As hard as I tried and as many times as I read that philosophy paper I was still very lost. I came to the conclusion that there was a couple of main points to this argument. In the beginning there seems to be a prominent focus on roboticists being somewhat equal to philosophers. What does this mean exactly? I’m not too sure. There is a slight switch to explaining the difference between the two professions and how their methods could each be improved. The philosophy approach is simple in thought that all things are held to the fullest capacity, a battery never dies or sets on a movie never fail, but through robotics you have an image and once it fails you aim to perfect it.
All though the beginning was a decently understandable read the next few sections were more confusing. Sentience is brought to the picture. This is the awareness of the surroundings, of the world of everything around you. There is a brief discussion of who exactly contains this sentiment and whether many creatures have just adapted to their surroundings or actually hold this so called sentience. This in my opinion slowly ties back into the beginning about robots and if they will ever have the capability to have a sentient mind.
Roboticists keep testing and exploring their ideas. They think they have come up the perfect creations but want to go further, thus causing imperfections. Does this really tie into the philosophical studies of the world and life around us? Again I must say that even what I just wrote probably makes no sense but is truly all I could really take from this intellectual writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment