Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’d say no, it doesn’t bolster your case. 4000 casualties out of the whole of Eastern and Northern Europe is not big, and it certainly is no where even remotely close to the hundred thousand originally estimated.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karnejj:
Hmm ... you don't really expect to go from just modelling a brain to matching the capabilities of one in 20 years... ?? Humans were modelling birds for quite a long time before we matched those capabilities.

---

Quote:

---

But, more to the point, current NN's are still pretty simplistic. Worse, there's still a lot of "art" to the science. Getting a NN to make reliable classifications takes a lot of "massaging of data" for good results, and I think that's a large part of the problem. The basic theory is there, but MUCH is left in the field to be uncovered.

---

Quote:

---

They don't classify GENERAL data efficiently. As I said, they're still very much limited in scope to be effective. And speech aren't so much contradictions, as inexactness (fuzziness, as you call it). What's that, you're saying that software can handle that fuzziness?

---

Quote:

---

Kinda bolsters my point about humans being meat computers. Our visual programming works in a certain way and we can't act against it EVEN WHEN we know it's wrong. Of course, all the mechanisms that allow us to build a picture to even recognize a vase or faces are the same mechanisms that made sure our ancestors spotted that predator stalking along or that meal running away.

---

Quote:

---

All in all though, Deep Blue enumerated chess moves. That means that it's a glorified counting machine. A VERY (very, very!) fast counting machine, but all it ever did (in essence) was just count ...

---

Quote:

---

In other words ... more than one neuron ...
Can the calculation be done without the other neurons, the answer to that seems to be "no."

---

Quote:

---

Actually, I think it's called the "Planck time" .. something like 10^(-31) seconds (I could look it up, but I'm at work).

---

Quote:

---

True, but I seriously doubt that it would take a meter of infinite precision to EXACTLY ACCURATELY measure the amount of electrical current generated. There are A FINITE, INTEGER number of electrons that are motivated through the axon, ya know ... so, again, the value can be done in an easy-to-handle range of integers (32 or just maybe 40 bits should be able to count the electrons nicely)

---

Quote:

---

Eh? Aren't those mathematicians/philosophers. You'd have to elaborate slightly more on this point.

---

Quote:

---

'What is the self, and how can a self come out of inanimate matter?'
This is the riddle that drove Douglas Hofstadter to write this extrodinary book. In order to impart his original and personal view on the core mystery of Human existence - our intangible sensation of 'I'-ness - Hofstadter defines the playful yet seemingly paradoxical notion of 'strange loop', and explicates this idea using analogies from many disciplines.

---

Quote:

---

Eh, the uncertainty principle only applies if quantum entanglement effects the decisions which we make.I would tend to disagree with that notion. Sure there are quantum effects in the brain, but, as I stated, I believe they have a minor (possibly non-existent) affect on our cognitive functions. There are different ways to use quantum effects in calculations, but I doubt our brain actually has evolved to do any high-level quantum manipulation. From what I've gleaned so far from responses so far, you may not be familiar with the potential of quantum computing. If you were, you would have been able to dispute me on this basis alone, and that's probably the only argument that I'd defer to.

---

Quote:

---

The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.
Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927

---

Quote:

---

However, it's a rather large leap to assume that the brain uses quantum algorithms, as quantum effects are notoriously difficult to exploit. Greater minds than ours have with trying to actually apply them, and I don't think God's creations could usefully apply any known algorithm except the one for memory recall.

---

Quote:

---

To be specific, I doubt the brain uses the quantum effects for any of the following potential uses: memory recall, decryption, instantenous (as in Faster Than Light) transmission of useless data, or star trek-type teleportation (yes, it actually is possible using quantum computers). There is one more important, but simple function of quantum entanglement, so *IF* there is ANY use of the quantum effects, then I would suspect that they serve ONLY as a source of true randomness, which, would then defeat predicting human behavior exactly, but serve very little purpose otherwise.
So, even though it wouldn't be very necessary, this functionality can be replicated by software accessing a cheap hardware random number generator.

