Re: Rand's robots


"Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1123268546.757954.216990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
>> Physically indestructible or psychologically indestructible?
>
> Physically indestructable.
>
>> Once your physical needs (air, water, food, clothing, shelter, security)
>> are
>> met, then one shifts to meet one's physical wants (fresher air, better
>> tasting liquid, better tasting food, more comfortable and fashionable
>> clothing, temperate climate-controlled home, alarmed and insured home and
>> vehicles, etc.) or psychological needs and wants. There's some kind seven
>> step psychological term for it that I can't remember from high school
>> course
>> on Psychology / Sociology.
>
> I know; there's a hierarchy of needs/wants, but Objectivism completely
> rejects this. All values derive from the goal of self-preservation. An
> indestructible robot, it is claimed, would have no goals and no values.
> Since our only need is, at bottom, self-preservation, it has no needs
> which can be either satisfied or frustrated.
>
> "Even though, in our hypothesis, many alternatives confront the robot
> (to learn science or not, to buy a car or not, etc.) none leads it to
> goal-directed action. There are no reasons to pursue one side of any
> alternative as against the other. There are no grounds, because the
> *fundamental* alternative--the value-generating alternative--does not
> apply in this case. There is no 'to be or not to be'. To an
> indestructible entity, no object can be a value. Only an entity
> *capable of being destroyed and able to prevent it* has a need, an
> interest (if the entity is conscious) a reason to act."
>
> Certainly, these are not three-law robots here; their behavior would
> not greatly change if they were entirely indestructible. One curious
> feature out of many here is that it seems to leave no room for
> reproduction as a goal, a point this talk of robots leads away from.
> People, after all, are not robots. Peikoff claims that plants and
> animals, at bottom, are all and only about *self* preservation. But
> they aren't, of course.

Well then based on the limited evidence from above, Piekov(?) is wrong.

PLEASURE

Pleasure is a major goal that directs our actions not merely survival. In
fact often pleasure often counteracts survival in motivating us. Note the
number of people engaged in unprotected sex, using drugs, smoking,
overeating, engaged in "extreme" sports, skydiving, mountain climbing,
playing football or basketball or baseball despite the increase risk for
injury or even death.

PAIN

Pain is another major motivator. Many have preferred death than face the
prospect of pain, being an ungoing terminal disease or cuz your girlfriend /
boyfriend / spouse left you, or you business crashed and you face bankruptcy
or having to work for a living, or loss of fame, or loss of limb or sensory
organ, etc.

CURIOUSITY

Curiousity killed the cat for a reason. The unknown is prompts a lot of
behavior as well. Hmm, what's this taste like, how's this feel, what's this
sound like, what would it be like to travel here, live there, work in this
place. What if . . . has been the basis for much of art, especially fiction
and acting aka playing "let's pretend".



That's just a few off the top of my head of powerful motivators that have
jack squat to do with survival--or often runs counter to our survival
instinct.

-- Ken from Chicago


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rands robots
    ... > Once your physical needs (air, water, food, clothing, shelter, security) are ... > on Psychology / Sociology. ... these are not three-law robots here; ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: qPCR Satellite Symposium & qPCR Workshop
    ... thumb-nail sketch of leftist psychology. ... they are widespread in our society. ... THE POWER PROCESS ... to have goals whose attainment requires effort, ...
    (sci.nanotech)