One of the questions I'd like to pose is this: can something that has been designed go on to design another something?

For instance, say I design and construct a senient robot (like Data from Star Trek).  Can that senient robot design, say, a car (assuming that it has the programming or ability to learn the skills required to do so)?  Does that car count as something that has been designed?

No problems with that. We humans design things all the time, methinks. But it should be remembered that if a designer did design robots/humans, as well as all the things they might make their own designed things with, that part of the robot/human's design--the design behind the design, so to speak--is the other designer's design.

And that's what I'd really like to look into.  Who "gets credit" (if you will) for the design of the designed?

Quote from: TheDoctor

Quote from: Deep Thought

No problems with that. We humans design things all the time, methinks. But it should be remembered that if a designer did design robots/humans, as well as all the things they might make their own designed things with, that part of the robot/human's design--the design behind the design, so to speak--is the other designer's design.

And that's what I'd really like to look into.  Who "gets credit" (if you will) for the design of the designed?

Well, that's rather complicated. Since the robot-maker made the robot that made the design, you could say it's the robot-maker who gets the credit because it gave the robot the ability to make the design in the first place.

On the other hand, it's clearly the robot's sweat, blood, and tears (so to speak) that went into the designing, so it's the robot's design, right?

I say both at once. Both take credit, since both were responsible. (Especially if the robot-maker knew what the robot would eventual design.)

Let's say the robot-maker didn't force the robot to design anything, but just gave it the ability to make designs.  Does that change anything for you?

DT has spoken my thoughts on this matter so far.

What's the point? Is this going to lead somewhere? If not to a theological point, then where?

But the degree to which the robot can design (its level of intelligence, you could say) could reasonably vary, and how that level of intelligence compares to the robot-maker's (did the maker manage to make a designer more competant than himself?) is also a factor.

What if the robot is vastly more intelligent than its maker, how does that affect things?

I don't believe that's possible ... I don't believe I have the intelligence to design something more intelligent than I am.

You can certainly have a child that grows up to become more intelligent than you.  This can happen perhaps because the child is a better learner than you.  So, if people can be better learners than their parents, why can't robots be better learners than their makers?

Seems to me there is a difference between 'having a child' and 'making a robot.'  Despite the baby-engineering going on in some places in the world, people only beget:  Out of something, the same sort of thing.  Even if you managed to select all of the best 'learner' genes, you'd still only be passing along what you already had to begin with.  

How do you give to a 'robot' more than you yourself possess?

It is an ontology issue.  I can't give you ten dollars if I only have five.

Seems to me there is a difference between 'having a child' and 'making a robot.'  Despite the baby-engineering going on in some places in the world, people only beget:  Out of something, the same sort of thing.  Even if you managed to select all of the best 'learner' genes, you'd still only be passing along what you already had to begin with.

It is true that we do not consciously engineer ourselves, although our DNA contributes to the blueprint for the design of our offspring.  The process is quite automated.  I don't think that humans are really capable of the engineering feat that millions of years of natural selection has achieved.  Our lives are too short to replicate that kind of incremental trial-and-error design.

On the other hand, we do constantly improve our robots.  We stick new sensors on them and find interesting ways to get all the machinery to coordinate its activity.  Since those machines must communicate with humans and other machines, we are being driven to replicate almost all of the functionality that we find in living beings.  And we do have the advantage of studying nature's designs and cribbing from them.  There doesn't seem to be any limitation in principle to creating an artificial being that is better than us in almost every function.

How do you give to a 'robot' more than you yourself possess?

The key to more intelligent robots is machine learning.  I cannot design a machine that speaks English.  But I think that I can design a machine that learns English.  That is how we will eventually create artificially intelligent machines--by giving them the ability to learn from their own experiences.

It is an ontology issue.  I can't give you ten dollars if I only have five.

However, you might teach me how to earn the extra five dollars.  As it happens, I only need five right now, so I'll be pleased to accept it.  

Let's take a bit of a different course for a bit.

Let's say an artist makes a painting by throwing paint on a canvas while blindfolded, thus knowing neither what colors he throws or where they are going.  Could this painting be said to be designed?