---

Quote:

---

The above raises the question of how such phenomena can affect the functioning of cells. In other words, would the existence of such coherent states and the emergence of quantum mechanical entanglement be somehow useful or beneficial to biological function? Is it then reasonable to propose that in certain cases, natural selection may have favored molecules and cellular structures that exhibited such phenomena? If we accept the notion that according to the laws of quantum physics certain macroscopic arrangements of atoms will exhibit such effects, is it not reasonable then to expect that biomolecules and (by extension) cellular structures and whole cells have ’found’ a use for such phenomena and have evolved to incorporate them? We stress that at a given instant in time, the different microtubule coherent states participating in a specific bulk entanglement would be almost identical due to the fact that they are related/triggered by a specific “external agent” (e.g. the passing of a specific train of action potentials.) This is of outmost importance since it increases the system’s resilience to decoherence (by entangling a large number of nearly identical states), in addition to facilitating ”sharp decision making” (i.e. rapid choice among a vast number of very similar states) as explained in [37] which is presumably a trait favored by natural selection. Here we digress to investigate one possible use of such effects by noting a straightforward application of entanglement to teleportation of coherent quantum states across and between cells.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karnejj:
Just look at the raw numbers at that one case. That's 4000 casualties from one non-military detonation. Strategic warheads would target much more crucial areas, be much larger and not initially bottled in concrete (as well as covered with that containment goop afterwards). And with Chernobyl, the entire area was closed to human activity, preventing more long-term effects, and it hasn't really even been long enough yet to stop the count at 4000.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karnejj:
Just look at the raw numbers at that one case. That's 4000 casualties from one non-military detonation. Strategic warheads would target much more crucial areas, be much larger and not initially bottled in concrete (as well as covered with that containment goop afterwards). And with Chernobyl, the entire area was closed to human activity, preventing more long-term effects, and it hasn't really even been long enough yet to stop the count at 4000.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karnejj:
So, 100 nukes would each be larger explosions than Chernobyl and also leave fewer safe harbors for people to run to. If, 100 isn't enough to destroy life-as-we-know-it then, you've stated we've still got 9900 more chances ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

But, more to the point, current NN's are still pretty simplistic. Worse, there's still a lot of "art" to the science. Getting a NN to make reliable classifications takes a lot of "massaging of data" for good results, and I think that's a large part of the problem. The basic theory is there, but MUCH is left in the field to be uncovered.

---

Actually it's identical to the system used by the Human Brain, all data is considered and added and then the most used paths are kept while the old are removed, exactly what happens in a Human Brain. Remember there are 1000Trillion synaptic connections in a child’s brain, and 500Trillion or less in an adult.
[/q]

---

Quote:

---

Exactly. All a computer is is a glorified counting machine. All a computer EVER does is count.

---

Quote:

---

I thought that would be your response .
*removes CPU from motherboard, and places on desk*
Right, 2 + 2, go.
*silence, tumbleweed...*
*taps CPU*
Oh I know, needs power.
*hooks up battery.*
Right, 2 + 2.
*Nothing...*
Seems even computers can't function alone.

---

Quote:

---

Planck's time is how long it takes for light to travel Planck's length.
The Planck length is the minimum length before Quantum Laws reigns, making length meaningless (because of Hindenburg’s uncertainty principle) NOT the smallest possible.

---

Quote:

---

The figure is (roughly) 5.39 × 10−44 seconds, for reference.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

True, but I seriously doubt that it would take a meter of infinite precision to EXACTLY ACCURATELY measure the amount of electrical current generated. There are A FINITE, INTEGER number of electrons that are motivated through the axon, ya know ... so, again, the value can be done in an easy-to-handle range of integers (32 or just maybe 40 bits should be able to count the electrons nicely)

---

If you think of electrons in a classical way, more or less. But how many electrons is that and how many bits are needed, I'm afraid I don't trust your figures. Though now your adding in complexity as you now need an accurate particle simulation as well as an accurate Brain simulation, which is what I've been alluding too all along .

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Eh, the uncertainty principle only applies if quantum entanglement effects the decisions which we make.I would tend to disagree with that notion. Sure there are quantum effects in the brain, but, as I stated, I believe they have a minor (possibly non-existent) affect on our cognitive functions. There are different ways to use quantum effects in calculations, but I doubt our brain actually has evolved to do any high-level quantum manipulation.
.
.
.

