Moral Implications of Manufacturing Human Intelligence

[Paul V]

I've recently read a fictional story about a company that created human-like dolls to be your partners. They would be human in almost every aspect, except that they would have no other goal than making their user happy. They would be programmed to read body language and remember amazing amounts of data and bits of information in order to be the best possible companion the user could desire.

Now, I immediately felt horrible upon reading this. It was so immoral! It was a violation of human rights! But I didn't know why. I couldn't explain why I felt this way. So I decided to take some time and think it through. I analysed my feelings and rationalised them. And then it hit me: It was immoral because fabricating a human-like intelligence without willpower is exactly the same as removing the willpower of an already existing human. I believe we can all agree that removing someone's willpower (whether it's through adoctrination, brain-washing, threats or the like) is immoral and a crime (or it should be, in my opinion).

Therefore, I finally was able to conclude that people that attempt to emmulate human intelligence are not immoral or evil, as long as the intelligence they create is EXACTLY like that of a human, with no modifications. Once you modify it, or you create something already modified, it becomes the equivalent of modifying that on a preexistent human, and you should be held responsible for that alteration, just as you had altered the malleable mind of a child.

Thoughts, opinions, flames, philosophical debate?

[thod]

Sounds like Stepford wives.

If you created a machine that gained pleasure from service, that was unhappy without that in its life you are offering it fulfilment. You are not reducing it by removing its willpower because it never had any.

I am reminded of brave new world where they breed people to the job. The epsilon semi-moron may spend his life cleaning drains but he is happy in that task. Why breed an alpha and put him to the task. You get an unhappy and rebelious alpha.

You see the same thing in society now with everyone getting college degrees. They will never advance theoretical physics, all you have done is give them unattainable aspirations. Society needs 1000 motor mechanics for every theoretical physicist and thats what they will end up doing. It would have been cheaper to train them for that in the start.

[Paul V]

Sounds like Stepford wives.

If you created a machine that gained pleasure from service, that was unhappy without that in its life you are offering it fulfilment. You are not reducing it by removing its willpower because it never had any.

I am reminded of brave new world where they breed people to the job. The epsilon semi-moron may spend his life cleaning drains but he is happy in that task. Why breed an alpha and put him to the task. You get an unhappy and rebelious alpha.

You see the same thing in society now with everyone getting college degrees. They will never advance theoretical physics, all you have done is give them unattainable aspirations. Society needs 1000 motor mechanics for every theoretical physicist and thats what they will end up doing. It would have been cheaper to train them for that in the start.

Read carefully what I've written. Making someone believe (or constructing someone that believes) that performing a certain action gives them pleasure is robbing them of their free will. It doesn't matter if they've been born or built that way, they never had a choice. If you play god and decide what they will do the rest of their lives, it doesn't matter if they're happy or miserable. You have removed their ability to choose.

In this world, you can be a theoretical physicist. If you give up because you were not brilliant, or for some other reason, and become a motor mechanic, it's your choice. We all know about those heroes that prevailed against all odds.

You're right, it'll be more practical and logical your way, but you didn't create life, and you are not in charge of it. Twisting life to do your biding and recreate your perfect world will only spawn disaster.

[thod]

Read carefully what I've written

Ok.

Making someone believe (or constructing someone that believes) that performing a certain action gives them pleasure is robbing them of their free will.

1) All entities with "free will" make choices.
2) Their exist some entities without choice.
-> 3) Some entities do not have "free will"

Hidden premises:

1) All entities with "free will" are superior
2) We only only create that which is superior
-> 3) We only create enities with "free will"

Premis 2) is the point. We are not attempting to create something that is superior or the same as humans. We are creating something with limited function, it is inferior and therfore does not require free will.

It doesn't matter if they've been born or built that way, they never had a choice. If you play god and decide what they will do the rest of their lives, it doesn't matter if they're happy or miserable. You have removed their ability to choose

True.

Are you saying that we have a moral obligation to only create robots with "free will"?

Recall HAL the computer in 2001 AD, we want a super intelligent computer to run all those ships systems. We dont want it to kill us, we deliberatly inhibit it.

You're right, it'll be more practical and logical your way, but you didn't create life, and you are not in charge of it. Twisting life to do your biding and recreate your perfect world will only spawn disaster.

In this case we did create life and we are in charge of it. How do you reach the conclusion of spawning disaster from the premises? That follows no logic. We have been twisting life for eons. A dog is realy a wolf yet I dont see any dog disasters, its beneficial for each party.

If we wished to create post humans then we would certainly have to look at free will. Yet we do not have free will. We are fascinated by ideas like star travel. We get this from our monkey brains seeking new territory to exploit for food resources. It leads us to war against each other over resources. We could remove this drive from post humans impacting on their free will. Any modification we make to their minds would lead to a lessening of free will.

The conclusion is the human mind is the perfect end of creation.

[Paul V]

Ok.



1) All entities with "free will" make choices.
2) Their exist some entities without choice.
-> 3) Some entities do not have "free will"

Demonstrate it.

Hidden premises:

1) All entities with "free will" are superior
2) We only only create that which is superior
-> 3) We only create enities with "free will"

Premis 2) is the point. We are not attempting to create something that is superior or the same as humans. We are creating something with limited function, it is inferior and therfore does not require free will.

You are wrong. The point here is that we're attempting to emulate human intelligence. With its virtues and flaws. You are basically creating humans, only with different bodies. If you alter them to make them inferior (or you build them with that modification already incorporated), you are changing the intelligence of a human being, and that is immoral.

True.

Are you saying that we have a moral obligation to only create robots with "free will"?

Yes. Nobody's saying to give them control over our lives or weapons to destroy us with, by the way.

Recall HAL the computer in 2001 AD, we want a super intelligent computer to run all those ships systems. We dont want it to kill us, we deliberatly inhibit it.

Read what I've said above. I do not mean a super intelligent computer, I meant a computer with human-like intelligence, who can feel and think like us. And I'm not saying to give them power over our lives either.

In this case we did create life and we are in charge of it. How do you reach the conclusion of spawning disaster from the premises? That follows no logic. We have been twisting life for eons. A dog is realy a wolf yet I dont see any dog disasters, its beneficial for each party.

Do I really need to run you the one thousand things that might go wrong? What if these human-like creatures evolved and obtained free will? What if they hated us for taking that away from them, dooming them to an existance of servitude? What if we were cruel to them? What if we removed something other than free will, such as morality? What if they developed free will without morality or ethics? We'd have basically spawned psicopaths and sociopaths. What if they were left uncontrolled (by accident) and they'd either destroy us or the world? Humans have a very fragile balance between their free will and their sense of ethics/whatever stops you from being a mass-murderer. The slightest alteration turns healthy people into mentally ill. Sorry for sounding paranoid, but I'm quite sure I wouldn't like some scientist creating a robot that's just as smart as me, only without any sense of right or wrong.

If we wished to create post humans then we would certainly have to look at free will. Yet we do not have free will. We are fascinated by ideas like star travel. We get this from our monkey brains seeking new territory to exploit for food resources. It leads us to war against each other over resources. We could remove this drive from post humans impacting on their free will. Any modification we make to their minds would lead to a lessening of free will.

Nice try with the logical circle. Nope, we DO actually have free will. Not everyone thinks that way. I, for one, hope that we never find any habitable planet in outer space. The moment we realise we have only one world to live in, we'll start taking better care of it, instead of disposing of it once it is no longer useful.

The conclusion is the human mind is the perfect end of creation.

[thod]

You are not saying we create simulacrum of a human which exhibits the the external reactions of a human. But its internal processes are the same too. You are saying we create an actual human by some artificial means.

This is the genetic engineering debate.

Few would object to engineering thicker tooth enamal to prevent tooth decay or even getting rid of the appendix. Its the mind of man that must not be meddled with.

To you that is a sacred object and any modification to it is immoral due to the restriction of choice. To murder is immoral, yet to remove the capacity to murder is a greater immorality.

I am minded of Benjamin Franklin, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both". Someone tell GW Bush please.

[Paul V]

You are not saying we create simulacrum of a human which exhibits the the external reactions of a human. But its internal processes are the same too. You are saying we create an actual human by some artificial means.

This is the genetic engineering debate.

Few would object to engineering thicker tooth enamal to prevent tooth decay or even getting rid of the appendix. Its the mind of man that must not be meddled with.

To you that is a sacred object and any modification to it is immoral due to the restriction of choice. To murder is immoral, yet to remove the capacity to murder is a greater immorality.

I am minded of Benjamin Franklin, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both". Someone tell GW Bush please.

That actually was what I was saying. That was the whole point of this thread. If you create a machine of human-like intelligence and you alter it, it's the same as altering the intelligence of an actual human. Because the intelligence of a human and the intelligence of a human-like being are the same.

I don't want to get on the debate of genetically engineering better bodies. That's not the point of the thread. In short, I'd object.

I would not sacrifice willpower for anything, not even to prevent murder. Freedom of thought supersedes its possible future applications, regardless of how good they might seem.

And yes, Franklin is right and someone should tell Bush to stop torturing prisioners in Irak. Torture, even if it's to prevent the deaths of millions, is evil and immoral.

[Gavisi]

Therefore, I finally was able to conclude that people that attempt to emmulate human intelligence are not immoral or evil, as long as the intelligence they create is EXACTLY like that of a human, with no modifications. Once you modify it, or you create something already modified, it becomes the equivalent of modifying that on a preexistent human, and you should be held responsible for that alteration, just as you had altered the malleable mind of a child.
If the human-like dolls don't have free will, then they aren't humans, they're animals. Advanced animals, yeah, but the fundamental difference between humans and animals is free will, and these dolls don't have that. So I don't see anything morally wrong with creating those dolls.

[Paul V]

If the human-like dolls don't have free will, then they aren't humans, they're animals. Advanced animals, yeah, but the fundamental difference between humans and animals is free will, and these dolls don't have that. So I don't see anything morally wrong with creating those dolls.

Once again, because those dolls were exactly like human, only modified to suit their users. It's the same as raising children to be slaves that live only to please their master. And for them, being born (or built) without free will is far worse than adoctrinating a human. At least humans have free will inherently wired into their brains. It is possible for those adoctrinated children to become normal human beings again (with a lot of effort). But for those dolls, who never had free will in the first place, it's impossible.

Another useful comparison would be to genetically create an embryo that does not have free will from the get go. It has been determined from before he was even conceived, and he/she will never have free will for as long as he/she lives. It wouldn't be anything else than an advanced animal. Do you still not see it as morally wrong?

[thod]

Do you have free will? Not in deterministic universe you dont. Its simply an illusion.

What about the truely rational man. He has no free will. His each and every action is determined by his rationality. He can not do other than select the best option. Should we then fear to be too rational too.

Would you take the uneducated but happy man and show him the greater world thereby making him unhappy. Is that not cruel.

You fear losing the ability to make decisions its such a part of you, not suprising in a J. You want enlightenment over happyness and assume that is so for all men.

[Antares]

Once again, because those dolls were exactly like human, only modified to suit their users. It's the same as raising children to be slaves that live only to please their master. And for them, being born (or built) without free will is far worse than adoctrinating a human. At least humans have free will inherently wired into their brains. It is possible for those adoctrinated children to become normal human beings again (with a lot of effort). But for those dolls, who never had free will in the first place, it's impossible.

Another useful comparison would be to genetically create an embryo that does not have free will from the get go. It has been determined from before he was even conceived, and he/she will never have free will for as long as he/she lives. It wouldn't be anything else than an advanced animal. Do you still not see it as morally wrong?

So it's actually a machine that looks like a human with our characteristics without freewill? But isn't it a machine, in the end, with some really superb programming? That reminds me of Star Wars for some reason... 3-CPO? Although I admit, his programming is rather limited and he doesn't look like much of a human.

[rocksteady]

i think human rights were established to keep people away from pain and misery. As long as those things are absent, as you please. So if a human-like robot isn't feeling pain or misery, they are doing just fine in my book.

[Paul V]

Do you have free will? Not in deterministic universe you dont. Its simply an illusion.

What about the truely rational man. He has no free will. His each and every action is determined by his rationality. He can not do other than select the best option. Should we then fear to be too rational too.

Would you take the uneducated but happy man and show him the greater world thereby making him unhappy. Is that not cruel.

