[ SECRET POST #3768 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3768 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Goodbye to Halos]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.
[Great British Bake Off]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11. [SPOILERS for Yuri on Ice]



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #538.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - I am not sure if this is a troll or not ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Computers die all the time. Just not in the same way. They become outdated (age). They stop functioning.

Your point is moot because you want to be a special goddamn snowflake in the universe.

[(Anonymous)]

calling organisms "goddamn special snowflakes" lol

you're the one trying to push specialness onto something inanimate.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT but I think part of the point - to me - is that it's a mistake to equate consciousness or emotion with "specialness"

[(Anonymous)]

But why are we even talking about specialness at all? It seems the opposition to OP's secret here is that it's somehow "human-centric" to not ascribe some kind of spiritual value to robots/computers.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know why we're talking about specialness (I wasn't the one who initially used the line about special snowflakes).

The point that I'm making, myself, is that as far as we know, human consciousness and emotionality and being - the things that OP was talking about - are the result of physical processes, which means there's no particular reason that robots or other artificial entities could not have those qualities. Talking about "the artificial simulation of emotion" doesn't really make sense, because in either case, emotion is the result of specific physical processes, whether those processes are carried out in silicon or in neurons. There's no real criteria that I can see - or that anyone has really pointed to ITT - by which you can really differentiate the two. If an artificial entity were able to consistently act as though it had volition, consciousness, emotion, etc, it would be sensible to say that it actually had those qualities.

So when OP talks about all these reasons why the emotionality of fictional robot characters is less authentic, it seems to me - and I think this is what other people ITT are also saying - that this is an incorrect way to think about emotion, and there's no real standard by which you can say that one of those kinds of emotion is authentic and the other one isn't, if we're talking about a fictional robot that does display emotion. The whole sentiment doesn't really make sense with what we know about human beings.

+1

[(Anonymous)]

This. This is exactly why I brought up "specialness." Because, when you get down to it, humans aren't special and there's really no spiritual value inherent. Even in the most spiritual person, there are human lives that are worth less than others.

It reeks of not understanding where emotion and consciousness even come from. They're basically electric currents firing off in the right way.

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

You are the one who frankly doesn't understand where emotion and consciousness come from. "Electric currents firing off in the right way" in an identifiable organic nervous system. Emotion and consciousness are complex concepts that are extremely difficult to define, but we know we have them, it's reasonable to assume that other animals have them, too. There is zero reason to assume artificial intelligence is capable of this, period, and that even if it simulates emotion, it's in any way like what we consider actual emotion.

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

I am NAYRT but I am the poster who AYRT was responding to (the one who made the post beginning "I don't know why we're talking about specialness"). I hope that's clear.

Anyway, what is the actual meaningful connection between the organic-ness of a system and its capacity for having emotion and consciousness? Like, what is the specific reason why organicness is important for having emotion and consciousness?

Because unless there is some specific reason, it seems to me that what we know is that emotion and consciousness arise out of specifically structured physical systems. I can't see any reason why organic-ness is an important quality in terms of those structures attaining those states. Therefore, it seems to me reasonable to suspect it's not distinctively organic. What we have is a system of responses and systems and out of that arises consciousness. Neurons (it seems likely to me) are merely a medium in which those systems and responses and messages take place.

AYRT

[(Anonymous)]

I'm saying the exact opposite--that you're NOT special. You and OP want to be special in the universe, probably because it's comforting, but you're really... Not.

Re: AYRT

[(Anonymous)]

You're the one who brought up specialness, and humans. We're talking about organic life in general (not exclusively humans) vs robots. If you think a toaster, furby doll, and AIM bot has value equivalent to living organisms, that's your call. I don't. I do prescribe value to organic life over inanimate objects. If you call that self-centered, I don't know what to tell you.