Humanoid robots are highly sophisticated machines equipped with human-like sensory and motor capabilities. Today we are on the verge of a new era of rapid transformations in both science and engineering—one that brings together technological advancements in a way that will accelerate both neuroscience and robotics. Humanoid Robotics and Neuroscience: Science, Engineering and Society presents the contributions of prominent scientists who explore key aspects of the further potential of these systems.

Topics include:

The use of humanoid robotics can help us develop a greater scientific understanding of humans, leading to the design of better engineered systems and machines for society. This book assembles the work of scientists on the cutting edge of robotic research who demonstrate the vast possibilities in this field of research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK299027/

Judging by the state of the world today, our leaders are acting like social robots, taking no notice of neuroscience, psychology or even of history.

I think this is an excellent question and would raise interesting ethical dilemmas for the future.

Firstly, what do you mean by conflict, since cooperation and conflict usually work in sync. Do you mean conflict in ideas, logical thinking or war.

The first argument is if we mean conflict by war: Then I assume there would be conflict, but it would perhaps result from individuals who will act as homunculus in the social robot's brain and tell it to follow commands. If we follow the logic that they have no emotions, they may not understand passion or conceive the notion of rebellion.  I believe that only when they have an understanding of when pain is pain or a form of qualia. There could be a conflict, but if they do not have it, then they are subject to human whims.

If we mean by logical thinking, then perhaps, since if we follow the many forms of media (i.e., movies, television). It will state logical thinking is without emotions, but researchers in psychology and neuroscience have stated that emotions are also a rudimentary form of cognition, but that can aid in logical thinking and the drive to succeed. It is only when it is an emotional deficiency that irrationality will occur. But I digress, basically, I think it may result in a police state if we allow certain individuals to possess this, which will lead to a conflict or a revolution. But then who should we blame? Should it be the robots for not thinking for themselves, the individuals behind it or the researchers? Don't think of this as a researcher, but as a layperson.

If we mean conflict in terms of theory mind. Chimpanzees are known to perform better in a  joint-attention task, the act to share intentions between others, in a competitive rather than cooperative paradigm. Does this state they may not have a theory of mind? No, it means their theory of mind, the ability to attribute mental states onto others is not as cooperative as humans, but then if we follow this logic, could a theory of mind just lead to better collaborative learning and emotional understanding.

Also, if robots do not have emotions, can they understand them though?

I hope this is clear and I hope it helps.

Thanks a lot for the interesting answers with elements of humor, sarcasm and arguments about the future.

Where lies the difference between a 'social robot' and a 'social computer'?

Dear Marcel. I'm still delirious blind in this direction. Many questions can not answer. But here, I guess. In social robots will be implemented the idea of "brain-computer interface" in various aspects. One of the most promising aspects - the use of neural networks cultured neuron-like cells or other variants (fragments of brain tissue of animals). So, in social robots will be used is still unmatched system of relations between nerve cells.

What I can assume is that social computer is like a computer it will process it but will produce mechanical dialogue and stilted responses, whereas a social robot will become a social agent. I don't know how ridiculous this sounds, but one can interpret it like that. A better example could be the social robot can be compared to the robot from I' Robot, whereas the social computer can refer to the major antagonist of the film, but without creating robots.

Dear Gerald. I do not mind regarding your opinions. Why? We are at the beginning of the path when reasoning about social robots. In the technology of such robots will dominate knowledge about the relationship between brain neurons to each other, with the body, with the environment, to the present, past, and future. That is, the maximum use of "technology" polished nature for millennia. And on the second plan will apply great ideas are born in the minds of people (unfortunately not always the best representative of nature). Will be used by the real neural networks (not artificial) to control the functions and effectiveness of robots.

Dear Vladimir,

I do not have an answer for that, it is a very good answer. I hope this next bit is clear.

The technology of these robots will assist the knowledge between neural networks, the body or embodied cognition, the environment and time as you stated. However, I have three arguments that might seem pessimistic: First, I believe if we have social robots that can govern our  knowledge, it may fall under what we already have as the dogma of neuroimaging and the use of computers. Prior to neuroimaging, our ability to evaluate and analyse information was more likely to be better. This theory has its flaws obviously, as to empirical testing and age confounds etc. This was proposed by Dr J Flynn. Although this may seem weird, I believe the underlying message is if it guides our knowledge, will it lead to us answering questions or allow us to perform worse overall ignoring the other methods that we already possess? 

I hope this answers the first bit.

Regarding the second issue, that great ideas are born in the minds of people. Before I continue, let me use an example, Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace proposed the theory of evolution around similar times, this could be due to their genius or they both used the same paper that helped them propose the theory of evolution. There is the element of global processing. Yet, will social robots perform this ability. Therefore, how do we know these robots would perform these similar actions as to humans? Will they enter the world of shared intentionality (i.e., sharing, directing and managing intentions, goals and actions with others)? If we can they do so , then there is hope for these robots to provide knowledge regarding the first and second issue.