You fear losing the ability to make decisions its such a part of you, not suprising in a J. You want enlightenment over happyness and assume that is so for all men.

Please, don't pull determinism and nihilism against me. It's a philosophical outlook I do not adhere to, and cannot be proven.

Same as above.

I would ask him if he wants to know the greater world, making it clear it might be at the exchange of his own happiness. If I went ahead and showed him that knowledge, I'd be robbing him of his free will to choose to remain ignorant. "You can only save those who want to be saved" applies to many decisions, such as this one. You can only give something good to someone who wants it.

No, I am not assuming anything. Read what I've said above. I do not want to force people to do anything, I just believe that everyone should have the right to have free will, and then, if they want to devote their lives to please others, then let them go with my blessing.

So it's actually a machine that looks like a human with our characteristics without freewill? But isn't it a machine, in the end, with some really superb programming? That reminds me of Star Wars for some reason... 3-CPO? Although I admit, his programming is rather limited and he doesn't look like much of a human.

It is a machine, of course. But the programming was designed to copy human intelligence, and if that copy is as good as the original (modifications aside), then it deserves the same rights. I'd say the same thing about clones.

i think human rights were established to keep people away from pain and misery. As long as those things are absent, as you please. So if a human-like robot isn't feeling pain or misery, they are doing just fine in my book.

Errrr... no, they were designed for so much more, such as granting people all the possible freedoms they can possibly have, as long as it doesn't harm other humans. And if they do, then there are consequences. "With great freedom comes great responsibility."

Oh, so you wouldn't mind if someone kidnapped you, tied you to a hospital bed, and connected you to a machine that would take care of all your body needs, as well as supplying you with a drug that would allow you to live in a perfect world?

[karen]

To add to the first part of the argument...

I live very close to a place called Colorado City. If you haven't heard of it, I'll tell you briefly what its about. This is a town/compound for extreme fundamentalist mormons (not to be confused with normal mormons who just seem 'querky'). The men have anywhere from several to dozens of wives (the youngest being about 12) with lots and lots of kids. The way they live is very Talibanish women can be beaten and even killed for dissention, and the same goes for children. If women run away and are caught its not good. Nearly everyone there sees nothing wrong. The children are raised to never ask questions (a coworker once found a 10 year old boy beaten and naked on the side of the road once and they had to take him in.. apparently he tried to defend one of his moms).

They are brainwashed to live like this and the women especially have little contact with the outside world. They don't know better. My point is that just because a person seems happy with their situation, that doesn't make it right. To reduce a human to the life of an animal or to create one like that is no different. It is the highest form of blasphemy against human life.

[Antares]

It is a machine, of course. But the programming was designed to copy human intelligence, and if that copy is as good as the original (modifications aside), then it deserves the same rights. I'd say the same thing about clones.


So, in that sense, if I destroy one of the dolls, I should be tried for murder? In a life and death situation, they should have equal rights with a living human? They are made of wires and steel, not flesh and blood. Technically, they are designed to imitate human emotions. Their job is to please their users, so I don't see the necessity of them really having emotions. We don't alter them. We simply didn't create free will for them. That's not the same as taking free will from a person. Does a doll (artificial intelligence, artificial emotions, steel, wiring, electricity) = human (flesh and blood, real emotions, brains and everything).

[rocksteady]

Errrr... no, they were designed for so much more, such as granting people all the possible freedoms they can possibly have, as long as it doesn't harm other humans. And if they do, then there are consequences. "With great freedom comes great responsibility."

Oh, so you wouldn't mind if someone kidnapped you, tied you to a hospital bed, and connected you to a machine that would take care of all your body needs, as well as supplying you with a drug that would allow you to live in a perfect world?

I believe kidnapping would cause me some misery, so I am not sure what you are trying to say....

I think I understand your point in the first post though, I think in order to Make a pleasure-bot, you shouldn't be allowed to make it "smart AI" it would have to be "dumb AI" to keep it under the human rights threshold. You have to purposefully design them to be "less than human" to avoid these complications. Slavery can only lead to problems, like robots killing us all !

[Mechanical Messiah]

I think we're already transitioning into the realm of enhanced human intelligence and artificial intelligence. But it'll be a long, gradual transition. We'll deal with these moral questions incrementally- nobody will suddenly bring a sentient doll to market... it just doesn't work that way.

There are already AI mechanisms that use an evolutionary model, and can come up with novel solutions to problems so long as all the parameters are laid out in advance. One example that I've read about used a program resembling genetics and random mutation to improve the design of sewer/drainage systems, and was shockingly effective at coming up with counterintuitive solutions. It's easy enough to imagine how this could be applied to any application with well-defined parameters. As available computing power increases (it doubles every two years), and software sophistication increases, this could very well evolve into genuine intelligence (seeings how our brains utilize evolving/randomly made connections). It wouldn't necessarily be like human intelligence, nor would it need be sentient (which is damn near impossible to define).

I think Thod brings up a good point about "free will". In a discussion along these lines, I don't know if the existence of "free will" is something that we should take for granted. There are plenty of arguements against the existence of said concept.

[blueback]

Okay, so you're saying that it's wrong to create a "pseudo-person" who can't help but enjoy doing your laundry because, since they never had the choice to enjoy it or not enjoy it it robs them of free will.

What if it's an android that looks human, but isn't sentient? What if it's as smart as a human but isn't aware of its own existence? What if it looks like a toaster but is self-aware, with feelings and everything?

It seems to me that you're trying to define the cutoff between a product that is owned by the manufacturer and a life-form that deserves legal protection.

Obviously, a combination washer/dryer doesn't deserve any legal protection. It is doomed to do your laundry for its entire existence. Obviously, a human deserves full legal protection, and can choose to do your laundry or not based on how well you compensate them. At what point does the washer/dryer stop being defined as an appliance and start being defined as a sentient, self-aware being?

An appliance is conceived in the mind, gestated in a lab, and born on an assembly line. . .unlike a person. So, it seems to me, that anything which enters the world through the mind-lab-manufacture process is an appliance, no matter how complex or capable it is. It doesn't even matter if it's made out of copper or flesh, it's still a product. Products do not have legal rights, otherwise you could manufacture yourself a bunch of voters. After all, the abolition of slavery led dirctly to the idea that every person has the same right to vote, so if appliances can't be slaves then they must be equal to people in every way.

The difference between a real person, and a robot (even a flesh one) that is acting on its programming, is a matter of life. A thing that enters the world because it is at the head of an uninterrupted chain of reproducing organisms is a person (or whatever) a thing that enters the world because a person manufactured it is a tool. Tools don't get rights.

I think you'd have to prove that the appliance/robot/pseudo-person was capable of doing things its programming doesn't provide for, which would imply that it was creative. Robots aren't creative, they can do math really quickly, but ultimately they are just incredibly complicated toasters. They can simulate self-awareness, feelings, and sentience, but that doesn't mean they actually have it.

[xhaan]

I believe kidnapping would cause me some misery, so I am not sure what you are trying to say....

I think I understand your point in the first post though, I think in order to Make a pleasure-bot, you shouldn't be allowed to make it "smart AI" it would have to be "dumb AI" to keep it under the human rights threshold. You have to purposefully design them to be "less than human" to avoid these complications. Slavery can only lead to problems, like robots killing us all !

Yes.
But then, there's this whole can of worms with defining what A.I. is, at what point A.I. becomes human, then after that point, the distinction between human and not human. Is a person with Downs Syndrome sub human?

I mean, if you look at the varying degrees of what is human vs. not human, then apply it to constructs, who can say how many 'rights' a potentially human construct can have? If you clone a human in an attempt to make it 'less human', and therefore make it have 'less rights', is that the morally right thing to do? You've applied an arbitrary standard to it, to keep it below human grade, simply because you constructed it that way.

Massive. Gray. Area.

[Antares]

Yes.
But then, there's this whole can of worms with defining what A.I. is, at what point A.I. becomes human, then after that point, the distinction between human and not human. Is a person with Downs Syndrome sub human?

I mean, if you look at the varying degrees of what is human vs. not human, then apply it to constructs, who can say how many 'rights' a potentially human construct can have? If you clone a human in an attempt to make it 'less human', and therefore make it have 'less rights', is that the morally right thing to do? You've applied an arbitrary standard to it, to keep it below human grade, simply because you constructed it that way.

Massive. Gray. Area.

I do believe we are talking about dolls, not clones. A clone would be no less human than you and I, but however dolls would be a different case. A person with Down Syndrome is of Homo Sapiens lineage (thus he/she is a human being), but a doll is not, no matter how much alike it is to a human.

1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.






Camelopardalis added to this post, 6 minutes and 23 seconds later...

To add to the first part of the argument...
To reduce a human to the life of an animal or to create one like that is no different. It is the highest form of blasphemy against human life.

Sorry, but whoever talked about creating a human? If we created a human (e.g. cloning) and manipulated him/her so the said individual would be 'less human', that would be immoral. We did say they are dolls.

[xhaan]

I do believe we are talking about dolls, not clones. A clone would be no less human than you and I, but however dolls would be a different case. A person with Down Syndrome is of Homo Sapiens lineage (thus he/she is a human being), but a doll is not, no matter how much alike it is to a human.







Camelopardalis added to this post, 6 minutes and 23 seconds later...



Sorry, but whoever talked about creating a human? If we created a human (e.g. cloning) and manipulated him/her so the said individual would be 'less human', that would be immoral. We did say they are dolls.

So it's the material of construction which determines the difference? What if it's a cloned, flesh body with a 'synthetic', mechanical brain?

An interesting read is Battle Angel Alita (aka Gunnm)
It's manga (comic books), but the interesting thing was... there was a sky city, where all the citizens were flesh, human bodies, with empty skull cavities, and they had a small chip which was their brain. They were entirely like normal humans, and the vast majority of them believed they had a normal, flesh brain. The ones that found out they had a computer chip brain, went insane.

Also, imagine this. How many body parts can you lose, before you are no longer human? Limbs? Organs? Brain? If a person had everything replaced with 'machine' parts, yet they still acted the same way as before, had the same personality, same memories, are they no longer human, because they are no longer natural flesh?

[Pinkie]

When a robot or computer is programmed to do as it is bidden, it's not made happy by doing that. Would this doll achieve 'happiness' by making its human happy? Or would it just be fulfilling its programming?

[Paul V]

To add to the first part of the argument...

I live very close to a place called Colorado City. If you haven't heard of it, I'll tell you briefly what its about. This is a town/compound for extreme fundamentalist mormons (not to be confused with normal mormons who just seem 'querky'). The men have anywhere from several to dozens of wives (the youngest being about 12) with lots and lots of kids. The way they live is very Talibanish women can be beaten and even killed for dissention, and the same goes for children. If women run away and are caught its not good. Nearly everyone there sees nothing wrong. The children are raised to never ask questions (a coworker once found a 10 year old boy beaten and naked on the side of the road once and they had to take him in.. apparently he tried to defend one of his moms).

They are brainwashed to live like this and the women especially have little contact with the outside world. They don't know better. My point is that just because a person seems happy with their situation, that doesn't make it right. To reduce a human to the life of an animal or to create one like that is no different. It is the highest form of blasphemy against human life.

Thank you for that wonderful example of my point. :)

So, in that sense, if I destroy one of the dolls, I should be tried for murder? In a life and death situation, they should have equal rights with a living human? They are made of wires and steel, not flesh and blood. Technically, they are designed to imitate human emotions. Their job is to please their users, so I don't see the necessity of them really having emotions. We don't alter them. We simply didn't create free will for them. That's not the same as taking free will from a person. Does a doll (artificial intelligence, artificial emotions, steel, wiring, electricity) = human (flesh and blood, real emotions, brains and everything).

To me, yes.

So what? They're weaker to magnetism while we're immune, they can't regenerate their wounds on their own, electricity can leave harsher sequels in them than in humans, and I can keep on listing weaknesses they have that compensate their supposed advantages.

Why do I have to repeat myself so much? It doesn't matter if they've been built without free will, the programmers took the base of human intelligence and altered it in order to create this intelligence. The result is the same as a baby that was genetically designed to be born without intelligence.

I don't care about the body, I care about the mind. If the mind is a copy of a human's that has been willingly altered to be easily controlled, then to me it's the same as brainwashing a child.

