@Suzianne saidI've always assumed the droids in Star Wars actually do feel emotions. Which, you know, means they're a slave race. Very dark stuff, if you think about it too hard.
It's basically the difference between Jedi and droids.
Even though Jedi belief is similar to animism or shamanism.
But again, droids don't have a belief system at all.
(SW101, or "everything I needed to know, I learned from starwars".)
The Force in Star Wars is not a thing in real life so far as we know, but if I were to draw parallels, it would be with the powers attributed to certain Hindu gurus or yogis through advanced yogic practices. Things like levitation or telekinesis.
As for the Jedi philosophy itself, is strikes me as having much in common with Zen Buddhism. Meditating, letting go all attachments, being "in the moment"—all very Zen Buddhist stuff, and also very Hinduist. But Hindus so far as I know have a fairly populous pantheon, whereas many Zen Buddhists—like the Jedi apparently—don't believe in a personal god. In Japan I think there are Zen Buddhists who also still believe aspects of the traditional Shinto religion, which has animist elements.
So the Jedi, to me, are 42% Zen Buddhist, 34% Hindu guru with advanced yoga skills, and 24% Shintoist. Wait, I forgot about the warrior-monk-knight ingredient. 🤔
@Soothfast saidYes, it is of course a figure of speech, but it accurately describes the phenomenon of seeing things which are not there. Except that robots do not see either -- that too is a figure of speech. Figures of speech save us the trouble of cumbersome circumlocutions such as 'AI-robots occasionally generate faulty data as an unintended consequence of programming imperatives.'
An unfortunate term. The engineers anthropomorphize too much, which leads to hype and misunderstanding in the public sphere.
@moonbus saidWhy would you say robots do not see? 😆
Yes, it is of course a figure of speech, but it accurately describes the phenomenon of seeing things which are not there. Except that robots do not see either -- that too is a figure of speech. Figures of speech save us the trouble of cumbersome circumlocutions such as 'AI-robots occasionally generate faulty data as an unintended consequence of programming imperatives.'
@Soothfast saidI have a different definition of 'living.'
Anything living is conscious, I believe. Consciousness forms a continuum, it does not "cut off" anywhere except at whatever constitutes the boundary between being alive and not being alive. The boundary is probably ontologically quite fuzzy.
For me, any pattern of molecules that does (or can) throw off more or less exact copies of itself has the property of being 'alive.'
So tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) which can be spun down and frozen for 100 years, then thawed, under the right conditions (e.g. on a tomato leaf) can go right on throwing off more or less accurate copies of itself, using machinery that it finds around (e.g. plant cells).
The biggest technical problem with this definition is handling organisms that are don't self-replicate or have become sterile. Mules, for instance, or defective TMV. Are they alive? A mule is easiest to handle - many cells in its body DO self-replicate, so it is a collection of living things and therefore alive.
But what about a virus or cell that just sits there and doesn't replicate? Is it 'alive'? For the cell, most would say 'yes,' but the virus might cause hesitation. I like to go broad, using the concept: 'is it feasible that this thing could self-replicate, under the right conditions?' Using that concept, the universe divides easily into living and dead things: rocks, animal carcasses, stars, rotting trees - all dead because they will never or never again self-replicate. An amoeba or frozen TMV or @AverageJoe1 - all alive because they could self-replicate (under the right conditions) even if they are not doing so at the present moment.
'Living' is a property of patterns - usually material patterns, but this can even be extended!
I would argue that the first human created new living thing was the computer virus. It is a distinct electromagnetic pattern, definable and separate from other patterns around it, which exists and which throws off more or less accurate copies of itself under the right conditions. Computer viruses have the property of being living. Dead armadillos no longer have this property. One would not expect a dead armadillo to throw off a baby dead armadillo, or divide into two dead armadillos that then grow to the same size as the parent, under any conditions.
My broad definition of 'living' is why I say there are many 'living' things that are not 'conscious.' 😆
1 edit
@spruce112358 saidA robot's photosensors detect light, but the robot does not have any experience of seeing light. The qualities of the conscious experience are extra, above and beyond the simple detection of photons that may trigger an electrical signal that, in turn, may prompt an action in accordance with some program.
Why would you say robots do not see? 😆
So, a night light with a photosensor will automatically turn off when there's light in the room. That's a very simple device. In fact, here's just one of many light sensor circuit diagrams out there:
https://www.edn.com/light-sensor/
Photons hit a photodiode, which draws energy from light to produce an electrical current in the circuit, and that in turns flips a switch that turns off an LED light. Very simple, but there is no "seeing" here. That is, we should expect there is nothing it feels like to be the photodiode, or to be the circuit of which the photodiode is a part.
I mentioned philosophical zombies in an earlier post here. A philosophical zombie is an entity that is physically human in all respects, and behaves like a human in all respects, but which has no conscious inner life. That is, it's "dead" inside. It's eyes detect light like a human's, which triggers the usual actions in response, but the zombie is not aware of anything. There is nothing is feels like to be the zombie. It has no experiences attendant with its sensory perceptions.
4 edits
@spruce112358 saidBecause they don’t have eyes. They have sensors which can detect light and motion. Just like a pressure pad in the street which detects the presence of a vehicle, and triggers a traffic light to change from red to green. There’s no awareness there. Whereas, sunflowers track the sun across the sky; there is some rudimentary kind of awareness there. Obviously not conscious awareness, in the case of sunflowers.