The third issue is regarding the function and effectiveness of robots. Let us assume free will exists, if it does then their programming will have some influence and they may be able to free choice, but if it does not, then they will be deterministic.  Also, I would believe people to try and minimise the effectiveness of  the robot's functions so as to form a social control and reduce any rebellious attitudes that can lead to humanity's demise. Therefore, will we get the knowledge between body, brain, experience and time or development. Before, I finish this paragraph off, it is still  a contentious issue as to whether humans have free will, yet if we can offer answer the effectiveness and not worry about the social robots, we may understand philosophical grounds behind free will.

Also, we forgot to mention about development, this will be brief. Humans can change naturally with neurochemicals, hormones etc. However, with robots, I don't know will they change through biological means or is it more likely we would have to change them. If the latter, then it will not explain the relationship between brain, body and experience with development. Without development, that relationship will be in a stalemate. 

I hope this is clear and answers your question. If I have not, I apologise.

Dear Gerald! I thank you for your brilliant speech, and continue the argument. We understand that our knowledge of the functions of the brain are far from perfect. Nature has created an amazing system with superior features all modern computers. Computers are still far from the performance of neural networks. This is the trigger for the use of such neural networks in robots.

We understand the difficulties in creating such robots, in which "living" tissue will be combined with the "metal". But the biggest challenge - is the inability to predict the future of original Frankenstein. Social robots will be able to create these yourself. But it will be robots without emotions, instincts inherent in people. They will not have a headache at work. They will have no quarrels with neighbors and colleagues. They will not have diseases. They will have tremendous productivity. They occur at a certain stage of any stimulus to put people at the zoo. Not all people, of course. Only a few are chosen. And the others?

I apologize for the mix of optimism and pessimism. With these emotions of the people of course zoo not fit.

Dear Vladmir,

I applaud your optimism and pessimism. This is what we need since research is just assuming the benefits of each advancement, what about the disadvantages for us.

I think that the Frankstein will be the greatest worry and as you said the social robot will create robots, but would these be social robots or would they be social computers? Perhaps, this is where research needs to look at for further research, also would we provide rights for robots or none whatsoever? These ethical issues I think people need to contemplate, although this is out of scope for this forum. I think it is important we can continue to discuss these.

I do have a question, how is a headache at work related to emotions. Also, quarrels with neighbours and colleagues could be beneficial since it can allow new forms of ideas to be produced that either way cannot be performed in other form of manner. I presume they will get viruses which will be the equivalent of diseases.

All the issues you are raising  are important to mention. How would the few be chosen, would it be get rid of our humanity? Also, there was this nice poem in which aliens come down and have killed all humans,  but captured one. In the end, the curator is asked why does that human shed tears, they respond we don't know but perhaps to clean their tear duct. I think that is the way we are heading.

On a slightly more positive, but still negative. If we argue with social robots, would they not reduce our ability to think outside the box since if they say something and we assume to be logically correct, but how are they correct? Is it because of the programming or is it something deeper? I think this is important issue for science to take care now since we are already still sort of assuming that neuroimaging can provide us unprecedented access into the brain, yet we are becoming more critical. I think it is important to fix this mistake as early as possible before we push science in the wrong line of thought.

Dear Gerald. Thanks for delicate objection to my pessimism. I talked about the emotions of man. We all know how emotions can help to overcome adversity. We also know how emotions can make people forget about work and focus on something personal. Intelligent robots will be rationalists. They will be without emotion. They will not have a headache from personal problems. They will focus on the work always - in the morning, night, afternoon, evening. The effectiveness of robots will be much higher than people. Robots do not have to "waste" time on poetry, music. Robots will automatically produce "offspring" of robots (designing new devices). Why the world of robots need emotional people?

Dear Vladimir,

I do understand where you are coming from. Nevertheless, emotions can help people remember the more important information at times. I do not see emotions as illogical or ineffective, I see it perhaps as a sign of trying to help us deal with what is most important and what is not. Some emotions like curiosity and passion can help science to perform cases and scenarios that are of most interest like theory of relativity or theory of evolution by Alfred Russell Wallace.

Headaches, I think we always see them as a negative, yet it is a sign that there is something dangerous looming or rest. I think robots will not get headaches, but a form similar to those to tell them to be careful and not to push yourself too far. Also, working through all of those would be bad, some of the best moments that a headache can provide is by far the most important function to help deal with it: sleep. If they work through these 4 states: morning, afternoon, evening and night. They will not sleep, so effectiveness wise they will be brilliant, yet if they are in a career of logic or science, sleep will offer them an escape to another world in which their creativity is not restrained by society or politics.

Furthermore, poetry and music can help us escape from the present state to a state of freedom that when we return, we acknowledge the limitations man have imposed themselves that these seemingly pointless things people have thrown away as being useless are in fact one of the most forms of escapism, something to remove the 'shackles' that society allows us to form associative rules and to learn that you are special, but you are also a number. I digress.

The world of robots will need emotional people to care, empathise and to help with logical thinking that requires creativity which is negatively correlated with logical thinking, but positively with emotional thinking. Although this is a correlation and causation is not inferred, there is a link. Therefore, emotions, whether humans or animals can help us survive from predators or allow us think of the most beautiful moments that will revolutionise our way of thinking. 