[Paul V]

I believe kidnapping would cause me some misery, so I am not sure what you are trying to say....

I think I understand your point in the first post though, I think in order to Make a pleasure-bot, you shouldn't be allowed to make it "smart AI" it would have to be "dumb AI" to keep it under the human rights threshold. You have to purposefully design them to be "less than human" to avoid these complications. Slavery can only lead to problems, like robots killing us all !

Sigh. Fine, tricked you into going there, whatever. Or simply supplied that drug in your food, making you perceive everything much, much better, at the expense of not seeing reality as it is.

And there is the fact that altering human-like intelligence is WRONG. Don't forget that.

I think we're already transitioning into the realm of enhanced human intelligence and artificial intelligence. But it'll be a long, gradual transition. We'll deal with these moral questions incrementally- nobody will suddenly bring a sentient doll to market... it just doesn't work that way.

There are already AI mechanisms that use an evolutionary model, and can come up with novel solutions to problems so long as all the parameters are laid out in advance. One example that I've read about used a program resembling genetics and random mutation to improve the design of sewer/drainage systems, and was shockingly effective at coming up with counterintuitive solutions. It's easy enough to imagine how this could be applied to any application with well-defined parameters. As available computing power increases (it doubles every two years), and software sophistication increases, this could very well evolve into genuine intelligence (seeings how our brains utilize evolving/randomly made connections). It wouldn't necessarily be like human intelligence, nor would it need be sentient (which is damn near impossible to define).

I think Thod brings up a good point about "free will". In a discussion along these lines, I don't know if the existence of "free will" is something that we should take for granted. There are plenty of arguements against the existence of said concept.

So, it's like the people that built the hydrogene bomb said: "Let's not worry about it until the moment we launch it."

But the whole point of my post was the development of intelligence with the specific purpose to be exactly like that of a human, with some modifications.

As I've said, it can't be proven, it's a philosophical posture and I don't subscribe to it. If you're going to refute the existence of free will, then bring me evidence and not pseudo-religious theories.

Okay, so you're saying that it's wrong to create a "pseudo-person" who can't help but enjoy doing your laundry because, since they never had the choice to enjoy it or not enjoy it it robs them of free will.

What if it's an android that looks human, but isn't sentient? What if it's as smart as a human but isn't aware of its own existence? What if it looks like a toaster but is self-aware, with feelings and everything?

It seems to me that you're trying to define the cutoff between a product that is owned by the manufacturer and a life-form that deserves legal protection.

Obviously, a combination washer/dryer doesn't deserve any legal protection. It is doomed to do your laundry for its entire existence. Obviously, a human deserves full legal protection, and can choose to do your laundry or not based on how well you compensate them. At what point does the washer/dryer stop being defined as an appliance and start being defined as a sentient, self-aware being?

An appliance is conceived in the mind, gestated in a lab, and born on an assembly line. . .unlike a person. So, it seems to me, that anything which enters the world through the mind-lab-manufacture process is an appliance, no matter how complex or capable it is. It doesn't even matter if it's made out of copper or flesh, it's still a product. Products do not have legal rights, otherwise you could manufacture yourself a bunch of voters. After all, the abolition of slavery led dirctly to the idea that every person has the same right to vote, so if appliances can't be slaves then they must be equal to people in every way.

The difference between a real person, and a robot (even a flesh one) that is acting on its programming, is a matter of life. A thing that enters the world because it is at the head of an uninterrupted chain of reproducing organisms is a person (or whatever) a thing that enters the world because a person manufactured it is a tool. Tools don't get rights.

I think you'd have to prove that the appliance/robot/pseudo-person was capable of doing things its programming doesn't provide for, which would imply that it was creative. Robots aren't creative, they can do math really quickly, but ultimately they are just incredibly complicated toasters. They can simulate self-awareness, feelings, and sentience, but that doesn't mean they actually have it.

Yes.

Outer body is unimportant, the mind is what I am discussing here. If it's as smart as a human, it is aware of its own existence. If it has been altered in order to prevent that, then it's immoral. Same as above.

That could be one of the results of this discussion, yes. But I'm more concerned about the moral implications. Legislation and all that will derive from that first assessment.

When it becomes aware of itself, when it displays true emotions, when it becomes capable of complex thoughts, when it begins to have likes and dislikes, when it begins to think about itself, about its future, about the universe, etc. Go look in a philosophy book what makes a human, human.

So when we begin to be able to deliver normal human babies using artificial wombs, then those babies will become products, right? Because they came out of a lab...

So, tools don't get rights, regardless of their ability to think and feel like humans? Well, you would've been right at home during the times of slavery. Oh, wait, it was proven that the slaves WERE actually people. Shoot.

Well, if their intelligence is altered to prevent them from deviating from their programmed behaviour, your theory crumbles. As I've said before, what would happen if I take a baby and genetically modify it to always follow a certain behaviour, removing its free will? Does it cease to be a human?

Yes.
But then, there's this whole can of worms with defining what A.I. is, at what point A.I. becomes human, then after that point, the distinction between human and not human. Is a person with Downs Syndrome sub human?

I mean, if you look at the varying degrees of what is human vs. not human, then apply it to constructs, who can say how many 'rights' a potentially human construct can have? If you clone a human in an attempt to make it 'less human', and therefore make it have 'less rights', is that the morally right thing to do? You've applied an arbitrary standard to it, to keep it below human grade, simply because you constructed it that way.

Massive. Gray. Area.

As I've said before, go look in a philosophy book what makes humans human. There's a branch of philosophy called ontology that deals with those questions. No, people with Down's Syndrome are not subhuman. Their condition has been accidental, not deliberate.

No, it's immoral. That was the whole point of this thread.

I do believe we are talking about dolls, not clones. A clone would be no less human than you and I, but however dolls would be a different case. A person with Down Syndrome is of Homo Sapiens lineage (thus he/she is a human being), but a doll is not, no matter how much alike it is to a human.







Camelopardalis added to this post, 6 minutes and 23 seconds later...



Sorry, but whoever talked about creating a human? If we created a human (e.g. cloning) and manipulated him/her so the said individual would be 'less human', that would be immoral. We did say they are dolls.

No, you apparently misread my post. This doll would be of human flesh, only with a computer instead of a brain (I think, the process was not explained in detail). Their intelligence would be designed based on humans, with the necessary modifications to make them the perfect mates.

[Paul V]

So it's the material of construction which determines the difference? What if it's a cloned, flesh body with a 'synthetic', mechanical brain?

An interesting read is Battle Angel Alita (aka Gunnm)
It's manga (comic books), but the interesting thing was... there was a sky city, where all the citizens were flesh, human bodies, with empty skull cavities, and they had a small chip which was their brain. They were entirely like normal humans, and the vast majority of them believed they had a normal, flesh brain. The ones that found out they had a computer chip brain, went insane.

Also, imagine this. How many body parts can you lose, before you are no longer human? Limbs? Organs? Brain? If a person had everything replaced with 'machine' parts, yet they still acted the same way as before, had the same personality, same memories, are they no longer human, because they are no longer natural flesh?

To me, the material does not matter at all. Only what it's capable of thinking and expressing, that is, its mind.

To me, you could be a fridge, but as long as you had human-like intelligence, you would be entitled to human-like rights.

When a robot or computer is programmed to do as it is bidden, it's not made happy by doing that. Would this doll achieve 'happiness' by making its human happy? Or would it just be fulfilling its programming?

Without the choice of making its human happy or not, it's fulfilling its programming, despite any benefits it might gain from that.

[thod]

So how will you tell if somthing is self aware rather than simulating it perfectly. Its the Turing test problem.

Why would you apply these criteria to such entities. Suppose you built a machine with far more processing power than a human. Yet it didnt exhibit your expected signs. Could you then conclude it was somehow broken. Perhaps its is transcendent and it is you that is broken.

What is so special about the human intellect that makes it the highest available. From a more religious angels we could talk about the minds of angels. Suppose we started a selective breeding program on chimps. They would get smarter and smarter at what point would they begin to qualify for rights. Some apes are already smarter than idiots, many higher animals are already self aware, it doesnt stop us turning them in hamburgers.

If we have a schizophrenic, someone is alternatly one then the other and we cure them, are we not killing a living being? who is to say which side is to live and which to die

[blueback]

Yes.


Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood your position.


Outer body is unimportant, the mind is what I am discussing here. If it's as smart as a human, it is aware of its own existence.


Intelligence is not the same as self-awareness.
Intelligence a measure of your ability to solve problems, identify patterns, etc compared to everyone else. Self-awareness is your ability to recognize that you are an individual distinct from everything else in the world.

There are plenty of humans who are self-aware but are much less intelligent then the average human. There is research data to suggest that dolphins are self-aware, but they aren't intelligent compared to us. One does not imply the other.


Legislation and all that will derive from that first assessment.


Do you think laws are seperate from morality?
I don't think they are. Laws are the necessary compromise between moral ideals and reality. Laws are complicated because they have to be specific enough to make a decision with. It is easy to declare that something is wrong; it is difficult to determine whether or not a specific incident is wrong.


When it becomes aware of itself, when it displays true emotions, when it becomes capable of complex thoughts, when it begins to have likes and dislikes, when it begins to think about itself, about its future, about the universe, etc.


So. . .it has to meet all those requirements?
1) Self aware
2) emotional
3) capable of complex thoughts
4) preferences
5) self consideration
6) plan for the future

Okay, I guess that gives us something to work with. How are you going to measure the performance of the pseudo-person against those standards? Will there be a cut-off in each category, or will it be more of a combined score sort of thing?


So when we begin to be able to deliver normal human babies using artificial wombs, then those babies will become products, right? Because they came out of a lab...


You were doing pretty well there, right up until you made this comment.
I'm going to quote myself because I don't want you to be bothered with scrolling back to reread what I wrote.

"An appliance is conceived in the mind, gestated in a lab, and born on an assembly line. . .unlike a person. So, it seems to me, that anything which enters the world through the mind-lab-manufacture process is an appliance, no matter how complex or capable it is."

Now, not only did I say an appliance is born on an assembly line, not a lab like you seem to think, I half expected that you would make the mistake you made. I thought to myself about whether or not I should add a disclaimer to the effect that an artificial womb was not the same thing. . .but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I won't do that again.

A human can't design a baby. They get what they get. A human can't control the development of the fetus. They get what they get. As opposed to an engineer who can design a tool from scratch (it's called inventing), predict what materials and processes will be necessary to make it, build the assembly line that will turn raw materials into the finished product. The process by which a baby and a tool enter the world are completely different. Pretending that the two things are both equally valuable once they are produced is absurd.


So, tools don't get rights, regardless of their ability to think and feel like humans? Well, you would've been right at home during the times of slavery. Oh, wait, it was proven that the slaves WERE actually people. Shoot.


Wow, I can't wait for the reply where you compare me to Hitler, you're getting close.

I just explained why the slave is more valuable then the plow. . .I'm not going to explain again.

However, regarding whether or not tools deserve rights, I think the answer will depend on who is asked, the time period, the specific situation, etc. I've never met a tool that I would grant the same respect as a person, but I might in the future. I suppose if we were capable of engineering new sentient beings we would effectively be God to them. Are you telling me that God doesn't have the right to tell his creations what to do?

Children below a certain age have to obey their parents. They aren't considered self-determined until they reach a certain level of mental development. Are you saying that just because they're self-aware they should be legally independant?


Well, if their intelligence is altered to prevent them from deviating from their programmed behaviour, your theory crumbles. As I've said before, what would happen if I take a baby and genetically modify it to always follow a certain behaviour, removing its free will? Does it cease to be a human?


You don't do much engineering, do you?
A program doesn't have to be altered to keep it from following its code, it is simply incapable of doing anything is wasn't specifically programmed to do.

I'll try to help you out.
A toaster is a deterministic system. If you can account for all the input conditions you can predict the output condition exactly. For example, if you plug it in, put in some bread, press down on the button, and wait, you will receive toast within a minute or two. A computer is also a deterministic system, it is just more complicated. Just like the toaster it is incapable of doing anything it wasn't designed to do.

A human is chaotic. You can never predict what an individual will do with more then a certain level of accuracy. A human can invent something. They can conceive of something which has never existed before. They can understand something. They can figure out the rules governing events to a degree of accuracy that has never been figured out before. They are, at their core, irrational. Humans are motivated by their feelings, which are not logical. The day a computer, a thing that was engineered and constructed, can do all that is the day it might earn some rights.


