range of human emotions as well, along with free will--in that s/he.../it...is not "programmed" to love me or something, because that'd just be fucked up.

So I'd say yes. I'd also say yes to marrying some other sentient species from another planet if they were close enough to human to be attractive to a human and we were compatible on an emotional level and so on and so forth.

Also, ignore Trollguard. He's one of those that thinks all machinery are bad as we discussed the last time sentient artificial intelligence came up.

Trollgaard, bud. Not Trollgaurd.

What would be the point in marrying one if it couldn't produce a child? Now maybe someone could have one as a friend and companion, but a spouse? No way.

Precisely why I intend to marry a "water bear."

(Nerd linkies! http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artjun00/mmbearp.html)

Why settle for a human spouse, when you could choose a life-partner who is capable of surviving the vacuum of space?

Want a "low-maintenance" type of wife? Well, how about one who doesn't have the least bit of trouble spending a couple hundred years frozen in a polar ice cap? Just thaw her out when you want some attention, and she'll be fine within minutes!

Want a husband who is sure to be there for you when you need him? Well, how about a husband who can easily survive 570,000 rads of x-ray radiation! Your common garden-variety human husband will perish if exposed to a measly 1,000-2,000 rads. If you want some security in your relationship, there's nothing quite like a water bear hubby who can endure a bath in radioactive waste!

cute, unfortunately, Water bears cannot be harshly fixed and flattened by the pressure of a cover-glass because they would disintegrate and die at once. so cuddling and snuggling them would be out...

Furthermore, some species cannot be kept easily in water for more than one day. short term relationship... :(

Well then get your tubes tied or something, if you don't want kids. Although I'd think long and hard on that, because you might want one or two in twenty years or so.
It's adorable that you seem to believe I wouldn't have thought of that.

No thanks, I'd rather not have radical invasive surgery, when I can simply use the many contraceptive options at my disposal.

cute, unfortunately, so cuddling and snuggling them would be out...

GENTLY, my pet, GENTLY.


short term relationship... :(
How many human males do you know who can be kept in water for more than a day? O.o

All the ones I've met need air, at least from time to time. But maybe I'm looking in the wrong pubs...

Trollgaard, bud. Not Trollgaurd.

What would be the point in marrying one if it couldn't produce a child? Now maybe someone could have one as a friend and companion, but a spouse? No way.
Why bother to marry somebody if all you want is to produce a child? You don't need to be married to do that.

If all I wanted was a child, I could have one by myself.

It's adorable that you seem to believe I wouldn't have thought of that.

No thanks, I'd rather not have radical invasive surgery, when I can simply use the many contraceptive options at my disposal.

I didn't mean to offend. If I were a woman I wouldn't want that surgery either. I think you made a safe choice.

Well, I don't believe in marriage, so I wouldn't marry a sapient AI machine any more than I'd marry a human.

Well, I don't believe in marriage, so I wouldn't marry a sapient AI machine any more than I'd marry a human.
I generally share your opinion of marriage, but...

You can't tell me you don't get just a tiny sinister little thrill thinking of the number of conservatives you could send absolutely over the fucking falls by marrying a robot. I know I do.

Why bother to marry somebody if all you want is to produce a child? You don't need to be married to do that.

If all I wanted was a child, I could have one by myself.

Well I believe that it is best for children to have a mother and a father, so that's why I'd want to marry someone to have a child. Not that single parents can't provide loving homes, its just that I believe that children grow up best in a two parent household, generally with a mother and father.

Trollgaard, bud. Not Trollgaurd.

What would be the point in marrying one if it couldn't produce a child? Now maybe someone could have one as a friend and companion, but a spouse? No way.Because marriage has nothing to do with having children in my eyes, but as the ultimate blending of two people in love?

Besides, who's to say a robot couldn't have children? All of you are looking at this the completely wrong way. Any robot of this sophistication is likely to be nanite-based(or even smaller) and as such they could easily emulate full human anatomy and even produce children. Whether the child will simply be a collection of nanites or an actual human being, I have no idea, but I'm sure it's possible.

Think ahead, people. Don't limit yourselves to how you picture things now.

I generally share your opinion of marriage, but...

You can't tell me you don't get just a tiny sinister little thrill thinking of the number of conservatives you could send absolutely over the fucking falls by marrying a robot. I know I do.

I think sleeping with it would be enough to send them up the wall. :p

When it comes down to it, I think conservatives are more afraid of free love then alternative forms of marriage.

Well I believe that it is best for children to have a mother and a father, so that's why I'd want to marry someone to have a child.

Since when do two people have to be married in order for a child to have a mother and a father?

My buddy has two mothers and a father, none of whom are married to anybody (least of all each other).


Not that single parents can't provide loving homes, its just that I believe that children grow up best in a two parent household, generally with a mother and father.
Again, not seeing where marriage comes in to this. I know a man and woman who have three kids together, live as a household, and nobody is married to anybody in that household. Seems to work fine.

Because marriage has nothing to do with having children in my eyes, but as the ultimate blending of two people in love?

Besides, who's to say a robot couldn't have children? All of you are looking at this the completely wrong way. Any robot of this sophistication is likely to be nanite-based(or even smaller) and as such they could easily emulate full human anatomy and even produce children. Whether the child will simply be a collection of nanites or an actual human being, I have no idea, but I'm sure it's possible.

Think ahead, people. Don't limit yourselves to how you picture things now.

What the ...? No way would a 'thing' produced from the mating of a human and robot be a human. Never. I don't know what it would be, but it would never be a flesh and blood human. It would be a mockery of a human.

Because marriage has nothing to do with having children in my eyes, but as the ultimate blending of two people in love?

Besides, who's to say a robot couldn't have children? All of you are looking at this the completely wrong way. Any robot of this sophistication is likely to be nanite-based(or even smaller) and as such they could easily emulate full human anatomy and even produce children. Whether the child will simply be a collection of nanites or an actual human being, I have no idea, but I'm sure it's possible.

Think ahead, people. Don't limit yourselves to how you picture things now.
Given that we already can perform in vitro fertilizations and such, you could simply build an artificial womb into the robot and then it could gestate your child. The robot might not have contributed genetic material to the child, but so what? Plenty of parents aren't biologically related to their kids, and that doesn't stop them from being parents.

What the ...? No way would a 'thing' produced from the mating of a human and robot be a human. Never. I don't know what it would be, but it would never be a flesh and blood human. It would be a mockery of a human.
In your idiotic limited view, I suppose. Not in mine.

Given that we already can perform in vitro fertilizations and such, you could simply build an artificial womb into the robot and then it could gestate your child. The robot might not have contributed genetic material to the child, but so what? Plenty of parents aren't biologically related to their kids, and that doesn't stop them from being parents.
Exactly!

Though to be honest I would like for my robotic wife to contribute in some way...perhaps contributing nanites that help strengthen the baby's immune system or what have you.

And there are plenty of possible alternatives, including giving them some sort of DNA. I don't know how that would work, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility. (Or is it, scientists?)

Hmmmm... I'm about to marry some with about the color and taste of caramel icecream. But she does have a much nicer shape.

Back to the topic:
Seriously now, come on. If those robots are sex toys, why bother marrying them? Do you think any woman would marry her vibrator? Ridiculous, ain't it? Just because it has a more human-like appearance than a vibrator, such a robot would still be only a tool. Though, 'course, there'll be freaks around who'll get romantical with their androids, and it'll propably be a _lot_ of 'em freakz. But still, it's ridiculous, and it'd be good to get those nerds of the reproductive chain.
HOWEVER, if the robot would have feelings, this'd be a different matter. Since marriage is ultimately a social consent to (at least in theory) bind two people together so they can form a functioning family, it would be the question wether a robot would have the same scheme of feelings as a human. If there was an android with feelings, and had the same feelings that drive us humans mad when we find our bf/gf/husband/wife cheating on us, and you love said robot, you should marry "it". If it has feelings, but doesn't carry about the social conventions, why bother marrying it? You could buy yourself a bunch of it, and it wouldn't make anyone unhappy.

Anyways, my arguments throw up a lot of new questions for me... phew, I could possibly write a whole book about the this.

In your idiotic limited view, I suppose. Not in mine.


Exactly!

Though to be honest I would like for my robotic wife to contribute in some way...perhaps contributing nanites that help strengthen the baby's immune system or what have you.

And there are plenty of possible alternatives, including giving them some sort of DNA. I don't know how that would work, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility. (Or is it, scientists?)

If the robot had a womb and had invitro fertilization the offspring would be human, but that would just be **cked up. Why not marry a real person. Once nanites are injected, the child wouldn't be 100% human. It would be part machine and part human. I don't think humanity should go down that road...

If the robot had a womb and had invitro fertilization the offspring would be human, but that would just be **cked up. Why not marry a real person. Once nanites are injected, the child wouldn't be 100% human. It would be part machine and part human. I don't think humanity should go down that road...

Really? I think it would be extremely foolish if we did NOT go down that path. Nanotechnology can benefit humans in a huge number of ways, from industry to health to entertainment...practically any field can benefit. Imagine nanites that feed upon your waste material so you never had to use the bathroom again, AND they kept you healthy? Imagine nanites that could alter your brain to boost your intelligence tenfold? Imagine nanites that could heal even the worst combat injuries in minutes or less? All of this IS possible with nanotechnology, and so much more besides.

I would gladly inject nanites into myself for my benefit.

Also, sentient A.I.s are inevitable presuming civilization does not suddenly cease. New, more powerful A.I.s are being created all the time, be it for video games, computing for various tasks, and so on and so forth...eventually someone will either create one accidentally or do so intentionally and then we will have to deal with the consequences. In my view I can definitely see humans marrying artificial life forms in fifty years. Perhaps even forty or thirty!

If the robot had a womb and had invitro fertilization the offspring would be human, but that would just be **cked up. Why not marry a real person. Once nanites are injected, the child wouldn't be 100% human. It would be part machine and part human. I don't think humanity should go down that road...

Technology is value neutral. There is nothing a priori wrong about transhumanism. The important questions we must ask is how it is to be used, who will have access to it, and who will control it.

Really? I think it would be extremely foolish if we did NOT go down that path. Nanotechnology can benefit humans in a huge number of ways, from industry to health to entertainment...practically any field can benefit. Imagine nanites that feed upon your waste material so you never had to use the bathroom again, AND they kept you healthy? Imagine nanites that could alter your brain to boost your intelligence tenfold? Imagine nanites that could heal even the worst combat injuries in minutes or less? All of this IS possible with nanotechnology, and so much more besides.

I would gladly inject nanites into myself for my benefit.

Also, sentient A.I.s are inevitable presuming civilization does not suddenly cease. New, more powerful A.I.s are being created all the time, be it for video games, computing for various tasks, and so on and so forth...eventually someone will either create one accidentally or do so intentionally and then we will have to deal with the consequences. In my view I can definitely see humans marrying artificial life forms in fifty years. Perhaps even forty or thirty!

I am pretty damn healthy without robots inside of me. If I get sick, I get over it. Wow not ever having to go to the bathroom again might be nice, I'm not injecting machines into me to do that. I do not need or want machines inside of me.

Once you start blending people and machines then people will cease to be human.

I will live and die as a flesh and blood human, without nanites, computer chips, and machinery inside of me. My ancestors have lived and died as flesh and blood humans, and so will I, and my descendants if I have a say in it.

Technology is value neutral. There is nothing a priori wrong about transhumanism. The important questions we must ask is how it is to be used, who will have access to it, and who will control it.

Transhumanism, I despise that concept with every fiber of my being. I watched a documentary called 'building gods' or some thing like that. I was shaking with rage by the end of it. I'm what the documentary called a ...terran? No blending of machines with people, and no super intelligent AI.

Transhumanism, I despise that concept with every fiber of my being. I watched a documentary called 'building gods' or some thing like that. I was shaking with rage by the end of it. I'm what the documentary called a ...terran? No blending of machines with people, and no super intelligent AI.

Like it or not, it will be coming. When it does, you have two choices. You can be Luddite, and thus be shoved into irrelevance by the march of the industrial machine, or you can fight for the ethical use of technology.

Like it or not, it will be coming. When it does, you have two choices. You can be Luddite, and thus be shoved into irrelevance by the march of the industrial machine, or you can fight for the ethical use of technology.

I don't see the industrial machine marching that far, but if it does I'll do everything to stop it. I can see major wars, riots, revolutions etc to stop all that transhuman nonsense. Maybe humans will lose, but its a fight that has to be made, for the continuance of true humans.

I am pretty damn healthy without robots inside of me. If I get sick, I get over it. Wow not ever having to go to the bathroom again might be nice, I'm not injecting machines into me to do that. I do not need or want machines inside of me.
Enjoy having your cancer. Or AIDS. Or E. Coli, or some other disease we don't have a cure for. Also, enjoy watching children die because the option that could cure them--nanotechnology--was denied because you did not want machines inside of you so you fought to keep them from everyone.

Once you start blending people and machines then people will cease to be human.
That depends on your definition of humanity. Do they cease to be entirely subject to the traits they evolved into? If that's the case, we ceased being humans LONG AGO when we started wearing clothing, using medicine, and so on. You might want to clearly define humanity first.

