what separates a human behavior like crying from a robotic simulation of tears flowing and wailing and heaving?
>>53893450
Consequences
>>53893494
a machine can't simulate consequences?
>>53893450
one is a machine and one is a human being
/thread
>>53893693
are you retarded?
There are countless ingredients that make up the human body and mind, like all the components that make up me as an individual with my own personality. Sure I have a face and voice to distinguish myself from others, but my thoughts and memories are unique only to me, and I carry a sense of my own destiny. Each of those things are just a small part of it. I collect information to use in my own way. All of that blends to create a mixture that forms me and gives rise to my conscience. I feel confined, only free to expand myself within boundaries.
>>53893716
no, are you?
>>53893732
you added nothing and simply spouted an already established premise. fuck off with your cancer.
>>53893450
That someone is actually feeling them, the pain. A person with dreams, passions and free will. A robot has none of them, its merely a simulation.
>>53893744
I pointed out the redundancy of your question
What do you think is the difference?
>>53893769
so you are retarded.
one is built from the ground up using various parameters that aren't easily comparable to a human. nothing about it is redundant if you spent 5 seconds using your clearly malnourished brain cells.
>>53893716
>>53893744
>>53893794
kill yourself
>>53893794
>summerfag that cant accept criticism
Either reword you question or learn to act like a grown up when faced your own redundancy
>>53893808
wow amazing. why don't you take your own advice? you can't do anything but make the claim it's redundant when i already pointed out how it isn't.
>>53893804
stave off that butthurt with some ice, fuckstick.
>>53893450
Nothing, humans are just glorified machines - that should be evident to anyone who interacts with normies daily. Eliminativism should be taught in schools.
>>53893450
that one of them was written by humans
>>53893450
A programmer can disable robots crying function. But we cant do the same to humans
>>53893880
Are you so sure about that?
>>53893817
I want to humour you because it could be a good discussion but really I dont know what to tell you what seperates the two, apart from the obvious.
The image of robot wailing and heaving with tears is quite interesting.
Humans understand the robot and can modify and recreate its state arbitrarily
Humans don't understand other humans in the same way and can't take the same risks
Assuming the robot is as capable as a human, humans can use other humans to make more humans for cheap. This is the primary value of humans. Humans are just life in the end. Life creates more of itself. Life that does not, does not last long.
One has an unexplainable negative affinity for everything in one moment and the other is pretending to hand a negative affinity for things.
Both conclusions are galvanized.
This is a question that no one has the answer to yet OP.
ITT: sockpuppet theater
>>53894206
Wrong.
Robots can have real emotions just like Humans. We have just never made one.
And before you spout stupid bullshit, emotions are just chemicals and synapses, the only real thing stopping us from emulating it is hardware resources.
>>53893794
>>53893880
>>53893947
>>53894206
ITT people not knowing shit about Bottom-up AI.
qualia.
no matter how much you nerds want it robots will never have consciousness akin to humans.
>>53894804
What's so funny?
>>53893804
fat
>>53893450
Nothing
We could maybe simulate the chemical reactions going on and, and audio/visual/sensory reception, however, the millenia of evolution and ecological adaptation we've gone through to form the behaviours and define the emotions in the first place, I don't think could be aptly simulated.
>>53895058
You can just deep scan the brain and you get all the millenia of evolution and ecological adaptation.
>>53895090
except we don't even know the brain in full
let alone can we replicate it
>>53893450
the human is crying, the robot is simulating
one is metal and he dun rust if he cry ;)
>>53893728
Underrated
>>53893450
What's there to feel when you fell enough? Look at yourself and the world around you! What if this is a dream and you can't wake up from this reality? What if anything isn't real and just something that exists in binary numbers? What if 1 is just 0?
>>53895880
nothing. most people feel less than robots do, because they are shit.
haven't you ever watched winona ryder in alien?
>>53893450
What if good & evil is just a fraction of feeling and not the feeling itself? What if 1 = Good and 0 = Limitless? Because there are limitless of anything in the world of what you can do? You don't have to see it when really it's in front of you the whole time. The universe the galaxy is just of something nobody sees. Is a reality of something into "nothing" at the same time.
>>53893450
Reason. Anyone that says otherwise lacks a fundamental understanding of anything because to them it just is.
When a person cries, if not due to pain, it is crying to its kind for support. Whether it be in vain to the person that died, so that person can return or if it's because the wails help to stifle out the pain by focus the body's energies elsewhere the crying and wailing are meant to be witnessed. Nowadays, I actually tear up when I strain my eyes to see more clearly.
Consequence is all a machine knows, but muddling the truth from the get go is the best way to turn this whole conversation in on itself.
I really hope we get Bernie Sanders for President so all this bullshit stops. Niggers think to highly of their culture and not deeply enough to see that this shit is all obvious.
