OK, Blade Runner.

bodily fluids

Total irrationality. Smelly feet. Sex drive. The hump.

I read a study that determined yawning was an act of empathy and only intelligent species yawned. When a machine can yawn, I'll reconsider the significance of mechanical life forms. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

I'm not talking about a simulated yawn. I can draw a cartoon that yawns, doesn't make it a life form. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Um, oil isn't *quite* the same as bodily fluids, certainly not the ones with wrigglies in them. *begins to be sorry she said anything*

I'm thinking "Tin Man" here. "Ooooil" Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Alan Turing proposed a test for an artificial intelligence (the turing test) where you talk to the AI through a terminal and if you think you're talking to a human, it passed. People have often been fooled by quite simple programs that just ask questions based on keywords in what you last said. Some wag proposed the meta-turing test, where you know you have created artificial intelligence when it wants to conduct turing tests on other AIs. There is also the meta-meta-turing test, where you know you have created an artifial nerd when it finds the idea of meta-turing tests funny. (not quite what was asked I know but I was thinking about it earlier today)

If a robot is programmed to yawn, it is being told to yawn and executing an instruction from some other entity. You really aren't that dumb are you? You're just being a little bitch aren't you? You little bitch you...come here, let me give you a swirlie. *licks finger* Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

If I choose to yawn then I can yawn - whether my brain is telling me to yawn or not. That way I know I'm not a machine. I think you are driving your own pedanty right up your own dark place once again. I suggest that you use your enormous brain to think of something else!

You can't compare fiction to reality, I dunno if it would be possible to recreate the whole digestive system, but then I'm probably wrong. Besides it would rule out a lot more people than Aspies, the whole autistic spectrum doesn't have empathy and nor do many suffers of mental illness. In fact recent research I was told about indicates that many children who suffer traumatic events in childhood lack empathy because the front lobal, is that right, lobal? of the brain distorts, that's the part that does the empathy bit. nobody

Isn't yawning more an act of being tired than empathy. It's certainly no mark of being human, dogs do it.

Sorry to sound pedantic but aren't dogs flesh and blood rather than robots. nobody

I am so suggestible that I have been yawning throughout this thread, only because it is the subject being discussed. I have also been laughing, though not at the same time as the yawning. Am I a dog or a cyborg? Woof

Can machines belch and fart? One of the clients I work with has Asperger's. Very bright - but, as per the condition, completely self-absorbed. He shows no emotion whatsoever, cannot look anyone in the eye when speaking to them, and will quickly tell you to 'Fuck off' if you pull him up on the slightest little thing. The poor sod's been thumped a few times when he's been out in public - people assuming he simply has a bad attitude.

'Anything left that humans have got over machines?' Left? It's only just begun... There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

The introduction to Hofstater & Dennet's "Mind's Eye" begins with a story that asks if a blueprint of a person's entire body could be made, molecule by molecule & an exact copy assembled how could you tell the difference. The copy would, if consciousness has a physical cause, think it is the original, and though it is 'brand new' it would have years of memories. The copy would be a created thing, and yet also a living thing. And if we can unlock the secrets of consciousness, could we not reproduce the physical organic cause of consciousness with something inorganic? The book contains over 25 fascinating essays and reflections on 'Soul and Self' (including a whole section on 'Mind as program' ) from scientists and philosophers including Turing, Dawkins, Borges and Dennet & Hofstadter themselves. I'd thoroughly recommend it. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Anything left that humans have got over machines? Yes. Orgasms. Thank goodness. They're not something that could be programmed, methinks, not *really* programmed. You could program AI to go through the motions of one, but it wouldn't be the real thing.

The existence, or otherwise, of God is surely what faith is all about. When you have something that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of, but choose to believe that it DOES exist, that's faith. What Kierkegaard would have termed 'discovering the essence of subjectivity'. Or something...

