Are we essentially biological robots?

Scanlas The 2nd

Is free will an illusion? One could argue that if we understood how every single atom interacts in our bodies and environment that we could calculate exacltly every action we would take beforehand. Unless you believe in some sort of magical type thinking I don't see how this isn't the case. We are a chemistry of interacting atoms.

Logical Fallacy

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

One could argue that if we understood how every single atom interacts in our bodies and environment that we could calculate exacltly every action we would take beforehand.

No you couldn't.

Brendog

I'm drunk......

smk89

Well we came first so robots are robotic humans

foxyboxer

I can safely say that no-one understand quantum mechanics - Richard Feynman.

It's pointless to even try. We might understand the how's of chemistry, biology etc but we'll never know the why.

stovelid

You could be on to something there.

Scanlas The 2nd

foxyboxer wrote: »

I can safely say that no-one understand quantum mechanics - Richard Feynman.

It's pointless to even try. We might understand the how's of chemistry, biology etc but we'll never know the why.

The point is you were always going to write the above. It was just a matter of time. In order for you not to have written the above the laws of physics would have to be different.

Logical Fallacy

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The point is you were always going to write the above. It was just a matter of time. In order for you not to have written the above the laws of physics would have to be different.

No they wouldn't.

The laws of physics have **** all to do with it.

Seriously, i understand you like to start a thread a day and just blather on endlessly but lets see some reasoning behind your statements this time around.:D

texidub

No we are not biological robots. We possess something robots do not possess --intentionality. And another thing robots and AI systems do not possess --attention (if they did, the cocktail party problem would have been solved).

A chemistry of interacting atoms is still subject to quantum forces and chaos theory and therefore remains difficult if not impossible to predict.

Wonder at it, admire it, be in awe of it, (I'm all three) but don't overestimate what science is capable of describing.

Scanlas The 2nd

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

No they wouldn't.

The laws of physics have **** all to do with it.

Seriously, i understand you like to start a thread a day and just blather on endlessly but lets see some reasoning behind your statements this time around.:D

I think the laws of physics have a lot to do with it. For every action you take a chain reaction of interacting atoms took place to allow that action to take place. You were forced by physics to think and feel the way you did to take the action you took. We choose what we do but we were always going to make the choice we made because that was the outcome of the interacting atoms in our bodies. We feel we could have done anything we wanted but there was always only one outcome.

stovelid

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

No they wouldn't.

The laws of physics have **** all to do with it.

Seriously, i understand you like to start a thread a day and just blather on endlessly but lets see some reasoning behind your statements this time around.:D

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think the laws of physics have a lot to do with it. For every action you take a chain reaction of interacting atoms took place to allow that action to take place. You were forced by physics to think and feel the way you did to take the action you took. We choose what we do but we were always going to make the choice we made because that was the outcome of the interacting atoms in our bodies. We feel we could have done anything we wanted but there was always only one outcome.

It's a tricky one.

Maybe we should take a photon it.

az2wp0sye65487

Brendog wrote: »

I'm drunk......

So is the OP :rolleyes:

Logical Fallacy

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think the laws of physics have a lot to do with it. For every action you take a chain reaction of interacting atoms took place to allow that action to take place. You were forced by physics to think and feel the way you did to take the action you took. We choose what we do but we were always going to make the choice we made because that was the outcome of the interacting atoms in our bodies. We feel we could have done anything we wanted but there was always only one outcome.

Like i said, I want to see an explanation...you just keep repeating the same thing...making your post slightly longer each time but not actually covering any new ground.

What kind of alternate reactions would be required on an atomic level in order to result in a different action?

Which particular laws of physics, if they were different, do you think would result in people reacting different to their environments?

Also, why do people within the same environments and circumstances have different reactions to the same stimulus?

az2wp0sye65487

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think the laws of physics have a lot to do with it. For every action you take a chain reaction of interacting atoms took place to allow that action to take place. You were forced by physics to think and feel the way you did to take the action you took. We choose what we do but we were always going to make the choice we made because that was the outcome of the interacting atoms in our bodies. We feel we could have done anything we wanted but there was always only one outcome.

