Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I like that turn of events.

Why in the Verse would a company make a child robot that could grow like a human? If they have that technology, they can upsize it much more easily. If Frankenstein taught us anything, it is that working with bigger parts is easier.

The effort involved in perfectly simulating a human growth cycle, meaningless imperfections, and building in design flaws like hormone responses, clutziness and an imperfect memory would simultaneously have the creator far exceeding our technology, and choosing to make something much worse than is possible.

I can't fathom a single logical reason someone would do this. At that level of technological sophistication, even organ libraries would be easier to clone and grow. And if you could make 2 or 3 fully grown robots for the same price, and simply put them through a few years of training before they reached operational status, why wouldn't you?

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Why in the Verse would a company make a child robot that could grow like a human? If they have that technology, they can upsize it much more easily. If Frankenstein taught us anything, it is that working with bigger parts is easier.

The effort involved in perfectly simulating a human growth cycle, meaningless imperfections, and building in design flaws like hormone responses, clutziness and an imperfect memory would simultaneously have the creator far exceeding our technology, and choosing to make something much worse than is possible.

I can't fathom a single logical reason someone would do this. At that level of technological sophistication, even organ libraries would be easier to clone and grow. And if you could make 2 or 3 fully grown robots for the same price, and simply put them through a few years of training before they reached operational status, why wouldn't you?

Maybe to see if a robot can live among us?

Lots of reasons that it could be happening. Testing, seeing if it is possible. Maybe to see if there is a possibility to have machines with feelings.

Clones unforunately are not entirely legal and are known to degrade, a robot can easily have their mind wiped compared to a human mind, which is harder to manipulate than a machine.

Ok... but couldn't the experiment be completed in a fraction of the time if the robot was fully grown? To sit on this technology for 18 years before release seems fiscally unsound.

I would think building an adult chassis and releasing the robot as an amnesiac John Doe from a car crash would result in proof of emotional capability, or the incapability of it.

Sure, whole clones are. But Individual organs either from pure clone, or genetically adapted host organisms are ok.

I just can't think of a single purpose that a robot that could simulate the human life cycle could serve, that couldn't better be served by building models to simulate each phase. Baby bot, toddler bot, schoolchild bot, the ill advised teen bot, and adult bot could wrap the experiment in 3 years, at a fraction of the cost, with a more easily replicable sampling.

Humanoid robots are a wonderful idea- but truly human robots are a whole boat load of money spent to create something you could find hundreds of abandoned and unwanted in any area of the globe.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Ok... but couldn't the experiment be completed in a fraction of the time if the robot was fully grown? To sit on this technology for 18 years before release seems fiscally unsound.

I would think building an adult chassis and releasing the robot as an amnesiac John Doe from a car crash would result in proof of emotional capability, or the incapability of it.

Sure, whole clones are. But Individual organs either from pure clone, or genetically adapted host organisms are ok.

I just can't think of a single purpose that a robot that could simulate the human life cycle could serve, that couldn't better be served by building models to simulate each phase. Baby bot, toddler bot, schoolchild bot, the ill advised teen bot, and adult bot could wrap the experiment in 3 years, at a fraction of the cost, with a more easily replicable sampling.

Humanoid robots are a wonderful idea- but truly human robots are a whole boat load of money spent to create something you could find hundreds of abandoned and unwanted in any area of the globe.

The theory for doing this has been the inspiration for many sci-fi stories.
The purpose for making a specific type of cyborg is exactly that....the purpose. A cyborg with mechanical body and human brain is at its most basic form an attempt at immortality.

While not literally immortal, this would be a means of prolonging the lifespan of a human intellect. In practice, this would be a means of projecting human intelligence into lethal environments(ex.-space, radioactive areas, deep sea exploration, ect., ect. ...)

Now for the other type that you are wondering why such would be done.

The long postulated reason for putting a computer brain into a human body is for the purpose of creating a "safe" singularity. This type of cyborg has been theorized as to being the best way to create a stable "non-hostile" AI.
That by letting it develop slowly over time with the most efficient input system known to man (our sensory system), we will develop an AI that can identify with and understand humanity.

Basically the computer brain programmed by human sensory input will help us to avoid the HAL 9000(2001 Space Odyssey, Skynet(Terminator) and WOPR(Wargames) scenarios where alien AI's (read as an intelligence that has never experienced the human perspective) seek to remove problem of mankind.

Maybe a shorter way of saying it is that this could create an AI that has an emotional attachment to humanity.

Pls to note that this is all theory and supposition but it is such as this that has inspired many writers. Also, look back at sci-fi and realize that we have exceeded what was imagined in computing power for the original Star Trek series.


