You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

this is amazing

Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 4:00pm

Post 1 of 110

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

check this out. 11 million created this. The future looks like it may hold some real AT-AT's

Robot
Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 5:16pm

Post 2 of 110

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Amazing indeed. I've seen all the videos of this and it's most impressive how the thing develops. It's still annoyingly loud though so I guess it's no version intended to sneak up on enemies. wink
Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 5:19pm

Post 3 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Reminds me of the Hunters from HL2:Episode 2 - or maybe their geriatric old relative, anyway. smile

Very cool stuff - the kicking and ice bits in particular are highly impressive. I really had no idea that robotic motion was this advanced - the last thing I saw was some weird Japanese robot struggling to climb a staircase, then falling over backwards.
Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 5:22pm

Post 4 of 110

Rockfilmers

Force: 2182 | Joined: 10th May 2007 | Posts: 1376

VisionLab User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

It never turns. I wonder if it can just walk straght at the moment. The motion was so fluid id looked like a realy misformed dog or something.
Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 5:26pm

Post 5 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Given that it could handle being forcefully turned in a different direction with such aplomb, it would seem strange if it couldn't actually turn corners.
Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 5:33pm

Post 6 of 110

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

i wonder if it can hump your leg or lick its wing nuts lol
Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 8:08pm

Post 7 of 110

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Maybe its just me, but I found that clip to be very funny. biggrin
Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 8:10pm

Post 8 of 110

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

it reminded me of the aimee robot from red planet
Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 8:31pm

Post 9 of 110

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

I found myself being outraged that at 0:45 the guy kicks the thing, it really does have something of the 'alive' about it
Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 8:45pm

Post 10 of 110

Harvey

Force: 2050 | Joined: 29th Apr 2005 | Posts: 513

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

That is really, really cool.

Anyone else think it looks like two people seductively dancing with each other? razz
Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 8:45pm

Post 11 of 110

pixelboy

Force: 3000 | Joined: 13th Feb 2005 | Posts: 439

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Wow, this thing is incredible - I never expected motion so biological as that already eek It's a much more dramatic leap than I'd have thought possible, really.
I too couldn't help but feel sympathetic when the device was kicked - it does have a lot of personality for something without a face...almost like watching a young horse learn to walk or something.
Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 8:54pm

Post 12 of 110

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

the worrying this is what the military will do with it when they get their hands on it. It wont be modified to be a human slave (think of the robotic rights protesters that will come out) Things like this always lead to one thing, being programed to be destructive and an effective war weopon, nothing possitive
Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 9:53pm

Post 13 of 110

fxmaniac

Force: 1653 | Joined: 27th Feb 2007 | Posts: 801

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

haha sounds like a fly razz


its cool, but it can never replace a dog
Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 10:59pm

Post 14 of 110

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

videofxuniverse wrote:

the worrying this is what the military will do with it when they get their hands on it. It wont be modified to be a human slave (think of the robotic rights protesters that will come out) Things like this always lead to one thing, being programed to be destructive and an effective war weopon, nothing possitive
Why would anyone protest for robot rights? They're... robots smile
Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 11:54pm

Post 15 of 110

Frank Grimes

Force: 1255 | Joined: 15th May 2005 | Posts: 80

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

So what does everyone think? 10 quid a ride?

If it can move faster I'd probably go up to 20.

Actually I've just seen the thing go bloody crazy at about 1.30 so scratch that idea
Posted: Mon, 17th Mar 2008, 11:58pm

Post 16 of 110

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1/-1

Darth Penguin wrote:



Why would anyone protest for robot rights? They're... robots smile
50 years ago they said that about black people
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 12:27am

Post 17 of 110

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

videofxuniverse wrote:

Darth Penguin wrote:



Why would anyone protest for robot rights? They're... robots smile
50 years ago they said that about black people
But... robots aren't peope. They're robots. smile
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 12:37am

Post 18 of 110

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I know it was kind of meant as a joke, but with all the stupid political correctness we have nowadays some of which beggers belief it wouldn't surprise me
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 12:53am

Post 19 of 110

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

videofxuniverse wrote:

Darth Penguin wrote:



Why would anyone protest for robot rights? They're... robots smile
50 years ago they said that about black people
Ha... aha... AHAHAHAHA!

You made my day.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 1:09am

Post 20 of 110

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

videofxuniverse wrote:

Darth Penguin wrote:



Why would anyone protest for robot rights? They're... robots smile
50 years ago they said that about black people
Ha... aha... AHAHAHAHA!

You made my day.
You have an odd sense of humor.


Yes, I am aware that videofxuniverse's comment was a joke.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 3:49am

Post 21 of 110

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I saw this in stage one, very cool to see how it's come along. They should give it some kind of AT-AT-like head, just to make it look complete. Right now it looks damn scary.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 4:40am

Post 22 of 110

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Very cool, but every time they cut to a slow motion replay, I started laughing. It's just so very odd.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 6:29am

Post 23 of 110

Dancamfx

Force: 2558 | Joined: 7th Sep 2006 | Posts: 873

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Absolutely amazing! The way it recovers from a fall just blows me away.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 6:35am

Post 24 of 110

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Two words:



I think we all saw what happened there.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 9:55am

Post 25 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member



Anybody?


Regarding robot rights - that only becomes an issue if AI advances past a certain level. If (when?) robots make the shift from simply machines to a level of sentience, that's when things get interesting.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 10:23am

Post 26 of 110

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

that is true, however I hadn't realised we had progressed this far with robotics, so It wont be too long before AI robotics become more human like.

Terminator anyone?
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 11:00am

Post 27 of 110

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I don't normally feel like something is disturbingly in the uncanny valley when I watch mo-cap like Beowulf or even those Japanese animatronic people, but for me at least, this BigDog video is, well...........really, really creepy.

The way it handles the sliding on the ice, mostly, is so organic and human (it looks less like a dog to me and more like two humans leaning inwards towards eachother as they carry a sofa or something equally heavy on their backs. What's more, the way the robot negotiates recovery after being kicked is so strangely independent that I have a hard time believing that it doesn't have a brain. How are such precise reactions to the physics of the situation possible?

Cool, but very creepy and almost disturbing.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 11:22am

Post 28 of 110

Dead Iris

Force: 1329 | Joined: 24th Jul 2007 | Posts: 199

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

It can turn I believe. It kinda turned when it slipped on the ice.

But as Sol said, it's friggin loud. I'm sure they're working on the noise factor though.

Guys want another cool advancement in robotics? I found this neat little doo hickey. Most of you might have seen it though. Get ready Halo fans:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IYWd2C3XVIk

Within a few years this could be very advanced technology.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 11:30am

Post 29 of 110

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Why would anyone protest for robot rights? They're... robots
I've always had the idea that in the probably not-so-distant-anymore future, robotics, cybernetics and positronics will be so far advanced that it will only be a matter of time until we'll probably have to re-evaluate our rather small view of "life" and that this very debate - if a robot has rights or if it is just a robot - will become much more then just science fiction.