Dear Gerald! Excellent. You are right, from the perspective of human rights. I ask you now to take the position of the robot. From the position of the robots you speak in a strange language. Robots will talk and think language algorithms. A pampered comfort people will soak up the crumbs of civilization. Till then will soak until robots welling from the human community.

Dear Vladimir, 

We speak a strange language, but what is language? It is a form of mentalase. Also, if these robots will talk and think in language algorithms, they will understand us and be more like asperger's Syndrome. In other words, they will be pedantic about word choice and word order that they will not experience the beauty of infinite recursion that is language. However, if we talk them in a manner more like human that is quite stilted as we are now, joking aside, they may be more likely to understand a mechanical dialogue. So, language will change, we will become more fluent in programming in that we will be able to understand what robots may be saying, but we may lose what it means to be human. Culture and civilisation depends on this, but as we become modernised then language will change with culture. These are a weird form of entities, they are a paradox. They are conscious, but at the same time non-existent. They do not make decision, but allow them to occur, they form an entity, but they are individualistic. They are in my opinion, man's greatest paradox, yet their most beautiful creation. It changes like we do. That is what I see robots will become, they will be like language and culture. Another paradox. 

Sorry for being fanciful, and using less evidence-based approach and I hope this is clear,

Gerald

Dear Gerald! Thanks for the upbeat and lyrical speech. I also wish that. But life is merciless to the weakness of man. What I have in mind. I say that social robots do not need emotions. Robots are rational beings. They will create. But it will be a future without romance. So romance (people with emotions) in the future will be useless. I'm trying to think logically, given the experience of the evolution of nature.

Dear Vladmir

It's a good question. We have to think and I think that the in the future the world is ahead is thought to fight.

Dear Doko, it is true. As true parents, it is necessary not only to create new generation, but also have to answer for the fate of the new generations. Scientists, researchers need to think about the fate of their creations.

Tnanks a lot for answer.

Dear Vladimir,

there are 2 problems with robots: a) technical, b) social.

The technical problem is whether all features of human being can be replicated in a machine. Robots were first intended to replace humans in physical work, not in thinking. Today one can buy toy robots that can cook, imitate dogs an cats. Machine can already play as top humans in chess, its speed of calculation is much faster.

I think that a man differs by having complex interaction between subconscious and conscious (that we still do not understand and cannot model, and maybe never be able) and this gives a chance that machine will never replace human completely.

But this does not mean that machine will never be able to try to take over the power. In biology we can sometimes observe more intelligent preys than predators.

And there is worry. One can track it from movies. Starting from Matrix. Then Terminator.

Dear Yuri, thank you. What causes my fears? We see how quickly develop intelligent technologies. Already, easy to create a technically advanced robot. And in the future autonomous robot control unit will include neural networks with elements of real neuronal populations. Such robots are capable of analytical and decision-making. Such robots would not be emotions that elevate man and, simultaneously, turn often apathetic man in the limp creature. "Intelligent" robots capable of designing the other robots do not need to be "wimps" people whining about the hard life. The prospect of human life becomes a question.

Dear Doko! Unfortunately, progress in the area of neural networks and robotic devices does not pay attention to any statements and predictions of the past. Authorities bend their own heads, honoring the time and space (and it is not relative).

I can never quite understand why we are so keen to defend our own species against all comers, when its (pre-)history is marked by endemic violence and a willingness to kill and maim one another in ever more technologically advanced ways (eg Kursk, Hiroshima & Nagasaki).  Handing over control/stewardship of the planet to a well-designed, benign, intelligent community of machines/robots could easily be an excellent step to take.

Jim

PS - and OK, yes, I HAVE just been reading Part IV of Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels”.

Dear James, I do not argue. In a society of contradictions, hypocrisy and violence, really "smart" robots are ideal for action, not talk. I just wanted to draw people's attention to the direction in which humanity is moving. This direction is a dead end, in which it is difficult to survive intelligent, sensitive, talented, physically healthy. All this will eventually be crushed by obese people with hypocritical actions, trampled morality, baser instincts. The only pity is that intelligent robots likely will not need the two categories of people.

By the way, Swift, "Gulliver" demonstrated evils of society long before my speech.

And yes there is a danger, and yes there is creativity and yes...

But who has the courage nowadays to choose the artist side, it is he who preached for ages the spiritual side of life and much time before the quantum physics he knew the correlation between matter and spirit. 

(First of all we must admit that only few people can see the difference between the real and the false, and there is more false than real.)

There is no other choice as that there is becoming a dialogue between science, art and religion. Because they will be the winners and the robots, they are doing their job already, most of the people also scientists are the new slaves of society because they sold their soul for the new future who will not come but always was. 

Steve Lacy was one of the most spiritual composers in the service of love and we will see how far he will reach because he had the secret of synchronicity, coincidence, the serious play between the brains and the particle so that he could keep decoherence at bay and the quantum world could stand in the macroscopic world.