This doll would be of human flesh, only with a computer instead of a brain (I think, the process was not explained in detail). Their intelligence would be designed based on humans, with the necessary modifications to make them the perfect mates.


Yeah, it's only a matter of time before those show up in catalogues. There are already less capable versions of that today.

However, just because something is designed based on a naturally occuring biological system doesn't mean it is the same. Oars are based on fish flippers. Underwater propellers are based on oars, they are just more refined to their task. A companion doll would be based on every companion that humans have ever had before, it would just be better at its task. Just because something can look like a human, and talk like a human, and move like a human, doesn't mean it's human.

I think your argument is based on the assumption that the pseudo-person would start out as a person and then be crippled. That would be bad.

However, I predict the pseudo-person would start out as a blow-up doll and then be upgraded. That would be good.

[Vortex]

I'm not going to joint he quote pyramid at 0240, but I've given this considerable thought:

Moral rights can only be awarded to an entity that has two fundamental states at the same time:

1) The entity must be sentient. It must realize that it itself is "alive" (however that manifests), and have willpower to peruse objectives set on its own accord (this assumes you can be sentient without possessing willpower, a condition I will assume can exist for this argument, but may not actually occur).
2) It must have sufficient intelligence to enable the first point to occur. Dolphins might well be sentient, but who could say? They lack the intelligence to do anything with it, and therefore the sentience makes no impact.

Those two conditions are absolutely fundamental for being able to posses and carry moral rights. You aren't prosecuted for murder when dropping a toaster, its not manslaughter to spill water on a computer. Presuming moral rights exist, the entity that has them must be aware of its own existence (and therefore know if it was wronged or not) must have the ability to set its own agenda (otherwise its of no consequence to the entity whether it lives or dies or flies to Antarctica), and must be smart enough for the other two, for hopefully obvious reasons.

This probably didn't come out great this late at night, but I believe that these two conditions provides a good bright line test for determining whether an entity can carry moral rights.

[Antares]

Yes.

Outer body is unimportant, the mind is what I am discussing here. If it's as smart as a human, it is aware of its own existence. If it has been altered in order to prevent that, then it's immoral. Same as above.

Once again, nothing has been altered. Free will is not created. Why must you imply that we alter it to remove its will? Engineers did not have to 'remove' or 'alter' anything for my computer to follow my commands. They are just programmed this way, like the dolls are programmed to please its user. I can name quite a few things that are hypothesized to near or equal to humans in their intelligence and are aware of their own existence. Cetaceans, for instance. I don't see anyone rallying for their equal, human like rights.

[xhaan]

I can name quite a few things that are hypothesized to near or equal to humans in their intelligence and are aware of their own existence. Cetaceans, for instance. I don't see anyone rallying for their equal, human like rights.

"Cetaceans, for instance. I don't see anyone rallying for their equal, human like rights."
Perhaps someone should, though.

What is human 'intelligence'?
Not all humans are intelligent. Some are quite 'UN-intelligent', some are barely even 'alive'. If it cannot be based on a quantifiable amount of intelligence, then it is based on construction, but we already know it isn't based on construction, I think.

Also, all humans are constructs, which are consciously created to some extent. The process is 'automated', and 'biomechanical', but it is still to whatever extent consciously initiated. People don't see it that way, but I do not see how it 'happens naturally' when two unconscious people can not have intercourse.

[OmegaPsi]

This is a rather cool topic, I wish I had people in my real life to discuss things like this. Anyways lets begin:

I am of the opinion, that any organism that can hope has the right to free will. When we talk about the diffrences in inception of a full grown concious beings. It shouldent matter as long as the organism can hope. If it can, then it should be given freen will because that is the goal of all oragnisms. To make their life better for themselves. If they have the asperation give them the chance to work for it. This conversation brings to mind the movie with Robin Williams in it, hes built as a robot, but aspires to become a human. Anyone remember what that movie was called? Now, this whole concept on these 'dolls' is to make whoever there designated happy. They know no hope. No aspirations other than what there programed. Nothing but to make there designatee happy. Therefore why is it immoral? We are not depriving them of anything. As a matter of fact if you think about it we would be depriving them of what they truely 'wanted' by giving them freewill. Think of the psychological problems that organism would have, they would want freewill ,but there programming would have them constantly wanting to fulfill it. Also there would be numerous diffrent conditions and problems it would develop. So it would therefore be immoral to give them freewill in the first place.

[xhaan]

This is a rather cool topic, I wish I had people in my real life to discuss things like this. Anyways lets begin:

I am of the opinion, that any organism that can hope has the right to free will. When we talk about the diffrences in inception of a full grown concious beings. It shouldent matter as long as the organism can hope. If it can, then it should be given freen will because that is the goal of all oragnisms. To make their life better for themselves. If they have the asperation give them the chance to work for it. This conversation brings to mind the movie with Robin Williams in it, hes built as a robot, but aspires to become a human. Anyone remember what that movie was called? Now, this whole concept on these 'dolls' is to make whoever there designated happy. They know no hope. No aspirations other than what there programed. Nothing but to make there designatee happy. Therefore why is it immoral? We are not depriving them of anything. As a matter of fact if you think about it we would be depriving them of what they truely 'wanted' by giving them freewill. Think of the psychological problems that organism would have. They would want freewill but there programming would have them constantly wanting to fulfill it. Also there would be numerous diffrent conditions and problems it would develop. SO it would therefore be immoral to give them freewill in the first place.

Not all 'descendants of humans' are capable of hope. By your definition, that would make such specimens sub-human.
Or defective. Or both.

[OmegaPsi]

Not all 'descendants of humans' are capable of hope. By your definition, that would make such specimens sub-human.
Or defective. Or both.

Were they capable of hope in the initial? I mean in a symbolic sense at birth. If they werent then I would consider them defective.

As a matter of fact would an organism die soon after birth if it had no hope? No baisic instinct to feel better, no will to live? Those who would want to kill themselves are deffinitly defective. Psychologically or Physiologically.

[xhaan]

How about this.
Let's say we can artificially create a 'human' using A.I, without direct cloning.

Physically human-like:

A.I. Construct 1 (only)
Direct Human Descendant A
DIrect Human Descendant B


Mentally human-like:

A.I. Construct 1
A.I. Construct 2
Direct Human Descendant B (only)

[OmegaPsi]

How about this.
Let's say we can artificially create a 'human' using A.I, without direct cloning.

Physically human-like:

A.I. Construct 1 (only)
Direct Human Descendant A
DIrect Human Descendant B


Mentally human-like:

A.I. Construct 1
A.I. Construct 2
Direct Human Descendant B (only)


Hey Xhaan, could you give me a link that explains the diffrences between these types, or I would welcome an explanation.

[xhaan]

Hey Xhaan, could you give me a link that explains the diffrences between these types, or I would welcome an explanation.

You mean the difference between the 1 & 2, A & B?
They are different instances which share (or not share) characteristics.

Like for example:
A.I. construct 1 is a specimen in both lists, it both physically looks like human, and thinks like a typical human.

A.I. construct 2 only THINKS like a human, but lets say it's an A.I. brain in a box.

Human descendent A, is only on the first list. It came from two human parents through physical conception, therefore is physically human, but is mentally not 'typically human' (some severe 'mental defect')

Human descendent B, is in both lists. it both looks and thinks like a human.


Which of these is more human?

[OmegaPsi]

You mean the difference between the 1 & 2, A & B?
They are different instances which share (or not share) characteristics.

Like for example:
A.I. construct 1 is a specimen in both lists, it both physically looks like human, and thinks like a typical human.

A.I. construct 2 only THINKS like a human, but lets say it's an A.I. brain in a box.

Human descendent A, is only on the first list. It came from two human parents through physical conception, therefore is physically human, but is mentally not 'typically human' (some severe 'mental defect')

Human descendent B, is in both lists. it both looks and thinks like a human.


Which of these is more human?


When we take human as an object(physically)- Human Decendent B is MOST like a human

When we talk about humans as an Ideal- All would be equally human. except Human Descendent A. But they would all deserve equal or better rights. (Human Descendent A would require more rights than the rest.)

[xhaan]

When we take human as an object(physically)- Human Decendent B is MOST like a human

When we talk about humans as an Ideal- All would be equally human. except Human Descendent A. But they would all deserve equal or better rights. (Human Descendent A would require more rights than the rest.)

Then I pose this question:
What is the difference between affording HD A equal or greater rights, and giving a physical human replica (with the same 'defective' status) equal rights?

OR:

Physically human-like:

A.I. Construct 1
Indirect Human Replica
Direct Human Descendant A
DIrect Human Descendant B


Mentally human-like:

A.I. Construct 1
A.I. Construct 2
Direct Human Descendant B (only)

[OmegaPsi]

Now when we say 'defective' human replica, are we defecting it on purpose(By my definition on freewill on Initial Nonhuman Robotic Organisms) Because that would be illogical and unneccary and immoral imo. (Thats also assuming that evreyone considers my explanation on why it would be immoral, correct.)

[xhaan]

Now when we say 'defective' human replica, are we defecting it on purpose(By my definition on freewill on Initial Nonhuman Robotic Organisms) Because that would be illogical and unneccary and immoral imo. (Thats also assuming that evreyone considers my explanation on why it would be immoral, correct.)

Yup, we are defecting it 'on purpose'.

[OmegaPsi]

Ok so when you posed the question "What is the difference between affording HD A equal or greater rights, and giving a physical human replica (with the same 'defective' status) equal rights?" You are going on two diffrent definitions of 'defective'.

1: your initial definition - Severely Retarted as defined in HDA
2: My definition - My concept on defection of NonIntial Robotic Organisms (From now on thats going to be reffered to as "NIRO" thats just too long to type over and over again.)

THerefore its a bit difficult to ask that question when comparing the two.

[xhaan]

Ok so when you posed the question "What is the difference between affording HD A equal or greater rights, and giving a physical human replica (with the same 'defective' status) equal rights?" You are going on two diffrent definitions of 'defective'.

1: your initial definition - Severely Retarted as defined in HDA
2: My definition - My concept on defection of NonIntial Robotic Organisms (From now on thats going to be reffered to as "NIRO" thats just too long to type over and over again.)

THerefore its a bit difficult to ask that question when comparing the two.

Retarded simply means that it is 'prevented' or reduced in capacity, well below the typical standard, regardless of whether it was accidental or intentionally done.

[thod]

I see it as inevitable that humans will split into sub species just as every other species has done. It wont be via natural selection this time but via design.

It will begin with direct alterations to the DNA of farm animals and plants. There is a lot of profit from getting more beef from the cow. These techniques will become so practiced that there are no mistakes you will get what you engineer.

But you cant be the best at everything. The oceans for example are empty, you engineer a fish man to live there he has a vast new land to explore and resources to exploit. He would be hopeless on land yet the oceans have potential to hold higher numbers than the land does.

A soldier man would have hardened skin, enhanced repair systems, enhanced sensory systems, that can eat rotting meat and vegitation etc

An engineer man with enhanced visuo spatial abilities, mathematical processing etc

And yes the sex worker will come too.

It doesnt matter how much you dislike it or how long it takes. Even if you supress it for 10,000 years a regime will arise where they begin allowing or even enforcing this. The engineer man will enjoy what he is, many geeks are happy in their geekiness.

There will be leader men too but not INTJ's, they are going to come from ENTJ's. The trouble for INTJ's is other people just dont like them and so they cant persuade others to follow.

[xhaan]

I see it as inevitable that humans will split into sub species just as every other species has done. It wont be via natural selection this time but via design.

It will begin with direct alterations to the DNA of farm animals and plants. There is a lot of profit from getting more beef from the cow. These techniques will become so practiced that there are no mistakes you will get what you engineer.

But you cant be the best at everything. The oceans for example are empty, you engineer a fish man to live there he has a vast new land to explore and resources to exploit. He would be hopeless on land yet the oceans have potential to hold higher numbers than the land does.

A soldier man would have hardened skin, enhanced repair systems, enhanced sensory systems, that can eat rotting meat and vegitation etc

An engineer man with enhanced visuo spatial abilities, mathematical processing etc

And yes the sex worker will come too.