And?.... What's your point exactly? Do you therefore think we should all just give up?

texidub

(I realize you probably didn't mean the question as I have answered it. But if you take the current state of robotics, we are so far beyond what any robot is capable of it's incredible --not just intellectually, but in terms of agility and speed of operation too.)

If you meant to ask, 'Is human behaviour entirely predictable?' Then I would say 'Who knows?', because we don't have the tools to predict it.

I would also say that it's a question that doesn't really matter since to our own experience we have free will whether that be illusory or not. It's a meaningless question whatever way you answer it.

Scanlas The 2nd

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Like i said, I want to see an explanation...you just keep repeating the same thing...making your post slightly longer each time but not actually covering any new ground.

What kind of alternate reactions would be required on an atomic level in order to result in a different action?

Which particular laws of physics, if they were different, do you think would result in people reacting different to their environments?

Also, why do people within the same environments and circumstances have different reactions to the same stimulus?

People react differently to differentstimulus because it's a different scenario.

Thats like saying why does a ball dropped from 3 feet behave differently to a ball dropped from 4 feet. It's a different scenario.


When a snooker ball hits another snooker ball, there is only one outcome that can take place, it's predetermined. What I'm saying is we are essentially trillions of trillions of little interection like that. I just don't see how we can in reality have true free will.

mackg

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

No you couldn't.

Obviously you couldn't practically that's not the point (i'm assuming otherwise this thread is retarded) but in one of Stephen Hawkings books he poses the question if an alien being landed on earth tomorrow there would be no way for us to tell if it were another form of life or a robot of such complexity that we simply cannot understand it's operations ie. do the calculations to determine its future actions, similarly to what OP says about humans. I don't pretend to fully understand all this but I think this is what OP is trying to get across.

texidub

I'm gonna mangle Nietzsche horribly here, but I like the idea of the eternal recurrence of the same, which can be viewed as an existential response to an illusory free will: in an infinite universe all your actions will be repeated again and again ad infinitum. Therefore, whenever you are faced with a choice, choose only those actions that you would be happy to repeat for all eternity.

(Of course in terms of physics the idea is plain silly, but as a way of living it strikes me as extremely useful.)

Scanlas The 2nd

Zane Wrong Morning wrote: »

And?.... What's your point exactly? Do you therefore think we should all just give up?

No, not if you enjoy life. No one is ever going to know what will happen. Free will is just an illusion, a very very good illusion.

texidub

mackg wrote: »

if an alien being landed on earth tomorrow there would be no way for us to tell if it were another form of life or a robot of such complexity that we simply cannot understand it's operations

Dissect it?

(And pay attention to the uncanny valley and related phenomena. Yeah, I've been preparing for their arrioval since the Euro started going funny :pac: )

And another way of answering the question would be to define 'biological' and 'robotic' life in such a way as to compartmentalise the being into one or other group.

Scanlas The 2nd

mackg wrote: »

Obviously you couldn't practically that's not the point (i'm assuming otherwise this thread is retarded) but in one of Stephen Hawkings books he poses the question if an alien being landed on earth tomorrow there would be no way for us to tell if it were another form of life or a robot of such complexity that we simply cannot understand it's operations ie. do the calculations to determine its future actions, similarly to what OP says about humans. I don't pretend to fully understand all this but I think this is what OP is trying to get across.

I think you're on the same page as me.

ScumLord

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

No you couldn't.

human behaviour is extremely predictable to the point a computer can tell what a human will decide before they do. I'm not just talking about prediction based on environmental signals ether (as the likes of Derren Brown does) I can't quite remember the details but I think the machine was predicting what the person would decide based on signals from deep in the brain.