I suggest to listen to Timur Sergeyenia (Belarus), Mikhail Bezverkhni (Sint- Petersburg), Steve Lacy (Kiev)  they all came to me in Afkikker and put their brains in the service of spiritual emancipation, It would be interesting to know the difference also between a CD and a live concert on the level of the neurons.

Dear Rita! I'm impressed by your arguments. I regret that in the modern world is becoming less and less people who feel and think as you. All people in the brain has billions of neurons. All people born images, the amount of information which can not analyze any supercomputer. But some people remain open pure soul. And you show it without a doubt. A lot of people are busy only his own "ego". "Ego" -people all the energy spent on what to eat, to survive in different conditions, and to give birth. These three attributes are absolutely necessary for people, but they are the essence of each animal. And where human traits? Where a charity donation for others, the joy of the successes of others, help in difficult situations suffering ... You feel it, you know, and, most importantly, you are creating real world of real people. Therefore, in this speech, I do not talk about the set of artificial robots. I spoke about the traits of people about you and a few others.

In Ireland it has been said:

To walk the High Road can be too comfortable

To smile on one’s neighbour can be too prideful

But truly to love one’s neighbour…

 …is to peer into an abyss and see God

Perhaps this is relevant

Jim

Of course, this is relevant.

"...to peer into an abyss and see God".

Fantastic

To return to the original question…

Perhaps Victor is a touch hasty in assuming that robots cannot have emotions (compare “affective computing” e.g. article in Wikipedia)

How would I know whether or not a robot is feeling anger?

Well, how would I know that Victor was feeling anger (as I too often feel anger)?

Suppose Victor said: “I am really angry with you, Jim”, picked up a half-brick and threw it at me shouting “Learn to think straight, you dumb Mick!”

I would not know that he was feeling angry, only that he was behaving angrily!

The same surely applies to a robot.

We can easily program robots to behave angrily.

The assumed association between feeling and behaviour is surely based on an uncertain regularity in my subjective experience.  Aargh!

This line of argument is a very old one and soon takes us, I think, into the debate between idealist metaphysics and materialist metaphysics...

???

Jim

My sincere apologies -- for "Victor" in above read "Vladimir" -- I am a "dumb Mick" indeed!

 Hi all,

I like the question, and that despite it's rather bleak confrontational setting. I do have some questions nevertheless. Trying to get a level deeper than James' behaviourism-critique applied to supposedly emotion-less robots (which thus appear to be some sort of non-phenomenal Zombies of a Chalmers' type), I am not quite sure about the neuron-elements that have been implanted into these robots. What sort of function are these neuron-elements performing in the overall set-up. What is their purpose? If they are merely computational elements - I guess emotions and attitudes will not necessarily come into play - but that remains unclear so far.

I do not quite know about robots and feelings, it does - at the current state of our technical abilities - not seem to be a good pairing. I guess the feeling, emotion, attitude side of the whole business is to be linked with the robot's concern for its own prolonged existence over time, i.e. its own autonomy. Otherwise it would not really make sense: a robot - designed to perform a certain task - would be a bad piece of engineering if it refuses to execute its task because it feels down, has hurt itself or finds the task to minor...

So there should be a centre to the robot - that what it means to that robot to be THAT robot, and a genuin concern of that robot to be this robot in the future. As long as robots do not have that urge, i.e. at least partially self-serving agency, they will remain driven by an agenda which is not their own.

I hope - I  really do - that humans could outwit such machines, but ...

best

Tom

Dear James, I was outside of civilization for several days and could not use a computer (in fact, I was in heaven).

It's wonderful that you associate my name with a victory (Victoria). Thank you.

Dear Tom, thank you for your discussion.

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

would you be kind enough to say something more about the neuron elements you have implanted in robots - no technical details but more of a general idea what these elements were (real neurones or electronically simulated ones?) and what they were supposed to do within such an array?

Sorry for being nosey, but I am really interested in this aspect

Best

Tom

Dear Tom, we are talking about real neurons cultured for example from mesenchymal cells of human adipose tissue. These neurons forming the neural network. These networks are arranged on planar sensors. Networks of neurons have the ability to learn. The information comes from the outside and perceived "trained" neurons. After processing the received signals from neurons to the actuators (mechanical device). Such a device - the robot does not suffer and grieve as a person. A man hard to resist such a perfect creation. What then will be the man? This is not a statement. This pessimistic view of the future of modern humans.

Good Evening Vladimir,

that sounds as if you implanted tissue into these robots to replace a neural net which you otherwise would have to create or simulate yourself? Don't get me wrong I do think that is a stunning achievement in its technical performance, but - and that is the issue - in terms of processing it would not bring anything human to the party? Although these tissues are - originally - human they would not lend any human characteristics to the robots? Is that right - or have I misunderstood the whole thing? If so, please don't be upset by my ignorance.

Best

Tom

Good morning, Tom! Sorry for delay. I decided that nobody is interested in my assumptions about the results of my scientific work. So, thank you very much for interest.

You grasp the main idea. This idea belongs to your talented compatriot. I'm talking about the beautiful wife of genius Percy Bysshe Shelley (Frankenstein idea).

