Human brain and robot body becoming a reality?

Found this artical during my research for the paper, and thought I should share it.
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/nov/featbionic/

blog 9

The story of reason was one of the more interesting readings for me. It was interesting that the robot cutie at first seemed as if it wasnt performing the tasks that it was asked to do; however, later we see the tasks are performed just in different ways the humans intended them to be. This shows that the robot was not following its orders which in my mind would be scary even if it did not harm another. This would put the question in my mind that it may not folow any of my orders one day. Even thought the robot is efficient in what it does it still was flawed in that it did not do everything the humans said

blog 8m-5 computers

Computers are only as smart as their creator and they also lack other human capabilities. This is why technology and computers will never be able to do all the tasks humans will. Technology may make it easier for us to do certain tasks in our day to day activities but we can always will be in controle of our robots, comuters, and other sorts of technologies.

blog 6 brainscanning

Brainscanning in the future seems as if it would be very beneficial to the adult and juvenile court systems; however, Im not to sure I would be in favor of it. We are all flawed humans and different thoughts go through our heads which can seem to be harmful but we would never act upon them. I might once think to steal something however never commit the crime because of my conscience. I also think brainscanning woudl violate a person. My thoughts are mine and no one elses. There are two stages a person goes through a front stage and back stage. The front stage is public which all see and develope impressions of you and the back stage is private which consumes your own thoughts that no one els can have. I like the idea of having something that no one els can have.

Final Blog

It seems that the posting problems have been solved, most of the time I would just give up without any hope. But today it seems the computer has taken pity on me...or it is trying to lure me into a false sense of security. So anyway without further ado...

What really got me thinking in our last class today was the discussion surrounding Fake vs. Authentic art and music. If a cyborg with a human brain placed in a robotic body created something, I would still consider the art created to be authentic. However if a cyborg with a robotic (positronic?) brain placed in a human body created art, I would not consider it authentic. (A robotic brain belonging to a special case such as Andrew in Bicentennial Man being the only exception). The reason would be that the human brain is the seat of our personality. If we change the brain we would be making a fundamental change from who we are - even if we do become more perfect.

I really love music, espicially classical pieces that feature either the Piano or the Violin. This is what makes Andrew Bird particularly enjoyable, the sound of just him and his violin is enough to send me into euphoria. If I were to find out that either Andrew Bird or Michael Nyman (the writer of my favorite piano piece "The Heart Asks Pleasure First") were cyborgs, I would be extremely disappointed. Even if they created this music through some sort of brain wave enhancing device, I would still sulk around for weeks (or until I found a great collection of Vivaldi's works laying around my house). I feel that these artists have taken their experiences and transformed them into music, music that they are willing to share with me. Live performances would also be pretty much shot to hell. Its hard to get a robot to break bow strings like Andrew Bird does when he plays with so much passion. I feel that a robotic brain or enhancer would cheapen the meaning and the music would lose all saliency.

In the end I just really hope that Nyman or Andrew Bird are not cyborgs...I'm more than a little paranoid now. Andrew Bird was looking a bit off that night...

Robot Visions

I think that Asimov's collection of robot stories are very interesting and intriguing. They leave you wondering what the future could really hold for us and how large of a role technology really could play in our lives. The idea of making robots so sophisticated and highly functioning that they are indistinguishable from human beings scares me a little. I feel that robots and machines could be very helpful but I feel that no matter how advanced they may become, they are still a machine and should be under complete control of human beings. The thought of Andrew gaining freedom and given human rights is crazy to me. Robots do not have feelings and emotions or complex thought processes.

Blog 8: M-5 computers

I fear the idea that one day technology will take over our world. I don't think that any piece of machinery, such as robots and computers, could ever function better than human beings. We are too complex and intelligent. I believe that technology can be created to enhance our lives and make tasks easier for us to accomplish, but I don't believe that they could ever completely run things on their own. They will always have to be controlled by human beings. Computers cannot make distinctions and they lack our human instinct and insight into situations. They could never match our thought processing and cognitive functioning skills.

Blog 7

The last section of Ihde's book discussed several interesting topics and I for the first time in reading this text was able to somewhat understand what he was meaning. The main idea i found interesting was the role that culture plays in the way we perceive technology. People in different cultures use pieces of technology for different things. I also found his discussion of first and third world countries interesting. He felt that to be a successful country the country needs to be technologically advanced. To be technologically advanced we must also have a good education, specifically science education. The availabilty of ecucation programs and mainly money is the reason why first world countries are more advanced than third world countries. However this idea is a little unfair because many third world countries want to do more with technology they just don't have the money, resources, or opportunities available to them that some of the more advanced countries have. The last idea I found interesting was that we should control technology. I feel like there are very few things in life that are controllable. You have to have something completely mastered to be able to control and technology is in no means mastered and won't be for a long time if ever.