Has no one seen The Matrix?! Anything is possible. If we were machines that were programmed to believe otherwise, how could we possibly know we were "merely" machines? There's no reason to believe that every single aspect of "being human" cannot be simulated to the point where it is indistinguishable from the "original." Even orgasms, Arch! If a machine appears to be having an orgasm, how can you know it is not feeling it as you are? pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

I remember reading in NS a few months back that we're only...I think 10 years away from creating computer simulated people who think they're real, living in a real world, etc. People we can control without them knowing. But the crux of the demo was that when we do succeed, it highlights the disturbing fact that: if we can do it, what was stopping another intelligence doing it before us? Nowt. Coupled with the fact that the deeper we delve, the more it becomes obvious that the only stable reality is purely mathematical, and nothing more, strip God of the fancy pants infantile mysticism and 'a creator' takes a new twist. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Jon, Jack, Hen, whatever... Blade Runner is a movie. A science fiction movie based on a novel. Gazing at your naval may well provide you with a better perspective on things than trying to stretch fantasy into a truth that isn't based on reality...look where we ended up with God. Is that red lint you see? Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Could a robot suffer from self-doubt? ~ www.fabulousmother.com

A soul, if you believe in souls, otherwise we're pretty much machines anyway. I personally don't think that's a bad thing.

As usual Jon/Jack/Hen, you make assumptions and don't know the facts. The truth is...I've already thought about all this and have long ago made my conclusions and don't really feel the need to think about it any further, much less attempt to enter into any type of meaningful conversation with you on the matter. It's far more fun to waste time running a stick across your cage while I sip my coffee and wait for quitting time here at work. Did I tell you I'm retiring in a month? Just think, I'll have more idle time to pick at you with...won't that be fun? Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Hen/toad/jack/jones Well, if you had half the perceptional powers you would like to imagine that you have, you may have realized that I indicated to you some several posts back that I considerd the topic boring...ie...the comment about yawning, but then again, the obscure reference or abstract thought is something you more or less are not capable of observing or experiencing. It took several additional posts and insults for you to get the message. Admit it, you don't know shit from shine-ola. I take it as a badge of honor that a person such as yourself considers me a twat. I will endeavour to be even more twat-like towards you in the future...I promise. As a matter of fact, just refer to me as RadioTwat in all of our future conversations so we don't have to stumble around it and confuse others. Someone might mistake what I'm saying to you as actually being important, or even worse, vice-versa. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Far be it from me to join in this skirmish but I believe I'm correct in saying that yawning isn't really a deliberate decision on the part of the yawnee, but a mostly involuntary function that humans (and dogs) do nothing to suppress in the main. As for arseygurls preoccupation with all things sticky and sexual, I believe my PC has regular orgasms. It ticks along nicely for a while, then gets very excited before practically exploding, then sits on the desk for at least an hour before I can get the stupid thing to show any signs of 'life'. Jon, don't go mentioning the 'soul' word, you'll give Fishy apoplexy. It seems to me that being able to programme a machine to replicate human behaviour isn't really where it's at. What would be really impressive is if a machine could think independently about subjects totally alien to any individual. Machines can only be programmed within the confines of human ability, therefore a man-made machine can never really surpass the human brain, even if it CAN process information faster.

RD: "Blade Runner is a movie. A science fiction movie based on a novel." And where did that novel come from, RD? The thoughts of the author? ... And where did those thoughts come from? ... Did he just pluck them randomly out of thin air...? Did he write the book merely to entertain himself/his readers...? Or did he perhaps believe he had a point to make on "being human" or somesuch...? Maddan: "A soul, if you believe in souls..." ... which begs the inevitable question: what is a soul? ( = not pedantry! You can't say the only thing which distinguishes us from machines is a soul, unless you can define what a soul is...) Missi: "Machines can only be programmed within the confines of human ability" Not true! Machines can be and indeed are being programmed to learn... not just to think and act within the confines of what they have been told to think and act within, but to observe their environment, take in all the data they are being subjected to and learn new stuff... much like humans really... except potentially faster. pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

