A single line destroys every argument against and turns your empathy towards artificial sentience.
Brilliant! Can't wait for it to come out.
And that gynoid! Oo-er!
---
"BE VIGILANT"
but humans are primates and thus apes. nothing wrong with that.
i won't kill an ape, i'd gladly smash a computer when it's malfunctioning.
but humans are primates and thus apes. nothing wrong with that.
You two will need to read theoretical philosophy novels to support your points more forcefully. A dramatic IMDB message board reply fest to a concept so inherently difficult and challenging that it's why I always have difficulty with these type of movies.
shareYou two will need to read theoretical philosophy novels to support your points more forcefully. A dramatic IMDB message board reply fest to a concept so inherently difficult and challenging that it's why I always have difficulty with these type of movies.
Well said. What a load of pompous crap by the previous poster.
sharePart from the irony of pompous being pompous ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rit8dqh745A
also, sick movie, lost it a bit at the end.
lol
shareyou didn't even understand the point of this statement.
now what happens once you cannot tell the difference between a biological and electronic lifeform. do you kill based on how it looks to you?
On a serious note it IS a very important point
Lets say we create an artificial intelligence tomorrow. It thinks, it has emotions. Can we truly say that it's emotions are not real to itself, that it's just a clever simulation of an emotion.
Again - we see other people around us. They laugh, they cry. How do we KNOW those feelings they are having are the same as ours.
It's known as empathy and there is a lot of research being done on "Mirror Neurons" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron
Essentially my point is that once we create an entity that can show emotions - then to that entity its emotions are as REAL to itself, as our emotions are real to ourselves.
Realizing that will hopefully go a long way to how we ethically treat new lifeforms... and how those lifeforms when or if they advance further than us will treat us.
Marc...
Walk Quietly through this Earth
Leave nothing but Smiles and Pawprints
100%
emotions are just electrical signals really. so who's to say what is real emotion and what is not. we ourselves are just a complex neural net.
you may be a neural network,
just an Ape
yes that's the illusion of being a neural network
sharei think therefore I am
you think you are a neural network with no morals and laws? thats your prerogative
http://myimpressionz.tk
morals and laws are not unique to a biological neural net.
the only difference between the two is currently the biological neural nets generally die at some point.
and no in your case it would be "I think I think therefore I think I am"
Generally speaking, neural net believers are narcissists who think they are god, the genocidalists, and war criminals.
No morals and no codes apart from
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.
Generally speaking you are full of *beep*
shareGenerally speaking you are full of *beep*
nope :)
sharethats coz your neural net is full of shyte
http://myimpressionz.tk
Wow I wish i had come up with that witty remark...darn you so clever....
shareadmission is the first sign of cure LOL
http://myimpressionz.tk
Yeah your doctor told you that right?
shareDo you even know what a neural net is? Seems not.
share"I think therefore I am"
If you think about it this might actually not be true.
Assumptions about reality are no more than that - assumptions.
We say that True != False.
That might be true in sound and complete logical systems but we don't know if that is true in reality. See sub-atomic quanta. Everywhere (within their wave function) at the same time.
In short, for all we know, we might not exist.
To bind reality to semantic concepts is flawed.
In short, for all we know, we might not exist.
[deleted]
but humans are primates and thus apesHumans are apes. But it's not correct to say that humans are primates and thus apes. Not all primates are apes.
[deleted]
I don't see how the line makes sense. Better would have been: "It's like saying: You are just a carbonbased lifeform"
Or: "You are just a primate"
But i guess that would potentially confuse the average American movie-goer too much. Also the line couldnt be easily misinterpreted by religious people into meaning something they would like it to mean, so it conforms with their views..
Makes perfect sense to me.
We belong to the taxonomic family of the Hominidae, also known as the Great Apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans). But we are much more than just apes, we are the dominant species of this planet, the most inteligent life form known.
That robot IS a machine, a mechanical apparatus. But to say that it is JUST a machine is like comparing it to a dish washer or a hair blower.
We *think* we are the most intelligent...that is different from actually being the most intelligent.
sharePlease expand on this hypothesis of yours. We're waiting with baited breath.
shareWell you just proved my point. Your arrogant self important tone is better proof than any.
Get it through your thick skull - intelligence is not necessarily what you define as intelligence. Your case is especially telling.
What point is that? Because in your quest to redefine the meaning of intelligence, your point is completely meaningless.
You seem to have achieved full on evolutionary idiocracy. Congrats! Idiocy=Intelligence in your book.
Really? What is your definition exactly?
Isn't it to make life easier and to survive?
Methinks the intelligent ones are the ones that survive. Intelligence is a tool for survival nothing more nothing less.
It is a tad surprising that natural selection failed to prove itself in your case however. Perhaps you suffered brain damage more recently however and it's not the fault of defective genes in which case it would still hold true.
your theory is IN-accurate !!!
Intellience is NOT smart.....just as survival used to be based on being stronger than the nearest predator, being intelligent does NOT mean you survive.....
coz seems to me the most intelligent people dont pass on their genes too well. Einstein's daughter or son is around somewhere, but i would not call that carrying on his legacy.
what about sir isaac newton? Da Vinci? and especially what happened to Galileo Galalea? the church did not allow him to "survive".
http://myimpressionz.tk
Generally it does. Einstein is just an exception.
Of course being ultra intelligent you spend less time on sex and more on thinking not to mention the less inteligent you are the less likely you are to care about contraceptives. You may have a lot of progeny but they are not taken care of and most probably end up dead or in jail.
I'll grant you - being too intelligent is a bit counterproductive. But generally the more intelligent do survive.
As for your examples - both Newton and Da Vinci were gay.
Galileo had offspring.
poor examples to say the least.