Blog 6: Brain Scanning

I'm not sure if I think brain scanning in the future is a great idea. I understand that it could have great implications in legal matters in the court system. If you scan a person's brain to find out if they were guilty of a crime or not it would save our legal teams a lot of time, money, and work. Trials these days have become so complicated that it would be great if we could find a way to prove innosence or being guilty however there is the risk that people could be falsely accused because of thoughts they have had, even if never acted on. Many people could look guilty in situations by the thoughts they have had and that is just human nature. In the case of having a negative or offensive thought about a situation or person, are you going to have to prove your innosence from every shady thought in your brain?

My other hesitation about the idea of brain scanning is the fact that our thoughts and ideas are ours and they are private. Who and under what circumstances can someone get into your most private place and ruffle through? It is hard enough to keep things personal without others being able to invade your deepest thoughts and secrets.

Reason

The basic premise of the story Reason just may become a reality... The Pentagon’s National Security Space Office (NSSO) wants to look into the possibility of a solar-power collection satelite. Huge arrays of solar panels would collect energy that would be beamed back to earth. Also, the article says that they want to make is powerful enough to be useful, but weak enough to not cause damage on earth. Minus the robots, sounds like Asimov was on to something.

Blog 9- would you like to be a Cyborg?

This essay by Issac Asimov was particularly interesting to me. To me it seems that Asimov was coming back to the question as to what makes a human a human. I don't know why, but the idea of cyborgs seem really cool to me, that is, a cyborg which has a robotic body which encases a human brain. It has been my experience in my life, that the body tends to wear out or get diseased while, the brain is functioning fine. Why not offer these people who no longer have a use for their bodies a second chance on life? Of course science and technology haven't figured out a way to do this yet. The problem I would guess is how do you fuse something biological with something technological. The body would run on electricity and so would the brain, but the brain also needs oxygen and food and so needs blood, which would likely be a hard obstacle to overcome. But say we found a way to do it. Imagine you are 25 and cancer is spreading through your body, the doctors tell you nothing can be done, the cancer is too strong. They tell you you have about a month before it gets to your brain and kills you. Wouldn't you consider letting them do an operation which saves your brain and gives you a new body? I know I would. Think about it, you're only 25, you still have another 70 years use on your brain. And another plus you are freed from the confines of a human body for the most part. The only restriction is you still have to sleep since you still have a human brain. And another plus the new body you will inherit for the most part looks very much human and can be custom made so to mimic a perfect you. Oh you would never age! The average person would never know the difference! Maybe they could keep the brain transplant procedure confidential and you could just tell your family and friends you were cured... if you wanted to look like you were aging you could just go in for some maintenance and have them work a few wrinkles in and maybe put a few gray hair in. You would be the envy of your family, never getting sick. You could go strong till the day your brain surrendered...
Some people might argue that by doing this, you have lost a piece of your humanity by never getting sick or dieing when you were supposed to. What if they had been able to give Mozart a new body when he was dieing at such a young age? think of all the more additions to classical music he could have made!
I think such a technological advance would enrich humanity, not hurt it...
after all, I think most people would agree, is that your brain more than any part of your body, is the part that is human, more than anything else.

Blog # 9 Reason

The story reason is very interesting and keeps you interested. The robot Cutie as they call him at first seems to be malfunctioning and not doing the jobs in which it was intended to do. Though later in the story it becomes obvious that the robot does the perform the task it was made for with great perfection. Its just that the robot follows a different set of standards for performing its task. Something that strikes me as being a defect within the robot is that it sees its self as superior to the humans and it won't follow the orders in which they give it. Although the robot won't harm them and won't allow harm to come to them it still won't follow their orders which to me is a very serious problem. Not only did Cutie not follow thier orders and keep them confined to their quarters but he also turned all the other robots against the two men to were they also wouldn't follow the orders of the two men who was running the station before the creation of cutie. As long as cutie does the job he is intended to and no problems arise he will be fine in running the station but if any problems do arise that's when Cutie will become a problem because of not following the orders of humans. To me they should fix cutie were he follows the orders of humans and does the jobs that he was intended to do before they leave him in complete control of the station.

Who is the better person?