So, modern technology allows to combine the populations of nerve cells (biological tissue) with the mechanical elements of the cutting-edge robots. Thus, a robot which starts use of the nerve cells (not in the world of computers that have such effective processing capabilities as the brain). Such a robot begins to reproduce itself (designing of the various elements). The robot does not need elements of procreation inherent in the people. The robot is not inherent fatigue, laziness, love, anguish ... All this reduces efficiency. Robots do not need the two-legged creatures that want to eat, drink whiskey, writing pamphlets, performing in front of Parliament, and even write poetry. Why in the world to something that prevents effective performance? Here is one of the directions of the development of civilization (without people).

Humanoid robots are highly sophisticated machines equipped with human-like sensory and motor capabilities. Today we are on the verge of a new era of rapid transformations in both science and engineering—one that brings together technological advancements in a way that will accelerate both neuroscience and robotics. Humanoid Robotics and Neuroscience: Science, Engineering and Society presents the contributions of prominent scientists who explore key aspects of the further potential of these systems.

Topics include:

The use of humanoid robotics can help us develop a greater scientific understanding of humans, leading to the design of better engineered systems and machines for society. This book assembles the work of scientists on the cutting edge of robotic research who demonstrate the vast possibilities in this field of research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK299027/

"The use of humanoid robotics can help us develop a greater scientific understanding of humans". This can be used for  sponsoring the system.

We must know that scientific knowledge of humans is always only half as the spiritual other half is never studied. 

The more people start to think in terms of robots, the more we are losing our spiritual ground and think that man dominates the world. Robots will always be first used for making weapons, how can such a war ending. 

Today, in Belgium we remember the end of the first world war!

Dear Rita! You're right. Speaking about the success of science, we must remember the lessons of history. Science is the engine of progress, but also the fruits of creative work often turn to incorrigible evil in peacetime or wartime. This allegory written by Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein.

Dear Fateh! The scientists focused on research. Scientists sometimes difficult to suggest how to use the product research. Sometimes the perfect product research is used to destroy rather than to build up. This is the sad reality.

Absolutely dear @ Vladimir

Dear all! Thank you for support my fears for the future of civilization. It is impossible to justify modern vandals who destroy traditions. History does not forgive mistakes. But what gets expensive price corrections of errors.

Dear Behrouz! Dear all! Thank you for your understanding of my thoughts about what we are responsible for those inventions that are created. If our invention begin to harm the community of people, it means that we were going the wrong way of knowing. Let us recall the remarkable parable of Frankenstein. Learning should bring joy, not suffering and death.

"Learning should bring joy"

Not to the current Chess and Go World Champions!  In future, there will be many highly trained professionals less than happy to be replaced by a silicon chip.

Dear Anthony, Indeed, the silicon chip can become a hero of the future.

We constantly have to think about the consequences of our creations. Humanity has accomplished so much irreparable in the surrounding nature and the nature of the people themselves, that will soon have to form a new science - reconstructive nature. But first people have to turn to the sources of his soul (if it remains).

Dear Prof. Vladimir

Thanks to vote my answer and given me opportunity to interact with your fantastic question and enrich me about future scenario of social robotics. I have gone to some of the answers and found very interesting. But we do not no exactly when social robot will face untrained situation. We are programming machine to do what we want. Some time the situation is so complicated that all the variable as an inputs and corresponding feedback acquired by machine is not match to any earlier case then machine we either not take decision or some thing we is not as a human-bean (if we force to take with less information). Just as we are able to interpretate biorganic (artificial) eye. The eye input are connected to mind by neuron and mind will not able to distinguish between real eye and artificial eye. So future prediction is very difficult about social robots, such as every answer differed with other.          

Dear Karunesh! Thank you for your kindness and friendliness, which is considered in the modern world, little demand. I suggested one of the negative versions of robotics development. Of course there are a lot of positive. But watching the many side effects of additives in food, in the water, from the pollutants in the air, I guess one of the possible side effects of "smart robots". Human - in contrast to the Creator - not often think about the consequences of their own labors.

Vladimir

Why not take the oeuvre of a modern prophet seriously in the service of the revival of mankind in its most spiritual dimension. Presently there are more tests on rats and mice as on creativity. And also the cell has proved to be very creative in the production of molecules needed for her reproduction; even if we take away one of her tools as in the Salvage Pathway.

Steve Lacy and other musicians are doing it quasi without technical help, just some air is moving and it makes music, it penetrates the brains and can make wonders.

We are living in a system that is dominated by economy and imperialism also on the level of religion. The danger is that the system never investigate in new prophets. So they have to be very clever to integrate into the system and at the same time trying to save the world.

Dear Rita! You propose ways of achieving a positive result. This is certainly noble. However, how many times the mankind err on the providence of a positive future. And to overcome Evil.

If we consider neuroscience, it would be interesting to focus on the inchoativ reflex. How neuroscience interpret this on the level of the brain. Is it something that can be put in a robot?

If not, it could shed light on the meaning of consciousness. Sometimes it is used for the muscles, but it may also have a more abstract meaning which can point to the neuron system.

