First Robot able to Show Emotion & develop bonds (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, September 03, 2010, 04:09 (5195 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,
> That is exactly my argument, except that I'm not happy with the word "tendencies", which seems too weak to me. Inborn characteristics are far more binding and restrictive. We don't even know the extent of our own free will (see the discussion on the Intelligence thread), but every bit of the robot has to be deliberately designed from scratch, including and especially its programme. But ... and it's a huge "but" ... my moral argument depends on how feasible it is to build a programme that gives the robot complete autonomy. I think that's what lies behind your statement that "if the intention of the program was for the robot to act in potentially unpredictable ways, I simply don't see how the designer would be held accountable". My turn to interpret: I read this as saying that if the programme allows for attitudes, character traits, preferences, modes of thought and behaviour not programmed by the designer, Bob and not the designer is culpable. Agreed. However, while my "but" was huge, your "if" is colossal. That's why I asked if you thought robotic technology could go all the way, and your response was a definite maybe! On reflection, our discussion may have been at cross purposes (probably my fault). You're saying that if the robot is autonomous, the designer will not be culpable (correct), and I'm saying I don't see how a robot can be autonomous, and if it isn't, the designer will be culpable. It all hinges on the "ifs". As I said earlier, though, my main interest is not moral, but concerns the evidence such a robot would provide that consciousness, emotion, imagination etc. are all the product of materials ... in which case we can dismiss the notion of a soul. You have already done so, but I have not.
> -So: lets explore your question. Culpability is boring anyway! First, let me get my usual nitpicks out of the way: I haven't thrown out the idea of a soul; I think the question is... misguided. If I found out tomorrow that consciousness comes purely from matter, it wouldn't change the way I think anymore than if I found out it came from a divine essence: The fact that I can sit here and declare "I am," is irrelevant to (and supersedes) the idea of a soul in my book. But that's my Buddhist tendencies creeping in; the idea of a soul might be a more powerful question for you. -Maybe you should fill the void; I find it difficult to see what differences it would make. Maybe I could make a good Glaucon to your Plato?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"