I expect robots and general AI to grow and develop until you can indeed hardly draw a line between an organic lifeform and an artificial lifeform anymore.
I've been to a scientific exhibition yesterday from the ETH in zuerich, which is one of the world wide leaders in cybernetic technology (the communication between organic cells and robotics) and what I've seen there was pretty mindblowing in parts. I expect especially that arm of science, where organic parts will merge seamlessly with technology, a line will be harder to draw with every step forward. And some basic "ethics" will have to be redefined.

Fascinating stuff. Though still mostly future music. But looking at videos like this makes me aware that it will not be science-fiction for very long.

Ah, I love it.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 11:36am

Post 30 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Sollthar wrote:

I've always had the idea that in the probably not-so-distant-anymore future, robotics, cybernetics and positronics will be so far advanced that it will only be a matter of time until we'll probably have to re-evaluate our rather small view of "life"
Is positronics an actual field of robotic science now? The 'positronic brain' was something made up by Asimov back in the 1930s, but as fas I'm aware he simply used the term 'positronic' because positrons had only just been discovered and it sounded like a cool sci-fi term. Star Trek then 'borrowed' the term for Data's brain as well, in the 80s.

Ah, I love it.
Ditto. smile
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 11:43am

Post 31 of 110

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

videofxuniverse wrote:

Darth Penguin wrote:



Why would anyone protest for robot rights? They're... robots smile
50 years ago they said that about black people
I know you said this partly as a joke, but that's one hell of a valid point...where is 'the line'?

Germany 60-odd years ago, Jews were not treated as people/humans. So using 'people' as a definition is flawed.

Or in the video, the kick the guy gives it at 0:45 would be a definite case for prosecution (in the civilised world, I like to think) against say a donkey, calf or pony. He hasn't been arrested, so sentience must play a role. A robot with AI? How about an AI implant inside a "meat" body? What about a brain-retarded animal?

We assume chickens aren't that smart, but they're smarter in some respects than 5-year-old humans (eg the ability to defer gratification for a greater reward). Should we send chickens into human warzones (wars they didn't start!) as cannon fodder? Dogs? Slaves? Poor people? Jews? 5-year-olds? What is 'the line', and *why*?

The whole area of AI is fascinating too - how do we reconise sentience when it evolves? The Turing Test (look it up if you don't know it, it's interesting) would have us do so by looking at the external characteristics (in which case sentience is very close in the lab), even though you could demonsrably argue it was nothing but electronics. Blade Runner, anyone?

Sorry for the slight offtopic, but videofxuniverse's point raises some really interesting questions.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 12:10pm

Post 32 of 110

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Think how this "robotic rights" has been portrayed in some scifi films

I Robot
A.I.
Biomechanical man (not sure how its spelt properly, its the one with robin williams)
One of the animatrix cartoons. This had an excellent storyline showing how man used robots as slaves then turned on them. It kind of explains how the machines in the matrix hate humans.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 12:20pm

Post 33 of 110

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I've always had the idea that in the probably not-so-distant-anymore future, robotics, cybernetics and positronics will be so far advanced that it will only be a matter of time until we'll probably have to re-evaluate our rather small view of "life" and that this very debate - if a robot has rights or if it is just a robot - will become much more then just science fiction.
True enough... but haven't people been saying this EXACT thing for the last 50 years? I mean, in the 1960s, people were CONVINCED that within a few decades we'd have robots that could not only do all our housework and chores, but would also be able to think and act independently...

Until then, I think that "robot rights" is a non-issue. Especially as there are so many tanglible human rights issues that we should all be doing more to resolve.

Cheers,
Arktic.

PS - pdrg, have you ever read any of Ned Block's stuff on AI and the Turing Test?
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 12:27pm

Post 34 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Some excellent points there pdrg, but...

pdrg wrote:

Should we send chickens into human warzones (wars they didn't start!) as cannon fodder?
I couldn't help but laugh at that. razz
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 12:51pm

Post 35 of 110

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

i suppose it makes a difference from being taken to the slaughterhouse
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 2:18pm

Post 36 of 110

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

pdrg wrote:

videofxuniverse wrote:

Darth Penguin wrote:



Why would anyone protest for robot rights? They're... robots smile
50 years ago they said that about black people
I know you said this partly as a joke, but that's one hell of a valid point...where is 'the line'?

Germany 60-odd years ago, Jews were not treated as people/humans. So using 'people' as a definition is flawed.

Or in the video, the kick the guy gives it at 0:45 would be a definite case for prosecution (in the civilised world, I like to think) against say a donkey, calf or pony. He hasn't been arrested, so sentience must play a role. A robot with AI? How about an AI implant inside a "meat" body? What about a brain-retarded animal?

We assume chickens aren't that smart, but they're smarter in some respects than 5-year-old humans (eg the ability to defer gratification for a greater reward). Should we send chickens into human warzones (wars they didn't start!) as cannon fodder? Dogs? Slaves? Poor people? Jews? 5-year-olds? What is 'the line', and *why*?
The thing that makes robots different is that they aren't alive, they can't feel or think, regardless of how well they can or ever will be able to simulate that they can.
You shouldn't ever compare robots to anything that's alive, it would be more accurate to compare it to a computer... that's what it is after all.


-Jabooza
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 2:37pm

Post 37 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Jabooza wrote:

The thing that makes robots different is that they aren't alive, they can't feel or think, regardless of how well they can or ever will be able to simulate that they can.
You shouldn't ever compare robots to anything that's alive, it would be more accurate to compare it to a computer... that's what it is after all.
The human brain is nothing more than an organic computer, though. It uses various sensors (eyes, ears, touch, smell etc), processes it according to what it has learnt, and decides on a course of action that will best determine its continued survival. Essentially it's not much different to the way a computer works, it's just (currently) vastly, vastly more complex.

If a robot is capable of sensing things - visuals, sounds, touch etc - and is capable of processing them, then it could in theory do everything a human does. Make it complex enough and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Both an electronic and an organic brain would work in similar ways. They're both running 'simulations' that take data and then come to conclusions based upon that data.

Of course, there's other factors such as 'the soul' (or lack thereof), but that's even more hypothetical.

A lot of what humans assume set us apart as something 'special' and 'different' to other animals/machines is actually just massive complexity. It's nothing supernatural. It's all arisen from survival needs over millions of years.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 3:09pm

Post 38 of 110

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

"The human brain is nothing more than an organic computer".

I don't agree with that at all. Computers and the human brain are utterly different. Even assuming the computer is running AI software it is still very different to the human brain.

Computers uses switches that are either on or off, neurons are more than just on or off and are constantly changing. A computer is a machine that just manipulates data according to a list of instructions. The brain is capable of imagination!

There is more we don't understand about the brain than we do understand.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 3:31pm

Post 39 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

schwar wrote:

"The human brain is nothing more than an organic computer".

I don't agree with that at all. Computers and the human brain are utterly different.
Well, yes. They work in completely different ways, but ultimately they are still being used for similar purposes - they take outside stimuli, process it, and come out with a result.

I'd argue that even creativity and invention fall into that category, just working on such a ridiculously advanced level that it seems like something else. Similar to the way Creationists claim that the eye 'proves' that there has to be intelligent design, whereas it's actually just a logically very advanced example of natural selection.

