Do robots have feelings?

[Mike]

I was thinking today, and all humans are are really complex robots. We are "programmed" to feel emotions, via our sensors. So, if I program a robot to say "Ow!" when you punch it, do you feel bad? Where do we draw the line between robots and humans? Theres a lot more questions I want to ask, but I can't really get them out right now... but it basically comes down to

When do robots become "living"?

[greencactus3]

Originally Posted by Mike

I was thinking today, and all humans are are really complex robots. We are "programmed" to feel emotions, via our sensors. So, if I program a robot to say "Ow!" when you punch it, do you feel bad? Where do we draw the line between robots and humans? Theres a lot more questions I want to ask, but I can't really get them out right now... but it basically comes down to

When do robots become "living"?

wow...... you are BORED.

i will hafta say robots are "living" once they stop taking orders from idiots. like us.

[sciencenerd]

I would probably say that you could call a robot living once it gets complex enough that it is impossible to determine how a robot will react to something (complex enough, mind you, not random enough) you could call it sentient.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by sciencenerd

I would probably say that you could call a robot living once it gets complex enough that it is impossible to determine how a robot will react to something (complex enough, mind you, not random enough) you could call it sentient.

Ahh, I thought I had you... but then I read the "not random enough" part. Smart.

So, if you throw a baseball at my face, I am "programmed" to duck out of the way or try and catch it (depending on my confidence in my baseball skills ). You can determine that I will duck when you throw a large blunt object at me, does that mean I am not living?

[Andrew Blair]

Originally Posted by Mike

So, if you throw a baseball at my face, I am "programmed" to duck out of the way or try and catch it (depending on my confidence in my baseball skills ). You can determine that I will duck when you throw a large blunt object at me, does that mean I am not living?

Aha, I assume that you will duck. You probably will. But the question is, if you escape the large, blunt object, will you begin ruthlessly beating me with a baseball bat, or will you walk away, singing some nondescript show tune like nothing happened?

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Andrew Blair

Aha, I assume that you will duck. You probably will. But the question is, if you escape the large, blunt object, will you begin ruthlessly beating me with a baseball bat, or will you walk away, singing some nondescript show tune like nothing happened?

Well, that depends on many things. Mainly my personality. But, using some fuzzy logic, you can give a robot personality traits as well. I know very little about fuzzy logic, so I'm going to use a discrete value between 0 and 100 for now.

int angry = 63;
int compassionate = 25;
int nice = 17;
int aggressive = 97;

So there you have my personality. I'm an somewhat easily angered guy, that will become very aggressive once I am angered. From this data you can assume that I will pick up that bat and beat you.

int angry = 27;
int compassionate = 73;
int nice = 82;
int aggressive = 12;

From this data, however, you can assume that I will probably ask you why you would do such a thing and then probably forgive you.

Now, I'm not expert in the workings of emotions, but I'm assuming this is kinda-sorta how a human works. These traits are variable, depending on our environment, upbringing, and an infinite amount of other things.

Now, I kinda forgot where I was going with this, so bear with me here. I think I was trying to make a link between how humans react to things according to their upbringing, environment, and other factors and how robots can be programmed to react also depending on their environment and other factors.

[sciencenerd]

Originally Posted by Mike

Ahh, I thought I had you... but then I read the "not random enough" part. Smart.

So, if you throw a baseball at my face, I am "programmed" to duck out of the way or try and catch it (depending on my confidence in my baseball skills ). You can determine that I will duck when you throw a large blunt object at me, does that mean I am not living?

Well in this case, you only had two best options for your own good. You analyze both of them, and choose whichever one seems to be best. That's not predictability, that's intelligence.

Okay, I'm just brainstorming here, but you made me think of a new definition. Maybe this one's a little better.

When a robot can be presented with a situation that it has had no precedent of (or programming about), and, from the information it can gather, choose the best way to react to it, then it is sentient.

For example: If take a "sentient" robot that knows how to climb on objects and push on objects. Now, if you place it in a room with a high shelf (that you have programmed it to try to get to) and a stool on the opposite side of the room, it would be able to figure out how to push the stool over, climb on it and reach the shelf.

Of course, all of this is getting a little off the topic of "feelings". The question is, how do you define feelings? Feelings are a way for your body to express a desire. In that respect I would say yes, robots do have "feelings".

[Mike]

Originally Posted by sciencenerd

When a robot can be presented with a situation that it has had no precedent of (or programming about), and, from the information it can gather, choose the best way to react to it, then it is sentient.