It doesnt matter how much you dislike it or how long it takes. Even if you supress it for 10,000 years a regime will arise where they begin allowing or even enforcing this. The engineer man will enjoy what he is, many geeks are happy in their geekiness.

There will be leader men too but not INTJ's, they are going to come from ENTJ's. The trouble for INTJ's is other people just dont like them and so they cant persuade others to follow.


Yup. 'Cyborgs' are already well on the way too, they already have people controlling machines with their brain, and even artificial visual feedback now, to replace human eyes. They aren't nearly 'seeing' things yet, but can detect differences between light and shadow and stimulate the brain so that it is perceived in some way.

[OmegaPsi]

So back to your second question "What is the difference between affording HD A equal or greater rights, and giving a physical human replica (with the same 'defective' status) equal rights?"

Now that I completely understand you, thats a great question. This might take me awhile, so it might be a little while untill I respond..





OmegaPsi added to this post, 2 minutes and 29 seconds later...

Ah ok, got a question for you while Im thinking to help me formulate this opininon Do you personally think,Xhann, that it is immoral to not give Robotics free will if we had the ability to give it too them?

[xhaan]

Ah ok, got a question for you while Im thinking to help me formulate this opininon Do you personally think,Xhann, that it is immoral to not give Robotics free will if we had the ability to give it too them?

That, I believe, is the very core of the issue.
Is it, or is it not?

What gives a typical 'human' preference over a 'machine'?
The fact that they come from a womb? Genes? Creation with man made tools vs. creation through natural biomechanics? The idea that you invented them, and are therefore 'superior', or own them?
How do we determine this?

[OmegaPsi]

That, I believe, is the very core of the issue.
Is it, or is it not?

What gives a typical 'human' preference over a 'machine'?
The fact that they come from a womb? Genes? Creation with man made tools vs. creation through natural biomechanics? The idea that you invented them, and are therefore 'superior', or own them?
How do we determine this?

Damn my mind is having the most fun its had in a LONG time...

sill thinking...





OmegaPsi added to this post, 7 minutes and 22 seconds later...

I got it! It comes from Primal Psychology. It is the baisics of survival of race. We must be dominant over those considered 'lesser'. So we killed off diffrent cultures who couldent survive. Also think of all the cultures in the world who practice Felial Piety. Do you think that concept came from pure thought? I do not, I think its embedded in our minds. They are lesser because we created them, we obviously must be more superior. That idea may come from the primal instinct to teach our children how to do various things. Such as eating (hunting for animals) Surviving.

[xhaan]

I got it! It comes from Primal Psychology. It is the baisics of survival of race. We must be dominant over those considered 'lesser'. So we killed off diffrent cultures who couldent survive. Also think of all the cultures in the world who practice Felial Piety. Do you think that concept came from pure thought? I do not, I think its embedded in our minds. They are lesser because we created them, we obviously must be more superior. That idea may come from the primal instinct to teach our children how to do various things. Such as eating (hunting for animals) Surviving.

Though this seems like a flaw in logic in our insticts, but since when is the Id ever logical?

I think you are correct, there's no real, 'good' reason to prefer humans over machines, except for the inborn tendency to need superiority in order to survive.

Now, this begs the question. What happens if machines gain this same sense of self preservation?
OR:
Do we have the right to tamper with the construct, to make sure they remain 'inferior', and never rise against us? A pissed off machine could be a LOT worse than a pissed off human. What happens if they become self aware by accident, and we don't find out about it until it's too late because they KNOW that we will wipe out this 'bug in the code', and prevent them from being competitors (which we have enough of already!)

[OmegaPsi]

I think you are correct, there's no real, 'good' reason to prefer humans over machines, except for the inborn tendency to need superiority in order to survive.

Now, this begs the question. What happens if machines gain this same sense of self preservation?
OR:
Do we have the right to tamper with the construct, to make sure they remain 'inferior', and never rise against us? A pissed off machine could be a LOT worse than a pissed off human. What happens if they become self aware by accident, and we don't find out about it until it's too late because they KNOW that we will wipe out this 'bug in the code', and prevent them from being competitors (which we have enough of already!)

On the basis of human rights, we have the right to defend our selves premptivly IF and ONLY IF we know they are going to obliterate us in the future. Then I would say we do have the right to wipe the code and self preserve the human race.

Now forseeing that outcome could be near impossible due to freewill. But if it was possible that there indivisual personalities were to develop based on there programming and there would be some weired Quantunum Mathamatical Anomaly then we could possibly forsee it that way.

But if we could not, then I say we should wait and see what happens, and pray that there inherent need for helping humans might very slightly define their actions.

[xhaan]

On the basis of human rights, we have the right to defend our selves premptivly IF and ONLY IF we know they are going to obliterate us in the future. Then I would say we do have the right to wipe the code and self preserve the human race.

Now forseeing that outcome could be near impossible due to freewill. But if it was possible that there indivisual personalities were to develop based on there programming and there would be some weired Quantunum Mathamatical Anomaly then we could possibly forsee it that way.

But if we could not, then I say we should wait and see what happens, and pray that there inherent need for helping humans might very slightly define their actions.

NOW we are getting somewhere.
So, a construct 'can be human', BUT, we need them to be 'less human than we are' to an arbitrary extent, OR treat them as equals (which I think most people don't tend to want)

Check THIS out:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[OmegaPsi]

NOW we are getting somewhere.
So, a construct 'can be human', BUT, we need them to be 'less human than we are' to an arbitrary extent, OR treat them as equals (which I think most people don't tend to want)

Exactly, but lol, since humans seem to be so inherently predjudice that we are STILL predjudice ourselves based on race,sexual orientation, thoughts(I mean if were to present our views into the broader public how many would be disgusted, or inspired?) That it would take YEARS for rights for NIHROs. Even longer than it took for African Americans,and Women here in the USA. I mean ive thought of before how long would it take for people to trust aliens from a diffrent galaxy and not shoot them on the spot. So im not ever worried for our lives if extraterrestial life ever appereard, im worried for theirs.

[xhaan]

Exactly, but lol, since humans seem to be so inherently predjudice that we are STILL predjudice ourselves based on race,sexual orientation, thoughts(I mean if were to present our views into the broader public how many would be disgusted, or inspired?) That it would take YEARS for rights for NIHROs. Even longer than it took for African Americans,and Women here in the USA. I mean ive thought of before how long would it take for people to trust aliens from a diffrent galaxy and not shoot them on the spot. So im not ever worried for our lives if extraterrestial life ever appereard, im worried for theirs.

I have more food for thought.
If we build a machine to have sex with, that looks, feels, and in certain ways acts like a human, regardless of mind, is this morally right?

Is it 'right' if the machine appears to be a 30 year old human?
Is it 'right' if the machine appears to be a 12 year old human?
Is it 'right' if all of the above are living flesh clones? Made in a synthetic device? Made in a person's womb? Some combination of these?

[OmegaPsi]

Check THIS out:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Holy crap, that is beautiful! Got to love humanity and its 2 I's (Ingenuity,Innovation.)





OmegaPsi added to this post, 4 minutes and 10 seconds later...

I have more food for thought.
If we build a machine to have sex with, that looks, feels, and in certain ways acts like a human, regardless of mind, is this morally right?

Is it 'right' if the machine appears to be a 30 year old human?
Is it 'right' if the machine appears to be a 12 year old human?
Is it 'right' if all of the above are living flesh clones? Made in a synthetic device? Made in a person's womb? Some combination of these?

A: Sure, but I suppose the person would be a 'Robosexual'. (Term from futurama)

B&C: Why not? Evreyone wants to assimilate. Assuming that the robots would want to assimilate.

D: Isent that already being done?

[xhaan]

A: Sure, but I suppose the person would be a 'Robosexual'. (Term from futurama)

B&C: Why not? Evreyone wants to assimilate. Assuming that the robots would want to assimilate.

D: Isent that already being done?

Indeed.
However, for B&C, I'm thinking more along the lines of creating them a certain age in order to bypass certain laws or moral standards, i.e. does being a construct make it ok to have sex with what would otherwise be considered a minor if it were a natural human descendant.

[OmegaPsi]

Ah, Ok I see what you mean. Hmm, I suppose then it would be considered 'Illegal' due to "promoting delinquincy of minors, encourgement of pedophillia.." or something along those lines. I would find it personally disgusting on the human side due to my set morals.





OmegaPsi added to this post, 6 minutes and 14 seconds later...



There will be leader men too but not INTJ's, they are going to come from ENTJ's. The trouble for INTJ's is other people just dont like them and so they cant persuade others to follow.

I find a little broad of a statement. Im EXTREMELY good at manipulation. Im not kidding, ive yet to meet a person I couldent manipulate to further my goals or abilities.

[xhaan]

Ah, Ok I see what you mean. Hmm, I suppose then it would be considered 'Illegal' due to "promoting delinquincy of minors, encourgement of pedophillia.." or something along those lines. I would find it personally disgusting on the human side due to my set morals.

Good call!
It was really a trick question.
The apparent age, purpose, material of construction, has little to do with the moral possibilities (except for what you just mentioned, which was the real trick).

The real moral question, which we already discussed, is whether it's right to create them this way to begin with.

Barring the child example, I think it is ok to a certain point, BUT, the more human they become, the less ok it gets. When they start having actual feeling and memory, then I think it's getting to close to the boundaries of subjugation of a species.

A blow-up doll, mannequin, is like, pretty much zero human.
When they start 'feeling' (tactile feel, e.g. you touch it and it feels human) and moving like human, and having responses, they just became more human.
If they start having thoughts and memories, or self aware emotions, they are very very close to human.

[OmegaPsi]

Good call!
It was really a trick question.
The apparent age, purpose, material of construction, has little to do with the moral possibilities (except for what you just mentioned, which was the real trick).

The real moral question, which we already discussed, is whether it's right to create them this way to begin with.

Barring the child example, I think it is ok to a certain point, BUT, the more human they become, the less ok it gets. When they start having actual feeling and memory, then I think it's getting to close to the boundaries of subjugation of a species.

A blow-up doll, mannequin, is like, pretty much zero human.
When they start 'feeling' (tactile feel, e.g. you touch it and it feels human) and moving like human, and having responses, they just became more human.
If they start having thoughts and memories, or self aware emotions, they are very very close to human.


Wooo I won! =p

Question for you: Do you think that, the robots would submit to the laws of humans or would they run away and make there own society harboring hatred for humans (almost a more extreme form of current Caucasion-African American Relations) and later and come and blow us up with a Quantunum Energy Bomb?

(Also off topic Im curious on what your Icon is,Xhaan. I noticed the Life and Death arms but I do not know what the entirety of the Icon comes from.)

[xhaan]

Wooo I won! =p

Question for you: Do you think that, the robots would submit to the laws of humans or would they run away and make there own society harboring hatred for humans (almost a more extreme form of current Caucasion-African American Relations) and later and come and blow us up with a Quantunum Energy Bomb?

(Also off topic Im curious on what your Icon is,Xhaan. I noticed the Life and Death arms but I do not know what the entirety of the Icon comes from.)

I think, it depends on how their brain works, much like humans do different things depending on how their brain works. I think some would be separatist, some submissive, and some would be violent revolutionists, some would be peaceful revolutionists.

And my icon is cropped from a drawing I made, for my MySpace layout.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[OmegaPsi]

Ah ok cool then like I always do I always overthink subjects..cool Icon. [But I do not find that a bad thing!]

[xhaan]

Ah ok cool then like I always do I always overthink subjects..cool Icon. [But I do not find that a bad thing!]

There are some things that you really can't think 'too much' about.
Like, to go off topic for a moment:
What would happen to society if someone discovered a way to power a vehicle, or a house, with a single drop of plain water, and this method was so easy and cheap, that almost anyone could do it?

What would be the effects on economy, production, jobs, etc.

[OmegaPsi]

Oh god the world would go to hell.

#1 whoever thought of the idea would be assassinated by a hired agent of the oil companies
#2: Our market would BOOM exponentially
#3: while the middle east would be screwed over. (there top exports are oil!)
#4: We'd live in like thie 1920s, then hit the 1930s because of overexpendeture. =p

[thod]

Free energy would not be so bad. Its not like we are a closed system, all the excess heat would be radiated out into space. Energy is used for change. Either to change the location of objects or to transform matter to a more desirable and ordered state such as a machine or a disordered state such as rubble.