---

Quote:

---

The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.
Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927

---

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says we can't know the position and momentum of a sub-atomic particle. It also postulates that the very act of observing something sub-atomic changes it. Therefore any Quantum level effects are open to the Uncertainty principle.

---

Quote:

---

Besides this, it is believed that Quantum Teleportation, and just straight forward entanglement do occur within the Neurons of the brain.

---

Quote:

---

I'm aware of what Quantum Computers can offer, but since they are Computers, and they work on pretty much the same principle as Silicon computers, they are still Turing Machines, also conforming to the original ideas laid down by Charles Babbage, I don't see how I can use them to support my argument, except to say I doubt a Quantum Computer could achieve sentient, which I've alluded to.

---

Quote:

---

And we're back to the assumption that the Brain is a computer. The brain DOES NOT use or do anything algorithmically. Just as a Photon doesn’t do the things it does algorithmically. The algorithm is how we model actions to be performed on a computer.

---

Quote:

---

Firstly there's a huge factual error I can't leave hanging. By the line:
star trek-type teleportation
I can only assume you mean Quantum Teleportation. If ANY QM physicist has made the statement that Quantum Teleportation is Star Trek-type teleportation then I want his/her name so I can have him/her publicly flogged.

---

Quote:

---

Beyond that:

Quote:

---

The above raises the question of how such phenomena can affect the functioning of cells.
In other words, would the existence of such coherent states and the emergence of quantum
mechanical entanglement be somehow useful or beneficial to biological function? Is it then
reasonable to propose that in certain cases, natural selection may have favored molecules
and cellular structures that exhibited such phenomena? If we accept the notion that according
to the laws of quantum physics certain macroscopic arrangements of atoms will exhibit
such e
ects, is it not reasonable then to expect that biomolecules and (by extension) cellular
structures and whole cells have ’found’ a use for such phenomena and have evolved
to incorporate them?

---

---

Quote:

---

One final note is that true random number generators use radioactive decay, and are anything but cheap .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karnejj:
I'll ignore the above as it seems to contradict most of your other assertions in that the brain cannot be modelled on any sequential system. Maybe you wanted a different word from "identical" .. eh.. either way, I'll let you elaborate on this one

---

Quote:

---

Hmm ... you're arguing something I've never stated. Yep, computers need a lot of support and won't function without data, ... just like single neurons ... But you're the one who said that single neurons could function alone

---

Quote:

---

Hmmm ... well, you're fighting a rather soundly entrenched theory here ...
It is meaningless to measure times and lengths less than these, so, yeah, the phenomena that you mention can (and should be) measured digitally(electrical current through a neuron).

---

Quote:

---

But, you don't see billiard balls disappearing when you hit them with a radar gun ... Uncertainty only becomes important on a sub-microscopic level and even then, I'm not sure which point of mine's you are trying to dispute.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah... even if true ... what does that *DO*? Does it assist/enable cognition in any way? Quantum entanglement happens all the time, but that doesn't mean it that it's purposefully assisting in brain function.

---

Quote:

---

Not to load your gun with any bullets, but it's been proven that quantum effects absolutely cannot be simulated in software. Therefore, if they INDEED ARE an integral part of sentience (which I do NOT believe), then hardware would be required.

---

Quote:

---

And given enough effort and money, the complexity in connectivity that you describe can be reconstructed in electronics.

---

Quote:

---

I could make a true random number generator by taking two readings of the speed of a fan. If the first is higher, my random bit is a 0, otherwise, it is 1. Variances in air and voltage would cause the speed to change. Seeing as most PC's today can access the fan-speed data, it's basically a free random number generator.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I said the parallel processing abilities and consciousness of the human brain could not be replicated on a sequential Binary system. Your assertion was that the Learning mechanisms of NNs were nothing like the Brain, which is why they haven't given rise to consciousness. This isn't the case.
My conclusion is that it’s more than the ability to learn that is required.

---

Quote:

---

No. I am not fighting QM. Small distances being meaningless to measure doesn't mean they don't exist. We can't measure picometre with a centimetre rule, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The reason the distance is meaningless is because the very act of measuring it changes it by a degree greater than itself, therefore meaningless, not non existent.

---

Quote:

---

And yeah, Uncertainty only works at the quantum level, the quantum level being what I was talking about.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Yeah... even if true ... what does that *DO*? Does it assist/enable cognition in any way? Quantum entanglement happens all the time, but that doesn't mean it that it's purposefully assisting in brain function.

