Again with the Robots.

Tom wrote:Is it a sum of programming or a sum of experiences that donates their paintings the existential quality of 'art'

Hmmm. I ask inquisitively, "would it make a difference? And which do you suppose we attribute to ourselves, and why do we attribute it as such?"

I believe that yes it would make a difference and that i attribute, to us, a sum of experiences that makes a man a man. Yes you can draw many parallels between a man (or woman...) and a machine. We have hardware and operating systems, like machines, we just call them instinct. We have prescribed ways of operation just like a machines we call it personality. But unlike a machine these are not manually entered but are rather brought about by our upbringing. Social, cultural, parental, peers and other less exertive factors go into making a person 'a personallity'. A little person starts with nothing but a set of perameters or instincts which tell it when it is hungry, tired etc and what to do in those predetermined situations. As it grows it learns what to do, how to fend for itself etc. Sure it can be specifically taught these things, one person to another, but you can't reach into its brain and twig the right receptors to turn a baby into a toddler, a toddler into a child and a child into a grownup. These are learnt. And, as stated above, not from just one person or persons. These are taken in from everywhere. The world creates a person. their experiences set for them the way they will be. A machine isn't taught. It starts from scratch, but if you turned a computer on, with nothing but its circiutry (?) and left it in the middle of a busy room for years and years it would be the same as it ever was.. even if it had the processing power of all the humans on the planet at one time.

which actually begs the question.. is it the computer which is intellegent or the software that drives it? Could self-aware software be the 'soul' of a machine?

Yes, that is interesting.

Could you not say that the ‘environment’ is programming the individual? Or because it has no intentions you would think not? But what about parents, or society at large? Don’t they sort of ‘program’ their children in a certain way? And what if the computer could learn (I think you may have already addressed this, but I wasn’t quite sure), as in it, too, like a human/other animals, had the ability to ‘absorb’ environmental situations, or whatever?

Yeah, the software question is weird.

Why don't we break this down into what i see as two separate (though connected) questions-

1) When is something alive?

2) What is independent thought?

Without those two queries, this discussion (i think) cannot be resolved.

Yes, good points.

Though for point 1 would it be better to say "When is something conscious"? Or did you intend point 2 to take care of that?

... in fact, you better just explain point 2 more.

Andrew.C wrote: ... in fact, you better just explain point 2 more.

I would suggest (not hypothesize) that when something is able to think independently of it's creator/ controller it is sentient- and therefore capable of both 1) enhancing the situation of the world around it in a meaningful manner, and b) interacting meaningfully with other sentient creatures.

I suppose that this would begin to cause issues with persons with severe mental disabilities, and fetus'- along with copious other things i've forgotten to mention, so on with the can'o'worms! (we definitely need a smiley for can'o'worms and the opening thereof!)

Hmmm, ok. So are you saying that if a computer/machine could achieve 'independent thought,' then it would therefore be sentient, and therefore capable of 1) and b) (nice use of numbers and letters, by the way)?

And if that is the case (or even if it's not), what would be your opinion on the possibility of a comp attaining 'independent thought'?

Also I think 'meaningful' may need some clarification, though less important at the moment.

I doubt that computers will ever attain independent thought, seeing as computer programming (not that i'm and expert) is based on mathematical (and logical) algorithms- and the mind doesn't work like that, living things do irrational things all the time, and i doubt we have the know-how to reproduce that kind of "actual" intelligence (what was that from again?).

Mmm, fair enough. But I will just say that 'irrational' behaviour is entirely consistent with algorithms, at least so I've heard.

And I agree we probably don't have the know-how at this point in time, but, well, time makes fools of us all...

Not me!

actually computers do 'irrational' things all the time too (says tom, swiching sides). Humans/animals are mad by numbers. We think in numbers. We do everything in numbers, we walk, talk, catch, jump by numbers. Its just that the numbers used are hard wired in and are happening behind the eyes, so's you don't notice.

Good points. Perhaps you'd like to expand on your 'irrational' computer ideas, so we can get a better idea of them. If you want.

I will later

It's not that computers can be irrational, but humans are as perfectly rational, all the time, just like computers. Just like Tom said, we do everything by numbers. Everything that we do is based upon an input of information from our senses, and processed in ways that we have previously processed similar information. However, certain stimulus causes another variable to enter the equation. For example, if Tom were to say to me: 'Listen motherfucker, it's GO TIME', I would be inclined to think he was joking, and react in a particular way. If a total stranger said the same thing, then it's likely that an adrenaline surge would occur and my processing of the information would be altered by this new variable.

Theoretically, all humans would be perfectly predictable, but we lack the ability to study the human brain in all of it's complexity.

Listen MUTHA FUCKER! It's Go TIME!

*Simmo stops talking, turns and punches tom sqaa in the nuts

Glenjamin wrote:Not me!

That was a clock, Glenji. You can't hurt time.

I can if i want to!