[OmegaPsi]

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.

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]

	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.
	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]

	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.
	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]

	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.
	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...

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

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

	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 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).