Galley Slave turned out to be better than what I initially thought when I started reading this. I liked the idea that you could tell the robot to keep it's mouth shut even when you had done something illegal. Can you imagine? You have this enormous machine with considerable strength that you could make it do all kinds of illegal things and then make it lie for you too. Criminals would be buying this thing left and right. And then best of all, the manufacturer can't even find out the truth because the machine refuses to talk to them too. My computer does this to me today. I tell it to do something and it does it slower than I want it to do, or it just doesn't do it the right way. Of course, I am the one who decides whether it is right or wrong. Of course, we find out in the end of the story that the professor is lying and the robot, being the morally superior being, comes to the rescue of the professor on the stand. Every time I start feeling that the human race is falling behind and the robots have our best interest in hand, I pull out the old Terminator I movie and watch that bad old robot trying to kill the good humans. It makes me feel good that we're still better than the robots. Of course, having a fire inside your TV set is kind of cool too. I may have to try that some day.

Reason? Is there a reason for you?

I really liked this story for several 'reasons'. I thought it was funny of the old sci-fi shows where the robots take over, but it also had the hidden meaning of course. I know that in the end Cutie (QT-1) was simply protecting the humans by performing all of the functions itself and keeping the humans out of the control room, but the religious fervour of the robots kind of scared me. If the robot ever got to the point where IT decided what was the best way to protect humans, then I'd say that was the time to pull the plug. What if the converter failed and Cutie started looking at the humans as mischievous or dangerous? You know what happens next. The humans have got to go. Donovan and Powell are already in trouble because they have laughed at Cutie and the 'Master'. It was good of Cutie to keep feeding the humans until they left, but what about Muller? will he get fed too? Will he offend the Master?

Blog 9: Reason

I really enjoyed reading Reason. In my opinion, the robot Cutie almost appeared to outsmart the humans throughout their stay on the station. At times, Powell and Donovan questioned Cutie's theories and wondered if he might be speaking truth.

The one question I have is how Cutie was able to defy the Laws of Robotics. I always think of the movie "I Robot" and whenever a human told his robot to do something, it was done (Unless it defied another law). Cutie ignored Powell and Donovan's commands and actually took charge with the other robots.

The other thing I liked from this story was the way Cutie was able to comprehend things so easily. After all of the doubts Powell and Donovan had of him, it was amazing to see how Cutie was able to control the beam perfectly during the storm. A robot that was simply created to carry out tasks from humans turns out to be, in my opinion, smarter than the people in charge of him. Any time I read these stories, it makes me think about the future more and if these situations will ever occur.

Blog 9

As i read Robot Stories i am liking all of these stories alot. I think this is becasue i understand them more and i cna kind of tell what is going to happen in the end. In the Story Reason they havea robot that to the reader seems is trying to take over, which it is but not as much as the story leads you to believe. Throguhougt this story it duscusses the thrre laws that go along with robot life. The question that comes to mind as you read is if the robot is ignoring these laws as he goes along with his actions? The other two are if the robot obeying the rules of the humans and is he avoiding humans from being harmed? From cuties expirience with the storm you can tell that he seems to be the best person for controlling the station. By the end of the story he savesd the earth and mankind. After this he thought he was far more superior than humans becasue of his accomplishment, but did he really know what he did? He was just doing his job. He felt that he was superior only becasue he is a reasoning being. The two creators of the robot try to tell him that they created him but again he makes no effort to believe either of them. Cutie was made of parts of a master. This is a story that illistrates a robot that can be created with a very different mind than humans and have a min d of its own.

Should Chimps Have Human Rights?

Another tidbit from the corners of the internet, this time from Slashdot: Should Chimps Have Human Rights?

Blog 9

The stories by Isaac Asimov have been pretty interesting and has make me think about what the world would be like with the robots he portrays in his stories. The story reason had me a little uneasy when I was thinking about the world with that type of robot. In the end, everything is fine and that the robot did was it was told. But leading up to that was filled with the robot taking control and thinking it is superior. Even though everything was fine at the end, if a robot really thought it was superior, would it have a happy ending every time? With the robot clearly having its own mindset, who knows what would happen if that robot were on earth or even put in the same situation. I think that even if there were happy endings, there would be some endings that didn't end to well for the humans. If i robot were to show that independent thinking along with the thought they are superior, they would eventually be taking the humans spot and replacing them. This was a very fun and interesting story to read, but if it were to be in real life, the ending might not be as happy.

Star Trek remains

The ashes of Star Trek's Scotty (and also astronaut Gordon Cooper) are going to be launched into space before being laid to rest on Earth.

Beam me up, Scotty.