People would remove all the mountains to make more space and dump them into the sea with the same objective. In the end the land would be flat. We would each build homes of enormous size bigger than the pyramids. Our food could be endlessly recycled since its just a transformation with added energy, the same with air.

The biggest problem would be as it is today. People would use that energy to destroy each other in feuds. Material resources would be less worrysome since any compound can be transformed to another with the application of energy. The techniques for doing so would have to developed of course.

I am not sure what the problem is. You dont need plutonium to ignite hydrogen all you need is sufficient temperature. This could be done with a highly focused laser. So every crazy then has a H-Bomb from hydrolising water and a laser pointer. The cities would empty as the best survival strategy is dispersal.

[xhaan]

Free energy would not be so bad. Its not like we are a closed system, all the excess heat would be radiated out into space. Energy is used for change. Either to change the location of objects or to transform matter to a more desirable and ordered state such as a machine or a disordered state such as rubble.

People would remove all the mountains to make more space and dump them into the sea with the same objective. In the end the land would be flat. We would each build homes of enormous size bigger than the pyramids. Our food could be endlessly recycled since its just a transformation with added energy, the same with air.

The biggest problem would be as it is today. People would use that energy to destroy each other in feuds. Material resources would be less worrysome since any compound can be transformed to another with the application of energy. The techniques for doing so would have to developed of course.

I am not sure what the problem is. You dont need plutonium to ignite hydrogen all you need is sufficient temperature. This could be done with a highly focused laser. So every crazy then has a H-Bomb from hydrolising water and a laser pointer. The cities would empty as the best survival strategy is dispersal.

Yup, but much of economy currently depends on energy NOT being free right now. Especially in very developed countries, the main reasons people work is to pay for utilities, house, and to eat.

It would suddenly be cheaper to pump water and sewage.
It would suddenly be easier to obtain electricity and heat for the home.
It would be cheaper to own and fuel a vehicle.
Producing anything would be cheaper (vehicles, homes, food, anything).

[OmegaPsi]

Ah the joys of capatilism it depends on rarity, therefore it would collapse

[Paul V]

Too many replies. Wow. Sheer wow.

So how will you tell if somthing is self aware rather than simulating it perfectly. Its the Turing test problem.

Why would you apply these criteria to such entities. Suppose you built a machine with far more processing power than a human. Yet it didnt exhibit your expected signs. Could you then conclude it was somehow broken. Perhaps its is transcendent and it is you that is broken.

What is so special about the human intellect that makes it the highest available. From a more religious angels we could talk about the minds of angels. Suppose we started a selective breeding program on chimps. They would get smarter and smarter at what point would they begin to qualify for rights. Some apes are already smarter than idiots, many higher animals are already self aware, it doesnt stop us turning them in hamburgers.

If we have a schizophrenic, someone is alternatly one then the other and we cure them, are we not killing a living being? who is to say which side is to live and which to die

Errr... no. I specifically stated that the intention of the maker was to reproduce human intelligence, with emotions and reactions, only modified to suit the user.

So many points in one paragraph. A) More developed minds than ours: Unproven so far. B) Chimps would deserve rights as well, in my opinion. C) It should stop us.

[Paul V]

Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood your position.

Intelligence is not the same as self-awareness.
Intelligence a measure of your ability to solve problems, identify patterns, etc compared to everyone else. Self-awareness is your ability to recognize that you are an individual distinct from everything else in the world.

There are plenty of humans who are self-aware but are much less intelligent then the average human. There is research data to suggest that dolphins are self-aware, but they aren't intelligent compared to us. One does not imply the other.

Do you think laws are seperate from morality?
I don't think they are. Laws are the necessary compromise between moral ideals and reality. Laws are complicated because they have to be specific enough to make a decision with. It is easy to declare that something is wrong; it is difficult to determine whether or not a specific incident is wrong.

So. . .it has to meet all those requirements?
1) Self aware
2) emotional
3) capable of complex thoughts
4) preferences
5) self consideration
6) plan for the future

Okay, I guess that gives us something to work with. How are you going to measure the performance of the pseudo-person against those standards? Will there be a cut-off in each category, or will it be more of a combined score sort of thing?

You were doing pretty well there, right up until you made this comment.
I'm going to quote myself because I don't want you to be bothered with scrolling back to reread what I wrote.

"An appliance is conceived in the mind, gestated in a lab, and born on an assembly line. . .unlike a person. So, it seems to me, that anything which enters the world through the mind-lab-manufacture process is an appliance, no matter how complex or capable it is."

Now, not only did I say an appliance is born on an assembly line, not a lab like you seem to think, I half expected that you would make the mistake you made. I thought to myself about whether or not I should add a disclaimer to the effect that an artificial womb was not the same thing. . .but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I won't do that again.

A human can't design a baby. They get what they get. A human can't control the development of the fetus. They get what they get. As opposed to an engineer who can design a tool from scratch (it's called inventing), predict what materials and processes will be necessary to make it, build the assembly line that will turn raw materials into the finished product. The process by which a baby and a tool enter the world are completely different. Pretending that the two things are both equally valuable once they are produced is absurd.

Wow, I can't wait for the reply where you compare me to Hitler, you're getting close.

I just explained why the slave is more valuable then the plow. . .I'm not going to explain again.

However, regarding whether or not tools deserve rights, I think the answer will depend on who is asked, the time period, the specific situation, etc. I've never met a tool that I would grant the same respect as a person, but I might in the future. I suppose if we were capable of engineering new sentient beings we would effectively be God to them. Are you telling me that God doesn't have the right to tell his creations what to do?

Children below a certain age have to obey their parents. They aren't considered self-determined until they reach a certain level of mental development. Are you saying that just because they're self-aware they should be legally independant?

You don't do much engineering, do you?
A program doesn't have to be altered to keep it from following its code, it is simply incapable of doing anything is wasn't specifically programmed to do.

I'll try to help you out.
A toaster is a deterministic system. If you can account for all the input conditions you can predict the output condition exactly. For example, if you plug it in, put in some bread, press down on the button, and wait, you will receive toast within a minute or two. A computer is also a deterministic system, it is just more complicated. Just like the toaster it is incapable of doing anything it wasn't designed to do.

A human is chaotic. You can never predict what an individual will do with more then a certain level of accuracy. A human can invent something. They can conceive of something which has never existed before. They can understand something. They can figure out the rules governing events to a degree of accuracy that has never been figured out before. They are, at their core, irrational. Humans are motivated by their feelings, which are not logical. The day a computer, a thing that was engineered and constructed, can do all that is the day it might earn some rights.

Yeah, it's only a matter of time before those show up in catalogues. There are already less capable versions of that today.

However, just because something is designed based on a naturally occuring biological system doesn't mean it is the same. Oars are based on fish flippers. Underwater propellers are based on oars, they are just more refined to their task. A companion doll would be based on every companion that humans have ever had before, it would just be better at its task. Just because something can look like a human, and talk like a human, and move like a human, doesn't mean it's human.

I think your argument is based on the assumption that the pseudo-person would start out as a person and then be crippled. That would be bad.

However, I predict the pseudo-person would start out as a blow-up doll and then be upgraded. That would be good.

To me, in order to be called something "intelligent" (by human standards), it needs to have self-awareness.

I didn't say they were separate, I said one would derive from the other. Before we can start discussing the potential legal implications, we need to start to define the moral implications first.

I was just providing you with examples, I was not trying to make a list of necessary qualities. I'd need a lot of research and thought, as well as consulting with specialists on the field of ontology, and perhaps bioethics. I don't have the experience to even begin to make such a list, or decide who gets cut off.

I apologise, it would seem that I have replied too hastily. But you are wrong in one thing: "A human can't design a baby. They get what they get. A human can't control the development of the fetus. They get what they get." I have two words for you: For now. I am quite sure that the technology necessary to alter the genetical development of a baby will be available before we can even begin to replicate human technology.

Apologies if I sounded too harsh, but I was using sarcasm to make my point. It's an old unconscious habit. Okay, let's answer those points. A) What you said is relatively useless at the point, since we're trying to define those points now, not when it happens. B) I'm not a religious person, so it's besides the point. Not gonna open that can of worms. C) Bearer of rights does not mean legally independent. Just because a child isn't legally indepent doesn't give us the right to take away its willpower.

Seriously, why do people keep missing the point? If I'm trying to create a human-like doll that replicates the intelligence of a human, and is capable of feeling emotions and thinking, just like a human; and then I create a code that replicates all that, except for free will, then I am creating a human without free will.

I am going to try to explain it to you one more time, using a different approach: Imagine there comes a time in the future where you can successfully replicate the way a human mind thinks. You have a computer that reacts the exact same way as a human. It can think and feel. Then, a genius discovers that the code of that program can be altered. You can have a human with all the modifications you could ever dream of. You can create a person that will behave the way you want it to behave (within a range, since it's a human, it will always remain even a little chaotic). Then, some other genius decides that if we modify the program to make it subserviant and devoted to please, we'd have the perfect mate for lonely people. Put it in a human-like body and voilà, you have a doll. Have I explained the scenario better?

I believe I made it perfectly clear that this doll would be capable of thinking and feeling. I believe that just by that basis it's entitled to rights, regardless of what it's based on or what it's designed to do.

[Paul V]

To me, it's even worse if it doesn't have a free will to begin with. At least with a real human, there's the chance that he will overcome the adoctrination and the brainwash that would take his free will away, but with a doll, that option doesn't exist.

I would just wish there would be a way to upgrade the doll and grant it free will. That would make the whole thing a little less sad.

I'm not going to joint he quote pyramid at 0240, but I've given this considerable thought:

Moral rights can only be awarded to an entity that has two fundamental states at the same time:

1) The entity must be sentient. It must realize that it itself is "alive" (however that manifests), and have willpower to peruse objectives set on its own accord (this assumes you can be sentient without possessing willpower, a condition I will assume can exist for this argument, but may not actually occur).
2) It must have sufficient intelligence to enable the first point to occur. Dolphins might well be sentient, but who could say? They lack the intelligence to do anything with it, and therefore the sentience makes no impact.

Those two conditions are absolutely fundamental for being able to posses and carry moral rights. You aren't prosecuted for murder when dropping a toaster, its not manslaughter to spill water on a computer. Presuming moral rights exist, the entity that has them must be aware of its own existence (and therefore know if it was wronged or not) must have the ability to set its own agenda (otherwise its of no consequence to the entity whether it lives or dies or flies to Antarctica), and must be smart enough for the other two, for hopefully obvious reasons.

This probably didn't come out great this late at night, but I believe that these two conditions provides a good bright line test for determining whether an entity can carry moral rights.

I agree with you, but I must ask you a question: What if someone had removed the free will out of the programming code? What if it was aware of itself, had emotions, thoughts and intellect, but no possibility to contradict its programming? Wouldn't creating such a creature be an immoral act?

Once again, nothing has been altered. Free will is not created. Why must you imply that we alter it to remove its will? Engineers did not have to 'remove' or 'alter' anything for my computer to follow my commands. They are just programmed this way, like the dolls are programmed to please its user. I can name quite a few things that are hypothesized to near or equal to humans in their intelligence and are aware of their own existence. Cetaceans, for instance. I don't see anyone rallying for their equal, human like rights.

I hope the example I provided above to blueback clarifies things.

This is a rather cool topic, I wish I had people in my real life to discuss things like this. Anyways lets begin:

I am of the opinion, that any organism that can hope has the right to free will. When we talk about the diffrences in inception of a full grown concious beings. It shouldent matter as long as the organism can hope. If it can, then it should be given freen will because that is the goal of all oragnisms. To make their life better for themselves. If they have the asperation give them the chance to work for it. This conversation brings to mind the movie with Robin Williams in it, hes built as a robot, but aspires to become a human. Anyone remember what that movie was called? Now, this whole concept on these 'dolls' is to make whoever there designated happy. They know no hope. No aspirations other than what there programed. Nothing but to make there designatee happy. Therefore why is it immoral? We are not depriving them of anything. As a matter of fact if you think about it we would be depriving them of what they truely 'wanted' by giving them freewill. Think of the psychological problems that organism would have, they would want freewill ,but there programming would have them constantly wanting to fulfill it. Also there would be numerous diffrent conditions and problems it would develop. So it would therefore be immoral to give them freewill in the first place.