@Asherian Command- it is things like the difference in each type of cyborg that kept me from answering your questions. My answers would differ wildly depending upon the type of synthetic creature I found myself to be.

...and we haven't even covered the concept of a 5th element 3-d printed synthetic clone.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
1) For someone working so hard to prove that they have no imagination, you have outdone yourself with this scenario. Your scenario requires quite a bit of imagination to think that all children would have to, at some point, be subjected to invasive diagnostics.
Many people make it to their adult years without ever having to undergo emergency care, X-rays, MRI's, EEG's, EKG's or any other brain or body scan.

No, you really missed the point. My whole point was that you don't need any rare or complex tests to identify a robot, even basic everyday life will be sufficient. The only way a person could be unaware of the fact that they're a robot would be either:

1) Someone has edited their memories and put them into a fake life to hide their robot nature, which violates the rules of the OP's premise.

or

2) The term "robot" has no meaning because the person has nothing in common with real-world robots.

Second, Who said such a person would not bleed? Not I nor the OP. That is an arbitrary restriction that you have added. Why?

Ok, you bleed. Congratulations, you aren't a robot. I added that "restriction" because it's something that no robot that has anything to do with modern (non-fiction) concepts of "robot" would bleed and heal like a human. So either you have to edit the robot's memory to include fake memories of bleeding and remove any memories of actual injuries, or the "robot" is so different from real robots that any questions about "what would it be like to be a robot" are useless.

Third, Creating realistic looking androids has already happened in Asia. Check out the weather girl/news girl android.

There's a difference between "superficially realistic" and "composed of individual robot cells and operating exactly like a real person". No real-world robot comes even remotely close to the latter.

Point is that such an engineered thing/being could have a biological covering that bleeds when cut. Who is to say that in the next 50-100 years that we can't achieve an engineered stem cell grown body with a computer brain. .....Such a creation would not need fake memories as you insist......though it would quite likely have a pre-programmed purpose.

Yes, and that's the whole point. We're off into the world of speculation about what future technology might be. It's completely pointless to speculate about what it would be like to realize that you're a robot 100+ years in the future with almost inconceivably advanced technology because the answer to that question depends primarily on the assumptions you make about the future technology. That's not an interesting philosophical question, it's a science fiction author saying "this is what it's like to be a robot" and then asking you to repeat their description back to them.

I find it odd that in your reply number one you are touting the kids as being highly perceptive and understanding and in your second point you use an erroneous summation of my proposed idea for discussing by having the kids unable to understand that they are different.

No, you just missed the point. A robot person would be so obviously a robot that even a small child could figure it out without any unusual perceptive talents.

Please note that I suggested that such a child creature has come to "understand" that they are different and how.

IOW, they aren't a child. If you magically give a child the knowledge and understanding of an adult, especially an adult with the ability to give an informed opinion on things like the differences between artificial and natural consciousness, they're an adult in a tiny body. You can't simultaneously be a child and a 20 year old philosophy student.

They just are not fully developed emotionally and due to such would react differently than an adult.

Well yes, that's exactly what I said: the child wouldn't have the ability to understand abstract concepts like "what is consciousness" and their reaction would be to treat it like just another game of "let's pretend to be X". I guess maybe it's a bit entertaining to imagine this hypothetical child running off to tell all of their friends how they're R2-D2 and going to go rescue the princess, but that doesn't really answer any interesting philosophical questions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
The long postulated reason for putting a computer brain into a human body is for the purpose of creating a "safe" singularity. This type of cyborg has been theorized as to being the best way to create a stable "non-hostile" AI.
That by letting it develop slowly over time with the most efficient input system known to man (our sensory system), we will develop an AI that can identify with and understand humanity.

Basically the computer brain programmed by human sensory input will help us to avoid the HAL 9000(2001 Space Odyssey, Skynet(Terminator) and WOPR(Wargames) scenarios where alien AI's (read as an intelligence that has never experienced the human perspective) seek to remove problem of mankind.

...

Please stop treating science fiction plots as real science. None of that makes any sense in the real world.

Peregrine wrote:
1)
No, you really missed the point. My whole point was that you don't need any rare or complex tests to identify a robot, even basic everyday life will be sufficient. The only way a person could be unaware of the fact that they're a robot would be either:

1) Someone has edited their memories and put them into a fake life to hide their robot nature, which violates the rules of the OP's premise.

or

2) The term "robot" has no meaning because the person has nothing in common with real-world robots.

Captain Avatar wrote:Second, Who said such a person would not bleed? Not I nor the OP. That is an arbitrary restriction that you have added. Why?

2)
Ok, you bleed. Congratulations, you aren't a robot. I added that "restriction" because it's something that no robot that has anything to do with modern (non-fiction) concepts of "robot" would bleed and heal like a human. So either you have to edit the robot's memory to include fake memories of bleeding and remove any memories of actual injuries, or the "robot" is so different from real robots that any questions about "what would it be like to be a robot" are useless.