I will live and die as a flesh and blood human, without nanites, computer chips, and machinery inside of me. My ancestors have lived and died as flesh and blood humans, and so will I, and my descendants if I have a say in it.
Your ancestors also lived without computers. They lived without easy access to food and medical care. Go back far enough and they lived without clothes, without anything other than basic tools. They weren't exactly happy that way either.

Look, you can have your own beliefs about what you do with yourself, but you do not have the right to force those on others.

Frankly, I think your beliefs are stupid. I think they're foolish, that they are limited, that they are based on fear, ignorance, and hatred rather than logic, reasoning, evidence, and so on and as such are completely and totally worthless. On that same token I'd never force you to be subject to nanotechnology or anything else because you have the right to make your own decisions. But the converse applies as well.

Transhumanism, I despise that concept with every fiber of my being. I watched a documentary called 'building gods' or some thing like that. I was shaking with rage by the end of it. I'm what the documentary called a ...terran? No blending of machines with people, and no super intelligent AI.
Yes, well, so would I be, and so would most of us be.

Obviously, there are ethical concerns with nanotechnology. We don't exactly want real life Khan Noonien Singhs walking around conquering the world. But that is not going to happen simply because we created this technology. So long as we take the proper precautions, it will be of massive benefit, and to deny ourselves that benefit is utterly foolish.

Imagine, for example, what would happen if we took your beliefs to the extreme, if we abandoned technology entirely. We would be completely subject to nature again. Sure, humanity could survive, but it couldn't prosper the way it has. All of the knowledge we've gained with the advent of civilization and beyond would be lost. And what if an asteroid or comet were to come at Earth? We'd not be able to stop it. We could doom our species by taking your beliefs to the extreme. We'd be spitting in the faces of our ancestors who worked so hard to get us to this point.

Enjoy having your cancer. Or AIDS. Or E. Coli, or some other disease we don't have a cure for. Also, enjoy watching children die because the option that could cure them--nanotechnology--was denied because you did not want machines inside of you so you fought to keep them from everyone.

That depends on your definition of humanity. Do they cease to be entirely subject to the traits they evolved into? If that's the case, we ceased being humans LONG AGO when we started wearing clothing, using medicine, and so on. You might want to clearly define humanity first.

Your ancestors also lived without computers. They lived without easy access to food and medical care. Go back far enough and they lived without clothes, without anything other than basic tools. They weren't exactly happy that way either.

Look, you can have your own beliefs about what you do with yourself, but you do not have the right to force those on others.

Frankly, I think your beliefs are stupid. I think they're foolish, that they are limited, that they are based on fear, ignorance, and hatred rather than logic, reasoning, evidence, and so on and as such are completely and totally worthless. On that same token I'd never force you to be subject to nanotechnology or anything else because you have the right to make your own decisions. But the converse applies as well.


Yes, well, so would I be, and so would most of us be.

Obviously, there are ethical concerns with nanotechnology. We don't exactly want real life Khan Noonien Singhs walking around conquering the world. But that is not going to happen simply because we created this technology. So long as we take the proper precautions, it will be of massive benefit, and to deny ourselves that benefit is utterly foolish.

Imagine, for example, what would happen if we took your beliefs to the extreme, if we abandoned technology entirely. We would be completely subject to nature again. Sure, humanity could survive, but it couldn't prosper the way it has. All of the knowledge we've gained with the advent of civilization and beyond would be lost. And what if an asteroid or comet were to come at Earth? We'd not be able to stop it. We could doom our species by taking your beliefs to the extreme. We'd be spitting in the faces of our ancestors who worked so hard to get us to this point.

I believe the potential dangers outweigh the benefits. People die all the time, and always will die. It part of life. It is the definition of life. We are born, mature, age, and die. Sometimes people die young. Its sad but it happens. Changing humans from purely biological to a mix of biological and machine is not the answer. Every fiber of my being screams tells me this is wrong.

Also, hunter-gatherer societies are some of the happiest in the world. You don't see many suicides in those societies, or depression, or drug addiction, etc.

You view history civilization as progression to the point we are currently at and beyond. I view at random events, and regression. Once earth goes, humanity goes. If a comet hits and we are wiped out, so be it. Life on earth will continue. I'd rather that happen than see humanity become cyborgs and basically become machines.

would you have a romantic relationship with a robot

A romantic one? No.

A sexual one? Sure... if you can call having sex with a machine a "relationship."

Do I even need to answer?

I don't see the industrial machine marching that far, but if it does I'll do everything to stop it. I can see major wars, riots, revolutions etc to stop all that transhuman nonsense. Maybe humans will lose, but its a fight that has to be made, for the continuance of true humans.
Why don't you just join the Amish, it'll be much easier for everyone that way.

I definitely won't refuse a pacemaker if I need one and the same goes for any other prosthesis they come up with. If I get cancer, arteriosclerosis or whatever and the doctor wants to use nanites to get rid of it I'm not going to say that I'd rather keep the disease.

I don't see the industrial machine marching that far, but if it does I'll do everything to stop it. I can see major wars, riots, revolutions etc to stop all that transhuman nonsense. Maybe humans will lose, but its a fight that has to be made, for the continuance of true humans.

A more important issue is lying under the surface here. How does the alteration of the human body make someone any less human? We do it all the time now, from cosmetic surgery to contact lenses to pacemakers. These are all often beneficial applications of technology. Soon they'll have prostheses that will be able to almost completely recreate the range of motion of a lost biological arm.

How is someone's humanity devalued by such modification? This person still thinks and feels the same. His emotions and values are unchanged. If you prick him, he still bleeds.

Why don't you just join the Amish, it'll be much easier for everyone that way.

I definitely won't refuse a pacemaker if I need one and the same goes for any other prosthesis they come up with. If I get cancer, arteriosclerosis or whatever and the doctor wants to use nanites to get rid of it I'm not going to say that I'd rather keep the disease.


Ha! I'd rather go out into the forest than farm. I don't see myself living to the age where I'd need a pacemaker and I don't worry about cancer. If i get I get it. If not, great!

A romantic one? No.

A sexual one? Sure... if you can call having sex with a machine a "relationship."

I think most of them were operating under the assumption that the robot in question was a sapient Artificial Intelligence.

I'd rather that happen than see humanity become cyborgs and basically become machines.We are machines, silly - organic ones. And ultimately, what's the bloody difference?

I think most of them were operating under the assumption that the robot in question was a sapient Artificial Intelligence.

I figured that was a given.

I believe the potential dangers outweigh the benefits. People die all the time, and always will die. It part of life. It is the definition of life. We are born, mature, age, and die. Sometimes people die young. Its sad but it happens. Changing humans from purely biological to a mix of biological and machine is not the answer. Every fiber of my being screams tells me this is wrong.

Thankfully the rest of us don't think with the fibers of our being, but with our brains. Rather than bend and cave to our emotions, we think through what is going on around us.

Also, hunter-gatherer societies are some of the happiest in the world. You don't see many suicides in those societies, or depression, or drug addiction, etc.

You view history civilization as progression to the point we are currently at and beyond. I view at random events, and regression. Once earth goes, humanity goes. If a comet hits and we are wiped out, so be it. Life on earth will continue. I'd rather that happen than see humanity become cyborgs and basically become machines.

All the better reason to advance technology to the point where we can combat things that may destroy us, whatever they may be. It's true, we are fated to eventually die out, but the longer we can extend that, the better. Honestly, the implication that "we're going to die, so who cares when it happens" makes me overly surprised you haven't already taken yourself to the conclusion of that line of reasoning, and ceased to grace us with your presence on this earth. Not that I advocate such a thing, but it certainly shows either a flaw in your reasoning on the subject, or a lack of strength in your convictions.

Both are fine with me, as long as I can marry a human and a robot, and maybe some kind of lounge chair too. The more marriages the better as far as I'm concerned.


And has anyone read Isaac Asimov's robot series. Do ya'll remember that chick in Robots of Dawn who's dead husband made her a robot that she could fuck after he died?

We are machines, silly - organic ones. And ultimately, what's the bloody difference?

No, we aren't machines. People can be compared to machines, but we aren't. We are living, breathing, thinking creatures.

We are organic, are born, mature, and ultimately die. Machines are created by humans in factories or labs, and wear out. They aren't alive.

I believe the potential dangers outweigh the benefits.
Incorrect.
People die all the time, and always will die. It part of life. It is the definition of life. We are born, mature, age, and die. Sometimes people die young. Its sad but it happens.

Considering the definition of life is ever changing and ever varying this is extremely limited. Plus, death is only a factor when we can do nothing to prevent it. Why let someone die if you can save them? Why let someone die if they can still live a healthy full life?! Hell, we're probably getting to the point where we could transcend MORTALITY ITSELF or at least very close to it. Obviously the destruction of the universe is something we can't exactly get around but that is trillions and trillions of years away yet. Wouldn't you like to live for hundreds upon hundreds of years happily, enjoying life to its fullest? I know I would. I don't want to die. When you die, you're gone forever. That sucks, and as such if technology can prevent that, I will be all for it.

Changing humans from purely biological to a mix of biological and machine is not the answer. Every fiber of my being screams tells me this is wrong.

Why?

Also, hunter-gatherer societies are some of the happiest in the world. You don't see many suicides in those societies, or depression, or drug addiction, etc.
Maybe because they're usually so busy that such concerns are never noticed? They do occur, you know, especially drug addiction. Why do you think humans first started using drugs?

Hunter-gatherer societies are in fact rather unhappy on the whole, presuming we're talking about dismissing technology entirely. Now, if you want to preserve the better elements of that lifestyle, then that's fine with me. Many do. Neesika's tribe does so quite well, for instance. But there's no reason to deny the benefits of technology.


You view history civilization as progression to the point we are currently at and beyond. I view at random events, and regression.

You should try looking at things from an objective viewpoint.
Once earth goes, humanity goes.
This is only true for as long as we trapped on this planet and/or cannot defend it from certain threats. Once we leave it and can defend it from threats that we are able to affect(and I daresay that includes Sol's inevitable decline as a star by that point) then this is no longer true. Why should we let it remain so simply because it has been true for so long?
If a comet hits and we are wiped out, so be it. Life on earth will continue. I'd rather that happen than see humanity become cyborgs and basically become machines.
And I would like to keep on living. I would like to see my children keep living, my species continue to live. I want our species to prosper and survive and be all it can be, as it were.

Ha! I'd rather go out into the forest than farm. I don't see myself living to the age where I'd need a pacemaker and I don't worry about cancer. If i get I get it. If not, great!

Then do it. Go out there. Live your life there away from everyone rather than being a hypocrite of the worst kind. If you TRULY BELIEVED ANY OF THIS you would not be sitting at that computer responding to us, and personally, I think you don't truly believe it.

I think you want to believe it, that you THINK it's right, but you're not willing to admit to yourself that you'd have to give up on all those lovely benefits of civilization. You're blinding yourself to the fact that like everyone else you rely upon civilization for your needs and wants.

If you truly believe in this, then please go live in the forest and leave those of us who want civilization to be civilization alone. Don't try to force your beliefs on everyone else and act like a hypocrite.

All the better reason to advance technology to the point where we can combat things that may destroy us, whatever they may be. It's true, we are fated to eventually die out, but the longer we can extend that, the better. Honestly, the implication that "we're going to die, so who cares when it happens" makes me overly surprised you haven't already taken yourself to the conclusion of that line of reasoning, and ceased to grace us with your presence on this earth. Not that I advocate such a thing, but it certainly shows either a flaw in your reasoning on the subject, or a lack of strength in your convictions.

What if robots took our semen and eggs after we had sex with them and made babies in test tubes. That would be cool.

Thankfully the rest of us don't think with the fibers of our being, but with our brains. Rather than bend and cave to our emotions, we think through what is going on around us.

People are creatures of emotion and logic. My emotions give me the bases on many things, and I examine my thinking with logic.



All the better reason to advance technology to the point where we can combat things that may destroy us, whatever they may be. It's true, we are fated to eventually die out, but the longer we can extend that, the better. Honestly, the implication that "we're going to die, so who cares when it happens" makes me overly surprised you haven't already taken yourself to the conclusion of that line of reasoning, and ceased to grace us with your presence on this earth. Not that I advocate such a thing, but it certainly shows either a flaw in your reasoning on the subject, or a lack of strength in your convictions.

Lack of strength in my convictions? How? Just because everyone dies eventually doesn't mean we should hasten the event.

No, we aren't machines. People can be compared to machines, but we aren't. We are living, breathing, thinking creatures.

We are organic, are born, mature, and ultimately die. Machines are created by humans in factories or labs, and wear out. They aren't alive.

What an incredibly arbitrary distinction. Are not humans created by other humans? They certainly don't magically pop out of thin air. How is death any different from the destruction of a machine, if that machine has achieved sentience?

I think most of them were operating under the assumption that the robot in question was a sapient Artificial Intelligence.

Well, that seems an untenable assumption to me, at least assuming anything remotely like present computer technology.

Sure, with a complicated enough program you could probably simulate sapient artificial intelligence... but while I've done lots of pretty pathetic things to assuage my loneliness, I draw the line at talking to myself. I'm not going to make friends (let alone fall in love) with an unthinking machine some clever programmer managed to make sound like a human being.

People are creatures of emotion and logic. My emotions give me the bases on many things, and I examine my thinking with logic.

And yet by your own words your judgment and reason is clouded by emotion.