Insufficient Data (Blog #9)

Star Trek: The Next Generation frequently raises interesting questions about human relationships with technology, but never more obviously than in the case of Data. The most interesting observation about the episode we viewed in class, was that Commander Data, an android devoid of emotion, appears to have feelings. His actions seem compassionate, kind and sympathetic, but he should not be able to behave in this manner if he has no emotion, should he? Data is also one of the most popular characters n the Next Generation universe which also seems anomalous given his inability to reciprocate emotion.

What could be producing this perception of emotional capacity? It might be that Data simply appears to have emotions because, as feeling people, we can’t imagine any animate thing not having them. In other words, we tend to anthropomorphize and project our emotion into Data’s void. Or, perhaps, Data may actually be developing emotion. As a final possible, quite cynical, reason, Brent Spiner, because he is a human being, might be creating emotion where there should be none.

It is my opinion that Data is not capable of emotional responses and does not display them. Yet, he is still my favorite Next Generation character, largely because he acts the most humanely, and sympathetically, of any crew member. Inability to emote does not exclude Data from acting in a way that human beings understand as good. Moral actions, any actions involving free will, in fact, do not necessarily require emotional support. Spock proves this point (despite McCoy’s objections). He acts according to logic, yet he can still befriend, love and act morally. Perhaps Spock is just a hopeless hypocrite (that would be illogical though), but some philosophers believe that rationality, not emotion, is what makes us truly human—Kant is one such philosopher. For the sake of brevity, I will confine myself to the Kantian argument.

As we mentioned in class, Kant believed that human dignity, or personhood, is rooted in our rational intellect and ability to set our own goals and make decisions.
If we can accept this, then it is more pertinent to prove whether or not Data can act rationally and freely, to determine his “humanness”. Unfortunately, philosophers, such as Sartre (we are not free not to choose), have questioned whether or not human beings have this ability, so it becomes even more difficult to prove the same for robots. For the purposes of this discussion, however, I will not question whether or not human beings can act freely and just assume that they can thereby creating the fundamental difference between say, Captain Picard, and you average robot vacuum. Data exhibits what appears to be autonomous behavior. He spends time learning human arts, reading and even practicing sneezing. No one commanded Data to engage in these tasks. Data has the ability to reflect on his own existence and recognize the difference between himself and humans. He has self awareness.

Does this mean he is an autonomous, rational being? Not necessarily. Unfortunately, much like with chimpanzees and gorilla, we cannot fully comprehend the interior life of a complex android. What appears like autonomy might just be an epiphenomenon. For instance, MyTMC (aka Jenzabar) frequently acts independently of instruction. It deletes documents, closes windows and even grades exams. A more computer savvy individual might be able to explain Jenzabar’s actions more accurately, but I wouldn’t call it autonomous action. It fails to indicate the ability to think rationally in addition to its vague autonomy.

Data, however, behaves in a manner that could be considered rational. He reasons quite effectively. For instance, when Picard referred to Data’s “brother” Lore as an “it”, Data immediately transferred the appellation to himself. If Picard’s statement t is followed to its logical conclusion, then he would have to call Data an “it: instead of “he” as well. Data had to employ logic and a keen understanding of language to recognize this.

Thus far, following Kant’s lead, we would probably have to grant Data personhood. Something seems wrong with this, however. First, Data’s rational autonomy might still be anthropomorphism. If this is the case, then Data is once again a machine. Based on the past evidence, this seems less likely. Another problem enters in, though, when Data’s origin is considered. He was created by a human, a genius, but still a human. Soong, Data’s creator, endowed him with very human qualities, sans emotion (which seems to have been a response to Lore’s instability). Bec ause of this, Data is limited by the intellect of his creator who cannot give more than he has.

Soong may have failed to include crucial aspects of human brain function that make full autonomy possible. The lack of real emotion, for example, may be detrimental for Data’s freedom. He does later acquire an emotion chip, but this too is more programming—more simulation. All of these factors serve to limit Data’s ability to set goals and pursue them freely. In addition, it is doubtful that Data has an understanding of moral right and wrong. I believe it would be impossible for Soong to impart knowledge of good and evil—metaphysical concepts that cannot be reduced to a program. This, I think, would make it very difficult for androids, not matter how advanced, to become moral agents. This drastically limits Data’s autonomy. It essentially would bar true free will. The ability to choose good, or choose evil. As a disclaimer, I will not approach the question of the existence of good or evil, since both have been challenged. There is not enough space here.