---

I don't know. Maybe nothing maybe everything.

---

Quote:

---

What I do know is that everyone in every age when trying to model the brain makes it out to be simple, like incredibly complex clockwork, a telephone exchange, and every time it's shown it's to be more. What would you say to someone in the nineteenth century who said "we can make a brain, all we need is more cogs!"?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And given enough effort and money, the complexity in connectivity that you describe can be reconstructed in electronics.

---

Well good luck to you, I think you'll be disappointed, like many others who over estimated the abilities of the technologies of their time.

---

Quote:

---

Well it was a misnomer, any Quantum effect will do, but it has to be a quantum effect. Technically a fan cannot produce true random numbers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karnejj:
Even assuming you're correct, it's still unclear what you're trying to get at .. This particular line began when you stated that electrical current needed some sort of infinite precision. I've already calculated that no more than 59 bits are necessary for EXACTLY, ACCURATELY, PRECISE measurement.

---

Quote:

---

Ohh... so, the discovery of quantum effects of unknown consequence is some sort of evidence that what I propose can't be done? Strange evidence, but duly noted.

---

Quote:

---

Would most people assume that Windows XP can be run on a steam-powered system of gears ... it's mathematically provable that it could, but it's the complexity (and slowness) that is overwhelming. So, sure (barring the absolute necessity of quantum effects), YES, more cogs is all that was needed.

---

Quote:

---

That's very possible, but how many things wouldn't exist if the innovators believed the naysayers. (Hint hint .. you're looking at one thing right now )

---

Quote:

---

Heh ... I had a feeling you'd dispute "true" randomness with me. Technically, I suppose you're right. The output of a fan is completely dependant of air turbulence and voltage, both of which can theoretically be measured. But the practicality of measuring every atom of air in a normal room makes the randomness of the fan just a "true" as a quantum system. Quantum systems just have the advantage of not even being theoretically possible to measure.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

That the universe isn't digital.

---

Quote:

---

That a computer is digital.
That a digital system can't perfectly model an analogue one no matter how much precision you use.
You're counting electrons, which mean's you've dropped down to the sub-atomic level, so you need a model of the sub-atomic level now. It's not as simple as saying that's how many electrons there are.

---

Quote:

---

But if you think you have calculated EXACTLY, ACCURATELY, PRECISE measurements why don't you work on that in software, as described. It's the only way to prove me wrong .

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Ohh... so, the discovery of quantum effects of unknown consequence is some sort of evidence that what I propose can't be done? Strange evidence, but duly noted.

---

No I'm assuming that it probably does. Creativity, Inspiration, any number of things that make up consciousness has a very indefinable quality, even to us. It makes sense that this could arise from something ultimately indefinable.

---

Quote:

---

But then that's my assumption, what makes it less important, less worthy, less viable than your assumption that it's just a function of the brain as a Learning machine?

---

Quote:

---

Okay, so you want evidence from me that your proposal won't work, yet you have given no evidence that it:
A) Will even turn on.
B) Is actually viable given modern technology, or even future technology.
C) Would even give rise to a conscious intelligence.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Would most people assume that Windows XP can be run on a steam-powered system of gears ... it's mathematically provable that it could, but it's the complexity (and slowness) that is overwhelming. So, sure (barring the absolute necessity of quantum effects), YES, more cogs is all that was needed.

---

Thus it must be possible to model the brain and consciousness itself algorithmically. So why is the current state of the art in AI in the field of expert systems?

---

Quote:

---

I can counter with many a person has thrown their life away working on something that cannot be done. Even Einstein did this toward the end of his career.

---

Quote:

---

There's more to something being random than merely being impossible to predict, it also has to be statistically random.

---

Quote:

---

I believe the random thing started up by trying to build in a random element to the simulation (as that is all you believe quantum effects may have on the Brain, right?). Well if your not modelling exactly (i.e. using true random numbers) then you've got a simulation with an acceptable degree of precision.

---

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karnejj:
A large point you seem to be sticking to is that approximations are bad. I'm sure you would possibly attribute "some sense" of consciousness to dogs, maybe even a squirrel. Those brains are definitely not as complex as human brains. They are, in essence, approximations that still give rise to sentience.