Ahh, now we are getting somewhere. I can't answer this with a little snippet of code. But rather this leads into another question. Are humans very complex programs? I say that we are programmed, but programmed to be learning creatures. If you were to place a baby in this situation, it would not know how to get the candy on the top shelf. However, place that same baby (now more of a toddler) in the room a few years later and I believe it would now know how to get that candy.

So, if I program a robot to learn, is it living? Programming a robot to learn is no easy task, to say the least. One (very very very inefficient idea) that I have is to approach it with a brute force attack, of sorts. Try every possible combination of using the chair until you find the one that works, then log that technique for use later.

[KenWittlief]

you are getting into two areas: feelings and living.

First you have to define what feelings are, and what it means to be alive.

Robots and computers have already passed several significant milestones:

1. Beat the world champion at chess.
2. Killed people (I think the first was a car assembly line robot in Japan, worker was crushed by a robot)
3. Reproduction: computer viruses can self replicated.

a good indication of feelings will be when a robot gets punched and:

1. says "ow!"
2. then says "that really stings you jerk!"
3. then refuses to do anything until you apologize :^)

[lukevanoort]

The excellent book, The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzwell deals with this exact question, and is quite an interesting read.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

The excellent book, The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzwell deals with this exact question, and is quite an interesting read.

Thanks for the tip. I just looked it up on Amazon, and it's pretty cheap ($10). Next time I'm near my Barnes&Noble I'll check it out.

[John Gutmann]

Originally Posted by Mike

Ahh, now we are getting somewhere. I can't answer this with a little snippet of code. But rather this leads into another question. Are humans very complex programs? I say that we are programmed, but programmed to be learning creatures. If you were to place a baby in this situation, it would not know how to get the candy on the top shelf. However, place that same baby (now more of a toddler) in the room a few years later and I believe it would now know how to get that candy.

So, if I program a robot to learn, is it living? Programming a robot to learn is no easy task, to say the least. One (very very very inefficient idea) that I have is to approach it with a brute force attack, of sorts. Try every possible combination of using the chair until you find the one that works, then log that technique for use later.

Being able to learn is one trait that makes something living. aside with being able to learn is being able to adapt to your evironment. Just because a robot doesn't take the easiest root doesn't make it not living. If it takes the smart(intelligent) path it doesn't make it living either. I know many stupid people. Many many stupid people. But that doesn't mean they aren't alive. Something that you can can say defines living things is the ability to adapt, as I stated earlier.

For example Animals adapt to cold by growing fur(multiple layers). They adapt by living in packs. they adapt to water by growing fins and the shapes of their bodies.

-Plants adapt by growing towards the sun.

But everything in a way is kinda pre-programmed to an extent.

For example:
One of the biggest ones I can think of right now is Fibonacci's sequece.
The mating of rabbits. you start wth one rabbit then you add another(male + female)and the pattern is 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233......

the same can be said about the squirly seashells, pine cone tines, branches on a bush, everywhere you look.
Is that squence of #'s programed into everything or is it just a coincidence?

But I am sure you were talking about how a robot acts. I would say one important point is that living things can physically change is almost any way that is predictable to some extent. To be able to have a living robot in pure programming I think is impossible Just the simple logic of a robot to beable to learn is complex not to even start to think about how to program a memory like our that is photographic and our brains store everything we expirience(it is just a matter of if we can remember it).

In my honest opinion man kind can never and will never create a "living robot" because the create somethign to the extent is like an infinite project, even now we are learning more about living things.

[Ashley Christine]

I hug my robot, its cute.
As for are they living... I dont know what to say. FIRST robots arent living obviously.
Mike, dont worry, you arent a robot, or are you?! and if you are, who built you? and who is that all-mighty programmer? [You should meet up with that guy!]

[KenWittlief]

Feelings seems like the easy part. In a way dont we have stuff now that tells us how it feels?

My car tells me when it doesnt 'feel good' by flashing a 'SERVICE ENGINE SOON' light on the dashboard, and when its feeling low on energy by blinking the 'LOW FUEL' light

my PDA and laptop tell me when they are feeling run down and need to be plugged in to recharged.

Life as we know it is a little more challenging. Things that are living can:

1. generate their own fuel or find it
2. self repair
3. self replicate (with error detection and correction).

Robots like the Roomba can find a wall plug or their charging station when they are low on energy, thats similar to #1 on the list. Now picture a Roomba like device that can repair itself when it falls down the stairs, and can build a duplicate of itself when it realizes it cannot keepup with its work all by itself.

[Cody Carey]

I'll consider a robot to be living when it won't let me turn it off.