The fate of mankind: seeing the errors, seeing the goal, but not be in power to reach it. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Dear Rita! You're right. How long will humanity studying brain function ?! It is time to understand the causes of aggression, unfriendliness, hypocrisy, lying, stealing, envy ... However, the real life stories of operas, books writers, poets verses indicate that there is no answer to these questions. Sometimes people ask the question which troubled Hamlet's "To be or not to be." All the qualities people spontaneously Program the smart robot. And intelligent robots will act as smart people. Robots will torment weaker. And who would be weaker than robots?

Vladimir

We are also one kind of robots we can also make another kind of Humanoids like us but we can control them.

Please go through the following links for support.

 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-we-combine-artificial-intelligence-consciousness-future-kodukula

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojbiphy.2016.62005

siva

Dear Siva! Please, attention. Yes, we are also sometimes like one kind of robots. We remember as "robots" exterminated Indians, abused and killed innocent prisoners in concentration camps, sent a plane with passengers on the rocks in the mountains ..... You say that these "robots" can be controlled? Unfortunately, the facts suggest otherwise.

Vladimir

Intelligence grows rapidly with the development of the brain while consciousness grows gradually with cell division in fact it never constant. Intelligence is a derivative of consciousness where in unicellular organisms it is mostly dominated by consciousness and less of intelligence. Intelligence depends on the networking of the brain in humans and programming in robots. There is very low possibility that robots are conscious but they are definitely intelligent which is based on programs but not a derivative of consciousness because of which they lack subjectivity.

What do you think about artificial intelligence? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_do_you_think_about_artificial_intelligence/22 [accessed Apr 27, 2016].

Dear Contzen! Thank you for the link. I will try to study, and answer. Vladimir

Advantage of using robots within the future of social relations can provide medical advances , ethical implications to social organization of research 

Dear Peter! You're right, I do not argue with these postulates. I was just thinking about the problem, why is often correct postulates turn into incorrigible Evil.

Vladimir

Dear all

Artificial intelligence is developing toward human brain. Autonomous thinking  has been used in automatic drive, confrontation of chess competition, Missile lock  target etc. future when human perceive what emotion is, artificial intelligence with emotion is sure. But when a plane with automatic driving system with love and hate, will you still want to take?

You want to go to USA. But the plane with automatic driving system with emotion loves France.

Dear all

A few days ago, Taiwan (Province) navy mistakenly launched missile. The missile found a fish boat and locked at the boat autonomously. If the missile locked a luxury yacht, what would happen?

The perfection is not execution only, but over all mercy. How can a robot be mercifull? Mercy is an attribute of God and some men.

Robots can be used for many good things but the Bad exists (also a molecule is named after this) And if the robots are in the hands of the Bad it can become disastrous.

The reason is laying in the lack of vision, intelligence (not the same as intellect), a new paradigm that connects science, art, religion, politics. The believe that love can save the world. But see how the position of women is in the Islam, also in the catholic church there never was a woman pope as I remember. But even within a more matriarchal system, the power kills every flower coming into bloom. Power freezes the energy while music generates energy.

One day of meditation a week would not be bad.

Dear Rita! You are of course right when you say that love will save the world. Your opinion in solidarity with Fyodor Dostoyevsky's opinion: "Beauty will save the world."

Vladimir

Dear all

If a robot has his mind, can human still manipulate it. If a robot with brain of neuron, is it still robot?

Dear all

Duplicate neuron with stem cells for robots, I think it can be done form scientific point. But does it violate ethical and moral principles.

Dear Chun! It is true. Because. It does violate ethical and moral principles.

Vladimir

Dear all

First of all, we must know what we want, a human or a machine. Do we really want a missile to decide what it will assail?

The philosophy can't follow the extending field of scientific development of robots.

And there is no one who can retain it. Robots makes us blind for the information laying in us. It seems they do everything better. Is it possible that this society carry the roots for the radicalization of religions.

Is this not a distortion of science, everything must be proved but at once the god is called as a deus ex machina. In neuroscience the god is a projection. And science can use the god very easy to forget his own responsibility. It's men who makes the robots for his own power and control of the world.

Dear all

Mercy is a kind of Freewill. When a robot has neuron tissues in its brain, it will have freewill. But by then we can’t call it robot, it well be termed as robot-human.it will be more knowledge, more tech, more swift, more accurate than human. By the way, what is the relationship between robot-human and human?

Dear all

We have had the cloning technique which can duplicate human. When we comprehend well how human’s brain work, we also can duplicate the knowledge and experience to the cloned brain. But I am bewildered what is right science way?

Why are we concerned about possible adverse negative aspects of progress in the field of "smart" robots? Because we are all well aware that the soul of every human struggle between good and evil, honesty and hypocrisy, love and hatred ... How much benefit from nuclear energy for different spheres of industry and everyday life! At the same time, how many evils of nuclear weapons. People are unpredictable in good and evil. People give their differences robots. Or will try to use robots in the wrong purposes.