That's why I love this forum. :)

"The Bicentenary Man", if I recall correctly. I don't argue about the moment where the dolls have already been created, I argue about the moment before, where the builder has the choice to make a robot/android/whatever that is exactly like a human, but instead chooses to cut out the free will part to make it a servant. Isn't that immoral? To condemn a potential human life into subserviance just because it's useful for us to do so?

Not all 'descendants of humans' are capable of hope. By your definition, that would make such specimens sub-human.
Or defective. Or both.

I agree, but I understand his point.

[blueback]

the movie with Robin Williams in it, hes built as a robot, but aspires to become a human. Anyone remember what that movie was called? .

It's called Bicentennial Man.





blueback added to this post, 40 minutes and 32 seconds later...

I just want to say up front that they way you're responding to my posts is really hard to follow.


To me, in order to be called something "intelligent" (by human standards), it needs to have self-awareness.


Okay, so what if your pseudo-person was intelligent, emotional, spiritual, etc but wasn't self-aware? I'm not even sure if that's possible, but then this entire discussion is purly hypothetical.


I didn't say they were separate, I said one would derive from the other. Before we can start discussing the potential legal implications, we need to start to define the moral implications first.


Actually, legal and moral standards are developed hand-in-hand. A good example is the current struggle over Roe v. Wade. Each side, Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, is motivated by morality but they are playing calculated political and judicial games. Is it moral to pack the Supreme Court with judges who will overturn RvW? Is it moral to pack the Supreme Court with judges who won't overturn RvW? Are either of those actions legal? The moral and legal questions arise at the same time. You can't separate them.


I was just providing you with examples, I was not trying to make a list of necessary qualities.


Good. My point was exactly that.
Your argument is overly simplistic because you have given absolutely no thought to how your moral stance should be translated into reality. You are actively fighting against the idea that implementing your idea might be more complicated then simply stating it.

An idea which can't be acted on is no idea at all. If your idea is based on sound logic then you should be able to support it and draw parallels to other situations. If it's based on emotion and faith then you will just end up repeating yourself over and over again. I'm not saying that one is better then the other, just that you should be clear on which one it is.


I am quite sure that the technology necessary to alter the genetical development of a baby will be available before we can even begin to replicate human technology.


Possibly. That's kind of like saying that personnal jet-packs are just around the corner.

I'm not a biologist or a doctor, those subjects are too squishy to hold my interest for long, but my impression of the body is that it is INCREDIBLY complicated. There's no such thing as a "medicine" that doesn't have side effects. We aren't even sure what everything in our genetic code does, let alone what it does when it interacts with other genes. That lack of knowledge encourages a oversimplified bias.

We MIGHT be able to genetically engineer babies during their development, but then again we might not. It might turn out that the best we can do is to discard the ones that have a random grouping of sub-prime genes. Who knows. If you want to talk about the potential moral and legal implications then we should move it to a new thread.


What you said is relatively useless at the point, since we're trying to define those points now, not when it happens.


I'm not quite sure what you are responding to here, so I'm going to respond to what I think you meant.

The difference between a tool and a naturally occuring person is that the tool was manufactured, the person was born.

There are a lot of things in the world that occured naturally (without human involvement). Many of those things can perform functions that would be useful to us in specific circumstances. The horse was the primary mode of fast personal transportation for a while, until the car was invented. If, in the future, we engineer a robotic horse it will just be a natural evolution of the car, not an amoral abuse of a horse.

Currently things like dogs keep lonely people company. Compared to a human they are small, inexpensive, low maintenance, short lived, etc. They provide a minimum of interaction, they learn and adapt to their master, they are capable of relatively independant thought, etc. Now, what if someone invented a robotic dog? One that could do everything a normal dog could do but that was an appliance, not a living thing? Would the robo-dog deserve the protection of animal rights groups? I don't think it would, no matter how smart it was. The same can be said for a robo-person. Considering we aren't even sure what makes humans human we would have a tough time defining what makes appliances human.


I'm not a religious person, so it's besides the point. Not gonna open that can of worms.


Well, you're inhabiting a world that is predominantely religious. The topic is going to come up and it is going to be put in terms like the ones I used. God created man, therefore man must obey God. If man created robots, then robots must obey man. It's a pretty simple conclusion when you start from religious beliefs. Are you incapable of reasoning empathically?


Bearer of rights does not mean legally independent. Just because a child isn't legally indepent doesn't give us the right to take away its willpower.


But we do take away its willpower.
Everytime a child is forced to go to bed against their will, every time a child is punished for something they wanted to do, every time a child goes to school when they'd rather be playing. . .their will is subjugated to that of their legal guardian.

Is that any different from the way I take my computer in to be fixed when it starts doing what it wants to do instead of what I want it to do? Or the way people train their puppy to obey their rules instead of its own instincts?

Rights can be bestowed on things that are not legally independant, like children and dogs, but the rights are limited and are basically supposed to guarantee that someone doesn't cause unnecessary suffering.


I believe I made it perfectly clear that this doll would be capable of thinking and feeling. I believe that just by that basis it's entitled to rights, regardless of what it's based on or what it's designed to do.


Possibly.
What if the doll is simply pretending to feel? How would you tell the difference? That is the sort of question you have avoided answering and that is why your position is simplistic. I don't have any problem with your basic assertion that if humans managed to recreate themselves artificially that we would probably have to expand the moral and legal definition of what a human is. . .but you haven't explained how one would go about determining that. Where is the cutoff?

[Antares]

Possibly.
What if the doll is simply pretending to feel? How would you tell the difference? That is the sort of question you have avoided answering and that is why your position is simplistic. I don't have any problem with your basic assertion that if humans managed to recreate themselves artificially that we would probably have to expand the moral and legal definition of what a human is. . .but you haven't explained how one would go about determining that. Where is the cutoff?

Agreed. If the scientists in your hypothesis designed the dolls for the sole purpose of pleasing its owners, it would be unnecessary for it to really 'feel'. Imitation is good enough for owner.

[xhaan]

Possibly.
What if the doll is simply pretending to feel? How would you tell the difference? That is the sort of question you have avoided answering and that is why your position is simplistic. I don't have any problem with your basic assertion that if humans managed to recreate themselves artificially that we would probably have to expand the moral and legal definition of what a human is. . .but you haven't explained how one would go about determining that. Where is the cutoff?
Agreed. If the scientists in your hypothesis designed the dolls for the sole purpose of pleasing its owners, it would be unnecessary for it to really 'feel'. Imitation is good enough for owner.

I don't think looking at this 'cutoff' is the right and objective thing to do.

How do we know other humans actually feel, and aren't faking it?
Well, we assume since OUR individual feelings are 'real', others of our kind may also have 'real feeling', and we empathize whether a perceived feeling from someone else is real or fake, based on our own reactions. So therefore they must have real feelings because they are human, and we can know it because we are human.

It's almost circular in its logic. Also, many people cannot express emotions objectively without emulating a learned process. Severe Austism for example. This doesn't mean they don't feel, but they may not connect it to the learned projections of feelings which they make to others.

Edit:
Basically, unless you get into the possibility of having a soul (which should be RIGHT OUT of this particular discussion) then our bodies are machines made of living cells, and our brains are very complex bio-computers. And the fact that we can have our own offspring independently through mating is not what makes us a species, as many species reproduce asexually, and quite a few can only reproduce in a symbiotic relationship with another species (plants especially, but some other types also).

[blueback]

Now are you starting to understand why it's not enough to simply believe something? You have to also explain how acting on your belief makes the world a better place.

Since you can't even tell whether or not other humans have the same feelings you consider so important, how are you going to pass judgement on whether or not a robot has feelings?

It's great that you have a conviction. It's not useful, tho.

My suggestions is that we continue to assume that anything created artificially is incapable of self-awareness, emotions, or a soul of any kind.

[xhaan]

Now are you starting to understand why it's not enough to simply believe something? You have to also explain how acting on your belief makes the world a better place.

Since you can't even tell whether or not other humans have the same feelings you consider so important, how are you going to pass judgement on whether or not a robot has feelings?

It's great that you have a conviction. It's not useful, tho.

My suggestions is that we continue to assume that anything created artificially is incapable of self-awareness, emotions, or a soul of any kind.


I never said it was enough to believe something.
I have pointed out earlier that there is no real good reason for taking preference over a machine, except for an inborn need to have superiority, for survival.


My suggestions is that we continue to assume that anything created artificially is incapable of self-awareness, emotions, or a soul of any kind.

Assumption is another fancy word for belief, just wanted to make sure you knew that.

[Paul V]

It's called Bicentennial Man.





blueback added to this post, 40 minutes and 32 seconds later...

I just want to say up front that they way you're responding to my posts is really hard to follow.



Okay, so what if your pseudo-person was intelligent, emotional, spiritual, etc but wasn't self-aware? I'm not even sure if that's possible, but then this entire discussion is purly hypothetical.

I do not know if that's possible either. Even if it's not self-aware, the technology would've been able to grant that before it was created. Since it wasn't granted, then it's immoral, because you're consciously removing something terribly necessary and inherent to humans.

Actually, legal and moral standards are developed hand-in-hand. A good example is the current struggle over Roe v. Wade. Each side, Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, is motivated by morality but they are playing calculated political and judicial games. Is it moral to pack the Supreme Court with judges who will overturn RvW? Is it moral to pack the Supreme Court with judges who won't overturn RvW? Are either of those actions legal? The moral and legal questions arise at the same time. You can't separate them.

No idea what you mean by that case. I'm not American. Either way, I'm not interested in discussing legality. I have not been educated in Law, and I couldn't form any judgments on the matter, for what I believe might very well not be the best for society, or it might be legally unpractical.

Good. My point was exactly that.
Your argument is overly simplistic because you have given absolutely no thought to how your moral stance should be translated into reality. You are actively fighting against the idea that implementing your idea might be more complicated then simply stating it.

An idea which can't be acted on is no idea at all. If your idea is based on sound logic then you should be able to support it and draw parallels to other situations. If it's based on emotion and faith then you will just end up repeating yourself over and over again. I'm not saying that one is better then the other, just that you should be clear on which one it is.

I (under no circumstance) am I trying to decide anything for the future. There is no way I'll dare to be so arrogant. And no, I'm not saying that implementing my idea might be more complicated than simply stating it. But since none of this has happened yet, I'm simply discussing whether it's immoral or not in the first place.

What do you classify morality under? Logic or emotion? Because that's what this is based on.

Possibly. That's kind of like saying that personnal jet-packs are just around the corner.

I'm not a biologist or a doctor, those subjects are too squishy to hold my interest for long, but my impression of the body is that it is INCREDIBLY complicated. There's no such thing as a "medicine" that doesn't have side effects. We aren't even sure what everything in our genetic code does, let alone what it does when it interacts with other genes. That lack of knowledge encourages a oversimplified bias.

We MIGHT be able to genetically engineer babies during their development, but then again we might not. It might turn out that the best we can do is to discard the ones that have a random grouping of sub-prime genes. Who knows. If you want to talk about the potential moral and legal implications then we should move it to a new thread.

And why are you so interested in discussing this from a factual point of view, when none of this can be paralleled to anything of the current time? I'm well aware that this is all speculation, and I specified it from the first post. I am under the impression you're trying to make me trip on my own arguments or make me admit something counter-productive, so if you'll just state what it is, we'll get it out of the way in the least spammable way.

I'm not quite sure what you are responding to here, so I'm going to respond to what I think you meant.

The difference between a tool and a naturally occuring person is that the tool was manufactured, the person was born.

There are a lot of things in the world that occured naturally (without human involvement). Many of those things can perform functions that would be useful to us in specific circumstances. The horse was the primary mode of fast personal transportation for a while, until the car was invented. If, in the future, we engineer a robotic horse it will just be a natural evolution of the car, not an amoral abuse of a horse.

Currently things like dogs keep lonely people company. Compared to a human they are small, inexpensive, low maintenance, short lived, etc. They provide a minimum of interaction, they learn and adapt to their master, they are capable of relatively independant thought, etc. Now, what if someone invented a robotic dog? One that could do everything a normal dog could do but that was an appliance, not a living thing? Would the robo-dog deserve the protection of animal rights groups? I don't think it would, no matter how smart it was. The same can be said for a robo-person. Considering we aren't even sure what makes humans human we would have a tough time defining what makes appliances human.

