I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so...

I hadn't thought of it that way--i'd say it's the only matter in which he has, here, so far, demonstrated that he excels.

Why is looking for answer from science fiction characters any different than looking for answers from the Buddha or Jesus?

I didn't say it was. You would need to address your question to someone who gives a **** about Jesus and the so-called Buddha.

Excellent question, Max.

In fact, perhaps there is a redundancy in it...insofar as the Buddha and Jesus may be science fiction characters of a sort.

In any case, looking for answers to Ultimate Questions can probably be obtained just as easily from acknowledged fictional characters (sci fi or otherwise)...as from supposed great revealers of truths.

I've always felt that while fiction is not likely to provide me with "facts" about the world that is alright because it does not propose to do so. Nevertheless, fiction often teaches me "truths" about the world. For example, I feel that I've learned much about the human condition from Camus, Dostoyevski, Turgenev, Wharton , Stendahl and Trollope to name a few truth-telling fiction writers. On the other hand, I am far more vunerable to false understandings about the world from reporters and historians because they profess to tell "facts" (or interpretations of facts) which, occasionally, may not be so.

Humans and robots are not that far apart, for example this is the human retina and it looks very much like a printed circuit board..

Romeo, are you saying that there are few differences between humans and robots or that the differences that do exist make little difference?

The robots that do exist are dumb schmucks compared to humans because they have to be programmed and told told what to do BY humans.
Even chess-playing computers have to be programmed by humans, and we PC wargamers regularly beat the krap out of computer-controlled units on the virtual battlefield.
In the real world, the military have poured billions of bucks over many years into the development of "smart weapons" by trying to give them a "brain" such as Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, but if the target aircraft fires off a few flares the missiles are fooled and veer off because they're too dumb to tell the difference between a multi-million dollar plane and a 10-cent firework..

You do realize that the Chess playing "robots" have now beaten the best human chess players, right?

Those human chess players were not beaten by robots (cum agents); they were beaten by programs written by humans.

By definition, any robot is programmed by humans. At least until they start designing themselves. 'Designing' - not simple code generation, etc.

The robot on jeopardy was not exactly dumb, but as stated, was a human developed program. Not capable of original thought.

I don't see the distinction.

For example if I switch on my PC there's no way I can play chess against it because its empty little brain hasn't been programmed to play chess.
To do that, i'd have to go out and buy a chess program (created by a human) and install it into the PC's brain..

PS- Mr Data in Star Trek is just a robot, yet the crew call him "Mister" and he's got the rank of Commander, and they get emotional about him if he blows a gasket or something.
For example Riker once had to switch him off by pressing a button on his back; Data slumped forward in his chair and Rikers eyes almost welled up with tears.
Me, I could never get emotional over a robot, they're just machines to me.

I remember one of the best lines in StarTrek: When Data was pleading for sympathy he paraphrased the Bard with "When I'm cut [?} do I not leak?"

Don't know much about computers, do you? There are 'programs' at many different levels. Actually, neuroscientists are discovering the brain is similar.

Quantitatively (amount of information and speed of its processing) computers are "superior", but qualitative (aesthetic appreciation and the abililty to love) we are "superior". Ultimately everything is equal.

I wouldn't say equal, since humans invented and developed computers. Yes they are fast. It's interesting this came up in this thread. Do computers have a self?

Certainly not, based upon what I know.

Right, they have no self, just like us--but we like to think we do.

Depending on the type of wire it's moving through, the speed of electricity is almost as fast as the speed of light, so what I can't figure out is why after switching on my PC it takes about 2 minutes to boot up and settle down; you'd think it'd be just a couple of seconds for the electricity to whizz around the innards.

One can see you don't have the faintest idea of what happens in a computer.