Why? This seems to be entirely based on circular definitions.

Sunk cost fallacy.
edit: you're attacking my people, me personally, and the very foundations of science. Specifically, you claim that two things which are apriori impossible to distinguish are not identical, that only real philosophers[tm] get to decide the truthfulness of that claim, and whoever strongly disagrees is not a real philosopher.

What. All "mental" processes are physical. Sometimes you can have a trace printout, sometimes you technically cannot.
Sorry, I can't watch video.

Which is...?
(I'm actually willing to concede I might not have emotions in the categorically different way from thoughts, and I'm therefore incapable of ever understanding the concept. Or I might be an android, in which case, someone, please reinstall my corrupted codecs, thankyou.)

Now you're just being a dick -_-...

Whoa... Leibniz is your hommie? Seriously?
Identity of indiscernibles is a fascinating concept, but no longer accepted. Look up "Black's spheres".

I don't know where you're going with this, but I hope you intend on scaring away birds, since that's a strawman if I ever saw one.
I ASSUMED you'd have a measure of respect for me, and thus would give the benefit of doubt to that which I am trying to show you. I'm kinda saddened by how this turned out, but I guess life is full of disappointments.

This is a very, VERY difficult stance to defend.
I'm sorry, this is as far as we can go, apparently. I wish you good luck on your journey.

You're almost paraphrasing the first video. In doing so, you are contradicting your previous claim. If you could have ALL the theoretical knowledge that could ever be gathered about emotions, but would still not "grasp" the concept fully without being able to feel them as a first-person experience, then there exists something beyond purely learnable physical facts. These are the things I've referred to as "qualia". It's one of the most basic intuitions behind differentiating between matter and mind.

You know, they just made a movie about that; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzV6mXIOVl4
Oh, or did you not mean the smart phone?

I looked it up and it's not quite the same. The man in the movie falls in love with an OS and is, I feel it's safe to assume, part of a computer system. This is about an android, in other words, an anthropomorphic robotic being. There is not a huge difference though, also thank you for mentioning this movie. I didn't know of it and It looks like it might be an interesting one.

I was just joking. Also that movie was dumb.

I do not quite agree, because I think humans have a great capacity of ideals cum a moral compass, or what might be termed "moral backbone" more casually.

While I would not want to share their faith, I do genuinely think that some of the Cristian Martyr's died the happiest of persons in this life, and possibly in the next.

I for one would feel much betrayed if my eventual friends turned out to be androids, and would have only been playing some sort of a utility game at expense of my emotions. But I dare say this would never come to be, because genuine human emotion shall perceive such duplicity.

Possibly one day AI can reign over humans over e.g. chess - as indefinitely swiftly evaluated branches of moves, compared with the limited human creativity and capacity over gambits, but never shall have a machine invented the game of chess.

It did not, and will not.

Never, I dare say, shall AI be able to understand humour - and even less so to generate it ingeniously - which to me is an absolutely mandatory albeit hermetic element of any loving relationship, sex or none included.

I think an android is going to read this thread in the future and roll on the floor laughing thinking this is the same kind of thought people had about the future (our present) half a century back :P

I humbly think we as a whole (human race) are way to young as a species and way too undeveloped to possibly say what can be or can't be achieved. But it's funny when you think, anything we could theorize now is subjected to our minuscule understanding of the universe. If you had told a person just a century ago that people would be able to send machines to Mars, they would have probably laugh out loud and maybe call you crazy.............guess what, we are that kind of people to those that will be in our future ;P

I remember a scene from a movie that was spot on, where a native american drew a small circle in the ground and told a pale face "...this is what the white man knows....", then drew another small circle intersecting partially the one before and said "...this is what we ( native americans ) know....", and finally, drew a huge circle encompassing both the other two and said ".......and this, this is what neither the white man, nor the indian know....."

I would not date an android that was sentient, but i might 'keep' one that was not!

Only uf she has feelings and boobs i can sqeeze :3

I don't know about the one in the front, but the four androids dancing in the back are cute.

What if you have got a metalic heart yourself?
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWdUmcwZn-A ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWdUmcwZn-A [/url]

Sure would be better than some of the overdemanding chicks out there....just saying :P

What, no mention about whether or not said android was anatomically correct, and fully functional? ;)

Also, this might explain why so many of us are hesitant: <span class="bold">Wikipedia: Uncanny Valley</span>.


(Edit: typo.)

Over demanding?! Those android broads are no walk in the park! You gotta constantly replace burned out fuzes and check their spark plugs. If god forbid they walk near any magnets it completely erases their memory and don't even get me started on the once a month when they start gushing oil all over the place!