Humans are just very fancy machines, that's all we are.

mackg

^^that's right we're just dirty sexy robots.

seamus

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think the laws of physics have a lot to do with it. For every action you take a chain reaction of interacting atoms took place to allow that action to take place. You were forced by physics to think and feel the way you did to take the action you took. We choose what we do but we were always going to make the choice we made because that was the outcome of the interacting atoms in our bodies. We feel we could have done anything we wanted but there was always only one outcome.

Mechanics (the study of the behaviour of physical object in response to forces, effectively), are typically broken up into two branches - Classical mechanics and Quantum mechanics.

At the roughtest level, classical mechanics deals with the interaction of everything molecule-sized and up. Quantum mechanics deals with everything atom-sized and smaller.

Classical mechanics is the stuff we use all day, every day. It's predictable. Objects move in a calculable and predictable way. We can use mathematical formulae to describe how these objects move, and when we set them up in a particular way and apply a specific force, they will always move in the same way, no matter how many times we repeat the experiment.

Quantum mechanics is less predictable, basically. Far from being able to describe interactions as mathematical formulae with actual results, they're often described in terms of probability and statistics - what may happen, rather than what will happen.
If you set up an experiment at the quantum level, you will likely get different results many times, but often within the probabilities you have previously calculated.

Since the objects which are subject to classical mechanics are composed of objects subject to quantum mechanics, the implication here is obvious - at a high level, every interaction is unique and unpredictable.
You cannot know the position of every atom in the universe and predict what will happen next. You can make a guess as to what will most likely happen next, based on probability, but you could be wrong. In addition, the further out you attempt to project your prediction, then less reliable your prediction will become.

If you were to reassemble the universe back into its form before the big bang, the chances of this exact configuration of atoms re-emerging again after 13.5 billion years are zero.

To address your OP - yes, we are just biological robots. However your basis for forming that opinion is entirely incorrect.

texidub

No. This is a dirty sexy robot: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-hrp-4c-female-robot-video.html

Scanlas The 2nd

My point is in order for me to not be doing what I'm doing right now somewhere amongst the trillions of molecular interactions at least one must have turned out differently, but how could a reaction turn out differently?

Jen Pigs Fly

Not so much biological robots, we're more slaves to our own biology.

Think about it, biology rules everything in out life - the need to eat, move, sleep, Drink, urinate/deficate, we're pretty much ruled by our own bodies biological needs.

Yawning, sneezing, coughing, burping and other wind excretions, hic-coughing, twitches and twinges are all involentary things that could potential stop us in our tracks if bad enough.

Never mind illnesses.

Voodu Child

"Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”

— Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, Bantam Books, New York, 2010, p. 32.

texidub

Good post Seamus, but I don't think it demonstrates that we 'just biological robots' --at least not unless consciousness and biology are reduced to purely mechanical forces. What is remarkable about consciousness is that mechanical forces give rise to something that goes beyond mechanics to such an extent that it can control mechanical forces... (which are properties of substance and therefore are do not apply to everything in the universe)...

texidub

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

My point is in order for me to not be doing what I'm doing right now somewhere amongst the trillions of molecular interactions at least one must have turned out differently, but how could a reaction turn out differently?

because you willed it so.

Scanlas The 2nd

Voodu Child wrote: »

— Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, Bantam Books, New York, 2010, p. 32.

Thank you, that's a more eloquent description of what I'm trying to get at.

Scanlas The 2nd

texidub wrote: »

because you willed it so.

My will was predetermined by a series of chain reactions taking place in my head.

HavingCrack

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

My will was predetermined by a series of chain reactions taking place in my head.

Is there any method of actually 'proving' this ? We cannot observe ourselves as a 3rd party so this idea is merely a theory rather than anthing that can be verified? (I mean theory in layman's use rather than the scientific defintion).

Scanlas The 2nd

HavingCrack wrote: »

Is there any method of actually 'proving' this ? We cannot observe ourselves as a 3rd party so this idea is merely a theory rather than anthing that can be verified? (I mean theory in layman's use rather than the scientific defintion).

