Robot Rights
- Started
- Last post
- 105 Responses
- Nairn0
"The burden lies with you to demonstrate where I have appealed to religious authority. Go ahead."
yeaaaah, the problem is, I just can't be bothered. this is what i'm saying - i should just let it go. you're opinion has no impact on my culture - so why let it bother me?
"Another mistake you make is to equate skepticism of the reigning paradigms and ..."
quot: 'OF COURSE this is absurd. We will NEVER be able to produce machines which possess consciousness because the mind CANNOT be reduced to molecules bumping into each other. There will ALWAYS be the non-physical mind which encompasses the will and emotions.'Sounds pretty absolute to me?
"Does this mean we shouldn't debate the evidence we have?"
i love discussion of this topic (preferably in person, though), and am willing to entertain quite a wide scope of possibilites. the problem i have in discussing these things with your kind is that your polarised perspective begins at what i consider to be the fantastical end of the spectrum."You just don't like position I take."
You're right.
- version30
robots won't have rights, just read the Spike Lee - NO thread for proof
- flagellum0
Nairn:
"yeaaaah, the problem is, I just can't be bothered. this is what i'm saying - i should just let it go. you're opinion has no impact on my culture - so why let it bother me?"
That is indeed the problem. You can't be bothered to take an objective look at the evidence and positions on issues which make you uncomfortable. My opinion and those with opinions like mine, most certainly have and are having an impact on culture. i.e. The Darwin - ID debate.
Yes, I was a bit dogmatic about the mind, but we have to call a spade a shovel, eh?
"the problem i have in discussing these things with YOUR KIND is that your polarised perspective begins at what i consider to be the fantastical end of the spectrum."
No, the problem you have is your caricatures of my "kind" which have no basis in reality. I'm probably more reasonable and objective than many people you know (which is why i question the orthodoxy which you buy into). But you make assumptions which are unwarranted.
It is best to first understand and then be understood.
- k0na_an0k0
*researches patent for robot repellent spray
- version30
*nudges k0na
*magnets my friend, magnets
- morilla0
everything is ball bearings these days.
- k0na_an0k0
*nudges k0na
*magnets my friend, magnets
version4
(Dec 20 06, 08:59)What's magneto got to do with this?!?
YOU LEAVE HIM OUT OF THIS!
- TheBlueOne0
*nudges k0na
*magnets my friend, magnets
version4
(Dec 20 06, 08:59)*paperclip into the little "reset" hole on back of robot's head
- Nairn0
i do take an objective look at things - just not your flavour of objective.
i'm glad you picked up on 'your kind' - i meant it for you, because you've been the catalyst for such objectification over the past year or so. I recollect your engagement here as one of orthodoxy, absolute, and my assumptions here are based on you, and you only.
anyway. meh.
- Nairn0
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
- TheBlueOne0
Tell me something.. have you ever walked behind someone walking so slow, you have to hold yourself back from punching them in the back of the neck?
Thats how it feels when I read flagellum's posts.
- morilla0
'm glad you picked up on 'your kind' - i meant it for you, because you've been the catalyst for such objectification over the past year or so. I recollect your engagement here as one of orthodoxy, absolute, and my assumptions here are based on you, and you only.
anyway. meh.
Nairn
(Dec 20 06, 09:04)Oh Nairm, so beautifully put.
- version30
futurama to irobot
"kill all humans"
- TheBlueOne0
*Look at the big Asimov reading brains on the Nairn.
- morilla0
BWHAHAHAHHAHAH Blue, I know that feeling.
- Mimio0
There's really no reason freewill can't exist in a naturalistic model. It's just states that initiation of athought or action is meaningless or irrational. I'm not really sure those are exclusively paradoxical terms. I think you're confusing determinism with fatalism discipler.
- jaylarson0
Tell me something.. have you ever walked behind someone walking so slow, you have to hold yourself back from punching them in the back of the neck?
Thats how it feels when I read flagellum's posts.
TheBlueOne
(Dec 20 06, 09:06)yep. flag. is in my special club. club ignore. it is my version of passing if they are walking too slow. i no longer feel that pain.
- 305artist0
Its obvious that god has us creating robots... its the natural evolution. The erth one day will be unliveable and what will be able to live outside of our atmosphere? Solar powered robots.
Think about it...
..and never look at your toaster the same way again....
:)~