>>53895904
euphoric/10
>>53893769
A Person cries
A robot tears at the eye ducts, wails and heaves while said tearing occurs
The difference between them is consequence?
Are you sure you're not retarded? There is no context to your post. As it is, you're set to just back-pedal the whole way and call it a successful argument...
>>53895924
What the fuck are you talking about?
>>53895890
Who cares of whats deep? Really nobody! There's no reality of something "real" when clearly. It isn't. The reality is unreal! If I could kill myself nobody would even care where I go. Heaven Hell? What matters? It's just what people sees! There is no god no Jesus Christ no devil himself. It's just you and what special things you can do. There's literally nothing to feel but doing something into "nothing"
>>53893880
uhh >>53893899 is right, you know...
They are called Lobotomies...Agitation using pre-scription medication...there were some others but I can't recall them.
Clearly /g/ is not equipped to handle this question. I wish the smart folk here knew to trip fag instead, or somehow we convinced the cancer to do so...I hate my life. I hate this place. I hate that guy that said consequences. He's a moron.
>>53893450
Complexity and inefficiency. There are a lot of seemingly unnecessary steps between a human feeling sad and crying.
>>53895058
I think this anon touches on something that most people ignore.
Women.
Do you really think women won't galvanize their "life's work"? Millenias of emotion and you think that people that function emotionally are going to obfuscate the points and efforts of their life so that no one can "hurt their offspring"?
The real difference is that the robot will actually believe it is crying whereas with humans you don't really know unless you've had experience with that person or you've managed to rule out all but one reason for why it could be crying.
>>53896049
when will the 'women are inherently emotional'/'men are inherently logical' meme end
>>53896078
Woah, you took mine a step too far. I don't believe that men are inherently logical but if the distinction where we came to be occured at the point of conception as the species is slated to be then we have only time after conception to consider. Within that time frame men have been, historically, accounted for as hunters and gatherers. Women for the most part stayed at home. Anyway, I'm going to avoid this whole explanation and ask you one simple question:
Have you ever tried reasoning with a women until she stopped replying with how some emotion set her into motion/action?
Don't worry, I'll wait. I really want to hear/read this.
>>53896114
Women are something you clearly have little to no experience with.
Also, honestly how long has it been since we've been in a hunter-gatherer society? A lifestyle that's been outmoded for almost the same amount of time I talked about in my first post (>>53895058) isn't exactly a strong argument.
Plus, I am a woman.
What you're referring to as the breaking point of a conversation is most likely when some girl who has better things to do is done arguing fruitlessly with some guy with no real intent. But that's just as much speculation on my part as yours is for the entirety of my gender, so I digress.
>>53896078
It only happened after Obama, Instagram and Twitter but most of California is fucking feminine as fuck. Coniving, Trecherous and Blatantly in Emotional Turmoil.
It's like talking to children, I would tell myself. And then I remembered when I said that. And then I recalled all those times I warned little dudes where they heading with those attitudes. And then I remembered how every show has at least one black person in it. And then I had a talk with tons of random women, men, of varying degrees, creed and backgrounds.
Only a few things stayed consistent throughout:
Women -> No reasoning. He said/She said more than enough.
Men -> No independence. Every desire is tied to some social construct. Very rarely is it truly family.
Black People -> There is a sense of hive mind, probably the use of a cognitive bias, to dissimiliarize themselves with their current environment in order to find a point through which to identify themselves and their predicament.
Brown Skins -> Loud, Unhealthy, Hive-Mind, Forceful, Heavy Handed, Mindless.
Whites -> Completely scripted out by women. Anything else gets the "Do this or you're _insert bad thing here_."
Asians -> Severely Logically Crippled. Much of the Logic involved is emotionally charged as a defense mechanism. Very likely due to environmental conditioning, as when I would ask for details, the details were in the proof which was given when they gave the right answer. Very much in need of an institution to declare, assign, verify, validate, defend and destroy. I would never want my child to grow up in central asia.
Europeans -> With the exclusion of like the tall white guys that speak dutch and such, warmongers. Culturally and epistomologically.
Russians -> I have no clue what to think about these folk.
>>53896179
Shut up bitch
The fact that crying is stimulated by human emotion, which relies heavily on human brain activity that we don't fully understand yet. Until we understand human emotion at a complex level we have little chance to replicate it even on a basic level, let alone make it believable to us.
>>53896246
is someone angry?
have we reached that emotional breaking point described earlier?
>>53896179
I have tons of experience with women is the real problem. But funny how every time I bring it up, here comes a woman ready to throw out all reason and just make claims. This is my point.
And you're right, we aren't in a hunter gatherer society but that is not the point I'm making. I'm saying that it was only until recently that the dynamic changed for women. We can't readily identify what it is that women did in those times, if not by historical artifact, which really can't give a clear answer in either direction. What we can do, though, is go off tradition as it has kept up through time. Once we have that much to go off of, we can supplement the "argument" with our own experiences. Let's take this talk between you and me, for example. I'm going to reply to your last bit there.