Not that I'm aware of.

ScumLord

HavingCrack wrote: »

Is there any method of actually 'proving' this ? We cannot observe ourselves as a 3rd party so this idea is merely a theory rather than anthing that can be verified? (I mean theory in layman's use rather than the scientific defintion).

It can be proved, MRIs can basically track thoughts through your head.

riffmongous

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

My point is in order for me to not be doing what I'm doing right now somewhere amongst the trillions of molecular interactions at least one must have turned out differently, but how could a reaction turn out differently?

read what seamus said again, there was only ever a certain probability that the reactions would turn out the way they did

seamus

texidub wrote: »

Good post Seamus, but I don't think it demonstrates that we 'just biological robots'

No, it doesn't, that's not what I was talking about.
A sufficiently complicated machine would be indistinguishable from a sentient life-form. I think most people accept that as a given. So there's no reason why we can't be considered a "machine".

read what seamus said again, there was only ever a certain probability that the reactions would turn out the way they did

And quite brilliantly, the probability of them turning out this way and resulting in your existence in your current form was so astronomically small that it may as well have been impossible. But you're here anyway. Who needs a god? There's sufficent awe and brilliance in the very fabric of existence.

Scanlas The 2nd

riffmongous wrote: »

read what seamus said again, there was only ever a certain probability that the reactions would turn out the way they did

I somehow don't think quantum mechanics gives us free will.

texidub

Ah that's a bit of exaggeration! They can't track thoughts itself --in terms of content-- they can track electrical activity.. and we don't understand the relation between electrical activity and thought. There has been some interesting work in reconstituting visual memories (albeit from a limited set of memories), but even people working in these fields won't tell you that they can track thoughts/deconstruct electrical signals into verbal or visual content.. not YET anyway.

HavingCrack

ScumLord wrote: »

It can be proved, MRIs can basically track thoughts through your head.

Really? My knowledge of MRI's is pretty scant to be honest. It sounds very interesting.

seamus wrote: »

No, it doesn't, that's not what I was talking about.
A sufficiently complicated machine would be indistinguishable from a sentient life-form. I think most people accept that as a given. So there's no reason why we can't be considered a "machine".

How is a 'machine' defined however? Surely reproduction is a sign that humans are not a machine? Even a sufficiently complicated machine wouldn't be capable of reproduction would it ? :eek:

Logical Fallacy

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

People react differently to differentstimulus because it's a different scenario.

I asked about people having different reactions to the same stimulus, not a different stimulus.

I just don't see how we can in reality have true free will.

But you can, it's in your first post. You said it yourself if we can measure all our possible reactions...but now you seem to be saying we have only one predetermined reaction at any given time. As such i am just a bit unsure about what you are trying to say...as you seem to be acknowledging the possibility of different reactions.

I guess i would also like you to delve deeper into what you mean by "robot" in this instance...as you don't seem to be implying that we have preprogrammed responses but rather that the responses that we do have to the circumstances we find ourselves in are a certainty.

texidub

seamus wrote: »

A sufficiently complicated machine would be indistinguishable from a sentient life-form.

Gotcha. On the surface perhaps... but only if the machine had biological components.

I've thought of one that might meet your criteria: those tiny robots made of DNA strands.. they seem to straddle the biological-machine/robotic divide.

EDIT: Apologies. I shouldn't have said your criteria. I meant --the criteria for being biological and robotic simultaneously (both on the surface and all the way through). They are the only example of an entity that is both entirely biological and entirely robotic

Son Of A Vidic

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

We are a chemistry of interacting atoms.

I suspect there could be certain chemicals interacting with your atoms right now.

ScumLord

HavingCrack wrote: »

Really? My knowledge of MRI's is pretty scant to be honest. It sounds very interesting.

