Perception...

Why is it necessary? Why do all living beings have it?

Why do computers not have it?

Survival instinct... the innate source of all living beings' needs, wants, and/or desires, all of which require perception. Survival instinct does not necessarily require any type of awareness, self or otherwise. It is why perception is only found in living beings.

SURVIVAL INSTINCT IS THE DIFFERENCE

And the reason why AI does not truly perceive.

Without survival instinct there is no perception. It is what enables a living creature to avoid dessimation. From simple single-celled organisms which instinctively flee heat, to the human condition, which is commonly thought of as the most complex sentient being on the planet.

All of them have survival instinct(s).

All of them have perception.

They do not all have awareness.

They do not all have self-awareness.

Computers, no matter the complexity, will never have an innate survival instinct.

Did I win yet?

Im gonna leave this to Jeanniebean

Howzit Mirror?

Im doing good. How are you?

well, don't you think that suicidal people
who have no survival instinct have perception?

they feel, they can smell, taste, see...

see?!!

Rules of Robotics:
What if one of the PROGRAMMED rules of a computer is to PROTECT "self" at all cost, except where it interferes with.....
(you probably know the rest)

Anyway, what if the "self" of a computer (robot) consists of all information all factions that contribut to maintaining that information(the components that make up the 'self' of the robot)

In order for the Robot be aware of danger, it must first understand what danger is, what could cause HARM.

Could that not be programmed?

Once all this is programmed - have we not programmed awareness? Survival instinct?

What say you to my antagonism?

hmmmm


The difference in my mind isn't so much that both humans and robots gather data ...

...it is that humans feel ... and robots would just appear to ...


You cannot program joy ... only some kind of program that might 'look' like it ...

You cannot program love ... or compassion ... or worry ... or grief ... or excitement ... or wonder ...

...or pain ...

oopsy ... I am running late now ... by accident ... I lost track of time? Can a robot do that ... daydream and ponder ... without being programmed to (which is in and of itself a purpose)?


Lovely day to you all

This is the part where I nod and act like I care.

I'll leave the cybernetics and the robotic whooozits for the extropulators....


...while I am out BEING human. (You know, impulsive, random, generating JOY)

So then people who commit suicide were never truly sentient?



Back to the drawing board Michael.

Opps!

I see S1ow isn't so slow after all.

Of course I never did think he was slow, listen to this,...

http://www.csonline.net/designer/ideas/slow.htm

Who says a suicidal person had no innate survival instinct?

Di, am I gonna have to take a trip to see you???




I have had a lot of fun here on this topic. And have run through the spectrum of attachment and disassociation issues...

Thank you James, JB, Artsy, Di, Lee, s1ow, mirror, and anyone else whom I know I looked over...

I will lay this one to rest for now... thank you all for your help.



Nice answer Artsy! No surprise here! the products of wants and desires... emotions... oh wait, I may just have that backwards too.


Live... Learn... Laugh... Love...

Who says that a sufficiently sophisticated android can't have innate survival instincts.

I think what you are ultimately tying to put your finger on is desire and want.

Can a computer have true desire and want?

It doesn't matter whether a being wants to live (survive) or die. The real issues is want?

WHO is it that WANTS?

Or said another way, WHAT is it that WANTS?

I don't see where you are coming up with anything new here. You seem to just be claiming that only things that have 'souls' can be sentient of desire.

You mention 'survival instincts' with respect to lower animals forms,…



You can buy hobby robots that will flea heat. And robots that will sense the edges of tabletops and react in a manner so as not to fall off the table top.

I once built a small robot that could find it’s own batter charger and plug itself in when its batter was getting low. You could call that a ‘survival instinct’.

What you are trying to get to is beyond that.

You not concern with the act, but rather what ‘drives’ the machine to act. From you’re point of view it’s not the act of survival that’s important but the WANT to survive.

The actual concept you’re trying to get at is WANT (or desire).

Can a computer every truly desire anything? In other words, is there anyone inside the computer who can want something???

Well, who’s inside a human body?

That’s that real question Michael.

Is a human just their body?

Or is there something more to it?

If a human is just their body,.. THEN,… why could a computer that is sufficiently complex not achieve the same level of sentient. After all it’s just a body too?

The bottom line is that you seem to be attributing a mystical ‘life force’ to biological machines, that you insist that non-biological machines can never have.

But the question is why? What is so ‘magical’ about the biological machine?

Where does the magic stem from?

If you say it stems from the spirit world then you’re right back at square one.

All you’re really saying is that naturally evolved biological animals have “spiritual souls’ and nothing else can. That’s certainly the religious view. Especially with respect to religions that evolved around Mediterranean mythologies of external God’s who create and provide those spiritual souls.

But like Jeanniebean has pointed out, even with the concept of a ‘soul’ you need to talk about how that spiritual soul is interfaced with the physical (albeit biological) machine.

To just demand that there is an innate difference between biological machines and non-biological machines because you think that one has a will to live, and the other one cannot have a will to live, is nothing more than an ungrounded biased belief.

You’re just stating a ‘faith’ with no genuine evidence to back it up.

If you can’t explain why one can have a will to live and the other cannot, then all you’re doing is blowing hot air.

You must explain why it must be so, before you can scream eureka.

It is that explanation that everyone is chomping at the bit to know.

And if you can explain it, like I have said, you will be a Nobel Prize winner not to mention that you’d instantly be more famous than Einstein ever was.

In the meantime you’re really just saying, “I wish I could prove this!”

Join the club!

Abra said this:



(((Abra)))

Creativesoul merely plunged into a sea of platitudes, and with the powerful breast stroke of a channel swimmer, and made his confident way towards the white cliffs of the obvious.

Big deal.

Prove it and answer the "why" question. Then you will have people's attention.

JB

Truly.

~~~

Oh, by the way Jeannie, with descriptions like this I think you should definitely write a novel.

Wanna have an ego-based contest which uses sarcastic natured descriptions of the purpose contained within another's words, without ever knowing what the purpose is???


Thanks, but no thanks...


You win.

Sounds a little melodramatic and cliche even for Harlequin ...

oh is this not the sarcasm thread? ... oopsy my mistake ...