Locked in the dogma

[Little Rik]

That is not possible.
Since when something that answer your command is you!




Not at all Stimbo.
The driver can exist without the vehicle but the vehicle can not exist without the driver.
Have you ever seen a car moving without a driver or a body living without a mind and a spirit?

Gawd, I hate metaphors!

What a pity!!!
Sad to say but a robot is also a vehicle.
Without a mind that program it, it will never do anything.

[pocaracas]

Gawd, I hate metaphors!

What a pity!!!
Sad to say but a robot is also a vehicle.
Without a mind that program it, it will never do anything.

You are clearly not aware of the transformers universe...
These robots are sentient and have not been programmed.

[Angrboda]

What a pity!!!
Sad to say but a robot is also a vehicle.
Without a mind that program it, it will never do anything.

Still spouting bullshit and crap.

Evolutionary robotics uses population-based artificial evolution (fogel-1966, holland-1975) to evolve autonomous robot controllers (i.e. robot brains) and sometimes robot morphologies (i.e. robot bodies)(lipson-n-2000). Generally, the robots are evolved to perform tasks requiring some level of intelligence, for example moving around in an environment without running into things.

The process of controller evolution consists of repeating cycles of controller fitness testing and selection that are roughly analogous generations in natural evolution. Evolution is initialized by creating a population of randomly configured robots (or robot controllers). During each subsequent cycle, or generation, each of the robot controllers competes in an environment to perform the task for which the robots are being evolved. This process involves placing each controller into a robot and then allowing the robot to interact with its environment for a period of time. Following this, each controller’s performance is evaluated using a fitness selection function (objective function) that measures how well the task was performed. The controllers in the better performing robots are selected, altered and propagated in a repeating process that mimics natural evolution. The alteration process is also inspired by natural evolution and may include mutation and trading of genetic material. Cycles are repeated for many generations to train populations of robot controllers to perform a given task.

— Evolutionary Robotics (See also, Wikipedia: )

[Cyberman]

Gawd, I hate metaphors!

Yes, personally I try to avoid metaphors like the plague.

Now you two are arguing over the analogy and not the original point anymore.

Quite right. It's at this point I usually back away from the conversation, avoiding eye contact of course, and leaving the other party to bask in the warm, comforting glow of their own urine. Yay, rico, you win!

[Sal]

I didn't quite get the point in OP besides that "dogma is bad" for some obtuse reason followed by a lot of conjecture.

Well, I won't be adding anything significant to the discussion other than what I think dogma is: A system of beliefs or statements that by their nature cannot be questioned.

To me, the unquestionable bit, is what makes me against dogma - I think everything should be able to stand up to scrutiny, how else can you know if what you believe or statements you hold are true or not? Without scrutiny and critique your beliefs and statements are arbitrary at best.

[Little Rik]

What a pity!!!
Sad to say but a robot is also a vehicle.
Without a mind that program it, it will never do anything.

Still spouting bullshit and crap.

Evolutionary robotics uses population-based artificial evolution (fogel-1966, holland-1975) to evolve autonomous robot controllers (i.e. robot brains) and sometimes robot morphologies (i.e. robot bodies)(lipson-n-2000). Generally, the robots are evolved to perform tasks requiring some level of intelligence, for example moving around in an environment without running into things.

The process of controller evolution consists of repeating cycles of controller fitness testing and selection that are roughly analogous generations in natural evolution. Evolution is initialized by creating a population of randomly configured robots (or robot controllers). During each subsequent cycle, or generation, each of the robot controllers competes in an environment to perform the task for which the robots are being evolved. This process involves placing each controller into a robot and then allowing the robot to interact with its environment for a period of time. Following this, each controller’s performance is evaluated using a fitness selection function (objective function) that measures how well the task was performed. The controllers in the better performing robots are selected, altered and propagated in a repeating process that mimics natural evolution. The alteration process is also inspired by natural evolution and may include mutation and trading of genetic material. Cycles are repeated for many generations to train populations of robot controllers to perform a given task.

— Evolutionary Robotics (See also, Wikipedia: )

Unfortunately the process of control evolution is unable to go over the border of reason and therefore to decide what is good or bad in order to progress as the consciousness is concern.
Without the consciousness the vehicle can still move if programmed to do so but no real progress is made.
In other words is all in vain.
The day you will be able to give a consciousness to a robot let me know.
I will give you countless of Kudus.

---

I didn't quite get the point in OP besides that "dogma is bad" for some obtuse reason followed by a lot of conjecture.

Well, I won't be adding anything significant to the discussion other than what I think dogma is: A system of beliefs or statements that by their nature cannot be questioned.

To me, the unquestionable bit, is what makes me against dogma - I think everything should be able to stand up to scrutiny, how else can you know if what you believe or statements you hold are true or not? Without scrutiny and critique your beliefs and statements are arbitrary at best.

You are correct but to your statement i would like to add something.

A system of beliefs or statements that by their nature cannot be questioned.

A system of beliefs or statements BASED ON FALSE BELIEF OR LIES that cannot be questioned.


There are countless of dogmas and not only religious.
But those religious are the most spectacular.
Christian dogma........You can only be saved in Jesus.
It does not say how the unfortunate creatures that lived before Jesus could be saved.
Muslim dogma..........You shell kill animal facing the Mecca.
It does not say that the poor animal will feel less pain in being slaughtered in one direction or an other.
Hindu dogma..........the cow is sacred because give a lot of milk.
It does not say that buffalo are sacred as they give more milk then a cow.

And now an atheist dogma..........i can not see or perceive God so it does not exist.
Well, maybe if you try to look inside and not outside you may well start to perceive that essence.

[pocaracas]

And now an atheist dogma..........i can not see or perceive God so it does not exist.
Well, maybe if you try to look inside and not outside you may well start to perceive that essence.

That.... is when you enter the realm of psychology.
Look inwards for the answer.... sounds a lot like self-delusion.
An entity capable of creating the Universe shouldn't be perceivable only by "looking inwards".
"Look inwards" sounds like a person trying to convince another of something that is impossible to experience, unless you convince yourself of it, in the first place.
And that's why I refuse any such argument.


Some 100,000 years ago, humanity came across the concept of divine. If the deity was a real thing, there was some physical interaction (how else would humans have come up with it?) and was not just mental masturbation.
I eagerly await for that deity to perform the same kind of interaction with me.

Thus far, I have nothing of the sort. So I default to "there is nothing of the sort".

[Psykhronic]

Even if we were to look inward and find some essence inside ourselves, how does that lead to the conclusion of a God?

[Tonus]

Look inwards for the answer.... sounds a lot like self-delusion.
An entity capable of creating the Universe shouldn't be perceivable only by "looking inwards".
"Look inwards" sounds like a person trying to convince another of something that is impossible to experience, unless you convince yourself of it, in the first place.
And that's why I refuse any such argument.

Yep. "If you saw things my way, you'd agree with me." It's a silly argument to make when you're talking about tangible things. It's a conversation-stopper when you're talking about some intangible and undefinable thing.

[Angrboda]

Unfortunately the process of control evolution is unable to go over the border of reason and therefore to decide what is good or bad in order to progress as the consciousness is concern.
Without the consciousness the vehicle can still move if programmed to do so but no real progress is made.
In other words is all in vain.
The day you will be able to give a consciousness to a robot let me know.
I will give you countless of Kudus.

Ah yes, being proved wrong on the point, you simply move the goalposts from a robot requiring a mind to program it to the robot not being demonstrably conscious.

Tell me how you know that a robot which can learn to move on its own cannot become conscious by the same route?



People might take you more seriously about the ineffable if you demonstrated sound reasoning about the effable.