[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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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

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]

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

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.

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

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

	Originally Posted by Paul V To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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...

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

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

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]

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

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

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

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]

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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]

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

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.

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