Another important difference between androids and humans is the fact that androids remain in-organic. In Bi-Centennial Man, Andrew managed to give himself many prosthetic human organs, but he was never organic. Importantly, his brain was never organic. If we believe Descartes’ odd proclamation that the pineal gland is the point at which the soul connects to the body, we would have to exclude Andrew from having a soul--or at least a spiritual-corporeal unity. Granted, Descartes’ statement is wildly implausible, but it does present, one reason why an organic brain might be a crucial part of human uniqueness and personhood (since Descartes believed the mind-soul was true self). In addition, robots, of every kind, lack natural life. They are not born, they do not die (without some kind of alteration). Thus, it is possible (as we saw in the TNG episode) to rebuild an android and save its positronic brain. Humans, animals and plants, by contrast, are not so easily restored. The frailty of life is another reason for human sacredness.

For these reasons, I am loathe to grant an android even my favorite one, Data, personhood. This does not mean we can treat androids, or robots as we please. As we discussed in class, a very good argument can be made for secondary duties towards artificial humans. Because of their closeness to humanity in appearance and activities, it would degrade human beings to mistreat them. For instance, of Commander Riker were to hit Data repeatedly with a baseball bat for jollies, he might be more inclined to do so to a human. It would also deform his own nature and sensibilities in much the same that way that pornography might. Data might also be considered a work of art. He should therefore be treated with the same respect due to such a creation.

It is interesting. Human beings agonize constantly over their origins. Data, and other androids, know that humans have created them (although Cutie in “Reason” by Asimov challenges this). The Christian tradition recognizes that human beings were created in the image and likeness of God. The “Imago Dei” principle is the foundational principle in the Christian moral tradition and the chief source of human dignity. Unfortunately, Data was created in the image and likeness of human beings. We are incapable of giving androids natural life. Data’s lack of natural life is exemplified in his relationship with his cat, Spot. Data is an incredibly complex piece of robotic science yet he still lacks something so basic, yet impossible to attain. Something Spot the cat has—life.



Iris

Blog 9: Reason

I am finding these stories within Isaac Asimov's "Robot Visions" extremely interesting. It is nice to be reading through something like this and really want to know how the story is going to end. The current story chosen, Reason, had a bit of a different twist to it. The story has you believing that this Robot is truly evil and trying to take over, which it is, but not to the extent that you believe. In the story it discusses the three laws. Is this Robot completing ignoring the three laws implanted in him? Or is Cutie simply following the rules by controlling the station? Is Cutie in the end obeying orders that humans allow and is Cutie actually preventing humans from being harmed? It is obvious from the incident with the storm that Cutie is the best to date at controlling the station. He in the end saved Earth and mankind. Now whether he really knew that's what he was doing, probably not, but he was taking care of the job at task. Cutie believed that because he is a REASONING being, he is in fact superior to humans, with their intelligence. Powell and Donovan try to show this robot that they are superior and that they actually created him, but he did not buy anything that they brought his way. All the books were simply written for humans. The robot they put together, was simply a bunch of parts made by the Master (they didn't really make it!). This story illustrates the possiblity of making a being that has a mind of its own. In this case with the use of reason, the robot had a mind of its own and there was no changing it. Now the questioin is whether Powell is right about Cutie? Is he really okay to be left to control? As long as he follows the Master will all be ran smoothly?

Blog #9 The Bicentennial Man

Andrew Martin is truly a representation of futuristic dreams and technology in the field of robotics. However this age of technology in actuality may not be as distant as originally speculated. Asimov would most certainly be amazed that the scenarios depicted in his many famous science fiction books may serve as frameworks for reality. Just the simple fact that conventions, such as the recent European Robotics Network held in South Korea, are being planned and presented proves the urgency of this issue in modern society. Great leaps have been made by robotic engineers and AI scientists, which have produced promising robots and devices capable of performing tasks and demonstrating certain abilities. Robots have been invented which appear to be helpful and efficient for caring for the elderly and completing household chores. Fifty years ago, the philosophical and ethical question of whether robots should receive equal and similar rights, would be considered completely ridiculous and unfeasible. It is actually quite amazing that extensions in scientific inquiry could lead to the establishment of a different societal ideal of what designates a human being. The story "Bicentennial Man" presents a more personal viewpoint of the possible implications of robot rights within modern society. Asimov is successful at evoking sympathy and understanding within his readers of Andrew's desires and motivations. Instead of describing robot infiltration within society as a threat to humanity, Asimov takes the optimistic standpoint. Robots are considered a benefit and advancement for the human race, making life easier and less stressful. Andrew is bestowed human qualities and personality traits especially the ability to be creative. These human-like characteristics strengthen the case that Andrew is a "person." In reality, the more advancements that are made in robotics, the more human these technologies appear. The ancient idea of a robot created and embellished on in literature, of a separate machine-like device made of bolts and metal, has disappeared. The revolutionized 21st century robot is considered equivalent to a human being, and therefore is deserving of equal protection under the law.