Philosophy Forums


Food for thought
The grey area of life.

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2

Food for thought
mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509
Posted 09/02/09 - 11:13 PM:
Subject: Food for thought
quote post
#1
Consider this.

You build a car that can drive on its own, as per the current successful DARPA rally entries. Do any of these cars have a mind? Most people would argue that they do not. They would argue that the car is filled with different computer processors, operating on input environmental data in such a way that the output data succesfully navigates the terrain based on many different factors. They would argue that the cars "software" does not contain emotions, experience and does not learn.

Now whilst the complexity is definately not on par with a human mind, I would argue the complete opposite. In order for an autonomous car to navigate successfully it firstly must do what all human minds do as a basis for their existence, form a model of the environment. In other words, to some degree, these cars are essentially learning in an identical manner to a human being. I would then argue, what are emotions? Are they not simply the driving force behind our choices? I will eat the apple because I "feel" hungry. I will hurt that person because I "feel" angry. If you carefully disect these sentences, you will find that I is a requirement of emotional description, and yet animals also with a brain, and no I, exhibit the same reactional function to their environment. Why does an ant eat? Is it because it is hungry, or is it because it's brain is reacting to chemical sensors indicating a requirement for fuel?

So in conclusion, I am stating that a successful DARPA Rally autonomous vehicle does have a mind that is on par with many species in the animal kingdom, the only thing missing being the "I".

Does this make these vehicles "alive"? Are they not in a symbiotic relationship with human beings?

Now simplify.....What about a toaster?

Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.
evadra
Growing
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 26, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 25
Posted 09/03/09 - 01:12 AM:
quote post
#2
mway wrote:
Consider this.

You build a car that can drive on its own, as per the current successful DARPA rally entries. Do any of these cars have a mind? Most people would argue that they do not. They would argue that the car is filled with different computer processors, operating on input environmental data in such a way that the output data succesfully navigates the terrain based on many different factors. They would argue that the cars "software" does not contain emotions, experience and does not learn.

Now whilst the complexity is definately not on par with a human mind, I would argue the complete opposite. In order for an autonomous car to navigate successfully it firstly must do what all human minds do as a basis for their existence, form a model of the environment. In other words, to some degree, these cars are essentially learning in an identical manner to a human being. I would then argue, what are emotions? Are they not simply the driving force behind our choices? I will eat the apple because I "feel" hungry. I will hurt that person because I "feel" angry. If you carefully disect these sentences, you will find that I is a requirement of emotional description, and yet animals also with a brain, and no I, exhibit the same reactional function to their environment. Why does an ant eat? Is it because it is hungry, or is it because it's brain is reacting to chemical sensors indicating a requirement for fuel?

So in conclusion, I am stating that a successful DARPA Rally autonomous vehicle does have a mind that is on par with many species in the animal kingdom, the only thing missing being the "I".

Does this make these vehicles "alive"? Are they not in a symbiotic relationship with human beings?

Now simplify.....What about a toaster?



I thnk you are getting ahead of yourself in some parts. Yes a car like you described would have to have some form of "mind" to complete the tasks it is required. It would act like it "knew" where it was going. Any bystander probably would not be able to tell the difference between it and a car with a human behind the wheel.

But how are these car learning? They know what they know by what is inputted by the creator. Take tihs for example, car A driven by me, car B is the car you have described. Both cars are racing on the track, when all of a sudden there is a crash and both cars are sent off course and off the track by a considerable distance. Both cars can still function properly. Where as car A would find a way back, would car B? Lets take it a step further, on their way off course they go over a bridge, and it is destroyed. Now problem solving is needed. A human brain is far better at problem solving than any computer.

Or lets look at it from a different point of view, your car will always drive around the circuit, make a million and they will all drive round the cicuit. Yet humans do what they want. That is a very different way of being.

Emotions and instincts are different. I need to eat. An ant needs to eat. I feel angry so I hurt someone...but why am I angry? Try making a computer angry.

Cars are not alive in a biological sense. And without an "I" they are not alive in a phsycoological sense.

A toaster is a wire with electricity running trough it. I really hope you don't want to ssay that is alive or has a mind or emotions!?!?