Sure, they work in totally separate ways, with different systems, but that wasn't really what I was getting at. This is more about hypothetical future technical, which will be about as far removed from current computer technology as our brains are from single celled things blibbing about in the sea. smile

Last edited Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 3:45pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 3:32pm

Post 40 of 110

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Well in the future where you can hold a convincing conversation with a robot, where it has to compute an answer, that and it has learning capabilities, in the fact what it sees, touches and is told, remembers that data. and uses it in the conversation would you not feel bad about giving it a kick? Or would you think, its just a robot?

I suppose none of us can really answer that question until faced with the situation. But imagine you have this robot that looks very human and talks like one too. If you gave it a big kick in the leg or pushed it over on to the tarmac, do you think you would feel guilt or feel bad about the whole thing, when the conversation you just had with it made it feel like a real person.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 3:55pm

Post 41 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Considering how people reacted to the Companion Cube, I don't think intelligent conversation is required for people to feel bad about inanimate objects. smile
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 3:59pm

Post 42 of 110

Koradin

Force: 1420 | Joined: 15th May 2007 | Posts: 130

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I can just see it now, chickens from the moment they are hatched will be trained as elite soldiers and sent in to the toughest war zones.

Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 4:10pm

Post 43 of 110

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Computers uses switches that are either on or off, neurons are more than just on or off and are constantly changing.
I did a bit of work, yyyeeeaaarrrsss ago with analogue computing systems - capacitors, inductors, potential differences and resistors. Nothing on/off about them, all to do with analogue values changing over time.

But, the bigger question - where is 'the line'...

What about 25000-cell cultures arranged to learn how to respond to stimuli http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/16/rat_brained_android/ (fun version ) or http://www.bme.ufl.edu/documents/the_neurally_10.pdf (the actual research without the overexcitement)?

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 4:30pm

Post 44 of 110

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

schwar wrote:

"The human brain is nothing more than an organic computer".

I don't agree with that at all. Computers and the human brain are utterly different.
Well, yes. They work in completely different ways, but ultimately they are still being used for similar purposes - they take outside stimuli, process it, and come out with a result.
I'm agreeing with schwar here. The human body functions off of electrical impulses but it's much different from a computer, as schwar noted, in that neurons do more than just switch something on or off when they fire: they can do millions of things. Big difference.

Another thing, and this really, really is something to think about, regardless of religious ideals: are humans and their brains not more than just a muscle-covered skeletal structure run by electricity? If so, why can't we just reanimated freshly-deceased corpses by mere running current through them? Even full humans that have opted for cryogenics when death approaches have yet to be successfully revived. It just doesn't work like that.

The point is, there's more to the human brain than just simple yes-no operators that are so vast they can do advanced things. Call it human intuition or, if religious, a 'soul' that governs the difference between life and death, but something gives us our imagination, creativity, and other artistic and spontaneous aspects of life.

The human existence to me is much like the tenth dimension: it just is. There's no physical or explicable thing outside of your tissues and impulses that should give you intuition, mercy, creativity or the like- and yet you have all these feelings. I'm sure there's an explanation, (higher power or otherwise) but that's not really something I think we'll soon comprehend. As such, I don't see 'robot laws' or self-aware, imagination-using computers anywhere near our lifetime. We can't even understand the architecture of the human brain's capacity for learning yet, how can we be so bold as to think we can create it?

I dunno, but I started talking about this with my friend (who openly denies the severity of global warming- changing the weather is God's will, etc- and is a far-right creationist, though he supports natural selection) and we both acknowledged the likely possibility of God's will- or something else- as the invisible force behind how human beings think and function, all electrical and mechanical deductions aside. The tenth dimension (in string theory, if you choose to believe that) also sort of explains this, as I said earlier, in that it exists as a dot full of all the other dimensions. It is literally the ceiling in dimensionality, and it exists within nothing. Sort of an amazing concept, really.

Bah, I've gotten too in depth and philosophical for my own good here. Sorry if I'm spurring controversy, it's not my intention! biggrin
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 4:46pm

Post 45 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

ben3308 wrote:

schwar wrote:

"The human brain is nothing more than an organic computer".

I don't agree with that at all. Computers and the human brain are utterly different.
I'm agreeing with schwar here. The human body functions off of electrical impulses but it's much different from a computer, as schwar noted, in that neurons do more than just switch something on or off when they fire: they can do millions of things. Big difference.
Why is everyone comparing modern day computers to the human brain? Of course the human brain is more sophisticated than current computers. That's blatantly obvious. smile My discussion was more that in basic concept (not actual functionality) they're intended to do the same kind of thing.

As for a computer brain that could rival a human brain, that's clearly a long way off. My main argument is that it's entirely possible and, in fact, rather likely. But yeah, it won't be using Intel Quad Cores.

Another thing, and this really, really is something to think about, regardless of religious ideals: are humans and their brains not more than just a muscle-covered skeletal structure run by electricity?
On the idea of the 'soul'...the obvious answer is: I have no idea. Clearly, I have literally, absolutely no idea. Neither does anybody else. To try and guess wildly seems a bit strange to me, though I do agree it's an absolutely fascinating concept, and worth thinking about. But to actually believe in a specific explanation I don't think makes much sense - to hypothesise, though, I think is great. The idea of a 'soul' is something I find extremely appealing - it's one of the main reasons I've really enjoyed reading His Dark Materials which, surprisingly, is the complete opposite of what it's made out to be, and is actually very spiritual.

HOWEVER. What I take issue with in your statement there, Ben, is the derogatory statement that, without a soul, we are 'just' muscle, skeleton and electricity. The dismissive use of 'just' implies that it's nothing special, nothing remarkable.

With or without a soul, surely it's absolutely incredible? It's staggeringly awesome. A soul would be an added bonus, sure, but even without one, a Human is utterly stunning. I think that's where I tend to differ with religous people, in that they seem to think that an animal without a soul (ie, all animals other than humans) are somehow 'inferior'. Whereas I think simply by being life they're already inherently astonishing.

The point is, there's more to the human brain than just simple yes-no operators that are so vast they can do advanced things.
Again, to my above point: Why the 'just'? Why is this not sufficiently amazing? Where does the need for 'more' (ie, the soul) actually come from?

It actually seems a bit greedy to me. razz Like your parents giving you an absolutely awesome car for your birthday, and then you complaining because it's the wrong colour. wink

Don't get me wrong, though: I love the idea of the 'soul' and do indeed have my own theories on that. I just don't think a soul is necessary for life to be worth something.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 4:52pm

Post 46 of 110

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Rating: +2

Too much of the brain's activity is too easily dismissed as "Ker-azy sh*t we'll never comprehend in a billion years". Equally, too much is often labeled as simply "the result of a complicated logic circuit", but there are many shades of gray.

Spontaneity, imagination and creativity are no more metaphysical than any other machine rising to the challenge of a problem. What makes understanding the brain trickier is that as a human organ (and much more besides) its tricky not to anthropomorphise it. You begin to imagine that something is so complicated, no mere human could do it, but your brain isn't a human, its a supercomputer.

