| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alpha
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: Re: 6.5 Million Robots Now Inhabit the Earth |
 |
|
On Nov 11, 12:20 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | J.A. Legris wrote:
Here's a good definition of robot:
"any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with
human-like skill" (Random House Webster's)
The reference to humans seems highly undesirable to me.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
|
It is a reference analogous to the Strong or Weak AI projects that
measure intelligence in terms of human capabilities/functional
characteristics (i.e., the general intelligence characteristic of
humans.) The ref to humans is often the only way to characterize such
in a summary fashion and have everyone know WTF it means! |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Alpha
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:50 pm Post subject: Re: 6.5 Million Robots Now Inhabit the Earth |
|
|
On Nov 11, 1:24 pm, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
| Quote: | Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
J.A. Legris wrote:
Here's a good definition of robot:
"any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with
human-like skill" (Random House Webster's)
The reference to humans seems highly undesirable to me.
And interestingly, the definition works when you reverse it as well:
ROBOT - Any human that operates automatically with machine-like skill..
|
Too bad such defintions blur/ignore the huge distinctions and
therefore are meaningless and actually do not work. For example, the
def: "any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically
with
human-like skill" (Random House Webster's)" leaves out things that
true (non-living) robots can do that cannot be done by humans. I.e.,
you could have a robot that exceeds human-like skill and that leaves
the def. wanting. Same with the so-called reverse def. It suffers
from the indefinite characterization of both "automatic" and "machine-
like". And so forth. That is the problem with one-sentence attempts
to define complex scenarios; they begs more questions than the def
answers and can connote silly ideas implicitly. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Alpha
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: Re: 6.5 Million Robots Now Inhabit the Earth |
|
|
On Nov 11, 1:50 pm, Alpha <omegazero2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 11, 1:24 pm, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
J.A. Legris wrote:
Here's a good definition of robot:
"any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with
human-like skill" (Random House Webster's)
The reference to humans seems highly undesirable to me.
And interestingly, the definition works when you reverse it as well:
ROBOT - Any human that operates automatically with machine-like skill.
Too bad such defintions blur/ignore the huge distinctions
|
PS: like the fact that humans are living beings with a point of view/
intentionality/agency etc., and robots are dead and are mere shells of
intentionality/agency *conferred exogeneously*.
| Quote: | and
therefore are meaningless and actually do not work. For example, the
def: "any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically
with
human-like skill" (Random House Webster's)" leaves out things that
true (non-living) robots can do that cannot be done by humans. I.e.,
you could have a robot that exceeds human-like skill and that leaves
the def. wanting. Same with the so-called reverse def. It suffers
from the indefinite characterization of both "automatic" and "machine-
like". And so forth. That is the problem with one-sentence attempts
to define complex scenarios; they begs more questions than the def
answers and can connote silly ideas implicitly. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zzbunker@netscape.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: 6.5 Million Robots Now Inhabit the Earth |
|
|
On Nov 9, 12:54 am, "J.A. Legris" <jaleg...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 8, 8:38 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
J.A. Legris wrote:
On Nov 8, 7:50 am, Tim Tyler <seemy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
"6.5 Million Robots Now Inhabit the Earth"
-http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/2008/10/15/world_robot_popul...
[...]
You failed to mention the billions of dishwashers, cd changers, and
sushi conveyors.
Not robots - according to common definitions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot
--
Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot:
"There is no consensus on which machines qualify as robots, but there
is general agreement among experts and the public that robots tend to
do some or all of the following: move around, operate a mechanical
arm, sense and manipulate their environment, and exhibit intelligent
behavior, especially behavior which mimics humans or animals."
My microcomputer-bearing appliances sense and manipulate their
respective umwelten rather effectively, so they seem qualify as
robots. They even mimic humans. Try to get your dog to change a CD,
wash dishes or deliver a sushi without nibbling.
Again, what's your point?
|
The Point is robots make excellent Pv Cells, batteriers,
CD+rw, DVD-rom, RISC Chips, USB Ports, Post AT&T Fiber Optics,
Optical Computers,
Post GM Robotics,, Elibraries, HDTV, Holograms, On-Line-Publishing
Utilities,
AAVs, AUVs, and Phalanx, and AI cranks make excellent dish
washers.
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tim Tyler
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:20 am Post subject: Re: 6.5 Million Robots Now Inhabit the Earth |
|
|
J.A. Legris wrote:
| Quote: | Here's a good definition of robot:
"any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with
human-like skill" (Random House Webster's)
|
The reference to humans seems highly undesirable to me.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Curt Welch
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:24 am Post subject: Re: 6.5 Million Robots Now Inhabit the Earth |
|
|
Tim Tyler <seemysig@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | J.A. Legris wrote:
Here's a good definition of robot:
"any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with
human-like skill" (Random House Webster's)
The reference to humans seems highly undesirable to me.
|
And interestingly, the definition works when you reverse it as well:
ROBOT - Any human that operates automatically with machine-like skill.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