"which begs the inevitable question: what is a soul?" I think definition is very important. Turing begins his essay in that book I was banging on about by saying (paraphrased) ' I wish to consider the question 'can machines think' and it is important to define what we mean by 'machine' and 'think'' I agree wholeheartedly with Peps, we cannot talk about machines having or not having a soul unless we are clear about what we mean by a soul. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

The test in the book and the film do two slightly different things, or are understood to do two slightly different things. There's a big thing in the novel about empathy and the control of emotion. Everyone in the novel is made keen on a religion built around grabbing hold of this box thing and experiencing what it felt like for a person to walk up a steep hill and be pelted with rocks, then fall into a hole and be reborn. The point of this being you don't only feel what this person felt but also experience everyone else who is using this box (a bit like an emotional internet) at the same, so it's like a big choir of empathy. Then in the novel you have the ability to use a little machine to dial up your emotions for the day (if I remember correctly). The protagonist and his wife try to have an argument, but just end up dialing each other different emotions so it never happens. Also in the novel, there are people who are considered to be subnormal (chickenheads?) who aren't allowed to join in with the religion, but who are closer possibly to being real, feeling humans than the normal people who use the godbox / emotion dialler. The test in the novel measures kindness / empathy, including very importantly for the novel, feelings about cruelty to animals. Dick said that he believed the measure of being human was the ability to show kindness, or to give care. In the film the test simply measures arousal at empathy. Dick never was the tidiest of thinkers, but the novel throws up a few more messy ideas than the film. In the novel, the difference between the replicants / humans is less pronounced, with the implication, possibly, it's only the chickenheads who may have full human emotions. The novel suggests that there are loads of undetected replicants abroad on earth. The film makes the replicants less human, and implies that Deckard might be one. As to Jack's question, it's hard to say what the difference between humans and robots might be in terms of thinking. We really don't know how the human brain works. At the moment, any hope we have of programming an artificial being to think is limited by the fact that any model of thinking we produce is limited by how clever we presently are, meaning that our model is only based on what we can currently understand of brain function. Another thing I think we have on robots / AI is that we are living organisms and, as such, while our environment influences us, we also consciously or inadvertently influence and alter the environment around us. Also, we are self-perpetuating and to an extent self supporting, in that we draw our continued existence from the world around us: No one plugs us in. Another advantage that we, as humans, have is that we weren't built for a purpose. We're adaptable, we're resilient, but we aren't mono-purpose. A machine would tend to be. Those new walking robots are great at walking, but rubbish at football or being hospital porters, or for that matter writing nonsense on discussion forums. Cheers, Mark

I gather that, whilst the brain at a macroscopic level is not very well understood, the behaviour of individual neurons, is. It would be possible then, to simulate the working of enough neurons, dendrites, axions, etc. and wire them up correctly and make a working simulation of a human brain. Some boffins started doing this with earth worms a few years ago, I don't know how far they got. After that it's just a question of detrmining how everything is linked together (should be doable) and of finding a computer big enough to run the whole thing (which is only a question of memory and the speed at which it runs) By soul I simply mean something outside of flesh and matter that makes us who we are. I don't believe in it myself. But if all you are is flesh and blood, then you're a robot anyway, just built from different materials, the ear is a microphone, the eye is a camera, the heart is a pump, why should the brain be anything more special.

Picking out a few points raised by Mark… “our model is only based on what we can currently understand of brain function” True enough, but aren’t we perhaps presuming that the human brain is necessarily the most efficient potential “thinking” tool? “we are living organisms and, as such, while our environment influences us, we also consciously or inadvertently influence and alter the environment around us” Even presently existing, “unconscious” machines influence and are influenced by their environment… they don’t exist in a vacuum, so this is inevitable… what exactly do you mean, Mark? “Also, we are self-perpetuating and to an extent self supporting, in that we draw our continued existence from the world around us:” … until we die, that is – or “run out of energy”… Why in theory couldn’t artificial organisms self-perpetuate and/or self-support? “No one plugs us in” … totally wireless technology is only around the corner! “we weren't built for a purpose. We're adaptable, we're resilient, but we aren't mono-purpose. A machine would tend to be.” So we evolved by natural selection. Similar mechanisms are already being simulated in order to enable machines to learn , to evolve, to spontaneously mutate and become better than themselves. This sort of thing is already happening (see, for example, Steven Johnson’s “Emergence”)… which is exciting and also a little bit terrifying! * * * Also… Maddan: “By soul I simply mean something outside of flesh and matter that makes us who we are.” Hmm... highly vague, Mr dan, highly vague... Can anyone give me a reason why a "machine" can't, in theory, have a "soul"...? pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Can anyone give me a reason why a "machine" can't, in theory, have a "soul"...? How would you build one?