There is not one shread of evidence that supports the notion that life is serious.
ragus
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187
Posted 09/03/09 - 01:29 AM:
quote post
#3
evadra wrote

"a toaster is a wire with electricity running trough it."


It's obvious that the wire is angry about this because it becomes red. When it's very angry it burns the toast to punish you.

"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein
evadra
Growing
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 26, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 25
Posted 09/03/09 - 01:52 AM:
quote post
#4
ragus wrote:
evadra wrote



It's obvious that the wire is angry about this because it becomes red. When it's very angry it burns the toast to punish you.


Haha....I like.

There is not one shread of evidence that supports the notion that life is serious.
mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509
Posted 09/03/09 - 05:44 AM:
quote post
#5
evadra wrote:



I thnk you are getting ahead of yourself in some parts. Yes a car like you described would have to have some form of "mind" to complete the tasks it is required. It would act like it "knew" where it was going. Any bystander probably would not be able to tell the difference between it and a car with a human behind the wheel.

But how are these car learning? They know what they know by what is inputted by the creator. Take tihs for example, car A driven by me, car B is the car you have described. Both cars are racing on the track, when all of a sudden there is a crash and both cars are sent off course and off the track by a considerable distance. Both cars can still function properly. Where as car A would find a way back, would car B? Lets take it a step further, on their way off course they go over a bridge, and it is destroyed. Now problem solving is needed. A human brain is far better at problem solving than any computer.

Or lets look at it from a different point of view, your car will always drive around the circuit, make a million and they will all drive round the cicuit. Yet humans do what they want. That is a very different way of being.

Emotions and instincts are different. I need to eat. An ant needs to eat. I feel angry so I hurt someone...but why am I angry? Try making a computer angry.

Cars are not alive in a biological sense. And without an "I" they are not alive in a phsycoological sense.

A toaster is a wire with electricity running trough it. I really hope you don't want to ssay that is alive or has a mind or emotions!?!?


You obviously don't know much about the DARPA competitions. These cars drive in off road terrain for hundreds of kilometres, through suburban streets with traffic, near cliff edges etc. The only thing they have to guide them are basic gps coords, much like the ones you receive when you drive your car with an on board gps.

The point I was trying to make with the toaster analogue, was one of reduction. How complex of a task does something have to perform to be considered alive? How simple? What is "alive" in a biological sense? What is "alive" in a psychological sense? Can you address the comparison between an ant and a DARPA car? What difference does the ant have that makes it "alive"?

Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.
ragus
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187
Posted 09/03/09 - 06:06 AM:
quote post
#6
mway wrote

What is "alive" in a biological sense?


Do loop until dead?

"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein
evadra
Growing
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 26, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 25
Posted 09/03/09 - 08:49 AM:
quote post
#7
mway wrote:


You obviously don't know much about the DARPA competitions. These cars drive in off road terrain for hundreds of kilometres, through suburban streets with traffic, near cliff edges etc. The only thing they have to guide them are basic gps coords, much like the ones you receive when you drive your car with an on board gps.

The point I was trying to make with the toaster analogue, was one of reduction. How complex of a task does something have to perform to be considered alive? How simple? What is "alive" in a biological sense? What is "alive" in a psychological sense? Can you address the comparison between an ant and a DARPA car? What difference does the ant have that makes it "alive"?


I don't know much about DARPA but I did get the idea. I don't think it would take much to build a car to be able to go around the course on its own.

Alive in a biological sense would be some thing that has Movement, Reproduction, Sensitivity, Nutrition, Excretion, Respiration and Growth.

Alive in a phsycological sense would be sometihng that has conciousness.

An ant is deffinately alive in a biological sense, and I wouldn't be suprised if it was in the psycological sense too. The car and the ant would run off certain "programs" the ants being the ones its born with, the cars are the ones that it has been programmed with. But thats all the car can do, it can't learn a new course, an ant could learn lots of new things.

There is not one shread of evidence that supports the notion that life is serious.
mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509
Posted 09/03/09 - 09:30 PM:
quote post
#8
evadra wrote:


I don't know much about DARPA but I did get the idea. I don't think it would take much to build a car to be able to go around the course on its own.