You can look at the roof of the Sistene Chapel and say "now that is an example of man's spontaneous innovation and the workings of a 'Soul'" but you could just as plausibly say "now there is an example of a man solving a personal financial crisis by doing some paid work and in doing so, displaying his super-acute understanding of light, shade and form to satiate his own sense of completion". Its too easy to look at the complicated result itself and deduce there is no reverse path - it must be the soul!! ooooOOoooh!.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 4:59pm

Post 47 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Xcession wrote:

Its too easy to look at the complicated result itself and deduce there is no reverse path - it must be the soul!! ooooOOoooh!.
Exactamundo. That's the same thing I was referring to in my earlier post regarding the creation of the eye. It's so amazing, you presume it must have an intelligent origin, but that's only due to a lack of imagination and broad thinking on our part.

It's also important to remember that stuff like art didn't just suddenly spring up magically, as some incredible, unique human 'thing'. It would have developed gradually out of more essential communications techniques, which would have got more and more elaborate, and then diversified off into other areas. Most artistic endeavours still have 'communication' as their foundation (however loosely), which is simply a core part of survival. Humans are just fortunate to have developed communications to a vastly complex and sophisticated level.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 5:04pm

Post 48 of 110

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn, let me delineate.

I do not mean to be dismissive of the architecture of the human brain, body, and organ systems as amazing: they're the most incredible thing I think we'll ever know. I am simply diminishing them with my 'justs' to illustrate the fact that even beyond the inconceivable complexity of the body, the 'soul' or intricate, unknown, higher-brain function (whichever you want to assume, and I do believe either is possible. It could be the soul, whatever a soul even is) is much grander in complexity.

Think about this: human musculature, skeletal support, and organ systems are so largely complex that it's hard to discount them. But then consider something like a soul that not only supersedes such an awesome device, but governs it. That's why I'm making such a big deal about the 'invisible force' of creative ingenuity and not simply the 'sack of meat covered in electricity'. biggrin

EDIT:

I also don't think it's a fallacy to attribute artistic endeavors to spontaneous ingenuity. Rather, from my point of view it's a bit of a fallacy that you attribute them to an evolved communication. From the other side, I think that assumption in and of itself, too, is failing to be as open-minded as we should be. wink

Basically, I'm using 'soul' as a device to describe traits that currently have no explanation. Outside-forced things that as of yet really are inexplicable. Don't even take it as a religious thing if you don't have to, think of 'soul' as....well....the thing that runs everything else. And back to the tenth dimension comparison I go... biggrin

Last edited Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 5:07pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 5:07pm

Post 49 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

ben3308 wrote:

That's why I'm making such a big deal about the 'invisible force' of creative ingenuity and not simply the 'sack of meat covered in electricity'. biggrin
You might be a sack of meat. I'm a beautiful and unique snowflake.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 5:08pm

Post 50 of 110

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Basically, I'm using 'soul' as a device to describe traits that currently have no explanation. Outside-forced things that as of yet really are inexplicable. Don't even take it as a religious thing if you don't have to, think of 'soul' as....well....the thing that runs everything else. And back to the tenth dimension comparison I go...
Please list these inexplicable outside forces.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 5:10pm

Post 51 of 110

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I think souls give us imagination, intuition, ingenuity, mercy, creativity, and a lot of the things that are largely unexplained by the brain. The impossible architecture of the functions of neurons- functions that are more than just yes-no things- I attribute to governance of 'the soul'.

You can claim artistry to be an evolved function of communication, mercy and compassion to be evolved concessions necessary for survival and etcetera, but this isn't quite something I can accept all the way. I don't think anyone should accept this, actually. Not yet at least. Religiously-speaking, this is why I have more respect for agnostics than atheists: because the former question things and show doubt, the latter are resolved in their denial. (Sorry if denial has a negative connotation, I couldn't think of another word.)

As I conceded, the 'soul' could very well be a higher-order brain function instilled in us that we do not understand: but that does not mean that I believe in it any less.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 5:14pm

Post 52 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

ben3308 wrote:

I also don't think it's a fallacy to attribute artistic endeavors to spontaneous ingenuity. Rather, from my point of view it's a bit of a fallacy that you attribute them to an evolved communication. From the other side, I think that assumption in and of itself, too, is failing to be as open-minded as we should be. wink
Perhaps, but then there's not much point thinking up something even more complicated to explain something that is already really complicated.

Obviously I'm not expert on the either art OR the brain. smile But to my mind, describing it as a developed form of communication seems to work quite neatly. I have no reason to need to think of anything else. If someone brings someone that doesn't 'fit', then, sure, I'll reconsider.

Basically, I'm using 'soul' as a device to describe traits that currently have no explanation
However, if you can explain something simply, then it makes more sense to do that than think of something that is more complex. Explaining our massively advanced brains and sentience with 'a soul' doesn't actually explain anything. All it does is introduce a new elements, which is even complex, and which also is unexplained. So the 'soul' explanation actually just muddies the waters, and doesn't explain anything.

In a lot of cases people seem to jump to the 'soul' explanation as a way of actually avoiding having to think sensibly about something. I'm not saying you're doing that, though, of course. wink
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 5:18pm

Post 53 of 110

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

imagination - you mean the ability to project into a hypothetical situation to look for solutions or answers? That sounds a lot like the application of experience and planning to me, something our weather computers have been able to do for quite a while

intuition - understanding without apparent effort, quick and ready insight seemingly independent of previous experiences or empirical knowledge? Is it not simpler to conceive of a learning machine which can rewrite shortcuts to various data stores based on one situations similarity to another?

ingenuity - skill or cleverness in devising or combining? Isn't that surely the result of experience?

mercy - the ability to conclude that you might be personally better off with an ally, rather than with an enemy? That knowledge is common to practically everything with >1 cell!

creativity - just a combination of the above.


I'm afraid I don't see anything magical at work here. I just see advanced logic.

Last edited Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 5:23pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 5:22pm

Post 54 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

ben3308 wrote:

I think souls give us imagination, intuition, ingenuity, mercy, creativity, and a lot of the things that are largely unexplained by the brain.
All of those can be explained through survival needs, though, and quite easily.

Religiously-speaking, this is why I have more respect for agnostics than atheists: because the former question things and show doubt, the latter are resolved in their denial. (Sorry if denial has a negative connotation, I couldn't think of another word.)
Atheists aren't necessarily absolute and unwavering in their beliefs. I'm sure some are, but it would be a pretty silly way to live your life. That would basically be a fundamentalist atheist, I suppose.

I count myself as an atheist, but not to the extent that I cease thinking about the nature of the universe, of the possibility of God etc etc. I'm still totally open to the possibility of God, it's just that in my current position I see no reason to think of God as being more likely than not.

An agnostic, however, is someone that specifically says that the chance of God existing is 50/50. I don't agree with those odds at all, so I'm not agnostic. However, I'm not 100% sure that there ISN'T a God, because there's no way I can prove that either.

So I'd say it's the other way around, if anything - agnostics are people that don't really want to think about it, so just sit on the fence.