Perhaps the ethereal 'soul' is, in fact a by-product of the organic brain and therefore by replicating and creating a machine- brain, a 'soul' is 'built'. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

... which is pretty much what I would have said! ;-) pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

in that case anybody could be God with a big enough computer hmm, must by more RAM

Somebody light a few more candles and pass the water-pipe. Hen, flip that Frank Zappa album would you, and let the dog out while you're up. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

"in that case anybody could be God with a big enough computer" ... probably! pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Pleasure. Things that are pleasurable aren't necessarily beneficial (booze, laughing at aggressive people, gambling). A machine would have to act against it's best interests as an organism in pursuit of pleasure. I'm not sure how you'd measure pleasure, apart from asking why one thing was done over another. Sublimation, or where a drive is put into action through another unconnected activity. Say your machine would love to travel the world, so spends its time painting pictures in water colour taken from postcards. Regret, or wishing that the outcome of something had been other than what it was. Not sure if these refer directly to 'soul', but do refer to something human, at least in a statistical sense ie. most human display some or all of the above. A further thing that makes us humans better, or worse, than machines, depending on your point of view is the element of randomness in organic reproduction. There is always developmental noise and the fact that during gestation, lots of factors can influence the sprog that finally arrives screaming into the world, so there are always random factors in the creation of new life. Self replicating machines wouldn't have that, unless they were programmed for such input. Cheers, Mark

Jack: “Is there anything that could be considered evidence of soul, however, that we might recognise in other people but not in robots?” Now that’s a tricky one, Jack! The problem with any discussion of soul, I think, is that there are such varied opinions on what it is. I personally kind of believe in it, instinctively, but as to what it is… well… It’s personality… it’s the centre of consciousness… it’s an auric energy that surrounds and is within us all… it is the “essence” of humanity (but could just as easily be the “essence” of any other entity, including a robot)… it is an eternal energy field which can disperse and reform, but never be destroyed (re the Law of the Conservation of Energy)… Even to a believer, how could one pin down a precise definition, just one possible definition, that doesn’t resort to woolly terms such as the above? Unless anyone can come up with a definition which proves otherwise, I believe a soul can exist in any entity which can be said to be “alive”… which begs the question: how does one define “alive”? :-/ pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Mark: “A further thing that makes us humans better, or worse, than machines, depending on your point of view is the element of randomness in organic reproduction.” Re the Steven Johnson book I mentioned, this kind of randomness is being introduced into machines… specifically, at present, in terms of dealing with the solving of problems involving huge amounts of different types of data – e.g. patterns of traffic flow, economic factors, etc, in big cities, or even entire countries… In this kind of instance, computers are being programmed with the basic elements of a system, but then they learn the most efficient “solutions” to problems by processes of trial and error… so far, so logical. However, I don’t think it is too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that in the future these principals will be adapted to produce self-replicating machines – involving the programming of the basic “building blocks,” then the introduction of randomness into the system, to instigate learning and evolution, much like events and circumstances in natural selection, as well as in organic reproduction. pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Jack: "I think the hardest thing to replicate would be the goals that define how people behave. We all have fluctuating short term and long term goals, and no one is quite sure where the initial drive comes from." With self-learning systems, Jack, I see no reason why any such "chaotic" aspects of humanity could not be replicated. pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)