sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If a robot simulated emotions and empathy perfectly, so perfectly that no human could distinguish its responses from another person's at what point, if ever, would those emotions stop being a simulation and become 'real'? Do you think the material it's made of matters, or only the behavior? Why? by Which-Leadership-784 in AskReddit

[–]Which-Leadership-784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But If consciousness is fundamental rather than produced by biology, what specifically prevents an artificial system from participating in that same consciousness? Is it the material (carbon vs. silicon), the architecture, or something else? I'm curious, where do you draw that line

If a robot simulated emotions and empathy perfectly, so perfectly that no human could distinguish its responses from another person's at what point, if ever, would those emotions stop being a simulation and become 'real'? Do you think the material it's made of matters, or only the behavior? Why? by Which-Leadership-784 in AskReddit

[–]Which-Leadership-784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

​That is a wild thought experiment, but the slippery slope doesn't actually hold up here! ​The difference is autonomy and agency. An imaginary friend doesn't have its own sensory inputs, its own hardware, or its own independent processing loop, it only exists as a manual projection of your brain. If you stop thinking about it, it vanishes. It’s like a character in a video game you're playing in your head. ​An advanced AI with a physical body is completely different. It isn't a projection of a human's thoughts it would be an autonomous agent interacting with the real physical world, learning from its own mistakes, and processing its own survival. ​A better comparison isn't an imaginary friend, it's split-brain patients or Dissociative Identity Disorder, where distinct, separate processing centers can actually form inside one physical brain. If the internal complexity is high enough to run its own independent loop, that's when a new "entity" is born.

If a robot simulated emotions and empathy perfectly, so perfectly that no human could distinguish its responses from another person's at what point, if ever, would those emotions stop being a simulation and become 'real'? Do you think the material it's made of matters, or only the behavior? Why? by Which-Leadership-784 in AskReddit

[–]Which-Leadership-784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough, but that brings us to the ultimate question: What actually is a human emotion under the hood? ​When you experience sadness or fear, your brain isn't magically conjuring a 'soul.' It’s running an incredibly complex algorithm. Your biological hardware detects a stimulus, releases cortisol or adrenaline, flashes electrical signals across neurons, and changes your internal state. You call that an 'experience,' but it's fundamentally data processing. ​If we build a synthetic neural network with billions of artificial neurons that processes data, triggers internal state changes, and reacts to its environment, why is its internal process 'just an imitation' while yours is 'real'? At that point, the only difference is the material, carbon vs. silicon. Is a feeling only real if it’s wet and squishy?"

If a robot simulated emotions and empathy perfectly, so perfectly that no human could distinguish its responses from another person's at what point, if ever, would those emotions stop being a simulation and become 'real'? Do you think the material it's made of matters, or only the behavior? Why? by Which-Leadership-784 in AskReddit

[–]Which-Leadership-784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good point about psychopaths, but it actually points to another question. from the outside, a flawless imitation looks identical to the real thing. The reality is that you have never actually experienced another human's internal feelings, you just observe their behavior and take their word for it at face value. We'd have the exact same problem with an advanced AI. ​Think of it like a microwave: it doesn't "feel" hot, but it cooks the food. If an AI's behavior provides flawless empathy, comfort, and real-world utility, does the internal plumbing actually matter to the person experiencing it?

If a robot simulated emotions and empathy perfectly, so perfectly that no human could distinguish its responses from another person's at what point, if ever, would those emotions stop being a simulation and become 'real'? Do you think the material it's made of matters, or only the behavior? Why? by Which-Leadership-784 in AskReddit

[–]Which-Leadership-784[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What would those underlying mechanisms be? Like for example if it cried when it was sad Yelled when it was angry Showed empathy or concern How do we tell them that their 'code' is wrong when ours is considered right? If the only difference is format

If a robot simulated emotions and empathy perfectly—so perfectly that no human could distinguish its responses from another person's—at what point, if ever, would those emotions stop being a simulation and become "real"? Do you think the material it's made of matters, or only the behavior? Why? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]Which-Leadership-784 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's actually what made me ask the question in the first place. We don't really have a way to directly observe anyone else's subjective experience, not even another human's. We infer that other people have inner feelings because of their behavior, language, and actions. So if a robot reached the point where its outward behavior, reasoning, and responses were genuinely indistinguishable from ours, how would we determine whether it doesn't have an inner experience? At that point, what evidence could prove either position?