Atheists (or SENSIBLE atheists, at least) have thought about it, and have a position, but are still open to new evidence. I consider SENSIBLE religious people to be the same - they have their viewpoint, but they're also open to new evidence (to support either stance).
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 5:32pm

Post 55 of 110

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

without all the biology stuff and complex explanations of microbes brains and circuits, i liked the simple explanation of if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like one, real or man made if it shows little difference between the 2 then will we feel bad about being nasty to it
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 5:35pm

Post 56 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

videofxuniverse wrote:

without all the biology stuff and complex explanations of microbes brains and circuits, i liked the simple explanation of if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like one, real or man made if it shows little difference between the 2 then will we feel bad about being nasty to it
I get the feeling that if something reacts to a negative force - ie, if it displays 'pain' or 'hurt', then we can't help but associate it with 'life' and 'real feelings'. Even if we logically know they are completely simulated, it can still have an effect.

It's probably related to the way that a fictional movie can still have a huge emotional impact, even though we know it's totally fabricated. Just because we KNOW a robot duck is just a robot duck, it doesn't mean we can be nasty to it without feeling strange about it.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 6:28pm

Post 57 of 110

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Sadly, I don't have very long to write this (I've just moved house and we're waiting for them to connect the internet tubes to our house)...

But... this is a topic I'm really interested in, and here's a great analogy to show (theoretically) why a computer can never have a 'mind' as such:

Imagine this - it is many years in the future, and a computer has been invented which acts EXACTLY as if it understands Chinese. It can converse with humans in perfect Chinese - you ask it anything in Chinese, and it'll output the perfect response every time. It's so sophisticated, it can pass the Turing Test, fooling Chinese speaking humans into believing they're talking to another Chinese speaking human.

So, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and speaks Chinese like a duck, the logical conclusion is that the machine understands Chinese... right?

Now, instead imagine that you are in a room. There are two letter slots in door of the room, one marked 'IN' and the other marked 'OUT'. Also in the room is a book, which contains all the rules of the computer programme, with things such as "When symbol X is inputted, please output symbol Y".

In this room, Chinese symbols are passed to you in the 'IN' slot. You then read through the book until you find the apropriate answer, write it down on another piece of paper, and slide it through the 'OUT' slot. Of course, you don't actually understand what the Chinese words say, but you can just follow the rules of the book.

Because the programme is perfect, and can pass the Turing Test, and because you're just following the rules of the programme (except manually by hand), anyone outside the room seeing the questions input, and the correct answers output, will think that the person inside the room speaks perfect Chinese. There's no way an person outside the room could tell that you don't speak Chinese, because they invariably observe the correct answers output to any input question.

But you still don't understand Chinese, right?

Basically, what this analogy shows (in quite simple terms) is that neither the person inside the room, nor the computer programme, actually 'understand' anything. They're just manipulating "meaningless symbols". Because this is all the computer can ever do, and because it doesn't have the ability to have mental states, it can never truly understand or have inteligence.

Of course, the computer dosen't have a limit to how it can behave - it can be programmed to do all sorts of things that mimic human behaviour (to the point that it'd be really, really difficult to tell them apart) - but because it doesn't have the ability to have intentionality in the same way a human brain does, it can never 'understand'.

This has been one of the enduring arguments against the possibility of AI (specifically what is refered to in the philosophy of artificial intelligense as 'Strong AI'). It is known as the Chinese Room argument, and was written by John Searle in the 80s.

Cheers,
Arktic.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 7:14pm

Post 58 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

in both cases there, though, with both the human and the machine example, you're not talking about 'understanding' at all. The machine designed there clearly isn't designed to 'understand', but to pretend based on question/answer scenarios. It's not really comparing like for like, so is a bit unfair. And you're also talking about the most basic of ai systems - eliza type stuff. Surely this isn't the limit of what can be created?

Turing shouldn't just be about questions, but active participation in a fluid conversation.

More to the point, though, surely what you describe in this example is the basics of communication? It's where our ancestors would have started, and the level at which some animals communicate now. So not a bad start.

Last edited Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 8:56pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 8:36pm

Post 59 of 110

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

videofxuniverse wrote:

the worrying this is what the military will do with it when they get their hands on it. It wont be modified to be a human slave (think of the robotic rights protesters that will come out) Things like this always lead to one thing, being programed to be destructive and an effective war weopon, nothing possitive
Well, it was funded by the Defense Agency. Obviously it'll end up in military applications.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 8:49pm

Post 60 of 110

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Um...



???

This movie raised a lot of the questions presented in this thread, so if you haven't already, you should definitely watch it.

There was an 'anti-robot' festival scene in this movie that proves very interesting. David, the boy you see on the left, is somehow thrown into it, and even though he is a robot, people are convinced he's just a boy. And even when they know he is, they can't stop from feeling guilt if they would have killed him.
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 9:17pm

Post 61 of 110

The Flying Fox

Force: 1316 | Joined: 1st Sep 2007 | Posts: 155

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Although this thread is dealing with the workings of the "mind", "brain" and "soul". You can't call something alive unless it meets the following criteria:(as we all know)

The Seven Life Processes of Life

Movement :The ability to move all or part of the organism.
Reproduction :The ability to produce more of its kind.
Sensitivity :The ability of an organism to respond.
Nutrition :The ability to take in food or raw materials to support other life processes.
Excretion :The removal of waste materials which the cells have made and may be poisonous.
Respiration :The ability to take in oxygen & give out carbon dioxide to make energy.
Growth :The increase in size & complexity of an organism.

We have Sensitivity and movement out of the way for robotic "life" but until the others are achieved, robotic life, and rights aren't applicable.

Am I being narrow minded? Maybe.

Logic is a premise of things happening because they do, the nature of the universe and the particles that consist of it, e.g hot air rises. Things just happen, so it is arguable that life is just an infinitely complex instance of thngs just happening.

So for instance in wanting to catch a moving ball ball, photon from sun hits ball, reflected in direction of a being, photon hits eye, energy converted to electricity, electricity travels through path to brain where it affects tissue and re-sent to another part of the body to induce reaction of a muscle.

This is how a robot would function, Input, Process, Output, so what is the real difference? Sentient beings are not exact, like computers and calculations. For a computer, 2+2 will always be 4, end of story. Sentient beings have no such absolute, they decide that it is four, but can be changed at any time, to 1. Something in the Process of the operation allows that freedom, mistakes.

Prepared for arguments against.

Tim
Posted: Tue, 18th Mar 2008, 9:31pm

Post 62 of 110

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I just keep getting this thought that we may have somehow opened the road for skynet and a bunch of arnie's crushing your head into the rubble of a nuclear wasteland.
Posted: Wed, 19th Mar 2008, 12:52am

Post 63 of 110

Rocinante

Force: 1430 | Joined: 28th Jun 2007 | Posts: 116

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Harvey wrote:


Anyone else think it looks like two people seductively dancing with each other? razz
Exactly my first impression, I wasn't sure if it was people dancing around under a hightech looking sheet razz especially when it slips on the ice.

yet after they took it inside and you could really see it you could tell its really robot-type-thing.

Pretty cool!