@Dear All,

The second response of Dear Chun Liu is much pregnant. Especially in the context of ability superior to men, his question "By the way, what is the relationship between robot-human and human?" takes on utmost importance. When machines know everything about humans, their society and history, what would be their attitude towards humans when they ponder over their place in human society? Dear Rita has very rightly pointed out, " It's men who makes the robots for his own power and control of the world." Would they not attempt to use human to "control of the world." and humans. When they realise humans are week and inefficient in comparison to them, whose (humans') reality is no more than electromagnetic waves emitting from objects, as they are not part of our mystery, would not they start to eliminate inefficient and less intelligent machines made up of different material?

@Dear Chun Liu

Now, there is no need of cloning brain. The findings of the 2nd Genome Project have led scientists to write DNA. They are, by now, have been engaged to write it and ultimately to synthesise humans of desired qualities. There is coming an era when people get factory made children for ordered qualities. But alas,  in intelligence, however intelligent they may be, they would have all human weaknesses and would be no match to fully autonomous intelligent machines.

Dear Mohammad! Thank you. Dear all! Thank you for understanding.

People have long convinced that science and technology should be used wisely. It is necessary to think about the consequences of innovation for the next generation of people.

I apologize for the uncluttered sharpness. It is necessary to think about vital, not chew anything at this point ... We must think about the future of mankind.

Vladimir, I find this very interesting discussion. Although late, I would like to add a few thoughts. The complexity and difficulties encountered in the AI research programme were already clear to von Neumann, who clearly foresaw the obstacles and aporia of a cybernetic model of human behaviour. Human beings have always been able to solve the issues that beleagued them – to distinguish that which is important from that which is irrelevant, hone their discrimination capacities, be open to other possible explanations, and so on – as an indirect effect of evolution. The complexity of the issues dealt with shows how extremely complex is research in the field of decision-making. The cultural impact of AI development is brining about an individual and collective transformation of humanity. The convergence of AI, genomics and nanotechnology is opening up possibilities and challenges who for the moment we can only sense, but not envisage. We are facing a cultural challenge which will long occupy the minds of those who think that sooner or later technology will prevail over man and those who believe in man’s ability to take charge of these processes (a large number of the atter in the world of production consider moral questions to be in opposition to progress and innovation and that, because of this, the rigid predisposition of the moral parameters of robots will keep their versatility in check). Be that as it may, it is clear that progess in this field will favour the development of intelligent IT applications which are able to reason and take moral decisions. AI systems might be used not only to complement and serve as an addition to human decision-making processes (providing further information or urging the decision-maker towards ideas that have been ignored), but above all to clarify aspects of the complex and, in many ways, obscure dynamics of decisions.

And then, there is a further matter to consider in relation to decision-making: morals. This specifically human sphere is concerned with emotion, awareness, the meaning content of information, social attitudes, all that is related to man. Because of the extreme importance of the issues raised by the supra-rational sphere, the birth of organisms capable of making decisions poses extremely relevant questions. As has been ascertained, the emotions play a leading role in the human decision-making process, and therefore the sphere or morala must have an ontology: a moral decision is taken, in fact, by human beings wholly immersed in the environment, their own culture, the relationships they have with others, each with his own aims, values and desires. Furthermore, in social situations what is moral is not necessarily predetermined. It is often true that the appropriacy of certain actions derives from real situations and precise interactions between interested parties.

So that the construction of decisional architectures in hybrid organisms or of internal representations o fan environment in which every potential action is calculated is very different from the ability to predict the variability and unpredictability of human action. Of course, amazing progess has been made in the development of robots with social abilities, which can learn and which have a theory of mind. However, the possibility of constructing systems able to integrate different skills which might facilitate the development of higher-order faculties must be relegated to the future. Today’s focus on the implementation of competences in hybrid intelligent organisms must change to a focus on research into the sphere beyond the ability to reason and decide, above all because of the inevitable implications of consciousness and emotional states. These are inescapable individual and social supra-rational issues which will eventually show the success or otherwise of a path that has been taken on which, to a large extent, depend the fate of humaniy as we know it so far.

Dear Mauro! Thank you for the interest. Your advices, discussion, thinking are very perspective for AI future. You rightly say that people have different opinions on this and on other issues. The problem can be solved as a result of the dispute to be settled consensus on solving the problem. Let's hope for such an outcome.

Vladimir

By automation the alertness diminishes as I see that most of the jobs are less creative than in the far past when all kind of handcraft and farming asked much more from the brain as easy computer work.

So there must be a tremendous loss of memory going on, we lost already many qualities during evolution. We are used to follow the easiest way which is not always the best and many are afraid to defend opposite meaning. People are following the mass and the mass media has its grip on this.

Socrates discussed a lot with his followers about good and evil, honesty, hypocrisy, but all this brought him in difficulties. Should we be strong enough to face it against the political structures.

Dear Mohammad Firoz Khan

“ultimately to synthesize humans of desired qualities”. From technical point, it is feasible. So if human want, it will be come true.

But dear all are the factory made children human- robots or robots? Are they next human’s generation? Is it what our human need and want? And why?