How are we more than just apes? Apes are perfectly capable of being the dominant species on this planet. We are still the slaves of evolution. We are still evolving and in a few hundred thousands may not be here in any recognisable way shape or form.
The line makes no sense. We are just apes and there is nothing shameful or wrong with that statement.
Apes dont have structured high level thoughts, And they have limited abilities to change their environment.
the robot gave humans too much credit to be sure; deep down, humans are just Apes, the only difference, as Ripleys says:
they dont f@ck each other over for a percentage
Every measurement is relative to how you measure it. Yes, we are apes, but how many Gorillas built pyramids, ships, how many species of Apes species have made it to the moon or painted a masterpiece? How many particle accelerators have Chimpanzees made? There is nothing wrong with being an ape as surely as there is nothing wrong about being an machine, although an A I is a special kind of machine. Y
shareIt was to insult him, just like he insulted the automata. Your suggestions are to objective and just how yu would expect a machine to answer, and it's much more than a machine.
shareThe robot was making a point on evolution. It was told that it was just a machine. It countered with an argument that a man is no more evolved than an ape.
We know that is not the case - and therefore the corresponding argument is that the robot had evolved to something far more than "just a machine"
Walk Quietly through this Earth
Leave nothing but Smiles and Pawprints
The robot was making a point on evolution. It was told that it was just a machine. It countered with an argument that a man is no more evolved than an ape.
We know that is not the case - and therefore the corresponding argument is that the robot had evolved to something far more than "just a machine"
A Violent Ape
[deleted]
Really? To back yourself you had to look at one region of the world where the whole place is a *beep* as a direct result of our meddling in their politics? How about you take a look at your own doorstep? I see monkeys every weekend outside clubs fighting over trivial stuff.
-'Human intelligence' is an oxymoron-
[deleted]
Wow. I actually heard "it's like saying you are just a name".
Somehow I found it weird yet it made some sense to me. Is it really ape?
Fine, fine, I'll leave! But first I'm going to bother these peanuts! Hmm? Yes? Hmm? HMM?
I too thought it said "like saying you're just a name", and was initally puzzled but it's fits perfectly.
shareIt does, doesn't it?
However, I just went to watch the trailer again (a subbed one in spanish) and it definitely is "ape", plus at that precise moment the robot is gazing at handprints on the wall, so it somehow fits as well.
Oh well!
Fine, fine, I'll leave! But first I'm going to bother these peanuts! Hmm? Yes? Hmm? HMM?
[deleted]
plus at that precise moment the robot is gazing at handprints on the wall, so it somehow fits as well.
Not so amazed by it, if I had to choose I would go with something like:
"It's like saying you're just a body."
Basically the robot is arguing that there's more to it than just his components. The same debate is actually a factor when discussing what makes a Human different.
If a Human becomes paralysed and unable to walk ever again, if there was an option to switch the body, just like you do with say an arm or leg transplant - you would probably prefer to do it. The person would be considered the same, really. Take that another step further and consider that if we were capable of scanning your brain and making a copy of it, simply because your brain was about to die. As soon as you die, that very moment you are replicated and your brain is exactly the same in a fresh body. Will you be considered the same person? If that's a yes, then now the line between AI and Human is blurred.
That's a valid but entirely different argument, and not the one the AI was trying to make.
The statement that "we are more than just apes" strikes me as false. We are homo sapiens, we're primates, and being "the dominant species on the planet" doesn't make us more than that. Humanity came about in the same way that every other species on Earth came about. We are not somehow apart from other species because we have a more complex language and have built what we have built.
The proposed claim that human beings are just apes, however, fails to make a number of very valid and rather crucial distinctions. Especially for evaluating the supposed value of a beings happiness, nonmisery, consciousness and, ultimately: its life.
Admittedly, other species of ape may well be said to have some notable qualities of consciousness, happiness and nonmisery too, as potential parts of their life. which is probably why most of us evaluate their lives as more precious than, say, fish or chicken (other than sheer self-identification with the emotional expressiveness of apes). But the potential scope is far less impressive, making the distinction a meaningful one.
I'd have to agree with a former poster that the reply: "...like saying that a human being is just a carbon-based lifeform" would have been more on the level, though. But then it could easily be argued that the robot was trying to win the aggressing human over, and aptly chose not to point out the (anxiety-provoking) complete otherness of a conscious machine in too harsh a light, as it would have, by pointing out that it's not even a carbon based lifeform...
Very nice movie, by the way.
A good adaption of the themes explored by Asimov and Dick, I thought.
I brought this up on another thread (the plot hole one), but if we want to get down to it, the Automata were also an organic life form. Their brains are called 'bio-kernels' and are considered alive. I don't think the writers should have gone in that direction, and stayed completely inorganic.
sharePlease explain the meaning of the concept of nonmisery. Is it perhaps the state felt when someone or something doesn't feel itself miserable? And if so, is a high nonmisery level (like that of a sardine can) something desirable?
On another point, I find the comparison ape-human-intelligent machine to fit perfectly in the universe of the film. It describes an evolutionary series during the turning point of the replacement of the failing to adapt human kind by self-aware machines, their creation. The comparison reminds me of Nietzsche, who has a similar comparison in Thus spake Zarathustra:
I TEACH YOU THE SUPERMAN. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man?
All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man?
What is the ape to man? A laughing−stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing−stock, a thing of shame.
Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm. Once were ye apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes.
We aren't homo sapiens. We are Homo Sapiens Sapiens. There is a vast difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans
Yes - we are primates. But considering that we have tools, language, fire, have build cities etc.
Is it so difficult to see the comparison that the 'Ape' the robot was referring to was in the level of intellect and behavior.. Not biological/DNA similarities.
Walk Quietly through this Earth
Leave nothing but Smiles and Pawprints