---

Quote:

---

I suppose I can't make you believe in this particular implication of quantum physics.

---

Quote:

---

I see no need to "model subatomic behavior" to model a neuron accurately.
The number of neurotransmitters is guaranteed to be a much smaller value and is more likely the limiting factor in precision, but we'll figure that the number electrons is the necessary limit of precision.

---

Quote:

---

As I understand it, the first question is whether the current will be generated or not. The neuron holds a threshold which must be exceeded. This threshold is going to be a voltage with less than a 60-bit number of electrons. No approximation needed so far. Next is the total voltage that gets generated - the "arithmetic," as you call it. Again, this is going to be a particular number of electrons which get motivated to pass - a number of finite precision. Finally, some neurotransmitters will be released and, again, this is a finite number.

---

Quote:

---

I'm working on that ... This enlightening and quite lively little debate has motivated me to knock the dust off my research and coding.

---

Quote:

---

That was fairly rude, my apologies. But, you disputed me with something with no known consequence. It'd be like saying that the particular speed of light through organic matter is probably the reason that sentience cannot arise in machines. Sure, it's true about the speed of light, but the consequences aren't even close to being known.

---

Quote:

---

Kinda ... learning and high levels of intelligence, so far, are always found paired with sentient beings. Quantum effects can be produced in a lab within a quite non-sentient metal box.

---

Quote:

---

Meat made me do it

---

Quote:

---

Not to get too "Matrix" on you, but ....
As for simulations, what if you were looking at and talking from a distance to EITHER a person OR his reflection (but he could still hear you). What if you couldn't see the mirror? Would you be able to dispute that either one is sentient? With no evidence as to which is sentient and which is the simulation, do you deny consciousness to both?

Some simulations can be good enough to leave you no choice but to accept the results as sentient...

You already know how I feel about human sentience ... What if YOU are the reflection in a mirror that can't be seen ...

---

Quote:

---

Keep the good stuff coming. But, it looks to me like a stalemate. You have proved yourself an impressively worthy opponent and I believe I must tip my King to you. Definitely a rare treat!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Not exactly. Approximations aren't bad per se, but a Dogs Brain is not an approximation or a simulation of the Human Brain. My point is that a simulation is not the real thing; it's a simulation of the real thing, just as my earlier mentioned trip to Jupiter in Celestia isn't a real trip to Jupiter, but a simulation of one.

---

Quote:

---

Well you’re moving down to the subatomic by looking at electron count's rather than their cumulative effect. I'd of thought you'd need to model their behaviours to get true accuracy.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As I understand it, the first question is whether the current will be generated or not. The neuron holds a threshold which must be exceeded. This threshold is going to be a voltage with less than a 60-bit number of electrons. No approximation needed so far. Next is the total voltage that gets generated - the "arithmetic," as you call it. Again, this is going to be a particular number of electrons which get motivated to pass - a number of finite precision. Finally, some neurotransmitters will be released and, again, this is a finite number.

---

Now factor in the possibility of tens of thousands of weighted input signals, weighted temporally and by locality, the calculation is fairly complex and I’m not sure how easy it would be to perform on an IC.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Kinda ... learning and high levels of intelligence, so far, are always found paired with sentient beings. Quantum effects can be produced in a lab within a quite non-sentient metal box.

---

I don’t know computers have demonstrated learning and problem solving Intelligence, yet haven't demonstrated consciousness.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Not to get too "Matrix" on you, but ....
As for simulations, what if you were looking at and talking from a distance to EITHER a person OR his reflection (but he could still hear you). What if you couldn't see the mirror? Would you be able to dispute that either one is sentient? With no evidence as to which is sentient and which is the simulation, do you deny consciousness to both?

Some simulations can be good enough to leave you no choice but to accept the results as sentient...

You already know how I feel about human sentience ... What if YOU are the reflection in a mirror that can't be seen ...

---

Well a mirror doesn’t produce a simulation, it just redirects the visible light, and it’s the same as talking face to face. Moreover it’s not the image that is sentient, but the entity.

---

Quote:

---

The Laws.
Could possibly do with some simplification, there’s a saying in computing and programming KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). Asimov’s laws cover pretty much everything; the problems in fiction seem to come with too literal an interpretation most of the time.