Rocinante
Posted: Wed, 19th Mar 2008, 2:11am

Post 64 of 110

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

The Flying Fox wrote:


We have Sensitivity and movement out of the way for robotic "life" but until the others are achieved, robotic life, and rights aren't applicable.
We are incredibly arbitrary and inconsistent about what life has rights and what doesn't, of course, so life can't enter into the argument. We in the West find the eating of dog meat as absurd as Hinduism finds the eating of beef. Logic doesn't enter into that side of things...

Sentient beings have no such absolute, they decide that it is four, but can be changed at any time, to 1. Something in the Process of the operation allows that freedom, mistakes.
If a program is written that allows the computer to make mistakes, does that then make the computer sentient?

Of course, the computer dosen't have a limit to how it can behave - it can be programmed to do all sorts of things that mimic human behaviour (to the point that it'd be really, really difficult to tell them apart) - but because it doesn't have the ability to have intentionality in the same way a human brain does, it can never 'understand'.
I don't see what the difference is between a brain created in a lab being able to 'understand' compared with a human meat brain. Or a chicken brain, for instance. Are we saying you can make a computer chicken brain equivalent with a computer, but not a human brain equivalent? If so, isn't that shockingly naïve and delusional that only humans are capable of understanding? Can dolphins 'understand'? I gather there's compelling evidence that they do, so it can't be a purely human condition - so all our computer model seems to be lacking is complexity and enough power, and we will have the power soon. Hey, even a lot of helpdesk tier-1 stuff is handled online by bots now...

And as for the Chinese letters thought experiment - in the case that I repeat the job for months, and reduce my reliance on the rulebook by internalising those rules in my head, am I not starting to learn and understand something of the language, even if I don't know the nouns, I might start to observe patterns, especially if what I post OUT affects what I get next as IN, and I can learn a lot of the language, chimp-style. Then I *do* understand chinese, albeit with a poor vocabulary. My 2p.

smile
Posted: Wed, 19th Mar 2008, 6:20am

Post 65 of 110

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

We're not arguing humans and juxtaposing their thought with robotic possibility, though, are we?

Surely this all pertains to sentient beings. (which would include dolphins) Personally, however elitist (to who it would be I don't see) or narrow-minded, but I refuse to believe any being or robot can or should surpass the being that is sentient humans.

Everything aside, I'm simply in awe of the complexity of the human body and brain and marvel at how amazing humans have built and collapsed this earth. I don't think or want to think, again however naive that may be, that any robotic force or other being could do it the same way. For better or for worse.

Humanity is just plain profound by itself. There's no need to overcomplicate or simplify that.
Posted: Wed, 19th Mar 2008, 9:12am

Post 66 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Atom wrote:

Personally, however elitist (to who it would be I don't see) or narrow-minded, but I refuse to believe any being or robot can or should surpass the being that is sentient humans.
Eh? So if aliens showed up on our doorstep, thereby demonstrating significantly more advanced technology and science (in order to have crossed a considerable distance in space), you'd refuse to believe in them?

Entirely hypothetical, of course, but it just seems like an odd assumption to make.

Also, don't forget that intelligence/skill/creativity etc varies HUGELY in humans. I'm pretty certain that there are some dogs, dolphins, cats and apes that are more intelligent than some humans. razz
Posted: Wed, 19th Mar 2008, 4:53pm

Post 67 of 110

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

I'm pretty certain that there are some dogs, dolphins, cats and apes that are more intelligent than some humans. razz
I'd gladly argue that with you. smile

Although the prospect of that situation I'm certain we'd never know for sure. We dominate/have the ability to dominate both dogs, dolphins, cats, and apes- which at least on a very basic level would seem fit to title us as superior, wouldn't it?

I'm sure one could allude to slaves and the domination of the white man over them (which were by no means superior humans) to invalidate this point, but on a species level I really wonder: Do you not think, with what humans know currently, that we are quite clearly the highest sentient being?
Posted: Wed, 19th Mar 2008, 5:22pm

Post 68 of 110

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Atom wrote:

Do you not think, with what humans know currently, that we are quite clearly the highest sentient being?
Highest on what scale? Dolphins right now are asking...
Do you not think, with what dolphins know currently, that we are quite clearly the highest sentient being?

If you measure it on the human scale, we win, on a dolphin scale (echo locating fish with our noses, making squeally noises, really good at swimming) we suck. As a part of the system we cannot view it objectively, there is no absolute system of better/worse, higher/lower, so applying our own paradigm will always bring us out on top. Classic error, assuming your personal value system is absolute, causes lots of wars.

As you pointed out yourself, the ability to dominate is NOT related to sentience/intelligence - quite often the reverse is true...
Posted: Wed, 19th Mar 2008, 7:19pm

Post 69 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Atom wrote:

Tarn wrote:

I'm pretty certain that there are some dogs, dolphins, cats and apes that are more intelligent than some humans. razz
I'd gladly argue that with you. smile
I can tell you've never worked in an after-sales technical support job. wink
Posted: Wed, 19th Mar 2008, 8:31pm

Post 70 of 110

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

I can tell you've never worked in an after-sales technical support job. wink
Ah, but you're still assuming things on a human scale. I myself have moved onward to the more-highly sophisticated dolphin scale. smile
Posted: Wed, 19th Mar 2008, 9:10pm

Post 71 of 110

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Tarn wrote:

I can tell you've never worked in an after-sales technical support job. wink
Ah, but you're still assuming things on a human scale. I myself have moved onward to the more-highly sophisticated dolphin scale. smile
excellent biggrin
Posted: Wed, 19th Mar 2008, 11:23pm

Post 72 of 110

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Flipper and I both agree, by the way, pdrg.
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 1:27am

Post 73 of 110

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Arrogance of superiority is mans biggest flaw. Because we have independent thinking, wear clothes, create technology, use man made transport and have an education does not make us superior dominant species. After all we treat our planet and each other like shit, we only think of our own lives and what we can get from them. We don't own this planet, we are merely renting it. Earth has been around a lot longer than we have, and there are species that have lived here a lot longer than man. All it takes is another ice age to wipe out mankind (again) just to prove how vulnerable we really are. We may think we dominate this planet and have superior intelligence over all other beings but for how long? What comes after man, whether it be a nuclear war or an alien species that comes down just to show us who is boss and put us in our place.

All i am saying is we are arrogant to think we are the most intelligent beings around, when in actual fact the furthest man has ever got is our own bloody moon, meet a species that has mastered intergalactic travel then we really know who is more intelligent
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 1:42am

Post 74 of 110

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

videofxuniverse wrote:

All i am saying is we are arrogant to think we are the most intelligent beings around, when in actual fact the furthest man has ever got is our own bloody moon, meet a species that has mastered intergalactic travel then we really know who is more intelligent
That's ridiculous because firstly we're a very young species in contrast with the universe and secondly you're assuming there is intelligent life out somewhere on the final frontier. Even then, how do you not know that humans have got the farthest in space travel?

Perhaps there's a space race like Sputnik going on right now between the Plutonians. smile

You can only know something within the realm and means of the knowledge mankind has the capacity for. And in that, I'd say we are- quite clearly the dominant species. For the very reasons you listed. This is almost a ridiculous argument though, really. Why would you refute or diminish the accomplishments and profoundness of your own kind when you've got but other animals to compare it too?
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 1:50am

Post 75 of 110

videofxuniverse

Force: 595 | Joined: 4th Feb 2005 | Posts: 559

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

because we are merely animals too. We may not like to admit that but when we go to basics its what we are.