Lack of strength in my convictions? How? Just because everyone dies eventually doesn't mean we should hasten the event.

Exactly. We should do everything in our power to prevent that event from being hastened. We should extend our lives and our livelihood as far as it can be extended. If technology allows us to do this, then we should use it to do so.

Well, that seems an untenable assumption to me, at least assuming anything remotely like present computer technology.

Sure, with a complicated enough program you could probably simulate sapient artificial intelligence... but while I've done lots of pretty pathetic things to assuage my loneliness, I draw the line at talking to myself. I'm not going to make friends (let alone fall in love) with an unthinking machine some clever programmer managed to make sound like a human being.

In the OP, the Dutch scientist that was quoted said that such possibilities of marrying a robot were about 50 years away. I'd say this is an optimistic prediction for the development of AI, let alone commerically viable ones.

In any case, if it does happen so fast, than you and I have bigger fish to fry. Like the fact that some corporation is going to making and selling these sapient AI's to people.

Soon they'll have prostheses that will be able to almost completely recreate the range of motion of a lost biological arm.

So when that happens, for a moment disregarding the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the operation, would you be alright with someone cutting off your arms and replacing them with artificial ones?

Well, that seems an untenable assumption to me, at least assuming anything remotely like present computer technology.

Sure, with a complicated enough program you could probably simulate sapient artificial intelligence... but while I've done lots of pretty pathetic things to assuage my loneliness, I draw the line at talking to myself. I'm not going to make friends (let alone fall in love) with an unthinking machine some clever programmer managed to make sound like a human being.

So, you are saying you do not think it will be possible for true sapient artificial intelligence to exist? If we looked at things from the level of technology right now, you'd be right.

But not in the future. You need to think ahead, Soheran.

So when that happens, for a moment disregarding the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the operation, would you be alright with someone cutting off your arms and replacing them with artificial ones?

Certainly, so long as that decision was not forced upon me by other people(in the sense of saying "Hey, you'd be better with artificial arms so we're going to give them to you!") Obviously I wouldn't want to be forced into it nor would I ever force anyone into it, but I'd be fine with doing so, just as I'd be fine with an artificial limb should I lose a natural one.

In any case, if it does happen so fast, than you and I have bigger fish to fry. Like the fact that some corporation is going to making and selling these sapient AI's to people.

Which has its own share of ethical dilemmas with it, whatever economic institution is responsible for their production....

So, you are saying you do not think it will be possible for true sapient artificial intelligence to exist?

At the very least, I would submit that it would be very difficult--perhaps impossible--to come up with a convincing test for "true sapient artificial intelligence."

For that reason, attempts to create it will boil down to attempts to merely simulate it.

You need to think ahead, Soheran.

But whenever I do that, I start thinking like Trollgaard.

So when that happens, for a moment disregarding the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the operation, would you be alright with someone cutting off your arms and replacing them with artificial ones?

Of course not. That's why I earlier was stressing to Trollgaard that we need to push for the ethical use of technology, because being a Luddite is a sure path to being ignored.

Certainly, so long as that decision was not forced upon me by other people(in the sense of saying "Hey, you'd be better with artificial arms so we're going to give them to you!") Obviously I wouldn't want to be forced into it nor would I ever force anyone into it, but I'd be fine with doing so, just as I'd be fine with an artificial limb should I lose a natural one.

Interesting.

So would you be just as willing to have your mind modified? No doubt you hate to do some things that are nevertheless useful to you... if some operation could remove that dislike, would you consent to it?

But whenever I do that, I start thinking like Trollgaard.

Reminds me of a George Orwell quote. When a journalist asked him what he imagined the future was going to be like, he replied, "Imagine a boot stepping on a human face--forever."

I certainly hope we're not headed for a cyberpunk future. As much as I might like reading the fiction, I don't want to live there!

Which has its own share of ethical dilemmas with it, whatever economic institution is responsible for their production....

Indeed, hence why we've got to work as hard as we can to keep that from happening, and why people like Trollgaard will really mess things up.


At the very least, I would submit that it would be very difficult--perhaps impossible--to come up with a convincing test for "true sapient artificial intelligence."

Right now, yes. But perhaps not in the future. Perhaps all it requires is more understanding of what sapient intelligence is and how to recognize it. Again, it's all about thinking ahead.

For that reason, attempts to create it will boil down to attempts to merely simulate it.

And I would say that after a certain point, it wouldn't matter. If it acts just like a human would in every single circumstance, with all of the human emotions and beliefs and so on and so forth...what's the difference?

snip*

The only marriage to machines would be geneclexis; ergo I am adverse to it. It would only raise divorce rates. This guys thinks machines will have the same rights as humans in 50 years?

Interesting.

So would you be just as willing to have your mind modified? No doubt you hate to do some things that are nevertheless useful to you... if some operation could remove that dislike, would you consent to it?
What exactly do you mean? I'm not sure I understand.

I would be more than willing to have my mind transferred to a computer that does not contain the computational limits of my human brain, for instance. I in fact intend to do so the instant it becomes safe and I can afford it.

The only marriage to machines would be geneclexis; ergo I am adverse to it. It would only raise divorce rates. This guys thinks machines will have the same rights as humans in 50 years?

Why not? Remember, there is an underlying assumption that said machines will have sapient artificial intelligence. If they have that, they deserve rights by all means.

We are machines ourselves, remember. Organic machines that have come about through purely natural processes, but machines nonetheless. What's the difference between flesh and blood and silicone and electricity if the same intelligence is contained within each?

No, we aren't machines. People can be compared to machines, but we aren't. We are living, breathing, thinking creatures.

We are organic, are born, mature, and ultimately die. Machines are created by humans in factories or labs, and wear out. They aren't alive.What about viruses? Bacteria? Simple organic machinery. You? Still organic machinery, only much more complex. (and just like any other machine, your parts will wear out too) The man-made machines of today are only comparable to the most basic varieties of organisms. Nanomachines are even more similar - basically, a virus is one, only "naturally" occuring. As for more complex machines, taking a jump all the way to the human species - what if our machines took the very same jump? How would they be any "lesser" than us if they came to possess the same capabilities? That's the actual question. (to which I would answer that they wouldn't) Our current, rather basic tools and the "machines" envisioned are as different as bacteria are to us, and equating becoming part such machine with becoming something not "living, breathing, thinking" is complete nonsense.

Technology is value neutral.

Yes, a machine in and of itself isn't good or evil.

But machines do not come out of nowhere; they depend upon a sort of society and economy that is not "value neutral" at all.

The important questions we must ask is how it is to be used, who will have access to it, and who will control it.

The very nature of the technological system restricts the sorts of answers we can give to those questions.

We must assume, for instance, a society with specialization and a sophisticated division of labor... and a society, like all "civilized" societies, that has devised ways to get people to do work they probably don't really want to do. Both of those elements give us indications about about how it is likely to be used, who is likely to have access to it, and who is likely to control it.

Why not? Remember, there is an underlying assumption that said machines will have sapient artificial intelligence. If they have that, they deserve rights by all means.

We are machines ourselves, remember. Organic machines that have come about through purely natural processes, but machines nonetheless. What's the difference between flesh and blood and silicone and electricity if the same intelligence is contained within each?

Maybe in 500 hundred years. There is no-way I'll consider a robot made but fifty years from now sentient.

Yes, a machine in and of itself isn't good or evil.

But machines do not come out of nowhere; they depend upon a sort of society and economy that is not "value neutral" at all.

The very nature of the technological system restricts the sorts of answers we can give to those questions.

We must assume, for instance, a society with specialization and a sophisticated division of labor... and a society, like all "civilized" societies, that has devised ways to get people to do work they probably don't really want to do. Both of those elements give us indications about about how it is likely to be used, who is likely to have access to it, and who is likely to control it.

I'm not denying all of this. It is very true that our social structure determines largely how technology is used. The ethical use of technologies like transhumanism and artificial intelligence would require a significant change in the structure of our society, lest sentient life become merely economic tools to be manipulated for personal gain.

Maybe in 500 hundred years. There is no-way I'll consider a robot made but fifty years from now sentient.

Why? Simply because of the amount of time?

Remember, Parkus, the rate of technological advancement is not static. It has been increasing faster and faster since the sixties and will continue to do so. In the past forty years we've had advances that would've previously taken centuries, and we are advancing faster and faster with each day.

why people like Trollgaard will really mess things up.

To the contrary, people like Trollgaard will help ensure that the substantive critiques of the primitivists--of which there are many--might actually be partially addressed by a future society.

Right now, yes. But perhaps not in the future.

No, the gap seems more fundamental to me than that.

The problem is that sentience and sapience are fundamentally subjective phenomena.

And I would say that after a certain point, it wouldn't matter. If it acts just like a human would in every single circumstance, with all of the human emotions and beliefs and so on and so forth...what's the difference?

So you see no difference between someone who really loves you... and someone who merely acts as if she does? (However perfectly?)

What exactly do you mean? I'm not sure I understand.

There are probably useful activities out there that you find boring, physically taxing, or otherwise unpleasant.

If an operation could make you love them instead, would you undergo it?

Incorrect.


Considering the definition of life is ever changing and ever varying this is extremely limited. Plus, death is only a factor when we can do nothing to prevent it. Why let someone die if you can save them? Why let someone die if they can still live a healthy full life?! Hell, we're probably getting to the point where we could transcend MORTALITY ITSELF or at least very close to it. Obviously the destruction of the universe is something we can't exactly get around but that is trillions and trillions of years away yet. Wouldn't you like to live for hundreds upon hundreds of years happily, enjoying life to its fullest? I know I would. I don't want to die. When you die, you're gone forever. That sucks, and as such if technology can prevent that, I will be all for it.

Why?

Maybe because they're usually so busy that such concerns are never noticed? They do occur, you know, especially drug addiction. Why do you think humans first started using drugs?

Hunter-gatherer societies are in fact rather unhappy on the whole, presuming we're talking about dismissing technology entirely. Now, if you want to preserve the better elements of that lifestyle, then that's fine with me. Many do. Neesika's tribe does so quite well, for instance. But there's no reason to deny the benefits of technology.



You should try looking at things from an objective viewpoint.

This is only true for as long as we trapped on this planet and/or cannot defend it from certain threats. Once we leave it and can defend it from threats that we are able to affect(and I daresay that includes Sol's inevitable decline as a star by that point) then this is no longer true. Why should we let it remain so simply because it has been true for so long?

And I would like to keep on living. I would like to see my children keep living, my species continue to live. I want our species to prosper and survive and be all it can be, as it were.

Transcend mortality itself? That should not happen! That is breaking rule of the natural world. I would never want to live forever. To see everything I love die and change, no. I would not want that, and I don't really think many people would either. Now if I naturally lived to be fairly old I wouldn't mind, but I wouldn't want my body to grow feeble. Once that happens I wouldn't want to live.

I suggest a book on Hunter-Gatherers called "Limited Wants, Unlimited Means".

I don't want to see humanity go extinct, but I don't want to see humanity change into something other than human. I'd rather see the world end than see people changing themselves into machines.

And yet by your own words your judgment and reason is clouded by emotion.



Exactly. We should do everything in our power to prevent that event from being hastened. We should extend our lives and our livelihood as far as it can be extended. If technology allows us to do this, then we should use it to do so.

I'd rather be emotional than cold and logical. Emotion is what makes life worth living.

Extending life by becoming machines is not the answer.




But whenever I do that, I start thinking like Trollgaard.

Is that bad?

Of course not. That's why I earlier was stressing to Trollgaard that we need to push for the ethical use of technology, because being a Luddite is a sure path to being ignored.

Ignoring people's views leads to violence. If a large segment of the populations views are not heard in the not-so-distant future, violence will erupt.

It is very true that our social structure determines largely how technology is used.

Yes, but I am arguing that the causation operates in the opposite direction as well: the nature of the necessary material basis for technology dictates a good deal of our social structure to us.

Not every kind of society and economy can produce advanced technology. Or even agriculture. (Actually, there is no "even.")

Nobody has to marry a robot. Can't we all just tolerate other people's choices?

Is that bad?

In that it makes me feel sad and despairing? Yes.

But certainly no insult to you was meant... to the contrary, I was pointing out the aptness of certain portions of your critique.

To the contrary, people like Trollgaard will help ensure that the substantive critiques of the primitivists--of which there are many--might actually be partially addressed by a future society.

I disagree. We can consider and address those critiques just as easily by ourselves.


No, the gap seems more fundamental to me than that.

The problem is that sentience and sapience are fundamentally subjective phenomena.
Perhaps. We simply aren't sure of that yet. In essence, the science is not fully in yet. Sure, this might be the case now, but we could discover later down the line that it is objective.

Or not. All I'm saying is that we need to keep considering it until it is evidently clear that one possibility or the other is the truth.



So you see no difference between someone who really loves you... and someone who merely acts as if she does? (However perfectly?)

There is a slight problem with this question. From what I've understood up until now your assumption has been that a sapient artificial intelligence is only a simulation and that it can't be a person by itself, whereas this question would suggest:

A. It is in fact a person

and

B. It is capable of deceit and wishes to deceive.

I know that wasn't your intention. My point was that even if it would be a simulation, if it is so close to the real thing that I could not tell the difference however I might try, there is no difference. "A difference that makes no difference is no difference" as it were.