Rather than burying the original laws in legalese, perhaps adding rules of interpretation, falling back on literal interpretation if none of the rules fit, would be a way to go? For instance a rule of interpretation for the first law could be something Spockish, like the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karnejj:
There were a million different clues on your virtual trip .. what happens when you can't tell the difference?

---

Quote:

---

Ahh ... so you're starting to see the possibility ... eh ... it's a start Memory space is cheap .. so whether it's 10 or 10,000 signals, they still all only require an address (and maybe a weighting). Simplest way to model the system is to clock your system X times (X = number of connections) to send out your "electronic neurotransmitters," and then allow neurons to check for new inputs on the Xth clock. Update your neuron on that last clock. Check if it received enough "neurotransmitters" to exceed whatever it's firing threshhold function is and then do it all again. (Again, I've neglected the re-wiring procedures that would be needed.)

---

Quote:

---

Show me ANY entity which you consider to have a high level of intelligence and a capacity to learn general information and I can show you a sentient being.

---

Quote:

---

You can just as easily picture a robot that mirrors a human's movements. The question still stands .. do you deny them BOTH consciousness, because you know that ONE is a simulation?

---

Quote:

---

there are a lot of loopholes in Asimov's laws

---

Quote:

---

especially in regards to human vs. human conflicts and the robots' role.

---

Quote:

---

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few..." What if there happen to be 10 terrorists and 9 hostages?

---

Quote:

---

A man wants to commit suicide by jumping off the adjacent roof .. there's a beanbag gun next to the robot .. the robot wouldn't dare hurt the person, but the inaction allows the person to come to harm ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Do we extend the sentient of the Crypt keeper puppeteer from tales from the crypt to the puppet?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

especially in regards to human vs. human conflicts and the robots' role.

---

As I understand it there's no loop hole here, the message is simple, in Human vs. Human conflicts, Robots stay the hell out.

---

Quote:

---

but at the end of the day if your going to be employing robots in combat situations the last thing you want to do is given them Asimov style behavioural blocks.

---

Quote:

---

Don't we have to if we can't see the strings?

---

Quote:

---

Well, that robot company's stock would drop awfully quickly if it let it's owner get smacked around

---

Quote:

---

... and about ole Robot John Doe ... you never did hazard a guess at when in particular (as his brain was mechanized) he would lose sentience (if ever).

---

Quote:

---

If not, then it does seem that sentience truly IS unattainable artificially (except by accident), because it would seem that a prime requirement would be that "to be sentient, we must NOT know the source of what makes it work [in this case .. the puppeteer]."

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Don't we have to if we can't see the strings?

---

You can't see the strings it's animatronic, and no.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I assume you've see the Will Smith film version of I, Robot (not much to do with Asimov at the end of the day, but oh well). Heaping more rules (and really even adding rules of interpretation that are anything but literal) would lead to both the actions of Sonny and the central computer (the name of which eludes me at the moment).

I personally think Asimov’s laws of Robotics are about as perfect as they can be, they're like the Ten Commandments, simple direct and too the point, everyone knows where they stand. Though one of your aforementioned Robotics companies would probably want to put a no stealing law in there .

---

Quote:

---

Of course we can see the "strings" if it's animitronic and we open it up. What if you open it up and still can't explain it's intelligent behavior ... *that* is the question at hand.

---

Quote:

---

The Meta-Law
A robot may not act unless its actions are subject to the Laws of Robotics

Law Zero
A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm

Law One
A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, unless this would violate a higher-order Law

Law Two
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with a higher-order Law
A robot must obey orders given it by superordinate robots, except where such orders would conflict with a higher-order Law
Law Three
A robot must protect the existence of a superordinate robot as long as such protection does not conflict with a higher-order Law
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with a higher-order Law
Law Four
A robot must perform the duties for which it has been programmed, except where that would conflict with a higher-order law

The Procreation Law
A robot may not take any part in the design or manufacture of a robot unless the new robot's actions are subject to the Laws of Robotics

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
You may find this interesting:
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Asimov.html

Understanding that to harm or injure humanity would mean permanently putting people to sleep.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Yeah, I got that , the important one I think is the zero law, and that was added by Asimov himself, after the fact.

---