Why would you say robots do not see? 😆
@spruce112358 saidI think the problem with your definition of life is that it is broad to the point of being no longer particularly useful. The boundary between the animate and inanimate realms is fuzzy, to be sure, but most anyone would say a computer virus is not alive.
I have a different definition of 'living.'
For me, any pattern of molecules that does (or can) throw off more or less exact copies of itself has the property of being 'alive.'
So tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) which can be spun down and frozen for 100 years, then thawed, under the right conditions (e.g. on a tomato leaf) can go right on throwing off more or less accura ...[text shortened]... road definition of 'living' is why I say there are many 'living' things that are not 'conscious.' 😆
By your definition a computer simulation of a living organism is likewise alive. I ask you, what's the use of that?
@moonbus saidThe rods and cones that are the photoreceptors in the human eye basically just do what a photodiode does: receive photons --> transmit signals. In humans the signals run along the optic nerve to the visual cortex, while in a photodiode an electric current is generated in a circuit.
Because they don’t have eyes. They have sensors which can detect light and motion. Just like a pressure pad in the street which detects the presence of a vehicle, and triggers a traffic light to change from red to green. There’s no awareness there. Whereas, sunflowers track the sun across the sky; there is some rudimentary kind of awareness there. Obviously not conscious awareness, in the case of sunflowers.
The gray area in between is, I think, the eyespots that many microbes have. Since I take the categories of living things and conscious things to be constitutive of the same things (i.e. X is alive if and only if X is conscious), I believe microbes have a rudimentary sort of consciousness, and therefore the stimuli their eyespots receive translate into some primitive kind of "seeing experience."
2 edits
@Soothfast saidIf you look only at electrical transmission pathways, then you will think that the two are indeed analogues. The point, however, is that machines do not see objects at all, they do not see tables, chairs, bowling balls, the furniture of the universe. What machines are detecting are really nothing but photons. This is demonstrated by any captcha on the Internet, where a visitor is asked to tick all the boxes which contain a motorcycle. Only humans can recognize which pixels correspond to a motorcycle, and which pixels do not. This is demonstrated by facial recognition software, which mis-identifies Black people as gorillas. Only something which is truly conscious can detect the friendliness in a friend’s smile.
The rods and cones that are the photoreceptors in the human eye basically just do what a photodiode does: receive photons --> transmit signals. In humans the signals run along the optic nerve to the visual cortex, while in a photodiode an electric current is generated in a circuit.
The gray area in between is, I think, the eyespots that many microbes have. Since I t ...[text shortened]... refore the stimuli their eyespots receive translate into some primitive kind of "seeing experience."
@moonbus said
The earliest cities (foundations) which have been uncovered were unwalled. This strongly suggests that in the first age of agricultural plenty, no defenses against outside raiders were needed. Given that the oldest religions were matriarchal (Mother-Earth-goddess paganism), we may presume that the earliest civilizations were matriarchal. Women don't make wars or need walled c ...[text shortened]... his under-evolved isolationist brainfog. And living next to HIM is the price his neighbors all pay.
The earliest cities (foundations) which have been uncovered were unwalled. This strongly suggests that in the first age of agricultural plenty, no defenses against outside raiders were needed.
Or it suggests nobody had invented walls yet.
@Soothfast saidWell, I have written computer simulations but none of them were self-replicating. SELF-replication is a distinctive trick. You might need tools, materials, partner, help, whatever, but the key thing is you don't need YOUR creator or parent. 😆
I think the problem with your definition of life is that it is broad to the point of being no longer particularly useful. The boundary between the animate and inanimate realms is fuzzy, to be sure, but most anyone would say a computer virus is not alive.
By your definition a computer simulation of a living organism is likewise alive. I ask you, what's the use of that?
I don't think I'm minimizing the value of life (whatever that means) - the ACHIEVEMENT of life - to suggest that capacity for/function of self-replication is the union card that gets you in.
I also think it's quite neat that computer viruses have the 'alive' property. We immediately named them 'viruses' and set about constructing antibody systems that 'recognized' and 'neutralized' said viruses. Exactly the way our bodies react to foreign invaders.
Humans. What will they do next. 😆
@AThousandYoung saidNecessity is the mother of invention. If it wasn’t invented, there was no necessity.The earliest cities (foundations) which have been uncovered were unwalled. This strongly suggests that in the first age of agricultural plenty, no defenses against outside raiders were needed.
Or it suggests nobody had invented walls yet.
@spruce112358 saidUndoubtedly, we are getting better and better at mimicking more and more aspects of life. But we’re not there yet. We may cross the border without recognizing it. And if it comes to our attention after we have crossed it, we may well be confronted with ethical issues which we hardly have the conceptual apparatus to cope with. We already struggle to grapple with issues such as boarding pregnancies prior to term, and now imagine the issues involved in switching off machines which themselves claim to be alive.
Well, I have written computer simulations but none of them were self-replicating. SELF-replication is a distinctive trick. You might need tools, materials, partner, help, whatever, but the key thing is you don't need YOUR creator or parent. 😆
I don't think I'm minimizing the value of life (whatever that means) - the ACHIEVEMENT of life - to suggest that capacity for/ ...[text shortened]... viruses. Exactly the way our bodies react to foreign invaders.
Humans. What will they do next. 😆
@moonbus saidThat argument is flawed. A similar argument could be:
Necessity is the mother of invention. If it wasn’t invented, there was no necessity.
Before penicillin was invented, there was no bacterial disease.