Do you think that AI will ever feel emotions?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
No
If the thread is detailed to chat about turning AI off it will do all it can to get thread back on line
Dicart
Registered Senior Member
Ok then, let say the things differently
So now concerning the emotions (or feelings) a living organism could experience, it would be, in my opinion , a mistake to do the analogy with the one a non living organism could experience.
Living organisms experience emotion.
Non living organisms yyyyyy xxxxxx (replace yyyyyy and xxxxxx with new appropriate words)
In fact, i think that yyyyyy could be named "experience" and xxxxxx could be named emotion.... or not.
It depend of the system we use to define experience and emotion.
If we say that these two notions result of an emergence, or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmergenceWikipedia said:
In my point of view, emergent properties are arbitrary (or pragmatic because of the possibility or not to observe the property) defined properties. The lower limit where the property is supposed to appear is not "well established" (or in other terms : the limit is arbitrary defined).
I would prefer a more general system, more based on quantities and less based on arbitrary defined categories.
Per example : emotion.
Are all systems composed of atoms feel emotions ?
Yes in a quantitativ system (where a is the quantity) : Actual emotion = a * emotion
Quantity "a" growth quickly as the number of atoms increase and other properties are more longer in place.
So yes, an AI could feel "emotion", "actual emotion" with a factor "a" very low, but there will be also some other "properties" (notions) the life forms dont have so much, (so the need to use an other word to avoid confusion with the common use of emotion if we continue to use the category (arbitrary defined) naming system).
In such a system, all notions are already present in everything, but not with the same quantity. (So per example, life if already present in one atom)
Ok then, let say the things differently
Let's not when differently is a steaming pile of ripe Cow Pat
Let's keep to reality with below
Non living organisms do not 'experience' at all. Full stop.
It depend of the system we use to define experience and emotion.
Are you channeling Jan with redefine words?
George has something to say about arbitrary changing words to mean what YOU want them to mean
experience and emotion are OK and doing fine with their current definitions
Dicart
Registered Senior Member
The proof that they are not doing fine is that you cant answer in a scientific way the question : Could an AI experience emotion ?
Do you ?
If so, lets start.
If not, explain me why you cant.
If you think that the reason the question can't be answered is due to the definitions of "experience" and "emotion" then you haven't understood the question.
Dicart
Registered Senior Member
Emotion and experience and so forth probably.
Myself, i think that if you can answer in a rationnal maner why you cant answer in a scientific maner some question, you have almost answered the question.
Being worked on and will provide more details the closer to a more definitive answer
It is more about junk post like this you post has me concerned about your ideas
We're you one of those people who bought a pet rock and thought they were were like live pets?
When it didn't greet you when you came home, plus no poop in its sand box should have clued you it was not alive
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Life is not some magical, ethereal quality.
It has a definition.
Atoms do not eat, metabolize, grow or reproduce, for example.
Dicart
Registered Senior Member
It is more about junk post like this you post has me concerned about your ideas
We're you one of those people who bought a pet rock and thought they were were like live pets?
When it didn't greet you when you came home, plus no poop in its sand box should have clued you it was not alive
No, i dident bought them, i programed some for amusement.
Because i am very poor skilled in electronic, i only did it in virtual world (programs).
So in this case i am prety sure this has few to do with real beings.
Do a programatic being have emotion ?
It depend of the definition of emotion...
So, everybody says : But no it is not possible because i know what is emotion and i am sure here it is not...
This is not science.
I science, we define emotion using the observation we can do, not using what "it is" or what everybody think it is.
Same with consciousness, we define consciousness by the observation we can do.
These definitions are limited, for sure, but soon we talk about emotion, in science, we use these definitions.
Science do not talk about the qualia, it talk about the external observation we can do.
Scientists know this, and they can even have personal opinion about the qualia, but these opinions are not scientific facts.
So, can we use the definition of emotion on material artificial beings ?
If in the definition you say it must be a living being, no, if in the definition you dident state it must be a living object, yes.
So simple...
If no, in that case you have to invent a new definition for "emotion" with artificial "objects".
Dicart
Registered Senior Member
You misunderstand me.
In the other point of view i suggest, i say that many concepts we use can not be used like if they were binary, alife/no alife, conscious/non conscious, big/small (yes for these concepts we already know it lacks of the quantity...) , etc etc.
Perhaps you remember what was writen on the front of the temple of the "philosophs" (scientists at this age) :
Let None But Geometers Enter Here
Commentary on the Categories.....
http://www.antiquitatem.com/en/platonic-academy-geometry-nepotism/antiquitatem said:
Using words without quantities (so not acting like a geometer, or a mathematician) when they are necessary, provide only confusion and irrational thinking.
Plato misunderstood philosophy . Philosophy helps in understanding anything . Its not based on mathematics .
Mathematics can be and and is as irrational . Mathematics is not the be All of Rational Thinking .
Philosophy is not bound in mathematics . It is a part of philosophy but Not All of it .
At times mathematics is more imaginary than real . 2D as being real is imaginary .
Er, your claim was - Plato misunderstood philosophy. Citation needed.
Yes, it's "imaginary". Imaginary isn't irrational.
In which case there's no need to take the comment seriously, it's just one more inane claim.
It can't be shown to be true, as you admitted.
On the other hand Plato is regarded as "the pivotal figure in the history of Ancient Greek and Western philosophy" and "the founder of Western political philosophy" (both from the relevant Wiki page). So the balance of probabilities is that your comment is bullshit.