I can't remember the full details, it was in a BBC documentary on humans, I just can't remember fully, but they where able to predict a persons decision a split second before they actually carried it out.

riffmongous

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I somehow don't think quantum mechanics gives us free will.

You'll need to define free will I think. I was just pointing out the problem with using a definition that relies on prediction.

seamus

texidub wrote: »

Ah that's a bit of exaggeration! They can't track thoughts itself --in terms of content-- they can track electrical activity.. and we don't understand the relation between electrical activity and thought. There has been some interesting work in reconstituting visual memories (albeit from a limited set of memories), but even people working in these fields won't tell you that they can track thoughts/deconstruct electrical signals into verbal or visual content.. not YET anyway.

Exactly, not yet. To take an example given by someone else, imagine a race of aliens built a robot and sent it to earth. It's so insanely complicated that as far as we can tell, it's sentient. It reacts in exactly the same way that a sentient being would, to everythng. Passes every sentience test we can think of.
All we can ascertain from scans is that there is electrical activity in there. But the construction is so far advanced that we don't even recognise the materials in use, never mind understand how it uses those electrical signals to create the appearance of sentience.

If we are never told that it's actually an artificial lifeform, how would we know?

HavingCrack wrote: »

How is a 'machine' defined however? Surely reproduction is a sign that humans are not a machine? Even a sufficiently complicated machine wouldn't be capable of reproduction would it ? :eek:

I don't see why not. We build machines now that do nothing but make copies of themselves. All it needs are resources, time and a blueprint.

Logical Fallacy

seamus wrote: »

Exactly, not yet.

We are getting a lot closer though.

http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity

riffmongous

seamus wrote: »

Exactly, not yet. To take an example given by someone else, imagine a race of aliens built a robot and sent it to earth. It's so insanely complicated that as far as we can tell, it's sentient. It reacts in exactly the same way that a sentient being would, to everythng. Passes every sentience test we can think of.
All we can ascertain from scans is that there is electrical activity in there. But the construction is so far advanced that we don't even recognise the materials in use, never mind understand how it uses those electrical signals to create the appearance of sentience.

If we are never told that it's actually an artificial lifeform, how would we know?

I don't see why not. We build machines now that do nothing but make copies of themselves. All it needs are resources, time and a blueprint.

Even the Voight-Kampff test?:eek:

Logical Fallacy

riffmongous wrote: »

Even the Voight-Kampff test?:eek:

The Nexus 7 can pass it with ease.

Scanlas The 2nd

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I asked about people having different reactions to the same stimulus, not a different stimulus.

Different people are a different bunch of atoms

Would you expect a beach ball to bounce off a bowling bowl the same as it would a snooker ball.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

But you can, it's in your first post. You said it yourself if we can measure all our possible reactions...but now you seem to be saying we have only one predetermined reaction at any given time. As such i am just a bit unsure about what you are trying to say...as you seem to be acknowledging the possibility of different reactions.

Are actions, thoughts, emotions, desires are determined by the chain reaction of atoms, molecules etc. Our "consciensce" doesn't determine these things. In fact our "conscience" is a result of those interacting particles.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I guess i would also like you to delve deeper into what you mean by "robot" in this instance...as you don't seem to be implying that we have preprogrammed responses but rather that the responses that we do have to the circumstances we find ourselves in are a certainty.

We are like a clock. A clock's actions are predetermined and a result of atoms interecting in the only way they can, just like us, however the mechanisms taking place in a human being are simply far more complex.

texidub

Yes, but from I understand of that research, this was from a limited set of possible memories.

It's not like they asked someone to think of 'anything you like' and then reconstructed the video based on electrical signals.

I do agree that it is fascinating research even if it is currently limited to reverse engineering (in a way) finite sets of visual memories.

The singularity better hurry up. I've a match to watch this evening!

(Or, if all is predetermined and interconnected in strict cause effect relationships, OP, could the result of tonight's match be determined by analysing my atomic structure right now? How about the atomic structure of a pebble on the Martian surface?)