Interesting discussion! An increasing amount of scientific evidence in the fields of dynamic systems, statistical learning, development psychobiology and the computational sciences has made obsolete the idea of artificial intelligence and the cognitive sciences that has established itself over the last half century. From the molecular to the social levels, the most highly evolved forms of artificial intelligence are used in discovering the bases of the adaptive flexibility and intelligent behaviour of man. Many maintain that it will not be long before the traditional symbolic-formal domains are supplanted so that it will be possible to set up systems equipped with central control functions, superior cognitive faculties and, therefore, an intelligence able to elaborate abstract-symbolic systems analogous to those of a biological brain. The effect of the advanced hybridization of biology and articifical intelligence, it is believed, might bring into being organisims able to express judgement and take decisions: that is, thinking machines. The birth of such organisms – though having a consciousness not comparable to human consciousness (because incapable of consciousness of consciousness) – might help us to clarify certain aspects of decisional processes that are still little understood, as well as other mental processes that escape our understanding. Considering such a possible future prospect, it is relevant to try to understand the present state of the art relative to (structural and dynamic) problems of (moral) decisions and reduce the doubts that still limit our understanding.

Dear Vladimir, thank you for livening up this acute discussion. Effectively, Silvia, the decisional process is an important area of research in the field of artificial intelligence. The ability to take decisions is one of the main characteristics of every virtual agent. In general, the latter can choose from a limited number of options. Some of the existing decisional algorithms – which enable these virtual agents to choose from a limited number of alternatives – are based on planning, others on reactivity, while still others on a combination of these. In any case, to ensure that the agents take decisions in real time and behave without hesitation, the algorithms need to aim at rapidity and reactivity. This aim is impeded by the fact that the virtual agents are incapable of foreseeing the consequences of a particular behavior.

Dear all! Thank you for the support and understanding of the problem. Vladimir

Our social world has changed dramatically in recent years, introducing us to new environments and social agents considerably different from those we have evolved with. In particular, advances in technology enable us to create social robots for a range of domains such as entertainment, retail, education, medicine, and assistive technology. For these endeavours to succeed, we need to develop robots that are acceptable as social partners, with appropriate natural ways for them to interact with humans, possibly even to elicit trust and empathy. However, little is known about human social cognition in these new contexts. Humans are highly social primates and significant progress has been made in cognitive and social neuroscience towards understanding how we perceive, respond to, and interact with others. We suggest interdisciplinary collaboration is the most fruitful way to proceed in advancing robotics on one hand, and cognitive science and neuroscience on the other. This approach would be beneficial to both disciplines and can be viewed as a win-win. Not only can we inform the design of new agents by incorporating findings, methods and theory from cognitive and social neuroscience, but collaborative studies with social robotics can improve our understanding of how the human brain enables some of our most important skills such as action understanding, social cognition, empathy, and communication. Our vision is twofold: to use artificial agents as an opportunity to understand perceptual, cognitive and neural mechanisms that support social cognition; and to use neuroscience to help develop “neuroergonomic” agents that are well adapted to their application domains, and the brains of their users.

Source: http://jacobsschool.ucsd.edu/contextualrobotics/forum/ASaygin.shtml

Dear Suresh! Thank you! You are right that we have sometimes bifurcate. We think in terms of the modern world, and we both assume that there will be in the future. And here we are often wrong. And the future often do not forgive mistakes.

Vladimir

Are social -cognitive robotics not already speaking, and who knows the difference anymore. Nobody can tell it, once it has a name everything comes into existence. There is no way back because robots never die.

Dear Rita. You are so right that begins unconscious excitement. Mankind is accustomed to war and death. People watch the deaths of migrants at sea. People are used to the inequality of strength and weakness. And on the horizon starts to rise "social Frankenstein". Frankenstein is no stranger to the death of others. He is immortal and robot "Frankenstein" does not need a weak people.

Brilliant points Dr. Vladimir. Yes mankind is accustomed to war and death.

Thank you for understanding, dear Suresh.

The philosophy can't follow the extending field of scientific development of robots.

And there is no one who can retain it. Robots makes us blind for the information laying in us. It seems they do everything better. Is it possible that this society carry the roots for the radicalization of religions.

Whery interesting question .... it put the the template in place to think! And learning from your thoughts , hopefully  " SOCIAL ROBOTS " ged used positively within industry's settings . Not leading to a completely Meltdown of Humanity . Anyway biggest thanks to your all for your input.

Dear Hashem,

There is laying a lot of information in your short answer. Robots makes us blind indeed and the relationship with the radicalization of religions can also be mentioned.

Also the robots are taking over the wars between nations and as they don't know any moral code, the war will never end.

As the robot culture is directly influencing the young children, they are seen as their masters. So far we are.

Dear Rita, Dear Hashem! Dear Peter! Thank you for your understanding of the problem...

Vladimir

Thanks Roman for another informed opinion about the prospects of being a robot.

Thank you, dear Doko!

Making mistakes is not difficult. It is more difficult to recognize and correct mistakes.

Vladimir

Dear Doko! I agree with you. Thank you for your interest in the issue, the future of which is still unclear.