Third, Creating realistic looking androids has already happened in Asia. Check out the weather girl/news girl android.

3)
There's a difference between "superficially realistic" and "composed of individual robot cells and operating exactly like a real person". No real-world robot comes even remotely close to the latter.

Point is that such an engineered thing/being could have a biological covering that bleeds when cut. Who is to say that in the next 50-100 years that we can't achieve an engineered stem cell grown body with a computer brain. .....Such a creation would not need fake memories as you insist......though it would quite likely have a pre-programmed purpose.

4)
Yes, and that's the whole point. We're off into the world of speculation about what future technology might be. It's completely pointless to speculate about what it would be like to realize that you're a robot 100+ years in the future with almost inconceivably advanced technology because the answer to that question depends primarily on the assumptions you make about the future technology. That's not an interesting philosophical question, it's a science fiction author saying "this is what it's like to be a robot" and then asking you to repeat their description back to them.

I find it odd that in your reply number one you are touting the kids as being highly perceptive and understanding and in your second point you use an erroneous summation of my proposed idea for discussing by having the kids unable to understand that they are different.

5)
No, you just missed the point. A robot person would be so obviously a robot that even a small child could figure it out without any unusual perceptive talents.

Please note that I suggested that such a child creature has come to "understand" that they are different and how.

6)
IOW, they aren't a child. If you magically give a child the knowledge and understanding of an adult, especially an adult with the ability to give an informed opinion on things like the differences between artificial and natural consciousness, they're an adult in a tiny body. You can't simultaneously be a child and a 20 year old philosophy student.

They just are not fully developed emotionally and due to such would react differently than an adult.

7)
Well yes, that's exactly what I said: the child wouldn't have the ability to understand abstract concepts like "what is consciousness" and their reaction would be to treat it like just another game of "let's pretend to be X". I guess maybe it's a bit entertaining to imagine this hypothetical child running off to tell all of their friends how they're R2-D2 and going to go rescue the princess, but that doesn't really answer any interesting philosophical questions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
The long postulated reason for putting a computer brain into a human body is for the purpose of creating a "safe" singularity. This type of cyborg has been theorized as to being the best way to create a stable "non-hostile" AI.
That by letting it develop slowly over time with the most efficient input system known to man (our sensory system), we will develop an AI that can identify with and understand humanity.

Basically the computer brain programmed by human sensory input will help us to avoid the HAL 9000(2001 Space Odyssey, Skynet(Terminator) and WOPR(Wargames) scenarios where alien AI's (read as an intelligence that has never experienced the human perspective) seek to remove problem of mankind.

...
8)
Please stop treating science fiction plots as real science. None of that makes any sense in the real world.

1) Didn't miss any point. Just refuse to be bound in by the false paradigm of your Black and White supposition. Just because you can't or refuse to think of any other answer in no way binds me to your limited view.
Really Peregrine, with such a binary thought process...,"Are you sure that your are not a robot?"

Here I will give you another alternative. No one told the child creation that it was different. It has been growing and developing(self programming) and in that time it has always been treated as a normal child.
No need for erasure of memories or a false life program...just a few people in the know who choose to not reveal something to the child while such is beyond its comprehension.

2) Why are you so insistent upon putting a non-fiction only label on this. The entire exercise at its core is an exercise in fiction. That is what role playing is, it is a fiction....
A play pretend story of what-if.

Please to note that the OP put no such restriction on the discussion. He asked you to merely "imagine" yourself in a situation in which you suddenly realized that your were a synthetic creation. Asherian put no restrictions on whether or not you live in the present, past or future.

Your actions are puzzling to me.
In essence, you have joined this thread just so you can try to impose arbitrary and irrelevant roadblocks as to why nobody should participate in this exercise. Why?
I can understand that this may not be your cup of tea but, "Why is it so important for you to prove that this exercise is fundamentally flawed?".

I am not trying to chastise here. I seriously want to now the "why" that is behind your actions.


3) Correction, No real world robot comes close to this level of complexity,....yet.


4) Again, this entire exercise is a work of supposition. Matter of fact, some would say that the entire field of philosophy is supposition.
Your having such an issue with supposition leads us back to my questions for you at the end of point #2.
Also, please realize that you are the one putting arbitrary restrictions and barriers in place. No one is trying to force you to participate. If you don't want to then don't. All I ask is that you don't try to limit me to with your random restrictions.


5) Again, you are using a self made restriction and this time it is in direct opposition to the OPs original premise. He said that you are you to the point that only you know that you are an artificial or synthetic organism.


