Help
Sign In
QaR
October 2008 
I, Robot
Posted on Apr 11th, 2008
by 
clyde
clyde
Law I
A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Law II
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, accept where such orders would conflict with the first law
Law III
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law
I appreciate law I especially if I look at injury as ANY harm. That includes emotional, of course. And...as one goes through life and experiences life, one realizes just how difficult an injunction this is. Just how DO we avoid harm?
The second part of Law I is very cool, because it really means, I mean if we were robots, which are learning things, that this cannot be achieved by sitting on our hands. because our very inaction is harmful. NOT just for another person, but for the world as a whole. People are suffering through our 'silent complicity'. that is, of course, if you wish to truly extrapolate, like a computer, the fullest meaning of the first law.
the second law states that we are obedient to our friends. That we are loyal and do as they wish. However, of course, we must then calculate as to whether we are harming others. So...out goes the window loyalty. This is because our primary 'loyalty' is NOT to our 'friends', but to the first law. The principal to 'do no harm'.
The third law is the self sacrificing one. Save yourself unless it brings harm to others. Again, the first law reigns. Do no harm. Of course, the second law is to obey humans, but, that one also refers to the first law.
interesting how these are some of our loftiest ideals as human beings.
also fascinating how the issue of the ego is involved in here. The focus i on others. The concern for others. The life mitigating hyper concern for survival solved in the reverence and concern for the goodness and well being of others.
Damn I wish I was a robot ;-)
Maybe the 'ghost in the machine' would visit and expand in me.
A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Law II
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, accept where such orders would conflict with the first law
Law III
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law
I appreciate law I especially if I look at injury as ANY harm. That includes emotional, of course. And...as one goes through life and experiences life, one realizes just how difficult an injunction this is. Just how DO we avoid harm?
The second part of Law I is very cool, because it really means, I mean if we were robots, which are learning things, that this cannot be achieved by sitting on our hands. because our very inaction is harmful. NOT just for another person, but for the world as a whole. People are suffering through our 'silent complicity'. that is, of course, if you wish to truly extrapolate, like a computer, the fullest meaning of the first law.
the second law states that we are obedient to our friends. That we are loyal and do as they wish. However, of course, we must then calculate as to whether we are harming others. So...out goes the window loyalty. This is because our primary 'loyalty' is NOT to our 'friends', but to the first law. The principal to 'do no harm'.
The third law is the self sacrificing one. Save yourself unless it brings harm to others. Again, the first law reigns. Do no harm. Of course, the second law is to obey humans, but, that one also refers to the first law.
interesting how these are some of our loftiest ideals as human beings.
also fascinating how the issue of the ego is involved in here. The focus i on others. The concern for others. The life mitigating hyper concern for survival solved in the reverence and concern for the goodness and well being of others.
Damn I wish I was a robot ;-)
Maybe the 'ghost in the machine' would visit and expand in me.
Access: Public
have you read Asimov's robot series? no movie could ever touch the depth in those books…
no I haven't. But now I feel I should. I'm always hesitant to read. I'm learning so much without books. though I should try to read a little. I have bought about 30 books on impulse over the last year and read very, very little. trust me, on your recommendation I am so tempted. But…will I read em?
Define Robot: consciousness based in electricity superimposed on matter? Processing?
The brain is a superconductor… science tells us this. ; - )
Why not be a robot dude? As you point out, there's really no difference between those ideas and:
“turn the other cheek,”
“Buddhist/hindu ideas of non-injury,”
“selflessness, non-ego, interconnectedness, etc.”
The question is, what central computer are we connecting to? The source of all, or cultural concepts that reinforce a blind life? hmmm…
just why do ya gotta be so smart. ha?
DO you have any backround in electromagnetics? In superconductivity?
and still waiting on your response to faith!!!
You know there was a source in that movie, right? i cant rememeber HER name off hand.
of course source is what we are connecting to. The cultural concepts are hogwash, for the most part. Sort of re tarded. backwards, no?
I believe you're onto a whole bunch.
I am still emperical and rational based. For more reasons that just MY escape.
which is why I still ask. where is it that your faith originates.
thanks bra (hawaiian form of brother. More indemic to So Cal linguistic convention than Kansas or NY)
peace bra
clyde
smart? maybe–
but for one I seem to annoy the PISS out of some people,
and for another, well, I COMPLETELY forgot to answer that question before! Or… in the flow of life, simply did not? Who knows? But I will now!
Here I will say, it was simply a preponderance of evidence that came from no faith at all, and after seeing this evidence and changing my ideas, I could quite easily track them in all faiths…
more to come though-
We're all robots and supercomputers…connecting to MainFrame…wherever that may be.
Always time for new programs and upgrades. Please check for available downloads. Perhaps even a whole new operating system.
LOL.
and we definately have two different approaches to things Alan. I just don't want to get bogged down into the idea of religious faith. I'm just talking about belief. An interwoven fabric of what we believe to be true or real. worldview or program. we do have independent ideas promoted from logical processes of our own derivation now don't we? And how really is it that we support things originating elsewhere. not looking for a slugfest here, just to get to some very critical issues which underpin both our approaches. NOT an ego thing. This is all about the collective being.