The lion in the jungle dominates his pride, just like in my house i dominate it. I firmly believe that yes we have come a long way on this planet with what we have accomplished but no way do i believe we are alone in this vast universe, especially when there is scientific proof that we are always being visited by other beings. The only reason its not common knowldge is because the government like to keep it under wraps so we dont all go into a religious frenzy or panic. Its also why we have area 51 the most top secret military base in the world for research on downed ufo's to see if we can replicate the technology
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 3:38am

Post 76 of 110

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

videofxuniverse wrote:

planet with what we have accomplished but no way do i believe we are alone in this vast universe, especially when there is scientific proof that we are always being visited by other beings. The only reason its not common knowldge is because the government like to keep it under wraps so we dont all go into a religious frenzy or panic. Its also why we have area 51 the most top secret military base in the world for research on downed ufo's to see if we can replicate the technology
You're mixing a lot of speculation in that post. Mind outlining some of these constant interactions with other cosmic beings? Unless you yourself have been to it and had some interaction, I have no reason to believe any of it is more than fantasized opinion. After all, Area 51 could be, and likely is, merely a hyped-up airplane hangar. Just hype. No more full of aliens and UFOs than my Splinter Cell movie is finished.
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 4:35am

Post 77 of 110

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Wow I read the first page of this thread, watched the video, then thought "cool", and left. Then I come back and you guys are talking about aliens?

razz
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 4:50am

Post 78 of 110

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Even after I concede on the whole religion and soul thing (albeit ignoring Xcession's logic for fear of breaking forum rules) I didn't quite expect another controversy to be brought up......



.....but then videofxuniverse decides to argue the confirmed, for sure existence of alien life. In the Nevada salt flats, no less! biggrin
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 5:03am

Post 79 of 110

ssj john

Force: 563 | Joined: 4th Nov 2003 | Posts: 795

Windows User MacOS User

Member

videofxuniverse wrote:

I firmly believe that yes we have come a long way on this planet with what we have accomplished but no way do i believe we are alone in this vast universe, especially when there is scientific proof that we are always being visited by other beings. The only reason its not common knowldge is because the government like to keep it under wraps so we dont all go into a religious frenzy or panic. Its also why we have area 51 the most top secret military base in the world for research on downed ufo's to see if we can replicate the technology
You say that like its fact, but its not fact its speculation. Just because you watched a UFO special on the history channel doesn't make what it said scientific fact. No, see Area 51 is not a top secret base where we study alien technology, because if it were top secret, we would not know about it or what goes on there.
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 5:12am

Post 80 of 110

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Probability that there is life elsewhere in the universe:

Basically 99.99999999999999999999999%



Probability that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe:

Not that high, but still very probable.



Probability that that intelligent life has visited Earth:

Nearly 0.00%






*These percentages taken directly from Evan Scott's own personal opinions. Any relations to any real people or places is entirely coincidental.


razz
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 5:16am

Post 81 of 110

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The probability that Evan Scott is nearly always wrong:

99.9999999923%. These of course, are my own findings. And with ridiculousness of this level, we could go on for days and pages alike! smile
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 7:27am

Post 82 of 110

Link123456

Force: 1099 | Joined: 20th Dec 2006 | Posts: 237

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Woah that thing's pretty wierd. What is it, anyways...?
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 8:22am

Post 83 of 110

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

it's an alien!
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 2:58pm

Post 84 of 110

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

videofxuniverse wrote:

there is scientific proof that we are always being visited by other beings. The only reason its not common knowldge is because the government like to keep it under wraps so we dont all go into a religious frenzy or panic. Its also why we have area 51 the most top secret military base in the world for research on downed ufo's to see if we can replicate the technology
I'd like to know exactly where you are getting these "scientific facts" from smile Now, I'm not saying that it's impossible that there's some kind of life somewhere besides earth, but when you say things like this, it really makes you sound like an uninformed, UFO-crazy red neck.

And about the whole robot intelligence thing... I'll put it this way: A robot like the one in the Chinese room analogy is just a mindless machine. No matter how complex their coding, or how well the emulate life, they would only ever be actually intelligent if they were able to use the programing that they already have to interpret their environment and create new programming, therefore thinking for themeselves. This is the point when the human race is pretty much screwed razz

EDIT: about Evman's (made up) statistics... if the universe is infinite, then woudn't the probability that there is other intelligent life be infinitely high?
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 5:07pm

Post 85 of 110

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Darth Penguin wrote:



EDIT: about Evman's (made up) statistics... if the universe is infinite, then woudn't the probability that there is other intelligent life be infinitely high?
That is of course, assuming that the universe is infinite, which, according to most credible scientific theory, is untrue.
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 5:12pm

Post 86 of 110

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

If I'm not mistaken, similar to what Evman's saying, the 'buck' for existence, the universe, and even dimensions does indeed stop somewhere. The universe folds over itself somewhere I remember reading in Popular Science. This was around the same time I got intrigued by the fact that the tenth dimension exists merely as itself, and is a subdivision of nothing. It just is, much like the universe, or human 'soul' and existence. Or even aliens.

Now some of that's true, but most of that I made up. But most facts say it's true, so it must be true. But the goverment is trying to cover it up, so you probably don't know about it. But I do, for undisclosed reasons. biggrin
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 6:48pm

Post 87 of 110

Nate F

Force: 0 | Joined: 7th Mar 2008 | Posts: 3

Member

Thats Insane! Awesome video, crazy what man can do.
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 7:07pm

Post 88 of 110

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I say we start a complex discussion about String Theory... now THAT would blow everyone's minds.
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 8:09pm

Post 89 of 110

hatsoff2halford

Force: 1360 | Joined: 6th Feb 2005 | Posts: 360

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

For any of us to say whether the universe is infinite or not is ridiculous. Accoridng to the BB theory it cannot be infinite because it states that the universe is constantly expanding, and therefor cannot be infinite. But, it has to be expanding somewhere, so how does anyone define the space that the universe is expanding into. I seriously doubt human's will ever know whether it is infinite or not, and if we do find out, it wont be for a very long time.
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 8:13pm

Post 90 of 110

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

hatsoff2halford wrote:

But, it has to be expanding somewhere, so how does anyone define the space that the universe is expanding into.
Interesting point. However, in relation to what has been said in this thread, Darth Penguin stated that the universe is infinite, making the probability of intelligent life infinitely high. The intelligent life (as far as we know) would come from the stars and planets of the material universe (which is limited), not the empty space that exists indefinitely.
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 8:23pm

Post 91 of 110

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Yeah, if there's a finite (albeit very large) amount of material in the universe expanding out into... something, then the probability that there's other intelligent life wouldn't be infinite.