6) Now you contradict what you said in the previous point. First you say that any child could tell that they were a robot and then you accuse me of giving the child/creation adult level of thought complexity by understanding that he is different in some way.

My statement was that the child/creation has come to understand that it is "different". Realization and understanding that one is different is not the same as the ability to process and maturely cope with such information.

Maybe this will help. Lets use a parallel. What if instead of robot we use homosexual.
You have a child that was born gay but doesn't realize that he is different from the 90-ish% of children who are straight until one day he suddenly does realize that he feels and thinks differently than most of his/her friends.
In this situation, the child has come to understand that there is a difference but is most likely won't be able to cope with such knowledge on their own.
Same example could be made for children who are gifted(savants).


7) Again, I don't think you understand how much children want to belong/ be a part of the group. Imo, the child would keep it to himself just as many gay children and gifted/savants do.


8) You might want to go back and see how science fiction has shaped our world by becoming science fact.
As a matter of fact, I can't think of a more appropriate thread for such references and how they came about. ...*Hint, Roddenberry and Asimov used to go talk to theoretical physicist's to help make their fiction more consistent and believable.

a) Does your concept of yourself change? Are you the same person you thought you were?
-I stay who I am. I believe we are defined by our actions and thoughts. Though changes made by knowing this may alter who I am in the future. It does not change how I view myself.

b) Does your understanding of the world itself change?
Yes, Up until now, there has been nothing close to this level of robotics and AI. The fact that I suddenly exist, (even if my memories were false and I were only started in the morning.) It goes against all I understand of the technological level of this world. It is possible for an android to exist, and it is theorized that the human brain holds about 7 terabytes of information. However mimicking human thought has escaped us even now; No bot has officially passed the Turring test. (well there was one, but he limited the data pool, Time Frame, and Questions allowed to be asked, Making it a false test).

c) Do you reveal the information to others, or do you keep it to yourself? Why?
I would keep it to myself as best I could. The knowledge would freak some people out. Also, until I understood my own inner workings, how am I to explain it to others? I would like to be able to repair myself fully, before I begin to explain to others what I am. Even then, I would rather keep it to myself so I may make modifications or repairs as needed without worry of others. Also, thoughts of vigilantism (Super Hero) would appear in my head. Keeping the knowledge of being a robot secret would help me keep my dual identity.

d) (make something else up that you would personally do...)
I would study my body extensively. Learn it's limitations, functionality, Adaptability. Who made me? What parts manufacturer did each part come from? Was I a Home brew? I would have a lot of answers to find.
I would Modify my body once I understood how it worked completely.
I would stop all un-necessary functions; Such as eating, and sleeping, (but not hygiene, because even machines need maintenance.). If possible I would cease doing anything I didn't need. This would probably effect my mental processes and self in some way over time.

Overall It would be an interesting experience.

 Vanguard-13 wrote:
a) Does your concept of yourself change? Are you the same person you thought you were?
-I stay who I am. I believe we are defined by our actions and thoughts. Though changes made by knowing this may alter who I am in the future. It does not change how I view myself.

b) Does your understanding of the world itself change?
Yes, Up until now, there has been nothing close to this level of robotics and AI. The fact that I suddenly exist, (even if my memories were false and I were only started in the morning.) It goes against all I understand of the technological level of this world. It is possible for an android to exist, and it is theorized that the human brain holds about 7 terabytes of information. However mimicking human thought has escaped us even now; No bot has officially passed the Turring test. (well there was one, but he limited the data pool, Time Frame, and Questions allowed to be asked, Making it a false test).

c) Do you reveal the information to others, or do you keep it to yourself? Why?
I would keep it to myself as best I could. The knowledge would freak some people out. Also, until I understood my own inner workings, how am I to explain it to others? I would like to be able to repair myself fully, before I begin to explain to others what I am. Even then, I would rather keep it to myself so I may make modifications or repairs as needed without worry of others. Also, thoughts of vigilantism (Super Hero) would appear in my head. Keeping the knowledge of being a robot secret would help me keep my dual identity.

d) (make something else up that you would personally do...)
I would study my body extensively. Learn it's limitations, functionality, Adaptability. Who made me? What parts manufacturer did each part come from? Was I a Home brew? I would have a lot of answers to find.
I would Modify my body once I understood how it worked completely.
I would stop all un-necessary functions; Such as eating, and sleeping, (but not hygiene, because even machines need maintenance.). If possible I would cease doing anything I didn't need. This would probably effect my mental processes and self in some way over time.

Overall It would be an interesting experience.

Sorry I just got back from my final projects and they have been absorbing my time. Such is the bane of game design.

Thank you for reply

And yeah I am glad that you find it interesting.

This isn't mean't to be a test that says what is right and what is wrong.