Beyond Human: Emotional Robots

Part 6 of 9. If tomorrow's robots are going to share our world, they will have to have something extra: an emotional and psychological dimension to help them communicate and respond in ways people can understand.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• robots
• cyborgs
• androids
• computers
• electronics
• nanotechnology
• science
• fiction
• sci
• fi
• future

[Grymbaldknight]

@Alba12349 The definition of 'machine' does not exclude organic life. In fact, all life forms fit the definition.

A single-celled animal doesn't 'live' (that is, have the ability to feel emotions, enjoy things, etc). It just performs mechanically, replicating and taking on nutrients. The only thing that separates them from viruses (non-life) is that they can replicate without using a host species.

Since a human is only a thing made up of trillions of them, i personally see no huge difference.

[Alba12349]

@Grymbaldknight

No a single celled animal is not a machine its a single celled animal.

And yes I see what you are trying to say but you are still wrong mate.

[Grymbaldknight]

@Alba12349 ...I can see no reason at all to suggest why a human is any *more* than that. The only point of note is that most animals have the capacity for pain (but then, most single-cell creatures will also react to being harmed), so causing it must be avoided. While i know you don't agree with me, can't you see where i'm coming from?

'Sciencophobe' is just a term for someone who dislikes scientific approach or development. Your earlier language merely suggested that you were of that attitude.

[Grymbaldknight]

@Alba12349 I'm saying that your view on the future capabilities of machines is unjustified.

For example, a single-celled animal is essentially a machine: it has a data replication centre (nucleus), a means of requisitioning energy (mitochondria) and often the ability to move (i.e. with a flagellum), to name but a few.

Now, the human body is multi-cellular: each component is almost exactly the same as above (with some specialisations). Exactly the same, only there's more of it...

[Alba12349]

and don't even get me started about Darwin.

I'm almost sick of hearing his name.

[Alba12349]

@Grymbaldknight

Okay sorry if I offended you but don't try to put words in my mouth.

[Alba12349]

@Grymbaldknight

So you are still trying to compare black slavery

to saying that machines can never be human?

"You, Sir, are trying to occupy a psychological and moral high ground which clearly does not exist. *more babble*"

I'm saying that a machine can't become human. If you really think about it its pretty simple but you don't seem to want to.

"sciencophobe"?

Are you just inventing new words as you go along or what?

[Grymbaldknight]

@Alba12349 No, i don't believe so. Homo erectus were not human either, we just evolved from them. Biologically speaking, human evolution has reached gridlock, since we now determine the factors of our environment, create medicines, and employ birth control. The introduction of technology to human bodies is one way to break this deadlock. You're partly right, though, since this is no longer part of Darwinian evolution.

That said, i appreciate the intellectual talk for once, rather than abuse

[Grymbaldknight]

@Alba12349 I am not. I cannot say for certain that i am completely uninfluenced, but i have not tried to copy the view of anyone else.

But what about you, hmm? Staying in your protective bubble of self-praise and human superiority, thinking yourself an élite, safe in the knowledge that nothing anyone can say will ever prove you wrong. You say that others are too dreamy and they can't see the truth.

Guess what: science was invented for that - but then, you have shown you're a sciencophobe.

[Grymbaldknight]

@Alba12349 Excuse me? "Psycho"? "Sociopath"? You, Sir, are trying to occupy a psychological and moral highground which clearly does not exist. If, as you say, i am a social degenerate, then why is it that i can keep a civil tongue and you cannot? Why is it that i have taken your argument seriously, while you have spat in my face and told me that my juvenile views are rubbish?

My point was that in the past people saw blacks as mere animals - and animals as automata. This is has been proved wrong