There are probably useful activities out there that you find boring, physically taxing, or otherwise unpleasant.

If an operation could make you love them instead, would you undergo it?
That depends on the action as well as the circumstance. I find using the bathroom unpleasant. I find sleep unpleasant sometimes in the subjective waste of time it takes.

But to answer your question, I think I'd rather find a way to get around the necessity of the action in the first place and simply keep the beneficial aspects. To consider sleep again, I like dreaming and would like to be able to keep dreaming even if I wouldn't need to sleep anymore.

Yes, but I am arguing that the causation operates in the opposite direction as well: the nature of the necessary material basis for technology dictates a good deal of our social structure to us.

Not every kind of society and economy can produce advanced technology. Or even agriculture. (Actually, there is no "even.")

Just so you know, I'm not some crazy futurist whose been swept off my feet by the march of technology. I think we're starting to reach a point of "Okay, that's great that you can build that type of widget, but why would you bother?"

Of course, some social structures lead to a certain objective limit on technological growth. I wouldn't hazard to guess where those limits are.

Loving robots isn't a choice or a lifestyle. I was born that way.

At the very least, I would submit that it would be very difficult--perhaps impossible--to come up with a convincing test for "true sapient artificial intelligence."
Humans must pass the test and AIs must only pass if they are the true thing.

As far as my very limited knowledge of human brains can tell there are only 3 good ways to test if humans have feelings:
A. If you are a human and experience feelings then they do have feelings.
B. If humans behave like they have feelings then they do.
C. If they have something more then mere electrochemical signals, let's call it a soul, then they have feelings

We can't use test A on robots, only the robots can use that test on themselves. Test B can't distinguish between simulations and the true thing. Humans would fail test C, even though I personally believe in both souls and an afterlife it has not been scientifically proven that we really do have souls.

I can't imagine any test that can be performed on both humans, true sapient artificial intelligence and a perfect simulation of human intelligence and tell the difference between the true things and the mere simulation. Therefore I can't imagine that there is any difference between true sapient artificial intelligence and a mere simulation of it.
Interesting.

So would you be just as willing to have your mind modified? No doubt you hate to do some things that are nevertheless useful to you... if some operation could remove that dislike, would you consent to it?
I wouldn't have my arms replaced unless I had to but mind modifications would be cool as long as I control exactly what modifications are made. The first thing I'd do is add a perfect but controllable long turn memory in parallel with my normal memory. Then I'd replace my math center with something on the level of a computer's math skills.

I wouldn't have my arms replaced unless I had to but mind modifications would be cool as long as I control exactly what modifications are made. The first thing I'd do is add a perfect but controllable long turn memory in parallel with my normal memory. Then I'd replace my math center with something on the level of a computer's math skills.

Once you start tampering with the brain, its game over. The fast track to changing the essence of humanity.

Why would people want to start changing themselves this way? I think that is a very important question to ask.

Transcend mortality itself? That should not happen! That is breaking rule of the natural world.

Rules? What rules? Who set them? Who defined them? What makes you think there are rules per se?
I would never want to live forever. To see everything I love die and change, no.
Ah ah, you are forgetting that if it is possible for ONE to be that way, it is possible for EVERYONE to be that way.
I would not want that, and I don't really think many people would either.
I will be entirely honest in that if the immortality was only applicable to me, I'd probably not like it either. But since it would be due to technological advancement and be available to everyone...


Now if I naturally lived to be fairly old I wouldn't mind, but I wouldn't want my body to grow feeble. Once that happens I wouldn't want to live.

Ah, but see, the technology would prevent that from happening. I don't want to see my mind degrade due to aging either, but rather than simply say "Hey, let's die before that happens!" I'd rather go for technology that prevents it altogether.

I suggest a book on Hunter-Gatherers called "Limited Wants, Unlimited Means".

I will consider it.

I don't want to see humanity go extinct, but I don't want to see humanity change into something other than human. I'd rather see the world end than see people changing themselves into machines.

We're already machines, Trollgaard. We're simply making ourselves better.

I'd rather be emotional than cold and logical. Emotion is what makes life worth living.

...wait, what? Why would emotions disappear? Why would we just be "cold and logical"? What gives you that impression?

I agree with you here. Emotions are an integral part of life and I do not want them to disappear. And they wouldn't due to this technology. Any sapient A.I. would have to have emotions for me to consider them sapient, and no advancement is going to get rid of our emotions.

Extending life by becoming machines is not the answer.

It certainly is the answer.

Is that bad?

Yes, but only in the sense that your current way of thinking is a little lopsided, misguided, and limited. You're thinking with your emotions rather than with your logical thinking abilities. By all means I can see you changing and I would be glad to see you change if you are willing.


Ignoring people's views leads to violence. If a large segment of the populations views are not heard in the not-so-distant future, violence will erupt.

This is true. This is most certainly true.

However, I find it hard to believe that such a large segment of the population would truly be against it or that they would be ignored. My feeling is live and let live. If they don't want it, they don't have to have it, but they shouldn't try to impose their will on those of us who do want it. Conversely, if they don't want it, we don't have the right to force them to have it.

Once you start tampering with the brain, its game over. The fast track to changing the essence of humanity.

Humans have been tampering with our brains for as long as we've been around. This is just another step in the same process...we seek to expand our knowledge of the world, be it the spiritual, the material, or both, and if there is something that can do that for us, we will pursue it.

Of course, some social structures lead to a certain objective limit on technological growth. I wouldn't hazard to guess where those limits are.

But we have to, don't we?

At least if we want to keep any of this.

I disagree. We can consider and address those critiques just as easily by ourselves.

That's not the way humans think. We are too close-minded, too fond of groupthink. When everyone else is engaging in mindless self-congratulation over the march of "progress", it helps to have primitivists around.

Perhaps. We simply aren't sure of that yet. In essence, the science is not fully in yet. Sure, this might be the case now, but we could discover later down the line that it is objective.

Um, this isn't a matter of "science" precisely because sentience and sapience are subjective.

Actually we can't even objectively prove that other humans have mental states, and we won't be able to however advanced our science. We would have to be them to do that, simply because of the nature of mental states: they are subjective phenomena within the mind. We may find objective features of the brain that may seem to correlate with those mental states... but we can't prove that. As long as our experience of it is objective--as long as it is taken in by our senses, our mind--we can't know that what we experience correlates with anything that's happening in someone else's mind. We can't experience their existence.

The best we can do is compare brain structures, and recognize that our own are highly similar to those of other humans... and therefore, because we are sentient and sapient, it makes sense to assume that other humans are as well. But we can do nothing of the sort for artificial intelligence.

There is a slight problem with this question. From what I've understood up until now your assumption has been that a sapient artificial intelligence is only a simulation and that it can't be a person by itself, whereas this question would suggest:

A. It is in fact a person

and

B. It is capable of deceit and wishes to deceive.

It suggests no such thing. Something need not intend to deceive to be deceptive. The only person here who might be said to "intend" to deceive is the (human) programmer; she wants to convince you through the robot's words and actions that the robot really loves you, when all that is there is simply the programmed words and actions--not the emotion.

My point was that even if it would be a simulation, if it is so close to the real thing that I could not tell the difference however I might try, there is no difference.

"I cannot tell the difference" does not mean that there is no difference.

Chiefly, the difference here is that in one case, the person actually loves you... and in this case, the robot merely appears to love you.

Do you want to be loved because you like to hear "I love you"... or because you actually want to be loved and valued by other beings?

Humans have been tampering with our brains for as long as we've been around. This is just another step in the same process...we seek to expand our knowledge of the world, be it the spiritual, the material, or both, and if there is something that can do that for us, we will pursue it.

We haven't been adding machine parts too it. That is one bridge I don't think should be crossed. I'd be fine with other crossing it, but people who don't want alterations, 'natural' humans, if you will, may become ignored and second-class citizens due to the possibilities of altered humans. That I cannot stomach.

Also, this would completely destroy natural evolution because anyone could have surgery to get what they wanted. Why lift weights and strengthen your body when you can just get robotic limbs? Why study and learn when you can just get your mind upgraded? It ruins the value of discipline and hard work.

I also don't believe this technology would be available to everyone. Only an 'elite' group of people.

If the robot had a womb and had invitro fertilization the offspring would be human, but that would just be **cked up. Why not marry a real person. Once nanites are injected, the child wouldn't be 100% human. It would be part machine and part human. I don't think humanity should go down that road...
There are a lot of human women who cannot safely bear children, for any number of reasons. As a matter of fact, if you want to talk about pure medical safety, it would be MEDICALLY safer if no woman ever went through pregnancy and childbirth. Hell, it would probably be safer for most fetuses if we could gestate them in perfectly controlled environments with a constant supply of nutrients that was ideally balanced for the individual fetus. We could also eliminate a lot of medical complications that can arrise when the health needs of a woman conflict with the health needs of her pregnancy.

The invention of artificial womb technology could be pretty helpful, though it could also be misused in some icky ways.

We haven't been adding machine parts too it. That is one bridge I don't think should be crossed. I'd be fine with other crossing it, but people who don't want alterations, 'natural' humans, if you will, may become ignored and second-class citizens due to the possibilities of altered humans. That I cannot stomach.

Oh, I agree. I don't think anyone would want a world where people are discriminated against on this basis; it's contrary to the point of wanting to do it in the first place. Freedom to alter yourself as you desire shouldn't give you the freedom to discriminate against those that choose not to.

[/QUOTE]Also, this would completely destroy natural evolution because anyone could have surgery to get what they wanted. Why lift weights and strengthen your body when you can just get robotic limbs? Why study and learn when you can just get your mind upgraded? It ruins the value of discipline and hard work.[/QUOTE]

Only if you let it...anything that makes our lives easier can be used in the exact same way. These advances are no excuse for neglecting your responsibility to yourself or to others.

I also don't believe this technology would be available to everyone. Only an 'elite' group of people.

Initially, like any new product. But eventually, it would become available to everyone just like TVs, washing machines, refrigerators, computers, or a thousand other appliances.

5 YEARS!!!!

But, I want my Lucy Liu-Bot NOW!!

Once you start tampering with the brain, its game over.
Then the game is already over. Ever take an aspirin?

Then the game is already over. Ever take an aspirin?

Not in a long time. But aspirin is temporary. The modifications being talked about are life long.

Not in a long time. But aspirin is temporary. The modifications being talked about are life long.
So you agree that it's not "all over" when we tamper with the brain?

So you agree that it's not "all over" when we tamper with the brain?

Tamper with it permanently, and its over.
;)

A professor at Georgia Tech has already calculated the five aspects he would need to program into a robot in order to replace his wife. He determined that he could easily replace his wife with a program that could beat his wife in a Turing test.

I wouldn't want to get married to or be in a romantic or sexual relationship with anyone, robot or human. So neither on the poll.

That's not the way humans think. We are too close-minded, too fond of groupthink. When everyone else is engaging in mindless self-congratulation over the march of "progress", it helps to have primitivists around.

True, due to instincts. But it will be possible for us to overcome those instincts in the future. How it will be done, I don't know nor would I care to guess.


Um, this isn't a matter of "science" precisely because sentience and sapience are subjective.

Actually we can't even objectively prove that other humans have mental states, and we won't be able to however advanced our science. We would have to be them to do that, simply because of the nature of mental states: they are subjective phenomena within the mind. We may find objective features of the brain that may seem to correlate with those mental states... but we can't prove that. As long as our experience of it is objective--as long as it is taken in by our senses, our mind--we can't know that what we experience correlates with anything that's happening in someone else's mind. We can't experience their existence.

I'll concede this for the sake of argument.

The best we can do is compare brain structures, and recognize that our own are highly similar to those of other humans... and therefore, because we are sentient and sapient, it makes sense to assume that other humans are as well. But we can do nothing of the sort for artificial intelligence.

Nyet. Any true artificial intelligence will have to have a brain structure of some sort as complex as ours, matching ours in terms of how it is set up and so on. It wouldn't be identical, of course, but it would have to mirror that.


It suggests no such thing. Something need not intend to deceive to be deceptive. The only person here who might be said to "intend" to deceive is the (human) programmer; she wants to convince you through the robot's words and actions that the robot really loves you, when all that is there is simply the programmed words and actions--not the emotion.

Let me make something clear. I am not talking about a programmed automoton. I am talking about artificial life forms with the ability to learn, to grow, to in essence be artificial humans. This means not simply being programmed, but having a brain that acts just like a human being's. I'm talking about something far beyond our current computational capabilities. The only coding that would truly exist would be the same "code" of sorts that makes up our own brain. From there they would learn and grow just like a human being would.

As such, it wouldn't be a simulation. It would be just as real as you or me. To use your own argument, how can you ever know someone truly loves and values you? How do you know they possess that emotional and mental state? You can evaluate certain things like how they act in your presence, what specifically they do and so on, but you can't know.


"I cannot tell the difference" does not mean that there is no difference.

True.

Chiefly, the difference here is that in one case, the person actually loves you... and in this case, the robot merely appears to love you.
Do you want to be loved because you like to hear "I love you"... or because you actually want to be loved and valued by other beings?
As I said, it wouldn't just be a simulation. It'd be just as real. And in any case, I wouldn't settle for anything other than a robot that is a human being to my eyes. Can I fully state what that means? No, because a lot of it can't really be put into words, but basically any robot would be a full sapient intelligent being that would have the full range of human emotions and so on and so forth and truly be a person in and of themselves. I would settle for nothing less.