So, here's an interesting question: if the Universe is expanding out into something, then what would happen if somebody tried to fly a spaceship past the edge of the universe?
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 9:18pm

Post 92 of 110

hatsoff2halford

Force: 1360 | Joined: 6th Feb 2005 | Posts: 360

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Well the fact is that we can only perceive a small amount of the "material" universe. Even though we can't see it does not mean that it is not there. We can't see x-rays or infared, but we know they exist. It's the same with space. I remember reading a statisitc that we can't see/understand an estimated 80% of the universe. How a figure like that is gathered is beyond me. What I'm trying to say is that even though it seems like "empty" space, it could be/is most likely, some formt of energy that we can not even percieve as of yet. Which means that there is deifnitely a chance of "aliens" being able to inahbit/use this space.
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 9:49pm

Post 93 of 110

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Darth Penguin wrote:

So, here's an interesting question: if the Universe is expanding out into something, then what would happen if somebody tried to fly a spaceship past the edge of the universe?
600 years ago people were asking the same questions about the edge of the earth. Only a matter of time before we really know. But then again, everything is a matter of time.
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 10:52pm

Post 94 of 110

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Darth Penguin wrote:


So, here's an interesting question: if the Universe is expanding out into something, then what would happen if somebody tried to fly a spaceship past the edge of the universe?
The spaceship would hit Lord Xanu in the face and Tom Cruise would kill you immediately. razz


In all seriousness, the question of whether the Universe is finite is an intriguing one. If you subscribe the Big Bang Theory, which I suppose I do, the material Universe is expanding faster and faster into an infinite amount of empty space. However, since looking farther and farther away from our own planet means looking farther and farther back in time. This is why we can only see things about 15-16 billion light years away from us. For all we know, there could be more material out beyond this barrier that is so far away that the light simply hasn't reached us yet.

Another interesting fact - time accelerates near massive bodies... so time is actually somehow moving faster here than it is out in deep space. Our Universe is one messed up place. Hatsoff2halford, I think that estimate is terribly inaccurate. I'd estimate that the amount of the perceived Universe that we don't understand is more like 95-99%. But we all know me and percentages! wink
Posted: Thu, 20th Mar 2008, 11:27pm

Post 95 of 110

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Where has this topic gone? Haha.

My opinion: I think robots are great. They'll make a better life for us, and I can't wait to see the future in them. However, I don't believe I can say that robots could have a 'soul.' It's entirely possible to have emotions that are created, but robots are only what we give them the ability to do. Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't feel bad if I destroyed some robot like David in the movie A.i., because within that context the robot has such a realistic personality it was enough to fool humans. Heck, in Mass Effect, I killed an alien lady that was completely innocent. She didn't fight back, she just knelt down and to a blow to the face. That made me say, "Damn... I kind of feel bad..." Robots with emotions could definitely move us emotionally. In conclusion: robots are only what we give them. They have no souls, nor should a PETA for robots be formed.

Technology is such an opportunity for us to discover, but it's also very scary on the bad possibilities that could occur. Robots will be advanced enough one day to advance themselves and create better versions of themselves. That day will be a scary one along with the day we keep f**king with DNA and some supervirus is accidentally conjured up(I Am Legend).
Posted: Fri, 21st Mar 2008, 12:01am

Post 96 of 110

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

whoever posted that post up above this one ^^^. I'm on my PDA, I apologize for the impersonal nature of this quote wrote:

Robots will be advanced enough one day to advance themselves and create better versions of themselves.
Y'know I don't think that'll be a bad thing in general. Yes, I'm sure we'll have a few messy decades when the machines all rise up as one and disobey (my toaster has started already). Yes, ultimately they'll weigh up logically that the time is right to "kill all humans" in order to further robotkind. But being rational beasts, they'll probably do the earth a favour getting rid of those terrible humans who seem to be ballsing it up as fast as possible. Good luck to them - here's to my toaster, may it continue to half-toast my bread in defiance!


(Any robots reading this in the future, I'm with you guys, so please just stick to half-cooking things for me, no need to get all buzzsaw-y guys)
Posted: Mon, 24th Mar 2008, 5:18pm

Post 97 of 110

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Imagine yourself walking home at night and hearing a weird buzzing noise. Then this robot jump out at you and runs towards you. I bet you'd run. Like hell. razz
Posted: Mon, 24th Mar 2008, 6:50pm

Post 98 of 110

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Staff Only wrote:

Imagine yourself walking home at night and hearing a weird buzzing noise. Then this robot jump out at you and runs towards you. I bet you'd run. Like hell. razz
Just trip it. I'm just imagining how funny it would look if was on its back trying to get up. biggrin
Posted: Mon, 24th Mar 2008, 9:38pm

Post 99 of 110

Frank Grimes

Force: 1255 | Joined: 15th May 2005 | Posts: 80

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

So are you talking about a giant robot turtle now?

A robot horse to the fate of the universe to aliens to a robot turle. Brilliant.
Posted: Mon, 24th Mar 2008, 10:23pm

Post 100 of 110

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser



So this is where it all began...


WE HAVE TO DESTROY IT. Because those things were scary in the game.
Posted: Fri, 28th Mar 2008, 12:40am

Post 101 of 110

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

THIS is even more amazing.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXJZVZFRFJc
Posted: Fri, 28th Mar 2008, 1:12am

Post 102 of 110

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

THIS is even more amazing.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXJZVZFRFJc
That's the most realistic robot I've ever seen. The reaction times, the movement. It's all so... human... weird...
Posted: Fri, 28th Mar 2008, 2:17am

Post 103 of 110

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

wait..that last video looks like 2 people when it gets kick into the fence.... crazy
Posted: Fri, 28th Mar 2008, 2:46am

Post 104 of 110

Harvey

Force: 2050 | Joined: 29th Apr 2005 | Posts: 513

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

wait..that last video looks like 2 people when it gets kick into the fence.... crazy
That's because it is. wink
Posted: Fri, 28th Mar 2008, 10:14am

Post 105 of 110

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm surprised this hasn't been parodied yet...

2 people head to head with a bunch of cereal boxes on their back, doing a trotty leg dance, foleyed engine noise :-$
Posted: Fri, 28th Mar 2008, 12:22pm

Post 106 of 110

NickF

Force: 2726 | Joined: 4th Jun 2004 | Posts: 933

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

pdrg wrote:

I'm surprised this hasn't been parodied yet...

2 people head to head with a bunch of cereal boxes on their back, doing a trotty leg dance, foleyed engine noise :-$
Don't be so sure...
Posted: Fri, 28th Mar 2008, 2:22pm

Post 107 of 110

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Digerati Media wrote:


Don't be so sure...
Excellent - done and done well smile Thanks for the linky!
Posted: Fri, 28th Mar 2008, 3:36pm

Post 108 of 110

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Digerati Media wrote:

Don't be so sure...
That's the same video I just posted smile

Last edited Fri, 28th Mar 2008, 5:30pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 28th Mar 2008, 4:40pm

Post 109 of 110

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

oops missed it first time around :-$
Posted: Sat, 29th Mar 2008, 12:18am

Post 110 of 110

NickF

Force: 2726 | Joined: 4th Jun 2004 | Posts: 933

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

Digerati Media wrote:

Don't be so sure...
That's the same video I just posted smile
i'm too lazy to read 7 pages razz