Plus, what?
I never said she left the conversation, I just said she stopped contributing anything that she didn't just conjure up herself in that stomach of hers. If she had better things to do, what was the apparently important thing she wanted to do when she started at me? Show me how benevolent she can be by even giving me the time of day? Also, with no real intent? Did you just decide, using your emotions, that this conversation is not worth having and that you instead FEEL like doing something else? If so, how would you catergorize that feeling? Is it a sadness? irritation ( is this even an emotion, how could we be so stupid?! )? is it a derisive anxiety that lets you know if you're getting warmer? What is the reason for it? Also, please don't confuse reason with cause or with possibility or with plausibility.
>>53896246
Why are you samefagging yourself. I did not make that post.
What reason would you have to believe that I would reply in such a way? Is it pride? A desire to want to win and only win? What reason is there for you think I'd speak so many words once and then come back at you with "shut up bitch".
>>53896179
>ad hominem
>not making any point
>btw I'm a girl
As expected.
>>53896301
She'll call this mansplaining and that will set off the mod alarm for re-balancing the male/female ratio of mods that are actually online on the separate boards.
Thank you, though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everybody above this line is a huge flaming faggot.
OP too, of course.
>>53896282
And one that I forgot to add, how exactly was she able to surmise that the guy clearly had no intent? It sounds like you'd call a deal where there isn't a median of leverage pointless just because you don't stand a chance to gain from it by simply being female.
If you need to me to break down what I mean, continue reading. If not, don't.
So breaking down what I mean above:
Both are equal in discussion. Any calls for evidence to either party are entirely for the sake of having a fundamental understanding available to both parties. I say something, I require evidence to back it up. You say something, so should you. I use the edict of facts to back up my statements, you too should have the right to take up factual precedence as a premise but only under the recognition that both parties have a thorough basis for these facts.
The opportunity to partake is on both sides of the deal but the privilege of coherence falls only on those that allow a basis to form. Otherwise you just create tangent after tangent until he has lost the point through illogical connections between his own basis and the irrational one you created through the use of tangents that may or may not even be relevant to the topic and are just relevant due to some cultural similarity. Something like a tv show. I think they call that a participation medal/entitled mentality.
>>53896431
And that's just Father's Rights.
>>53896301
Women are just shitty AI, prove me wrong.
This_is_ /g/, right?
>>53896501
I know a Lesbian that makes her sexual living on those kinds of women and that is exactly her argument whenever it comes up.
Woman: "OMG obvious thing that I'd know if I'd just paid more attention"
Me: "Uhh...but if you do thing before it, you get thing after it too..."
Lesbian Woman: "I'm telling you, Artificial Intelligence...XD"
>>53896538
No one cares, get out.
>>53896661
>>53896756
>>53893450
Genetic instincts, or otherwise committing the act of crying based on countless factors of social and physical evolution.
There are an infinite number of reasons to cry, and there is no way to properly simulate the reasoning behind it.
>>53896964
>there is no way to properly simulate the reasoning behind it.
[citation needed]
>>53897012
You must be religious, asking me to prove a negative like that.
The onus of proof is on you, friend.
Show me that we have a way to literally simulate millions of years of instinctual and physical evolution, as pertaining to Why Humans Cry.
>>53897059
So I could literally state something as a negative, whenever I simply don't want to explain myself, and I am always in the right? Or is it just that I could easily divert attention away from a difficult situation by making it a vast and arbitrary problem?
Your phrasing is full of fallacies that could easily be used to tie the situation in a knot, so to speak. Infinite reasons to cry, one loop. Properly, another loop and a subjective one. Simulate, another loop and one entirely without direction. Reasoning, a loop to hold a loop.
That whole thing you are passing off as understanding is really kind of unstable. You sure you want to be using it that way?
>>53897059
Should I have you wait til you find a reason to cry or does it have to fit everyone's criteria all at once? Because then you are simply regurgitating OP's question back at him...
Artificial Intelligence indeed.
>>53897059
>You must be religious, asking me to prove a negative like that.
No, I'm an atheist.
>The onus of proof is on you, friend.
>Show me that we have a way to literally simulate millions of years of instinctual and physical evolution, as pertaining to Why Humans Cry.
No it doesn't. I didn't claim that we have a way to literally simulate millions of years of instinctual and physical evolution nor that it's impossible to properly simulate the reasoning behind crying.
I could take amount of neurons there is in human body and look up for how resource consuming is it to simulate them and the limitations of computing power, but I'm not neuroscientist, so I don't have enough knowledge to claim such a things. However you seems to know enough to make these claims and that's why I ask you to back them up.