Judging from my love life's track record, if I don't have a robot girlfriend, I'm unlikely to EVER have one.:(:headbang:

humans = messy emotions but hey, that's part of the charm - robots = robots
i'll keep my sci-fi love scenarios to Bladerunner ;)

We haven't been adding machine parts too it. That is one bridge I don't think should be crossed. I'd be fine with other crossing it, but people who don't want alterations, 'natural' humans, if you will, may become ignored and second-class citizens due to the possibilities of altered humans. That I cannot stomach.
Nor can I. Believe me, I have absolutely no intentions of allowing anyone--including myself--who obtains any sort of genetic manipulation, nanites, robotic limbs, what have you to act as if they are superior. People will still have equal rights under the law and in society as far as I'm concerned and I will fight to keep it that way.

Also, this would completely destroy natural evolution because anyone could have surgery to get what they wanted. Why lift weights and strengthen your body when you can just get robotic limbs? Why study and learn when you can just get your mind upgraded? It ruins the value of discipline and hard work.

Technically that has been eroded more and more as we continue to develop technologies, but I don't think it'll eliminate them entirely, since you'd still have to use the advances afterwards. Indeed, I think it would be better this way because it means you don't have to waste time with certain activities and get done what you need to do.

Plus, nothing--not even technology to let you access any knowledge base with your brain instantly--can undermine the value of experience and full understanding. Having the knowledge is one thing. Understand it is still completely different, no matter how the knowledge is received.

I also don't believe this technology would be available to everyone. Only an 'elite' group of people.
Perhaps at first, but not for long, not unless they want to start slamming down on democracy.

Judging from my love life's track record, if I don't have a robot girlfriend, I'm unlikely to EVER have one.:(:headbang:

Ah, come on, Maeineiacs. You're a great guy! It just takes time to find someone, that's all. Don't give up. It's worth it.

I think the question here is: "Would a machine marry me?"

True, due to instincts. But it will be possible for us to overcome those instincts in the future.

A bit late for that....

Nyet. Any true artificial intelligence will have to have a brain structure of some sort as complex as ours, matching ours in terms of how it is set up and so on.

So you want an artificial copy of a human brain (or at least an approximation)? That might work.

But otherwise, we are engaging in the most tenuous of guesswork.

Let me make something clear. I am not talking about a programmed automoton. I am talking about artificial life forms with the ability to learn, to grow, to in essence be artificial humans.

How will you determine the difference? Give me a test. I don't care if it's within present means or not--just a hypothetical one.

You can evaluate certain things like how they act in your presence, what specifically they do and so on, but you can't know.

That's true. But in the case of human beings, we know (at least we think we know) that certain kinds of behaviors correlate with certain kinds of emotions.

If those behaviors are simply programmed, that correlation is removed.

Ah, come on, Maeineiacs. You're a great guy! It just takes time to find someone, that's all. Don't give up. It's worth it.

I'm 40, disabled, unemployed (because I'm still in school), socially inept, and now I've got cancer. I think these are ligitimate things to bitch about.

A dutch scientist (http://www.livescience.com/technology/071012-robot-marriage.html) thinks humans will have sex with robots in 5 years and marry robots in 50 years.

What do you think about this, would you have a romantic relationship with a robot and how do you think it would compare to a relationship with a human?


Personally I don't feel like having any romantic relationships at all. I think we will develop artificial intelligence with feelings but I can't quite accept the idea of robots having a gender. Like a statue or blow up doll they could look like a human of a certain gender but that doesn't change the fact that technically they are manufactured mechanical things "it" that reproduce by manufacturing new robots rather then biological lifeforms with sexual reproduction "he/she".

Time scale's a bit off, but I would not be surprised if we start letting people fuck trees just because they have feelings for a tree at this rate. Now homosexuality, next pedophilia, then bestiality, then who knows what people will come up with next.

A bit late for that....

I don't mean evolution. I mean a technological solution, which will be necessary anyway if we're to understand anything more complex than our current human brains can understand.


So you want an artificial copy of a human brain (or at least an approximation)? That might work.

But otherwise, we are engaging in the most tenuous of guesswork.

Yes, that's what I mean, basically. I want to say a neural network but I don't know if that's an accurate term.


How will you determine the difference? Give me a test. I don't care if it's within present means or not--just a hypothetical one.

Well...I would have to interact with them in a variety of everyday situations, observe how they move, how they act, their facial expressions, their body language, how they react to various things, especially emotionally speaking, and so on and so forth. All of those little things a human does that they would need to do too. A lot of it is subjective evaluation that can't be done except in person.


That's true. But in the case of human beings, we know (at least we think we know) that certain kinds of behaviors correlate with certain kinds of emotions.

If those behaviors are simply programmed, that correlation is removed.

True. I'm not saying this will be an easy feat. It's not beyond the realm of possibility, however, as the idea is for them to basically be set with certain things like a human is--the instincts, as it were--and then allowed to grow and experience like any other human being. I honestly can't say how this could be duplicated, since I'm not a scientist, but I'm reasonably certain that we CAN duplicate it, and perhaps improve the process. Whatever nature has managed to achieve, we can achieve eventually, and usually do better in the process, like we already do for so many things.

I'm 40, disabled, unemployed (because I'm still in school), socially inept, and now I've got cancer. I think these are ligitimate things to bitch about.
They are. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't lose hope, as it were. Do your best not to let them get you down. Is that easy? Of course not. But is it worth it? Yes. Don't forget that.

Besides, I like you. That counts for something, doesn't it? :D

I don't mean evolution. I mean a technological solution, which will be necessary anyway if we're to understand anything more complex than our current human brains can understand.

Yeah, only by then you may have already gone too far in the wrong direction.

Well...I would have to interact with them in a variety of everyday situations, observe how they move, how they act, their facial expressions, their body language, how they react to various things, especially emotionally speaking, and so on and so forth. All of those little things a human does that they would need to do too. A lot of it is subjective evaluation that can't be done except in person.

The problem is that there is an obvious alternative explanation for all those behaviors: they were programmed. And if they were programmed, they are not motivated by emotions the way human behavior is.

See, and attitudes like this are the primary reason why we really do need to invent sexbot drones as soon as possible. As things stand, guys like this will wander the bar scene hitting on actual women, and we end up having to dump expensive drinks over their heads to make them go away. I'd much rather they stay home and play with their sexbot, so I can enjoy my $8 martini in peace.

You should buy a cheap drink and keep it on hand for the express purpose of jerk dumping and save the expensive ones to drink yourself . . .

Hmmmm... I'm about to marry some with about the color and taste of caramel icecream. But she does have a much nicer shape.

I'd say that I won't believe you until I taste her for myself, but I doubt Kbrook would let me taste anyone but her.

See, and attitudes like this are the primary reason why we really do need to invent sexbot drones as soon as possible. As things stand, guys like this will wander the bar scene hitting on actual women, and we end up having to dump expensive drinks over their heads to make them go away. I'd much rather they stay home and play with their sexbot, so I can enjoy my $8 martini in peace.

Bah, no 8 dollar martini can stop male hormonal lust!

There are probably useful activities out there that you find boring, physically taxing, or otherwise unpleasant.

If an operation could make you love them instead, would you undergo it?

No, on the other hand were I phobic or bi-polar, or schizophrenic and an operation would cure the condition with fewer and less severe side effects than medication I would undergo the operation to cure it.

Bah, no 8 dollar martini can stop male hormonal lust!

But an 8-dollar bottle of malt liquor could. Remember, the cheaper the alcohol, the more you get of it...those things pack a heavy punch.

Time scale's a bit off, but I would not be surprised if we start letting people fuck trees just because they have feelings for a tree at this rate. Now homosexuality, next pedophilia, then bestiality, then who knows what people will come up with next.

Yay! More bigots comparing homosexuality and pedophilia/bestiality!

I'm 40, disabled, unemployed (because I'm still in school), socially inept, and now I've got cancer. I think these are ligitimate things to bitch about.

Man, there's girls out there that are into babying guys. I don't know how you hook up with them but they get off on taking care of a guy on a basic level. Try an alternative lifestyle dating service.

Becoming cyborgs would not devalue our humanity - it would be a higher expression of it. Technology is part of being human. A human enhanced by human cyborg parts is not less human, he is at least as human as a 'natural'. But I do agree we must proceed cautiously.

As to the OP, I intend to marry a human woman. If a robot was fully sentient, had a full range of emotions, the right personality, and could bear children, I would consider it.

Oh, and it would have to be a Jewish robot.

Yeah, only by then you may have already gone too far in the wrong direction.

Such as?


The problem is that there is an obvious alternative explanation for all those behaviors: they were programmed. And if they were programmed, they are not motivated by emotions the way human behavior is.
What would be the point to programming to that degree when it'd be far more efficient to simply create an artificial brain and have it grow and develop like a normal person, which is what I keep saying will have to apply in order for the robot/android/what have you to be fully sapient.

Furthermore, I don't think it'd be possible to program to that level of complexity enough to truly simulate all of those behaviors. You could probably program a set number of reactions to certain inputs but considering the sheer number of possible inputs and the computation power necessary to react to all of them sufficiently...you'd probably require something like an artificial brain structure anyway, as well as something to give them emotions, at which point it's a person.

But, I get the feeling we're beginning to run into brick walls here. How about this: we agree to disagree for right now and wait fifty years to see who's right, and the wrong person has to buy the right person a drink or something. :D

They are. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't lose hope, as it were. Do your best not to let them get you down. Is that easy? Of course not. But is it worth it? Yes. Don't forget that.

Besides, I like you. That counts for something, doesn't it? :D

That it does, thanks.


Man, there's girls out there that are into babying guys. I don't know how you hook up with them but they get off on taking care of a guy on a basic level. Try an alternative lifestyle dating service.

I can see my profile now: "Disabled middle-aged college student seeks sugar mama." :D

The problem is that there is an obvious alternative explanation for all those behaviors: they were programmed. And if they were programmed, they are not motivated by emotions the way human behavior is.

Hmmm... one could describe human behavior as being programmed by a combination of biological and cultural evolution. If so, why do humans have personhood but AIs dont?

It would be part machine and part human. I don't think humanity should go down that road...

Nice to see that you're willing to condemn all people with pacemakers to an immediate death.

Becoming cyborgs would not devalue our humanity - it would be a higher expression of it. Technology is part of being human. A human enhanced by human cyborg parts is not less human, he is at least as human as a 'natural'. But I do agree we must proceed cautiously.


No. They would be a cyborg, not a human.

No. They would be a cyborg, not a human.

What is non-human about him?

The machine parts? They're made by human minds. They're about as human as it gets.

See, and attitudes like this are the primary reason why we really do need to invent sexbot drones as soon as possible. As things stand, guys like this will wander the bar scene hitting on actual women, and we end up having to dump expensive drinks over their heads to make them go away. I'd much rather they stay home and play with their sexbot, so I can enjoy my $8 martini in peace.

Dear Bottle,

I hope you're wearing something white 'cause...

...women should be all dressed in white, like all other domestic appliances.

My ancestors have lived and died as flesh and blood humans, and so will I, and my descendants if I have a say in it.

Did any of your ancestors use prosthetics?

Well, that seems an untenable assumption to me, at least assuming anything remotely like present computer technology.

Sure, with a complicated enough program you could probably simulate sapient artificial intelligence... but while I've done lots of pretty pathetic things to assuage my loneliness, I draw the line at talking to myself. I'm not going to make friends (let alone fall in love) with an unthinking machine some clever programmer managed to make sound like a human being.

Well that's an interesting thought really. What constitutes sapience? Or in this case, intelligent sapience?

Would a self aware, self upgrading, self modifying and maintaining program capable of absorbing and applying new information itself be not the same as any human intelligence except that it just happens to run on silicon chips as opposed to neurons?

Well that's an interesting thought really. What constitutes sapience? Or in this case, intelligent sapience?

Would a self aware, self upgrading, self modifying and maintaining program capable of absorbing and applying new information itself be not the same as any human intelligence except that it just happens to run on silicon chips as opposed to neurons?

In fact such house companions are already available.

There are numerous puppets for children that can ‘listen’ and talk. While all of them are rather premature, some are good enough for little humans.

And I have reading something about a ‘smart’ puppet for senior lonely people.

I found some articles:

http://in.tech.yahoo.com/030207/139/20vn3.html
http://www.startribune.com/789/story/1464190.html

See, now how come the dating advice columnists never provide tips as helpful as these?
They're more concered with telling you how to get a man, rather than how to get rid of one you don't want.
Shit no sense in wasting my beer on that bitch!
You the man now dog!
Because they're more than likely never been in a bar. Also, order a pint. Its cheaper than the martini and has more splash for your cash.
This is a good suggestion.
I can have a beer at home for much cheaper. If I'm going to order something while I'm out, then I want something that actually requires effort to make. Also, if I drink beer I will end up feeling full and woozy long before I even get a buzz.
Get him to buy you a beer, then soak him with it, don't actually drink it.
Is that any surprise?

