Falling In Love With A Robot?

[TheWall]

The Pygmalion myth comes to mind.

[One Bad Pig]

Remeber Isaac Asimov's The Naked Sun? That was from all the way back in 1955.

[Chaotic Void]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Yay... the weebs have upgraded from body pillows with waifu covers. Where's Rogue's "Double-Puke" smiley when you need it?

But seriously, though, I think these things were sadly inevitable. For a lot of guys, meeting women with the intention to date and marry is a daunting task for a plethora of reasons, so they feel like they're up the creek. Eventually, "People's Horniness," had coffee with their good friends, "Technological Innovation," and ye olde, "Free Market," and they came up with these Robo-Hookers.

(Also, for the record, dating simulator games like that have been around for quite some time now. They range from comedic visual novels to basically being over-glorified porn)

[Tassman]

Remeber Isaac Asimov's The Naked Sun? That was from all the way back in 1955.

I don't know that story, but intelligent machines or robots that are potentially able to love and be loved are inevitable. E.g. as depicted in the excellent movie Ex Machina...whereby the human protagonist falls in love with a humanoid robot named Ava with artificial intelligence. It doesn't end well in the movie, she's a manipulative bimbo, but the basic premise is very convincing.

[Roy]

like said above it seems it would just be an elaborate form of masturbation. So is that a sin?

Catholics think so, most of us Protestants don't seem to think so.

One more nail in the coffin of objective morality.

[seer]

One more nail in the coffin of objective morality.

You are confusing ontology with epistemology. Universal moral laws would exist whether we understood them or not.

[Charles]

You are confusing ontology with epistemology. Universal moral laws would exist whether we understood them or not.

If you really thought Roy confused anything and if you really had the answer, I guess the answer would have been in your post.

[lilpixieofterror]

If you really thought Roy confused anything and if you really had the answer, I guess the answer would have been in your post.

If disagreement = false, does that mean that scientist disagreeing with each other = false?

[Charles]

If disagreement = false, does that mean that scientist disagreeing with each other = false?

What gives you reason to suppose I would think so? And it seems you don't have the answer either, or how are we to understand your response? What is interesting about what seer wrote is not that he is pointing to disagreements but that he is only pointing to it. His ideas about universal moral laws, God or whatever seemingly gives him nothing in order to distinguish right from wrong in this case, so he tries to focus on something else. That is interesting.

[lilpixieofterror]

What gives you reason to suppose I would think so? And it seems you don't have the answer either, or how are we to understand your response? What is interesting about what seer wrote is not that he is pointing to disagreements but that he is only pointing to it. His ideas about universal moral laws, God or whatever seemingly gives him nothing in order to distinguish right from wrong in this case, so he tries to focus on something else. That is interesting.

[Charles]

And so... What have you got to actually adress the question? Because so far you have provided nothing other than rebutting at statement I never made. The message was not clear enough and you don't actually know what it was about? You know there is a truth but you don't know what it is and will never know if you actually found it, or?

[lilpixieofterror]

And so... What have you got to actually adress the question? Because so far you have provided nothing other than rebutting at statement I never made. The message was not clear enough and you don't actually know what it was about? You know there is a truth but you don't know what it is and will never know if you actually found it, or?

[Charles]

I was not claiming objective standard does not exist. I was asking what objective standard is telling people to do. It seem neither you nor seer can answer that. Do you admit that? Would you think "No one hear claims that God beams information into our brain" was an answer on how I should live my life?

[lilpixieofterror]

I was not claiming objective standard does not exist. I was asking what objective standard is telling people to do. It seem neither you nor seer can answer that. Do you admit that? Would you think "No one hear claims that God beams information into our brain" was an answer on how I should live my life?

[Charles]

So if I believe in the ontological existence of the objective standard I am still left guessing about what I should actually do in real life? It seems too relativistic for all practical matters for me.