Alive in a biological sense would be some thing that has Movement, Reproduction, Sensitivity, Nutrition, Excretion, Respiration and Growth.

Alive in a phsycological sense would be sometihng that has conciousness.

An ant is deffinately alive in a biological sense, and I wouldn't be suprised if it was in the psycological sense too. The car and the ant would run off certain "programs" the ants being the ones its born with, the cars are the ones that it has been programmed with. But thats all the car can do, it can't learn a new course, an ant could learn lots of new things.


Please enlighten me, as to how you would build a car that could drive through a city full of traffic and pedestrians successfully, then travel hundreds of kilometres off road, through four wheel drive terrain avoiding unknown obstacles and situations? Bear in mind that a DARPA car does not have a "course". It can travel ANY course, given some gps coordinates.

Lets compare the ant and a DARPA car through your descriptions.

Movement - both the DARPA car and an ant have movement (I would elaborate in saying that a DARPA car can travel much further then an ant and over many more different types of terrain).
Reproduction - most individual ants cannot reproduce, they require a queen. A DARPA car requires a human to reproduce and evolve (symbiotic).
Sensitivity - ants receive environmental and internal sensory information via various sensory organs. A DARPA car also recevies environmental and internal sensory information.
Nutrition - an ant needs food. A DARPA car requires fuel.
Excretion - an ant excretes. A DARPA car also excretes (exhaust pipe).
Respiration - an any needs oxygen. A DARPA cars engine also needs oxygen (as does every other combustion style car).
Growth - An ant grows in an egg from a queen. A DARPA car grows in a factory probably somewhere in asia.

So basically you have just defined a DARPA car as being bilogically alive.

To determine whether or not an ant or a DARPA car has consciousness, I would need you to elaborate on what consciousness is.

Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.
evadra
Growing
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 26, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 25
Posted 09/04/09 - 12:07 AM:
quote post
#9
Some of your comparisons work. Others do not.

Reproduction - I don't think symbiotic relationships count for reproduction. Reproduction is when two tihngs of the same species come together to form another. The symbiotic relationship you are tihnking of is called building. Sure not ALL ants will end up reproducing, but ants as a species will reproduce ant on ant.

Respiration - You have not quite grasped what respiration is. It is not just the need for air. Respiration is the release of energy from glucose or another organic chemical. The chemical energy in glucose can be used to provide the energy required for growth, repair and movement. A car does not quite do this.

Growth - A car doesn't grow on its own, it is built. And an ant will grow after it has hatched from its egg.

Therefore, I have not described a DARPA car as being biologically alive.

Well is a DARPA car aware of its self? That would be a good plave to start.

I am a bit confused as to why you think a car could be built as per the DARPA concept but not one that could drive through the streets like in the example.

There is not one shread of evidence that supports the notion that life is serious.
mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509
Posted 09/04/09 - 07:15 AM:
quote post
#10
evadra wrote:
Some of your comparisons work. Others do not.

Reproduction - I don't think symbiotic relationships count for reproduction. Reproduction is when two tihngs of the same species come together to form another. The symbiotic relationship you are tihnking of is called building. Sure not ALL ants will end up reproducing, but ants as a species will reproduce ant on ant.

Respiration - You have not quite grasped what respiration is. It is not just the need for air. Respiration is the release of energy from glucose or another organic chemical. The chemical energy in glucose can be used to provide the energy required for growth, repair and movement. A car does not quite do this.

Growth - A car doesn't grow on its own, it is built. And an ant will grow after it has hatched from its egg.

Therefore, I have not described a DARPA car as being biologically alive.

Well is a DARPA car aware of its self? That would be a good plave to start.

I am a bit confused as to why you think a car could be built as per the DARPA concept but not one that could drive through the streets like in the example.


It's a shame that your mind is so closed. What about asexual creatures? What about other organisms that require symbiosis to reproduce? What about cars that run on biofuels (i.e. glucose)? Self repairing components used in formula one vehicles? Also I wasn't aware that ants were aware of themselves. Can you explain further?

Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.
Download thread as

Page: 1 2



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.