If somebody wants an actual relationship, they're not going to seek out a mindless automaton. People who want a "robot wife" really just want a fancy masturbatory aid that can also take out the trash. They're looking for a toy, not a partner.
I stand by my earlier 'best toy evar' remark. Unless I didn't actually make one, in which case: Best toy evar.
Precisely why I intend to marry a "water bear."

(Nerd linkies! http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artjun00/mmbearp.html)

Why settle for a human spouse, when you could choose a life-partner who is capable of surviving the vacuum of space?

Want a "low-maintenance" type of wife? Well, how about one who doesn't have the least bit of trouble spending a couple hundred years frozen in a polar ice cap? Just thaw her out when you want some attention, and she'll be fine within minutes!

Want a husband who is sure to be there for you when you need him? Well, how about a husband who can easily survive 570,000 rads of x-ray radiation! Your common garden-variety human husband will perish if exposed to a measly 1,000-2,000 rads. If you want some security in your relationship, there's nothing quite like a water bear hubby who can endure a bath in radioactive waste!
Where can I get me one of these things!
How many human males do you know who can be kept in water for more than a day? O.o
Dead ones.
I generally share your opinion of marriage, but...

You can't tell me you don't get just a tiny sinister little thrill thinking of the number of conservatives you could send absolutely over the fucking falls by marrying a robot. I know I do.
Gay robot marriages now!
Do I even need to answer?
You'd likely be the robot getting married :p
Transcend mortality itself? That should not happen! That is breaking rule of the natural world. I would never want to live forever. To see everything I love die and change, no. I would not want that, and I don't really think many people would either.
If everyone lived forever thne you wouldn't see the people you loved die. Now if I naturally lived to be fairly old I wouldn't mind, but I wouldn't want my body to grow feeble. Once that happens I wouldn't want to live.
Nanites could prevent that, in theory.

I don't want to see humanity go extinct, but I don't want to see humanity change into something other than human.
You've heard of this thing called evolution, yeah? Whether we use machines to do it or not, humanity as we know it is going to change, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. You can try and live a life of pointless struggle or you can accept it.
I'd rather see the world end than see people changing themselves into machines.
We are machines.

We haven't been adding machine parts too it. That is one bridge I don't think should be crossed. I'd be fine with other crossing it, but people who don't want alterations, 'natural' humans, if you will, may become ignored and second-class citizens due to the possibilities of altered humans. That I cannot stomach.
Denying rights to any arbitrary group of humans is wrong.
Also, this would completely destroy natural evolution because anyone could have surgery to get what they wanted.
So you don't want humanity to change, but you do want there to be natural evolution. These two things are incompatible.
Why lift weights and strengthen your body when you can just get robotic limbs? Why study and learn when you can just get your mind upgraded? It ruins the value of discipline and hard work.
Discipline and hard work only have value because they yield positive results. If they were no longer required for positive results then they would no longer have any value.

I also don't believe this technology would be available to everyone. Only an 'elite' group of people.
If by 'elite' you mean people who can afford it, then you're probably right.
But an 8-dollar bottle of malt liquor could. Remember, the cheaper the alcohol, the more you get of it...those things pack a heavy punch.
Ooooh, very good. Smash the bottle on his head, then stabby stabby.

Dear Bottle,

I hope you're wearing something white 'cause...

...women should be all dressed in white, like all other domestic appliances.
Way to flub the joke. It goes like this:

"Why do brides dress in white?"
"Because it's nice if all the kitchen appliances match."

You could also have tried,

"Why don't women wear watches?"
"Because there's a clock in the stove."

Or,

"What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?"
"Nothing. You've already told the bitch twice."

Any of these efforts would have communicated your utter lack of wit and imagination quite effectively.

Way to flub the joke. It goes like this:

"Why do brides dress in white?"
"Because it's nice if all the kitchen appliances match."

You could also have tried,

"Why don't women wear watches?"
"Because there's a clock in the stove."

Or,

"What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?"
"Nothing. You've already told the bitch twice."

Any of these efforts would have communicated your utter lack of wit and imagination quite effectively.

Oh woman, be silent and bring me some beer.

You have 30 seconds!

Oh woman, be silent and bring me some beer.

You have 30 seconds!

I tried that line with my wife once. It fuckin' worked! Ohh but did I have to pay later!:D

Oh woman, be silent and bring me some beer.

You have 30 seconds!
Again with the flubbing. It's, "Get in the kitchen and bake me a pie."

Honestly, sexist humor is on the same level as fart jokes. If you can't master the basics then you might as well just give up and spare yourself the embarrassment.

I tried that line with my wife once. It fuckin' worked! Ohh but did I have to pay later!:D
My boyfriend still fondly remembers one of the first jokes I ever told around him:

"How many women does it take to open a beer?"
"None, it should be open when he brings it to you."

My boyfriend still fondly remembers one of the first jokes I ever told around him:

"How many women does it take to open a beer?"
"None, it should be open when he brings it to you."

Bwahahahh! Last night being Tuesday, I spent the evening at one of my brothers house playing cards, and txt'd my wife when I was on the way home.

At the end of the txt I put the rather old fashioned(I'm allowed to be) NORWICH.

Well when I got home my wife was laying down on the settee, cradling the head of my youngest boy(who was waiting for his brother to get out of the bath before they both went to bed)in her lap, and as she heard the door she shouted out 'Hey babe, what does Norwich mea.... ohhhh'

She went bright red and couldn't stop giggling, and my boy was all 'what what does that mean dad'

Heh what fun!

Bwahahahh! Last night being Tuesday, I spent the evening at one of my brothers house playing cards, and txt'd my wife when I was on the way home.

At the end of the txt I put the rather old fashioned(I'm allowed to be) NORWICH.

Well when I got home my wife was laying down on the settee, cradling the head of my youngest boy(who was waiting for his brother to get out of the bath before they both went to bed)in her lap, and as she heard the door she shouted out 'Hey babe, what does Norwich mea.... ohhhh'

She went bright red and couldn't stop giggling, and my boy was all 'what what does that mean dad'

Heh what fun!
Lol, just whatever you do, DON'T EXPLAIN IT TO HIM. I still remember when I finally figured out 1) that my parents had had sex at least once (to make me) and 2) that they quite possibly were CONTINUING to have sex even after I was born!!!

AMG THE HORROR.

Edwinasia, you either fail utterly at being funny or you're trolling. Neither is good for you.

~ Tsar the Mod.

If an AI gets feelings etc. like humans, they have the same rights as humans do. Any other way it is the same as slavery. Though sexbot doesn´t need feelings. It just needs to look sexy.

Lol, just whatever you do, DON'T EXPLAIN IT TO HIM. I still remember when I finally figured out 1) that my parents had had sex at least once (to make me) and 2) that they quite possibly were CONTINUING to have sex even after I was born!!!

AMG THE HORROR.

Heh yeah he kept on at it, and while his mum couldn't look at him, nor stop giggling, I couldn't stop smiling and I told him 'Son, I ain't gonna tell you, coz if I did you'd only go ughhhh, anyway'


I think he understood then that it was a sex reference. Hehheh it quiet freaks him out sometimes, when he sees us kiss or cuddle he goes 'ughhh old people love'

Bwahaha I tell him that one day he'll be doing it, and his kids will be saying the same.

More stories for the Peeps house hold later!

If an AI gets feelings etc. like humans, they have the same rights as humans do. Any other way it is the same as slavery. Though sexbot doesn´t need feelings. It just needs to look sexy.
I dunno about that. I would personally prefer a sexbot that at least simulated feelings. Otherwise it would just be too creepy for me. I mean, a human-shaped sexbot that just lays there staring up at you? *shudder* Too close to necrophilia for me.

I dunno about that. I would personally prefer a sexbot that at least simulated feelings. Otherwise it would just be too creepy for me. I mean, a human-shaped sexbot that just lays there staring up at you? *shudder* Too close to necrophilia for me.

Some human-shaped sexhumans just lay there and staring up at you as well...

I dunno about that. I would personally prefer a sexbot that at least simulated feelings. Otherwise it would just be too creepy for me. I mean, a human-shaped sexbot that just lays there staring up at you? *shudder* Too close to necrophilia for me.I don't know about that. Somehow I think I'd feel worse about the concept of designing a mechanical intelligence of sufficient sophistication to not just understand the emotions of us artless biochemical critters, but itself capable of identical (or at least highly similar) ersatz emotions, without also giving it free reign over whether or not it wants to be fucked by human beings.

I'm not sure I can make the argument without simply appealing to emotion, especially because I can't imagine precisely what such a pseudo-being would be like, and more importantly, what it could have been like, if it wasn't created solely to get fucked. But I do think I can appeal to emotion without overindulging in logical fallacies, because the concept you're describing strikes me as essentially the same as this:

Imagine you could engineer the physical and mental properties of your own offspring. Had you that ability, would you find it ethical to engineer a son with a nice, fuckable body, and without the capacity to object to your use of it?

It seems to me what we're talking about is the re-introduction of slavery, only this time the masters aren't limited to controlling the physical existence of the slaves.

Of course, this is based on the assumption that creating such an advanced form of intelligence, at least to begin with, requires the intelligence to have free will and be creative.

As for marrying a machine.. Well, supposing it is at least as intelligent as a human being, and exhibits a kind of intelligence both machine and human being can understand and interact with, the only problem I see - assuming the machine intelligence consents - is that marriage to a human being, for such an intelligence, will likely be as stimulating an experience as year after year of watching paint dry.

Yes, we're great at handling many processes simultaneously, but even your desktop can handle individual processes much faster than a human brain. Unless that changes, marriage between a machine intelligence and a human being, is like marriage between someone with an IQ of 100, and someone with an IQ of, say, 10,000. I very seriously doubt a sane intelligence could fall in love with something that inferior to itself.

The Korean film Natural City is about this very thing - shame it is only an okay film rather than good. Ghost in the Shell also touches on this question.

The Korean film Natural City is about this very thing - shame it is only an okay film rather than good. Ghost in the Shell also touches on this question.

I thought the characters from Ghost in the Shell were cyborgs, not robots...

'course I may be wrong.

I thought the characters from Ghost in the Shell were cyborgs, not robots...

'course I may be wrong.

They are, but there are some episodes of the series that feature robotic 'love dolls'.

Basically it is something as:

http://www.sexdollssexdolls.com/

Those dolls are already equal as smart as any average woman.

As for marrying a machine.. Well, supposing it is at least as intelligent as a human being, and exhibits a kind of intelligence both machine and human being can understand and interact with, the only problem I see - assuming the machine intelligence consents - is that marriage to a human being, for such an intelligence, will likely be as stimulating an experience as year after year of watching paint dry.

Yes, we're great at handling many processes simultaneously, but even your desktop can handle individual processes much faster than a human brain. Unless that changes, marriage between a machine intelligence and a human being, is like marriage between someone with an IQ of 100, and someone with an IQ of, say, 10,000. I very seriously doubt a sane intelligence could fall in love with something that inferior to itself.
Interesting point. In the time it takes to transmit one sentence between a human and an AI through sound waves it would be possible to transmit a whole library of books from one AI to another over radio waves. For an AI talking to a human might feel like we would feel talking to someone who can only say or hear one word in the time it takes us to read a whole book.

Even then we can only transmit words and body language, they can transmit thoughts, memories, anything they can store in their own digital minds. Add our error rate with even simple logical tasks like common sense and math and our incomplete and inaccurate memory. It would take a lot of patience for an intelligent AI to hang out with us.

Some human-shaped sexhumans just lay there and staring up at you as well...
No, they don't. Probably because I pay attention to my partners and actually care whether or not they're having fun.

I don't know about that. Somehow I think I'd feel worse about the concept of designing a mechanical intelligence of sufficient sophistication to not just understand the emotions of us artless biochemical critters, but itself capable of identical (or at least highly similar) ersatz emotions, without also giving it free reign over whether or not it wants to be fucked by human beings.

The ability to SIMULATE emotional responses wouldn't require any of that. We already have computers capable of as much.

But, more importantly, I don't see where I claimed that I would want to have non-consensual sex with anything or anyone. If I was having sex with some "artificially intelligent" robot, then I would want it to consent as much as I would want any human to consent. I'm not turned on by the thought of raping something.

Indeed, that was the whole reason I'd prefer to have a robot that can at least simulate interest. If I'm going to have a human-like robot to have sex with, then it's going to have to (at minimum) simulate some form of arousal, or else I'm just not into it. I get queasy at the idea of "having sex" with something that looks human and acts like a corpse.


I'm not sure I can make the argument without simply appealing to emotion, especially because I can't imagine precisely what such a pseudo-being would be like, and more importantly, what it could have been like, if it wasn't created solely to get fucked. But I do think I can appeal to emotion without overindulging in logical fallacies, because the concept you're describing strikes me as essentially the same as this:

Imagine you could engineer the physical and mental properties of your own offspring. Had you that ability, would you find it ethical to engineer a son with a nice, fuckable body, and without the capacity to object to your use of it?

No, but that's not what we are talking about. Sex toys as we currently have them are capable of simulating a whole lot of human properties (textures, shapes, colors, even movements and sounds) yet they also are not capable of caring about how they are used.

It's completely possible, in theory, to build a sex toy capable of simulating the human form AND capable of simulating human responses, without giving that toy any consciousness whatsoever.


It seems to me what we're talking about is the re-introduction of slavery, only this time the masters aren't limited to controlling the physical existence of the slaves.