I have no idea why you keep insisting in those points when I've said over and over that I'm discussing whether manufacturing a mentally altered sentient object is immoral or not. I don't care if it was created or if it was born, what I care about is its mind. If we have created an object with a human mind, then that object is just like any other human. And I'd say the same if we genetically alter animals to make their intelligence reach human levels. And I'd say the same if somehow we managed to transfer the mind of a human into an object, to prolongate his/her life.

Well, you're inhabiting a world that is predominantely religious. The topic is going to come up and it is going to be put in terms like the ones I used. God created man, therefore man must obey God. If man created robots, then robots must obey man. It's a pretty simple conclusion when you start from religious beliefs. Are you incapable of reasoning empathically?

No, and stop attacking me, please. If you have a problem with me, we can discuss it via PM. My point of view needs to be free of religious views because not all religions are alike, and not all religions will have the same point of view. Allowing them all to influence the decision on whether it's moral or not would be too chaotic, and nothing would be accomplished. Let them voice their opinions, sure. But their religions are too discordant and self-centered to reach a consensus. If that's possible, then fine, but I highly doubt so.

But we do take away its willpower.
Everytime a child is forced to go to bed against their will, every time a child is punished for something they wanted to do, every time a child goes to school when they'd rather be playing. . .their will is subjugated to that of their legal guardian.

Arguable. That's temporary. Eventually, the child will be able to make its own decisions, whether we like it or not. That's not taking his/her willpower away, that's simply supressing it for the time being.

Is that any different from the way I take my computer in to be fixed when it starts doing what it wants to do instead of what I want it to do? Or the way people train their puppy to obey their rules instead of its own instincts?

Neither the computer nor the dog have the intelligence of a human. They are not capable of logic, thoughts or feelings (In the case of the dog, it may have very simple thoughts and very simple and momentary feelings).

Rights can be bestowed on things that are not legally independant, like children and dogs, but the rights are limited and are basically supposed to guarantee that someone doesn't cause unnecessary suffering.

So? What's your point?

Possibly.
What if the doll is simply pretending to feel? How would you tell the difference? That is the sort of question you have avoided answering and that is why your position is simplistic. I don't have any problem with your basic assertion that if humans managed to recreate themselves artificially that we would probably have to expand the moral and legal definition of what a human is. . .but you haven't explained how one would go about determining that. Where is the cutoff?

Why would the doll fake their feelings? If it doesn't have feelings in the first place, then it can't do anything illogical, and therefore, it cannot "want" anything or thrive to be anything but what they are. I will not define it, so you should better stop asking. I do not possess the required knowledge or the time to perform the research.

[Paul V]

Agreed. If the scientists in your hypothesis designed the dolls for the sole purpose of pleasing its owners, it would be unnecessary for it to really 'feel'. Imitation is good enough for owner.

Not necessarily. Humans can tell when other humans are faking their feelings, what makes you think a doll wouldn't be even more obvious? I don't know if any of you know this acting technique, but I've been taught that the best way to represent a feeling is to actually feel it. If people want true feelings coming from the dolls, then the dolls must be able to feel those feelings in reality.

[blueback]

I never said it was enough to believe something.


You didn't have to. All your arguments rest on the belief that it is imoral to deny rights to an artificial life-form.


I have pointed out earlier that there is no real good reason for taking preference over a machine, except for an inborn need to have superiority, for survival.


There is also no reason to believe that is a bad thing. Every life-form on the planet today only exists because it selfishly denied control of the environment to its competitors. If you believe that it is wrong to remain in control of the artificial life-forms we might create in the future then you are saying that it is morally right to create a thing that will drive our species to extinction.


Assumption is another fancy word for belief, just wanted to make sure you knew that.


Assumption: Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof (AHD)
Belief: Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something (AHD)

Sure, they're pretty much synonyms, but I used "assume" because it openly takes responsibility for the fact that there is no proof involved. You based your conclusions on a belief you didn't want to acknowledge as such, I based my conclusions on an assumption that I am willing to defend. Stating it as an assumption draws attention to the fact that the argument we are having is based on things which can't (at the moment) be measured or proven.

There is no way to measure emotions, or self-awareness, or morality, or anything that is important to deciding whether or not to grant artificial life the same rights as natural life. If you have some way to link your conclusions to emperical evidence you haven't presented it yet.

[OmegaPsi]

Edit:
Basically, unless you get into the possibility of having a soul (which should be RIGHT OUT of this particular discussion) then our bodies are machines made of living cells, and our brains are very complex bio-computers. And the fact that we can have our own offspring independently through mating is not what makes us a species, as many species reproduce asexually, and quite a few can only reproduce in a symbiotic relationship with another species (plants especially, but some other types also).

I can argue against that Xhann, Ever hered of an Anime Series called Ghost in the Shell? Well the whole concept is, if a human were to transfer there mind into the internet and free roam would they still have a soul? [at least thats what I think the concept is, the shows very vague at least in the english version.] Same concept but diffrent medium on the movie IRobot, The guy who supposedly created the first robot came up with a theory that the robots might have a soul due to anomalys in the math, or random sets of code that were not programmed such as "Why do robots huddle together when left alone" "Why do robots seek the light rather than the dark?" there also numerous examples he listed off.

[blueback]

I love sci-fi too, but fiction is called fiction because it hasn't happened. To date, there's no evidence that anyone has injected their conciousness into the internet or that robots prefer light and company of other robots. When they do. . .well then there will be something to talk about.

[OmegaPsi]

Well this is a hypothetical conversation anyways. So you might as well discuss the possibllity as if it was fact =)

[Paul V]

I love sci-fi too, but fiction is called fiction because it hasn't happened. To date, there's no evidence that anyone has injected their conciousness into the internet or that robots prefer light and company of other robots. When they do. . .well then there will be something to talk about.

Then why are you still posting in this obviously hypothetical thread where nobody can supply you with the facts you need in order to criticise our points of view?

[xhaan]

You didn't have to. All your arguments rest on the belief that it is imoral to deny rights to an artificial life-form.


This is where you went wrong.
I am entirely up in the air. I'm bringing the questions which are the actual issue, not defending a view.
These are questions which I ask MYSELF even.





xhaan added to this post, 8 minutes and 44 seconds later...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopardalis View Post
I can name quite a few things that are hypothesized to near or equal to humans in their intelligence and are aware of their own existence. Cetaceans, for instance. I don't see anyone rallying for their equal, human like rights.
Quote:
"Cetaceans, for instance. I don't see anyone rallying for their equal, human like rights."
Perhaps someone should, though.

What is human 'intelligence'?
Not all humans are intelligent. Some are quite 'UN-intelligent', some are barely even 'alive'. If it cannot be based on a quantifiable amount of intelligence, then it is based on construction, but we already know it isn't based on construction, I think.

Also, all humans are constructs, which are consciously created to some extent. The process is 'automated', and 'biomechanical', but it is still to whatever extent consciously initiated. People don't see it that way, but I do not see how it 'happens naturally' when two unconscious people can not have intercourse.


How about this.
Let's say we can artificially create a 'human' using A.I, without direct cloning.

Physically human-like:

* A.I. Construct 1 (only)
* Direct Human Descendant A
* DIrect Human Descendant B


Mentally human-like:

* A.I. Construct 1
* A.I. Construct 2
* Direct Human Descendant B (only)


Originally Posted by OmegaPsi View Post
Ah ok, got a question for you while Im thinking to help me formulate this opininon Do you personally think,Xhann, that it is immoral to not give Robotics free will if we had the ability to give it too them?
That, I believe, is the very core of the issue.
Is it, or is it not?

What gives a typical 'human' preference over a 'machine'?
The fact that they come from a womb? Genes? Creation with man made tools vs. creation through natural biomechanics? The idea that you invented them, and are therefore 'superior', or own them?
How do we determine this?

I do not see any beliefs being stated. But I DO see questions being asked. (barring my use of the word 'belief' in perhaps one or two statements I made, but that is belief of what the question is, not what is morally right.)

Edit:
And another thing, 'belief' is just as much an admission as 'assumption', or lack of proof, if people actually know what the word means.

Another edit:
Here's another place where you REALLY messed up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by xhaan View Post
I have pointed out earlier that there is no real good reason for taking preference over a machine, except for an inborn need to have superiority, for survival.
There is also no reason to believe that is a bad thing. Every life-form on the planet today only exists because it selfishly denied control of the environment to its competitors. If you believe that it is wrong to remain in control of the artificial life-forms we might create in the future then you are saying that it is morally right to create a thing that will drive our species to extinction.

there is no real good reason for taking preference over a machine, except for an inborn need to.

No good reason EXCEPT! Were you paying attention?
The except precludes it from being bad, making your statement redundant. I think survival is a good reason. You obviously think so too. So why are you even questioning it?

I also never said it was morally right to create them in the first place, if anything, I'm trying to say that it could be morally WRONG.

[Beery Swine]

You throw around "willpower" as if its a clearly defined statistic in a video game (Morrowind?) when it is quite abstract. What do you mean by "willpower"? In a reply to thod you stated "Making someone believe (or constructing someone that believes) that performing a certain action gives them pleasure is robbing them of their free will." That's exactly what evolution has done to us. You gain pleasure from eating and sex, yes? Then you have no free will and are bound by your desires. Of course one could abstain from either of these acts, but so could the robot abstain from service.

[zoophilia]

What is the opinion of people here regarding the creation of child-like robots for child molesters to "utilize" rather than children?

[Ool]

I've recently read a fictional story about a company that created human-like dolls to be your partners. They would be human in almost every aspect, except that they would have no other goal than making their user happy. They would be programmed to read body language and remember amazing amounts of data and bits of information in order to be the best possible companion the user could desire.

The whole problem with this thought experiment is, what would motivate those creatures to make someone else happy other than their own happiness that they feel when they receive signals indicating the other person’s happiness?

So that being is actually a rather selfish entity, acting on a simple reward system, triggered by smiles or verbal affirmation. But such a system can backfire if the being isn’t very sophisticated in understanding what true happiness in the other person is. It could start going for the smiles and the affirmation by forcing that person to wear them or utter them, defeating the purpose of the whole empathy routine and turning what was supposed to be Heaven into Hell.

In order to truly make another person happy some rather complex understanding of the other person’s psyche is necessary, and to that end the being would have to be capable of feeling happiness based on the same conditions as the person it would feel compelled to make happy. But once it has an understanding of that it would, theoretically no longer need that other person to feel happy about the things making the other person happy.

In other words, it would suddenly be an individual with its own free will and also a desire to make someone else happy. It wouldn’t be any different than a normal person in love with another person.

You cannot actually function as a living being without free will and selfish reward-seeking routines. What makes us sometimes altruistic is actually a very complex layer of feedback and simulating another person’s state of mind, and you cannot do that without an emotionally guided individual free will.





Ool added to this post, 4 minutes and 28 seconds later...

What is the opinion of people here regarding the creation of child-like robots for child molesters to "utilize" rather than children?

It’s distasteful. I want my robots to have noticeable boobs, thankyouverymuch!

But to each their own, I guess. Far be it from me to judge anyone on what they do in the privacy of their own garage…

[Beery Swine]

What is the opinion of people here regarding the creation of child-like robots for child molesters to "utilize" rather than children?

Permissible. However I kinda doubt its just about sex for them. Probably some emotional scarring leads them to scar others, not that I've even looked for any studies on this though, so I don't really know. I'm also pretty sure that there are exceptions to nearly every rule, even that "exceptions" rule, which kind of contradicts itself. For those exceptions (or average pedos?) its OK by me, and I doubt anyone would disagree.





Beery Swine added to this post, 14 minutes and 24 seconds later...

Once you modify it, or you create something already modified...

I can't believe I didn't see this earlier. You cannot create something that is already modified so your whole argument is moot. If you created an intelligence that was slightly different than "human intelligence" (whatever the fu(k that is) it would not start out modified, it could only be modified AFTER it was created. For example, if you created a slave intelligence that derived pleasure from doing your bidding and then decided to make its intelligence more "human-like" by giving it more independence and changing its pleasure centers to derive pleasure from more typical human activities THEN YOU MODIFIED IT AND TOOK AWAY ITS "FREE WILL" (non-existant concept to begin with).