More intelligent than some on this forum ...

[VectraMan]

You're missing the point. We were talking about giving robots rights. In so far as they "feel" pain, that would be correct. But should the car above be given rights because it has "sensed pain"?

I was responding too Ardesco saying "why would you code something to feel pain", and to be honest was just arguing for the sake of it as I was bored. I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

[sasguru]

I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

He he. Sorry, I do like my precision.

Consciousness is an interesting topic though ...

[Mailman]

My gawd, I have created a monster!

And some people wonder where the PC brigade comes from!

Mailman

[Troll]

If you can code a machine to detect/sense/experience pain, could you similarly code for pleasure?

If you accept that damage/pain sensing is of benefit to robots as a self preservation mechanism, what would be the corresponding reason for coding for pleasure.

And before anyone goes down the Cherry 2000 route – in this context pleasure is as received…. & yes, I’m very,very bored

[sasguru]

You don't code a system to feel pleasure. The idea is a you code a system with simple rules that allow it to evolve over time to get conscious and perhaps then it evolves to feel pain and pleasure - whatever those concepts are (and we all know they are relative)

[threaded]

If as you possit a machine intelligence that becomes "self" aware, will it also not therefore discover that because it and the world isn't perfect and constantly changing then it is inevitable that it will suffer if it continues to use such concepts.

[sasguru]

If as you possit a machine intelligence that becomes "self" aware, will it also not therefore discover that because it and the world isn't perfect and constantly changing then it is inevitable that it will suffer if it continues to use such concepts.

Isn't that what has happened to humans? Much of what was useful in our evolutionary past is useless now, yet even if we are concsious of this intellectually, we can't change the way we feel or behave.

[threaded]

Isn't that what has happened to humans? Much of what was useful in our evolutionary past is useless now, yet even if we are concsious of this intellectually, we can't change the way we feel or behave.

Many people can blot out pain just by will power etc. etc.

Most cannot, but they are often throw backs anyhow.

[sasguru]

Many people can blot out pain just by will power etc. etc.

Most cannot, but they are often throw backs anyhow.

Let me guess. You learnt to block out pain when you served in the special forces?

I would wager that I could break you

[Troll]

You don't code a system to feel pleasure. The idea is a you code a system with simple rules that allow it to evolve over time to get conscious and perhaps then it evolves to feel pain and pleasure - whatever those concepts are (and we all know they are relative)

OK – but your suggestion that machines will have the capability to 'evolve over time' - what would be the basis of this evolution? - with creatures, natural selection works against biological reproduction, pleasure has evolved as a mechanism to prompt animals to reproduce, those that can attain maturity in their environment and reproduce win the race & 'evolve'.

Robots cannot use the same mechanism, even with consciousness they would just manufacture other robots - what would be the stimulus for change (evolution).

You could argue that the only stimulus would be human R&D efforts as any robot that is 'self aware' would consider itself perfect and thus lose any impetus in 'improving' - ergo once mechanical consciousness has evolved, humans are reduced to the role of drones