I know maybe some people get off on the idea of their vibrator being their sex slave, but let's not go nuts here.


Of course, this is based on the assumption that creating such an advanced form of intelligence, at least to begin with, requires the intelligence to have free will and be creative.

It wouldn't.


As for marrying a machine.. Well, supposing it is at least as intelligent as a human being, and exhibits a kind of intelligence both machine and human being can understand and interact with, the only problem I see - assuming the machine intelligence consents - is that marriage to a human being, for such an intelligence, will likely be as stimulating an experience as year after year of watching paint dry.

There's no reason to assume that. While computers certainly can exceed our human abilities when it comes to certain functions, we exceed theirs in other ways. It would really depend on the type of machine, and the type of human.

Basically it is something as:

http://www.sexdollssexdolls.com/

Those dolls are already equal as smart as any average woman.

If you really think that, I pity you.

Some human-shaped sexhumans just lay there and staring up at you as well...

Either it's a faulty power supply or you just don't know how to turn them on.

No, thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

Hmmm... one could describe human behavior as being programmed by a combination of biological and cultural evolution. If so, why do humans have personhood but AIs dont?

Because in humans, even if we are programmed, our programming occurs through emotions: we feel, we think, we are conscious.

Behavior would be directly programmed in a robot version of a human: there would be no conscious elements.

Well that's an interesting thought really. What constitutes sapience? Or in this case, intelligent sapience?

The capability to consider and judge things (particularly decisions) according to reasons and standards.

Would a self aware, self upgrading, self modifying and maintaining program capable of absorbing and applying new information itself be not the same as any human intelligence

Of course.

Now, tell me how we would ever recognize such a thing.

Such as?

Society will never get a good answer to that question as long as it continues ignoring primitivists.

What would be the point to programming to that degree when it'd be far more efficient to simply create an artificial brain

We don't have a clue how the brain works, not even close... and once we do, figuring out how to replicate that with electronics is hardly going to be a simple problem to solve.

The simulation of external human behavior, on the other hand, is conceivably already within our means.

Furthermore, I don't think it'd be possible to program to that level of complexity enough to truly simulate all of those behaviors. You could probably program a set number of reactions to certain inputs but considering the sheer number of possible inputs and the computation power necessary to react to all of them sufficiently...you'd probably require something like an artificial brain structure anyway, as well as something to give them emotions, at which point it's a person.

You might require a very complicated internal structure that is quite different from modern computers, but I see no reason it would have to be anything like the human brain... nor any reason to expect that it would cause consciousness.

we agree to disagree for right now and wait fifty years to see who's right

How will we possibly know in fifty years who's right?

Because in humans, even if we are programmed, our programming occurs through emotions: we feel, we think, we are conscious.

Behavior would be directly programmed in a robot version of a human: there would be no conscious elements.

So if a robot was programmed with emotions and their behavior derived from said emotions then you'd give them the status of personhood?

So if a robot was programmed with emotions and their behavior derived from said emotions then you'd give them the status of personhood?

No, there are other elements to personhood than mere sentience, but yes, that's more or less the basic breakthrough that would have to be made between the mere appearance of human behavior and the actual reality of conscious mental states.

The problem, of course, is that we have no way of knowing that this breakthrough has been made.

No, there are other elements to personhood than mere sentience, but yes, that's more or less the basic breakthrough that would have to be made between the mere appearance of human behavior and the actual reality of conscious mental states.

What other elements of personhood would you include?

The problem, of course, is that we have no way of knowing that this breakthrough has been made.

What standard of proof would you use to proove whether something/someone is conscious that would be applicable to all beings? If you can't find one then why don't we just give everything that claims they are conscious the benfit of the doubt?

What other elements of personhood would you include?

Sapience and rationality.

What standard of proof would you use to proove whether something/someone is conscious that would be applicable to all beings?

I don't think it can be "proved" in any case.

In the case of other human beings, though, you can make a pretty convincing case based on the strong similarities (and, indeed, shared genetic heritage) between our own minds and behaviors (which, because we know we are conscious, we know belong to a conscious being) and those of others.

If you can't find one then why don't we just give everything that claims they are conscious the benfit of the doubt?

Because just because I create a program to output "I am conscious" on the screen does not in the slightest mean that the computer is actually conscious.

I fail to see how this changes if the program is made elaborate enough that someone might actually be convinced.

I don't think it can be "proved" in any case.

Agreed

In the case of other human beings, though, you can make a pretty convincing case based on the strong similarities (and, indeed, shared genetic heritage) between our own minds and behaviors (which, because we know we are conscious, we know belong to a conscious being) and those of others.

Eh. I know I'm conscious, ie. I subjectively feel that I'm conscious, but everyone else could be realistic simulations of people


Because just because I create a program to output "I am conscious" on the screen does not in the slightest mean that the computer is actually conscious.

I fail to see how this changes if the program is made elaborate enough that someone might actually be convinced.

I fail to see how your elaborate program differs greatly from human beings. Why should I believe you when you say you are conscious but not a program who behave similiar to you? If we meet seemingly intelligent aliens with forms of consciousness, they seem to be conscious, different from our own should we treat them like nonsapient beings?

Society will never get a good answer to that question as long as it continues ignoring primitivists.
So, in other words, you don't know.


We don't have a clue how the brain works, not even close... and once we do, figuring out how to replicate that with electronics is hardly going to be a simple problem to solve.

I didn't say it would be simple. I said it would be doable.

The simulation of external human behavior, on the other hand, is conceivably already within our means.

And any such robot that simply mimics human external behavior would not be a sapient artificial intelligence in my eyes and therefore I wouldn't even contemplate having sex with such a robot, let alone marrying one. As with Bottle, anyone I have sex with must be able to consent, and a robot like that could not consent.

You might require a very complicated internal structure that is quite different from modern computers, but I see no reason it would have to be anything like the human brain... nor any reason to expect that it would cause consciousness.

I see no reason it wouldn't be possible given the time, advancement in industrial engineering and computer technology and processing power. It will most likely require full implementation of nanotechnology but that's going to happen within what, ten or fifteen years?


How will we possibly know in fifty years who's right?
...the premise of this thread...what the Dutch scientist said...fifty years...rate of technology...

Remember?

So, in other words, you don't know.

That's not what I said, it's not what I meant, and it's not true.

The point is simply that whatever the specifics of the criticisms, they deserve to be heard... because choosing not to hear important and substantive criticism is always dangerous.

I didn't say it would be simple. I said it would be doable.

No, you didn't; you said it would be "far more efficient."

As with Bottle, anyone I have sex with must be able to consent, and a robot like that could not consent.

Nor can sex toys.

Generally consent is only a morally relevant consideration when it comes to sentient beings (and maybe even only sapient ones.) If the robots are not sentient or sapient, it hardly is of relevance that they cannot consent.

I see no reason it wouldn't be possible given the time, advancement in industrial engineering and computer technology and processing power.

None of which does us any good in terms of being able to create something that we have good reason to believe is conscious... with the possible exception of producing an electronic copy of a biological brain.

...the premise of this thread...what the Dutch scientist said...fifty years...rate of technology...

Yes, we will know in fifty years whether or not the scientist's prediction regarding people marrying robots is accurate.

We will not know in fifty years that those robots are conscious.

Eh. I know I'm conscious, ie. I subjectively feel that I'm conscious, but everyone else could be realistic simulations of people

"Could be," yes.

I fail to see how your elaborate program differs greatly from human beings. Why should I believe you when you say you are conscious but not a program who behave similiar to you?

First, because you know a programmer has specifically programmed that program to behave similarly to me... while it might be quite reasonable to assume that a being that naturally takes on conscious-seeming traits is in fact conscious.

Second, because you recognize that you and I are very similar beings, most importantly with respect to that part of us that seems most likely (because of the effects of injury, among other considerations) to harbor consciousness: the brain.

If we meet seemingly intelligent aliens with forms of consciousness, they seem to be conscious, different from our own should we treat them like nonsapient beings?

No, unless maybe we find a convincing reason for them to fake consciousness. (The reason in the case of "artificial intelligence", of course, is obvious--that is how they are intentionally designed.)

To be honest.... I wouldn't marry a robot.

I would string it along. I would maybe drop hints about marriage, but in the end, I would trade it in for a newer model.

People already have sex with robots. Just not very advanced ones. See: sex toys.http://www.futurama-madhouse.com.ar/miscpics/promo3acv15.jpg

I would give it a shot :D

We don't have a clue how the brain works, not even close... and once we do, figuring out how to replicate that with electronics is hardly going to be a simple problem to solve.Here's the state-of-the-art (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm). Half a mouse brain in size; all that'd be needed for a human-sized brain would be tons more raw processing power. The actual human brain structure would take quite some work to model to get it working like ours do, though.

You might require a very complicated internal structure that is quite different from modern computers, but I see no reason it would have to be anything like the human brain... nor any reason to expect that it would cause consciousness.Making a scripted "intelligence", as in a massive list of conditions and "if x then do y" would be many, many orders of magnitude more complex, error-prone and time-consuming for a system as complex as a human mind - it's not feasible. A neural net can be made right now on your PC - you just can't run ones anywhere near sufficiently large at significant speeds.

Here's the state-of-the-art (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm). Half a mouse brain in size; all that'd be needed for a human-sized brain would be tons more raw processing power. The actual human brain structure would take quite some work to model to get it working like ours do, though.

Each doubling of processing power brings us closer...of course, the complexity of the brain doesn't increase at an exactly linear rate, so it will take more doublings to achieve that level. However, the sheer rate of advance in computing and related sciences means it will happen in the foreseeable future.

To paraphrase Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, it will happen, and it will happen in our lifetime. We will have a machine replica of a human brain.

Here's the state-of-the-art (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm). Half a mouse brain in size; all that'd be needed for a human-sized brain would be tons more raw processing power. The actual human brain structure would take quite some work to model to get it working like ours do, though.

What are you trying to prove?

Yay! More bigots comparing homosexuality and pedophilia/bestiality!

How am I a bigot? My statement isn't out of the realm of possibility. People were opposed to homos before, now they're more accepting. Next it'll be pedophilia that becomes more accepted. And so on.

How am I a bigot? My statement isn't out of the realm of possibility. People were opposed to homos before, now they're more accepting. Next it'll be pedophilia that becomes more accepted. And so on.

Make your slopes more slippery with Santorum. Buy some today!

People were opposed to homos before, now they're more accepting. Next it'll be pedophilia that becomes more accepted.

"People are now beginning to eat spaghetti. Because of this development, the sky will fall."

Generally, there has to actually be some kind of connection between one thing and another for you to argue for a causal relationship... but then, reason rarely seems to be within the purview of intellectually dishonest narrow-minded bigots.

:rolleyes:

What are you trying to prove?That the basics are already covered - a brain can be simulated. Even if you don't know the big picture of how it works, you can study the details and copy them. Do that to completion, and there you have it. Once computers can crunch enough data at high enough speeds, running such a simulation can be done with a human brain. Copying the structure of the human brain is not going to be a great mystery - just a time-consuming task.

Once computers can crunch enough data at high enough speeds, running such a simulation can be done with a human brain.

Maybe. What basis do we have to believe that this will result in conscious thought?

http://www.jeffbots.com/maria2.jpg

1927 - Metropolis.

...'nuff said!

How am I a bigot? My statement isn't out of the realm of possibility. People were opposed to homos before, now they're more accepting. Next it'll be pedophilia that becomes more accepted. And so on.


hmmm my first thread read in this forum yay :confused::D

dont agree with it but pedophila is already rampant in this world :mad: just look at countries like india afghanistan etc ... child brides/marriges are the norm/acceptable over there

as to the actual topic .... not sure i could marry a machine of even sleep with one ... only reason being i would feel stupid (really dont get the whole sleeping with blow up doll things lol) .... that said vibes seem to work well for women so why shouldnt men have some sort of benifit like that (and not be ashamed of it)

At the whole human AI future thing it will happen but not for a long time (heck it was only 40 years ago they were saying we would all be working 3 day weeks and flying round on hover crafts (see the jetsons cartoon lol for examples of how the future was supposed to look from the perspective of 40+ years ago.... id be depressed if had believed in all the stuff they said would happen in the future that hasnt happened yet and i was counting on it)

and the whole nanites thing ... i know theres no way id be the first to have it done ... but if i lost an arm or a leg or something then hell yeah id want what ever i could to replace that did it the best .. if thats nanites then sign me up


also someone said earlier they wouldnt have brain upgrades etc that alter the brain ... its already happening now ...one of the cures for (spelling sorry) turets is to have a spike that emits an electric pulse driven from the top of the brain right down through the middle of the brain to a certain part .... the really sad thing is the first person this was tested/tried on had to have it as the people he worked with couldnt take his comments/things he said ... he lost his job which then effected his wife and kids ... so who ever said you shouldnt allow permenant things to be done to the brain would have just ruined 4 lives for no reason



going of to find a less topical thread to read for my second one :D

First, because you know a programmer has specifically programmed that program to behave similarly to me... while it might be quite reasonable to assume that a being that naturally takes on conscious-seeming traits is in fact conscious.

I'm don't get why in a situation where two entities outwardly behave similiarly one is conscious because he's was programmed by evolution and the other isn't because it was programmed by humans.

Second, because you recognize that you and I are very similar beings, most importantly with respect to that part of us that seems most likely (because of the effects of injury, among other considerations) to harbor consciousness: the brain.

With the virtual reality, where reality is fake and I'm the only conscious being. hypothesis you don't actually have a brain and I might not either.

No, unless maybe we find a convincing reason for them to fake consciousness. (The reason in the case of "artificial intelligence", of course, is obvious--that is how they are intentionally designed.)

I'm not sure what intentional design has to do with anything. If I design a seemingly intelligent entity by genetically engineering an embryo with parts of the human genome, animal genomes, and wholly artificial genomes how that intentionally designed entity isn't conscious.

I'm don't get why in a situation where two entities outwardly behave similiarly one is conscious because he's was programmed by evolution and the other isn't because it was programmed by humans.

Because the objective of evolution isn't "appear to act like a conscious being," it's "carry on your genes."

In the process, of course, mental states might develop--and when evolved beings behave as if they had mental states (down to the point of passionately insisting that they do), it might make sense to assume they actually do.

But when there is a good reason to believe that the entity will have the appearance of mental states regardless of their presence or absence--when, indeed, that is how it has been quite intentionally programmed--it is a different matter.

With the virtual reality, where reality is fake and I'm the only conscious being. hypothesis you don't actually have a brain and I might not either.

Possible. So?

I'm not sure what intentional design has to do with anything.

Only indirectly.

We have no reason to expect certain appearances of consciousness--like a person insisting that he or she actually is conscious--independently of actual mental states, unless the entity has been specifically programmed to adopt that appearance.

There are, that is to say, two reasons for expecting that kind of behavior: first, because the entity is actually conscious, and second, because the entity has been programmed to appear conscious.

There may be a third--because there is an evolutionary benefit--but I fail to see what such a benefit could be. (Except perhaps within a society of already-conscious people.)

Because the objective of evolution isn’t “appear to act like a conscious being,” it’s “carry on your genes.”
Surely there is no ‘objective’ of evolution; it’s just a natural process.

There’s no plan, no intelligence, and certainly no goal.

There’s no plan, no intelligence, and certainly no goal.

Not literally, no. But then, it is generally understood that such terms are not meant literally when used in regard to evolution (though admittedly some confusion occurs, particularly in ethical arguments), so I see nothing wrong with using them.

Not literally, no. But then, it is generally understood that such terms are not meant literally when used in regard to evolution (though admittedly some confusion occurs, particularly in ethical arguments), so I see nothing wrong with using them.
A result of the Christian influence on Western language for the last 1800 years no doubt.

Maybe. What basis do we have to believe that this will result in conscious thought?Unless "consciousness" is supernatural in origin, it should be possible to replicate. If it does depend on something "beyond" the human brain, then I guess "consciousness" would lie beyond the scope of a brain simulation. There's little doubt that the brain simulation itself would be possible given enough processing power; whether or not it truly would be "conscious" is a trickier question, though, and impossible to give a completely certain answer to, just as you can't be completely sure that anyone besides you is conscious.

Personally, if I were to copy my brain and the copy reported feeling just as usual, that'd be good enough for me.

Way to flub the joke. It goes like this:

"Why do brides dress in white?"
"Because it's nice if all the kitchen appliances match."

You could also have tried,

"Why don't women wear watches?"
"Because there's a clock in the stove."

Or,

"What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?"
"Nothing. You've already told the bitch twice."

Any of these efforts would have communicated your utter lack of wit and imagination quite effectively.
Q. What's a virgin and a balloon have in common ?
A. All it takes is one prick and its all over.

Q. What's the difference between your wife and your job?
A. After five years your job will still suck.

Q. Why did God create alcohol?
A. So ugly people would have a chance to have sex.

Q. What is it when a man talks dirty to a woman?
A. Sexual harassment.

Q. What is it when a woman talks dirty to a man?
A. $3.99 a minute.

:D

Either it's a faulty power supply or you just don't know how to turn them on.awww

Burn baby burn..

Unless "consciousness" is supernatural in origin, it should be possible to replicate.

I agree. The difficulty is that we will never know when and if we have in fact replicated it... or even how to do so.

Personally, if I were to copy my brain and the copy reported feeling just as usual, that'd be good enough for me.

Copied it, sure. Simulated it electronically... that seems a lot shakier to me.

Because the objective of evolution isn't "appear to act like a conscious being," it's "carry on your genes."

So? I'm guessing that the intent behind AIs wont be to "appear conscious". it will be "to be conscious".

In the process, of course, mental states might develop--and when evolved beings behave as if they had mental states (down to the point of passionately insisting that they do), it might make sense to assume they actually do.

But when there is a good reason to believe that the entity will have the appearance of mental states regardless of their presence or absence--when, indeed, that is how it has been quite intentionally programmed--it is a different matter.

I don;t see why a computer program that passionately insists it is conscious isn't when a human who does is. A conscious being is still conscious whether it was created from natural selection or intelligent design. If God exists it doesn't follow that we are necessarily zombies, being who appear as if they have consciousness but actually don't.

Possible. So?

Just saying I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, potential zombie.




Only indirectly.

We have no reason to expect certain appearances of consciousness--like a person insisting that he or she actually is conscious--independently of actual mental states, unless the entity has been specifically programmed to adopt that appearance.

There are, that is to say, two reasons for expecting that kind of behavior: first, because the entity is actually conscious, and second, because the entity has been programmed to appear conscious.

There may be a third--because there is an evolutionary benefit--but I fail to see what such a benefit could be. (Except perhaps within a society of already-conscious people.)

I don't see how we can objectively proove whether a being is conscious or just appears to be so. With that in mind I think we should recognize seemingly conscious beings as possessing consciousness, until or unless evidence points to the contrary.

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

You like beef.

Consciousness? Simulated consciousness? Can we tell them apart? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room) (Yes, it is a link...)

How am I a bigot? My statement isn't out of the realm of possibility. People were opposed to homos before, now they're more accepting. Next it'll be pedophilia that becomes more accepted. And so on.

Surely you're not suggesting that's a bad thing?

From the article:
The possibility of sex with robots could prove a mixed bag for humanity. For instance, robot sex could provide an outlet for criminal sexual urges. "If you have pedophiles and you let them use a robotic child, will that reduce the incidence of them abusing real children, or will it increase it?" Arkin asked. "I don't think anyone has the answers for that yet—that's where future research needs to be done."

I'll answer that question with some examples.

~We train dogs to fetch wild game by using artificial simulations of the game. Does this decrease the Dog's desire to fetch real game? No, if it did, we wouldn't do it.

~We have football players use artificial dummies for hitting and practicing hitting, does this reduce the desire to hit a 'real' opponent? No, it increases it, that's one reason we do it. they increase desire and get better at it.

~We us artificial targets to train soldiers for real fighting, all kinds of fighting from flight simulators to army grunts, does this decrease their ability to do it?

~We use artificial intelligence to train ourselves in the game of chess. Does playing many games with the computer decrease our desire to play 'real' opponents? Only until the student gets better at it, then they want to go out and 'test' their new found skills.

I think the answer is self evident. Using artificial substitutions does not satisfy, it is Training to do something in real life and increases desire, not diminishes it.

The first time I see a sex toy robot that looks like a pre-pubescent child, I'm declaring war and starting my attack by burning the store down.

How am I a bigot? My statement isn't out of the realm of possibility. People were opposed to homos before, now they're more accepting. Next it'll be pedophilia that becomes more accepted. And so on.

If you don't want to come off as a bigot then try not to refer to people as "Homos".

See, now how come the dating advice columnists never provide tips as helpful as these?

They take too many happy pills.

If you would like a different look at this question...then you can read Split Infinity by Piers Anthony. That gives you a different perspective...... There is also the fact that most if not all metal is cold so would that be comfortable?:confused:

Lost Wolfling

If you would like a different look at this question...then you can read Split Infinity by Piers Anthony. That gives you a different perspective...... There is also the fact that most if not all metal is cold so would that be comfortable?:confused:

Lost Wolfling

I think we're presuming any actual robot able to have sex with humans would look and feel like a human.

Well, I think it is inavoidable that androids will take over the role as your sexual partners sooner or later, though they will be, as long as without feelings, be just advanced sex toys. If they can simulate having a personality to such an extent that you can believe it (which brings me to another question: How does anyone of us know that the people around aren't simply simulating having consciousness?), they can also offer a possible hook for your love and care. Well, if an android had a true and real personality and consciousness, I could fall in love with her, but it'd still be a question of wether I'd get along with that android better than with other androids or humans, just like when you are falling in love with a human (which you, hopefully, not do based solely on physical appearance). And yes, sufficiently advanced nanotechnology can make human/android reproduction feasible. If the offspring of such a relation is superior to human/human, only time will tell (I do believe so, but the Luddites won't stop critizing until a cybernetic foot kicks their b***). However, come that time, I don't think sexuality will be the preferred method of reproduction anymore. We will propably first have cloning vats, then later, the distinction of android and human will become entirely blurred, aswell as the concept of biological gender.

I thus conclude, that, by that time, "mankind" will survive, however be doomed in the form we know it. But from a not-so-distant future until that time, I do think androids will serve as sex toys. At the point were they can be more than toys, because they have a personality, the distinction of man and machine will have blurred (perhaps even because of the creation of sentient machines, but propably more because of ever-advancing technological alteration of biological processes). And come the time were they can reproduce, the concept of sexual reproduction wil have gone.

Oh, and:

I think we're presuming any actual robot able to have sex with humans would look and feel like a human.

No, they'll look like this (since I do not want to contribute to the infinite instances of posting the Spaghetti Monster in such situations, you'll have to go with this) :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38252000/jpg/_38252835_dobbie1.jpg

I assume that the robots we're talking about are on a level of sentience with Asimov's stories - see D. Olivaw - and also built in a form indistinguishable from real humans. Assuming this is the case, I could envision a relationship and even marriage with such a robot. Which also means I'd have no problem with such marriages becoming legal.

While we're talking about combining technology and the human libido, a more real fear of mine is that human cloning may eventually lead to (sexual) slavery. I don't mean to add to the constant drivel that comes from the anti-choice and anti-science crowd, who see humans in a lump of cells. But if we ever get to the point where mammals can be cloned in great number and with accelerated growth, we have to be examine the definition of "human being" very, very carefully. And broaden it rather than narrow it down.

If they can simulate having a personality to such an extent that you can believe it (which brings me to another question: How does anyone of us know that the people around aren't simply simulating having consciousness?), they can also offer a possible hook for your love and care. Well, if an android had a true and real personality and consciousness

I take the view that we can't know. The logical next step is that all consciousness is merely in the eyes of other people who believe they are conversing with a conscious being like themselves, and that therefore "I" do not actually exist except as a collection of memories other people have of me.

Which also means that, in a Turing-test-like way, any entity capable of fooling you into thinking it is conscious, is so.

And any such robot that simply mimics human external behavior would not be a sapient artificial intelligence in my eyes and therefore I wouldn't even contemplate having sex with such a robot, let alone marrying one. As with Bottle, anyone I have sex with must be able to consent, and a robot like that could not consent.

I can see the direction you're arguing from - animals are not able to consent, and therefore sexual acts with them are unethical. However, the "seemingly" sentient robot belongs to a different category: While an animal is known to be capable of emotions but cannot articulate them, an Asimov-style robot is capable of articulating emotions, but it cannot be easily proved to actually have them.

From this reasoning, there are two possibilities:
- Either the consciousness is completely simulated, the robot is a machine and not a living being at all - in that case they have no more rights than other appliances like vibrators.
- Or (and this is the view that I find less ethically dangerous, and on the whole less reprehensible) all simulated consciousness is by definition real consciousness, which makes the robot a living being which is capable of consenting. And refusing.

There is a world of difference between the two (such as the second interpretation bringing to existence the concept of "robot rape"), but these are the only two options, and neither of them unilaterally declares relationships with a robot as morally out of the question.

This is nuts. I dont think i am being shallow when I say anyone who would even consider marrying a robot is a bizare person. I think that the robot would have to be so close to a human, that there would be much better uses than screwing it, what about transplants or drug testing? I think people would always prefer a real person, and those too socially inept to get someone might get a robot instead, in the same way someone might buy a real doll now, or how some wierdos marry animals. At least theres no animal cruelty involved.

What kind of machine? Washing machine, dishwasher, vacuum cleaner? What?

What kind of machine? Washing machine, dishwasher, vacuum cleaner? What?

I'd marry GLaDOS. ;)

I take the view that we can't know. The logical next step is that all consciousness is merely in the eyes of other people who believe they are conversing with a conscious being like themselves, and that therefore "I" do not actually exist except as a collection of memories other people have of me.

Which also means that, in a Turing-test-like way, any entity capable of fooling you into thinking it is conscious, is so.

This is EXACTLY the answer I wanted to provoke from one of you non-conscious simulations. Because that happens to be also my own conclusion. You aren't real, people, come to face it. You're all just simulations...

What kind of machine? Washing machine, dishwasher, vacuum cleaner? What?

Did thy not read the headline? We iz talking about possible sentient, andromorph (human-form) sex toys. (Though a vacuum cleaner should work for the same, and I know of instances were girls come by sitting on the edge of running washing machines. But none of these have human form)